backtop


Print 67 comment(s) - last by jharper12.. on Feb 28 at 9:42 AM


Chevrolet Cruze Eco
Turbodiesel Cruze would join the "Eco" model when it comes to fuel sipping

Whenever we post a story about a new hybrid that is coming to the market, there are usually the inevitable comments from readers claiming that hybrids are poor interim solution for manufacturers. They argue that using a turbodiesel engine, 1) would result in higher fuel economy than its gasoline counterpart, 2) would be cheaper than using a hybrid powertrain, and 3) wouldn't require costly electric motors and heavy batteries.

If the latest report coming out of GM Inside News (GMI) is to be believed, it appears that General Motors is looking to bring a turbodiesel engine to its all-new Chevrolet Cruze compact sedan for the 2013 model year instead of a fully-fledged hybrid model. The Cruze already gets decent fuel economy from its 1.4-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine (24 mpg city, 36 mpg highway). Stepping up to the Cruze Eco boosts fuel economy ratings to 28/42 city/highway.

GMI's sources at the Lordstown, Ohio assembly plant say that the 2.0-liter diesel engine will go into production next year. The current 2.0-liter turbodiesel engine used in global variants of the Cruze produces 147hp at 4,000 rpm and 235 lb-ft at 2,000 rpm. 

A turbodiesel Cruze would have to get significantly higher combined fuel economy than the existing Cruze models (28 mpg combined for LT, 2LT, LTZ; 33 mpg combined for the Eco) to make it worthwhile for potential customers to make up for the cost differential between gasoline and diesel fuel. Currently, U.S. gasoline prices average $3.14/gallon while diesel prices average $3.53/gallon.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By thereverendmaynard on 2/21/2011 7:56:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
A turbodiesel Cruze would have to get significantly higher combined fuel economy than the existing Cruze models (28 mpg combined for LT, 2LT, LTZ; 33 mpg combined for the Eco) to make it worthwhile for potential customers to make up for the cost differential between gasoline and diesel fuel. Currently, U.S. gasoline prices average $3.14/gallon while diesel prices average $3.53/gallon.


Er, diesels can easily get 25+% improvements in fuel economy vs their gasser counterparts - all the while trouncing them in "driving feel" eg, low end torque.

Their cost per mile for roughly the same performance will beat gas (even at 10-20% higher prices - 12% in your example)

Add to the fact that you use less fuel - hence less money going overseas to unfriendlies, and less CO2 into the air, and that seems like a no brainer...

Other benefits - diesel durability and higher resale values...

I want to see some diesels in some of the larger vehicles (eg, Travers, Tahoe, Suburban...)

I have a 2003 Jetta TDI wagon 5spd, and I get 44MPG (after some performance mods) and I drive fast...




RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/21/2011 8:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
I made that point because the source article said that the 2.0-liter turbodiesel is "only" good for 34mpg combined when converting to the U.S. EPA numbers. That would only make it 1 mpg better than the Cruze Eco.

Hell, a Jetta TDI is only EPA rated at 34 combined.

I could easily see the diesel version doing 25% better than the regular 1.4 turbo, but not 25% better than the Eco. The Eco is about 18% better than the regular 1.4 turbo -- mainly because the Cruze Eco is tweaked to the max with weight savings, aero refinements, different tires, and it requires the manual to achieve its numbers.


RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By Samus on 2/21/11, Rating: 0
By YashBudini on 2/21/2011 10:24:53 PM , Rating: 1
Even if the tradtional cold problems are resolved the real problem is the 20 year who's GM certified that's standing their scratching his head when you bring it in with a problem.

Anybody who's an ex-GM guinea pig knows enough to stay away for quite a while.


By juhatus on 2/22/2011 3:26:46 AM , Rating: 2
I living, in Finland and driving a astra diesel Opel, laugh at your comment.

Astra and Cruze share the same delta II-platform.. atleast the german build-quality is topnotch :)


RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By Flunk on 2/22/2011 9:16:54 AM , Rating: 3
Perhaps it's more a Volkswagen reliability issue than anything to do with it being a diesel. A friend of mine had a Jetta that ran up thousands of dollars worth of repairs under warranty (and then got dropped like a rock when the warranty ran out).

As to the diesel Astra comment, because GM owns Opel it's quite likely the cruise will end up with the same diesel as the Astra so that's a better comparison.


RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By Lord 666 on 2/22/2011 9:43:58 AM , Rating: 2
My 06 Jetta TDI (built in Mexico) has almost 100,000 miles on it and zero issues. Sure, there is a rattle in the dash I can't find/stop, but overall the car is strong, safe, and reliable. Good for another 100,000 miles.


RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By Samus on 2/22/2011 11:18:39 AM , Rating: 2
All state-side VW deisel vehicles are assembled in Germany or Brazil. NO deisel vehicles are assembled in Mexico. So you either don't have a TDI, or it's not built in Mexico. Either way, overall VW build quality has been a common complaint on non-German-built vehicles for years...

As for the Opel Astra guy in a cold climate...you either use an engine block heater or your country provides quality additives in the deisel fuel to increase resistance to sludging. This isn't very common in the United States as 90% of our deisel fuel is used in fleet or owner-operator vehicles that spend their life idling when parked or are stored indoors in cold climates, negating the need for quality oil.

