« BMW Transfers Shares in Tritec Motors to Chrysler | Main | UCS: Increasing Fuel Economy Would Generate Jobs in the US Economy and Auto Industry »
Lutz: GM Will Have Tier 2 Bin 5 Diesel Passenger Cars in North America, But Diesel is Not a “Panacea”
13 July 2007
In a recent video post on GM’s Fast Lane blog, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz confirmed that the automaker would be introducing V-6 and all-aluminum V-8 diesel engines in light-duty diesel passenger vehicles into the North American market soon.
He noted that the Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions standards can “only be met through the use of urea“—i.e., with the use of a urea Selective Catalytic Reduction system for NOx control—and that broadly, GM light-duty diesels will likely not be a fifty-state solution for the US.
The good news is the standard [Tier 2 Bin 5] can be met. The bad news is that meeting these standards is about another $2,000 to $2,800 of emissions hardware and control systems on top of the already existing premium of a diesel engine over a gasoline engine which is anywhere between $1,000 and $2,000.
Making vehicles Bin 5 Tier 2 compliant is not the answer to a low-cost CAFE solution...I’m just cautioning you, do not assume that the diesel engine is the panacea and it’s going to get everybody to a fleet of 36 mpg.
In fact, even with Euro 5 [a more lenient standard than Tier 2 Bin 5], many European producers, including ourselves, are starting to ask ourselves, “Are the buyers of smaller cars actually going to pay a $4,000 - $4,500 premium to get a diesel engine which...the tougher the emissions you meet with diesels, the more the fuel economy advantage of diesels versus the modern gasoline engine shrinks?”
—Bob Lutz
Although diesel starts out with a significant advantage in lower fuel consumption over conventional gasoline engines, that advantages is being whittled away by increasing emissions requirements on the diesel, and increasing efficiency in gasoline engines, Lutz said.
With the modern Tier 2 Bin 5 engine, Lutz said, the diesel fuel economy advantage will be sharply reduced to around 15% improvement or maybe even only 12%.
Lutz pointed the use of gasoline direct injection as one of the enablers for increasing gasoline engine efficiency in the short term. In the medium-term, the advent of the homogeneous stratified charge gasoline engine will basically eliminate the differences between gasoline and diesel, Lutz said.
GM is about half-way through a three-year project working with supplier Robert Bosch and Stanford University to accelerate development of HCCI (homogeneous charge compression ignition) engines. (Earlier post.)
At best, the diesel engine in the future is going to be tremendously expensive, it’s going to have a sharply reduced fuel economy advantage over gasoline engines, and it’s not going to be a fifty state solution. It’s going to be minus California and minus whatever states adopt California standards.
—Bob Lutz
July 13, 2007 in Diesel, Fuel Efficiency | Permalink | Comments (40) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/20024724
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lutz: GM Will Have Tier 2 Bin 5 Diesel Passenger Cars in North America, But Diesel is Not a “Panacea”:
Comments
At best, the diesel engine in the future is going to be tremendously expensive, it’s going to have a sharply reduced fuel economy advantage over gasoline engines, and it’s not going to be a fifty state solution. It’s going to be minus California and minus whatever states adopt California standards.
—Bob Lutz
Bob is obviously speaking for GM....and no one else.
Posted by: DS | Jul 13, 2007 10:57:58 AM
Strange... it's as if GM operates in a vacuum...
Posted by: bluegreen | Jul 13, 2007 11:06:45 AM
I'll just wait for a Honda Civic diesel, thanks...
Posted by: Cervus | Jul 13, 2007 11:15:50 AM
Kicking and screaming, GM might actually be embarrassed into surviving. But not without some serious childish petulance.....
Posted by: Dollared | Jul 13, 2007 11:21:38 AM
Now before everybody starts on the Bob-bashing bandwagon, if you watched his video clip on fastlane or Youtube, you'll see he mentions plans to bring a myriad of diesels to market for GM, despite their pending less competitiveness with coming gas engine technologies. Many people still think you can get something for nothing or that diesels will be a cure-all.
