Twitter headlines« 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)
Comments
Posted by: Carl | July 14, 2007 at 02:49 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 | July 14, 2007 at 10:31 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 | July 15, 2007 at 02:51 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 | July 15, 2007 at 07:57 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 | July 15, 2007 at 08:35 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 | July 16, 2007 at 06:09 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 | July 17, 2007 at 04:16 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 | July 17, 2007 at 10:22 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 | July 18, 2007 at 08:06 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 | July 18, 2007 at 06:46 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 | July 20, 2007 at 01:20 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 | July 22, 2007 at 03:03 PM
Stan-
Do you really think Bob Lutz knows what meeting T2B5 will cost and the competition doesnt?
Posted by: fred | July 26, 2007 at 07:59 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 | August 09, 2007 at 10:51 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 | November 05, 2007 at 02:57 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00e0099287238833
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”:
…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).