Because of the (current) way deisel is taxed, it's really a wash to buy into a deisel vehicle for the 'added economy' because the vehicles cost more, the maintenance costs more, and the fuel costs more. So even if you get 15-25% more mileage, you're paying 15-25% more in the end for the 'benifit' of deisel technology.

I won't even bother getting into the sulfer debate...mostly because I'm not an environmentalist nutjob, but it is a relevent topic. Deisel is dirty when not properly maintained, and lets face it, americans don't maintain their cars.

I just don't see deisel working here. As battery technology catches up and costs come down, electric will be the future in 10-20 years. Ideally, hydrogen would be the way to go but there are too many political and infrastructure problems to make refilling a widescale proposition.

Fact is we need to stop feeding our cars with oil from our 'enemies.' That requires either using another fuel, our using our own untapped oil reserves (which we should save for future needs, such as medical equipment, plastics, and other petroleum goods)


By Dorkyman on 2/22/2011 11:25:32 AM , Rating: 1
You know, your comments don't carry much credibility if you can't even spell the name of the engine correctly.

Google is your friend.


RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By Lord 666 on 2/22/2011 12:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
You are sir are a dumb ass and completely wrong. Do you want me to take a picture of the doorsill and/or VIN number? Ask your mom to drive you to a VW dealership and look at the factory sticker on the side. The power plants and transmissions are shipped to Mexico and the entire vehicle is assembled in Mexico.

Statistically, the Mexican built 1999-2005 Jettas had better build quality than any other country... especially for the automatic and TDI. Do you know what was the worst? The Slovokian built Touregs with any motor.

You are understating the fuel economy improvements. To date, the only diesel related "higher" cost is changing fuel filters twice (once at 40,000 and again at 80,000) and thats mostly using name brand (Hess) gas with "mandatory" fill ups at 1/4 left.

Fact is biodiesel is scalable, either using algae or recycled waste vegtable oil or a combination of using traditional oil based with biodiesel. Either way, the technology is available now versus spending money on hopeful returns.


RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By Samus on 2/22/11, Rating: 0
By Lord 666 on 2/23/2011 5:00:06 AM , Rating: 2
Samus don't know shit about cars, or at least VWs.

Took two pics for you; http://www.flickr.com/photos/59851368@N02/

The windows sticker is of a 2011 TDI wagon on the lot that was built in Mexico. The doorsill sticker is my 2006 TDI Jetta built in Mexico. Its a package 2 with TPMS, Navigation, and (most important to me) the rare 4*4 option for rear side airbags (the 6th digit is a 8). Blanked out the unique identifier with your stupid ass name.

Here is the magic decoder ring for the above VIN number; http://www.it2.evaluand.com/downloads/VW1991-2006V...

Low demand? The new Passat is being assembled in all trims in TN, including diesel. VW was stupid to close the PA plant in 86, but TN doesn't have unions like PA.

Now STFU and learn to spellcheck yourself. Simple words like diesel do not need spellcheck. PS - I've never watched Top Gear or any BS show like that. Up until my early 20's, did all of my own work on my VWs. At that point, I made enough money, it never made any sense for me to waste my own time versus $70 an hour or so (now $100)


By 91TTZ on 2/23/2011 9:48:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I just don't see deisel working here. As battery technology catches up and costs come down, electric will be the future in 10-20 years.


Hell, anything will be the future in 10-20 years.


By chunkymonster on 2/25/2011 1:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All state-side VW deisel vehicles are assembled in Germany or Brazil. NO deisel vehicles are assembled in Mexico.
FAIL! My 2005 TDI was assembled in Mexico, says so on the dealer window sticker.

quote:
Because of the (current) way deisel is taxed, it's really a wash to buy into a deisel vehicle for the 'added economy' because the vehicles cost more, the maintenance costs more, and the fuel costs more. So even if you get 15-25% more mileage, you're paying 15-25% more in the end for the 'benifit' of deisel technology.
The increased engine life and longevity of a diesel vehicle, in the long term, is more cost effective than an equivalent gas vehicle. Currently have 185K miles on my '05 TDI and anticipate to get another 250K before I'll wanna get a newer model. Previously owned American and Korean made cars were lucky to make it 200K mile before the cost of repairs made them unaffordable.

quote:
I just don't see deisel working here. As battery technology catches up and costs come down, electric will be the future in 10-20 years. Ideally, hydrogen would be the way to go but there are too many political and infrastructure problems to make refilling a widescale proposition.
In the 10-20 years that it takes for electric to become mainstream, diesel and diesel/electric hybrids and bio-fuels could easily overtake electric. Fact is diesel engines are a mature technology that would require very little development to become the vehicle engine of choice. The fact that you do not see diesel working in America is indicative of the "greening mind set" that excludes any other alternative fuel sources that do not agree with the green political agenda. Hydrogen as a fuel source is at the same time a silver bullet and a red herring.

quote:
Don't argue with me. I'm an automotive engineer and know more than what you've learned in 15 seasons of Top Gear.
Now I understand why American cars have been the laughing stock of the automotive world for the past 25 years. With a dumbass like you designing them it's no wonder the industry took a dump and wasted my tax dollars to remain afloat.


By GotDiesel on 2/22/2011 1:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think your friend has a lemon.. generally the VW is as reliable as any other car, better in some cases..

my 2001 jetta tdi has 250k miles on it, it's been no trouble since new, it has 100,000 mile timing belts, injectors are good for the life of the vehicle.. i don't know where u get 60k miles from but that's bs.. it starts first time in the cold ( north of Denver, CO. temps.. ) and does not belch smoke.. oh, and it returns about 45 mpg at 80 mph, 50 at 65 mph..


