CEO Confirms Chevy To Sell Diesel Cruze In US

s122604 writes "For the first time in almost 30 years, a U.S. carmaker is planning to market a non-truck diesel vehicle in the U.S. — the Chevy Cruze. Estimated MPG for the automatic transmission version is in the mid 40s, which is better than the only other small diesel sedan sold in the U.S. (the Volkswagen Jetta), and slightly better than their gasoline powered 'Eco' model... I'd like to know what the MPG on the 6-speed manual version is."

Comments

DROVE MY CHECY TO THE LEVY !!

[Anonymous Coward]

But the levy was dry !!

Bye-bye !!

Re:DROVE MY CHECY TO THE LEVY !!

[dynamo]

Somehow, the missing 'V' in Chevy in the title makes this hilarious.

I like my Turbo Diesel

[gilesjuk]

There's other niceties with diesel, the engines last longer and run at a lower RPM. There's more torque, people buy horsepower but drive torque as the saying goes.

There's no ignition system to worry about, no plugs and so on.

The downside is the soot that comes out the back when accelerating hard.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[drinkypoo]

The down side is price. It can cost almost twice as much for the engine in a TD as in an ordinary gasser, and the price of the vehicle comes up significantly in such a case. It has to do partly with economies of scale, which is why auto manufacturers used to simply buy diesels for their light trucks; Dodge using Cummins and Ford using International-Navistar. And indeed, they always have and still do buy the engines for their heavier trucks; Everyone buys from everyone, except IIRC only Ford still buys from International. I believe everyone else is using a Cat or a Cummins; so does Ford. Chevrolet, as the owner of Allison, is the only company which didn't have to do this back in the day. Unfortunately for them, Allison totally blew the 6.5, which was designed to be built on gasser production lines. This is not precisely the same thing as saying that it was modified from a gas engine, but it's the next best thing.

The good news for Chevy is that they no longer wear the "I can't build diesels" crown, that now goes to Ford. I just got the line from a euro mechanic who also owns a bunch of domestics, and who used to have a truck similar to mine but much older (with a 6.9 -- the 7.3 is a bored out 6.9, basically.) Ford has a coolant-filled EGR that frequently fails. Because the turbo is tucked into the valley to save space, the exhaust manifolds turn up instead of down. The result is that when the EGR fails (and it invariably does) the coolant empties into the cylinders. Very classy. The tendency away from Ford diesels worth buying actually began with the 7.3 powerstroke, which is the last machine worth buying from them, I believe it ended in 2000. In an effort to make the valve covers cheaper (I am not making this up) they put everything under the valve covers. As a result you have a valve cover gasket with wires and connectors integrated into it that frequently fails and costs a mint to replace.

Finally, it costs about four to eight times as much for the 'stroke HPOP as for my fuel pump, and I get the same mileage as a 'stroke, and with the aftermarket turbo I have the same power as an early 7.3 'stroke without modifications.

The best diesel I've ever messed with is the OM617.951 Mercedes engine, anemic by modern standards but I have all the power I need in my car. It's a work of art in a way that very few engines are, and it's matched by a truly excellent injection pump that can take a raft of abuse, unlike the DB-2 in my Ford... and which was also used by Chevy/Allison on the 6.2 and 6.5 lemons.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[krray]

> There's no ignition system to worry about, no plugs and so on.

What does this mean? There has to be some sort of ignition system [to worry about :-]. I wonder how well this car will start in -20F weather.

> The downside is the soot that comes out the back when accelerating hard.

I always saw that as a PLUS. Usually don't accelerate _hard_, but when that idiot is riding you it's fun to "dust them" and with the torque ... buh-bye.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[cbeaudry]

We have diesel vechiles in Canada and it goes to -40F here. They all start fine.

In the 80's it was a problem but not with modern diesel engines.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[david.given]

What does this mean? There has to be some sort of ignition system

Nope!

Diesel engines ignite the fuel/air mixture by compressing it. As the mixture is squeezed, the temperature rises, and if you squeeze it enough, it goes bang. No external ignition systems such as spark plugs are needed.

Old-fashioned diesel engines did not, in fact, have any electrical system other than the starter motor --- once they were running, you could disconnect the battery and it would continue running fine. In fact, they were pretty hard to stop, and there had to be a special mechanism to shut off the fuel safely otherwise it would keep running indefinitely. One nasty hack I've seen was to power a boat off an old truck engine. All the cooling was stripped off it, a propeller attached directly to the drive shaft, and it was slung off the back of the boat. After being started in the shop, the boat was put in the water, with the engine entirely submerged (except for the air intake, of course). It was fine.

On the minus side, the extra compression means they're really hard to turn over; you can't start an old-fashioned diesel with a crank. It's just too hard. (Of course, you can't start a modern petrol engine for the same reason.)

Note that modern turbo diesels are totally different beasts and are computerised beyond all belief, and are largely indistinguishable from petrol engines to drive.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Lonewolf666]

Traditionally, Diesel engines have glow plugs for starting. That is, an electrically heated piece of metal on which the injected fuel ignites. Once the engine is warm, the compressed air from the compression stroke is hot enough that the injected fuel will auto-ignite.

I'm not sure if modern diesels still use glow plugs though. If an auto mechanic reads this, feel free to comment ;-)

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[vikisonline]

Diesels work by compressing gas more. They have a much higher compression ratio than gasoline cars. Compressed gas heats up, and due to the high compression ratios in diesels, they do it to the point where the air in the cylinder gets so hot that it burns up on its own. So they use absolutely no source of ignition. How hot the air in the cylinder gets depends on ambient temperature. So in winter they could have a problem. Diesels have glow plugs to compensate for this. They are noting more than electric heating elements that get really hot inside the cylinder. They are only used for starting the engine, really only needed in cold weather. Once the engine is running they are not powered anymore. Consequently if you have a diesel that is hard to start in cold weather you probably have problems with the glow plugs (they are worn out and need replacing or the connection to them is loose). Diesels are also harder to start because of the higher compression rate, which makes it harder to turn over. So in the winter time a block heater can be used to heat up the oil to aid in turning it over. Now with all that I have a 1994 TDI golf. Here in Canada we get to -10C -15C easy in the winter but I rarely have problems. Just make sure you got a good battery, but I think that goes for any car in that weather.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Diesels work on compression, not on spark. My TDI starts just fine in -20F weather, albeit it scares some people when it sounds like a box of wrenches were thrown under the hood while it's warming up.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[CAIMLAS]

my understanding of the soot is that its caused by an incorrect air/fuel mix. except at start I don't have that problem in my old non-turbo 6.2 Detroit engine.

another downside of modern diesels is that the engine will outlive the vehicle by a substantial margin. 200k is nothing for a diesel. gas engines start to give up the ghost before that.

at this point, fuel cost and availability are going to hold back serious adoption. ignoring how much cleaner even old diesel vehicles are than gas (due to fuel lifecycle pollution and ecological impact), uls diesel and the like now costs more than gas by quite a bit. diesel torque with marginally better MPG isn't going to make that all that appealing to most.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Its called compression ignition.

a quick google search should satisfy

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[dfghjk]

"... people buy horsepower but drive torque as the saying goes."

It's a stupid saying offered, and repeated, by stupid people. Torque is an intermediate mathematical term. Horsepower is what gets the work done, and when people talk torque, what they're really talking about is power curve. You can get any torque you want through gearing.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

There has to be some sort of ignition system [to worry about :-]. I wonder how well this car will start in -20F weather.

The diesel/air mix simply self-ignites because of the very high compression and thus temperature in the cylinders. To facilitate the initial self-ignition, diesel engines have a simple heating element in each cylinder called a glow plug. Cold weather starting is the same as on petrol engines, except that in some areas of the world you have to mix the diesel with paraffin/kerosene to avoid it becoming a gel-like substance.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[h4rr4r]

If you could get a car body not made out of steel the diesel would be a real winner. Rust sucks. Even a modern Japanese gasoline car engine will outlive the body.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anthony Mouse]

To be fair, when people talk about torque, they mean the peak torque figure published by the auto manufacturer. The saying comes from the fact that almost all gasoline engines reach peak torque at lower RPM than peak power, and most people operate their engines predominantly at those lower RPM ranges. So an engine with a quoted 200 lb/ft of torque at 2800RPM and 200 hp at 6000RPM will seem faster under normal driving conditions than an engine with 150 lb/ft of torque at 5200RPM and 250HP at 8000RPM. It's a heuristic for approximating the power curve without actually having it available.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[couchslug]

"the engines last longer"

Depends on the engine. Ford/Navistar have made some horrors, and when diesels break so does your wallet.

"There's no ignition system to worry about, no plugs and so on."

Price a high pressure pump....

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

"> There's no ignition system to worry about, no plugs and so on.

>What does this mean? There has to be some sort of ignition system [to worry about :-]. I wonder how well this car will start in -20F weather."

Compression ignition baby! Instead of having spark plugs fitted the fuel is ignited by the heat of compression. And as for cold starting they've already thought of that. Diesels are fitted with "glow plugs" that bring the fuel up to it's "flashpoint". This means that there is a delay of a few seconds before starting. Generally it goes like this "Key in, half turn of key, wait for the glow plug light to go out, turn key the rest of the way, vrooom!"
Although diesel really doesn't like the cold it's true. The fuel itself starts to go waxy at low low temps. To combat this you can throw in additives. You could get away with using petrol (aka gasoline) or even vodka as the tale goes. Thankfully the UK doesn't get that cold very often!

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[C4RBON]

I work for John Deere and our "small" diesels (4 liters) use glow plugs, but the large ones (4-13.5 L) use air heaters on the intake. Another (not recommended) starting aid is a can of ether...

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[teh kurisu]

I think it also depends on the composition of the fuel. There were certainly reports of diesel freezing in people's tanks last winter, and this was when the temperature here was hovering at around -10C (-20C at the absolute worst), which was unusually severe for us. One story I heard was that people who were buying their fuel from the cheaper supermarkets were having trouble, but people who bought from the likes of Esso and Shell were faring better because the fuel from them had anti-freezing additives.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Diesels have glowplugs to help the engine start in cold weather but do not require sparkplugs. Glowplugs don't need to be accurately timed and the engine can run without them once you get it started. A lot of old British Diesel-Electric locomotives dont use them at all.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

I am normally really into nerdy conversation that is so technical it's hard to follow, but you've managed to far out-geek me, sir. I even got bored reading your post, because of how many acronyms and slang sayings you used.

A working knowledge of automobiles. That's something I never expected to encounter here. Touche, sir, touche.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe in the rest of the US, the downside is *just* price. Diesels, unfortunately, are notorious for not starting in cold weather. The upper midwest, northeast, and northwest are all bad places to own diesels. The fuel just doesn't ignite when it's 0 degrees out.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

he upper midwest, northeast, and northwest are all bad places to own diesels. The fuel just doesn't ignite when it's 0 degrees out.
There's also the fact that heating oil comes off of the same tray in the distillation tower so diesel fuel costs can get crazy high in winter esp. if it is a cold one.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[HornWumpus]

Move.

My 1960 Chrysler is rust free.

Even my 69 Fiat only has it's 'factory rust' (that's a slight exaggeration, it's floorboards are gone.)

California may have problems, but the weather isn't one of them.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[HornWumpus]

The term you are looking for is 'guts'. Basically engine torque under 3k RPM.

The alternative to having a car with guts is knowing how to downshift. Truck engines genuinely need guts.

A WRX engine my 'make more torque' then a V8, but if you tried to tow something with it you would burn out the clutch.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[DrXym]

Many euro countries encourage diesel and structure their motor / fuel taxes accordingly. I reckon I save €800 a year on fuel with diesel, and enjoy another €400 off my motor tax. A diesel pays for itself in 2 years and the rest is saving.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

The torque and horsepower curves for a diesel engine are quite different. I've got a turbo diesel tractor, peak torque occurs at about 1500 rpm, peak horsepower occurs at rated engine speed of 2600 rpm. My engine is designed to operate around 2200 rpm, at this point the torque is about 30% less than peak. So for example if the load on the engine suddenly increases, as the engine speed slows the torque actually increases and will handle the increased load and get back to the desired operating speed quickly. I believe this is called torque reserve.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[mattsday]

The economies of scale exist elsewhere - e.g. Europe where more than half of cars are Diesel I bet.

One of the biggest downers - and the reason I haven't got one - is the noise. First thing on a cold morning they sound just awful.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean Detroit Diesel, not Allison. Allison makes transmissions, not engines.

Personally, I think the 6.2L diesel from GM was an outstanding engine, even if it was underpowered for a 1-ton pickup. I used to own a K5 Blazer with the 6.2L, and could get 30MPG on the highway. Nothing you can buy today even comes close to that kind of fuel economy.

The soot issue is pretty much eliminated as well. The only vehicles you'll see spewing black smoke these days are modified from factory specifications for fuel delivery.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[tie_guy_matt]

I like diesels too because of their mileage. However people always toss out that "engine will last longer" line, and I am sorry but I just don't buy it.

Are diesel engines heavier and better built than gas engines? Of course. But they do that because if you ran a gas engine at the same compression ratio as a diesel engine the lighter gas engine would explode. They make the engine heavier because they have to, and since the main selling point is mileage they still only make the diesel engines as heavy as they have to be.

Do you need to worry about spark plugs or an ignition system on a diesel? No! But guess what, who the hell cares? Most modern cars have spark plugs that are designed to last 100,000 miles. They are really cheap to replace (a few dollars each) and even in today's modern cars you can easily replace a spark plug with just a few simple hand tools. It is not like modern gas cars have points that need to be gapped like older gas cars. Today's modern electronic ignition systems are extremely reliable. And the complications diesels loose in the ignition system they more than make up for in their fuel injection system. When it gets cold diesel fuel become like Jello, and diesels need to inject that fuel under high pressure into the cylinders about as fast as a gas car puts a spark on the spark plug.

But let us humor you and assume that diesel engines do last longer. I would still say, who cares? I usually get rid of older cars because they start nickel and diming you to death. The brake lines start to rust, the shocks and struts wear out, seals crack, etc., etc.. None of these cost too much to fix but when you add up all of the repairs you will make on an older car over the course of a year, a new car payment suddenly doesn't seem so expensive. As all diesel cars on the market are simply gas cars with the gas engine removed and the diesel engines stuck in, just about all the little things that will brake on an older gas car will also go wrong on an older diesel. Just because something is more expensive doesn't always mean it will last longer.

So yes diesels get you hybrid like mileage with much older and more established technology. Plus they can use biodiesel or maybe even straight veggy oil (which is cool!) But don't try to sell anyone on the reliability of a diesel car, because I think you are skating on thin ice there. Fact is if you take care of just about any car it can last 250,000 miles or more. Long enough for the safety equipment to become so old that you are driving a death trap compared to newer cars.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

North East here, diesel tractor. The only time I've had problems with diesel in the winter is when the government monkeys with the mandated additives and it gels up. (They also fuck with gasoline additives but that usually just ends up causing cancer, not stopping your car from running).

I've had just as many problems starting a car in cold weather. Right now, I'm working on an arduino hooked up to a thermometer to kick on the engine warmer based on time and temperature.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Vegeta99]

Sad thing is, my buddy's 1.8T and my VR6 sound the same in the winter. Mine sounds distinctly like a diesel.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Gordonjcp]

Common-rail diesels (which use special high-pressure electronic injectors like petrol ones all fed from a single injector pump) just use excess fuel when they're starting in cold weather. My Mercedes Vito usually takes four compressions to start, but when it was -20C for a couple of weeks over the winter it took about six compressions - not what I'd call "hard starting" at all.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[bugs2squash]

I think you can crank start some diesel engines by activating a decompression lever, it basically lets you release the pressure in some or all of the cylinders so that you could get the engine spinning manually and then throw it the other way to allow each cylinder to compress and the engine to operate. I'm sure I've seen that done on small marine diesel engines.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

A big part of the price difference is the trim levels. All the manufacturers selling non-luxury diesel cars in the US (by which I mean Volkswagen) sell the diesels at a trim level that's higher than the highest level gasser. The TDI Golf or Jetta wouldn't cost near as much as they do if all they had done was change the engine and drivetrain. They also add all sorts of features.

Which is really annoying to me. I bought a car recently, and really would have liked to get a diesel, but the price difference was just too much thanks to the trim changes. Instead I just bought a used luxury car, for enough less than a Golf TDI that I can buy $5/gallon gas for about ten years (at my driving rate) before I match the price of the car.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Detroit Diesel did the 6.5L, not Allison. They also did the 6.2L. The gas to diesel conversion engine was based on a 5.7L Oldsmobile engine, but it was very loosely based on it. It had a much stronger crank, block, rods, and pistons among other things.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[d3vi1]

I do remember reading somewhere in the manual of my car that depending on the temperature, if you don't have winter diesel fuel available, for a diesel engine you should add Kerosene. IIRC at -40 Centigrade it suggested that you should use 80% Kerosene and 20% diesel fuel. Here's the question: you can't get Winter Diesel at your local pump in winter? In Germany, Austria, France, Hungary and Romania I am quite sure that you can at all gas stations. Winter diesel has a lower oceanic number (48 instead of 52) however it doesn't loose freeze and it keeps it's viscosity down to -40 Centigrade. If it's less than -40 in Europe, it's a bad idea to get out of the house anyway.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[rrossman2]

They are called glow plugs. They warm the cylinders before you crank the car. Old versions required you turn the key to ignition and wait until the glow plug lamp went out, and then you could start the car or truck. Newer systems use piezzo glow plugs which pull little power and are able to basically always be on (such as in new Ford trucks). This reduces or eliminates the wait-to-start period.

Other than that, diesel uses purely compression to ignite the fuel, which is why if you've ever heard the term of a gasoline engine with too much carbon build up (too much PSI in the cylinders) or one that has become extremely hot (such as top fuel dragsters), they use the term "the engine dieselized" or something along those lines. The heat and compression has become great enough the fuel is auto-igniting, which doesn't require the use of the spark plugs (and in fact on the dragsters killing power doesn't kill the engine since the temps and compression is high enough it will keep running.. you kill the fuel.. but since they run so little to begin with to save weight they are basically empty at the end of the track anyhow).

> The downside is the soot that comes out the back when accelerating hard.

