« Groundwork Begun for Greater Use of Ethanol in California’s Gasoline; E10 Approved | Main | GM Moves 500 Fuel Cell Experts from Labs to Production »
GM to Introduce New Tier 2 Bin 5 4.5-Liter Diesel for Light-Duty Trucks
15 June 2007
General Motors will introduce a new 4.5L V-8 Duramax turbo-diesel that improves engine fuel efficiency by 25% compared to gasoline engines, and reduces CO2 emissions by 13% and cuts particulates and NOx emissions by at least 90% compared to comparable diesels today. The engine will be rated in excess of 310 hp (231 kW) and 520 lb-ft (705 Nm) of torque.
This will be GM’s first engine to use a selective catalytic reduction NOx aftertreatment system with a diesel particulate filter to help achieve the Tier 2 Bin 5 and California LEV 2 emissions standards. The engine will be applied in pickup trucks of less than 8,600 lbs (3,900 kg) GVW and the HUMMER H2 after 2009.
This new GM light duty diesel is expected to become a favorite among customers who require excellent towing ability and fuel efficiency. It will meet the stringent 2010 emissions standards, and it will be compliant in all 50 states, making it one of the cleanest diesel vehicles ever produced.
—Tom Stephens, group vice president, GM Global Powertrain and Quality
The new dual-overhead cam, four-valve V-8 diesel engine will fit within the same space of a small-block V-8 gasoline engine. This compact size is made possible by using integral cylinder head exhaust manifolds, integral cam cover intake manifolds and a narrow block.
Technical highlights of the engine include aluminum cylinder heads with integrated manifolding; a variable-vane turbocharger with intercooling; a Compacted Graphite Iron (CGI) block for a stronger and lighter engine base (compared to lower-strength aluminum or heavier grey cast iron); and fracture-split main bearing caps and connecting rods for a precise fit. An electronically controlled, ultra-high-pressure, common-rail fuel system is used, which has the ability to inject fuel five times per combustion event to control noise and emissions.
GM currently offers 17 diesel engine variants in 45 vehicle lines around the world. GM sells more than one million diesel engines annually, with products that offer a range of choices from the 1.3L four-cylinder diesel engine sold in the Opel Agila and Corsa, up to the 6.6L V-8 Duramax diesel sold in full-size vans, heavy duty pickups and medium duty trucks in the US.
GM first introduced the Duramax diesel 6.6L V-8 in the US in the 2001 model year.
GM will produce the new engine at its plant in Tonawanda, NY and is investing will invest $100 million in the plant for that purpose.
June 15, 2007 in Diesel, Engines | Permalink | Comments (54) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/19335396
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM to Introduce New Tier 2 Bin 5 4.5-Liter Diesel for Light-Duty Trucks :
Comments
Now this is what I have been waiting for. The agency I work for uses over a thousand pickup trucks and we have to keep both diesel and gasoline fuel tanks at the moment. Not that I am high enough up the food chain to make those kind of purchasing decisions but I can allways hope.
Posted by: kermit | Jun 15, 2007 2:36:38 PM
Good, this is a big diesel I can go for. Clean, sized right for the job (you obviously don't need a 6 + liter diesel for a light duty truck), and more fuel efficient than most of today's offerings.
Posted by: Patrick | Jun 15, 2007 2:55:57 PM
Awesome. Now all they need to do is offer it across all trims, not just for the expensive ones like Jeep is doing with the Cherokee CRD (only offering it in a Limited, which starts at $38,000).
Posted by: John Ard | Jun 15, 2007 3:58:03 PM
It's about time! Plus let's not forget the compatibility with biodiesel and e-diesel.
I'd like to see this industrywide. If both domestic and import automakers were smart, they'd switch over light trucks (pickups, SUVs, vans) to diesel instead of gasoline.
Posted by: Mark R. W. Jr. | Jun 15, 2007 4:20:11 PM
Just wondering--does this engine meet one of those new regulations that the car companies fought and claimed would cause a rift in the time-space continuum?
