Print 81 comment(s) - last by freedom4556.. on Aug 27 at 5:30 PM

VW wants more incentives

Volkswagen AG (VW) wants diesel vehicles to get federal and state incentives similar to those for electric vehicles (EVs). Instead, the automaker feels diesels are "penalized." 

“We’re not feeling the love,” said Anna Schneider, vice president for industry and government relations at VW Group of America. “This is one of the greenest choices... It’s time the U.S. government included clean diesel in its ‘all of the above’ strategy’ for greening U.S. roads. Putting these vehicles on the road should be incentivized and not penalized, and that’s our goal.”

Diesels are about 30 percent more fuel efficient than gasoline vehicles, but the problem is that diesels have a higher carbon content than the gasoline-powered cars. For that reason, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that diesels only cut carbon emissions by 7 to 20 percent.

Hence, diesels don't get the same treatment as EVs. EVs receive many advantages, such as federal and state tax credits, access to carpool lanes, etc. This is because EVs are seen as key contributors to "greening" the auto industry, and that's especially important right now with the new 54.5 MPG CAFE standards in place for 2017-2025 model years. 

In fact, these new standards don't give diesels additional credits the way it does other vehicles. The EPA said it doesn’t believe diesel vehicles push the commercialization of technologies that will help autos reach zero (or even near-zero) emissions. In addition, the EPA doesn't seem to think that diesels have an issue with "consumer acceptance."

Further hurting the cause of diesels is that 15 U.S. states place additional taxes on diesel, and federal taxes for diesels are 6 cents higher than those of gasoline-powered autos. 

EVs, on the other hand, are eligible for a $7,500 federal tax credit. 

VW is a known promoter of diesel vehicles. For instance, the company confirmed its XL1 hybrid for production earlier this year. The two-seat Volkswagen XL1 has a plug-in diesel hybrid system that allows it to achieve 314 MPG and 31 miles on electric power alone. The CO2 emissions sits at 21 g/km, and it is considered the most aerodynamic car with a Cd figure of 0.189. It's also very light at just 1,752 pounds.

Source: The Detroit News

Comments     Threshold

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

Logic driven by profit
By davidm15 on 8/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: Logic driven by profit
By Argon18 on 8/22/2013 12:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's true, it's the *combination* of capabilities that makes diesels such a compelling buy:

The 20% reduction in carbon emissions *AND* the much improved fuel economy AND the much better durability/reliability.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By euler007 on 8/22/2013 1:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not forget the huge torque at low-rpm where most daily drivers operate (as opposed to the 5.5k rpm where the gasoline engines get their peak hp).

RE: Logic driven by profit
By Samus on 8/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: Logic driven by profit
By Motoman on 8/22/2013 3:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
That's not an issue you can broadly throw against all diesels.

My 2003 Dodge 3500 with the Cummins turbo diesel has well over 150,000 miles on it - and there's never been any trouble with it at all. And similar experiences from other people.

I'm not sure that US diesel is any different than European diesel, but I'd be interested to see data on that.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By euler007 on 8/26/2013 10:32:39 AM , Rating: 2
I don't ULSD is everywhere yet, but all it takes is one law and it's done.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By HangFire on 8/26/2013 3:06:02 PM , Rating: 1
Since the passage of ULSD (Ultra low-sulfer diesel fuel) regulations, the quality of US Diesel has been superb. The problems with Ford F250 diesels is that they are designed and made by Ford. Cummins diesels in same-size trucks have no such problem. Volkswagon diesels are superb. Ford is well known for blaming others for their quality problems; F150 spark plugs, 2012 Focus transmissions, etc.

Of course any underground fuel storage can be subject to water infiltration; including gasoline. That is a known issue and nothing to do with the quality of the fuel itself.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By superstition on 8/26/2013 5:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Since the passage of ULSD (Ultra low-sulfer diesel fuel) regulations, the quality of US Diesel has been superb.


While the quality, in terms of sulfur content, dramatically improved, the lubricity and cetane are subpar.

The EMA (Engine Manufacturers' Association), of which VW and Bosch are a part, came out with a white paper in 2005 arguing that the lubricity of US diesel is inadequate and will lead to premature wear (longevity problems) for fuel pumps. The same thing has been reiterated by the EMA since then. It's interesting how so many car buffs know nothing about this.