They have filters and urea tanks and such to help with the emissions and soot on newer trucks (may have them on newer cars too not sure). They also have re-burners that after so much driving, auto-ignite the contents to eliminate the soot and such. The only issue is many people either don't know their truck has this, or thinks there's something wrong with the truck when it goes into its self-maintenance routine and shut the truck down in the middle of it, which is not a good thing to do (For example, newer Fords have a system like this)

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[rrossman2]

Yes, you add anti-gel'ing stuff to the diesel. It's still an issue today if the place selling the diesel doesn't switch to a "winter mix" (just like stations in the north east sell a summer blend and a winter blend). You can find it in most auto stores, truck stops, etc. They also make an "emergency" additive for if the diesel has already gel'ed (vs the regular stuff which you add at fill up to keep it from geling)

Side note: My father drove 18-wheeler for a *lot* of years long haul before he retired.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[rrossman2]

No, HP is a mathematical term. HP = Torque * RPM / 5252... hence if you look at *ANY* dyno graph the horsepower and torque will *always* cross at 5252 RPM's. It's why diesel motors are rated like 550 lb/ft torque but only 300 HP, because they use larger bore to stroke than a high revving gas motor so the red line is low. Now if you take a small motor like the Honda S2000, it's torque is low, but since it revs out to 9,000 RPM's, the Horsepower will read high. Now granted a torque line isn't flat or linear and will vary with engine design (cams, etc will all determine the point where the power starts to tapper off). That's one reason say a 2001 Nissan Xterra 3.3L V6 lists 170HP and 200 LB/FT torque.. even though it's red line is around 6000 rpms. At the higher end, the cam design, stroke ratio, etc cause the power to tail off in the higher RPMs, so at the 5252 point and beyond the torque drops off causing the HP rating to stay below the highest torque output.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[rrossman2]

"Most modern cars have spark plugs that are designed to last 100,000 miles"

But you're forgetting the spark plug is the least of your electronic ignition worries.

For all cars: Cam shaft position sensor and crank shaft position sensors are used to monitor the position of each and adjust the electronic timing. One goes bad, and you can really lose gas mileage or the car will throw a fit and not run right.

For cars with distributors, you have the coil (either internal or external) that can go out, you have the rotor and cap which wear out.. the bearing within the distributor that can go out.. and yes most of those are easy fixes, unless it's an internal coil or the bearing. Most people either a> can't source one, and b> even if they could wouldn't have a clue or the tools to replace it (such as the bearing which requires a press). So you end up getting a new distributor which can cost $250+. You also have plug wires that wear out, some distributors can be rotated to adjust them slightly which can cause issues when you replace them with a new one, etc.

The distributorless cars use coil packs on each plug, which are *not* cheap to replace when they take a shit. And yes, they do, it's not uncommon. I wrench on cars a lot and known a lot of people in dealership repair shops and auto parts retail. Plus even then it may be something else within the system that goes out (05-07 altima's have an issues with a sensor.. i forget which one, failing and also the ECU burning out (literally).. and they've pretty much linked the two).

So to talk about spark plugs designed to last 100,000 is basically listing the "cheap, simple, easily replaced" part of the system while forgetting to mention the *rest* of the system that's required as well that doesn't cost a few bucks and can be harder to replace.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[DryGrian]

Why not? Car geeks are a perfectly legitimate variant of geekdom. I think it is the underlying "take it apart, how's it work" urge that defines us, regardless of what's being dismantled.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[cavehobbit]

Check the calendar, it's 40 years since the 1970's Modern diesel cars do not have soot coming out of them. they use low sulfur fuel, and the engines do not cost twice as much. Just go to the VW US site and compare the prices for the diesel version of any of the cars with the gas model of equivalent power. And compare the diesel mileage to both the equivalent gas engine or the most economical gas engine, diesel wins both times. The only wonder is the stupid prejudice manufacturers have about how the public will react to diesel. It scared Honda from offering the what many consider to be the best passenger car diesel in the world to US consumers. A decision I am still mad about. The other wonder is why small diesels are not offered in the US in light duty pickups, like F150, Dakota, Tacoma. The efficiency and power make all kinds of sense there too.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[couchslug]

Mercedes has a major diesel truck business and it shows. Their trucks are all over the Middle East and survive abuse well.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[samwichse]

Indeed, just had to do the coil packs on my wife's Fit... $80 each just for the parts (I can't even imagine what the dealership would charge for the parts/job).

Only 130k on it too.

Sam

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

I like my Turbo Diesel Beetle too (gets about 44mpg Hwy/Automatic)...

Lower RPM: But Diesel soot builds up when driven gently (look up a Italian Tuneup).
No Ignition System: No, but you have glowplugs which are expensive when they fail.
Last longer: Overall in miles, sure-- but Diesel Turbochargers aren't cheap to overhaul or replace, and the high pressure fuel pumps aren't cheap either.

The older ones are damn noisy too (idle it in line at Fourbucks/Starbucks to see what I mean)

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[HereIAmJH]

Depends on the engine. Ford/Navistar have made some horrors, and when diesels break so does your wallet.

If my gm 4.3l comes anywhere close to the 275k miles that my 7.3l IDI Ford/Navistar has I'll be greatly surprised. And at 120k it has already had a new distributor and the intake gaskets replaced.

Price a high pressure pump....

Last time I checked, a rebuilt IP for my 7.3l was around $300 and a couple hours to install. And conveniently located on top of the engine. The fuel pump for my 4.3l was $350 to replace and 4 hours labor. It required removing the fuel tank.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[drknowster]

this country's fuel costs are based on the energy thus diesel costs 13%more here. You guys in europe were buying by the cost of production. last nov i got to turkey gas was 12 us dollars a gallon and diesel was only 8,bulgaria was the absolutlty the cheapest somthing like 9 and 7

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Diesels do not require spark plugs.
    The ignition comes purely from the very high compression rations, about double the compression of a gasoline powered engine.

They often have glow plugs to supply some heat in cold weather, but there's no timing or spark curve or anything you would call an 'ignition system'.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called 'compression ignition'. It is fundamental to Otto Diesel's design.

Read up on it - It's actually a pretty keen idea.

AC

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, no ignition system whatsoever. The combustion cycle uses the heat of compression to initiate the explosion. In subzero whether they have engine heaters and glowplugs to move things along. (see: Ice Road Truckers)

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[CAIMLAS]

No, it wouldn't. Steel is the best material. The problem is materials and engineering.

Dents, dings, road impact, and yes, accidents will kill most vehicles before the engine goes kaput. Shocks, struts, etc. are/were engineered for certain use thresholds, which coincidentally tend to fail right around the same time. (The alternative is a much simpler, or much more expensive vehicle. I'd be OK with either, if it meant they actually lasted.)

This seems less true for vehicles made in the 80s, prior to the major change in manufacturing approaches in the automotive industry. Say what you will about independent frames (where the body sits on the vehicle frame) regarding occupant accident survival rates, but with the current lot of vehicles (where the frame is integral to the body), it takes only the smallest of fender bender to twist the frame and otherwise cause the vehicle to be a write-off. I've seen multiple newer 'safe' vehicles (both large and small) absolutely totaled (ie not drivable, not repairable) from the smallest of accidents, where an independent frame would've saved the vehicle and still not harmed the person(s) involved. (It's no wonder comprehensive automotive insurance costs so much these days.) You can get an 80s vehicle almost completely rebuilt for what it'd cost to straighten the frame and do minor 'body' repairs to a modern car. No thanks.

Oh yeah, due to the fact that the frame isn't the body, these older designs are more resilient to rust. The important parts are thicker and sturdier, instead of distributed throughout the body. Result? Rust-out won't make your vehicle unsafe except in the more extreme scenarios.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[bhtooefr]

Well, that's why you have glow plugs to preheat the combustion chamber, and winterized fuel (usually 50% "diesel #1" - read: kerosene, but in very cold climates, it's 70%) to prevent gelling.

My TDI starts at -10 F just fine.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[bhtooefr]

The fuel costs in the US generally do end up at the same price per BTU, for gasoline versus diesel.

However, that's not the intent. The intent is that diesel is taxed at a higher rate to compensate for the additional road wear caused by 80,000 pound semis - by far the largest users of on-road diesel fuel. (And, with that intent, diesel isn't taxed enough, unless you remove that tax, and tax directly based on odometer mileage.)

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel

[bhtooefr]

Actually, that's not true.

The options don't cost the carmakers much at all, they're almost pure profit. So, the trim changes are used to mask the additional cost of the diesel drivetrain while still making a profit. If they sold a version without the higher trim, it would cost almost the same, or they would lose money on it.

Any USEFUL information?

[drinkypoo]

Is there any USEFUL information on this car out there, like whose design the powerplant is, where it's being built, et cetera?

I love driving my 300SD, when I drive the Astro (our only gasser; my F250 is a turbo diesel also) it feels totally gutless until I stick my foot all the way in it because comparatively it has no low-end torque. Amazingly the 300SD has good pedal response up to about 90... that's amazing because it has 120 bhp and 170 rated foot-pounds, and an estimated top speed about 105.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[BiggerIsBetter]

Is there any USEFUL information on this car out there, like whose design the powerplant is, where it's being built, et cetera?/

It appears to be a VM Motori / GM Daewoo powerplant.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[drinkypoo]

Ahh, good work. It looks like a very nice little package although I am concerned about the vac pump being mounted direct to the alternator, which seems a questionable decision. I actually think vacuum pumps are a bit daft, and my intention is to eliminate mine (on my pickup) just as soon as I can come up with a hydroboost brake system. There is very little controlled by vacuum on my truck; the fuel shutoff is electrical (vacuum on the mercedes) and all I actually have to worry about is the air con stuff (mode door, temp door.) Those are easily accessed so it should be relatively trivial to handle that with arduino+servo. Eliminating the vacuum system means eliminating vacuum leaks, not to mention eliminating the vacuum pump which is in an awkward location that prohibits easy access to the lift pump.

I can't understand why they would even bother to produce vacuum on a modern car; the majority now use electrically actuated cruise control (on a direct-injected diesel or indeed on anything with throttle by wire, cruise control is purely a matter of software) and also electrically-actuated environmental controls. My Mercedes uses vac for everything so I'm leaving it alone.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[tkrotchko]

Does GM have any real-life experience with a diesel powerplant in passenger car that is positive?

This is what I think of when I think of GM and Diesel engines:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tOIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=GM+diesel+delta+88&source=bl&ots=-ibHbCl1Kr&sig=v_Z1TqGku7AweZHgtLbXnlkuUmg&hl=en&ei=i8wqTtAOyvXSAYjphIAL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=GM%20diesel%20delta%2088&f=false

(Sorry for the long link).

To summarize, GM's diesel's from the 80's were a disaster.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[drinkypoo]

GM/Allison's 1980s diesels were a disaster because they were designed to be produced on gasser production lines. This defined the basic geometries of the engine and because of the equipment used resulted in an engine with insufficient securing of the cylinder head. This engine was not designed by Allison. Allison has since worked out their problems and the Duramax diesel is considered be most to be superior to the Powerstroke diesels now produced by Ford. The original 7.3 powerstroke was produced by International-Navistar (based loosely upon the 7.3 non-powerstroke which preceded it, which is just a bored-out 6.9 -- the two 7.3s share bore, stroke, angle, and indeed connecting rods) and so Ford can't take any credit for that, while Dodge has never built a diesel engine, instead electing to purchase them from Cummins. If the truck wrapped around the engine were worth a crap then I would never recommend anything else, as the inline Cummins is worlds ahead of the competition in many areas including durability. Check out a comparison of the various Diesel engine connecting rods sometime, you'll crap for a Cummins.

Anyway, the point of this comment is that the only one of the big three that can do diesels worth a shit today is GM. Chrysler buys them from Cummins or Mercedes (for the smaller vehicles where you can't cram a Cummins) and Ford has fallen directly on their arse with a coolant-filled EGR that fails and pukes coolant into the cylinders via the upturned exhaust manifolds. And of course, GM didn't design THIS engine either, as you can see from the sibling to your comment.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[tkrotchko]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the half-assed design that Ford had inflicted on owners. I just wasn't aware of any mainstream GM passenger car sold in the united states that would make me buy a GM diesel car.

Not saying they can't do it, they simply haven't been interested. I'm still not convinced they're interested in doing a diesel engine right for a car.

I'd tread lightly on any of the domestics cars with a diesel, and GM has too much history with any new engine or technology to make me buy anything the first year from them.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

That is basically because their passenger car Diesel engines from the 80's were their gasoline engines from the 80's made to run on diesel.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[Anonymous Coward]

Detroit Diesel was involved in the design of the 1980's GM truck diesels and they are excellent - the 6.2l / 6.5l TD. The military is still using them in their HMMWV's. The GM diesels from the 1980's with all the problems were designed by Oldsmobile and put in passenger cars - the 5.7l. This motor was the huge disaster that everybody vaguely remembers from GM in the 1980's.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[drinkypoo]

Yards are filled with crappy 6.2s and 6.5s, which disintegrate if not aggressively maintained, which is why the I-N 6.9/7.3 and the T444E 7.3, and both 12V and 24V Cummins are superior to them... they can survive abuse. (The 7.3 does need a cooling additive, which is annoying, but not insurmountable. I installed a filter in my cooling system and I run precharged filters.) One problem the 6.9/7.3 shares with the 6.2/6.5 is the shitty DB-2 injection pump, which even more annoyingly turns in different directions on each of these motors so you can't swap them. This pump uses a steel piston in an aluminum bore, which is beyond retarded. The fuel shutoff is also particularly prone to clogging. Unfortunately I have one of these lemons, too. It may be possible to run a DB-4 pump, but I don't have enough of the arcane knowledge or any of the equipment necessary. The one thing they did get right on the GM truck diesels is the glow plug system, which uses the AC60G constant duty glow plug. These plugs will also git into the 6.9/7.3 and some people are now experimenting with them as they are impossible to burn out, whereas the 6.9/7.3 is infamous for burning out glow plugs. If you use crappy cheap ones, they will swell in the head and then you are in for a world of hurt.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[SIGBUS]

GM has been offering passenger diesels in Europe for ages. Before he moved to the US, my brother-in-law drove a diesel Vauxhall Vectra in England. He was wondering why the hell they didn't offer any small diesels in the US. The diesel Vectra used an Isuzu engine.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[s122604]

Does GM have any real-life experience with a diesel powerplant in passenger car that is positive?

The car is already selling in Europe, and has been for a few years now, and is relatively well thought of ..
The 2.0L diesel that goes in the car is a bit older than that (it has gone into the Euro Cruze, the Opel Antara, and several Hyundai and Kia models
This is not really new waters for GM, or any other internationalized auto company. What is new is that they are selling it in the US, which is a good thing IMHO. I've owned a Mexi-Jetta before, and I care not to again. Having to deal with the cost of VW spare parts, and VW service, and VW design philosophy which seems to make some repairs hard, just for the sake of being hard, is not something I care to do again...

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[IrquiM]

Yes... Since the 70s in Europe

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[h4rr4r]

a steel piston in an aluminum bore
So that was designed to enlarge the bore with age?

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[spectro]

In South America (and probably Europe) gasoline is heavily taxed compared to diesel so it is artificially way more expensive. They can't tax diesel like that because it would raise costs on public and cargo transportation.

In the US, diesel is taxed just the same as gasoline. Since its demand is just a fraction of gasoline, it is actually more expensive to produce and therefore costs more than premium gasoline.

The price gap has decreased in the last 10 years and is now just 4% in my zip code. There is also many more gas stations selling diesel.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[NJRoadfan]

Modern turbo charged gas engine cars have vacuum pumps too. Its still cheaper and more reliable to use a vacuum driven brake booster vs. a hydraulic system. Audi tried hydraulic boosted brakes in their C3 platform cars (Audi 5000/100/200) and it was a disaster here in the US (reliability wise, nothing to do with unintended acceleration).

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[Plainswind]

In Sweden, the cost of diesel is pretty much the same as the cost of gas, it's a difference of 12-30 Ãre per liter(That is-2-5 cents per liter), out of a total cost of SEK13.30-14.80 per liter. Even then, diesels are getting more and more popular because of fuel economy, good power in compact drive trains etc, and overall they are quite reliable, even in cold weather.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[oobayly]

Actually, in apart from the UK diesel is cheaper than petrol. In the UK the fuel duty is the same for both. Basically we're getting fucked by the oil companies (it's a regular sight to see plenty of laden tankers swinging on their anchors in Lyme Bay waiting for prices to rise.

Working off the back of the motor trade, we look at it that unless you're on the road day in day out, it's just not worth having a diesel as the initial cost plus the extra fuel cost makes it difficult to recoup your money.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[HornWumpus]

The master cylinder for may Cadillac Allante (with Bosch III hydrallically boosted brakes) costs $3500 at the stealership.

I'm going to install standard ElDorado brakes, all I need to do is disassemble the central computers code so it doesn't throw a fit.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[Anonymous Coward]

Search for "Holden Cruze" - the design was originally for the Australian domestic market, and it's been on sale here for some time. (Although the diesel is new, only recently arriving in the Series II Cruze)

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[Gordonjcp]

Citroen used to have fully hydraulically-powered brakes on their cars with hydropneumatic suspension; that is, not just power-assisted but actually entirely driven by the hydraulic system. The brake valve is very similar to the ones used for air brakes in principle, and very rarely goes wrong. If it does, it generally just needs new rubber seals fitted which cost pennies. If the engine cuts out or the belt for the hydraulic pump breaks, the pressure accumulator has enough reserve to give you brakes for about ten miles - easily enough to pull over and stop (and you're going to want to, since driving a two tonne car with the power steering out of action isn't fun). People did object to the pedal feel though, which is quite hard with very little movement - instead of pressing the pedal "further" for more braking you press harder, again rather like air brakes.

They do take a bit of getting used to, but if you drive a Citroen CX for any length of time the brakes on any other vehicle - even very expensive high-performance vehicles with immense discs and calipers - just feel terrifyingly bad.

Modern Citroens have reverted to "normal" vacuum servo brakes, which just feel as crap as the brakes on any Audi, BMW or Mercedes.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[drinkypoo]

I regularly drive a 2000 astro, which has a hydroboost system. And hydroboost was standard on the 1992 F-Super Duty, so there are systems out there that are compatible with my truck. The vac pump used on my truck is less reliable than the power steering pump on my truck (or so it seems from what I've seen online) so it makes sense; also, the vac booster is a bit anemic for my truck in stock form, and my truck has some add-ons which make it even heavier.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[Anonymous Coward]

The diesel Cruze is quite popular in Australia. I understand that the 2012 model sold here will be built / assembled in Australian factories.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[drinkypoo]

Pretty much seems that way. These IPs are good for 175k to 200k maximum. I had to replace my IP just after I got the truck; with 373k it's likely this is the second replacement. If you keep up your filters and such the injectors can last a half million miles but the pump is kind of pathetic. Two pistons for eight cylinders and cooled only by fuel. The Mercedes (Bosch) pump is cooled only by fuel too, but it has one cylinder per piston.