It seems there's quite a disconnect between what the managers at those companies think can be done economically and what their own engineers can actually deliver.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Jun 15, 2007 5:49:10 PM
Mark R. W. Jr. - I couldn't agree more. I'm slowly getting ready to buy a new vehicle - and would love to buy an American diesel along the lines mentioned in the article.
Posted by: ejj | Jun 15, 2007 5:53:11 PM
So whats the reason for this new push to Diesels, earlier Honda & Nissan announced some models.
Is it because gasolene is getting expensive to produce.
Posted by: Max Reid | Jun 15, 2007 5:59:50 PM
I see a great future for micro-hybrid clean diesel for trucks/SUVs--anything that has a towing requirement. You can't tow a boat with a Prius (lots of boats being towed right now where I live).
Posted by: Nick | Jun 15, 2007 6:39:38 PM
I know it's been discussed on this site before, but when one considers the total environmental impact of a vehicle, from manufacture through it's entire operational life, a diesel Hummer outperforms a Prius.
And that Hummer holds nearly twice as many people as the Prius. Which begs the question: Why don't we rate vehicles on the basis of passenger-miles per gallon?
Posted by: terry | Jun 15, 2007 8:15:45 PM
"I know it's been discussed on this site before, but when one considers the total environmental impact of a vehicle, from manufacture through it's entire operational life, a diesel Hummer outperforms a Prius."
Get real. That's been totally debunked. Figures lie and liars figure, and in this case they are using ridiculously low figures lifespan figures for the hybrid vs. ridiculously high lifespan figures for the Hummer, along with other faulty assumptions.
"And that Hummer holds nearly twice as many people as the Prius."
Well, the Prius is rated for 5 passengers and the H2 for 5, but lets say 4 and 5 in the real world. 4 is closer to 5 than to 8 the last time I looked at a number line. Have you ever looked at one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_line
Posted by: PeakVT | Jun 15, 2007 8:54:10 PM
Great news! A 4.5 liter V8 T2B5 is a welcome addition. Can a Tonawanda-built 2.2 4cylinder or 2.7 5cyl be far behind?
BTW my "obselete" 03 Saab 2.2 TiD still kickin'it. 34-46mpg is a wonderful thing. Go GM.
Posted by: fred@dzlsabe.com | Jun 15, 2007 9:20:58 PM
GM still not getting it. It's 50mpg not 300 horsepower that people want.
Posted by: Randy | Jun 15, 2007 9:47:01 PM
Uh, Randy, maybe it's not GM. Maybe it's you. In case you don't remember, the (GM) '94 Geo Metro XFi got 53mpg city/58 mpg highway. Hardly anyone bought them.
Posted by: terry | Jun 15, 2007 10:44:42 PM
I asked Land Rover if I could buy a vehicle with a diesel engine last time I purchased a vehicle, and they said "No". Perhaps they will take a cue from GM. I drove a diesel Range Rover Sport last month when I was in Russia on business, and I thought it was fantastic.
PeakVT: debunked by whom? I'll bet that for every "peer reviewed" study you can cite debunking it, someone else can find one that debunks your debunking. Like you said, "figures lie and liars figure." Which would you rather have: a soccer mom in a Hummer that drives 10 miles round trip twice a week to drop the kids at soccer practice, or someone in a Prius (like my neighbor) that commutes 70 miles a day to work? If they both drove the same amount of miles, obviously you would think that the Hummer is worse, but in this case.....?
Meh. Religious fanatics always find a way to make 1+1=4 (or 5?).
BTW, Hummers are b*tt-ugly, but I heard something once about beauty being in the eye....
Posted by: mike | Jun 16, 2007 1:30:20 AM
Mike:
It got debunked right here on this site, and about 10 regular posters piled on, pointing out how the study blatantly spun the data, with no justification.
Find the study, and look at how many miles they expect each vehicle to be on the road, and how many miles per year. IIRC, the differences between the "estimates" for the Hummer and Prius were laughable, and the so-called study offered no justification for the enormous differences, all of which conveniently made the Hummer look more environmentally attractive.
And the study was not peer reviewed nor published in a respective journal. It was a sham.
Posted by: stomv | Jun 16, 2007 5:42:30 AM
The really important news here is that GM has followed MB's lead and opted for SCR technology to meet Tier2 Bin5. GM Powertrain is a global division employing some 80,000 people. The diesel expertise gained in the otherwise ill-fated JV with Fiat and its VM Motori subsidiary has already been put to good use by GM Europe, and is now coming to the US.
The fact that GM America's last foray into diesel engine design in the 1980s (Oldsmobile Aurora) is not at all pertinent to the engine being presented here.
This press release is possible only because MB and others recently managed to persuade EPA and CARB that SCR was the only realistic option for medium-to-large displacements and, that concerns about AdBlue availability and device defeats have been addressed.
So forget the specifics of this particular engine for a moment: SCR + DPF means modern turbodiesels will capture high market share in the large RWD sedan, SUV and pick-up truck segments by 2015.
For smaller FWD cars, NOx store catalysts are cheaper than SCR but still very expensive. Gasoline-only and micro/mild hybrids will likely continue to dominate in the lower segments of the US market, where diesel fuel is priced (reasonably enough) roughly on par with gasoline on an energy content basis.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jun 16, 2007 6:11:21 AM
Message to GM:
Bless your hearts for doing this! If you make them well, people will buy them faster than you can make them!
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jun 16, 2007 6:15:05 AM
4.5L is a nice start, but what about medium size trucks? It would be nice to see something in the 3.0L range that Toyota offers on their Hilux, which will soon be introduced over here.
Posted by: dsl987 | Jun 16, 2007 6:17:17 AM
Hummer-H2 consuming lesser energy than Prius is based on the assumption that Prius life is 109,000 miles and H2 life is 300,000.
Thats flat wrong as a Canadian cab driver has driven his Prius-1 for 200,000 miles. Toyota examined that vehicle and found everything intact.
With 2 powerplants (engine & motor), actually Prius could go more miles than Hummer-H2.
People have found the truth and thats why Hummer-H2 sales is down by 75 % in the last 4 years, while Prius have skyrocketed some 400-500 %.
European automakers are selling Diesels as small as 1.3 liter range, I dont know why GM is pushing for 4.5 liter. Atleast they have realised that gasolene is going to be more expensive in the future.
If someone wants a vehicle to tow a boat, then buy a truck.
Posted by: Max Reid | Jun 16, 2007 8:01:46 AM
"Which would you rather have: a soccer mom in a Hummer that drives 10 miles round trip twice a week to drop the kids at soccer practice, or someone in a Prius (like my neighbor) that commutes 70 miles a day to work? If they both drove the same amount of miles, obviously you would think that the Hummer is worse, but in this case.....?"
Nice straw man.
Besides, the Prius costs about half as much as an H2, meaning it embodies much less energy from the get-go. Obviously both should drive a Prius.
Posted by: PeakVT | Jun 16, 2007 9:01:57 AM
@dsl987 -
building a reliable 4-banger turbodiesel isn't the issue, there are plenty of those plying the streets of Europe. The problem is that EPA/CARB emissions standards are so strict that the technology required to meet them would price such a small diesel out of the market.
Example: MY2007 Colorado Work Truck, 2.9L I4 gasoline, 2WD, 5-speed manual officially gets 20/26 MPG. Figure 15,000 miles annually and $3.50 average for gas over the next 8 years. Total lifetime fuel cost $18260.
Now figure a clean diesel option offering similar performance would cost $3000 more but get 25/33 MPG of *gasoil*. Figure same mileage, same length of ownership, but an average of $3.80 per gallon of diesel. Total lifetime fuel cost $15724, i.e. about the difference in initial purchase cost. However, you'd also have spend more on AdBlue, VLF, insurance and maintenance.
Unless the MPG improvement were substantially more than 25% higher, you would qualify for a tax credit and/or you could write off the asset as a business expense, such a small diesel might not be the better choice. The externalities of the US market don't favor diesels the way those of the European market do.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jun 16, 2007 9:44:22 AM
"Nice straw man.
Besides, the Prius costs about half as much as an H2, meaning it embodies much less energy from the get-go. Obviously both should drive a Prius."
Uh-Oh, someone put their Intro to Logic 101 hat on......
Obviously, both should drive whatever they want to drive. If soccer mom wants to drive a Kenworth cab-over to soccer practice, more power to her.
Posted by: mike | Jun 16, 2007 11:03:00 AM
Rafael,
Well said. But as far as I know neither CARB nor EPA have officially recognized SCR as an approved and suitable technology alhtough the EPA did establish guidelines for anti-defeating measures that might allow the use sometime in the undefined future.
In Other Words, the bureaucrats have NOT yet gotten off their duffs. It is getting awfully close to the 2008 model year without any definative regulatory approval. Has thier delay moved the sdvent to the 2009 model year, thanks ENTIRELY to the bureaucrats?
This sppears to be a "clean sheet" design giving GM at least four State of the Art engines; this mid-size clean deisel, and also the 'HighFeature' advanced 3.6 liter V6 gasoline engine, and a fine two liter Ecotec four to accompany its advanced larger 'Northwind' V8.
I am unaware of GM's standing in the nominal 1 liter class, as these are not present in the US marketplace. But it would appear that GM need not compete with inferior engines or transmissions for much, if any longer.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jun 16, 2007 11:39:56 AM
"If soccer mom wants to drive a Kenworth cab-over to soccer practice, more power to her."
Right, because there are no externalities to driving gas guzzlers. None whatsoever. Never has been, never will be.
I have a Logic 101 hat around here somewhere you can try out.
Posted by: PeakVT | Jun 16, 2007 1:24:34 PM
Nobody said anything about externalities. I know they exist, but they are not as important to everyone as they are to you. You would see her making a bad decision, I would see her exercising free will (as illogical as her choice may be).
Here is a basic fact: society not only approves of the use of gas guzzlers, they reward it. See section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code if you doubt me. I take advantage of it, soccer mom takes advantage of it, and your taxes subsidize our choices (if you live in the United States).
Externalities in the form of higher taxes? Well, quite frankly, we don't pay them, you do. Soccer mom and myself have an income structure that allows us to write that stuff off. Externalities in the form of damage to the environment? Don't worry about it, the same taxes you pay will fund cleanup.
I have a logic 101 hat of my own. I wore it when I figured out how to use the law and tax codes to buy and drive what I want without paying for it.
Posted by: mike | Jun 16, 2007 4:51:56 PM
@ mike-
Please respond to the 300K lifetime usage Hummer H2 and the 109K Prius lifetime usage assumption asserted in the study you cite. Do you still think the Prius uses more energy over its lifetime? If so, please demonstrate why. Facts are good.
Posted by: Green Destiny | Jun 16, 2007 6:34:45 PM
"Nobody said anything about externalities."
That's the whole point of this site - the externalities of driving cars powered by fossil fuels, and what to do about it. Duh.
As to the rest of your insults and bragging: whatever. Cough up some real arguments or STFU.
Posted by: PeakVT | Jun 16, 2007 7:29:29 PM
GM. Please build a 50 mpg pickup or van that runs on biofuel. No batteries please. For the Prius, the material is mining in Canada at a big net loss to the environment. This material is then shipped to another country for processing. No petrol engine needed either. Gas is passe.
Posted by: Randy | Jun 16, 2007 8:40:17 PM
but they are not as important to everyone as they are to you.
Of course it's not important to Hummer drivers because they are being subsidized by everyone who drives anything that gets better than 12 mpg.
Posted by: DS | Jun 16, 2007 8:54:56 PM
Mike, don't be a jackass. These externalities that you don't care about may not be paid by you directly out of your wallet but they will be paid by future generations and even today. How many kids who live in heavily polluted areas like LA develop asthma because idiots like you don't give a crap? How's that for cost-free externality? From your comments, you are obviously a selfish, avaricious, bastard who should go suck on a tailpipe.