I like diesels as much as anyone, but we have to consider the price difference and do the math when comparing to other technologies these days. The upcoming VW's and Honda diesels are not going to be cheap either. This is just a warning to our pocket books of the upcoming pinch when you write a check out for your new clean diesels.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jul 13, 2007 11:21:44 AM
Bob Lutz, as a recent poster so aptly said, is just GM's official circus announcer.
He decried that meeting proposed CAFE standards would cost the US consumer and additional $6,000 per vehicle.
$4,500 extra for clean diesels- really?
Let's see... VW will re-introduce their TDI's (50state legal- mind you) in 2008. Mercedes will also be selling 50-state legal CDI's. The average additional cost between gasser and diesel models from these manufacturers is projected to be LESS THAN $2,000. (a premium that is quickly recovered within the first year of ownership- unlike current Hybrids)
So once again, Lutz (GM) is full of hot air. They have been crying "wolf" for so long- it's difficult to trust their figures. Didn't they fight seatbelts, catalytic converters, and other technologies with similar "excessive cost to the consumer" arguments?
Posted by: DieselHybrid | Jul 13, 2007 11:33:03 AM
If they are dirty, more expensive and the fuel cost more, why would you want one? Seems to me that Toyota's HEV or a PHEV would be a better buy, especially if they can get the price down as they claim.
Unless of course you are caught up in the mystic of compression explosion engines and want the experience; or the salesman sees you coming.
Posted by: Lad | Jul 13, 2007 11:33:28 AM
The same old (cost) scare tactics over again.
Why not produce clean diesel engines in China, at less than half the cost.
If that's not enough to satisfy US customers, have the complete vehicle built in China for less than $20K.
That's what has happened with LCD HDTV and the price dropped by more than 50% in the last 3 years.
Posted by: Harvey D | Jul 13, 2007 11:44:48 AM
"If they are dirty, more expensive and the fuel cost more, why would you want one?"
Diesel fuel in my area is currently selling for about $2.79/gallon, which is about 20 cents less than regular unleaded. In the winter it does go up sharply (because diesel is the same chemically as fuel oil except for added dye), but people drive more during the summer.
This isn't including the fact that you can run biodiesel in them, and making your own biodiesel costs about 20 cents/gallon. Also, I biodiesel is readily available to me, but E85 is still nowhere to be found.
Posted by: Icelander | Jul 13, 2007 11:50:03 AM
It could be that SVO and biodiesel have a better net energy return when derived from waste oil, high yield tropical crops and algae than corn based ethanol. In the long term transportation will probably by bicycles, small electric cars and electric mass transit.
Posted by: glenn | Jul 13, 2007 12:39:16 PM
Harvey: Diesel fuel in my area is currently selling for about $2.79/gallon, which is about 20 cents less than regular unleaded. In the winter it does go up sharply (because diesel is the same chemically as fuel oil except for added dye), but people drive more during the summer.
Do household heating systems in America have the same stringent controls as cars?#
I remember reading that 2-stroke petrol lawnmowers chucked out 10s of times more pollution than a petrol engined car, as there was no legislation on these. Is there any point in having ultra tight diesel emission standards if home fuel can't be burnt uncontrollably?
Posted by: Alex | Jul 13, 2007 1:16:38 PM
I assume Lutz does great work behind the scenes. He has been paid millions for years by companies for his automotive skills.
But his public statements seem arbitrary and almost mischevious. More or less whatever comes to mind this morning.
Relying upon them for actual information is, IMO, about like watching a DVD of Bambi to learn how animals live in the woods.
Posted by: K | Jul 13, 2007 1:17:27 PM
Alex-
No, we have a separate product called "heating oil" that has much higher sulfur content than diesel fuel. They are chemically similar otherwise, though; you basically take the sulfur out of heating oil and then you have diesel fuel.
Keep in mind that heating oil is generally only in common use for heating in the northeastern states. Natural gas is generally used anywhere the pipes are present. Outside of the northeast, where the pipes aren't present, heating is either done with LP or electric.