By coob9td on 2/22/2011 9:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
If you have black smoke starting a TDI in the mornings, you are a likely candidate for a glow plug inspection and possible replacement.
TDIs built after 2001 require a timing belt replacement every 50K miles. Using a kit for a 2003 and newer will extend this to 100K miles.

Regardless, I'm sold on diesel. Can't beat the combination of economy and comfort.


By thereverendmaynard on 2/23/2011 5:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Modern (eg, my frame of reference, 03 jetta) diesels have no issues starting in the cold (cold being 0F in my world - lower on a regular basis and you would want a plug for overnights - not unlike a gasser)

I have 151k miles on my injectors - no clue what you are talking about with a 60k replacement cycle...

The only reason a DM flywheel would be an issue - is if he is chipped or modified... im on my original clutch at 151k miles....If you do this (and im all for it...) you are your own warranty - dont blame vw when you break something...

Maint is an oil change every 10k miles (for me, synthetic only and i do it myself - easy)

every 20k miles, new fuel filter, air filters etc...

Timing belts (at least on the 03s and beyond) are at 100k miles. Be happy to do 2 of them.... This service I dont do myself, buy hire a guy from one of the forums. He has done 100's of these and it costs me ~600 out the door. (I prefer independents vs dealer service)

How is this a lot of maint?

Cost per gallon of diesel doesn't matter. Its cost per mile. I am averaging .06 for my fuel cost

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/thereverendmaynard/je...

And the EPA ratings for diesels are always understated...


RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By sigmatau on 2/21/2011 11:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't a 2.0 liter engine be way too big for this car unless this is a top of the line performance option? A 2.0 liter diesel engine can easily replace a 3.0+ liter gas engine not the 1.4 liter gas engine in the current Cruze offering.

I know it may sound scary, but a 1.0 liter diesel engine would be a replacement for a 1.4 liter gas engine.


RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By Keeir on 2/22/2011 4:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
Err...

One reason Diesel's can replace large Displacement Gas engines is that Diesel are Turbocharged. Chevy's 1.4L is a Turbo and the upgraded engine from a 1.8L NA Inline 4.

Looking at VW, the 2.0L TDI is not quite the equal of the 2.0L Turbo. As large as the Cruze is... Chevy is probably better off looking at 120+ hp Diesel engines... which means at least 1.8L.


RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By sigmatau on 2/22/2011 6:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
Err.. no.

You don't use horsepower as a benchmark when matching diesel engines to gas engines... you use torque. The 1.8 liter Cruze engine only makes 125lb-ft of torque. That can easily be bested by a 1.0 liter diesel engine. The 1.4 liter turbo gas engine makes 148lb-ft of torque which also can be bested by a 1.0 liter diesel engine.

A 2.0 liter diesel can make closer to 300lb-ft of torque. The VW example is a bad one.


By Keeir on 2/22/2011 8:16:20 PM , Rating: 3
Errr...

Torque DNE Power

Power is what is required for forward motion. Work is measured in terms of power, not Torque.

Diesel has great low end Torque which translates into higher Power at the same RPM level as a Gasoline Engine. One of the reasons Diesel get great fuel economy is the ability to run at lower RPM levels which reduces friction. But a car needs to consider top power as well... a Diesel engine such as you suggest (1.0L) would probably make a maximum of what 65 hp?

I really don't want to be trying to push around a 3,000 lb+ car with only 65 hp. We are talking 0-60 runs of 16+ seconds. Heck the car couldn't even complete the US06 testing standard which requires faster acceleration.

That is not really comparable to the 1.8L NA Gas Cruze that makes the same runs in around 10 seconds.

If we go to the Chevy UK site, you can see that a 125 hp 2.0L Diesel is required to make a 10.3 second 0-62 mph run. I think American's are going to want a car that can accelerate to 60 in under 10 seconds... for the Cruze Size and Wieght... that requires a Diesel engine that makes 120 hp minium... which requires at least 1.8L unless you turn up the boost on the Turbo... which lowers life unless you make the engine more expensive.

I also think the VW is a good example. That 2.0L VW TDI mill might be one of the world's largest selling engines.... sure you can make higher output ones, but then you are increasing cost significantly. It would be better to use a cheaper 2.0L engine than a high cost 1.8L engine.... when your engine bay can take it.

Diesel's are no different than Gasoline Engines. If your constantly requiring High Output/Rated Capacity, your going to degrade efficiency. I just don't see a strained 1.0L Diesel getting a (significantly) better EPA rating than a 2.0L Diesel in a Cruze. The -SAME- power will be required from both engines...

So with little reason to use the smaller engine... why stick consumers with aweful maximum power numbers?


RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By bah12 on 2/22/2011 10:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
Do you know if this will require the urea exhaust additive like the new powerstrokes. To meet EPA requirements many post 2010 engines require this additive in order for the engine to run. This cost MUST be added to accurately gauge cost. The efficiency has to overcome the higher cost for diesel as well as the cost for urea.


RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By Keeir on 2/22/2011 4:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you know if this will require the urea exhaust additive like the new powerstrokes


Unlikely. Powerstrokes require the Urea, because the emissions are measured over miles, not gallons. A truck with the same emission profile as a sedan will emit 2x the pollution because it uses 2x the fuel. VW has managed to get away from Urea if the combined MPG is above 30.... if lower than 30, Urea would likely need to be used... but if the Cruze Diesel gets less than 30, not sure why they would consider it


RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By Tabinium on 2/22/2011 5:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
Urea is the easiest, cheapest way to lower NOx. Interestingly, the only heavy-duty truck engine manufacturer to use the other method- a complex EGR system- is Navistar, who supplies the Powerstroke to Ford.

Heavy-duty engines measure emissions of NOx, NMHC and particulates per horsepower-hour, rather than per mile like cars and light-duty (<10,000 GVWR)trucks.


By Keeir on 2/22/2011 5:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
mmm... I see the Powerstrokes are not used on any truck that would need the light-duty assesment.

I was thinking of the BMW 335d, the VW Toureg, etc that require Adblue (Urea).

quote:
is Navistar, who supplies the Powerstroke to Ford.


Not anymore... I though Ford is now supplying thier own Powerstrokes.


By Keeir on 2/22/2011 4:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That would only make it 1 mpg better than the Cruze Eco.


And why wouldn't the tweaks of the Cruze Eco couldn't be applied to a Cruze Eco Diesel?

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Cruze Eco so efficient due to Wheel/Tires, Aerodynamic tweaks, and Gearing changes? Why couldn't those be done to a Diesel Engine car? Why wouldn't they provide a improvement... if smaller... say a Diesel Eco is 15-20% better than a Gas Eco?

Doing a similar change to a Diesel Model should yield a Cruze Eco Diesel (Manual Trans) at around 20k (Gas version starts at 18k) that gets 32/48 MPG (or there abouts)...


By Alexvrb on 2/23/2011 8:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
What if they put the diesel motor (which as you point out is already as efficient as a Jetta TDI) only in their Eco variant? In other words have two Eco options, gas or diesel, with the diesel getting even better mileage? Sure it comes at the cost of somewhat more expensive fuel and more maintenence in some cases, but it may be worth it.


RE: Cost Difference? What cost difference?
By mars2k on 2/22/2011 4:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
I would be interested to know if diesels actually produce less carbon. Whats really going on here is that diesel fuel has more energy in it to begin with.
the specific gravity of diesel is between .83 and .95 gasoline is .74. So... how much more carbon per unit?
There are gains in effientcy regardless but can anyone out there say if there is more carbon per unit in diesel fuel?


By chunkymonster on 2/25/2011 1:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, diesel contains more grams per million of carbon compared to gasoline; diesel contain 2,778* grams of carbon per gallon, whereas gasoline contains 2,421* grams per gallon.

However, it is worth noting that more grams per gallon does not equate to worse emissions. Reality is that due to the higher energy content of diesel and subsequent higher mpg, diesel produces less harmful emissions compared to gasoline.

Diesel producing less harmful emissions is especially true in America since June 1, 2010 due to the EPA mandate to reduce the sulfur content of diesel to 15ppm*. It should also be noted that the EPA standards for the sulfur content of gasoline is 30ppm* for domestic refineries and 80ppm* for imported gasoline.

So, while diesel contains more carbon per gallon, it also contains less sulfur. And, because of diesel giving more mpg than gasoline, overall diesel produces less harmful emissions and is more cost effective over the life of a vehicle.

(*source EPA website)


choice of transmission
By ChugokuOtaku on 2/21/2011 5:56:50 PM , Rating: 3
GM needs to follow Ford with this one, mate this engine to either 6-speed manuals or twin-clutch autos. Their choice of giving the 1.4L turbo nothing more than a slushbox was ridiculous.




RE: choice of transmission
By jharper12 on 2/22/2011 10:09:34 AM , Rating: 4
Two things:

1) Ford needs to follow GM on this one, and actually bring small displacement diesels to the US market. Win = Chevrolet.

2) The Eco comes in a six speed manual, and the new subcompact coming 2012, the Sonic, is only available in a six speed manual with the 1.4 turbo.

Also, as far as slushboxes go, the automatics on the new Chevy's are pretty amazing. For the first 300 miles they are rough, but once they are programed to match up with your driving style they do a fantastic job. Yep, the new automatic transmissions in these cars change their shifting patterns based on the driver's driving style.


RE: choice of transmission
By ChugokuOtaku on 2/22/2011 12:12:00 PM , Rating: 1
Slushboxes are still slushboxes to the end.
I'd still take a manual over a slushbox any day. Your up to date ECUs are a lot better at guessing what the driver wants to do than they ever were, but can never do EXACTLY what the drive intends for it to do all the time like a manual or twin clutch can.


RE: choice of transmission
By Taft12 on 2/22/2011 1:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
You sure do like saying slushbox. I love manual trannys too, but the day is fast approaching when the sales numbers will prevent them from being available on any models.


RE: choice of transmission
By JediJeb on 2/22/2011 2:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with the sales numbers being used to reflect what customers want is that many of the popular vehicles are not offered with a manual shift transmission. When was the last time you saw a mini van or SUV come with a manual? Even for the ones that can have manuals, if you look at them on the car lots you will almost always find the automatic "option" installed and if you want a manual you have to special order it. Most average car buyers don't want to special order their vehicles they just want to walk up and drive off with what they find.


RE: choice of transmission
By Keeir on 2/22/2011 5:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
Errr... JediJeb, you know the reason why those car's don't have a manual option right?

I like manual transmissions. They make sense from an engineering perspective.

I have an Automatic... because I can't have a car that only -I- can drive. Its sad... but true. Maybe someday when I can afford to have a enjoyment only Roadster or coupe in additional to my daily driver, I can have a manual... oh, look, those are the cars that have Manual options in the US.

Thankfully DCT transmissions are becoming popular.


RE: choice of transmission
By sorry dog on 2/23/2011 1:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty anti-auto myself, and while it would be more convenient if my wife knew how to drive my car, if it bothered her than she can get off her doesn't like driving ass and learn how.

Now there's one exception to my anti-auto feelings and that's the potential of CVT trannies. The one in her jeep will probably break well before it's time, but I do see some fun to drive potential in it... especially if it had a big dial close to the stick or on the wheel where you could manual adjust the ratio. I don't get that engine not directly connected to wheels feeling that I get in other autos.


RE: choice of transmission
By jharper12 on 2/28/2011 9:42:23 AM , Rating: 2
This is so true!

"I have an Automatic... because I can't have a car that only -I- can drive."

That is actually the primary reason I'm thinking of buying an automatic next time, when I really want a manual.


RE: choice of transmission
By jharper12 on 2/22/2011 1:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, totally agree. I'm really thinking/hoping that with these new CAFE standards we may see more manual cars on the roads. The best thing I ever did was buy a used five speed without knowing manual, and just figuring it out. Driving a manual car is a lot of fun, and there are plenty of benefits. Too many people think it's too hard to learn, but I was a miserably awful manual driver after 30 minutes in an empty parking lot. Plenty of stalling for a few hundred miles, then just lots of smiles from there on out. It'll also be nice for resale value. Not enough manual drivers out there to get decent resale out of most manuals these days in the US.


RE: choice of transmission
By mars2k on 2/22/2011 4:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, good manuals are great. Most of the euro iron (aluminum ;-)) comes with great manuals BMW,VW,Merc, I had a Maserati with a stick and oh my god what a blast. They play to a different market though. Driving is a privilege, its expensive to get a license you have to be certified to drive in a way no one in the States would do.
In the US we accommodate the lowest common denominator. Quick get in the left lane so I can drive slow and not have to think about it sort of people. People for whom driving a car is no fun but a chore so please make easy with an automatic.
The rest of us suffer with boring American cars which is part of the reason they are doing so poorly in the market after all, how ironic.


Conspiracy Theories listed here
By Lord 666 on 2/22/2011 10:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
Because releasing a Cruze diesel defies the "GM Logic," that has been pushed on the American public for years, there has to be more to the story. There are no other rational reasons why Honda, GM, Nissan, and Chrysler (all whom have the technology) did not sell their diesel cars in the US.

1. When asked many times why the Volt didn't have a diesel, GM said it would have required a mini-chemistry set. Yet why is the Cruze, with a similar size car, getting a 2.0 diesel unit that requires the same chemistry set? Found it interesting that the Cruze write up did not mention anything about SCR systems (trick cat or ad-blue)

Where is the conspiracy here? Even though the diesel would have made more engineering and mileage sense, GM was more concerned about PR than economics.

2. Honda owns patents of superior "trick exhust" systems that burn off the NOx and is more advanced than the VW version. Honda was scheduled to release the 2010 Accord in diesel followed by the Pilot, minivan, ridgeline, and CRV. Honda later said that it the cars tested well, but overall found that the cars where "too expensive."

Too expensive for Honda or the customers? With a 30% increase of fuel economy for the above vehicles, it would have been a no brainer... especially the CRV. So instead, Honda has focused on medicore hybrid platforms and lost considerable market share.

3. Nissan - Diesel Maxima was supposed to come out in 2010, but never did. Don't know and don't really care.

4. Mazda - They have been kicking around for years selling their diesels. Might come since a Mazda exec recently said that turbo's are not the answer for improving mileage.

5. Subaru - The manufacturer that needs diesels yesterday due to their overall low CAFE. The do have a diesel design, but only in Europe.

6. Mini - Mini Coooper D is the mileage king in the UK, yet never imported.

7. Chrysler - with their MB deals (new Cherokee is based on the current ML350 and old 300 is E-class based), it would have been easy to put in the 3.0 CDI MB motor. The did for the previous Cherokee and Liberty, but they were not tuned to fuel economy.

8. Volvo - They sell a diesel XC90 in Puerto Rico, but not the US.

9. VW - Yes, they are the diesel poster-boy of the US. Yet they have mastered the diesel hybrid just to let it sit. Why? Because its too expensive. This is coming from a car company that sold this car on the showroom with a total of 264 sold - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk3#H...

Which leaves us to the Germans. Audi, MB, VW, and BMW. Based on sales figures, the Jetta TDI (4 door or wagon) sell 50% of all Jetta sales and the wagon leaves the lot 90% of the in TDI form. Audi and BMW see otherwise identical cars sell slightly more than their petrol counterpart. With the exception of the R class (a vehicle I really like in CDI), the GL sells well in CDI followed by the ML.

If its truly the emissions, then spend the R/D like the Germans did or license it and move on. What is more expensive; R/D dollars or loosing sales? Is the conspiracy really waiting for GM and the other to catch up before others are allowed to go mainstream or the 1-8 manufacturers waiting until petrol prices go much higher to sell the American public a more expensive option like full electric when they have no choice?