Posted by: RL | Jun 16, 2007 10:47:49 PM
RL, good point!
But I think, even these kids would like to drive a Diesel-SUV through LA. Coughing.
It´s why well educated people sometimes implement reasonalble laws like emmission regulations.
Some less educated or obstinate people hate this. Politics.
The problem I see with the increase of market share of Diesel cars in the US is a rising market share of SUVs.
Overall, fuel consumption would hardly decrease but remain static. People would buy SUVs with lets say 30mpg and high engergy consumption during production instead of compact cars like Prius or Civic.
They even would switch from an 30mpg sedan to a 30mpg SUV. The problem is, its hard to get them out of these SUVs later on. And its even harder to achive 50mpg with a Diesel SUV. Its about weight and aerodynamics, isn´t it?
Posted by: Michel | Jun 17, 2007 5:21:33 AM
Btw,
Lexus 400h proved superior to German Diesel-SUVs BMW X5, MB M and VW Toureg (Euro IV) in test made by German car press.
It proved more fuel efficent (almost 30%) than modern German Diesel engine with the same power output.
And the Lexus emmits less CO2, NOx.
Posted by: Michel | Jun 17, 2007 5:29:21 AM
Example: MY2007 Colorado Work Truck, 2.9L I4 gasoline, 2WD, 5-speed manual officially gets 20/26 MPG. Figure 15,000 miles annually and $3.50 average for gas over the next 8 years. Total lifetime fuel cost $18260.What I'm seeing these days is diesel prices between 10¢/ and 50¢/gallon less than regular unleaded. Figuring $3.35/gallon average, the lifetime fuel cost would be $13862 for a difference of about $4400 in favor of the diesel.Now figure a clean diesel option offering similar performance would cost $3000 more but get 25/33 MPG of *gasoil*. Figure same mileage, same length of ownership, but an average of $3.80 per gallon of diesel. Total lifetime fuel cost $15724, i.e. about the difference in initial purchase cost. However, you'd also have spend more on AdBlue, VLF, insurance and maintenance.
I should also mention here that the major part of the claimed environmental damage of the Prius is due to sulfur emissions from one nickel smelter in Sudbury, Ontario. This smelter could easily be cleaned up, essentially reversing the argument.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 17, 2007 7:11:16 AM
Rafael,
Your predictions are not my predictions for your new truck. How about an average price of gas over the next 8 years of $4.00/gal, with diesel at $3.75/gal? Historically diesel costs less at the pump, even with the added taxes in the USA. The premium for a Tier2/Bin5 diesel may be only $2000 in a 4 cylinder engine, and that's for immature technology. Also, this added cost may well be recouped at resale; any truck should last more than 120K miles. Now the difference in predicted fuel cost is well over $5,000.
More importantly, the diesel will have produced far less CO2, which makes it the green alternative. To make it a micro-hybrid would make our experiment all the more green. This would boost our savings further, even after the higher initial cost.
You say that fuel-saving technologies price vehicles out of the market, especially in combination. I think that any well heeled American with half a brain could see these differences in lifetime cost and environmental impact if they were appropriately presented on the Mulroney sticker.
There is a strong trend in the auto buying market whereby people of marginal income barely shop for new cars at all. The appeal of a new car is increasingly being tilted towards people of upper-middle class or better. The middle class buyers are now being squeezed by their variable rate mortgages in the USA, and will be shopping based on payments, not the purchase price. I would hope that appropriate car window stickering would help the middle class make the right choice for their pocket books. I believe that a bold environmental rating on the window sticker would be a positive factor in persuading all buyers to purchase the greener of the vehicles under consideration.
The GM V8 seems to be an excellent first step. Now let’s see if they move the technology down the line to make a 4 cylinder version.
Posted by: JC | Jun 17, 2007 8:36:29 AM
Green Destiny:
I didn't cite that study, Terry did. I was just pointing out that the normal operating procedure on this site and most others (on both sides of the issue) is that if someone brings up a study that disagrees with your point, it is automatically stated that the study has been "debunked." Maybe the study was debunked, maybe it wasn't. It doesn't matter to me either way.
PeakVT:
Sounds like you need a hug. I was under the impression that this site is about advances in green car technology. I guess if you want to get flexible with the meaning of the articles, you could tie in externalities, but I have yet to see that word in the title of the site. It says "Green Car Congress", not "Externality Congress." Duh.
You appear to be a sensitive guy. I didn't view anything I said as in insult, and I don't think any of it was. Even if it were, thick skin is a virtue. As far as arguments go, I don't have to make any - congress and the US voter make them for me.
And STFU? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you weren't wearing your logic hat when you typed that.
DS:
I don't drive a Hummer, but that's pretty much that way it works.
RL:
They could do what I did and move out of LA. I am not responsible for the choices they make, and the law places no burden on me to worry about their living conditions. The taxes I do pay and the charity I give from the company income are used to enhance their standard of living, but that doesn't mean I need to appreciably change my lifestyle, and the bottom line is that I don't have to. If it makes you feel good to worry about them and let them have a say in what transporation you use, have at it. I won't try to stop you, and I wouldn't vote for a law that does.
Posted by: mike | Jun 17, 2007 12:07:37 PM
Stan, JC -
I sincerely doubt EPA and CARB would reverse course and not permit SCR at this late stage. The recent EPA publication laid out fairly specific criteria that MB and others have agreed to meet. If they do to EPA's satisfaction, both it and CARB are widely expected to give the green light early enough to avoid blame for any delay.
---
Gasoline and diesel price vary quite a bit by grade, season and region. For the long-term trend, go to the following URL and select "View History" for the fuel grade or type you are interested in. Then, select "annual" or "montly" view, as appropriate. Below are the data for gasoline, diesel and ULSD.
As you can see, the national average retail price for both fuels is still below $3, so my estimates of $3.50/$3.80 *national* average over the next 8 years might not be that far off. Unlike No. 2 diesel, a gallon of ULSD - the grade you need for exhaust systems designed to meet T2B5 - actually does cost about 8% more than gasoline. Expect this premium to rise if and when diesel engines achieve a significant share of the LDV market. The premium is fair because diesel contains about 10% more energy per gallon.
In Europe, diesel is 10% cheaper than petrol in a number of countries - originally, a sop to farm interests. Small wonder that 50% of new LDV registrations feature diesel engines and, that refineries are having to import finished diesel from Ukraine and Iran.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm
---
U.S. All Grades All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Cents per Gallon)
Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9
1990's 107.1 107.8 115.8 126.9 124.4 107.2 117.6
2000's 152.3 146.0 138.6 160.3 189.5 231.4 261.8
---
U.S. No 2 Diesel Retail Sales by All Sellers (Cents per Gallon)
Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9
1990's 111.4 111.0 123.5 119.8 104.4 112.1
2000's 149.1 140.1 131.9 150.9 181.0 240.2 270.5
---
U.S. No 2 Diesel Ultra Low Sulfur (0-15 ppm) Retail Sales by All Sellers (Cents per Gallon)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 251.3 268.0 284.7 281.8
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jun 17, 2007 1:43:20 PM
Soccer mom makes use of tax advantages to pay for her SUV? hahaha...please show me where that is from the tax code.
Tax payers paid for your SUV? Care to elucidate?
You do realize it is a tax deduction and not a tax credit right?
So if you were a small business owner (which includes doctors, lawyers, and others who have to register as a small business) you could avoid paying taxes and taking the most ideal situation you could have 35% of your SUV paid for by not owing taxes...but this isn't a rebate where you pull money out of the US treasury, you just avoid taxes for the year when you buy the vehicle.
I don't know of too many soccer moms who are registering themselves as small business owners...and what income are they claiming the deduction for?
Posted by: Patrick | Jun 17, 2007 3:04:53 PM
@ Rafael Seidl
I do not believe that making a clean diesel to meet EPA regs will add an additional $3,000 to the price of a vehicle. Anyway, we shall soon see as Toyota and many others will soon be introducing new diesels to the US market. I am personally waiting for the 3.0L diesel version of the Tacoma.
Posted by: dsl987 | Jun 17, 2007 4:42:18 PM
I think GCC is becoming popular enough to grab the attention of the automakers or the oil companies. A big enough deal for PR company Mike to make it on here to throw off discussions with inane statements, then to argue those as if he actually has a shadow of a point. GCC, ignore the corporate trolls, this won't be the last one you see. Don't let them destroy free discussion here, it's too important.
Posted by: Elliot | Jun 17, 2007 6:47:59 PM
Elliot,
A few years ago a very smart venture capitalist in Silicon Valley said something I'll always remember. When there are two possible explanations, conspiracy or incompetence, always go with incompetence.
Anyway, your point about not stifling discussion is right on.
Posted by: JamesEE | Jun 18, 2007 7:21:18 AM
Amazing how many people here are willing to bash those of us that drive our big SUV's. Yes I own a Escalade ESV, GMC Suburban and a Dodge Durango. Guess what, I will never get out of my big comfy SUV's. With everyone in my family over 6' tall, I see no reason to crame them into a polluting battery powered Prius. You can drive your coffin on wheels. With the amount of Big rigs on the road, I see more accidents where the people suffer big time by trying to save a little gas driving those coffins then people who are in a big SUV. My family's quality of life is MORE IMPORTANT than your Saving Gas.
GO GM, Finally a quite quality Duramax for my next SUV. :)
Posted by: GDF | Jun 18, 2007 2:04:41 PM
I'm over 6' tall also, and I get around fine in a 40-MPG Passat TDI. I'll be able to afford fuel even if it reaches $10/gallon, but I doubt GDF will. What happens to your family then?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 18, 2007 10:08:37 PM
Rafael,
Carb & EPA haven't recognized SCR as the "only realistic" option for medium-large displacements. NOx adsorbers have been standard on Dodge's diesel pickups since January.
You refer to statements by MB and EPA. Looking on google the only MB news release is an overly-optimistic response to the EPA memo. The EPA memo was severe, indicating that a vehicle's emissions could be tested with zero urea in the tank. If a vehicle could pass at that urea level, there will be no problem. Otherwise: "If the manufacturer can prove to the EPA that their SCR system design will not run out of reducing agent in-use and thus not exceed the emission standards, we may determine that the design is acceptable and approve certification of the vehicle design."
Not exactly what I'd call acceptance of SCR. I do think they'll accept it, but they want the system to encourage the user to refill urea enough that it gets done, but they are scared of stranding someone in Death Valley in August because of an emissions system failure or because they ran out of urea. It seems to me that the EPA memo was designed to make the engine/vehicle manufacturers become the bad guys in this respect.
Posted by: Harvey | Jun 19, 2007 8:08:29 AM
@ Mike – unfortunately, the use of that kind of "logic" leads to a nihilistic state. Citing the “normal operating procedure”, as you say, does not amount to a hill of beans when analyzing the issue. On the other hand- the facts, and the judicious and learned use of them, is far more significant.
I’d suggest you use the latter when assessing the relative merits of “debunking”. There are significant differences, and if these differences don’t matter to you, well they should. They are the difference between right and wrong, truth and fiction, scientific study and propaganda.
These differences are largely why we are here. If it doesn’t matter to you, why are you here?
Posted by: Green Destiny | Jun 19, 2007 10:40:34 AM
Harvey & Rafael,
I don't know about you but I could never authorize spending millions to retool a model changeover and commit to using a powertrain that has not received approvals. Time has run out as close as this month, when model changeovers start.
Without more certainty than what Harvey quotes, the comapnies can't go forward. If I did, and they said no; I would be fired, and furthermore I would agree with the firing. It could force the company to close those factories, and lay off thousands when they cannot build anyhting that can be sold off the assembly lines.
So what I said still goes. The reason the US will not have many, if any, T2B5 diesels in model year 2008, is that the committed better environment bureaucrats, those defenders of the environment...
DID NOT GET OFF THEIR A$$ES.
Heads should roll, but since they are government hacks, no one can get fired. Hmmn... ever wonder why the East Bloc environment is a disaster? Think about that, the next tiem you want some governnmental hack, to save the environment.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jun 19, 2007 11:01:26 AM
GDF -
Your SUV won't save you if a "big rig" runs you down.
I see more accidents from aggressive people in SUVs trying to tailgate people and cutting in front of big rigs...while I safely drive defensively in my "coffin" which can easily out accelerate and drive circles around most SUVs on the road.
BTW- to me, my family's safety is more important than your family's quality of life (is riding in a big SUV really providing a greater quality of life than riding in a luxury sedan???).
Posted by: Patrick | Jun 19, 2007 3:48:58 PM
Is it possible to have a civil conversation here?
Mike: I spoke to a Land Rover service manager about diesels from Land Rover North America and he said: a) He'd buy one in a heartbeat; b) their (upmarket) clients are less interested in diesel than the pickup truck crowd, it is an SUV after all; and c) (the clincher) they'd have to train all their mechanics to work on diesel engines too, and that's a cost they (LRNA head-office) didn't think was warranted.
Posted by: Floatplane | Jun 19, 2007 3:51:36 PM
Float-
The "clincher" has got to be one of the biggest red-herrings there is. Initially there is NO "working on diesels"...mfgs/dists would spend 5 minutes teaching a probably overworked LRover tech how to change a fuel filter and bleed the fuel system. If my experience with a diesel Saab with 85K now is any indicator, these motors dont break.
Posted by: fred@dzlsabe.com | Jun 19, 2007 8:29:49 PM
fred,
With modern engines breakage is rare regardless of technology unless there is a fault in manufacturing which causes a recall (typically, unless you are Mitsubishi, then you just sweep it under the rug).
The only reason, in my opinion, why it seems brand X may "appear" to have deficiencies is how easy it is for one person out of 10,000 to post a visibly negative comment that spreads throughout the world (published on the internet) and few people who never have problems will bother with a rebuttal or post of their own claiming good experiences...people are quick to complain but slow to congratulate if it is "expected" for something to work like normal (doesn't it even seem odd that one would consider giving an auto maker a high five just because your engine lasted 100,000 miles without any problems in this day and age?)
Posted by: Patrick | Jun 20, 2007 3:26:23 PM
GM will also be building a 2.9L turbo diesel for passenger cars very soon, 280hp. let me see here!! way back around 1970 this save the world stuff came up, I said 50,000 yrs ago there were no humans, and 50,000yrs from today there will be no humans. Now I do believe that all this pollution problems will be worked out in time. FWIW back in the mid 90s Bill Gates made a comment that to cure auto pollution ,simply eleminate personal transportation.
Posted by: ronbros | Jun 23, 2007 5:29:16 PM
Ra RA GM. It appears that they are trying!! Keep it up.
Posted by: BillW | Jun 25, 2007 4:13:12 PM
I'm glad to see some manufacture address the need for a mid size diesel motor and pickup. However It would nice to see this power plant in the yukon and tahoe.
Posted by: md | Jun 28, 2007 10:09:03 AM
The automobile market can be intimidating, and if you are just starting out in the wonderful world of wheels you may need advice on buying your first car. There are so many options for car buyers: new or used, red or blue, sports car or SUV, two or four doors… and that is just for starters! Also, as a new car buyer you need to be wary of advice on buying your first car, because there are still quite a few snake- oil salesmen out there in the automotive market looking to sell you a lemon. Following you will...
Posted by: EXPOSED! Dealership Scams! | Apr 6, 2008 6:50:26 AM
Since this has been out for about a year now I'd like to see some sort of stats on how well it actually worked out for GM.
Posted by: Cody Elliot Sortore | Aug 4, 2008 11:15:48 AM