Posted by: Wes | Jul 13, 2007 2:46:11 PM
Hmm... I think there is some progress toward taking the sulfur out of heating oil on a phased-in schedule delayed behind the roll-out of ULSD. One rationale for the delay is that the additional refining that takes the sulfur out of the ULSD, on top of strong demand for gasoline (which also takes more refining than it used to), is pushing refining capacity to the limit. And the sulfur reduction gets more benefit in vehicles because it allows for the exhaust aftertreatment systems to work- they clog up using higher-sulfur fuel. There is no aftertreatment to clog up as yet on any of the domestic systems.
Some parts of the US have NOx emissions standards for domestic furnaces, boilers, and/or water heaters fired by natural gas. There are now special low-NOx models of all of those products using special burner designs to be sold in areas where they are required.
Emissions rules are rolling out for all sorts of dirty non-road equipment- construction equipment, generators, yard equipment, etc. As usual it started in California first, EPA is following along few years behind them, and it will take a long time to have the new products replace the dirty old ones that are already in use.
Posted by: Wes | Jul 13, 2007 2:57:10 PM
...Although diesel starts out with a significant advantage in lower fuel consumption over conventional gasoline engines, that advantages is being whittled away by increasing emissions requirements on the diesel, and increasing efficiency in gasoline engines, Lutz said....
I am becoming increasingly skeptical that this decrease in the fuel economy gap will ever really materialize. Motor Trend magazine recently conducted a study (reported in the May 2007 issue) of vehicles with the latest in hybrid, FFV, diesel and gasoline engine technology. The diesel (MB E320 Bluetec) still gets the best fuel economy when differences in performance, weight, aerodynamics, etc., are taken into account, and is very close to the hybrid (a Toyota Camry Hybrid) in energy-equivalent fuel economy. MT used a "real world" driving cycle that was roughly equivalent to the FTP75 "combined" drive cycle.
The latest in conventional gasoline engine technology was a 2.0 liter turbocharged DI gasoline engine in a VW Passat. The fuel economy gap was still 55% and even 40% when taking diesel fuel's higher energy value into account.
I'm sure the turbo DI gassers could achieve higher fuel economy using "lean-burn" technology, but that introduces the same emissions challenges that diesels currently face.
Posted by: Carl | Jul 13, 2007 3:16:12 PM
Not sure how the poster above makes bio for 20 cents a gallon, but for most folks the cost is around $1 per gallon for materials and cost of electricity to do processing.
That assumes that the feedstock (Veg Oil, Animal Fat Oil, etc.) is free. In my area, one can buy clean waste oil that is good feed stock for about $1.50 per gallon, or some are able to gather and filter their feedstock for free.
Total Cost of BioDiesel from Waste oil is still under $3 for most areas, and Commercial BioDiesel is usally at or slightly above or at Petro Based Diesel Prices in the the North West (Oregon/Washington/Idaho). Oregon is now offering a 50 cents a gallon break on your income taxes for every gallon of B99 that residents buy in state (up to $400 per year). That makes even commercial Bio Cheaper than Petrol Based Diesel at pump in Oregon.
My only question is: "Would use of 5% Biodiesel (B5) in all diesel at the pump result in less need for treatment of the emissions?" Seems we are requiring 8% to 10% ethanol in just about all fuel for gasoline engines to help with emissions - I am wondering what 5% bio would do to the needs for emissions treatment?
VW Claims 2008 Car Models with Diesel engines will be 50 state compliant without urea injection, so maybe GM should just buy engines from VW for it's small cars. I think a 2L VW Engine would move that Daewoo Designed Checy Aveo down the road just fine, while beating it's current EPA estimates all to heck. (37MPG Freeway is the current number)
Posted by: Spokane Walt | Jul 13, 2007 3:23:31 PM
My recollection is that VW says that for small engines that they can be 50-state compliant without urea injection, but for larger engines the urea injection is required. Of course, GM doesn't care one bit about small engines - they want oversized 6 and 8 cylinder engines, so I suppose that the statement that urea is needed is essentially correct given the size of engines that GM has in mind.
Posted by: eric | Jul 13, 2007 3:45:56 PM
Lutz to every possibility for changing business as usual:
"I think I can't, I think I can't, I think I can't"
Posted by: BlackSun | Jul 13, 2007 6:20:23 PM
Lutz needs to be impeached. Saab (owned by GM for many years, and OPEL/Vauxhall, both have 4 cylinder diesel cars. No mention of a single 4 cylinder offering from Lutz. The guy is a Caddy man, he is cannot be trained.
Posted by: John Schreiber | Jul 13, 2007 6:56:45 PM
Ive been driving one of those 4cyl GM diesel cars for 85K now and Lutz needs to quit pulling Gs and sniffing JetA...its obviously affecting the grey matter.
Retire Bob, Impeach Dick.
Posted by: fred | Jul 13, 2007 8:18:07 PM
Lutz-think is saying that the major stockholders of GM only support American vehicle sales where the profit is measured in multiples of $5000. For the remainder of GM's world sales, something like half that will suffice.
He's saying that for the American market, his future high mileage vehicles will therefor only be attractive to prospective customers who are willing to pay a stiff premium for the environment (ironically, the same people who own multiple cars, homes, etc.)
Lutz is writting off the sub $20K/transaction car market for the States. He's been burned one too many times by promises from his own staff, who said that they could build a profitable vehicle for the masses. He's saying that he's not going to be suckered into replacing the Malibu or the Cobalt for a very, very long time. He'll import a relatively small number of Opels to keep Saturn from being a mini-stable like Buick.
Future Chevy platforms will be spun from the top down, after they've been used for Cadillac or Pontiac, a policy reminiscent of the utterly disredited "supply side economics" of the Reagan era. It's just as if a bunch of old men in a board room sat around and said that they knew that they didn't have a chance of being competitive, so they might as well build something that they (all fat cats) wouldn't mind being seen in.
If Lutz had half a brain, or gave two shits about GM's American employees, he'd be up on Capitol Hill every day, demanding Medicare for all Americans. Instead, he's decrying that tomorrow will dawn a new day.
Posted by: JC | Jul 13, 2007 10:11:42 PM
I do think that GM will soon offer the Duramax V-8 turbodiesel engine on all of their higher-end pickup trucks and SUV's by 2009. And we'll see a 3.3-liter V-6 turbodiesel engine that will find its way into the Buick Enclave/GMC Acadia/Saturn Outlook models at the the same time, too.
Posted by: Raymond | Jul 13, 2007 11:06:47 PM
Lutz forgets that not just petrol engines are under development (turbo, direct injection). If petrol engines get better results, diesel engines will get even better results (twin turbo, injection pressure 2000 to 3000 bar.) With incresing of injection pressure NOx decrease. Then smaller problems will be with aftertreatment.
Lutz looks like some people 10 years ago in Europe, who simply did not like diesel engines and decided not to promote them (unfortunatelly GM). Then the competition (even Ford of Europe) dramatically increased diesel versions sales and GM had to do the same. But with some delay and they lost some customers and money...
Posted by: Petr Tesar | Jul 13, 2007 11:56:13 PM
Hi All,
Well, the cost of hybridization is $2000 or less, per Toyota comments. In the case of the Camry, the V6 costs more than the Hybrid. If the V6 was down-performanced to the Camry Hybrid, with something like a 5 1/2 cylinder engine, the cost would probably be dead even. That along with the better fuel economy and less maintanence cost of the Hybrid.
Diesel has an advantage in towing, and bio fuels now. Maybe that will change, and we will see Butanol bio-fuel that a gas engine will run on. Or, the Prius/Camry might be modified to use the variable compression ratio to take advantage of E85 fully. So, in the long run towing looks to be the only diesel advantage.
This is all from the consumer point of view. From the car company point of view, they only need 1/3 the engineering time to come out with the diesels, than the hybrid, due to the european developed technology in-house. Diesels are a good match for the over-the road holiday boat towing rig. Which is what they apparently want to sell. To hell with the daily consumer grind, that is, what people want to buy. So, this looks to me to be another play for next years profits, and damn the future.
I look forward to being able to rent these diesels for the holiday trip. But I will never buy one.
Posted by: donee | Jul 14, 2007 7:23:33 AM
"Diesel has an advantage in towing, and bio fuels now."