RE: Conspiracy Theories listed here
By Keeir on 2/22/2011 4:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. When asked many times why the Volt didn't have a diesel, GM said it would have required a mini-chemistry set.


Sigh... in a normal car, a Diesel Engine would save around 20% of the Fuel used, by gallon, and around 10% of the Carbon Emissions. Lets call a normal C-Segment car at 500 gallons of gas and 400 gallons of Diesel. 100 gallon saved.

In a Volt, where 75% of the Fuel is Electric, a Diesel would only save... 25 gallons. Since a Diesel Engine will cost thousands more than the 1.4L Simple Otto used in the Volt, the end Volt costs even more... for a relatively small improvement. Looking at the Final EPA sticker, it may have been better for marketing purposes for the Diesel Engine to be there... but looking at the Cost basis... a Volt with a Diesel doesn't make sense unless you already have a mass market Diesel in the marketplace that you can use for that application.... which GM did not have at the time... a Diesel needs to save around 500-750 gallons over its life to make sense from a cost basis... IE, it takes 20-30 years for a Diesel Volt to make sense over a Gasoline Volt.... let alone that there really isn't a Diesel Engine that GM could use in the Volt that makes sense for other NA GM offerings.

quote:
2. Honda owns patents of superior "trick exhust" systems that burn off the NOx and is more advanced than the VW version.


Something to consider is that Honda is a global company with a relatively small presense in Europe. In Japan and the US, marketing data would suggest that Hybrids are prefered to Diesels. I think Honda was really stupid/prideful as well as thier Hybrid technology is not so great... but I can't really blame them looking at Hybrid versus Diesel sales in Honda's primary markets.

quote:
9. VW - Yes, they are the diesel poster-boy of the US. Yet they have mastered the diesel hybrid just to let it sit. Why? Because its too expensive. This is coming from a car company that sold this car on the showroom with a total of 264 sold - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk3#H...


Err... and that car cost VW an Extra what in R/D? That has to be one of the cheapest special editions ever produced....

Lord666... I think you missing something profound. The cost to pass a whole new engine through the US standards for sale is ENORMOUS. It is more than simply testing the emissions... Look at VW... it sells all of 2 Diesel engines in 3? body styles in the US. (The Golf, JettaWagen, A3 all use the same engine in the same platform. The new Sedan I guess would be slightly different.) Heck, we don't get the 170hp tune of the SAME 2.0L engine OR the Blu-motion tune.

Maybe the missing story is GM will attempt to offer this 2.0L engine (little large for the Cruze considering the other engine options) in the Equinox crossover as well... thier top selling car and crossover might provide the volume to support the engine.

Or maybe they see it as a chance to match the Prius highway fuel economy numbers by offering a Cruze Eco Diesel Manual that gets 48mpg highway...


RE: Conspiracy Theories listed here
By Lord 666 on 2/22/2011 10:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Once you take a step back and look at the Volt like a normal person, you will see the oxymoron GM is doing.

The common complaint against the Volt is lack of range. The petrol version gets about 300 miles with full charge and full tank (9.3 gallons) of premium 93 octane gas. As you said, its a simple 1.4L powerplant that requires a constant revolutions to charge the car once the battery has been depleted. Normal people care about range, hypermillers care about mpgs.

Now change that powerplant to a diesel. First off, the cost difference between a VW petrol to diesel is about $900. Even accounting for BS inflated US unions, lets make that a nice easy $1000 difference. Wow, thats really small. Second, did you know that diesel locomotives don't actually drive the wheels, but they spin the electrical motor? This is because of the low and constant rpm's required. This is also in the diesel's sweet spot of power band. Anyway, a Volt diesel would have greater range, let's just say 20% even though I think it would be higher. But I truly think the scarey part to GM is the fact that people would no longer need to stop at a gas pump if they could make their own biodiesel for the Volt.

The combusion cycle of the diesel is more efficient than a petrol as well. Just compression and fuel, so its less parts to wear out. The rpm of a diesel is only dictated by the amount of fuel it is being given. For petrol, its a complex pattern of fuel, air, spark. Not to mention that the Volt REQUIRES premium 93 octane fuel. Let's see how many people stick to that and then run into knock.

Anyway, I firmly feel that the Volt should of have been a diesel and now that GM is releasing a Cruze diesel, it just makes people question the Volt even more. I agree with you, Equinox diesel would be smart (so would a TDI Tiguan and any minivan). Maybe they want to prove the Cruze first with diesel. But think the compromise GM did with the Volt and not making it a diesel had more to do with Big Oil than any other reason.


RE: Conspiracy Theories listed here
By Keeir on 2/22/2011 11:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you really thinking the whole thing through

Its true the a VW mass produced 2.0L Turbo Diesel is only 1,500 dollar more expensive than a VW mass produced 2.0L Turbo Gasoline Engine. (See A3. The Closest match between TDI and non TDI equipment levels) But how about a mass produced VW 2.5L non-turbo Gasoline Engine? I think your looking at a much greater difference. More like 2,000-2,500.

quote:
I firmly feel that the Volt should of have been a diesel


I can see that...

But would a more complicated, heavier, more costly engine that never repaid the initial investment be the smarter choice?

Does anyone make a non-turbo Diesel Engine for car use that would pass emission standards? Or do you want the Volt to have a -turbo- and the issues that brings along with in addition to the electric car issues? (I think all GM Euro Diesel's are Turbos)

I am sorry... I prefer Diesel engines to Otto Cycle gasolines as well. However, most of the advantages of Diesel are offset by Electric Drive train in the Volt.