The DB-2 pump was designed primarily for low cost, so the good news is that a rebuilt pump is less than $400. If a powerstroke guy or a Cummins guy loses his high pressure pump (IP on Cummins, HPOP on 'stroke) it costs a lot more than $400 (usually four times more... or more!) and they don't tend to last more than 500k. So if you can stomach the labor it is potentially cheaper to maintain an IDI... all the more so because I don't have all the electronics to fail. I do have an automatic transmission so I do have the TCM to worry about, and my truck is an XLT so I have cruise as well.

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[ormondotvos]

So your total objection on the engine is the EGR valve? Who's paying you?

Re:Any USEFUL information?

[drinkypoo]

Naw, they have other problems like outrageously expensive parts and a flaky CPS that's persisted since 7.3.

Nobody is paying me to say this stuff, more's the pity. I simply happen to own an older Ford diesel in which they didn't make numerous mistakes they made with the 6.0.

This is why the 7.3 powerstroke is the last diesel worth buying from Ford (aside from commercial trucks.)

In any case, the Cummins is a brick wall compared to Ford's paper screen. Everything about it is beefier. The tendency to throw metal at the problem is one reason diesels tend to be stronger, and they did this with the Cummins and did the opposite even on the 7.3. This is why there's several sites that sell swap kits to install a Cummins in a Ford. Many people love the trucks, but want a superior engine. Dodge tends to have electrical problems. Chevy has a tiny little short-travel IFS.

Diesel MPG

[TomQ]

I've never understood the reluctance to purchase Diesel cars in th US - I have a perfectly ordinary Renault Clio diesel that gets 65 MPG. It positively sips fuel... I guess that's the advantage of small cars though.

Re:Diesel MPG

[C0R1D4N]

Well, currently the diesel price is close to a dollar more per gallon than regular gasoline. There are regular gas cars that get roughly the same mileage as this chevy claims to get so I doubt it will sell well.

Re:Diesel MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason is because America applies a small tax rate on gas or diesel, while european countries put a heavy tax on gasoline - but not so heavy on diesel.

Wiith this difference on the tax rate of the diesel, it makes sense to buy a diesel car on Europe (a diesel engine is always more expensive than a otto engine). This article states that in Europe the payback time for a diesel car, in comparison to a similar gasoline car, is two years.

With this difference on demand, even the oil refineries on Europe are built to produce more diesel than the american refineries.

Re:Diesel MPG

[swb]

I drove a diesel VM Rabbit in the early 80s. Upside? Great mileage, I think I got nearly 50 mpg on the highway -- a trip from Minneapolis to Madison, WI and halfway back before needing to refuel.

The downside of that car was near zero acceleration and it was impossible to start in the winter if it wasn't plugged in overnight (a real challenge when you live in an apartment or want to stay at a friends -- I used to carry a 100 ft extension cord).

GM released a series of diesel powered cars in the 1980s that used a bad 350 gas motor converted to diesel that had all kinds of problems, not to mention being way noisier and smellier than a gas engine.

I had a delivery job using a 6.2L GM diesel pickup, and that ran well but was not at all practical for typical urban use.

And then there is our fuel problem -- high sulfur diesel was our fuel standard until the last couple of years and this meant none of the high-tech, low-tolerance diesel engines Europe has had, we were stuck with truck diesels.

And then there's the other fuel problem -- fewer urban stations carry diesel, which means you kind of have to plan ahead.

Re:Diesel MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

are those US or imperial gallons, it must make quite a difference.

Re:Diesel MPG

[anagama]

Must depend on where you are. Here in the Pacific NW, diesel is only slightly more expensive than regular(~3.80), and equivalent to the price of super (~4.05).

Re:Diesel MPG

[Trepidity]

Diesels are generally pretty good, but using raw miles per gallon to compare diesel to non-diesel is slightly off, since they're gallons of different stuff. In particular, a gallon of diesel and a gallon of petrol aren't the same in terms of hydrocarbon content or CO2 emissions: diesel is more carbon-dense, releasing 22.2 lbs of CO2 per gallon burned, versus 19.4 for petrol.

Admittedly, diesels generally have better fuel efficiency by more than that difference: for a diesel to come out ahead of a 35 mpg Civic, it needs to get over 40 mpg, which many do. However, this "mid 40s" on the Cruze doesn't sound like a huge win; that's comparable to high 30s for a gasoline car, which is only mildly better than a Civic, and worse than a hybrid. Now, 65 mpg, that's something.

Re:Diesel MPG

[Temkin]

Well, currently the diesel price is close to a dollar more per gallon than regular gasoline. There are regular gas cars that get roughly the same mileage as this chevy claims to get so I doubt it will sell well.

At the moment, diesel and regular unleaded is about the same in central Texas. Your state may have a different tax rate on diesel.

Re:Diesel MPG

[0100010001010011]

Where are you at?
Right now there is a $0.10 difference between it and regular. It's actually cheaper than premium.

Re:Diesel MPG

[C0R1D4N]

Just checked, 1.00 was exaggerating a bit (though it was close to that at some point in the last 6 months). It's roughly a 25-50 cent difference in New Jersey.

Re:Diesel MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood the reluctance to purchase Diesel cars in th US - I have a perfectly ordinary Renault Clio diesel that gets 65 MPG. It positively sips fuel... I guess that's the advantage of small cars though.

It has very little to do with "reluctance" on the part of US car buyers, and everything to do with legislation, consider these points (there are probably more):
- Euro tax breaks on Diesel fuel, USA low tax on gasoline (as someone else noted, Diesel is more expensive than gasoline in USA at this time)
- Lack (until recently) of mandated low sulfur Diesel fuel in USA, required for modern high pressure fuel injection--this one has finally been fixed
- Lack of small cars in USA (safety/crash laws)
- Very stringent emissions laws in USA/California including particulates --
  * Diesel combustion generates particles/smoke and max power is above the "smoke limit"
  * Gasoline generates very few particles unless run very, very rich (above peak power), which is easy to avoid

Re:Diesel MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

My God, how can you rely on your diesel memories of a late 70's designed rabbit? I owned a '79 and it had amazing fuel efficiency, no pick up, and hard to start in extreme cold... That was then. Unlike you, I have driven vw diesels continuously since then. They are amazing, inexpensive to operate extremely fuel efficient, torguey, excellent pick up, dare I say quick, quiet and clean burning. I am so tired of hearing diesel opinions from people who have no practical experience with them since the 80's.

Re:Diesel MPG

[JamesP]

Funny, I've seen (not new) European diesel cars using 'heating candles' (it's an electrical filament) powered by the battery to make it start in cold conditions.

Maybe this is from before they were put in use?!

Re:Diesel MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 2 reasons diesels don't sell in the US.

During the winter if there is a cold snap in the northeast I think they start using some of the diesel for heating oil. The price of diesel can be as much as double the price of gasoline for short periods of time. The rest of the time it's just more expensive enough to eat up any fuel savings.

Second, A lot of us still remember the last time GM pushed diesels on us and it was a complete fiasco. I know people who made a living converting Oldsmobiles with blown diesels to gasoline. They also were hard to start, and noisy and smokey when you could get them running.

Re:Diesel MPG

[arogier]

If you are feeling brave in central Missouri/Southern Illinois biodiesel runs about a dollar less per gallon. I'm not going to make any promises on what it will do to your warranty. If any libertarian types want to martyr themselves agricultural fuel (with the red dye) is always an inexpensive option until you get caught. You bitcoin people know who you are. My money's on getting arrested before appreciable saving in fuel prices though.

Re:Diesel MPG

[Nimey]

I believe in the colder parts of the States they switch to #1 diesel in the winter months, because it will still flow at lower temperatures. The cost jump you're seeing could well be from that.

Re:Diesel MPG

[h4rr4r]

Red dye diesel is high sulfur. These are high pressure injection engines, they are not going to like that. Any savings at the pump will be spent at the mechanic.

Re:Diesel MPG

[nospam007]

Just use any cheap oil to run it (no olive oil), no taxes involved, sometimes they even get farm subsidies, so other peoples' taxes make your fuel cheaper.;-)
Rudolph Diesel did it too, Diesel oil hadn't been invented yet.
Try any oil-mill where you live, they sell it bulk real cheap, if not, discounters usually have cheap oil too, you just have to get rid of all those plastic bottles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_oil_fuel

Re:Diesel MPG

[arogier]

Or court room, neither cost is worth it.

Re:Diesel MPG

[Bob the Super Hamste]

There was a demand for diesel cars in the US but in the 80's our domestic auto manufactures flubed it and produced some truly awful diesel engines. The vehicles that were imported (Mercedes, VW) were diesels were good continued to sell. The problem is that most people's experience with a diesel engine is the crap put out by us manufactures during the 80's which was garbage so naturally they think diesels suck. Those who experienced an import diesel have generally been pleased with them.

Re:Diesel MPG

[jamesh]

I think there are some tailpipe emissions laws that are hard/expensive to get around with diesel engines. Extra filters etc required to make the engine comply which add to the cost.

There is also the catch 22 problem of supply. The fuel depot around the corner closed down (is apparently being rebuilt...) a while back and while they had a diesel pump, it was always out of order whenever I wanted to fill up. If you know there isn't a place to get diesel fuel close by you might be less inclined to buy a diesel car.

My little C4 has done around 900km since I last filled up and is just today beeping at me telling me I should think about filling up again. And almost all of that 900km is city driving.

Re:Diesel MPG

[tompaulco]

My reluctance to buy one is based on lack of options. I am looking for a 4 door sports sedan with a manual transmission and a diesel. Something akin to the Audi A6 or BMW 5 series. I saw a post lower that mentioned the A6, but the best I can find is that Audi announced they will be releasing an A6 TI in the next 24 to 30 months. This is the same thing they were saying 24 to 30 months ago. Another option would be a BMW 5 series, which also does not offer diesels in the U.S. Also, they would have to change their styling. BMWs have changed their styling to boring 90's era American styling. By comparison, today's American cars have more "European" styling than European cars. But there is precious little of interest in the way of American diesels either. You have your trucks, and your econoboxes. Zero fun family sized cars.

Re:Diesel MPG

[Charliemopps]

There isn't a reluctance. People have been demanding diesels for years.

Diesels have been limited by a combination of poorly constructed laws and lobbying by oil companies. Unlike Europe, the US measures a auto-manufacturer based on their "Fleet emissions" or the combination of emissions of all their cars combined. Trucks that haul cargo are measured differently so that's why you see big pickups that are diesels. At the same time, US diesel has for years contained high amounts of sulfur... something that is removed from European diesel by law. As a result the car manufactures strayed away from diesels in cars because the high sulfur content would damage modern equipment designed to lower diesel emissions and would in turn raise their fleet emissions and would prevent them from being able to "Spend" those emissions on much more profitable SUVs.

Oil companies lobbied heavily to keep this system in place... They certainly didn't want to spend extra money refining gas so car companies could build cars that used less of their product. But a few years ago, in a rare moment of sanity, our government finally required that sulfur be removed from diesel just as in Europe.

Re:Diesel MPG

[maeka]

With this difference on demand, even the oil refineries on Europe are built to produce more diesel than the american refineries.

That's a little bit of cart before the horse.

America grew up on sweet light crudes, appropriate for producing gasoline over diesel while Europe grew up on heavier (but still not South America heavy) crudes which tipped the economic balance more towards diesel (and kerosene) production. Not to mention the early work done in eastern Europe was all kerosene-centric.

Re:Diesel MPG

[maxume]

Probably called glow plugs more often in the U.S.

Minnesota gets cold enough (average temp in some parts in January is -15 C) that ensuring combustion might not be the only issue to deal with.

Re:Diesel MPG

[vikisonline]

Yes but those need replacement once in a while. And sometimes they can have a connection problem, nothing hard to fix. I think most people having startup problems don't know that. I had an 85 jetta and that had glowplugs too. No problems.

Re:Diesel MPG

[vikisonline]

Diesel jetta, bleh cant edit :P

Re:Diesel MPG

[russotto]

Diesel and heating oil are from the same fraction, so when heating oil is more in demand, diesel prices go up relative to gasoline.

Re:Diesel MPG

[Sique]

- Lack of small cars in USA (safety/crash laws)

Which makes me wonder, as in Europe no big car get good sales until there is a decent diesel offering. Even the likes of the Porsche Panamera offer a diesel option.

Re:Diesel MPG

[fast turtle]

The easiest way to improve fuel mileage thruout the U.S. would be to return to the Octane Standards prior to the first oil embargo of 1973. That's when regular gasoline was rated at 95 octane with high test being rated at a minimum of 110 octane instead of this 87 octane crap they're now selling. Keep in mind that the higher the octane number, the more resistent to knock/detonation the fuel is, meaning the leaner the computers can go. Sure it will impact power a bit but when you're cruising down the highway, it makes lots of sense as you could damn near double the highway fuel mileage of most vehicles instead of seeing such pitiful improvements of 5mpg over city.

Re:Diesel MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the measuring of carbon dioxide in pounds as disingenuous. How many pounds of CO2 are produced from digesting four ounces of butter? Probably more than a pound, because about 84% of the weight of CO2 comes from oxygen.

Re:Diesel MPG

[X0563511]

I think it would be more appropriate to establish the average gallons-of-crude to gallons-of-$FUEL ratios, and then use that to figure the vehicles MilesPerGallon(ofCrude).

Much more useful metric.

Re:Diesel MPG

[RingDev]

Actually, diesel engines are pretty fine with Sulfur. In 2007 you couldn't by a Diesel because of emissions and fuel incompatabilities.

The problem is the fuel switch from LSD to ULSD came after the emissions regulation change. Those stand for "Low Sulfur Diesel" and "Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel". Your emissions will likely suck, but the engine will run just fine on it.

Not that I'd recommend such things. We have a number of soy/bio Diesel offering stores in the area that sell fully taxed options ;)

-Rick

Re:Diesel MPG

[Vegeta99]

That happens in PA even with gasoline, or at least did, because of a switch to winter gas - same shit, required oxygen additive. I can see the difference in average MPG when all the stations switch.

Re:Diesel MPG

[shutdown -p now]

fewer urban stations carry diesel, which means you kind of have to plan ahead.

When I first took my diesel car for refueling, I found out that three out of four gas stations within 3 miles of my home had diesel pumps. That's good enough for me. I've since traveled a fair bit in the car, and most certainly I've never had to plan ahead to refuel - there was always a station nearby, whether urban or on the highway.

Re:Diesel MPG

[shutdown -p now]

It depends on what you are measuring for - carbon emissions are one thing, but personally I just like the 1000km range on mine. ~

Re:Diesel MPG

[rrossman2]

American stigma. Diesel are "known" for being loud, dirty, etc, etc" and that's stuck with them ever since the 70's and 80's. Same thing happened to Honda, Nissan and Toyota. They were Econo-boxes, small fuel sipping cars with no power when they first came over during the 70's and 80's. Granted the fuel crunch helped their sales, but that idea of them being cheap stuck. So when they went to make more "upscale" cars with a higher price tag, they introduced new "brands".. Acura for Honda, Infinity for Nissan, Lexus for Toyota... Most people would balk at purchasing a $50K, $80K, or even higher Honda, Nissan, or Toyota.. but not the Acura, Infinity or Lexus... one reason it's a named the Acura NSX here in the states and not the Honda NSX like the rest of the world (who would pay $80,000 for a Honda when it came out? Acura.. now that's a different story in American eyes)

But I'm with you, I'd absolutely love if our Xterra we own had the diesel engine that was an option in central america and other parts of the world. But instead, gas it is since they known diesel is evil in the eyes of most Americans (and mostly those who don't really know)

Re:Diesel MPG

[VVrath]

You must have a lead foot! I drive a 1.6 HDi C4, and average 720 miles (1150 km) on 13 gallon (60 L tank), mainly city driving. I don't do much motorway driving, but on the last major trip (Liverpool to Worthing and back - about 450 miles / 720 km) I used less than half a tank . The Missus tells me off for being a boy racer if I drop the average MPG below 60!

Reading car stories on Slashdot always weirds me out. I know the US gallon is smaller than the imperial gallon, but seeing numbers like "mid 40s mpg" being considered good for a diesel is just wrong. You'd have to try pretty hard in the UK to buy a car (other than an SUV) with such crappy fuel economy.

Re:Diesel MPG

[dyshexic]

in the UK the tax is either the same or if anything higher on diesel

I'm paying about $8 a gallon (£1.40 a litre)

Re:Diesel MPG

[0100010001010011]

Your car will run fine on it, your emissions will not. It'll do the same thing to the DPF that Lead did to catalytic converters. And those things are not cheap to replace.

Re:Diesel MPG

[demonlapin]

This is somewhat offtopic, but it's also worth noting that when you buy (e.g.) a Lexus ES (rather than a Toyota Camry) you get a made-in-Japan vehicle instead of a made-in-America vehicle. The trim is a major part of the price difference, but it's not the only thing that changes.

Re:Diesel MPG

[mister_playboy]

Perhaps you'll recall that those fuels had higher octane due to a certain additive... lead.

Re:Diesel MPG

[ormondotvos]

Your problems aren't diesel related. You want a "sports" sedan? Take up kitesurfing. Cars are transportation, and the climate is frying, and all you wanna do is dance.

Re:Diesel MPG

[ormondotvos]

You don't know shit.

Re:Diesel MPG

[tompaulco]

If cars are transportation, then why is there more than one auto manufacturer, and why do they cost more than $1,000? If a car is just basic transportation, then the most basic vehicle that runs and is safe is all we need, but clearly transportation is only one of a variety of reasons why people buy a car. Just off the top of my head, here are some other factors in why people buy a vehicle:
1. Affordability
2. Cost of operation.
3. Suitability for purpose.
4. Is it "fun" to drive.
5. What other people think of the vehicle.
6. Color.
7. Style.
8. Optional equipment.
I recognize that there are people who view cars as only transportation. But even those that I knew who claimed that still had paid $20,000 or more for a vehicle. Clearly if transportation was the only factor, they would have bought a reliable used car for $1,000.

Re:Diesel MPG

[ncc74656]

You want a "sports" sedan? Take up kitesurfing. Cars are transportation, and the climate is frying,

Smug Alert!

Carbon dioxide is plant food. The world is a long way from frying...it's been hotter in the past, and it's highly questionable whether human activity has anything to do with temperature anyway...a much bigger factor is that big fusion reactor in the sky which has been running a bit cooler lately.

Re:Diesel MPG

[rrossman2]

It all depends... if you purchased a Honda Prelude, they were build in Japan also... it really depends on where the "sister car" is made (ie: the car that the Lexus, infinity, Toyota is made off of)

Hybrid Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

So they have mid 40s on a pure diesel engine. I wonder what you could get if you added a battery pack to that design?

Re:Hybrid Diesel

[jamesh]

So they have mid 40s on a pure diesel engine. I wonder what you could get if you added a battery pack to that design?

I've thought about this before too. Diesel engines are bigger and heavier, so there's a downside if you wanted to pack it full of batteries. Also I seem to remember that the Prius (and probably other hybrids) doesn't use a conventional 'otto cycle' petrol engine, rather an 'atkinson cycle' engine. The atkinson cycle engine is quite a bit more efficient and lighter but lower power. With all that in mind, the diesel seems like less of a good choice. Or maybe there is a different cycle of diesel engine available too that might better suit a hybrid?

Why is this on Slashdot?

[rossdee]

Its not like diesel engines are some new technology or something.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot?

[Shadow99_1]

Maybe Because they simply aren't sold in the US outside trucks? Even Chrysler which makes Diesel cars for Canada does not sell any in the US. I'd have to import one if I wanted to own a Diesel car here. Well outside the Jetta mentioned in the article. Diesel has been consider the unwanted stepchild in the US for ages while nearly half of all cars in Europe are diesel.

I've looked into diesel cars here, because they can be much more efficient, but buying one is a pain because they need to be imported and even then the requirements to be road rated in the US have meant reductions in fuel efficiency in the US anyways... Hence the mention that it barely gets better millage then the gas engine.

BMW 325d

[Colourspace]

50.4MPG, city and out of city, UK. America is really used to cheap gas isn't it?

Re:BMW 325d

[kj_kabaje]

No--policy makers bought by both oil producers and car makers have set us up for this in order to maximize profits.

Re:BMW 325d

[cynyr]

$3.80/US GAL here, diesel is around $0.50 more i think. I would love to buy a diesel car, but none of my options here in the states include an all wheel drive car. by that i mean a car with 100% all wheel with at least a torque sensing variable center diff. Audi A3 is not "all wheel drive" it is "auto rear wheel when needed" I would like the ability to shift power towards a single wheel but that is hard to come by. Finding out which type of AWD is under a car is harder yet.

My 1999 Saturn SW2 5 speed slushbox gets 30MPG on my commute. that is US Gallons not Imperial Gallons. A new cruse(not the eco) is only like 35-38. so 13 years of development and i get less than 0.5 MPG per year. The 110 HP 90LBF power plant is "enough" for my commute, I can do 80-90 MPH with no problems if i needed to, but rarely get over 70 MPH as traffic sucks and the speed limits are 60 MPH.

your 50.4 mpg (uk) is the same as the VW diesels get here in the US when corrected for the different size gallons(42 mpg highway). There don't seem to be and VW diesels on the used market near me at all because a new Golf TDI manual runs round $26000-$28000. where as the same car with the gas engine runs around $4000 cheaper, or you could buy the GTI. We do not have a GTD here in the states, no no sporty diesel at all. As far as i know your 325D isn't here in the states either.

Re:BMW 325d

[h4rr4r]

Comparing a 99 SW2 and a 2011 cruse on only mileage is not fair. I am sure the newer one is safer, more comfortable, quieter and meets a whole host of other requirements your SW2 did not have too. Before comparing MPG at least compare curb weight. Your SW2 is under 2400lbs and the cruze is over 3100.

Re:BMW 325d

[doctor_subtilis]

I'd say it goes deeper than just policy makers, oil companies and car manufacturers. I'd say it's deeply institutionally related to free market capitalism.

Re:BMW 325d

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we are. We give $4 billion a year to the oil industry while these multinational giants like Exxon Mobil rake in $40 billion in profits and pay no federal taxes. We topple democratically elected governments in oil-rich countries to install business friendly dictators. We topple those dictators after they're no longer friendly (to us) and install corrupt "democratically elected" officials that are business friendly. All of this feeds into the goal of keeping Amerika A-1 (with cheap gas). While it would be nice to blame one political party on the situation, they're both complicit, though one party believes that paying no federal taxes is too much tax, apparently.

Re:BMW 325d

[Anonymous Coward]

oh i can totally relate i wont get a truck till i can buy one w/ heated and vented rear seats, a must IMHO. by the way my daily commuter is a 1999 Toyota Yaris. you wont get diesel car cause its not awd but then you say your commuter is a 12yr fwd econobox, WTF? that makes alot of sense.

a few years a go BMW sold a 335td in the states but not sure if its still available or not. i havent really paid much interest as thats too rich for me.

Re:BMW 325d

[CAIMLAS]

out of curiosity, how many miles do you drive daily to get to work?

I live 'close' to work over here in the us. sanfrancisco area along a Bart line, which supposedly is good public transit. short of cycling a very steep hill to get to work, taking Bart and a bus (and taking an extra hour or two both ways) I'm stuck driving.

that's a a couple hundred a month in fuel. not cheap. (your fuel would be cheaper still if you weren't paying more in tax than for fuel. I'm not sure why cheap fuel is seen as a bad thing. its not green? fuck that. its a sign of affluence and economic potential.

Re:BMW 325d

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Your 50.4 miles to the imperial gallon when converted to US gallons that is about 42 mpg. Now compared to my '97 540i with an automatic transmission and 216,000 miles on it that has averaged of 22.7 mpg (us) over the last 115,000 miles your number seems impressive. I don't know what year your 325d is but my car is probably heavier by fair amount and since you are in the UK yours is probably a manual where as mine has the automatic. So given that yours is a diesel, is lighter, and probably has a manual transmission 42mpg US isn't that impressive as I would probably have expected something more in the mid 40s not low 40s. Also to put things into perspective previous to the 540i I had a '96 318ti with a 5 speed manual that that got almost 40 mpg and before that I had an '85 528e that would consistently get over 40 mpg all of which were gasoline engines. Personally I would love to get a diesel BMW but they only recently started offering them for sale again in the US so it will be a while until I can find a used one.

Re:BMW 325d

[Anonymous Coward]

Ford Focus Titanium TDCI (2L Turbo) 56.8 with the missus driving it when I drive it can get 64+ out of it (i'm alot gentler on the pedal and plan ahead so less braking/accelerating etc drive with gearbox rather than brake pedal etc)

Not bad considering Diesel works out to be about $8.24 ish per gal.

I love it when yanks complain about being nearly $4 per gal thats still less than half our costs !

Re:BMW 325d

[Colourspace]

100 Mile round trip a day, I love in central (ish) London, about 15 miles out of the city, 35 motorway miles. But as someone above has pointed out I have completely ignored our different gallons, so it's looking pretty much like my point is invalid. I haven't done the sums.

Re:BMW 325d

[Colourspace]

It is a 2007 to be fair, and the 5's are quite a bit heavier (my brother has one). I suppose my first point was that until I read TFS (no article for me!) I never realised how uncommon diesel cars are in the US... The abundance of cheap petrol means you guys have never really had to consider them and therefore there has been no market to date.

Re:BMW 325d

[Colourspace]

We had a few Focuses ourselves, great cars to drive and own I think. As are the Mondeo's - had a few of them too, and the latest models are less common than 3 series, so some cachet there. Still wouldn't give the BMW up though, :)

Re:BMW 325d

[Colourspace]

I live AND love in central London, ladies!

Re:BMW 325d

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right of course--there's a deeper underlying interest that I only hinted at. Yes--capitalism is supposed to work this way, isn't it? I still don't see how this is a "rational market", but perhaps it's not supposed to be when those in control are doing just fine.

Re:BMW 325d

[Attila Dimedici]

This is not something oil producers or car makers would have spent money or influence on. The absence of diesel engines in the U.S. can be laid at the door of "environmentalists" (I use quotes because it is arguable whether this particular group actually cares about the environment), who insisted that diesel engines in automobiles meet essentially the same emissions standards as gasoline engines. Oil producers would happily sell diesel to U.S. motorists.

Re:BMW 325d

[Attila Dimedici]

No, it has nothing to do with free market capitalism and everything to do with government regulation. The reason that there are few diesel powered passenger vehicles in the U.S. is because of emissions standards set by the EPA.

Re:BMW 325d

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I don't think the problem is the cheapness of petrol as diesel isn't that much more. At the station nearest my house gasoline is $3.77 and diesel is $3.92. The real problem is that previous time there was a push for diesel vehicles in the US they were mostly junk. The engines were an Oldsmobile 5.7l or an Oldsmobile 4.3l and both were junk. They lacked power, had all sorts of mechanical issues, really smelt bad, and spewed black soot that would put a long haul trucker to shame. This is what people associate with diesels, unless they owned a MB, VW, or Volvo diesel which were actually good vehicles ran for damn near forever and were on part with power, and smell with american gasoline engines of the day, they still put out more soot, but nothing like those Oldsmobile diesels. Unfortunately there were tons more vehicles with crappy Oldsmobile diesels than VWs, MBs, and Volvos so when people hear diesel car they picture junk instead of quality.

Re:BMW 325d

[ormondotvos]

Rightwing horsecrap. Corporations own legislators.

Re:BMW 325d

[ormondotvos]

And my 2000 Echo pops 40 mpg regularly on 300 mile trips up 101 through the hills. Of course, it weighs 2100#, has a lockup automatic, and a 108 hp variable valve timing engine of 1.5 liters. Runs 75 all day, with four people on board. 150k miles so far. Tires and brakes, twice. Get a life, hot rods. Speed is over. The climate is changing. Take up something thrilling that depends on your own skills, other than bashing a gas pedal and sliding around corners. That's so 2000's

Re:BMW 325d

[CAIMLAS]

You get about 41mpg per US gallon, then, it looks like. Here I was thinking there was a drastic difference between your vehicles and our's, for a moment. :)

Re:BMW 325d

[LunaticTippy]

I love the Echo. It is the only small car I've found that has enough headroom for me (6'1") to comfortably sit, even in the back seat. I can fit 5 in it for short trips. I had one that gave me 50k miles with very little maintenance until someone rammed it to death. I wish I kept it for parts. Now I have a 2005 Echo. I am sad they stopped making it, the Yaris has much worse headroom. I even like the center instrument panel. My best avg mileage was 43mpg on a tank. Mountain driving barely affects the efficiency, which is pretty surprising to me.

Okay with our ultra-low sulfur diesel?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a diesel Jeep Liberty and have to put in additive in the tank with every fill up because of it. Well, I don't have to, but it much better for the engine.

Re:Okay with our ultra-low sulfur diesel?

[shutdown -p now]

Well, diesel Jetta wants ULSD, so I'd imagine that any competitor would, too. I don't think you can even match the emission requirements for a small car without that.

BMW 335d?

[MMC Monster]

Anyone have experience with the BMW 335d?

I'm tempted, but really need 4wd where I work. (And I don't want a second car for the crummy weather.)

Re:BMW 335d?

[tkrotchko]

Great car, but for the price the expected payoff is well over 10 years. Useful if you need the extended range, but from an economy standpoint, it makes little sense.

Also keep in mind that diesel in the U.S. is more expensive than high-test.

Re:BMW 335d?

[sjbe]

Anyone have experience with the BMW 335d?

I've driven one. They are fantastic cars. Would be my very first choice in sedans if I were on the market today. Excellent power, good fuel economy, very nicely appointed, rather pricey. A good set of snow tires goes a LONG way to making up for the lack of 4WD. Bear in mind that 4WD only helps you when accelerating. It does nothing for you at constant speed or while braking.

Re:BMW 335d?

[scorp1us]

The BMW 520d gets 45 - more than the Prius.

I think the problem with diesels int he us s the new Urea requirements...

Re:BMW 335d?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 335d is a FANTASTIC car, especially re-mapped. ;) Winter tyres/snow tyres on RWD will be better than a 4WD with ordinary (summer) tyres

Re:BMW 335d?

[Anonymous Coward]

" Bear in mind that 4WD only helps you when accelerating. It does nothing for you at constant speed or while braking."

You couldn't be more wrong.

All wheel drive ( which is what the BMW has, and which is quite different from four wheel drive )
adds considerable stability while driving at constant speed in the wet, or in snow, or on ice.
All wheel drive also helps keep a car stable when braking and during cornering. Seriously, I don't know
where you got your ideas about "four wheel drive" but you don't have a clue about vehicle dynamics in the
real world. Of course I live in the Northeastern US and drive in snow and ice many times a year, and I hold
an SCCA competition license, but I'm sure your time spent playing Gran Turismo trumps any real-world experience
I have, right ?

Re:BMW 335d?

[h4rr4r]

If you had actually played Gran Turismo you would not be knocking it and the parent would not have made this mistake.

Why does Subaru not make a diesel? Diesel WRX but with an aluminum body/chassis, would be practically a dream car.

Re:BMW 335d?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You really believe you need 4wd? Unless you are a forester you are kidding your self. I have a BMW 540i and when driving on regular paved roads have never had a problem. If you get lots of snow they make these tire amendments that do wonders for traction, I have pushed a pile of snow that was coming over my hood with these on. Also I have taken that 540i into places where I probably shouldn't have, specifically down some of the logging roads and unimproved roads in norther Minnesota. Basically a nice one of these roads compacted dirt with not too many ruts and free of trees with a trunk larger than 1 inch in diameter. Bad ones have lots ruts, are washed out, have lots of trees in them and here it would have been nice to have a high clearance vehicle. I do own a vehicle with 4wd and I have only needed 4wd about 3 times, once when hunting and the low area was completely a swamp with tons of deep loose mud that was torn up by the logging truck, and twice last winter when I needed to get out of my drive way and there was a pile of hard packed snow at the end of the drive way from the plow.

Re:BMW 335d?

[Gordonjcp]

They do...

Although admittedly they've only started doing them recently.

Re:BMW 335d?

[black soap]

And they've refused to bring them to the USA. I'd buy one right now, if they would just offer.

Makes a whole lot more sense than...

[Anonymous Coward]

Diesel power is old, tested, works well.

1) Diesel fuel will carry a vehicle further for a lot of reasons, but economically, it costs significantly more than standard unleaded in the United States.

2) They make a whole more sense than hybrids. Both from a complexity and lifetime cost standpoint.

3) GM's history with diesels in the United States has been wretched. I'd let someone else be a guinea pig first.

4) It makes a whole lot more sense than the politically motivated "Volt" (which is really a Cruze that makes no economic sense).

5) The cheapest car to own is the one you have now. Fix it, run it. I have in my "fleet", many cars. A Honda Accord with manual transmission (20 years old and 250K miles) is by far the most sensible. After 20 years, I had to fix two rust spots. The clutch is probably down to its last 10%. But even at that, fixing the clutch will cost a fraction of a new car.

6) The greenest car you can get is, again, the one you have right. Burning gas is the least important part of car ownership. The one you have now is built, it runs. Run it another 3 years. At the end of that time, run it another 3. Repeat, learn to turn a wrench and you'll have cheap transportation.

Re:Makes a whole lot more sense than...

[h4rr4r]

On Number 5 that depends on where you live. If you drive it in the winter in WNY it will rust out.

Re:Makes a whole lot more sense than...

[Nimey]

#6: Well, no. Junk your 8 MPG Suburban grocery-getter and get an efficient sedan. You'll see a huge difference shortly.

Re:Makes a whole lot more sense than...

[tkrotchko]

$15,000 for a new car will pay for a lot of gas for the suburban.

I'm not defending the suburban, but you can't ignore the initial purchase price, particularly if the suburban is paid for. All you're buying is gas at that point.

Re:Makes a whole lot more sense than...

[jamesh]

$15,000 for a new car will pay for a lot of gas for the suburban.

I'm not defending the suburban, but you can't ignore the initial purchase price, particularly if the suburban is paid for. All you're buying is gas at that point.

'gas' isn't the only consumable that goes into a car. Tyres can be 2-5x the price on a big car compared to a little car. The service can be quite a bit more on a large car too (although a little turbo diesel can be surprisingly expensive to service, even if the service interval is 20000km).

Re:Makes a whole lot more sense than...

[h4rr4r]

That is why I always stick to tires, much cheaper.

Re:Makes a whole lot more sense than...

[jamesh]

That is why I always stick to tires, much cheaper.

I forgot that tyre is spelled 'tire' in some parts of the world... strange. I guess we Aussies don't like our words overloaded so much.

Re:Makes a whole lot more sense than...

[h4rr4r]

Probably due to your defective criminal genetics.

Sorry, you walked into that one.

Re:Makes a whole lot more sense than...

[voidptr]

With more and more cars moving to run flats in lieu of carrying a spare, that's not as true as it use to be. A set of run flats for a Mini Cooper can cost significantly more than a new set for a larger car or truck that can carry a spare, and the run flats tend to wear out faster as well.

Re:Makes a whole lot more sense than...

[couchslug]

IAAM (I Am A Mechanic) and strongly agree.

I'd note that modern diesels are extremely expensive to repair, so if you buy one replace it while it's still in warranty. (Those who buy new vehicles and afford this.)

What about a diesel Volt?

[swb]

Would that really make much difference in terms of fuel consumption?

Re:What about a diesel Volt?

[QuantumRiff]

If you had a small diesel engine, that ran in a very low range of RPM's to power an electric motor, you would have the height of 1960's technology, the Diesel-Electric Locomotive. And it would be the best hybrid approach out there. SImple to run and maintain. There is a reason trains have been using them for decades now.

Re:What about a diesel Volt?

[Gordonjcp]

That's a common myth in electric cars though; the diesel-electric trains only really work well because the power demands remain constant for long periods of time. A diesel-electric car would work just great on motorways, but driving around town it would be horribly inefficient.

Re:What about a diesel Volt?

[St.Creed]

A continous-variable transmission might help. I have one in my Mercedes which keeps the rpm constant so the engine can always run at peak efficiency. Also, good software for the motormanagement might help: use the electric energy for the short hauls and start the diesel for the long haul.

Re:What about a diesel Volt?

[Gordonjcp]

Cool though they are, CVT is a bit over-rated. It's more lossy than a normal gearbox because of friction between the belt and pulleys and the belt's own internal resistance, and engines have such a broad performance band it doesn't really make a lot of difference.

Re:What about a diesel Volt?

[St.Creed]

Okay - that's probably the reason the next version of the current model (A-class) will switch to double transmissions, then.

Reality Check Light

[bogidu]

Ok, so as I suspected, this concept throws alot of people and creates quite a bit of 'what-if' discussions.

As someone who has owned two diesel Jettas for the last 7 years and with few exceptions paid around 50 cents more per gallon . . . . . my range is about 700 miles per tank with both car (between 43-49 mpg). Most people I know that run gas cars fuel up every 350-400 miles. That coupled with decrease maintenance costs, and a straight-line highway commute of 50 miles each way everday makes them a great choice of transportation.

If you live in the city and don't use the cruise control much, commute in stop & go, etc, I highly recommend the other technology, hybrids. You'll find no one who bad mouths diesels more than someone who buys one because they see the 50mpg sticker then only drives 5 miles to work in stop and go and doesn't even let the engine get to operating temperature.

Just my 2.

Re:Reality Check Light

[h4rr4r]

If only I could find one at a reasonable price. The only used VW golf TDI within 150 miles is at 90k miles and they want $10,000 for it. The mileage does not worry me, but it being a 2002 does. The dealer wants $30k for a new one. That is BMW money not VW money. As someone who buys cars in cash, it is also too expensive for me.Sticker seems to be around $24,000 which is still way too much for such a small car that is going to rust. This is compared to the FIAT 500 for 15k.

I would pay huge amounts if someone made the following car, aluminum chassis and Turbo Diesel.

Re:Reality Check Light

[bogidu]

I own a 1999 and a 2000. You are absolutely right to worry about the age. Not for the mechanical aspects, just every other part of the car. In VW's ANYTHING made of plastic will break, that includes ALL of the interior parts (I have a dangling door panel), the TRANSMISSION LINKAGE, glove boxe doors, console, cupholders, etc. ALL of that crap starts breaking in short order. Hence why I'd REALLY like some competition in the market place.

Re:Reality Check Light

[h4rr4r]

The transmission linkage is plastic?

Re:Reality Check Light

[bogidu]

LOL! Yes, in my 1999.5 model the shifter linkage is made of plastic. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Volkswagen-Repair-833/2008/10/95-passat-shift-linkage.htm The bottom one is the stock part, the top is an aftermarket replacement.

Re:Reality Check Light

[h4rr4r]

WTF!?!
So on a $25k car they decide to save $10 and make that plastic instead of steel?

Re:Reality Check Light

[NJRoadfan]

Its gets even better, the water pump impeller is usually plastic too.

Re:Reality Check Light

[h4rr4r]

That seems far more reasonable. Not going to see the same amount of shearing load on that part I bet.

Re:Reality Check Light

[Vegeta99]

The plastic door panel replacement pins are like $5 at a parts store, and if it's dangling, the car already did half the job for you. Pull out the, what, 6 screws, replace the pins, done. Pretty much /every/ car is like that. A crap-ass cupholder is like $75 at the dealer, and they don't break very often if you confine its use to a sanely-sized drinking cup. My console is just fine, except for that fucking weird plastic coating on everything. However, clean it all off, and boom - clean plastic underneath.

My 2000 is a great car, but all the rubber took a dive when I moved from the Northeast to the middle of the desert. THat's my only issue with it.

$/watt vs $/gallon

[sjbe]

Also keep in mind that diesel in the U.S. is more expensive than high-test.

That varies but bear in mind that it is actually cheaper on a per-horsepower basis. Diesel has to be 15-20% more expensive to cost more for the same amount of horsepower. $/watt, diesel generally comes out ahead, even if it is slightly more per gallon at the pump.

Re:$/watt vs $/gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

And, diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines. So you get two benefits. The fuels has more energy per gallon and the engine burns that fuel more efficiently.

The reason you haven't seen more diesel use in passenger cars is primarily because of the difficulty of scaling the diesel engine down to smaller sizes. The high cost of fuel and recent advances in engine design seem to have closed the gap between gas and diesel.

Re:$/watt vs $/gallon

[h4rr4r]

The reason you haven't seen more diesel use in passenger cars is primarily because you don't ever leave the USA. Diesel passenger cars are quite common outside the USA.

Re:$/watt vs $/gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about the rest of the world, but I do know that in Europe the large-scale adoption of diesel in cars is a fairly recent phenomenon. At the turn of the century, passenger cars in Europe were still predominantly gasoline powered.

Roughly ten years ago I was in a meeting in Italy where a high-level official from the Italian transportation ministry (I don't remember his exact title) gave a presentation on this subject. He did a great job of laying out the historical issues with diesel engines, the solutions, and coming popularity of diesel cars. His predictions turned out to be spot on. It was one of the best presentations I've ever heard from a government official.

Re:$/watt vs $/gallon

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean $/Joule. Watt is a unit of power--which is energy per unit time. One gallon of a fuel does not "contain" Watts, it contains energy. How fast you consume it determines the power being produced from it.

Hi, it's 2011

[Skarecrow77]

I'd like to know what the MPG on the 6-speed manual version is."

Probably no better. This isn't 1981. Today's 6 and 7 speed automatic transmissions are efficient. They usually equal, and occasionally beat the manuals in some cases. Check out the current mustang for example, the auto and manual get the same mileage in city, and the auto gets 2mpg more than the manual on the hwy. On the V8 version, the manual pulls ahead slightly on the hwy, but the automatic beats it in the city. on the new premium model Boss 302, the automatic beats the manual on both city and hwy by several mpg.

So, really, manuals are just "for fun" now. for people who "want to feel like they're really driving the car". Basically, for people who learned on a manual and have a superiority complex about it.

source: http://mustangs.about.com/od/fuelmileagestatistics/a/2012-Ford-Mustang-Epa-Gas-Mileage-Estimates.htm

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Skarecrow77]

Oh, and before someone says "gasoline performance car, different market segment, not applicable"

check out the EPA ratings for the diesel commuter we already have in this country, the VW Jetta TDI.
M6 and A6 both come in at 30/42 city/hwy.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2011_Volkswagen_Jetta.shtml

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[h4rr4r]

Not at all. A manual in a car without 200+ horsepower is a big advantage. Not everyone wants to get 12 mpg just so they can avoid learning to drive a car. An automatic can't know a steep grade is coming soon and to shift down early, by the time it shifts it is already too late. Sure you never notice in your mustang, but those of us with normal cars sure do. An automatic also can't shift down and coast in gear to slow as you come to a red light. Instead it lets you coast without engine breaking and you get to use the brakes for no good reason.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[tkrotchko]

Manual transmissions save money on the initial purchase price and long term maintenance. In many

I would recommend a manual for anyone who intends to keep a car longer than 5 years or drives lots of miles.

A big reason people get rid of their car just after the century mark is the automatic transmission fails, and the replacement price is upwards of $2-6K depending on the brand. At that point, people opt to buy a new car. Manual transmissions are bulletproof and will last as long as the engine in the car.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[h4rr4r]

Any idea why automatics are built the way they are? It seems like a computer controlled manual should be build-able. Have the same transmission, just shift it via pneumatics or electronics.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a Honda Civic DX hatchback (4-speed) and was able to achieve 53 mpg. It's EPA rating was 40mpg. It was routine to get 45-50 mpg and I usually drove 75mph on the interstate.

My 1996 Geo Prizm is rated for 27mpg, but typically gets 33 and has gotten 40.5.

My 2001 Toyota Prius gets 40mpg at 80+ mph and 60-ish mpg when going 48 mph.
It's rated for 41 mpg.
5500 mile cross country trip with 85mph interstate speeds - 45 mpg.

The ratings are wrong.
Your mileage will vary by 25-50% from the test numbers.
Not all drivetrains are equivalent, some will surge and waste fuel like the GMC Acadia. It's rated for 23 mpg and some people are only getting 13. (76% error)

Manual transmissions are best since you can see the road ahead and shift accordingly.
Being in top gear with the engine idling while going downhill is an excellent way to conserve fuel.
It also allows you to downshift just before going up a hill without having to step on the gas.

I bet a fuel-conscious driver in that mustang you linked could get 30-35 mpg.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[jamesh]

I'd like to know what the MPG on the 6-speed manual version is."

Probably no better. This isn't 1981. Today's 6 and 7 speed automatic transmissions are efficient. They usually equal, and occasionally beat the manuals in some cases.

I get the best of both worlds. 6 speed manual transmission with no clutch pedal and automatic gear changes, so in theory I get the efficiency of a manual and the ease of an automatic. Unfortunately, because it's still internally a manual transmission and the robot still has to do the clutch and gear shift etc, the gear changes are a little slow (or a little rough, in sport mode), and because of the 'expense' of a gearchange, the car is sometimes reluctant to change gears when it maybe should. I have little paddles at my fingertips for changing up and down though if I think i know better than the car. I like driving it :)

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine shifts down quite happily when coasting to a stop. At most it needs a feather on the brake - anything else is poor technique.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[h4rr4r]

Eww. I hate having to have my shift approved by the committee. Which is what it feels like in a paddle shift car. You do know better than the car. It has no idea that a hill is coming up, or that you just hit the apex of the hill, or that you need to stay in lower gear going down a steep grade to avoid boiling the brakes.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

Any idea why automatics are built the way they are? It seems like a computer controlled manual should be build-able. Have the same transmission, just shift it via pneumatics or electronics.

You mean like the automated manuals which have been available for years? No clutch pedal, normal manual box with a normal clutch, but with hydraulic actuators instead of a shift linkage and buttons/paddles on the steering wheel to change gear.

I have one in my '01 Alfa Romeo. Not the most reliable system in the world (mostly as it was one of the first to market, and is based off the system in the Ferrari 355 with obviously some major cost cutting going on), but kept maintained it's a joy to drive. I'm a hardcore manual driver mostly, but due to injury in my left leg, I had to give up manual clutch control, and I'll be damned if I'm buying a slushy automatic.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

Manual gearboxes whose clutch is controlled by mechanical/pneumatic/electronic means do exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selespeed

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[IrquiM]

I've never seen an European car with automatic beat a manual on the mileage. Ever!

Automatics are still more costly, more expensive with regards to maintenance, and also when you look at the fuel consumption.

And also, automatics are more boring to drive - I probably would fall a sleep and end up in a ditch if I had one... :D

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[maxume]

Autos coast in gear, pumping the engine, which uses 0 fuel.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[h4rr4r]

Yeah, the highest gear. Which means you lose almost all engine braking. So enjoy your 0 fuel use while you wear out your brakes.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Bob the Super Hamste]

A manual transmission (excluding the clutch which will wear out prematurely if you suck at driving stick) can take a lot more abuse and in general are a more robust and reliable system. Now for the average person this doesn't matter, but if you really like to abuse your vehicle or want a long lived one a manual is a better option.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get this on some cars, sequential gearboxes you change with a paddle/nudge of the gear stick, or push into full auto mode.

Basically an auto but the driver can decide on when to shift up/down.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[JimBobJoe]

Manual transmissions save money on the initial purchase price and long term maintenance.

They can but not always. Some automakers build outstanding automatics that are bulletproof and maintenance free (other than fluid changes), whereas their manuals, like all manuals, need their clutches replaced.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[JimBobJoe]

Any idea why automatics are built the way they are?

It's a historical thing. The first automatics didn't have computers obviously. They just continued refining the tech.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[JimBobJoe]

I've never seen an European car with automatic beat a manual on the mileage.

2011 BMW 535i

Manual: 19 city, 28 highway, 22 combined
Automatic: 20 city, 30 highway, 24 combined (fueleconomy.org)

High end cars are the easiest examples, since they are getting the more advanced automatic transmissions. Autos can have 7 or 8 gears, which mean you can have a couple of really high gears for great fuel economy, whereas manuals are stuck with six gears max.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[NJRoadfan]

VW sells something call the Direct Shift Gearbox (DSG). Its a dual clutch manumatic. Its available on all their diesel cars and higher end gas cars. Ford and BMW have similar products as well. The Ford Focus and Fiesta are recent products with the new transmission available.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[h4rr4r]

Is this the wait to see if the committee approved your shift style thing, like paddle shifters?

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

They have been made in the past but simply never caught on.
More than likely because they were cr4p. It's sort of like having a manual gearbox but with the sluggish responses of an old school automatic 'box.
No fun.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a flappy-paddle gearbox.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[CaptBubba]

The A6 in the VW TDI is pretty much a M6 which has been modified so that the clutch and shifter are controlled by computer. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-Shift_Gearbox

This is unlike most automatics which operate using various clutch packs and torque converters, and incur not-insignificant power losses when transmitting drive power through those parts.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

An automatic can't know a steep grade is coming soon and to shift down early, by the time it shifts it is already too late. Sure you never notice in your mustang, but those of us with normal cars sure do. An automatic also can't shift down and coast in gear to slow as you come to a red light. Instead it lets you coast without engine breaking and you get to use the brakes for no good reason.

I suggest you stop by a VW dealer and test drive a TDI with the dual-clutch automatic. It does everything you say an automatic doesn't. It shifts and revs the engine faster than one can typically even disengage a manual clutch. It is the first automatic transmission I've ever liked. For getting out of snow though, rocking with a manual can't be beat.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

A manual transmission is superior, at least for the driver trying to control the car. Automatics fold gearing and throttle control onto a single pedal, so you can't control them independently. Now, if you only ask your car to go faster or slower without specifying how, perhaps you don't care. However, some of us care about getting better performance from our cars and not waiting for the damned computer to figure out what we want.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[maxume]

My actual maintenance costs over 45,000 miles are less than $2,000. That's including tires and engine work and then brakes. That's about 4.5 cents a mile.

I pay between 10 and 15 cents per mile for gasoline.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

I will add... automatics often only need an aftermarket oil cooler to prevent premature failure. If I wanted reliability, I would not buy a manual, particularly after personally replacing clutches and pilot bearings.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_transmission

Short version: There's loads of them out there, the most popular of which (outside the US, at any rate) is probably the Volkswagen DSG (Audi S-Tronic) transmission.

Most of them expect that the driver can still be bothered to push up or down, but DSG works fine in full auto mode.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, a Mustang is a normal car. The 260hp Taurus and 270hp Accord are also "normal" cars.
My automatic car downshifts as I come to stop, but I assume you mean compression braking, which I can also do with the automatic, similar to how I could downshift my manual car. There is no reason to compression brake though, as the auto can choose the correct gear on takeoff. The brakes can apply correct stopping force to the front and rear wheels. Compression braking doesn't, and can cause stability problems in adverse conditions (excepting AWD cars).
And 12mpg is disingenuous. You'd have to try pretty hard to get only 12mpg in a modern performance car. My automatic V8 car gets about 19mpg driven hard, and 25-27 on the highway. Heck, the only way my automatic V8 truck can get 12mpg is when towing!
After replacing clutches and pilot bearings, I'm happy to drive ultra-reliable automatics.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, from a study by Gjensidige (a Norwegian insurance company) (http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/58549/binary/2053 - courtesy of Google Translate):

"As shown in Figure 5 as the probability of damage higher for cars
automatic than for cars with standard gear. The difference is greatest when we look at the odds ratio without
corrections. This means that cars with automatic transmission also characterized by other factors
that contribute to high risk, as long annual mileage, the hull insurance, newer car
and / or that the owner is resident in the area of high risk. We see the middle columns
where it is adjusted for such factors. Then the odds ratio significantly less for having
automatic.

The columns at the far right shows the odds rates for automatic when in addition to these factors
also draws the technical characteristics of the vehicle, such as size and engine power.
Odds rates for automatic transmission is that we do not see any særligere less about these technical
characteristics drawn. This means that there is little indication that any
correlation with other characteristics of the vehicle to explain an increased risk of
cars with automatic transmission.

It is only for serious traffic injuries that there is a significant increase in injury risk
cars with automatic transmission. This may indicate that it is especially the serious injuries that increase.
Since it is also corrected for the model year and size does not seem to make it more
repair costs that may be the reason for this difference between serious
traffic injuries and all injuries with guilt.

One possible explanation is that the automatic transmission is associated with a higher speed. as demonstrated
in Elvik (2005) that increases the injury rate significantly with increased speed, and especially the
serious injuries. In addition, the repair costs are greater when the speed is greater.
Both these factors may explain the increased risk is greatest for serious traffic injuries."

tl;dr: Driving an automatic slightly increases your risk of being involved in an accident with serious injury, even when other factors are corrected for. We don't know why.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[tkrotchko]

C'mon, I drive in city traffic every day for 50 miles, and I've yet to wear out a clutch in 3 cars and 20 miles. This is in a variety of cars

They will eventually wear out sure, but the lifetime cost is far cheaper than any automatic I've owned.

It seems automakers assume most people get rid of a car after about 80-100K miles. A shame as that is the most productive time in a car's life. Its paid for, you only have to do maintenance and its still quite dependable.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[tkrotchko]

Yes, I think most people who poo-poo manual transmissions simply don't know how to drive them.

They probably think you steer a car with the steering wheel, too.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[tkrotchko]

Probably because people with manual transmissions tend to have better situational awareness of what's happening around them.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[PPH]

Damn. And me without mod points again.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[PPH]

I can repair a manual transmission with (mostly) basic tools.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Vegeta99]

whereas manuals are stuck with six gears max.

  lol, ur funny. Go take a look in a big truck sometime, and see how many gears that transmission has.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Golden_Rider]

I am quite happy with my Golf GTI with DSG. Shifts VERY fast. Of course, if you try to downshift when it would be stupid (revs would be too high), it does not let you. But I think the "omg it sometimes shifts so slow" thing mostly comes from the fact that you do not have to do anything except hit the paddle. With a manual, you have to disengage the clutch, use the gear stick, engage clutch again. Which takes definitely longer (half a second to a second even for a good driver) than the DSG needs to shift - except that with the DSG, you do nothing except flick your finger.

Also, on the GTI the DSG sounds very nice if you shift upwards of 3000 revs :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FCMpYUxkm4

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, I drive in city traffic every day for 50 miles, and I've yet to wear out a clutch in 3 cars and 20 miles. This is in a variety of cars

They will eventually wear out sure, but the lifetime cost is far cheaper than any automatic I've owned.

I keep my vehicles for a very long time (15~30+years) and in that timeframe I have had to replace clutches, throwout bearings, pilot bearings, synchros. While with the automatic just fluid/filter change when installing the aftermarket cooler. These may be heavier vehicles in comparison... 3300-6000lbs, all RWD, all with V8 engines except one. True, one of the problems with the manuals might be from "abuse", like pulling a boat out of the water on a slippery ramp, but the automatics handle the task just fine.

It seems automakers assume most people get rid of a car after about 80-100K miles. A shame as that is the most productive time in a car's life. Its paid for, you only have to do maintenance and its still quite dependable.

True. Certain models have what can almost be described as designed-to-fail parts, but find a good car, and it will last a very long time with affordable maintenance. 200k~300k miles should be pretty easy for a good modern car, if not 500k.

I'd mostly agree with the OP that today stick-shifts are 'for fun'. The advent of the six-speed auto with +/- manual control pretty much eliminates any practical benefit of the stick-shift. That said, all of my automatics are only 4-speed, but have some limited manual control. Of course the torque of a V8 means only really need two gears. ;)

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[shutdown -p now]

It won't let you redline the engine, if that's what you mean. So far as I know, that's the only constraint.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[toddestan]

The mileage difference on the highway is probably because the overdrive gear in the automatic is probably a lower gear ratio than the 6th gear in the manual. That's certainly the case in my car, where I've driven both the automatic and manual variants. I've never really understood why the car manufacturers do this - is it because they think people don't want to have to downshift to pass on the highway?

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[toddestan]

And that's a big truck. Now find me any non-exotic passenger car that offers more than 6 gears in a manual transmission.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[DamienNightbane]

Longer, even. My '98 Camaro just had its engine replaced at 175,000 miles (The local shop shit the bed and let an easily fixed problem turn into a blown engine), and the only thing that the transmission has needed was a new clutch.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[jamesh]

Eww. I hate having to have my shift approved by the committee. Which is what it feels like in a paddle shift car. You do know better than the car. It has no idea that a hill is coming up, or that you just hit the apex of the hill, or that you need to stay in lower gear going down a steep grade to avoid boiling the brakes.

If I don't feel like the car making decisions for me I just shift the stick over to manual and change the gears myself using either the stick or the paddles.. The only time the car will step in is if the revs drop so low the car will stall, or if the revs get up towards 6000 RPM (it is a diesel after all!).

That said, the car does handle the hills pretty well and seems to pick the right gear pretty consistently. The thing that it needs a bit of assistance on are the turns. If i slow down at a give way sign, check that it's all clear, then accelerate, the car will first change from 3rd to 2nd before actually accelerating, which adds half a second or so. It can be a bit of a pain on a busy road if i'm picking a gap in the traffic - half a second is a _long_ time. That's when I put it in sports mode or just use the paddles.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

My civic must be special then. When I come into a turn going downhill, the transmission downshifts to help slow me down (and that's not even when I'm braking hard). Yes, it's an automatic.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[couchslug]

"Basically, for people who learned on a manual and have a superiority complex about it."

Say that when your complex, expensive, delicate automatic transmission breaks. If you trade often, no problem. I keep my vehicles and would rather buy a clutch than a remanned transmission.

Re:Hi, it's 2011

[Anonymous Coward]

Brake pads are MUCH cheaper than clutches, and MUCH easier to replace yourself. Not to mention most aftermarket brake pads have lifetime warranties. Any other stupid comments?

Will it sell?

[Nimey]

Diesels are more expensive, in part because they require a turbocharger to get decent performance.

Diesel fuel in the States is also tens of cents more expensive per gallon.

Therefore I don't see an economic argument for this thing gaining acceptance.

Re:Will it sell?

[h4rr4r]

The gained mileage is more than making up for the cost of fuel. As to your first point, diesels last a lot longer than gas cars, in the USA that won't matter as people love to be in debt for cars.

Re:Will it sell?

[tkrotchko]

The range is a big reason for choosing a diesel.

Also, the torque on a diesel makes it well suited for many applications.

Re:Will it sell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, but the 1982 VW diesel Rabbits were getting 50MPG

VW has 100+MPG diesel vehicles in South America.
It's about time to up the bar. The cost on vehicles and fossil fuels needs to go down.

Re:Will it sell?

[Shadow99_1]

A non-turbo diesel engine and a diesel engine are nearly identical, the process that is used to make a engine a 'diesel' engine needs very little work to be turbocharged. This is why often diesel engines only come 'turbocharged' and one reason I've heard it said that turbocharging a diesel is 'free'. So I don't think you quite understand how a diesel works or why turbocharged diesels are so common. While I'm not an expert by any means, I have in fact read up on the subject I suggest you do to.

On the other hand turbocharging a gasoline engine takes considerably more work and is done far more rarely. It is also expensive in gasoline engines to turbocharge them.

Re:Will it sell?

[nblender]

I drive a diesel land cruiser up here in canada, eh? It's not all fancy and electronic... Mechanical injectors and a mechanical denso injection pump.. Diesel here in Canada typically hovers around the price of gasoline... Sometimes higher, sometimes lower... The price of diesel fluctuates after gasoline does; perhaps because there's lower turnover on the diesel pumps.

One advantage to diesel that is a disadvantage with gasoline is that diesel can live in a gerry can or tank for months and not go 'bad' whereas gasoline has a shelf life of about a month... If you don't drive your vehicle frequently, you need to add fuel stabilizer to the tank. This is why people have trouble with gas powered 'toys' and 'tools' (chain saws, outboard motors, lawn mowers, RVs)... They don't get used regularly enough and the fuel sits around...

I can also fuel up at the grocery store, if I want to pay extra for canola oil... Or if my wife is deep-frying tempura or something, I can pour the fat through a coffee filter straight into my tank and my truck actually likes it...

The new diesels are so sensored up the wazoo that I'm not sure this sort of thing is advisable...

Another problem with diesel is that in extreme cold temperatures, it gels. Here in Canada, starting about september, my mileage drops about 2mpg(US) because the producers have switched to 'winter diesel'... About May, my mileage returns.

Re:Will it sell?

[bogidu]

Economic argument?

15Gal x 3.45 = $51.75 = 480 miles driven @ 32mpg
15Gal x 3.85 = $57.75 = 700 miles driven @ 46mpg

For an extra $6 per tankful I get an extra 220 miles. Where do these numbers come from? My comparison of my 2000 Jetta TDI vs. my neighbors 2007 Chevy HHR (a pretty typical gas powered car).

I'd go on about not having to change the oil about every 12,000 miles but I have to admit that gas engines has REALLY improved in this area, the old every 3000 mile rule doesn't really exist anymore.

The only maintenance I have to do to the Jetta TDI is change the oil and replace the timing belt every 100,000 miles. If a person plans on keeping their vehicles until they're no longer viable as transportation, they will save you TONS of cash in the long run.

Re:Will it sell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Diesel fuel has to be 30% more expensive than gasoline to be at price parity for energy content. That means that if unleaded is $4.00/gallon, Diesel needs to be $5.20/gallon to cost the same for the energy content. Diesel will have a higher apparent price, but you get more bang for your buck. All that matters is BTUs/dollar and whether using the fuel will destroy your engine. Ethanol is corrosive and will cause problems, especially with liners in fuel tanks.

Re:Will it sell?

[slimjim8094]

What the hell are you talking about? Turbocharging only involves the exhaust and the air intake. A turbine in the exhaust stream is linked to a compressor for the air intake. There's no "process", it's a part. And maybe some tuning

The only reason it's so popular on diesels is because they're not much use without one. A turbo flattens out the curve so they work OK at high RPM

Re:Will it sell?

[Shadow99_1]

Because I happen to have the material that is from on hand...

"Diesel engines usually have longer stroke lengths in order to achieve the necessary compression ratios. As a result piston and connecting rods are heavier and more force must be transmitted through the connecting rods and crankshaft to change the momentum of the piston. This is another reason that a diesel engine must be stronger for the same power output as a petrol engine.

Yet it is this characteristic that has allowed some enthusiasts to acquire significant power increases with turbocharged engines by making fairly simple and inexpensive modifications. A petrol engine of similar size cannot put out a comparable power increase without extensive alterations because the stock components cannot withstand the higher stresses placed upon them. Since a diesel engine is already built to withstand higher levels of stress, it makes an ideal candidate for performance tuning at little expense. However, it should be said that any modification that raises the amount of fuel and air put through a diesel engine will increase its operating temperature, which will reduce its life and increase service requirements. These are issues with newer, lighter, high performance diesel engines which are not "overbuilt" to the degree of older engines and they are being pushed to provide greater power in smaller engines. The addition of a turbocharger or supercharger to the engine greatly assists in increasing fuel economy and power output, mitigating the fuel-air intake speed limit mentioned above for a given engine displacement. Boost pressures can be higher on diesels than on petrol engines, due to the latter's susceptibility to knock, and the higher compression ratio allows a diesel engine to be more efficient than a comparable spark ignition engine. Because the burned gases are expanded further in a diesel engine cylinder, the exhaust gas is cooler, meaning turbochargers require less cooling, and can be more reliable, than with spark-ignition engines.

With a diesel, boost pressure is essentially unlimited. It is literally possible to run as much boost as the engine will physically stand before breaking apart."

IE the design of a diesel engine is easier to use with turbocharging than gasoline with no real increase in cost.

Re:Will it sell?

[slimjim8094]

Alright. I misunderstood what you were talking about. Though I would like to note that (super or turbo)charging a gas engine is reasonably straightforward, and does help a lot. Natural aspiration only goes so far.

I have a (stock) supercharger on my '96 Oldsmobile (I know), and it makes a big horsepower difference - an extra 50hp or so. What you're saying is absolutely correct, but is more about the relative improvements between the two. You can push a diesel engine much further than a petrol engine because of exhaust characteristics, displacement, and their nature (high compression), but there's also different reasons to do it. Even very ordinary diesels are turbocharged because they don't work very well at high RPM otherwise. Petrol runs fine at high RPM to begin with, so you add extra charge to increase efficiency or power - not to make up for valleys in the power curve toward the top like a diesel.

So both you and the OP are absolutely right. Diesels do need a turbo to run well in a road car, which tends to do highway driving. And yes they do need an extra part. But the cost differences are mostly due to economics of scale of a diesel road-car sized engine, which there aren't many of in the US.

Re:Will it sell?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can drive a diesel like a madman and still get decent mileage.

You can't drive a hybrid like a sports car without breaking something or netting horrid economy.

Hybrids aren't good at all for highway mileage, a TDI will still beat a hybrid unless the hybrid is 1000lbs or more lighter.

Even with electric motors, a TDI will still out-torque a hybrid and feel more powerful to the driver.

Ignore EPA ratings on TDIs, American companies have lobbied to penalize TDI EPA MPG ratings. Buy a spanking new Jetta TDI rated at 43mpg, and realize the stock unbroken-in motor will get about 45 right off the showroom floor, and after about 25,000-30,000 miles, you'll start seeing 50-55mpg highway. It's well known.

Cars like that Jetta, come stock without all the fancy MPG boosting mods that the hybrids all have. For instance, the Jetta comes with the SAME basic tires that are on the gasser. No low rolling resistance tires, or aerodynamic underbody skid plates, or aggressively tuned ECU mappings. By tossing a tune on a Jetta, with some low resistance tires and skid plates, you can EASILY break 65-70mpg average on the highway while gaining torque and horsepower.

Hybrids are for people who don't know anything about cars or drive 100% in the city where they shine. A TDI can be modded to destroy hybrids in almost every area. (Car nut with an AWD 500+hp 4cylinder)

Re:Will it sell?

[drinkypoo]

This is kind of true, but on the other hand, this really isn't true; some diesels don't have much margin left for performance, while some gas engines have a ton. One good example is the Nissan KA24E, and to an even greater extent, the DOHC KA24DE. These engines are somewhat ubiquitous, make about 150BHP and 150 ft-lb (the twin cam makes another ten of each maybe, I prefer the single but DOHC parts are a little easier to find, if spendier) and are fairly reliable to about 300 rwhp on stock internals. One example of a motor that only takes limited turbocharging is the classic International-Navistar 6.9/7.3 used in Fords. Over about 11 psi and you start to round out wrist pins, even in the turbocharged motor where they are enlarged. This is a result of the high static compression of the motor; the Powerstroke 7.3 has the same bore and stroke and the same angle, and uses the same rods*, and yet can run vastly more boost. And you can put 11 psi onto nearly any fuel-injected gasser with minimal work if the manufacturer hasn't taken steps to prevent it, such as making it difficult to tamper with fuel maps. Some ECUs have apparently been pretty well hacked-up.

* Early 7.3 'strokes use "left over" forged rods which were used in the 1993/1994 7.3 IDI factory turbo, while later-model trucks have inferior powdered metal rods designed to reduce production costs.

Re:Will it sell?

[drinkypoo]

You should get a 1 micron filter sock off eBay for your oil, it is a lot better than a coffee filter and not very expensive.

Diesel goes bad if you leave it sitting around too, mostly from water, but there are actually pretty cheap additives which will make it keep quite a long time. On the other hand, it also gels in very cold climates, and enough additive to prevent that can be spendy, so if I lived in the far frozen north (like, way below zero) I would probably drive a gas truck.

Re:Will it sell?

[nblender]

I have plenty of filtration in my fuel system so I don't need extra. I also don't need additives. I fill my gerry cans in winter and I recently used one that I filled two years ago and my truck ran quite nicely so I don't agree with the assertion that 'diesel goes bad'... All fuel can get condensation in it but I keep my gerry cans full and I have a good filter that seperates any water out of the fuel. I also have no trouble starting my truck down at -40C, mostly because I use a Webasto. My truck is far more reliable than my wife's Honda Pilot at -40C.

Re:Will it sell?

[Anonymous Coward]

The popular 1.8L turbo engine Audi used in the late 1990s/early 2000s was said to be derived from a diesel engine, which is what made it nice and durable even when users "chipped" their cars to vastly increase the turbo pressures. It was a purely software upgrade to add 50-70 horsepower and pound-feet of torque with essentially no downside. This took my car from 150 to 200 HP.

There were much more dedicated enthusiasts who changed turbo, piping, manifolds, etc. and got the same 1.8L engine up to 400 HP or more. I think the ones who exceeded that had also done more like boring it out, changing the compression ratio, and strengthening bearings and connecting rods. I suspect some of those guys saw eventual downsides like melted pistons, fractured blocks, and worse...

Re:Will it sell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-diesels last a long longer than gas cars, too.

This isn't the 50s. Most motors, diesel or otherwise, are still running fine when a car is finally scrapped.

Re:Will it sell?

[drinkypoo]

Well, if you have some good absolute filters on your truck that's great. My truck has an IDI so it runs fine on crap old fuel, ditto for my car. I have little fear of running on anything clean that looks like it will inject in either of my vehicles. The truck has dual tanks, so it's quite convenient, although I really ought to swap one of them for a plastic tank if I'm going to run veg. I'm more interested in WMO right now, and am slowly assembling the parts for an in-truck filter system with an additional tank. PO apparently had a transfer tank and a fifth wheel; the transfer fitting to the front tank is still installed, so I should probably get a plastic front tank. I hope to put a plastic upright flat tank in the bed with shielding, and gravity feed it into the front tank which is only legal with diesel fuel and not with gasoline. I have some diamond plate aluminum to cover it with already (a step I pulled) and a truck box will go in front of it...

No soot with modern diesels

[Shivetya]

I have a 2010 Golf TDI, there is no soot, there is no smell either. Had a big doubter at work who spouted all those anti-diesel myths of days gone by come out with some others to see the car when I bought it. He even sat right behind the exhaust pipe when I started it and acknowledged all he could detect was hot air.

My commute is 26 miles to work, 27 on the way home; yeah its not the same, based on traffic patterns. I track my fuel usage on fueleconomy.gov and my average since June of 2010 has been 41.7. My commute has no interstate, there are some four lane areas but many more 45 and 35 mph two lane country roads past subdivisions and such.

My highest average over the commute in was 51.2, the lowest which only occurs on the way home was 37+. Acceleration is my mileage killer. If I catch every light green I can see some great numbers. Since I do not use an interstate or other limited access road I have alternatives and never get trapped in stop and go.

Another note, I pay the same as premium gasoline. However in two recent run ups in price Diesel stopped increasing in price and I actually saw regular gas cost more. Even when I pay $4 a gallon and regular is at $3.60 I do better than everything short of a Prius for efficiency. Most of the current 40+ crowd I see advertised are lucky to get above the low 30s consistently.

Only improvements I want to cars are regenerative braking and electric propulsion assist. I have two wheels that aren't powered. A small battery pack or something used only at launch would do wonders to overcome the losses I incur when accelerating from a stop. Plus I would not mind some of it back when I am stopping to aid that starting.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[Anonymous Coward]

...Had a big doubter at work who spouted all those anti-diesel myths of days gone by...

Keep in mind, that this is a Chev product. If you've seen any of their recent diesel pickups under acceleration, you'd realize the OP is probably correct - there will almost certainly be a cloud of pollution behind this thing from the stop light (note that this is not specific to Chev - Powerstrokes and Cummins are the same).

I had hoped Fiat would import some of that awesome European diesel technology in with the 500 (or even the gas engine that has eliminated the camshaft), but we're getting pretty standard fare so far. At least they kept the 500 an excellent small size.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad they don't make a hybrid diesel power plant with regenerative braking so you could get some of that power back when you were braking to boost acceleration again.

I bet that could get over 60mpg.

Plus during the end times you can run diesel engines off other fuels.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[Lonewolf666]

Only improvements I want to cars are regenerative braking and electric propulsion assist. I have two wheels that aren't powered. A small battery pack or something used only at launch would do wonders to overcome the losses I incur when accelerating from a stop. Plus I would not mind some of it back when I am stopping to aid that starting.

Those exist. The cars are called hybrids (the Prius for instance), and they use all the tricks you listed. Except for powering the other two wheels - instead the manufacturers install a rather sophisticated power transmission that lets both gasoline and electric motor work on the same wheels.

If a hybrid works for you depends on the driving pattern. Since you wrote that stopping and starting is your mileage killer, a hybrid might beat the TDI in your case. For me, it is different:
I use the suburban train for getting to work, but twice per month I drive about 150 miles overland to visit my mother. Very little stop and go there, usually I just coast at 70 mph. A hybrid would be wasted on that kind of driving.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely disagree. Can't say about your particular car at idle however...

All this marketing about smokeless 'modern' diesel engined cars is plain bollocks as far as I can tell. They are certainly better than they were in the 80s, but all of them, even the flash ones BMW, VW, Merc produce clouds of stinking smoke when they accelerate, especially hard on slip roads for example. If you have to follow one on the motorway, they stink. This is simply true. I see and smell it everyday. Great to drive though, especially larger engines.

I always used to laugh at the smokey vehicles in Thunderbirds, but they got the future right!

Was in the States recently (from UK), and it was very noticeable how much more pleasant it was to be in traffic, aromawise anyway.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[NJRoadfan]

Its very likely the new Jetta appears smokeless. The US has much stricter limits to the pollution diesel engines can put out, mostly because they have to meet the same EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 or CARB emission limits as petrol cars. Europe's standards are more lax on NOx emissions for example although the new Euro VI standards will likely close most of the gap (I have read it still isn't as strict as EPA regs). The Jetta is the only diesel passenger car here in the US that can meet the strict EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 and CARB requirements without the use of urea (BlueTec) exhaust treatment. The NOx trap it uses however is VERY expensive.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[DerekLyons]

A small battery pack or something used only at launch would do wonders to overcome the losses I incur when accelerating from a stop.

Only so long as the energy in that battery pack comes out of thin air - otherwise, you're paying from somewhere to charge it up. Even with regenerative braking, the bulk of this will come from the engine's alternator - taking a huge chunk out of any 'savings'. TANSTAAFL.
 

I have two wheels that aren't powered.

So what?

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[Anonymous Coward]

Also engine stop-start technology, that turns the engine off at the lights and restarts it when your foot leaves the brake.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[Anonymous Coward]

Regenerative braking with a resulting electric power assist on acceleration would DRASTICALLY improve mileage for those of us losers that drive more aggressively.
At least, it would if it weren't too heavy. I wonder if capacitors could be used instead of batteries, since the power doesn't have to sit in it for long.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[Anonymous Coward]

That is horrible mileage for a diesel.

I get 42-43 MPG with a, way too large for the vehicle, 1.5L gasoline engine in my 5 speed Yaris hatch back (only engine avail in the U.S.). I understand the smaller gasoline engine gets 50+MPG and the diesel option 60MPG+.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there's the inefficiency from the electric motors and the batteries, horrible idea.

Chevy was probably better with their piston assist.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget to point out one thing.

Car enthusiasts can get decent mileage from a TDI, without losing the torque and the ability to mod for more hp/torque.

Basically hybrid is best in city, TDI best on highway. But no hybrid is nearly as much fun to drive, and they usually lack a manual transmission which is commonly found on the TDIs.

So as someone who owns a Lancer Evolution, with a little 2.0 liter 4cylinder that boosts 28psi and makes 440 horsepower and 415 ft/lbs of torque. At just 3200rpm I already have 270 ft/lbs of torque and I basically have at least 340 ft/lbs from 3700 to redline. That's with full-time AWD which makes for a very fast corvette killer capable of low 11 second quarter mile times.

I wanted to replace my truck with a TDI for my daily driver. I evaluated everything, and only the Jetta TDI was a vehicle I could drive without hating life coming from the Evo. Enthusiasts like me are *not* going to be too interested in a Prius.... but a TDI with basic mods can hit 200hp and 350ft/lbs while still hitting 50+mpg on the highway.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[realityimpaired]

Too bad they don't make a hybrid diesel power plant with regenerative braking so you could get some of that power back when you were braking to boost acceleration again.

I bet that could get over 60mpg.

You're setting your sights too low. A 30-year old Mercedes Benz diesel can easily pull out 35-40mpg anyway. Topping 60mpg is not difficult for a modern turbodiesel, especially in a light-weight car. If you built a hybrid turbodiesel and designed it right, 100mpg should be achievable.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[kimvette]

How is performance though? Also, is the exhaust still clean or does it spew out choking soot when you accelerate? A clean exhaust at idle is one thing. How clean is it under load with the throttle open, whether you're carrying groceries, climbing a hill or mountain, or simply driving in a spirited manner through some nice twisty roads?

I know diesels are supposed to be torque monsters but when I look at the claimed numbers as well as third party road tests for the BMW 335, the 335d offers vastly inferior performance compared to the 335i, the 335xi. and of course the 335is. Between the lacking performance, higher MSRP, and less available of diesel vs. gasoline (petrol to you euro folks) here, I see little to no advantage in going diesel. Oh, and I haven't seen diesel priced below gasoline in years. :-(

I second your opinion about hybrid tech - it should be made available at some level in all cars. I'd love to get a hybrid version of the Saab 9-3 XWD or a BMW 335i or ix, where the hybrid tech can both economy, and performance when desired.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[d3vi1]

Most modern diesels give clouds of smoke only when the particulate filter is regenerating in the absence of proper fuel additives. Diesel particulate filters burn the particles during regeneration. The burning temperature is 600 Centigrade, which is not easily attainable in a filter unless you have some sort of a fuel burner in the exhaust. If you use proper Euro 5 diesel fuel in your car, it already contains the proper catalysts and the burn temperature drops to 300-400 centigrade, which is something that you would see in the exhaust system. If you see a modern BMW, VW or Mercedes giving occasional black smoke clouds it means that the driver is going for the cheap diesel fuel instead of the one recommended by the manufacturer. Euro5 diesel fuel is supposed to be mandatory soon enough so we are getting rid of this problem.
Regarding the smell, I have some serious doubts. You either have an inhuman smell or you forgot to wash your hands while leaving the petrol station. Modern diesels don't smell! Ever!

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[0100010001010011]

WRONG. If it's a "new" diesel, it has to meet new EPA regulations. Meaning it's going to have high EGR or a DPF. There will be no soot. Powerstrokes and Cummins are the exact same way find a post 2007 truck, any one. They all lack the soot.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[Entropius]

Do you have no idea how regenerative braking works?

That energy comes from the kinetic energy of the car when you stop, in large part. Rather than dissipating the kinetic energy of the car as heat (which is what happens when a normal car stops), it is used to power a generator and dumped into batteries, used to start the car moving again.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[dyshexic]

first off i drive a 15 year old B4 IZ Passat in the UK, its a 1.9 common rail design and I love it being a diesel, it designed for German roads so does 80mph in 4th and bimbles along in 5th. But it does have smoke and particulate issues and thus is banned from many central area of German cities which will rapidly roll-out across Europe in the next few years.

You may already do this BUT
I thought I should point out an issue with your particle trap - RTFM - you must run it at high revs with a cleaning agent every so often to burn off the particles in your particle trap. If you fail to do so it WILL become blocked and it's an expensive and obviously unnecessary garage bill.

BTW the reason Diesel is expensive is because everybody uses it, gas/petrol is a side product from production. Although VW don't like people doing it, its perfectly possible to run your car on vegetable either fresh or recycled but you must remember to change the fuel filter after a while as the veg oil tends to dissolve the gunk in your fuel system and leading to it ending up in your fuel filter

the one thing i hope is that European and far east manufactures will start selling you in the states the sizes of engine we get over here. The latest 1.6litre blu-motion (urea additive) passat's have a higher list KW than my 1.9 passat and I have no problem doing 110Mph on German unrestricted autobahnen and that was with 4 people on board and a load of luggage in my station wagon.

Btw i get about 10 miles per litre on average in my 1.9 passat station wagon that based on mostly urban sometimes highway driving. So that's a bit less than 40 mpg (US) - not bad for a 15 year old car that has driven to the moon (~240,000 miles)

Apparently VW has worked out that hybrid diesel makes sense as diesel typically need bigger batteries anyway, so apparently hybrids will increasingly be seen as will the regenerative braking ideas derived from formula 1.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[HereIAmJH]

I thought I should point out an issue with your particle trap - RTFM - you must run it at high revs with a cleaning agent every so often to burn off the particles in your particle trap.

US diesels with particulate traps have an auto cleaning system. They inject urea into the exhaust as needed to burn off excess soot.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[thegarbz]

I have a 2010 Golf TDI, there is no soot, there is no smell either.

Even in modern diesels like yours there is still soot when you push them hard. Two of my friends have Golf TDIs, 2008 and 2010 models. Both blow a small black cloud when it the foot really gets planted down.

Agree there's no bad diesel smell though. All around very pleasant cars even when standing at the lights behind a hoon.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[pieterbos]

That's why you get one with a filter installed. No more black clouds, and the filters clean them self in regular usage.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[DerekLyons]

Yes, I know how regenerative braking works.

You have no idea how the laws of thermodynamics work. Regenerative braking isn't magic - you can never recover as much energy from braking as you put into accelerating the vehicle.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[bhtooefr]

Keep in mind that many diesel truck owners, the first thing that they do once they buy it is, rip off the emissions control devices (in itself, not an awful idea for long-term reliability and efficiency, if everything is tuned properly afterwards) and turn up the fueling so that they can make clouds of smoke, the fucking idiots.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[bhtooefr]

Maybe if it's a 240D with a manual trans, or a W201 with the 2.2 and a manual.

The models that have enough power for people to want to drive, like the W123 300D Turbo, W124 300D Turbo, W210 diesels (preferably the turbos), and the various W126 diesels... no.

30 MPG is good, 20 MPG isn't awful. (But, with a gas engine, those cars would get 5-10 MPG worse.)

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[bhtooefr]

Your Yaris is also a good 500 pounds lighter, and a far worse car to drive than the Golf.

Compare apples to apples, you'd need a Polo to compare fairly against the Yaris. Or, a Yaris D4-D.

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[bhtooefr]

Modern particulate filter-equipped diesels don't emit smoke, ever, unless something's broken or removed. The tailpipes are clean enough to eat off of.

Also, diesels have less horsepower, which usually means that they'll be slower (although, due to the torque curve, they can apply their lower horsepower over a longer time, so they're not as slow as the low horsepower indicates.) But, the torque means that when you step on it, it pushes you back in your seat better. And, in the 335d vs. 335i comparison, our 335d got choked badly by US emissions regulations. If you're in a state that doesn't care, find someone who can chip it for you, and get it back to Euro power levels or better, without removing emissions equipment (or more, if you do remove it, and then you'll get better fuel economy, too.)

Re:No soot with modern diesels

[bhtooefr]

The "cleaning agent" is diesel fuel. Slowly burns in a catalyst, gets extremely hot, and burns up the particulate matter.

Urea is for another system, further downstream.

It is a question of tax models

[jeskata]

In Finland (and many other European countries) we have an annual diesel tax (around 500e on a mid sized car, weight dependent). On the other hand, diesel costs (yesterday average) 1.379e/l and 95 octane gasoline 1.586e/l. So with the same mid sized car you have to drive around 10 000 km per year to break even.

Re:It is a question of tax models

[h4rr4r]

In the USA people drive about 12000 miles per year, which is about 20000 km.

Re:It is a question of tax models

[jeskata]

Silliest thing is, atleast in Finland they collect this tax on electric vehicles too (not hybrids though). I stick to gasoline since I drive around 8000 km per year.

OMG Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Burning diesel produces more CO2 than burning gasoline because the diesel molecule has relatively more carbons and fewer hydrogens than the gasoline molecule.

If you believe that CO2 controls the climate, you will believe that diesel is an evil fuel and natural gas is less evil in terms of global warming. Think of the children.

Re:OMG Global Warming

[h4rr4r]

You are comparing the wrong thing. You should compare Co2 released per mile of travel as opposed to per gallon of fuel.

No Ignition System

[SIGBUS]

Diesels don't rely on coils and spark plugs. The compression ratio is high enough that the air heats sufficiently during the compression stroke to make the fuel autoignite when it is injected into the cylinder at/near top dead center. On the other hand, that means the injector pumps (or single pump in a common-rail system) must develop extremely high pressure in order to actually inject the fuel.

For cold starting, there are glow plugs to help heat the air - they are basically heating elements.

Chevy Cruize

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't chevrolet owned by GM? Then, it could be the same 'Holden' Cruize that we get in Australia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Cruze#Holden_Cruze

Tragically, it will fail

[damn_registrars]

Three things will almost guarantee it to fail:

• Many US consumers still think of the 70s/80s diesel monstrosities that the big three were making
• GM won't market it worth a damn - see the Jeep Liberty Diesel as a good example of a good product that wasn't marketed for shit
• Dealers won't carry it because they don't want to confuse their customers

Which is too bad, because it could be a great vehicle for a lot of people who want better fuel economy with excellent reliability and tremendous range.

Diesel Ford Focus

[Y-Crate]

Whatever happened to Ford's plans to sell a diesel Focus in the U.S. by 2006 or so? I remember that it was a Big Thing for a while, then just... never materialized.

Re:Diesel Ford Focus

[Golden_Rider]

Whatever happened to Ford's plans to sell a diesel Focus in the U.S. by 2006 or so? I remember that it was a Big Thing for a while, then just... never materialized.

That's too bad, Ford makes quite decent diesel engines. My father used to have a Focus 2.0 TDci sport back in 2004 or so, it had something like 130-140 hp, went really well and had very decent handling (because of the sporty suspension), I just never really cared much for Ford's interior design, all very cheap looking,

Re:Diesel Ford Focus

[NJRoadfan]

Nissan hinted as a diesel powered Maxima for the US market too, those plans seem to have disappeared.

Re:Diesel Ford Focus

[toddestan]

Nissan did sell a diesel-based Maxima in the early 80's for a short period of time in the US, or are you referring to something else?

Re:Diesel Ford Focus

[NJRoadfan]

I'm well aware of the 1982 model, Nissan had plans to release the current generation with a diesel engine option.

Semi-automatic transmission

[manekineko2]

These exist and are found in some cars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_transmission

Wikipedia answer these questions

[perpenso]

There has to be some sort of ignition system [to worry about :-].

"A diesel engine (also known as a compression-ignition engine) is an internal combustion engine that uses the heat of compression to initiate ignition to burn the fuel, which is injected into the combustion chamber. This is in contrast to spark-ignition engines such as a petrol engine (gasoline engine) or gas engine (using a gaseous fuel as opposed to gasoline), which uses a spark plug to ignite an air-fuel mixture"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine

I wonder how well this car will start in -20F weather.

"In cold weather, high speed diesel engines can be difficult to start because the mass of the cylinder block and cylinder head absorb the heat of compression, preventing ignition due to the higher surface-to-volume ratio. Pre-chambered engines make use of small electric heaters inside the pre-chambers called glowplugs, while the direct-injected engines have these glowplugs in the combustion chamber. These engines also generally have a higher compression ratio of 19:1 to 21:1. Low-speed and compressed-air-started larger and intermediate-speed diesels do not have glowplugs and compression ratios are around 16:1 ... Recent direct-injection systems are advanced to the extent that pre-chambers systems are not needed by using a common rail fuel system with electronic fuel injection."

"Diesel fuel is also prone to waxing or gelling in cold weather; both are terms for the solidification of diesel oil into a partially crystalline state. The crystals build up in the fuel line (especially in fuel filters), eventually starving the engine of fuel and causing it to stop running. Low-output electric heaters in fuel tanks and around fuel lines are used to solve this problem. Also, most engines have a spill return system, by which any excess fuel from the injector pump and injectors is returned to the fuel tank. Once the engine has warmed, returning warm fuel prevents waxing in the tank. Due to improvements in fuel technology with additives, waxing rarely occurs in all but the coldest weather when a mix of diesel and kerosene should be used to run a vehicle."

Diesel Success Story

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 80's I had to commute between Dallas and Houston every 2 weeks. I bought an Isuzu I-Mark with a diesel engine. It got over 50mpg. It did not have a turbo so it was a little slow on acceleration but it could cruise at 80mph no problem. At that time diesel was cheaper than regular. The only maintenance I did was change the oil every 3000 miles and changed the timing belt 1 time. There was no soot. You did hear a diesel sound outside the car when idling but inside it was well insulated from sound. It could pull my camper up hills better than my van. The engine could have gone for 200,000 miles but the body started giving out about 130,000 miles. I sold it.

Auto vs Manual

[scorp1us]

Over 90% of vehicles are automatics, and I don't know if this is chicken or egg situation .Less models offer manual as an option - is that manufacturer's choice or buyers? For autos, the manufacturer can control power and torque better, making transmissions cheaper to manufacture. Example: in the old days, you could rev it and drop the clutch in a manual or shift into drive in an auto. Your transmission had to handle this peak situation. Now, the auto transmission will delay engagement or bring the power on more slowly than that - meaning the transmission can use cheaper parts because you will only ever use 80% of what is possible.

The same thing is being applied to over-all efficiency. By delaying gratification and taking the driver's style out of the shifting equation, the manuf can get more consistent performance and wear while getting higher MPGs. It's better all around, save for driver freedom. (See Top Gear's M3 vs Prius mileage test (REQUIRED VIEWING)

So the days of manual transmission are limited.

Re:Auto vs Manual

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe diesel cars are very popular, as well as manual transmission. I would say about 80% cars have a manual transmission and 40% have diesel engines. And they consistently provide better mileage than US gasoline cars with auto transmission. Please have a look at http://spritmonitor.de where people publish their fuel consumption statistics. 50-60 mpg is common for small diesel cars and many reach 65-70 mpg. With a manual transmission driver can make a better use of his engine and as a consequence smaller and more fuel efficient engines can be used - but of course they're not so easy to drive.

Re:Auto vs Manual

[tkrotchko]

" Now, the auto transmission will delay engagement or bring the power on more slowly than that - meaning the transmission can use cheaper parts because you will only ever use 80% of what is possible."

Yes, and its damned annoying. When I was buying my last car, the salesman was trying to convince me to buy the auto (they had lots of them on the lot).

I got to a stop sign and floored the gas. You know what happened? Nothing. The computer decided I couldn't possibly mean that I wanted to accelerate fast. So it spooled up almost a second later and gave me spritely acceleration.

So we took the manual transmission out, and I revved it and dropped the clutch and even with traction control, it immediately took off and hard. The car, would spin the wheels on gear changes if you so chose all the way up through 4th.

I asked "How can people drive a car where it doesn't do precisely what they tell it to?"?

The salesman just said "Okay, we'll order what you want".

No wonder people view driving as a chore. It is with an automatic transmission.

(and to save you the question, I drive in heavy traffic all the time, and no your leg does not get tired)

Re:Auto vs Manual

[tkrotchko]

The only exception to this might be a diesel that is tuned to provide torque in a narrow power band; an automatic transmission might provide a better match to road conditions under various conditions.

Re:Auto vs Manual

[Shadow99_1]

Just to start I know how to drive a manual, but I've never owned one. That said I've never had acceleration problems with automatics. A common trick if the transmission doesn't give the power you want is to double tap the gas. It's worked on four of the 6 cars I've owned (And I never tried on the other two, so I can't say if it would have or not).

I haven't bought a manual transmission car, because I don't buy used here in the US... I'm more likely to get what I want at a good price in automatic transmission over manual. The reason is simple, most cars sold are automatics here and so the availability is high. My parents have always done the same, so I guess I learned it from them.

I've also never thought driving a manual would tire your leg btw...

Re:Auto vs Manual

[couchslug]

Modern automatics are heavy and very expensive, as well as expensive to rebuild.

"making transmissions cheaper to manufacture." is doubtful, since they are ever more complicated.

TCO

[Anonymous Coward]

The main article of cost with most any vehicle is DEPRECIATION. Fuel comes second. Then the insurance, repair and maintenance. Diesels usually cost more, and although the fuel is cheaper, and fuel usage is lower, the depreciation cost is higher and so is maintenance. Plus various reliability issues like problems stemming from using low quality diesel (can break the pump and cost $$$ to repare) or cold weather issues etc.

Thus, when comparing vehicles, compare TCO or Total Cost of Ownership. Nothing much else (not accounting for taste aspects..) matters for you as a consumer. You want to buy miles from A to B and your average mile cost is what you pay. Take out your favourite spreadsheet program and add it all up to find out what your average mile really costs for you and then you'll know. Of course there is no telling what the fuel price will be so when your calculations are over a period of say 5 years, then you most probably need to consider that fuel will cost considerably more after 5 years. Oh and when you're at it, don't forget inflation :)

Re:TCO

[couchslug]

"The main article of cost with most any vehicle is DEPRECIATION."

That's why I never bought a new car or truck. The joy of paying off mortgage(s) early beats buying a rapidly depreciating asset.

Myth: Re:No soot with modern diesels

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no *visible* soot. The trouble with modern diesels (I drive a rather old 2003 VW Golf, 155hp, almost 400Nm@2100 Rpm) is, the filtered exhaust gasses are filtered using a particle filter - which holds back all of the visible soot and some of the troublesome finer particles - those that penetrate your lungs and cause cancer in there. So yes, you don't see much soot - but visible soot is not a health concern. Invisible soot is.

GM Is Not Wearing Any Clothes!

[LifesABeach]

Only Cain would appreciate how GM dealt with Saturn. And now another Ho-Hum GM Diesel? It appears that electrical and fuel cell solutions are just beyond the chevy engineers grasp; it must be very frustrating. Is saying "Renewable" a firing offense at GM?

Almost as good as my civic

[nido]

My 1994 Civic VX was stickered for 56mpg on the highway. I've averaged about 45 mpg over the past 80,000 miles... I think it's quite good for a car with 212,000 total. I think it'd do better without the ethanol...

The Civic VX burns "lean" sorta like a diesel... 5 wire oxygen sensor costs about $600.

California Emissions didn't like how the engine put out a lot of the NOx when doing the leanburn trick, so the Civic VX was neutered in 1996 to become the Civic HX, Someone here said the Japanese Civic HX was good for 70mpg - it had lean burn and a CVT...

Honda brought Lean Burn back for the 1st generation Insight in 1999. The 5-spd was good for 70mpg highway. The CVT insight didn't have lean burn, and only got 50-something. A few years later Honda figured out a catalyst to break down the NOx, and incorporated lean burn (that the air regulators are happy with) into all the Civic Hybrids.

The point here is that it's possible to make a gas engine that gets the economy of diesel, but Honda only uses this feature in their hybrids (and the mpg on these is rather poor compared to what they used to sell). Wonder why that is.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENTS IN1992 HONDA CIVIC HATCHBACKS

No diesel cars at all?

[DrXym]

That's frankly insane. They're very popular in Europe and function perfectly well.

I have a large diesel estate and I get 47 mpg imperial / 40 mpg US out of it. That's not theoretical but from the trip computer. It's 25-30% better mileage over the equivalent petrol model for virtually no difference in performance.

Re:No diesel cars at all?

[shutdown -p now]

I wouldn't say there are none at all - I do see a fair few TDI Jettas and Golfs on the road. But they are definitely in minority.

Higher fuel prices in US will drive diesel sales

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the rest of the world has had a very significant proportion of diesel vehicle sales for quite a long time. As usual, the US is behind more developed nations when it comes to diesel adoption, in large part due to:
1. low fuel prices
2. government corruption that has lead to failure to regulate of oil companies - and as a result, shoddy fuel standards, that allow diesel fuel that is of such poor quality that it can not meet emission regulations in modern engines.
Even in the United Kingdom, more than half of new vehicles are diesel, despite diesel costing slightly more as a result of a higher tax on diesel fuel (it is actually cheaper to refine). In other European countries, this proportion is even higher.

Why is diesel fuel so expensive?

[walterbyrd]

I can remember when diesel fuel cost about half as much as regular gasoline.

Re:Why is diesel fuel so expensive?

[DCFusor]

Because most diesel fuel is used in big trucks, which do a lot more damage to roads than cars do for the same fuel consumption, and the tax is applied accordingly. The diesel is actually easier to refine crude into than gasoline and cheaper to make -- the rest the government gets. FWIW, I own a brand new 2011 cruze LT (gasoline), and I love the thing. It gets 31 mpg driving in the mountains, no highway miles at all, and that engine is about as high tech as it gets. To get the zippy performance, this engine is tuned for a narrow power band, but this doesn't matter with the great tranny it has. Once the turbo spins up a little, it's quick as you'd ever need -- not as quick as my 2010 Camaro SS, but fine for non competitive driving. All that talk of torque is silly. The engine isn't connected direct to the tires, it goes through an impedance matching device called a transmission. The comparison above is like comparing watts (horsepower) and amps (torque), without mentioning voltage -- volts times amps equals watts....doh.

Re:Why is diesel fuel so expensive?

[Shadow99_1]

I own a 'heavy' Chrysler LHS that is 12 years old and get 32 MPG in relatively similiar conditions. By what your saying I'm not terribly impressed by your 2011 Cruze...

Re:Why is diesel fuel so expensive?

[LunaticTippy]

The taxes vary from state to state, but US averages are 5.5 cents per gallon higher for diesel. That is not significant when fuel is ~$3.50/gal. I've heard oil industry people say that it is due to refinery capacity issues.

the price is not a down side in cars

[RingDev]

I paid $21.5k for my 06 VW TDi Golf. At the same time the same model with the eco 4 cylinder gas engine was selling for just a hair over $19k.

I get 45 miles per gallon, and I drive like my feet are made of led. I put 40 miles of interstate driving on to my car twice every day. Toss in a few random arrands and I'm easily doing 350+ miles per week. But I usually get 650-700 miles per tank. Only having to fill up every other week really takes the edge off of fuel price hikes. I bumped into a hyper miler last summer in an 06 Jetta TDi (sedan version of the Golf) he was getting 56mpg, and he was going to swap his 5th gear for a higher ratio and was projecting 60+ mpg.

In 2010, my wife's car died. So we figured we'd get her a new one in the cash-for-clunkers deal. Only I wasn't about to shell out $500+ in car payments. So we went to the bank to see about refinancing the Golf. That's right, a CAR with enough equity to be able to refinance. With 40k miles and 4 years on it, it still blue booked for $17k. Compared to the gas version that had a KBB value in the $10-12k range.

So yeah, the Diesel engine costs more. But if you intent on reselling your car in 5 years or so, you'll come out up on the deal. And if you don't intend to sell it, you'll come out ahead on fuel savings over the life of the car.

Re:the price is not a down side in cars

[Anonymous Coward]

like my feet are made of led

Brilliant!

Re:the price is not a down side in cars

[couchslug]

Don't make the mistake of thinking the outstanding ____Volkswagen____diesel engine benefits translate to other makers diesels!

VW diesels have always been tough, even the primitive naturally aspirated 1980s versions.

VW also has a LARGE and enthusiastic owner base with good internet forums. Parts availability is good too.

Diesel MPG != Gasoline MPG

[ramk13]

I don't understand how everyone always compares Diesel MPG to Gasoline MPG. They aren't the same thing!

From: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency )
Regular gasoline/petrol - 34.8 megajoules/L
Diesel - 38.6 megajoules/L
Diesel has almost 11% more energy per liter than gasoline. To get to mileage you have to factor in the efficiency of the engine and the rest of the car, but even then the difference should be acknowledged. Whether the energy difference makes it 'better' is also a separate question.

You can't compare the two MPG directly with any meaning. If you said it was cheaper per mile (accounting for the relative price of the two fuels) then you would at least have some practical benchmark, but who cares about the actual volume of fuel you use??? They need to be compared on a sensible basis, and volume of fuel makes no sense at all.

What about clean coal ?

[bugs2squash]

Isn't that what diesel originally ran his engines on.

Re:What about clean coal ?

[shutdown -p now]

No, it's what he was originally commissioned to make an engine to run on, but he never actually made such a thing.

Re:What about clean coal ?

[Shadow99_1]

I've looked into the idea of a Internal Combustion Engine run on liquefied coal (actually finely ground 'sand'-like coal). It actually worked pretty well except for one thing. The fuel pump would clog or fail to work correctly so often everyone working on such things gave up. Never specifically looked at Diesel's engines, but I've seen a scattering of designs from the turn of last century on the topic.

Oddly we could probably build a working model today, but their is no real demand and it isn't likely to be terribly efficient compared to modern ICE engines we already have...

Yes, but irrelevant to my point

[tkrotchko]

The premium for the 335d over the other 3 series is close to $10K, so the diesel in this case is considered a premium option.

It won't save you any money, although you may enjoy the amazing low-RPM torque.

I prefer BMW's normally aspirated 3.0L engine in the car.

Vehicles with similar horsepower

[sjbe]

I think you mean $/Joule.

No I said what I meant. There is a reason vehicles engines have horsepower ratings and not energy ratings.

Watt is a unit of power--which is energy per unit time.

It is the application of energy over time that matters when propelling a vehicle. Power is the rate at which work is performed. Work in this case is moving a vehicle. And regardless of the unit of time you use, diesel contains more energy and thus more power per volumetric unit than gasoline.

If you give me two cars that have the same horsepower, one being a diesel and one being a gasoline engine, generally the diesel will go 10-20% farther on the same volume of fuel. That is why comparisons of the price of diesel to the price of gasoline make little sense unless you are talking about vehicles with similar horsepower.

Physics

[sjbe]

All wheel drive ( which is what the BMW has, and which is quite different from four wheel drive )
adds considerable stability while driving at constant speed in the wet, or in snow, or on ice.

AWD also helps stability in dry conditions too. Nevertheless, by definition at constant speed or under straight line braking, AWD and 4WD systems are doing nothing different than a 2WD system. It is a DRIVE system - propulsive force. There are many, many sources which will explain this fact. Don't confuse traction control with AWD either.

All wheel drive also helps keep a car stable when braking and during cornering.

It can't help during braking. No propulsive force is (or should be) going to the wheels during straight line braking. AWD does help during cornering because CORNERING IS ACCELERATION. Any curved motion is by definition acceleration. Physics 101.

Seriously, I don't know
where you got your ideas about "four wheel drive" but you don't have a clue about vehicle dynamics in the
real world

Where did I get my ideas? Working at an automotive test track testing SUVs as an engineer. Are we done with the smartass attitude yet?

Of course I live in the Northeastern US and drive in snow and ice many times a year, and I hold
an SCCA competition license, but I'm sure your time spent playing Gran Turismo trumps any real-world experience
I have, right ?

And I live in a snowbelt along one of the great lakes, have driven in snow and ice for over 25 years, and have worked as an automotive test engineer testing vehicle stability. SCCA competition doesn't mean you know a thing about physics.

diesel Cruze already available in europ

[Golden_Rider]

If this article is about the same diesel engine which is already on sale in europe, then it is this here: http://www.chevrolet.de/modelle/cruze/cruze-limousine/ausstattungen-und-tech-daten.html (check the LT 2.0 MT / AT engine options).

I've actually driven one

[Rockenreno]

Last summer I rented a diesel Cruze while vacationing in Spain and France and it was not a bad little car. The gearbox was surprisingly good and the grunt was sufficient for travel in Europe. Of course the handling and power were pretty awful, but for an around-town car, especially in traffic or hilly areas when you need some torque, it was a downright useful car.

Automatics waste gas

[bussdriver]

Automatic transmissions need an upgrade. There is no good reason we shouldn't all have manual gearboxes with optional automatic computer shifted gearboxes... I'm not talking about the Smart which has a really poor one (even for a manual the computer just makes it even worse.) Race cars have computer controlled manual transmissions and why can't we? Have you seen the nightmare that makes up an automatic transmission? I have. Its really smart but it is a Rube Goldberg Machine compared to computer controlled system.

A computer can out shift a human already; this tech should be put into cars and it likely is cheaper to implement. Higher end cars could continue with their silly simulated manual stick shifters...

It amazes me we have not seen sleeker designs, smooth undersides, "hi tech" transmissions, more diesel, flywheels (volvo maybe,) removable seats (4 door cars to save weight; now minivans are folding them away not sure they remove anymore.) When I had a minivan, it ran without seats most the time and it made a difference; my tiny car would likely see more of a gain...

http://www.metrompg.com/

Re:Automatics waste gas

[Dixie_Flatline]

Automatics don't waste fuel, torque converters waste fuel.

The design you're talking about is commonly referred to as a "dual-clutch" gearbox. When you're in gear, the transmission also simultaneously selects the next gear in line, when you (or it) shifts, it disengages the current gear and puts the "on-deck" gear into play. The shifts are fast and nearly imperceptible.

VW markets this as a DSG transmission. You'll find it under various names. You can often get a car with such a transmission with paddles on the steering wheel (the so-called "flappy-paddle gearbox"), so you don't have to reach down to the transmission lever to shift.

It's all very clever. This system allows for both automatic shifting by the car, OR semi-automatic control by the driver (within certain constraints; most systems won't let you select a gear that will damage the engine).

Re:Automatics waste gas

[bussdriver]

So why can't we avoid the torque converters on the automatics? The manuals in these small cars eat up a lot of gas-- must be some reason why they don't put some time into that instead of just playing with the other stuff.

My only experience is helping with an early 80s automatic transmission which was a mess of crazy hydraulics and was losing a few hundred hp between engine and wheels (it ended up replaced.)

Re:Automatics waste gas

[Dixie_Flatline]

Well, the DSG design will slowly supplant the ordinary torque converter. It was a decent solution for the time, but it's not great anymore. It's just a matter of cost and adoption. It's harder, obviously, to make a DSG transmission because it involves a computer working very quickly to swap cogs in and out, whereas a torque converter is just a mechanical solution.

Diesels in the Uk

[dyshexic]

Buying a car second hand obliviates the extra cost

I always buy diesel when i am abroad,

are you sure that the tax is the same on both as diesel is typically about 4p a litre more expensive?

Btw for those of you stateside I am currently paying £1.40 a litre which means I'm paying about $8 a gallon

Re:Diesels in the Uk

[darthdavid]

The word you were looking for is 'obviate'. Obliviate is the memory spell from Harry Potter...

Re:Diesels in the Uk

[oobayly]

are you sure that the tax is the same on both as diesel is typically about 4p a litre more expensive?

Yup, as stated from HMRC. Diesel had less duty up until 2009ish. I recokon that when the duty was equalised, prices were modified to so as to keep diesel more expensive than petrol.

Ditto

[Goonie]

I have a Polo GTI. Around the city, you can drive it like an auto; it's not quite as smooth off the line as an auto or a well-driven manual, but it's fine. At any other time, it shifts faster and more smoothly than I could hope to manage. Its auto modes (normal and sport) are very good; paddle shifting is fun but almost redundant, in sports mode it's in pretty much the gear you want all the time.

Diesel Cruze in Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Having driven one of these (the diesel models have been in Aus for over 12 months now), I can honestly say that they got something right. It is quiet, a little laggy of the mark (normal for a turbo diesel), but once you get up and going, the 6-speed manual is VERY punchy and doesn't feel like a diesel to drive. Some of you are concerned about the exhaust system - here in Aus, a system exists to remove waste prior to the gasses being let out. The waste is burnt off intermmittently in a 'cleaning' mode. The result - cleaner exhaust emissions. No visible smoke when accelerting either! Test drive one - you won't be disappointed! Note: the same cleaning system already exists on the VW TDis in the US. Oh - and you can get around 1000 km (620 miles) to a full tank of diesel on the highway.

Torque BS

[ormondotvos]

The two commonest dumb driving statements are 1) More rubber on the road gives more traction and 2) Torque is more important than horsepower. I won't even tell you why. You know or you don't.

so many misconceptions...

[pieterbos]

Clearly you Americans haven't seen, heard or driven a Diesel engine in recent times. A modern diesel:

- does not emit black clouds when accelerating (the filters work great and clean themselves)
- does not smell bad
- does accelerate quite well
- does not make lots of noise, although when cold more than a gas powered car
- starts even in rather cold weather
- doesn't need to be 6 or 7 liters, you can use a 1.4 or 1.6 liter turbodiesel engine on smaller cars, up to a 3 liter if you really need over 200 horsepower.
- has a very good mileage (70 mpg is possible with some of the smaller cars)

however, they are a lot more expensive to buy. Around here with a diesel, you pay less tax on the fuel (diesel is 1.28 euro a liter, gasoline is 1.60 euro), but more tax anually. So it's only interesting if you drive enough kilometers a year (i think around 18.000 km a year is enough). And the ones with very good mileageare tax exempt, so that's different. Of course, this tax bit does not apply to the US, or even other countries in Europe.

Re:so many misconceptions...

[brinkie]

Pieter, there is more Europe than just the Netherlands where you (and I) are from. Tax situations and fuel prices do differ from country to country. In France, for instance, approximately half the passenger cars are diesel powered, because the tax on them is the same. In The Netherlands it's only economical to switch to diesel if you will do more than approximately 30.000 kms a year, due to excessive sales tax for diesel cars and excessive road tax, unless you buy a four-wheeled moped like the Volkswagen Polo 1.2 TDI, which is tax exempt but takes all the fun out of driving. And don't forget the car that sparked this discussion is nothing more or less than a successor to the Daewoo Lacetti with an Italian (VM Motori) diesel engine. So there's not much American to this car, apart from its Chevrolet badge.

gasoline version

[Anonymous Coward]

My gasoline cruze eco averages about 55/38, which is well over the epa estimate. I'd like some real world numbers on the diesel before I rushed out and bought one when the gasoline version is already a fuel miser.

ROI

[kehren77]

Pricing information would have been helpful for this article. A big piece of whether or not a diesel Cruze will sell in the US is what the initial cost is and how long before the owner sees a return on the investment.

Right now, regular unleaded is $3.74 at the corner station and diesel is $3.99. Unless the diesel Cruze is the same price or cheaper than the Eco Cruze, then there really is no incentive to the US consumer to buy it.

Good idea

[black soap]

It is much easier and more cost-effective to manufacture diesel substitutes than it is to make gasoline substitutes. Ethanol for fuel is a scam, bring on the diesel.

That said, I'm still waiting for Subaru to bring their Turbodiesel to the US market. I would buy one instantly. They just don't seem to want to sell them.