In addition to poor lubricity, the cetane standard (40 minimum) isn't as good as what's available in much of Europe.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By Solandri on 8/22/2013 4:36:21 PM , Rating: 3
Let's not forget the huge torque at low-rpm where most daily drivers operate (as opposed to the 5.5k rpm where the gasoline engines get their peak hp).

That's actually a disadvantage of diesels in cars.

To move a sedan at highway speeds only requires 20-25 hp. With a gasoline engine, you can generate that at low RPMs, but still have 200+ hp accessible at 5k RPM. i.e. The car normally operates at about 10%-15% its peak potential hp.

With a diesel, either you put in a small diesel engine so it can operate efficiently at low RPM but lacks hp at high RPM for highway passing. Or you put in a big diesel engine so it has the power for highway passing, but that lowers efficiency most of the time when it only needs to generate 20-25 hp.

That's why diesels are predominantly found in trucks - there's less of a difference between average and max power expectation on trucks. Having gobs of hp on tap for highway passing isn't a priority for trucks, so they go with the "small diesel" option. Their engines are designed to operate continuously higher up in the diesel engine's power band. That gives them efficiency, but costs them passing and acceleration power.

On diesel cars, they have to play tricks like turbocharging or supercharging to spread out the power band and make it more like a gasoline engine's power band.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/22/2013 7:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget in this age of CVTs and 6-8 speed automatic transmissions, the low-biased diesel torque curve becomes less of an issue. Remember that passing in a diesel does not automatically mean you need to kick down a gear to get your torque peak. You are already there! Add in the turbocharger and you can seriously feel that torque in the seat of your pants. Diesels really don't need to rev at 5k+ to produce power.

And if you think the turbo diesel would have a hard time passing, I will leave you with this u-tube:


RE: Logic driven by profit
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/22/2013 7:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
Here's another for giggles :D

RE: Logic driven by profit
By JediJeb on 8/22/2013 8:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe I have taken an engine over 3k rpm except maybe five times in my life, even when I owned a 99 Trans Am. Heck the Trans Am would make 70mph at maybe 1800rpm, even when passing it would never need to go above 3K rpm.

A guy I work with though has a Focus and I think he hits 5k rpm just leaving the parking lot. It sounds so stupid revving it up so high to only have to let off once he hits the speed limit of 25mph on the road in front of work.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2013 8:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe I have taken an engine over 3k rpm except maybe five times in my life

No offense but that is extremely difficult to believe.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By aliasfox on 8/23/2013 10:44:30 AM , Rating: 2
Why? For someone who never street races, it's perfectly believable. My parents never seem to exceed 3.5k RPM, even when passing on the highway. In most cars, you can accelerate from a dead stop to highway speeds and barely go above 2k RPM, in fact.

If you run an engine with decent torque on the bottom end, have a transmission that shifts early for fuel economy, and (importantly) you don't care about looking/sounding/feeling fast, staying below 3k is pretty easy. Even 2k is possible (I did it in my GTI a few times just for giggles).

RE: Logic driven by profit
By JediJeb on 8/23/2013 4:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
The little 4 cylinder Mustang I had in high school would to 70 if you wound it up near 3K, but back then the speed limit was 55, so rarely got anywhere near it.

The truck I drive now screams and sounds like it is flying apart over 2500 rpms(4.9l I6) and I usually shift it in a 1,3,5 pattern, hitting 5th gear by the time I am doing 30mph so never wind it up either. When you have the torque, why do you need to use the low gears much anyhow?

RE: Logic driven by profit
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/23/2013 4:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
Have to ask...

Why would you buy a 1999 Trans Am if you are never stepping on it. You would have saved yourself a big wad of gas money with a 1999 Hyundai Pony instead.

(At I had a 2005 Trans Am, and yes, I put my foot into it on occasion -- and not street racing either. Just kicking it down into passing gear getting on a freeway will hike it up to 4000).

RE: Logic driven by profit
By freedom4556 on 8/27/2013 5:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
...I had a 2005 Trans Am...
You're either a liar or a bad typist. You know how I know? The T/A went out of production for forever in 2002. RIP Pontiac

-2000 Firebird owner

RE: Logic driven by profit
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2013 5:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
Street races? We're talking 3,000 RPM. Not 6 or 7. 3K is extremely low. I didn't say it wasn't "possible" to not go above it. But I think most everyone does. Routinely. To claim otherwise is just silly.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By jmarchel on 8/23/2013 10:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong about fuel economy. Diesel burns less gallons of diesel fuel but you need more barrels of oil to make it. From barrel of oil you can get 18 gallons of gasoline but only 9 gallons of heating oil and diesel fuel combined.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By euler007 on 8/26/2013 10:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you understand the refining process at all. Yes from a barrel of crude you will get a fixed amount of diesel and of gasoline (and other heavier and light products).