If you consider the life of a Car to be 250,000 miles... the Volt's Range Extender will likely run less than 75,000 miles. Not seeing the advantage to having a Range Extender good for 500,000 versus 250,000 (example). Not seeing the benifit to upfront paying 2,000+ and having many more complicated parts to service and support to save... maybe 400 gallons of fuel...

It just doesn't make sense for the Volt to be the first Diesel in NA for GM. Nor does it make sense for the Volt to be Diesel.

quote:
The common complaint against the Volt is lack of range.


Really? Gosh, I guess 300+ miles at one go is just too small... (5-6 hours!) Because if your constantly below 30 miles a day driving, it could be months between gas station visits... you could go 10,800 or so! (Think the Volt needs to burn ~.5 gallon every month or so to make sure the RE is working)

quote:
Not to mention that the Volt REQUIRES premium 93 octane fuel. Let's see how many people stick to that and then run into knock.


Hahahah... because its SO much easier to always remember to put Diesel in your Chevy than premium gas.... and it ALOT safer to put gasoline in your Diesel car than regular into your premium only.


RE: Conspiracy Theories listed here
By Lord 666 on 2/23/2011 5:11:42 AM , Rating: 2
A Jetta TDI has a range of slightly over 600 miles on the highway. Thats perfect for a trip to DC and back including traffic or one weeks's worth of driving for my wife. Some MBs have more, but with much larger tanks.

You do have some good points, but leave out the retro-fitting of a diesel Volt for biodiesel. Also, the entry level 2.5 VW motor sucks compared to the 2.0 turbo petrol. But of course, you can already guess my favorite. Now only if they put the 3.0 TDI in the new Passat or bring back the 5.0 TDI.


RE: Conspiracy Theories listed here
By Keeir on 2/23/2011 2:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A Jetta TDI has a range of slightly over 600 miles on the highway. Thats perfect for a trip to DC and back including traffic or one weeks's worth of driving for my wife. Some MBs have more, but with much larger tanks.


The beauty of the Volt is not the one time "range" of 379 miles (EPA sticker) but the ability to do large chunks of driving without any gas whatso ever. If you need to be constantly driving chunks of 300+ miles at one go... the Volt is not for you. So why should the Volt compete for a market that is better served by the TDI and Hybrid offerings? (IE, the Volt is a poor Hybrid. Its also a relatively poor electric car. The beauty is that it's an electric car you can drive anywhere there is gasoline within a few hundred miles)

quote:
You do have some good points, but leave out the retro-fitting of a diesel Volt for biodiesel.


In the next 2 years, only around 60,000-100,000 Volts will hit the road in comparison to 30,000,000 convential autos. Of people with TDIs only a very small fraction use BioDiesel. At most your looking at 2,000-3,000 Volts converted to 100% BioDiesel... most of whom try not to drive very much. I am sorry... I will give you big oil making it so VW TDI engine's don't warranty BioDiesel... I could see that... but the Volt? Doesn't make sense. It also doesn't appear to me to be the selling point to buy a 41,000+ electric car so you can convert it to BioDiesel use... cool thing for BioDiesel people maybe, but the overall market could care less

quote:
Also, the entry level 2.5 VW motor sucks compared to the 2.0 turbo petrol.


HAHA. No doubt. But what do you think that the 1.4L NA Otto Cycle ~75 hp max engine in the Volt is? Its NOT a high feature Turbo Engine tuned to get 200+ hp! A Modern Turbo Diesel Engine is much more expensive that a non-turbo low feature gasoline engine. A custom low unit perfectly suited Diesel Engine is much more expensive than your mass market 1.4L with things removed! (For example the 1.4L Volt engine is probably covered by the same Federal approval as the 1.4L Turbo that goes into the Cruze)


RE: Conspiracy Theories listed here
By 91TTZ on 2/23/2011 10:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The common complaint against the Volt is lack of range. The petrol version gets about 300 miles with full charge and full tank (9.3 gallons) of premium 93 octane gas.


If it only gets 300 miles on a full charge and 9.3 gallons of gas, wouldn't it be getting less than 30 mpg while using the gas engine?

300 total miles
40 on electric
260 on gas
260 / 9.3 = about 28 mpg

I got better mileage than that on a regular Ford Focus that I rented.


RE: Conspiracy Theories listed here
By Keeir on 2/23/2011 1:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh...

Why do people have to be needlessly dense?

The Volt's EPA sticker claims 35 miles electric and 344 miles on gasoline for a total from full range of 379 miles. 300 miles comes from a statement that GM was going to size the gas tank to ensure at least 300 miles of RE operation.

Volt's EPA sticker says 37 MPG "combined" cycle in RE mode.

Apparently for some people the ability to drive ~6 hours between gas stops on a long distance trip is just not long enough... they have to have a car that takes them to 8,9,10 hours.

If your the type of person who is constantly driving at highwayspeeds for 8+ hours a day... then the Volt wasn't really designed for you. Clearly Prius hybrid or TDI are better options... so I am not sure why the Volt should have had a huge gas tank to compete in an area where it...well doesn't compete


Good, now make it exciting looking
By MonkeyPaw on 2/21/2011 5:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
A diesel would be a great addition to this model, since the reviews I've seen of the "Eco" model say the engine practically wheezes pulling the car around. A TDI would be a fantastic boost to this cars appeal.

Now if only Chevy would give the car some style. It's just so boring looking. The new Elantra looks way better for the intended market (young, new buyers).




By Spuke on 2/21/2011 8:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
The new Elantra is impressive. It's either that or the new Focus. Just showed the new Focus to my wife and liked it a lot.


RE: Good, now make it exciting looking
By Gungel on 2/22/2011 8:32:10 AM , Rating: 2
Boring is what sells in the US. Just look at the Camry and Accord. Boooring, but both are selling like hot cakes and the latest sales numbers for the Cruze seem to agree with that. Chevy Cruze sales jump in January, pass the Ford Focus.


By theapparition on 2/22/2011 11:04:43 AM , Rating: 2
You are right about that. Car buyers have a history of gravitating to bland, boring models.

We enthusiasts can debate endlessly about what model has better performance, what model has better specs, but in the end most consumers don't care about the numbers and only buy what they want to.


Not a bad option for the home brew folks
By JediJeb on 2/21/2011 6:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A turbodiesel Cruze would have to get significantly higher combined fuel economy than the existing Cruze models (28 mpg combined for LT, 2LT, LTZ; 33 mpg combined for the Eco) to make it worthwhile for potential customers to make up for the cost differential between gasoline and diesel fuel. Currently, U.S. gasoline prices average $3.14/gallon while diesel prices average $3.53/gallon.


Except for those who currently make their own biodiesel. I know a few people making it for less than $0.70 per gallon right now. While it is a very tiny market, it just shows that there is a potential for it.




RE: Not a bad option for the home brew folks
By Strunf on 2/22/2011 7:52:01 AM , Rating: 2
I thought that was illegal in the US, the inconvenience is the smell of the oil you use, having a car that smells french fries isn't that great.


By jharper12 on 2/22/2011 10:05:31 AM , Rating: 2
biodiesel /=used vegetable oil
used vegetable oil /= biodiesel

With proper filtration and transesterification. you ought not to get the smell of french fries.

It's also not illegal in the US, but many municipalities are making it illegal to homebrew biodiesel, because it is in fact dangerous and a potential environmental hazard. Not saying I'm a fan of making it illegal, I think it's fun to make biodiesel, and a good hobby, but that doesn't change the fact that plenty of people have screwed up and caused damage to themselves or the environment.


By acer905 on 2/22/2011 12:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
Especially considering Rudolf Diesel didn't create his engine design to run on a form of petroleum, in fact his first engine ran on peanut oil.

Because of its design, making any biofuels for the Diesel engine is much easier than for an Otto cycle. And, given the high oil returns from algae, many local business people have been starting up small scale biofuel production facilities. Water + time + sun = fuel. I guess you could call a Diesel car running on algae produced biofuel a solar powered car...


Well Its About Time
By Busboy2 on 2/21/2011 5:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
Its about time someone brings some euro engines to North America. I will consider buying one especially since diesel is cheaper than gas in Canada.

But only if its a manual.




RE: Well Its About Time
By FITCamaro on 2/21/2011 9:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. Besides I doubt their 4 cylinder auto can handle the torque of a turbodiesel.


Excellent!
By titanmiller on 2/21/2011 6:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not at all in the mood to buy a new car, especially a compact, but if I was this would be near the top of my list.




cruze blows
By AssBall on 2/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: cruze blows
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/21/2011 6:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
1) The Cruze replaced the Cobalt
2) The Cruze is miles ahead of the Cobalt in refinement, quality, fit/finish, and just about everything else
3) The Cobalt was a piece of s**t... PERIOD


RE: cruze blows
By FITCamaro on 2/21/2011 9:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
My Cobalt served me quiet well and the day I sold it it looked nearly as good as the day I bought it. Only rock chips on the front bumper and knick or two elsewhere. Got 31 mpg highway from mile 6 to mile 50,000ish when I sold it.

Just needed new brakes and oil changes.


RE: cruze blows
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/21/2011 9:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
That still doesn't change the fact that the Cruze makes the Cobalt look like a piece of s**t. The Cobalt was a bargain basement, buy it if you can get $4,000 off MRSP lump that GM basically gave away.

Sure, the Cobalt is fine as basic transportation, but the Cruze is actually a FINE automobile that I would put up against the best from Japan, Europe, and South Korea in quality/amenities. You couldn't say that about the Cobalt with a straight face.

The Cruze is something that GM can actually be proud of.


RE: cruze blows
By YashBudini on 2/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: cruze blows
By ChugokuOtaku on 2/22/2011 1:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
you can with this one.

Cruze has been on the streets of Europe/Asia for a few years now, and they're great over there. In fact, not just Cruze, but other International versions of GM/Ford cars overseas have great reliability/design/lifespan compared to their domestic siblings that make up the laughingstock of the American auto industry. I'd take the Ford Mondeo over a Fusion/Taurus any day, too bad they're not over here.


RE: cruze blows
By lagomorpha on 2/22/2011 1:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
Be nice. Compared to the Cavalier it replaced, the Cobalt was practically a luxury car. One step at a time, you don't go straight from making Yugos to Bugattis.


RE: cruze blows
By jharper12 on 2/22/2011 8:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sweet... I'm a pretty big Chevrolet fan, and I find this comment to be hilarious and awesome. Good work sir. Glad Chevy finally has a small car to be proud of...


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki