Consumer Reports is a magazine that is not always right on
the money. If you have any experience with other products
that they review, you will see that they see value on their
own terms. I value not having to purchase a product that
is not renewable (gasoline) and from a foreign monarchy that
teaches hate in their madrasas(schools). This business
model is to only reduce the value of our currency(buying power)
abroad, and to make this nation dependent on the stability of
other nations with which we have no ability to secure. Who are
we kidding? Are the "War of the Waters" next?

Ok, I'll admit i'm smug about the 72.6 miles per US gallon I've achieved over the last 40,000 miles. (2002 Insight) Please forgive me for smiling at the pumps, or laughing outloud when recounting how my 500 dollar VW turbo Diesel blew up, or being pissed off that the Quebec government closed the refueling stations for my GNC converted vehicles.

As for J.D. Powers: they predicted two years ago that hybrid market penetration would max out at 2.5 to 3 percent around 2015. Infact, we reached that milestone earlier this year! Weren't they also predicting oil would return to the 20 to 30 dollar a barrel range, or am I confusing them with another group of well funded prognosticators?

Their current pronouncements are likely just as accurate as their former. :P

"Of course, until hi-tech battery costs come down, clean-diesel-electric hybrids are the among the lowest hanging fruit that could get us +80mpg real-world cars."

Hi Diesel-Hybrid we have had that allready in Germany in the Year 2000 ( Audi A2 1.2 78,4 mpg even without Hybrid The Toyota Prius2 has 104 G CO2 / KM in Europe ratings The Audi A2 1.2 has 81 G CO2 / KM in Europe ratings without hybrid / about equal size)

Spangenberg

Rumors abound: Hybrids cost $14,000.00 more than a conventional car, a Prius uses more energy than a Hummer to manufacture, The batteries don't last and the landfills will be awash with dead batteries, The Prius only gets 39 MPG, and not the 60 MPG advertised, hybrids are just a flash in the pan, diesels are better, etc, etc, etc.
Poppycock! Some people should get a life.

Nice to hear a growing number of consumers would at least consider a clean diesel rather than perpetuate antiquated perceptions of 1980s technology.

Depending on displacement, the premium for the diesel engine alone will be $1000-$2000 extra in the MRSP. On top of that will come the additional expense for cleaning up the exhaust gases to the T2B5/LEV II level, figure at least as much again - if not more.

As for the 15MPG bump, the European experience suggests that is easily within the realm of possibility - iff you compare gallons of gasoline to gallons of diesel. However, the latter is denser and therefore contains 10% more energy by volume. In the US, fuel taxes are structured such that over the long haul (i.e. not in the middle of summer), national average prices at the pump for both fuels roughly reflect energy content. On a cost/mile basis, the benefit will be smaller than it may appear at first.

Depreciation, insurance and - in some states - fees/taxes are tied to residual value. All will likely be higher for clean diesels, as will spare parts for the drivetrain.

Ergo, clean diesel will likely win market share only in large sedans, station wagons, minivans, SUVs and trucks. The vast majority of mid-size and smaller cars will continue to be powered by gasoline engines. Fortunately, between variable valve trains, downsizing w/ turbocharging, GDI and various levels of hybridization, Japanese and European manufacturers are figuring out how to improve their fuel economy as well. By and large, US manufacturers are still playing catch-up.

Conclusion: clean diesel is a useful complement to other fuel-saving technologies, but for the US market, it is no panacea.

For me it is simple - hybrids are too complicated.

A solution needs to be simple. The more complex, the more can go wrong. So - my next care will be either 1) a clean t2b5 diesel or 2) Electric drive with ICE genset/range extender.

Both are simple solutions - #2 removes all complexity from the system. The Electric motor drives the wheels, the ICE can be set to run at an optimal rpm and stay there. You loose a ton of weight (probably not exactly a ton or even a tonne, but it was meant metaphorically anyway). And you can do adjustments in software, drive by wire etc... So you could give a car multiple personalities - Power, Efficient, Blended etc... that can be selected at will... And without any impact on weight. I am by no means a GM fan, but if they deliver on the Volt - IT WILL save that company. Now if my current civic doesn't last until then... I will opt for a clean t2b5 diesel from either Honda or VW.

Uh huh. That's a really great thing to base a car purchase on.

Like it or not, people make assumptions about you based on the car you drive - just consider what people here think about people who drive Hummers if you don't believe me.

Right now hybrids are associated with the we're-all-gonna-die global warming crowd, an association that I want no part of. That'll change over time as hybrids increase market penetration, but for now that's just one reason among several that I'm not interested in buying one.