The american refineries use cracking technologies (usually FCC) to increase the gasoline output of the barrel.

It's not like they throw away the gasoline. This article is just about getting a fair taxation structure for Diesel versus Gasoline and Hybrids.

The gasoline will be used. If your daily drive is getting up in a cold climate and driving 4 miles, gasoline is the way to go. If you get up and drive 400 miles on the highway regularly, diesel is the way to go.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/22/2013 12:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure what's got your ears in a knot, but there are a couple of things to consider:

1. Electric cars are very new. They also need a lot of maturing to get their range up to anything near a fossil fuel car. The only electrci that even comes close is the Tesla s.

2. Hybrids are a half-assed solution. Sure you get a little better mileage but at the cost of doubling the complexity and adding a huge amount of weight. Not very efficient! As well their ballyhooed efficiency is just not there when you use them on highways at highway speeds. Not very useful for commuters.

3. Clean diesels have only within the last year or so started coming out in North America for anything except Vee-Dubs. Previous diesels polluted the air like pigs, rattled like a can of marbles when they ran and left a bad taste in early adopter's mouths. We in North America are very pollution conscious and tend to not buy 'dirty' cars. We also like our cars to NOT sound like they are falling off their wheels. Let more quiet, clean diesel options appear in automaker dealers and we will buy them like mad. Until then it appears to be a europe-only market.

4. Realize that we also prize reliability and VW has not shown a very track record in regards to reliability. That said there are still an awful lot of VW & Audi TDIs sold in the U.S. I might even hazard to guesstimate that VW sells more Jetta TDIs in N.A. than anywhere else in the world.

So before you start whining about "You Americans....", perhaps you really should look at what is really happening in the world.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By Peter-B on 8/22/2013 4:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
We in North America are very pollution conscious and tend to not buy 'dirty' cars.

That's hilarious! You like to drive 3+ litre vehicles even just to go grocery shopping! In Europe 1.4-1.6 litre diesel and gasoline engines are very popular, Ford even released 1.0 120 hp gasoline supermini. Would you drive a car like that in North America? They are cleaner than anything non-EV you have (39 urban / 56 highway US-MPG).

RE: Logic driven by profit
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/22/2013 6:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
There is a reason for that.

In North America, gasoline is about half the price that it goes for in other continents -- except maybe in the Middle east where full size SUV's are really popular.

Realize also that roads in the older parts of many European cities are narrower than the average road in North America. Larger cars simply don't fit on them.

You are pointing at 1.4-1.6 liter cars in Europe. What kind of engines do you think are going into very popular cars like the Chevy Cruze? (hint: It's not a 3.0 liter V6). For the Ford Fusion, you can't even get one with a V6. The Hyundai Veloster and Elantra have retty small engines as well.

My Focus is 2.0 liters - and if it came in Diesel, I would have bought that.

I have already said this too: It was not until the last couple of years that automakers that sell cars in North America have even considered diesel. That is because there were no diesels out there that met our emission standards. In short they ran dirty. Now that diesels have been designed that can meet our emission standards, perhaps we will see more of them.

And yes a 1.0 liter car is not out of the question here. There are plenty of the following cars sold in North America:

You are making an assumption that North Americans would not be caught dead driving something that is cheap to run. Sadly car makers are looking at the North American market pretty much the same way you are. They are just recently getting the message that we like being able to drive 800+ miles on a tank of gas and not having to spend $80US to fill it.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2013 6:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
Hey asshole, America has the tightest emissions standards in the WORLD! Which is why we can't even BUY your shitty diesel vehicles here, they're too dirty!!

I'm so tired of you prick European elitists pissing on everything about us without knowing shit.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By erple2 on 8/25/2013 10:39:13 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair, mention a diesel to the average American, and they will tell you about the HORRIBLE attempt at one that GM made in the early 80s. It has taken VW a long time to try and erase that stain. I don't count Mercedes in that as they're not everyman type cars - they've had a loyal following for a long while.

When I asked VW about why it was so hard to get more diesel VW's here, the response was that CA would only allow a certain number sold in that state. I live on the east coast, the tresponse was a shrug.

The modern diesel engine is far more civilized than what people remember GM vomited out even 30 years ago. Diesels in Trucks have enjoyed a different renaissance here.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By HangFire on 8/26/2013 3:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
The reason there are not a lot of diesels sold to consumers in the US is very simple- since the introduction of ULSD, diesel usually costs more than premium fuel. That removes most or all incentive to "save money" by buying a diesel vehicle.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By middlehead on 8/22/2013 12:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'd love to drive a clean diesel, but I can't. I can't justify buying a vehicle I can only drive half the year. It gets too cold in the winter for a diesel daily driver.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By mellomonk on 8/22/2013 5:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
Again another misnomer from the diesels of yesteryear. Newer designs are nowhere near as problematic on those cold mornings Modern common rail diesels operate at tremendous pressures at the rail/injector. This pressure heats the fuel and all is well. They start in a few seconds and are only marginally noisier then and equivalent gas engine until they heat up. CR diesels are used in cars in many parts of the cold world, Russia, Sweden, ect.

RE: Logic driven by profit
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/13, Rating: -1
RE: Logic driven by profit
By marvdmartian on 8/26/2013 8:15:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I'm sure it's due solely to the gas hog vehicles Americans drive, and nothing to do with the crap that 2nd world countries, like China and India, pump into the atmosphere from their factories.

How callous of us, to be that way!! [/sarcasm]

Maybe the reason that VW diesels don't sell that well, is because they're not nearly as dependable a vehicle as people want to invest their money in? I've heard, over and over, in person and on forums, that dependability is hurting VW more than anything else.

Whole 6 cents?
By siconik on 8/22/2013 11:00:53 AM , Rating: 2
Further hurting the cause of diesels is that 15 U.S. states place additional taxes on diesel, and federal taxes for diesels are 6 cents higher than those of gasoline-powered autos.

Extremely inconvenient when you only have set aside am extra dime for diesel engine option during your car purchasing.

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By spamreader1 on 8/22/2013 11:38:13 AM , Rating: 2
Well that's 6 cents per/gallon after purchase penalty for driving a more fuel effecient vehicle. I think that's what the purpose of that statement really meant anyway.

If the extra taxes were removed it would place the cost of diesel fuel in the US roughly on par with mid grade gasoline, intead of being roughly the same price on premium grade gasoline.

Until the ULSD standards were put in place on diesel, it used to be cheaper per gallon than low grade gasoline.

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By wolrah on 8/22/2013 1:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
Until the ULSD standards were put in place on diesel, it used to be cheaper per gallon than low grade gasoline.

Diesel prices here in Ohio went up to roughly match 93 octane back in '04 or so, then ever since seem to have followed 93 on increases but usually doesn't fall back off nearly as fast.

ULSD didn't hit until '07 or so, even California hadn't mandated it until '06, so I can't see a relation there.

The fuel companies simply know that most gasoline vehicle owners can just scale back their driving as prices go up, where most diesels are commercial vehicles which need to be rolling to make money. Diesel drivers as a whole thus are less capable of "voting with their wallet". If we had a greater share of passenger vehicles with diesel power I guarantee the pricing would fluctuate more in line with lower grades of gasoline like it used to.

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By spamreader1 on 8/22/2013 2:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
Well in July 2006, sorry I can't seem to find August 2006 national average prices.
ULSD started Sept. 2006 in most US states, I think Alaska was exempt for some time, if I remember right.
Granted ULSD is not the only thing that affects diesel prices, also note that some areas of the country use a similar fuel for home heating that co-insides with diesel prices.

It is definately a factor, albeit one of several. I just personally noticed that myself in purchaing diesel for my hobby farm use, that the price rose quite a bit at the same time as the formulation change, and never really went back to it's orignal pricing compared with gasoline.

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/22/2013 6:31:37 PM , Rating: 3
Diesel and gasoline are commodities. When demand is high and supply low, prices rise. When demand is low and supply is high, prices fall.

Public buying is fickle. Gasoline is a much more dynamic market since there is a higher public demand on it. Diesel is used mostly in commerce and industry which is usually has rpetty steady requirements. Thus you don't see diesel prices fluctuate quite so widely as gasoline.

When Diesels become more popular in North America, you will see Diesel prices behaving more and more like gasoline. You will also see prices rise higher than gasoline as higher demand on Diesel starts overtaking gasoline and gasoline becomes less popular (resulting in higher supplies in that need to be stored).

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By JediJeb on 8/23/2013 4:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel and gasoline are commodities. When demand is high and supply low, prices rise. When demand is low and supply is high, prices fall.

The only problem with that is that the oil producers like to tweak supply so that it is always in line with demand so that prices stay high.

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/23/2013 4:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
You can only tweak supply just so much before you have undesired consequences.

When you consider that both gasoline and diesel from the same barrel of crude, attempting to reduce the supply of gas will also have an undesired effect of reducing the supply of diesel. They are tightly interrelated. Yes, refiners can tweak the amounts of each produced during crude distillation, but the fact is that they are both produced at the same time. So if you want to reduce the supply of gas, but not diesel, what do you do with the gas that will be produced anyway? Selling it would be the smart thing to do and to sell it, you will need to price it lower to attract demand.

Economics 101.

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By Solandri on 8/23/2013 2:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
The fuel companies simply know that most gasoline vehicle owners can just scale back their driving as prices go up, where most diesels are commercial vehicles which need to be rolling to make money. Diesel drivers as a whole thus are less capable of "voting with their wallet".

Diesel is more constrained than gasoline. You can alter the oil refining process to create more gasoline than diesel (basically break up some of the longer molecules to create shorter ones). You can do the reverse too (create more diesel than gasoline), but it's a lot harder and more expensive. It's easier to break stuff than it is to glue it together.

So the amount of gasoline that's produced can be (somewhat) easily scaled with demand. The amount of diesel not so much.

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By karimtemple on 8/22/2013 12:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
That's my problem, too. Diesel is awesome but the cars are always expensive. You'd think the trademark longevity of the engines would make up for that, but when you really think about it that kind of turns the investment into a liability unless you have to keep the car for 700K miles or whatever.

People with, like, 10-year-old kids should probably buy diesel to have a hand-me-down in their pocket.

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By euler007 on 8/22/2013 1:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
Where does the term "resale value" fit in your argument?

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By karimtemple on 8/22/2013 4:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
Resale value would be terrific if I lived in Europe or was disinterested in the other feature of longevity (being somewhat antithetical to resale value). I live in America; resale value isn't as much of a perk when no one is buying diesel. And it doesn't really change my point that diesel cars cost too much when the cheapest gas sedan is $10k and the cheapest diesel sedan is $20k. It's not like you're going to get $10,000 extra resale value.

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By euler007 on 8/22/2013 11:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
And of course this is based on a thorough investigation of the resale value of diesel vehicles in your area and totally not pulled out of your ass.

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By karimtemple on 8/23/2013 8:13:22 AM , Rating: 2
You know what, you're right, some diesel car somewhere probably has a $10,000 resale value advantage over its contemporaries. Yes. Sure. Absolutely. It's worthy of research. Definitely.

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By aliasfox on 8/23/2013 10:00:25 AM , Rating: 2
Because it's completely, 100% fair to compare the cheapest $10k Nissa Versa (or whatever else is that cheap) to a $20k Volkswagen Jetta TDI (/sarcasm). As bad as the current Jetta is, it's still leaps and bounds better than a $10k penalty box in terms of size and interior refinement.

Compare a $23k Jetta TDI against a $20k Jetta SE and your argument might actually hold some water...

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By karimtemple on 8/23/2013 11:10:46 AM , Rating: 2
The argument isn't that a Jetta TDI is comparable to a $10k car, it's that there is no $10k Jetta TDI. There is no sub-$20k diesel car. You either pay $20k or you don't get a new diesel. For $12k you can get an Elantra and for $13k you can get a Mazda3 or a Focus. The Jetta's not going to have an interior 'leaps and bounds' over those cars.

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By euler007 on 8/23/2013 11:35:20 AM , Rating: 2
You compare the resale value of the diesel versus gasoline version of the same car. That's how you make a valid argument.

RE: Whole 6 cents?
By karimtemple on 8/23/2013 1:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, if my argument was based on value and not on price. But alas.

Diesels do seem to have a bad rep
By bill.rookard on 8/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: Diesels do seem to have a bad rep
By 91TTZ on 8/22/2013 11:59:04 AM , Rating: 4
When I went to Europe, the cities stunk like diesel fumes. This was only a couple of years ago with all the "clean diesels".

The problem is that diesels output more particulates than gasoline engines.

RE: Diesels do seem to have a bad rep
By ClownPuncher on 8/22/2013 12:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not so much anymore, and that particulate matter isn't really a big deal.

RE: Diesels do seem to have a bad rep
By phatboye on 8/22/2013 2:56:44 PM , Rating: 3
and that particulate matter isn't really a big deal.

What? Particulate matter is a big deal! Can you please elaborate on what you mean by this statement.

RE: Diesels do seem to have a bad rep
By mellomonk on 8/22/2013 5:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
Particulate matter hasn't been much of an issue since the changeover to low sulfur fuel combined with newer emissions put in place in the mid 2000s. The particulate filters used in auto applications are very effective. Find the video on VWs website where they place a white cloth across the exhaust pipe of one of their TDi models and a regular petrol fueled car. Pretty eye opening.

RE: Diesels do seem to have a bad rep
By dnd728 on 8/22/2013 6:35:01 PM , Rating: 3
economical low engine speeds mean exhaust gases don't get hot enough to burn off the particulate matter--leading to clogged filters and expensive replacements.

By ClownPuncher on 8/22/2013 7:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
Then buy your car based on the proper application. If you're all in-town and low speeds, don't buy a diesel. If you commute on the freeway, do.

RE: Diesels do seem to have a bad rep
By Argon18 on 8/22/13, Rating: 0
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2013 4:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
So any diesel smell you noticed, is from the 1980's and 1990's diesels that are still going strong.

Speaking of smells, this set off my bullsh#t detector.

RE: Diesels do seem to have a bad rep
By Mint on 8/22/2013 6:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
Modern clean diesels are *cleaner* than gasoline engines
They're not. They're much better than before, but the vaunted TDI engines only get Tier 2 bin 5 rating, which is rather middling. The best get Tier 2 bin 2 rating, which only prototype diesels can hope to achieve).

RE: Diesels do seem to have a bad rep
By Wonga on 8/22/2013 12:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
Can I ask which parts of Europe you visited? In the UK I think about half of the cars on the road are now diesels and, although I agree with you about diesels generating more particulates, I'm hard pressed if I can find a footpath next to a road with stinks as a result, in the city I live in or any other city in the UK I frequent.

The particulates concern me a lot more than any stink that I haven't observed, as they are invisible and any city dweller probably breaths in a lot of them over a lifetime. The newer diesels with particulate filters should certainly help, but that creates a new problem for anyone who only uses their car to drive down the local supermarket only, as the filter will eventually blind.

RE: Diesels do seem to have a bad rep
By euler007 on 8/22/2013 1:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think he actually went there, that's the kind of FUD fed to the North American public about diesel. Not sure what his stake in it is, but I'd doubt it's none.

RE: Diesels do seem to have a bad rep
By kwrzesien on 8/22/2013 2:23:00 PM , Rating: 1
I've just been to India (Mumbai) and have been there three times before and Ghana (Accra) in 2000. The air quality is problem No. 1, and a lot of it is from small diesel vehicles. Now I understand that they are naturally going to have older vehicles, and less maintenance, and no emissions controls. But it adds up to a *lot* of particulates and other emissions and it sucks to be stuck behind those vehicles. I even carry an inhaler along just in case. Most people (foreigners) drive on recirc just because of this.

By euler007 on 8/22/2013 4:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
Because high sulfur diesel used in a carpool of 18M outdated cars is very applicable for the North American continent.

By amagriva on 8/25/2013 4:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
in India, and in all South-East Asia in general, the air killer are two-stroke engines (tuc-tuc, scooters, etc.) I thought it was impossible not to recognize that...

By BZDTemp on 8/23/2013 4:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
I gotta wonder where in Europe that was as I can't recognize that.

Maybe if it was in the southern part of Europe the fumes was actually from all the two wheel motor bikes or perhaps you visited the part of Europe that is not governed by EU regulations or similar(like Switzerland, Norway...)?

The problem is that diesels output more particulates than gasoline engines.

Modern diesel are equipped with particle filters unless you're in a place where laws doesn't require that and people are too cheap to then pay for them.

Gas vs. Diesel
By btc909 on 8/22/2013 2:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
You can get more Gallons from a barrel of oil vs. Diesel.

Gas - 19 Gallons
Diesel - 10 Gallons

It's all about profit per barrel of oil.

RE: Gas vs. Diesel
By silverblue on 8/22/2013 2:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
I must point out that 10 gallons is all that the refineries are actually prepared to extract from the barrel - the rest of the barrel (approx. 45 gallons of petroleum products) is for other uses. If the refineries decided to change the proportion then you'd get more diesel, but unless diesel vehicles look to get better traction, there's little incentive to do so.

RE: Gas vs. Diesel
By kwrzesien on 8/22/2013 2:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
True, but this is the way the refineries have been setup in this country, and the distribution network and gas stations have been setup. Changing rapidly is not an option, an apparently is not something the EPA deems as justified. I know when diesel is short and prices go up the Governor of Georgia cancels school for a few days to save on the buses burning diesel, that way it is available for farmers tractors and trucks. The last thing anyone wants is an army of motorists competing with them for their diesel.

RE: Gas vs. Diesel
By euler007 on 8/23/2013 8:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure you pulled out the P&ID and figured out the cost of taking the cracking units offline.

You also took into account the fact that the US exports a lot of diesel.

RE: Gas vs. Diesel
By drycrust3 on 8/22/2013 5:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
My understanding is Petrol and diesel don't eat the same part of the cake, they eat different parts. Petrol eats near the top of the cake, while diesel eats near the bottom of the cake.
Ok, the correct term is "distillates" or such like, but, as I understand it, diesel is a byproduct of the extraction of petrol from crude oil. Mr Diesel, the inventor of the diesel engine, was asked to make his diesel engines run on a petrol distillation byproduct that was difficult for the manufacturers to get rid of ... voila! Diesel fuel for diesel engines.
The crude oil petrol is extracted from isn't a pure substance, like water or meths, it's the left over of rotted plants and animals buried in the major mass extinction event eons ago, so its a mixture of a large range of hyrdrocarbons and other stuff whose composition is governed by what it came from and the depth it was extracted from, so while some of those chemicals can be used to make petrol, not every chemical can be used for that, or at least not efficiently.
So using your 19 gallons of petrol and 10 gallons of diesel, my understanding is this isn't an "either-or" situation, i.e. the petroleum plant manager doesn't have a choice as to whether to make either 19 gallons of petrol or 10 gallons of diesel per barrel of crude; it is more of an "that and that" situation, so she (or he) gets 10 gallons of diesel AND 19 gallons of petrol from a barrel of crude.

RE: Gas vs. Diesel
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/22/2013 7:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct. A barrel of crude is 42 US gallons.

When the barrel is processed, you may get something like 15 gallons of gasoline, 9 gal. of fuel oil (i.e. Diesel & heating oil) and 10 gal. of jet fuel (Kerosene) and 4 gal of other "heavy" products such as lubricants, grease, asphalt / bitumene and plastics and 4 gallons of lighter condensates/naphtha.

RE: Gas vs. Diesel
By Solandri on 8/23/2013 2:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
With some limits, the heavier products can be converted into lighter ones. You're basically breaking bonds in long molecules to create shorter ones. Diesel and gasoline are very close to each other in terms of density, so it's common practice to tweak the refining to produce more gasoline/less diesel if that's what's needed to meet demand.

The opposite (creating heavier products from lighters) is possible too, but much more difficult. Consequently from an oil processing standpoint, you're better off if demand is heavier for the lighter products - gasoline instead of diesel.

Diesel is dead, at least in the US
By greenchinesepuck on 8/22/2013 4:56:14 PM , Rating: 3
I live in Washington state and recently I purchased a brand new 2013 Camry LE, however I test drove 2013 Passat TDI three times at the various dealers including one in Oregon (because of the insane $4k special discount on one specific car on their lot)

Here's what I found after thorough comparison of 2013 Camry LE and 2013 Passat TDI

Passat TDI's advantage compared to Camry - significantly better mileage. Also the look is slightly better, more classy, both internal and external. Cabin materials are a bit better, vinyl in Passat was somewhat better than cloth in Camry.

Passat TDI's disadvantage compared to Camry - significantly higher price, quite a bit lower reliability, significantly higher cost of service (I compared recommended scheduled service for the first 5 years between them, asked a few dealers and independent garages around, and compared prices both for scheduled and non-scheduled (major breakup) work), plus the brake pedal feel in Passat TDI is really weird and bad compared to Camry, it's really soft and mushy, you don't feel anything but then you press pedal a millimeter further and suddenly breaks GRAB the wheels real strong, this is much worse and non-linear feel compared to the linear breaks in Camry that have better firmer pedal and they don't GRAB your wheels suddenly. I drove three different Passat TDI models to make sure this is the issue specific to all of them, not to just one random car I tested.Also Passat's cabin felt a little bit more cramped, less spacious and more noisy on a highway compared to Camry, it was a small difference but I noticed it and my wife noticed it even more. Also the ride in Passat was too stiff and not smooth enough to our taste. IMHO Camry is much closer to those cushy super soft and silent luxury cars (Lexus!) than Passat.

Overall I realized that a normal middle class family vehicle craving consumer like me would go for a diesel only if Toyota makes one, with low price, high reliability, and low maintenance costs (typical feats of any midsize midprice Toyota car). In this case advantages from higher mileage will not be compensated by much higher purchase price and much higher maintenance costs (multiplied by typical low reliability of VW cars).

But, to be honest, I don't see Toyota pushing for such a solution, they seem to be focused on hybrids, hence my title of death of diesel. Or maybe better said, not death but staying in a tiny niche as usual. VW can't raise their reliability, lower purchase cost and lower maintenance cost all at the same time, this is too much to ask from them.

I wish diesel became mainstream but unless Toyota invests heavily in diesels for consumer cars - this won't happen. And they won't since diesel already lost its chance to hybrids and BEVs like Leaf, Tesla, etc.

P.S. I smelled exhaust of both Camry and Passat TDI, surprisingly both don't smell at all. TDI smells just like nothing, it's a stream of odorless warm air from a pipe... same's true for Camry. So yeah, legends of "smelly diesels" look quite dumb to me, I wanna see an idiot here who tries to post one, then it'll be a field day for me haha :)))

By karimtemple on 8/23/2013 8:09:48 AM , Rating: 2
Man I wish I had points for upvoting.

By Monkey's Uncle on 8/23/2013 4:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
There has been a lot of research into producing clean diesels the last 10 years or so that are just starting to hit the North American markets the last couple of years.

It is tough to get certification for clean diesels passed in North America. We are really tough on new car emissions here.

Amount of Crude
By GTVic on 8/23/2013 2:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't the larger amount of crude oil required to produce Diesel vs. Gasoline negate the benefits of Diesel in small vehicles?

RE: Amount of Crude
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/23/2013 4:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
Supply and demand drives cost and prices.

There is less demand on Diesel than there is on Gasoline. As diesels become more prevalent in cars, this will change.

The gas company's biggest gripe today is that very reason. They see gasoline becoming less valuable and the harder to produce diesel more valuable. Because there is always more gasoline produced per barrel of crude than diesel, this will create a surplus of gasoline on the world markets and gas prices will fall as a result of less demand. Oil companies don't like to seeing their bread & butter money maker devaluing in favor of something that is harder for them to produce in projected quantities.

Clean diesel engines are a great thing today, but I personally envision trouble (and high costs) on the horizon as these start supplanting petrol engines.

MONKEY'S UNCLE PREDICTS: Expect to see diesel become the new "Premium" grade gas 10-15 years from now.
Remember, you saw it here first! ;)

RE: Amount of Crude
By Dr of crap on 8/26/2013 3:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but I've seen this to many times on here to let it slide -
Supply and demand

have no place in gas pricing and if you research it you'd see that it has no bearing. OPEC has very little to say about oil price any longer. We have increases in gas supplies and the price goes up, we have conflicts in Middle East countries and the price goes up.

Look into it and see the oil futures trading determines the direction that gas prices will go.

I fuel my VW with off road
By kleshodnic on 8/22/2013 5:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
Saves me $0.35 / gallon and since it's a car it will never be tank dipped at the truck weigh station.

RE: I fuel my VW with off road
By FITCamaro on 8/23/2013 8:48:33 AM , Rating: 2
You just have that hefty federal penalty if you get caught.

By ssj3gohan on 8/23/2013 5:05:26 AM , Rating: 2
Of course you are going to get more miles per gallon (or km per liter) if your fuel has a higher energy density. Why is this relevant? For emission standards, you should use either gCO2/km or kJ/km. Or in case of the consumer: also $/km.

Diesel please
By Scannall on 8/22/2013 2:35:32 PM , Rating: 1
I'd much rather drive a diesel over a hybrid. Fewer parts, better reliability. And hybrids rely heavily on rare earth elements. An eco-disaster in the making.

By laulie on 8/22/2013 4:52:56 PM , Rating: 1
my friend's ex-wife makes $62/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her payment was $15937 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more here ...........

"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki