Bad News for Diesel: Cost- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 53 of 53
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Killroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908

    Bad News for Diesel: Cost

    http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03...ine-in-europe/

    A commenter said it best, "another nail in the coffin for fossil fuels"

    If diesel is going to be more expensive in the EU, then diesel is going to have a hard time making a comeback in the States. The difficulties are expensive exhaust treatments to meet tier II/ bin 5, and the diesel fuel costs more because of equal taxing where across the pond, diesel gets a tax break.
    Last edited by Killroy; 03-20-2008 at 05:54 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: A1an's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,927
    Curious to see just how high it gets. It was up to $3.94/gallon at my local gas station...a full 70 cents higher than regular 87. My wife was all excited about the upcoming diesel Jetta wagon as a possible replacement for her '07 Rabbit. If diesel continues to rise faster than regular petrol then we may have to think twice. Between the extra cost to buy the diesel motor option AND the extra cost of the gas, there may not be that much of an overall advantage over the normal 5-cylinder. It is almost like buying a Hybrid...higher initial cost that takes YEARS to recoup.
    Signature

  3. #3
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    Heh....

    Quote Originally Posted by A1an
    Curious to see just how high it gets. It was up to $3.94/gallon at my local gas station...a full 70 cents higher than regular 87. My wife was all excited about the upcoming diesel Jetta wagon as a possible replacement for her '07 Rabbit. If diesel continues to rise faster than regular petrol then we may have to think twice. Between the extra cost to buy the diesel motor option AND the extra cost of the gas, there may not be that much of an overall advantage over the normal 5-cylinder. It is almost like buying a Hybrid...higher initial cost that takes YEARS to recoup.
    Did you see that VW showed a diesel hybrid Golf at the Geneva auto show? They say 69 MPG, a 74hp 3 cyl TDI with a 25HP electric motor, pushing the VW 7 speed DSG dual clutch no-pedal transmission.

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...tdi-geneva.php

    I wonder how this is going to shake down.

    I dunno. I think pretty soon we are all going to be driving 2000 pound cars with a top speed of 70 mph, 0-60 in 14 seconds, and getting 80 mpg.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    295
    well there are alot more options in diesels. Biodiesel is an option that has little to no petroleum. But yeah, diesel prices are crazy. We just got back from a road trip from CO to Cali. We have a TDI and saw diesel prices from $3.70-$4.49. We did find B100 Biodiesel for $3.39 though!!!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    448
    Assuming a 45 mpg diesel and a 35 mpg gasser, a 70 cent / gal difference still makes the TDI cheaper.

    .088 cents per mile with 45 mph and $4 diesel.

    .094 cents per mile with a 35 mpg gasser and $3.30 per gallon.

    Around here (southern Ca) diesel does not run 70 cents more per gallon. More like 50.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Killroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908
    Mattsteve Quote "Assuming a 45 mpg diesel and a 35 mpg gasser, a 70 cent / gal difference still makes the TDI cheaper.

    8.9 cents per mile with 45 mpg and $4 diesel.

    9.4 cents per mile with a 35 mpg gasser and $3.30 per gallon."



    First off, you made a little error with your currency units and rounding. I corrected it.

    This is true for a used 2006 Jetta TDI, but that car is gross polluter compared to new emission standards so it is not a apples to apples comparison. The Jetta TDI died off in the US because it could not meet emission standards. VW tried to bring the TDI back in 2008, but the exhaust treatment was too expensive to be good business for VW. In other words, the premium for diesels are way too much for new cars, even worse that hybrids. Diesel hybrids would double the cost issue.

    2008 Jetta Starts at $17000
    2008 Jetta TDI was intend to be $24000-$25000
    I bet VW would of sold the TDI for $26000,but they could not bring their costs down enough.
    Last edited by Killroy; 03-21-2008 at 09:29 AM.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Killroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by mattsteve
    Assuming a 45 mpg diesel and a 35 mpg gasser, a 70 cent / gal difference still makes the TDI cheaper.

    .088 cents per mile with 45 mph and $4 diesel.

    .094 cents per mile with a 35 mpg gasser and $3.30 per gallon.

    Around here (southern Ca) diesel does not run 70 cents more per gallon. More like 50.
    You can't buy a affordable diesel car today, so the next best thing is to buy a excellent condition 2006 Jetta TDI diesel from the dealer. Here are the stats:

    2006 Jetta TDI diesel
    $23,400 (kbb.com, dealer, 45k miles)
    33 MPG diesel combined highway/city (new EPA, www.fueleconomy.gov)

    Or you could buy the 2006 Jetta 2.5L "Value Edition" that burns regular gasoline.

    2006 Jetta 2.5L "Value Edition"
    $15300 (kbb.com, dealer, 45k miles)
    22 MPG reg gas combined highway/city (new EPA, www.fueleconomy.gov)

    If you run the numbers using $4/gal Diesel and $3.2/gal Gas it will 330,000 miles for the up-front cost and the fuel cost to equal. The diesel saves fuel, but the cost, and the air pollution is not good for bikers. The Diesel scores a EPA 1 out of 10 and the Gas gets a 9 out of 10.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kvojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    262
    Here in NC, Regular was at $3.26 and Deisel at $4.05 today.

  9. #9
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    well, part of that....

    Quote Originally Posted by Killroy
    Mattsteve Quote "Assuming a 45 mpg diesel and a 35 mpg gasser, a 70 cent / gal difference still makes the TDI cheaper.

    8.9 cents per mile with 45 mpg and $4 diesel.

    9.4 cents per mile with a 35 mpg gasser and $3.30 per gallon."



    First off, you made a little error with your currency units and rounding. I corrected it.

    This is true for a used 2006 Jetta TDI, but that car is gross polluter compared to new emission standards so it is not a apples to apples comparison. The Jetta TDI died off in the US because it could not meet emission standards. VW tried to bring the TDI back in 2008, but the exhaust treatment was too expensive to be good business for VW. In other words, the premium for diesels are way too much for new cars, even worse that hybrids. Diesel hybrids would double the cost issue.

    2008 Jetta Starts at $17000
    2008 Jetta TDI was intend to be $24000-$25000
    I bet VW would of sold the TDI for $26000,but they could not bring their costs down enough.
    ... is the TDI is also the same trim as the older, higher GLS (or whatever the new name for the nicer trim was, but not the GLX with the 6 cyl) model not the base model. So it isn't an exact comparison. Things like the sunroof, nicer interior, upgraded stereo, and alloy wheels were standard. The GLS was more like a $20k car.

    I have to use Plus in my 4cyl GTi or it sets off the engine warning light, and it generally runs like crap. Plus is like $3.75/gal. I get diesel for the truck at work all the time, and that is running like $4.09.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    46
    I have an 02' Golf TDI GLS. I LOVE it and will keep it as long as it keeps running. I run B20 to B100 depending on the weather. I don't care how much Bio-diesel costs as long as I can use as little as that terrorist swill as possible.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    448
    Killroy.....Tx for the correct. I meant to say .089 $$, not cents per mile.

    As for the pollution.....I think thats a load of crap. Europe ran these TDI's for years and they do not have a pollution problem. It was largely the fault of the quality of diesel fuel that we had been getting over here. Very high in sulfur, or at least it was. They beat gas cars in several areas (CO2, PAH, VOC) and lose to gas cars in several areas (NOx, particulates).

    Ive been running on Biodiesel also. B80 right now, got it at 3.35. Nearly $.80 cheaper than gas diesel.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Killroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by stgo2019
    I have an 02' Golf TDI GLS. I LOVE it and will keep it as long as it keeps running. I run B20 to B100 depending on the weather. I don't care how much Bio-diesel costs as long as I can use as little as that terrorist swill as possible.

    I agree that Energy Independence is more important that operating cost too, but we a solutions that work for the whole country. I read somewhere that when adjusted for inflation, owning and driving cars today is more affordable than ever. Well, I would not mind if the cost of cars forced low income people with nasty vehicles used mass transit and lived closer to work. A lot of imported oil would be saved.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Killroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by mattsteve

    As for the pollution.....I think thats a load of crap. Europe ran these TDI's for years and they do not have a pollution problem. It was largely the fault of the quality of diesel fuel that we had been getting over here. Very high in sulfur, or at least it was. They beat gas cars in several areas (CO2, PAH, VOC) and lose to gas cars in several areas (NOx, particulates).

    Ive been running on Biodiesel also. B80 right now, got it at 3.35. Nearly $.80 cheaper than gas diesel.
    That biodiesel is a good deal. Is it government subsidized? The sustainability of biodiesel is highly dependent on the way it is manufactured. A lot of environmentalist have a doing studies on the negative aspects of biofuels. I think I read that alge produced biodiesel is the best way. Biodiesel is a lot better than ethanol. Ethanol, that's a boondoggle.

    Biodiesel is void of sulfur, right? You did not mention that pollutant.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    448
    Biodiesel is great. Unfortunately it is being produced from food type items right now....which drives food costs high. Not good, but the good news is that it can be made from many, many things. Algae is one, but Ive heard of some negatives about that too. New on the horizon is Gas To Liquid fuels. It sounds promising. Watch this video for more info: http://realenergy.shell.com/?lang=en...e_version=html Cheesy. Dont watch it.

    Ya, ethanol is a total joke.

    Biodiesel is largely void of sulfur. There can be some, but it is dependant on feedstock. The reason that diesel is under the microscope in terms of pollution is largely due to the sulfur. Fuel used to be 500ppm + sulfur, now on road fuel is 50 (or even 15 ppm) sulfur. LOTS cleaner, benefits in many areas.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by mattsteve
    Assuming a 45 mpg diesel and a 35 mpg gasser, a 70 cent / gal difference still makes the TDI cheaper.

    .088 cents per mile with 45 mph and $4 diesel.

    .094 cents per mile with a 35 mpg gasser and $3.30 per gallon.

    Around here (southern Ca) diesel does not run 70 cents more per gallon. More like 50.

    45mpg, ha!!! I average mid 50's. Get a upgraded chip, injectors and shift at 2k. You will get a lot better mileage, plus a lot of extra power when you need it.

  16. #16
    Nice no rass
    Reputation: Too Rass Goat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    682
    Diesel in Western Pa was $4.39 the other day. Reg gas $3.29

  17. #17
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,306
    Quote Originally Posted by vw_steggie
    45mpg, ha!!! I average mid 50's. Get a upgraded chip, injectors and shift at 2k. You will get a lot better mileage, plus a lot of extra power when you need it.
    what do you have (mk3, mk4, etc.) and what chip and injectors did you use?

    i have an mk3 1.9 tdi jetta im looking to do the same thing to. with diesel going up i'd like to get more than 40-something mpg.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  18. #18
    Drunken fool
    Reputation: wheelerfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by vw_steggie
    45mpg, ha!!! I average mid 50's. Get a upgraded chip, injectors and shift at 2k. You will get a lot better mileage, plus a lot of extra power when you need it.
    We average about 40mpg regardless of who is driving. It's an all stock '02 Jetta TDI... with auto. I drive like an old man and the wife drives like... well not an old lady If I was in the market again, I would have a harder time justifying the diesel. Newer ones get worse mileage and cost more to purchase, plus the cost of diesel is .80-$1 more than RUG. I don't care about residual/trade in value since I keep vehicles until the die.
    What kills me about all the environmental regulations now is that it causes the vehicles to get worse mileage. At what point do you cause more damage from using more fuel than you would with more NoX/particulates output? An example is my '93 Dodge Ram W250 club cab long bed 4x4 CTD that get 20mpg hwy and 17 in town. The new emissions compliant '08 Ram 4x4 CTD gets 14 HWY and 12 city! Where is point of diminishing returns on that? Those MPG numbers are what I get in my '93 and what my Uncle gets in his '08 and are consistent with what I've seen magazine reviewers post, not what many internet posters exagerate.

    I would like to make BioD, but we really don't burn enough to justify the cost of the initial setup.

  19. #19
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    31,652
    Quote Originally Posted by mattsteve
    As for the pollution.....I think thats a load of crap. Europe ran these TDI's for years and they do not have a pollution problem.
    I hope you're kidding, maybe just ignorant, but mostly I just hope you're kidding.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  20. #20
    Drunken fool
    Reputation: wheelerfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    I hope you're kidding, maybe just ignorant, but mostly I just hope you're kidding.
    I won't say European countries don't have any air pollution, since we know that is false. But do they have the same diesel emissions regulations we have in the US?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod
    what do you have (mk3, mk4, etc.) and what chip and injectors did you use?

    i have an mk3 1.9 tdi jetta im looking to do the same thing to. with diesel going up i'd like to get more than 40-something mpg.
    It is a manual Mk4 Golf GL with the Wetterauer chip and Fratelli Bosio PowerPlus 502. It smokes a bit at wide open throttle, but if you shut off the EGR then it isn't too bad.
    You guys should check out the tdiclub.com forums for ideas on better mileage. Helped me a lot.

  22. #22
    what nice teeth you have
    Reputation: nadinno78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    712

  23. #23
    Drunken fool
    Reputation: wheelerfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by vw_steggie
    You guys should check out the tdiclub.com forums for ideas on better mileage. Helped me a lot.

    Been a member there for about 6 years now. Lot of good ideas and contacts. I prefer to keep our TDI stock though. I'm pretty happy with the power and the mileage is about what I expected. VW dealer service though...

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by wheelerfreak
    VW dealer service though...

    Oh, sorry to hear that... I am fortunate to have one to the Shine brothers as my mechanic.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Killroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by wheelerfreak
    We average about 40mpg regardless of who is driving.
    2006 TDI averages 41.8 for most people on www.fueleconomy.gov


    Quote Originally Posted by wheelerfreak
    An example is my '93 Dodge Ram W250 club cab long bed 4x4 CTD that get 20mpg hwy and 17 in town. The new emissions compliant '08 Ram 4x4 CTD gets 14 HWY and 12 city!

    I wonder if those two vehicles are a apples to apples comparison, and I wonder if the emission system design is really causing the poor gas mileage. Since '80s fuel economy for a lot of cars have gone down or remained stagnate. It has been battle of the bulge for many cars as size increased, features were added, displacement and power increased, and safety was added. All these things add to the cars weight, which is the most important variable for fuel economy, not diesel, vs gas, vs hybrid.

    I imagine that the '93 Ram is lighter, has less power and towing capacity, its cross sectional area is lower reducing its aero drag, and it has smaller less knobby tires that improve its rolling resistance,

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Killroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by wheelerfreak
    I won't say European countries don't have any air pollution, since we know that is false. But do they have the same diesel emissions regulations we have in the US?
    Our Teir 2/ Bin 5 emission standard is the toughest in the world as far as I know, that is why there are not VW is not selling the TDI in the US right now.

    I imagine in Europe on average people drive smaller more sensible cars, drive less, live closer to work, take trains and other cleaner mass transit and cycle more. Because of their fuel cost, taxes and congestion charges, it would be fiscally stupid of a European to drive like a American.

    I saw the smallest Ford ever in El Paso, TX. I had never seen it before because the do not sell it in the states, it had been driven over the border from Mexico. The Ford looked much smaller than a Gio Metro, but for such a small car its stying was awesome and it was making the most of what it had. I will upload the picture soon.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    985
    This is gonna kill me, I have a 96 F250 Powerstroke that I use pretty much on a day to day basis and it has 2 huge tanks but it gets really good mileage for what it is. When diesel was just about 3 bucks it cost me near $150 to fill er up. Im not lookin forward to this but its a good thing I have an older Bug but its gettin a big motor and a turbo as well

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by vw_steggie
    45mpg, ha!!! I average mid 50's. Get a upgraded chip, injectors and shift at 2k. You will get a lot better mileage, plus a lot of extra power when you need it.
    Ive got a chip, injectors, exhaust, intake, gauges. I get 45 mpg because Ive got my foot glued to the floor most of the time.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    I hope you're kidding, maybe just ignorant, but mostly I just hope you're kidding.
    I shouldn't have said 'Europe' but rather countries like Germany, France, GB, Spain. The old Soviet block countries I don't know about.

    My point was poorly defined. I'm sure they don't have perfect air, but from the way the EPA treats diesel's, you'd think that a country that runs primarily on diesel fuel would have air you could chew.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by Killroy
    2006 TDI averages 41.8 for most people on www.fueleconomy.gov

    I wonder if those two vehicles are a apples to apples comparison, and I wonder if the emission system design is really causing the poor gas mileage. Since '80s fuel economy for a lot of cars have gone down or remained stagnate. It has been battle of the bulge for many cars as size increased, features were added, displacement and power increased, and safety was added. All these things add to the cars weight, which is the most important variable for fuel economy, not diesel, vs gas, vs hybrid.

    I imagine that the '93 Ram is lighter, has less power and towing capacity, its cross sectional area is lower reducing its aero drag, and it has smaller less knobby tires that improve its rolling resistance,
    Ya, you cannot really compare mileage from a car like the new Jetta to something like a Corolla or Civic. The Jetta is substantially heavier and better built. I think you can get 30-32 with a 2.0T Jetta, but 45 should still be attainable with the new Jetta.

    The Germans seem to have figured out how to keep the mileage up and still meet the EPA rules. American diesel trucks keep getting lower and lower mileage as all of these EPA rules are met. I've got a 2002 Duramax that has absolutely no emissions equipment on it, came that way from the factory. No EGR, no cat. It gets great mileage, 20+ freeway, 16+ in town. The new trucks with the particulate filters, EGR, etc, etc are stuck at 15. At that point, it makes more sense to get a gas truck.

  31. #31
    Drunken fool
    Reputation: wheelerfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Killroy
    2006 TDI averages 41.8 for most people on www.fueleconomy.gov





    I wonder if those two vehicles are a apples to apples comparison, and I wonder if the emission system design is really causing the poor gas mileage. Since '80s fuel economy for a lot of cars have gone down or remained stagnate. It has been battle of the bulge for many cars as size increased, features were added, displacement and power increased, and safety was added. All these things add to the cars weight, which is the most important variable for fuel economy, not diesel, vs gas, vs hybrid.

    I imagine that the '93 Ram is lighter, has less power and towing capacity, its cross sectional area is lower reducing its aero drag, and it has smaller less knobby tires that improve its rolling resistance,
    Without a doubt the aerodynamics of the older Dodge is much worse, the configuration is as close to the same as is possible. Weights???? The newer one is definatly more comfortable and has more creature comforts. They have as similar AT style tires , BFG AT Vs BFG rugged trails. The older one has no emissions equipment, as all diesels of that era. So as close a comparison as is possible. If you need further evidence, just look at 07 Vs 08 diesel trucks. 08 is when the new regs came online, and the drop in MPG is evident between those two otherwise identically equiped vehicles (other than the required emmsions equipment they are the same).
    I did notice a drop in MPG with the new ULSD, just as much as you get between winter and summer blend diesel. With all the added requirements there is a drop in MPG. My question still stands, where is the point where you actually produce more "wastes" due to the extra fuel you have to burn to go the same distance?
    Last edited by wheelerfreak; 03-23-2008 at 07:55 AM.

  32. #32
    Drunken fool
    Reputation: wheelerfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by mattsteve
    Ya, you cannot really compare mileage from a car like the new Jetta to something like a Corolla or Civic. The Jetta is substantially heavier and better built. I think you can get 30-32 with a 2.0T Jetta, but 45 should still be attainable with the new Jetta.
    .
    I didn't realize it sounded like I was comparing the cars. The only vehicles that I was comparing where the diesel trucks.
    For killroy, one thing to keep in mind when comparing the new jetta is, what tranny does it have? I know on the 02's like ours the manual tranny had about a 10mpg advantage.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by wheelerfreak
    I didn't realize it sounded like I was comparing the cars. The only vehicles that I was comparing where the diesel trucks.
    For killroy, one thing to keep in mind when comparing the new jetta is, what tranny does it have? I know on the 02's like ours the manual tranny had about a 10mpg advantage.
    Ya, the diesel trucks are a great way to see the impact of the EPA regs. Loss of 20% mileage over 5 years. Ugh. And now the diesel engine option now runs $9900 instead of $5500. Just silly. I have heard that GM and Ford have plans for a 1/2 ton diesel in 09. I hope that works out better.

    Good point about the TDI trans....I think the manual trans is still worth at least 8 mpg over the auto's, even the fancy new DSG.

    My TDI is an 02 also.....watch out for timing belt noise and camshaft pitting!

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Killroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by mattsteve
    Ya, the diesel trucks are a great way to see the impact of the EPA regs. Loss of 20% mileage over 5 years. Ugh. And now the diesel engine option now runs $9900 instead of $5500. Just silly. I have heard that GM and Ford have plans for a 1/2 ton diesel in 09. I hope that works out better.

    Good point about the TDI trans....I think the manual trans is still worth at least 8 mpg over the auto's, even the fancy new DSG.

    Isn't that EPA trying to prevent help problems in fellow air breathers, especially the young and elderly?

  35. #35
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    31,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Killroy
    Isn't that EPA trying to prevent help problems in fellow air breathers, especially the young and elderly?
    No kidding, the US actually tries to do something right for a change and all we get is negative stuff from the penut gallery. Europe most definitely has pollution problems, and you do not have to look at eastern block nations to find it, look at Switzerland, look at some of the other regulations that they have to enforce to keep it from getting out of hand. Europe has high population density, it's relatively small though compared to the US, and so public transportation is much more available and practical. So not every european is out there driving to their parents house across the continent for christmass, but if they were you could imagine how poor the air quality could be. In the US we have to be more proactive due to the size of our country and the lesser population density that makes the same extent of public transportation more impractical. The air quality in the US in places is so poor that there are actually diagnosed diseases to account for it. A good example of this is the Phoenix area, which suffers from an inversion layer much of the time, and it's downright nasty. They recommend that you do not exercise on many days because the net damage you'll do to your respitory system isn't worth it.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    448
    I, too, want clean air. It totally sux to look across the Grand Canyon and 'think' you can see the other side. I just think that diesels get a bad rap for pollution simply because you can see a bit of particulate from a pipe.

    Look how many gas vehicles are out there and how bad smog is now. Diesels represent a minority in most areas, so they can hardly be blamed for these problems.

    Here is a little taste of what the EPA/CARB has been busy doing for us: In CARB states, you cannot buy a VW TDI. They were banned in 2004. They were also rated at 42/49 mpg. You can, however, buy a 5.9 or larger displacement diesel truck. The EPA has no regulations on that. silly, huh? And even sillier.....most of those diesel trucks sold before 2003 had NO external emissions equip on them whatsoever. I suspect that it has something to do with the Detroit lobby, but thats a guess.

    IMO, the EPA has been very busy regulating the small type vehicles, but has not been concerned nearly as much with the large guys, especially including off road (construction, power generation, etc) type polluters.

  37. #37
    Drunken fool
    Reputation: wheelerfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    No kidding, the US actually tries to do something right for a change and all we get is negative stuff from the penut gallery. .
    I'm questioning how much more/less you pollute when you cut the mileage of a vehicle by 20% by adding emissions equipment. You now require more fuel (plus the emissions) to go the same distance, plus all the related emissions related to the transportation and refining of that added fuel. I'm trying to be honest in that question, I would like to know if it is "worth it" in the long run to decrease a cars mileage in the quest for emissions reductions??

  38. #38
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    I don't think that is true anymore

    Quote Originally Posted by wheelerfreak
    I'm questioning how much more/less you pollute when you cut the mileage of a vehicle by 20% by adding emissions equipment. You now require more fuel (plus the emissions) to go the same distance, plus all the related emissions related to the transportation and refining of that added fuel. I'm trying to be honest in that question, I would like to know if it is "worth it" in the long run to decrease a cars mileage in the quest for emissions reductions??
    That was true in the 80s, especially on carbureted engines. The had to do lots of weird vacuum controls, mechanical air injection pumps, and pre-heaters and stuff to make it run cleanly.

    Most emission controls are done with o2 sensors, fuel injectors, combustion chamber shapes, and computer controls, none of which suck more fuel. In fact, they increase efficiency. It's all about burning all the gasoline in exactly the right amount of air, and making the most out of the results. High HC emissions means that all the gas didn't burn, and the leftovers are getting blown down the tailpipe to be burned in the catalytic converter.

    EGR sucks a bit of efficiency, but hardly any since it only kicks in at closed throttle or mostly closed throttle. THe air injection pump runs off an electric motor on my car, so I guess it makes a tad of alternator drag when it kicks in during deceleration. Air charge pre-heaters also cut a bit of efficiency as well, hence the popularity of cold air intake kits.

    There is some backpressure from a catalytic converter, but the modern ones not much at all.

    Heck, I was into the whole VW tuning thing back in the 80s. The water cooled VWs have been multi-port fuel injected since 1977, and they added computer controls in 1980. Those things would run so cleanly, guys used to gut the catalytic converts to reduce backpressure, and they would still pass the smog test machine.

    Just spend some time in a garage with an 80s carbuerated engine and you'll see how much cleaner the modern stuff is.

  39. #39
    Drunken fool
    Reputation: wheelerfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by pimpbot
    That was true in the 80s, especially on carbureted engines. The had to do lots of weird vacuum controls, mechanical air injection pumps, and pre-heaters and stuff to make it run cleanly.

    Most emission controls are done with o2 sensors, fuel injectors, combustion chamber shapes, and computer controls, none of which suck more fuel. In fact, they increase efficiency. It's all about burning all the gasoline in exactly the right amount of air, and making the most out of the results. High HC emissions means that all the gas didn't burn, and the leftovers are getting blown down the tailpipe to be burned in the catalytic converter.

    EGR sucks a bit of efficiency, but hardly any since it only kicks in at closed throttle or mostly closed throttle. THe air injection pump runs off an electric motor on my car, so I guess it makes a tad of alternator drag when it kicks in during deceleration. Air charge pre-heaters also cut a bit of efficiency as well, hence the popularity of cold air intake kits.

    There is some backpressure from a catalytic converter, but the modern ones not much at all.

    Heck, I was into the whole VW tuning thing back in the 80s. The water cooled VWs have been multi-port fuel injected since 1977, and they added computer controls in 1980. Those things would run so cleanly, guys used to gut the catalytic converts to reduce backpressure, and they would still pass the smog test machine.

    Just spend some time in a garage with an 80s carbuerated engine and you'll see how much cleaner the modern stuff is.

    This is where I think we are having a disconnect, I'm talking about diesel vehicles. Gas vehicles are a different animal. It is being shown on a daily basis that the new emissions requirement for diesels are causing their mileage to go down. I have a seen a drop since the change to ULSD, just as there is a drop in MPG with the switch to winter blend diesel. The drop in mileage is even more evident in the new 08 models that have the added equipment, as is evident in the Govt mileage stats for diesels. I'm questioning the value in cutting a vehicles mileage from 20mpg to 14 (in the case of 3/4 ton CTD's) in the name of emissions. By burning 20% more fuel to go the same distance aren't we releasing more carbon and other emissions?
    You better take care of me, Lord. If you don't you're gonna have me on your hands.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,721
    I Volunteer with a "Multifaceted" none profit in Berkeley and one of the many activies is the recycling of Vegi oil and the production of Biodiesel.

    We pick the used vegi oil from two restaurants ones a week (for free) mostly on a bicycle trailer (about 35/40 gallons), then take it to the shop or deliver the raw oil to a few houses of the members were they will filter it directly to use it on "Conversion" diesel cars.

    Basically except for the cost of the chemicals, the electricity to run and the start up cost of the "Reactor" the biodiesel is free.

    The idea is that each person earn hours by working for the common goal (whatever pick up the oil, filtering, making stuff for the shop, even cookies) and then get whatever amount of gallons they deserve (earn).

    The Vegi-oil is far easier, you just "separate" the solids using gravity, filter it an Listo ready to use if you vehicle is being converted to run on the unprocessed vegi oil (cost about $1000 to do it, sometimes even less if you don't need the dual tanks)

    Yes this will not last forever, someday even Macdonald will be selling their oil as a "happy meal" but today Is free and in fact helpful for the restaurant to give the oil away.

    ps: Brazil is being running most of their public transportation (and many private vehicles too) for the last 30something years on alcohol produce from waste bi-products with out much trouble.

  41. #41
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,717

    Oh, right...

    Quote Originally Posted by wheelerfreak
    This is where I think we are having a disconnect, I'm talking about diesel vehicles. Gas vehicles are a different animal. It is being shown on a daily basis that the new emissions requirement for diesels are causing their mileage to go down. I have a seen a drop since the change to ULSD, just as there is a drop in MPG with the switch to winter blend diesel. The drop in mileage is even more evident in the new 08 models that have the added equipment, as is evident in the Govt mileage stats for diesels. I'm questioning the value in cutting a vehicles mileage from 20mpg to 14 (in the case of 3/4 ton CTD's) in the name of emissions. By burning 20% more fuel to go the same distance aren't we releasing more carbon and other emissions?
    ... my bad. I forgot the discussion was diesel.

    I don't know a whole lot of the inner workings of diesel emission controlos, apart from the basics. All I know is more air, more fuel, better atomization of fuel=more power and generally cleaner. I know they threw a particulate filter in the exhaust, which has to eat into the eficiency, as a Catalytic converter of some sort.

    I drive a diesel for work, but it's a 15k pound monster Ford F550 with very dirty exhaust. I know, because I have to clean the layer of soot off everything in the shop garage from time to time, and it is the only thing in there making soot. I also have to work in and around the thing with the engine running at high idle to run the hydraulics of the crane. It has a stop/start function, but the batteries often die, leaving me stranded 15 feet in the air at times. Ugh! I had to climb down a pole once when it did that to me!

    So I guess the trade off is less fuel burned, but dirtier air, or more CO2 exhaust in general, but cleaner air. THis doesn't account for refining, of course. I think I'll take more carbon burned and cleaner air in general.

  42. #42
    the cool nerd
    Reputation: sportsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    8,643
    Quote Originally Posted by KonaEnduroJC
    We did find B100 Biodiesel for $3.39 though!!!
    That's a score. You can barely buy the feedstock for that cost..
    "The search for a perfect pint should take lifetime." M.Jackson

    Ride bikes, not goats. Just good advice

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Killroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by wheelerfreak
    The drop in mileage is even more evident in the new 08 models that have the added equipment, as is evident in the Govt mileage stats for diesels. I'm questioning the value in cutting a vehicles mileage from 20mpg to 14 (in the case of 3/4 ton CTD's) in the name of emissions. By burning 20% more fuel to go the same distance aren't we releasing more carbon and other emissions?

    The emissions are measured by mile, so fuel economy is not directly important. Of course the less dirty fuel you burn, the less cleaning you have to do.

    http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf


    I don't think that the 20% drop in fuel economy is all due to emission controls.

    This is where I think the decreases are coming from:

    1. In 2008, the EPA switched its duty cycle of its fuel economy tests and that decreased the fuel economy ratings of all vehicles. Go to www.fueleconomy.gov go find a 2007 or earlier car and look at the fuel economy and compare to its what it was original. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/video...el-Economy.wmv. All cars FE ratings went down significant. Some more than others, like hybrids. The Honda Insight was rated at ~70 MPG and now it is 58 MPG (-17%). My 2000 insight gets an average of 62 MPG on highway. The standard test was updated to reflect more real world FE with high speeds, acceleration, idling and AC.

    2. Vehicle specifications keep going up. Weight is the most significant variable in fuel economy under most cases. From the 2004 to 2008 Dodge RAM when
    from 6350 lb to 6800 lb. The power went from 235 to 310 hp and to have more of a "This Man is Compensating for Something" look, there body's, tires, cross -sectional area and aerodynamic drag have increased.

    3. I think ULSD I has less lubricity, so there is more friction in the engines. Biodiesel has excellent lubricity, so B10 is a good idea.

  44. #44
    the cool nerd
    Reputation: sportsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    8,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Killroy
    2. Vehicle specifications keep going up. Weight is the most significant variable in fuel economy under most cases. From the 2004 to 2008 Dodge RAM when
    from 6350 lb to 6800 lb. The power went from 235 to 310 hp and to have more of a "This Man is Compensating for Something" look, there body's, tires, cross -sectional area and aerodynamic drag have increased.

    3. I think ULSD I has less lubricity, so there is more friction in the engines. Biodiesel has excellent lubricity, so B10 is a good idea.

    2. similar discussion yesterday, manufacturers are increasing the weight of vehicles like the RAM in order to better market them to small business. at the new wait, company vehicles can be significantly depreciated in the first year.

    3. even b01 significanlty increases the lubricity. some marketing tests to sell it as an lubiricity additive have been undertaken
    "The search for a perfect pint should take lifetime." M.Jackson

    Ride bikes, not goats. Just good advice

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Killroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by nadinno78



    Aptera was going to originaly use a diesel generator for there series hybrid, but changed to gas because of diesel emission standards.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    29
    My biggest complaint with the new ulsd is that my 2005 Dodge CTD was getting 20 mpg in town on the old diesel now with ulsd I only get 14.5 mpg. Is it really helping to reduce emissions if I am burning more fuel to get there than before.

    I have been wanting to get a VW TDI for a while now but the more I think about the +7k for the diesel option and then $100 oil changes it would have to be cheaper just to get the gas engine.

  47. #47
    Captain Underpants
    Reputation: Random Drivel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,280
    Since the discussion is diesel, I'll toss out one addtional point to consider:

    The life cycle of a diesel engine is much longer than a comparable gasoline engine. It is not uncommon to see diesels with well over 300K miles on the odometer. Maintenance on the motor itself is also less frequent, though tires and other parts wear out at the same rate as they do on a gasoline-powered vehicle. And I would venture to guess that diesel owners keep their cars far longer than most auto owners, which of course keeps the total cost of ownership low. All thing being equal, the easiest way to keep your vehicle expenses low is to keep a car for at least 10 years.

    I have an 06 GTI, and while I love the car, my next car will be a VW diesel.

    Oh, and you can change the oil yourself on the VW, no need to pay the dealer $80-$100. Brings the cost down to around $45 if you buy your Mobile 1 at Costco.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by 4x4extreme

    I have been wanting to get a VW TDI for a while now but the more I think about the +7k for the diesel option and then $100 oil changes it would have to be cheaper just to get the gas engine.
    The TDI engine option is NOT $7k. Thats only for the trucks.

    The TDI option is in the neighborhood of $1000, if that.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Killroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by mattsteve
    The TDI engine option is NOT $7k. Thats only for the trucks.

    The TDI option is in the neighborhood of $1000, if that.

    If this was true, than VW would of kept their promise of selling the Jetta TDI this year. The premium for a new diesel is at least $4000. If you dont see a difference of that much then the Automaker is accepting lower profits. They didn't build the TDI this year because for a low-mid end of the market there was not much profit to begin with. Once they added the equipment to make the car meet emissions -but still be dirtier than the gas- the venture was unprofitable.

    Check out these EPA pollution scores of Diesels:
    Not good.
    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/Diesel2006.shtml

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Killroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    908
    VW Diesel Hybrid: Dead in the Water.

    http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04...-in-the-water/

  51. #51
    out of shape
    Reputation: den9's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    254
    diesel is 4.50 right now, tell me why the **** did it jump over a dollar in 5 months
    doylestown pa
    SS cannondale F6

  52. #52
    Recovering Weight Weenie
    Reputation: Padre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,814
    Filled up my Sprinter van with diesel on Thursday for only $107.42.

  53. #53
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,306
    Quote Originally Posted by Random Drivel
    It is not uncommon to see diesels with well over 300K miles on the odometer
    my mk3 tdi turned 300k about 6k ago and still runs like new.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.