I disagree with the latter part of that statement. Without a breakthrough in algae-based bio-oil, we don't have that much more production capacity of biodiesel. While B20 blends are being pushed, it has nothing to do with availability. In my opinion, we are much closer to mass-produced cellulosic ethanol/butanol than biodiesel from algae.
Personally, I don't see how anything that Lutz said was that inappropriate. Diesels do cost significantly more (especially when you just compare the costs of the engines/emission control systems).
I think the benefits of diesels are greatly exaggerated. People believe their % increases in mpg directly translates into the same % decrease in crude oil consumption. I have read that diesel only lowers crude oil consumption by around 10% as compared to gasoline.
With that said, I think Lutz has a point. You have to consider the cost-benefit analysis into the mix. Plus, even with the expense of all of the emission control equipment to meet the Tier 2 requirements, they will still pollute far more than the best hybrids. He also has a very good point about other technologies closing the combustion efficiency gap. Other than heat recovery systems, I don't see much room for advancement in diesels. However, HCCI gasoline engines are right around the corner.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 14, 2007 10:08:04 AM
…Plus, even with the expense of all of the emission control equipment to meet the Tier 2 requirements, they will still pollute far more than the best hybrids…
And I tend to disagree with this assertion (with all due respect). The problem with evaluating how “clean” a vehicle is based on what “Bin” it is certified to is that these “Bins” are too inflexible. The modern diesel cars are Bin 2 (SULEV) and even near Bin 1 (ZEV) with respect to every criteria pollutant except NOx.
Plus, evaporative emissions are not included in these “tailpipe” emission standards. Due to the extremely low volatility of diesel fuel, diesel vehicles are responsible for a tiny fraction of the evaporative emissions that gasoline vehicles (including hybrids) are responsible for. According to EPA, about 475,000 TONS of gasoline vapors are emitted per year in the U.S. just from the distribution of gasoline to gas stations. That’s over 150,000,000 gallons of gasoline that are simply wasted each year. In addition, these evaporative emissions contribute to air pollution (ozone (smog) formation, formaldehyde formation, secondary particulate matter formation (SOA)). And about one percent of these evaporative gasoline emissions are in the form of benzene (a known carcinogen).
It’s really a stretch to legitimately claim that gasoline vehicles (even gas-hybrids) are "much less polluting" than these latest clean diesel vehicles (T2B5) if you take all of the emissions ("pollutants") into account. That may have been true a decade or two ago, but even then only if you consider NOx and PM emissions more environmentally harmful than HC/VOC and CO emissions (which is debatable).
Posted by: Carl | Jul 14, 2007 2:49:17 PM
Carl, you make a good point.
I got a little off track getting into the emissions anyway. My main point was that Lutz really didn't say anything that was really off base. Diesels only improve our situation marginally, so he rightfully questions whether those investments are worth their cost.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 14, 2007 10:31:37 PM
"homogeneous stratified charge "
Bit of an oxymoron there.
Fuel Stratified injection is the only signficant improvement expected for gassers that's exclusive to gassers.
Lutz is nutz.
Light duty diesel engines really only cost as little as $200-300USD more than gassers. Much of the cost he's mentioning for engine is due to turbo, but comparing non-turbo gas to turbo diesel isnt fair in the cost regard. Also, I have little doubt that both emission control technologies and their costs will continue to get much better over the near term (<5 years).
I don't know why GM is trying so hard to downplay diesels. If Lutz really speaks for GM, and believes this crap, GM's in for a rude awakening.
Posted by: joe blow | Jul 15, 2007 2:51:26 AM
"Fuel Stratified injection is the only signficant improvement expected for gassers that's exclusive to gassers."
Are we trying to talk about HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition) here? If so, this is not some little advance to gasoline engines - it will likely increase efficiency by 30%, without increasing NOX.
"comparing non-turbo gas to turbo diesel isnt fair in the cost regard"
I don't agree - turbocharging diesels seems to be the only way to make them appeal to former buyers of gasoline powered vehicles, so that turbo is a cost of doing business here.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 15, 2007 7:57:17 AM
Honda's 50+ mpg (highway) diesel Accord currently sold in the U.K. lists at only around $500 more than the next most expensive, but petrol-powered, Accord.
The new catalytic system will cost us U.S. buyers, but not anywhere near what Lutz think (no $4,000 total premium for diesel vs. gasoline)
HCCI is a LONG way away (and gasoline still has less fuel value than diesel, and costs more)
In less than 2 years we will have a slew of diesel passenger car choices here in the U.S., even if
GM can't be bothered to develop an efficient 4-cylinder diesel engine.
Posted by: Bill | Jul 15, 2007 8:35:14 PM
It seems that HCCI will be very complex to implement, that technology works in a very narrow power band, so the ECU must constantly switch between HCCI and a conventional sparkplug mode. Maybe it makes sense in a project like the Chevy Volt where the genset can be optimized for a specific RPM.
Posted by: MH | Jul 16, 2007 6:09:56 AM
Agreed - an HCCI in a series hybrid, like the Volt, makes a lot of sense. Throw in a waste heat recovery system, and I'd bet it would approach the efficiency of current fuel cells.
GM's 50% equity stake in VM Motori S.p.A that was just announced just may help accomplish this.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 17, 2007 4:16:40 AM
What I'm scared of is
1. Clean Diesels are great, fantastic mileage
2. BioDiesel is decidedly UNGREEN if you don't include WVO, and you do include emmisions from soil/fertilizer and the potential for deforestation)
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Jul 17, 2007 10:22:10 AM
Agreed, turbo is sort of a "necessity" with diesels these days. However, turbo gassers are, and will continue, becoming more commonplace and popular, especially in all but pure economy segments.
HCCI is more an advancement of diesel engine, not gas (spark ignition). Once it becomes compression ignition, it is essentially a diesel. But I guess the distinctions do become a bit blurred. As was mentioned, HCCI is no panacea either - making it work as we'd like is quite difficult; it's a very complex control problem. And no, I was talking about fuel stratified injection. Apparently you've never heard of it.
Posted by: joeblow | Jul 18, 2007 8:06:31 AM
Why this complicated Tier 2 Bin 5,
why not they adapt the Euro-3, Euro-4 like standards.
After all, Europeans are much strict in pollution and still they have lot of Diesel vehicles, that same standard can be applied here as well.
Looks like GM is still half-hearted, the same way they introduced hybrids.
Anyway in 2009, Accord & Altima Disel versions are coming and they will set a big move towards Diesel.
After all Diesel costs 20 cents less / gallon than Gasolene and also gives 20 % more mileage.
Posted by: Max Reid | Jul 18, 2007 6:46:11 PM
I am amazed with the true believers spouting bovine pasture patties here. Everything is a conspiracy, it seems. No one knows what the price premium will be on a clean T2B5 diesel. Yet y'all jump on the manufacturer who knows. Neither diesel nor Otto cycle autos can continue to be the singular and only solution even if very clean. Fossil prices are monopolistic and there is an eventual supply and availability issue, as well.
Mr. Lutz in effect says electrified ground transport is coming as the alternatives like "clean diesel" are chimera, and y'all jump his ass.
Why??
Diesel hybrid,
You said GM opposed the catalytic converter. Hey, who invented the cat converter? Hint: it wasn't the Japanese, Europeans. Or Ford or Chrysler. WHY WOULD GM OPPOSE WHAT WAS THEIR INVENTION?
State medical care. What has that to do with this auto discussion? Just what we need, more state socialism. It works wonderful everywhere it has been tried. Or was that not in a single place it has ever been tried? All the Cubans have health insurance; all the Americans, including the illegal aliens, have health care, but some don't have a piece of paper that says they have health insurance.
What's the difference? The Cubans have insurance, but no health care because, they don't have enough hospitals, clinics, doctors or in many cases even medicine; but they DO HAVE a piece of paper that says they have health insurance. BFD! It doesn't give them any health care but the paperwork is fine. That could only be a bureaucrat's delight.
Same as Britain and Canada.
(I would be dead today with the Brit/Canadian system when I was told you have a week to ten days to get a bypass; they were right. I couldn't wait 6 months for a interview for the bypass operation.)
Y'all think that Saab, Vauxhall, Opel, Volvo don't make small diesels? Of course they do. But you can't sell those unsafe, polluting pigs in the US, even if they are made by GM or Ford subsidiaries.
The LAW says so. Don't like it? Change the Laws. Oh wait, the true-believers created those LAWS. And I support them in making cars cleaner and safer.
There was some gentleman who actually said he travels to Europe occasionally, and can't smell diesel STINK. Too bad you have a smell impairment. I suggest you go get your nose checked. Deviated septum? Polyps? or something more dangerous?
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jul 20, 2007 1:20:58 PM
Here is something to consider when comparing diesel engines to GDi or gasoline direct injection which is supposed to increase fuel economy and torque of gasoline engines.
what drives the cost of a diesel engine higher than that of a gasoline engine? The internal parts and engine block have to be higher strength to handle the increased compression of a diesel engine so there is extra metal to be purchased for production. aside from that the injectors and high pressure fuel pump are more expensive but new design gdi engines employ simalar fuel systems and electronic controls to enable them to operate. that brings the prices of fuel systems to that of a diesel engine. also to increase the effiency of gdi the conpression ratio was raised which means they have to biuld the engines stronger than typical to withstand the pressures again raising the cost bringing it closer to that of a diesel engine. in essence they are going to cost as much as diesel engines to produce.
also the ability of the gdi engine to enter lean burn means they may have to implement simalar exhaust aftertreatment as diesels to remove Nox from the exhaust raising the cost closer again to that of diesels.
all that aside one thing many forget is economies of scale the more diesel engines produced the lower the price per engine will be making them easier for the initial purchase price and then factor in the higher energy content of diesel and typically lower price than gasoline and diesels could be as common in america as they are in europe.
by the way im sorry for my terrible writing.
Posted by: Brian | Jul 22, 2007 3:03:03 PM
Stan-
Do you really think Bob Lutz knows what meeting T2B5 will cost and the competition doesnt?
Posted by: fred | Jul 26, 2007 7:59:04 PM
Who cares? If GM doesn't want to build diesels, there are plenty of manufacturers that do. If you want one then buy one.
Posted by: Mike | Aug 9, 2007 10:51:00 AM
70 years of GM in my family and I'm pissed off at them for not taking the lead for "our country", but I am still hopeful.
Do not be deceived by the 30+ mpg ad's.
GM's Opel/Vauxhall Division in Europe offers 70mpg Turbo Diesels in the Astra (hmmm, Saturn Astra) and Opel GT (hmmm, Saturn Sky), Corsa, Tigra, Combo and Agila (soon to be Saturn offerings??). The same engine returned 113mpg in the Ecospeedster. "During initial testing the 112 hp concept car reached a maximum speed of more than 155 mph while fuel consumption on the combined cycle was an incredible 113 mpg".
And GM is supposed to be the hero offering 30+ mpg? BS! http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z6147/default.aspx
http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/vauxhall-tigra-1.3cdti-1004613.html
Why is the American public left in the dark about GM's European offerings, especially diesel engine offerings? For those who haven't studied vehicles beyond our shores, welcome to a bigger automotive world. You will be as upset as I have been the last 4 years after studying and learning what options and choices millions of others have around the world, who aren't put in a box and 'hand-choice fed' technology as we americans are.
Be ye not deceived!
Here are a couple samples. Not to mention electric/air hybrids.
http://www.gmpartsworld.com/products.php?category_id=5
http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/corporate/engine/lineup.html
http://www.biodiesel.org/
http://www.worldcarfans.com/2050113.005/1.html
Toyota Yaris Diesel: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/new_toyota_yari.html
got compressed air? http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/21-08-07_1
Will you fight to get it here, after generation technology improvements?
Does your manufacturing company need a new product? Contact this guy in Ausi and tell him you can manufacture his air engine here in the US.
http://www.engineair.com.au/
Sincerely,
Tarnished Fisher Body offspring
Posted by: got Opel? ah! Saturn | Nov 5, 2007 2:57:29 PM