Lot of "if this" and "if that" and "when ...."
This deals with people making decisions NOW. There is no question that Prius DOES pay for any initial cost difference between it and cheaper gas based models. Also it is clear that NiMH batteries can last a long time. The problem is that Prius owner ends up more or less even compared to cheaper gas engine cars. Moreover, we have a huge choice of used conventional cars and small choice of used hybrids. For a student or a young family that cannot afford a new car, much less an expensive hybrid they don't really have a choice.

Diesels are not all the same. Some like VWs are not much better than gasoline versions. However, there are others like turbo charged smaller engines, say Smart car, that is equal or better than many hybrids. For instance the new Smart model is about 60 or 70 mpg. Granted Prius is bigger, but I spend most of my driving time commuting when I don't need 4 seats. So my choice is a $30K Prius or $18K Smart for commuting (for longer trips I can rent or do something else). That is why it is so easy to pick a diesel instead of a hybrid.

Long term hybrids and later pure electric wins. Which brings us to PHEV. When Prius is designed to hold more electricity AND be able to charge from grid, THEN the fuel cost savings become high enough that I may want hybrid instead of diesel.

In my case kWh is about $0.05, so for a buck I get 20 kWh. I am guessing that a 100km commute to work (round trip) would require, just guessing say 40 kWh = $2
Now I am paying about $10 worth of gasoline.

That is where the BIG savings are. Hubrid technology is nice, but replacing gasoline with electricity is much better. Only THEN will diesel be less interesting and PHEVs will be all the rage.

"WTF"

Well, seriously. The argument about diesel is that it lasts longer. If so, DO NOT BUY A NEW DIESEL vehicle!

WHY should people who believe that diesels are more reliable and more durable should they tell others to buy a new diesel car? Go look in the classified ads and I can promise you that you can buy yourself a used, polluting diesel vehicle on the cheap!

Since longevity and simplicity is such an ideal for purchasing an engine choice, then pro-diesel crowds need to avoid all the fancy technology such as TURBO-CHARGERS and UREA-Injectors that boost mileage and reduce emissions. With all the add-ons, it sure only makes it's easier to break.

I find it ironic that buying a hybrid is considered a liberal agenda, but I consider blind faith in the unshakable myth of diesel being the holy grail is just as absurd.

I personally find diesels to be a distraction in the passenger automotive market. I don't care if people believe in Global Warming or if they think the world is awash with oil. However, I hope we all can agree that liquid fossil fuels is mired with such complexities, this is why we are discussing about fuel-efficiencies. No doubt that diesel are needed and will be around for a long time. The question is if there is shortage or a need to lower consumption to reduce high prices, who should diesel fuels be diverted to? Industrial applications (Long-haulers, locomotives, remote travels), or passenger cars who do short commutes most times of the year?

If we waste time on diesels for passengers vehicles, then it's just takes resources away from electric vehicles developments. Leave diesels for our industrial infrastructures and be proactive and look toward EVs instead, which hybrids will pave the way.

Speaking for myself, I am not bashing hybrids. I’m just pointing out some considerations about environmental impacts of diesel and gasoline/hybrid vehicles that need to be put into perspective. Everyone seems to jump to a conclusion about how “dirty” diesels are based on, as Rafael points out, antiquated perceptions.

The point of my previous post is that more than just what comes out of a vehicle’s tailpipe need to be taken into consideration. As I mentioned in another thread, the U.S. EPA estimates that 475,000 TONS of gasoline vapors are emitted in the U.S. each year JUST from the distribution of gasoline to gas stations – the filling of gasoline tankers at a terminal, the transportation of that fuel to the gas station, and the off-loading of the fuel at the station. That doesn’t include evaporative emissions from the production, bulk storage, and distribution of the gasoline to the pipeline terminals. A quick calculation of 475K tons is over 150 MILLION gallons of gasoline that are not only wasted, the vapors oxidize in the atmosphere and contribute to ambient ozone (smog), formaldehyde, and secondary organic particulate matter (SOA). The current hybrids still use highly volatile gasoline as their fuel and indirectly contribute to these VOC emissions. This source of VOCs could be virtually eliminated in the U.S. by switching the light-duty fleet to diesel.

Furthermore, the emission standards themselves aren’t the “magic bullet” for improving air quality than most seem to assume. For example, according to EPA’s own data, as of October 2006, 15.5 million people live in areas that are designated non-attainment with the carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS. On top of that, CO is also an ozone precursor. Yet the regulators turn around and do virtually nothing about CO emissions in the Tier 2/LEV II regs (the emission rate remains UNCHANGED not only from Tier 1, but from regulations promulgated in 1981; only the “useful life” provision has been extended). Can someone explain the logic of that?

I acknowledge that there are legitimate advantages of gas-hybrids over diesels. The “dirty” aspect is not one of them, in my opinion.

@Dustbin:

I disagree with you about the hybrids complexity.

To put it more bluntly: you are dead wrong. The transmission of a Prius is mutch simpler compared to the clutch and gearbox you find in ordinary cars. Modern gearboxes are very complex pieces of engineering. And clutches are guaranteed to wear out. The moving parts the Prius has instead of those are a planetary gearset and two electric motors, both of which are extremely simple and reliable.

Apart from this, the Prius has the power electronics and battery. Electronics in general are more reliable than mechanical systems. Remains the only potential weak point of the Prius: the battery. Googling for ‘Prius battery problems’ brings up nothing.

Of course, there are more hybrids than the Prius, but one example is enough to disprove your claim that more can go wrong with hybrids because they are too complex. Because it has fewer moving parts than a conventional car, I am convinced that the Prius will prove to be one of the most reliable and durable cars ever built.

Sorry, Dustin :-)

Sorry, Dustin :-)

Anne ,
totally agree with you , there is too much focus on the hybrid cars
suppossed complexity , as you point out this is plainly not true, in fact the
prius does away with the traditional separate starter motor -generater layout
building them both into one highly reliable motor , as far as I can find out there
have been next to no failures of this unit , in my experiance generater/alternater
failures are amongst the most common breakdowns.
another advantage of the prius is low brake wear , it is not unknown for
a prius to do 100,000 km on a set of pads , this of course saves a lot of cash
in the long run, not to mention the reduction of airbourne particles from heavy
braking , a big plus in built up areas.
last but not least is the attention given to the prius electronics , most ICE
cars today have very complex engine managment systems which often give
costly and hard to rectify problems, as yet I have not heard of a failure .
The prius is a victim of its own sucess , and is possibly the first step to
a more responsable future

I'm pretty sure you cannot add an entire additional subsystem to a vehicle (in this case, the battery, charging system, and control electronics) and end up with overall increased reliability. With the exception of the transmission as Anne described, the Prius has all the failure modes of an ordinary car, PLUS whatever failure modes the unique systems bring to the party.

"So my choice is a $30K Prius or $18K Smart for commuting."

Posted by: q | Jul 17, 2007 8:19:59 AM

A $30K Prius? Maybe you don't mean US dollars? The base-model Prius is under $22K US. Even with all the options, I don't think you can spend $30K US on a Prius.

I don't know what the Smart car costs/will cost in the United States.

"Googling for ‘Prius battery problems’ brings up nothing."

Posted by: Anne | Jul 17, 2007 9:52:03 AM

Indeed. I know a taxi cab driver who just replaced the battery on his 2001 Prius, at 130,000 miles. Another guy at his cab company has gone 150,000 miles without replacing his battery.

My 2004 Prius only has 29,000 miles on it, so I have a long way to go. :^)

"another advantage of the prius is low brake wear , it is not unknown for a prius to do 100,000 km on a set of pads."

Posted by: andrichrose | Jul 17, 2007 1:56:28 PM

Indeed. With my last car, a 1989 Mercury Tracer, I did about five brake jobs over the car's 163,000-mile life. It was about $300 each time -- probably more in today's money. Thus brake maintenance on the Prius costs you about 40% what it would cost you on a regular car -- saving you perhaps an extra $1,200 in the time it takes to burn out a battery.

I'm not automatically against Diesels, but from this report I would conclude that the Diesel people are making some inroads with their F.U.D. campaign -- that's "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt." The phony hybrids that have been released recently don't help -- I'm taking about the "performance" hybrids which add power instead of efficiency, like the V6 Accord; and the "mild" hybrids from GM which are simply cheap and only improve the fuel economy by 10%.

Carl,
I own a Corolla diesel (in Europe, of course). I like my car for silence at cruising (it is silencer that gasoline Corolla) and for range. At technical inspection the technician sayed that it could be Euro5 compliant, very low soot, much lower thar Euro4 (and I don't have DPF filter).
But... Toyota and Honda are the exception in this area. VW, Mercedes and other well-known diesel makers don't build diesel aluminium engines (like Toyota and Honda for the entire range) and a new car even with DPF is MUCH more polutant (you will see clouds of soot at start or speeding). And nobody cares, they also pass Euro4 and will pass Euro5, so there is no real benefit for a clean/good diesel engine (which of course will cost more).
And for your information, polution for diesel is much harder to combat: it depends on fuel quality, on driving habits, on car's age, on temperature...
A hybrid (a good one) is the way to go, if they solve the battery recicling problem. Much cleaner (gasoline problems can be solved much easier), much reliable (electric motor can be much reliable) and much closer to future car (may I say no to combustion engine?).
From this point diesel is a departure and a dead-end (how if everybody will dump research on EV and focus on diesel?-say Hello to oil companies).

I can't wait for the new diesels to get here, for the press to fully vette them out, etc. And for Americans to see what they really are. I'm tired of all these idiots that have no idea what theyre talking about. I was going to respond to a lot of the BS above, but it's too daunting (as there is so much). For one, Mircea, a DPF equipped small diesel will not emit any visible soot under any condition (I'm sure youre checking cars on the motorway to verify the cloud-emitters have DPFs right?) That you base your estimate of pollution on what you *see* out of a tail pipe says a lot, nevermind the rest of your faulty observations and worthless conclusions. BTW, there are several production aluminum diesel engines available in Europe. BMW's new 2.0L diesel making 200hp+ is aluminum block. As for EV getting us away from oil companies? Yeah, I guess you prefer to just shift your loyalties to energy companies, that get vast majority of their energy from other limited resources fuels. Great solution.

Let me be clear. The ONLY meaningful inherent engineering disadvantages to diesel is NOx and soot MASS. DPF is not terribly expensive and essentially solves any soot disparity versus gasser (if not giving diesel the advantage in soot). NOx issue has questionable merit anyway at this juncture.

In virtually EVERY OTHER WAY diesels are superior to gasoline SI engines for light duty applications (peak power per engine weight is SI's only other advantage, but the difference is not a huge consideration for passenger vehicles). This is NOT hyperbole. Diesel is the SUPERIOR technical solution.

Diesels dont create a huge evaporative emissions problem as gassers do.

Diesels have inherently low CO emissions, compared to gassers which have inherently high CO (which EPA has heavily neglected, as mentioned above)

Diesels can/will quite easily achieve PZEV/SULEV status.

Heavy fuels are safer; diesel vehicles more readily accept biofuels that are less harmful to the environment, both pre- and post-combustion.

Diesels DO last longer, mostly because they spend much of their life spinning at much lower revs than gas (typically 1/2 to 1/3 as many revs). At this point, with emissions so low to start, there is no worry about a new diesel vehicle lasting 50 years, because their emissions are so damned low anyway - better to remove the need for construction of one more new vehicle. Relatedly, diesels maintain their emissions performance much better than gas/SI engines, staying essentially flat where gasoline get's progressively worse with age. For example, my 1981 Rabbit diesel emits very little compared to any gas Rabbit of the same age.

Diesels are simpler. No ignition system (dead batteries are less of a problem, especially with manual tranny). Inherently better thermal efficiency. Quieter at cruise. Can run all sorts of fuels compared to gassers/SI, bio and otherwise.

Right now the only disadvantage to consumers with a diesel vehicle will be the added cost of emissions controls (main added cost of engine is the turbo; many gas are going turbo, and more to come). This is as much to do with our regulatory agencies' questionable priorities (political and otherwise) as anything else. But in short time, these costs will come down without question. Already new NOx cat technology that is superior to SCR is undergoing testing, certification and licensing.

And I've been to many European cities in recent years - they DO NOT stink of diesel. I am so sick of these mindless, dubious anti-diesel punk freaks.

Mircea,

You're still not addressing the indirect evaporative emissions for which gasoline vehicles are responsible. I mentioned above that according to the U.S. EPA, 475,000 tons of evaporative emissions come just from the distribution of gasoline to gas stations.

Based on the 2002 U.S. National Emission Inventory (NEI), the best that I can tell, over one million tons (1,014,000 tons actually) of evaporative emissions came from the "handing" of gasoline in 2002. Not only is this a complete waste of what is becoming a more and more precious resource, it significantly contributes to air pollution.

For your information, longer chain hydrocarbons like gasoline oxidize in the atmosphere once released, contributing to ambient ozone and formaldehyde as they are oxidized, to increasingly lower vapor pressure products that tend to partition to the solid phase (organic particles), mostly in the "nucleation" mode (nanoparticles).

Studies indicate that the particle yield may be 10% or greater by mass, meaning that those million+ tons of gasoline vapors could potentially produce over 100,000 tons of fine PM (PM2.5).

To put this into perspective, the direct emissions of PM2.5 from all U.S. on-highway diesel sources in 2002 was 99,000 tons according to the NEI.

Furthermore, according to EPA, direct on-highway diesel sources PM 2.5 contribution will fall to about 10,000 tons by 2030 just from the regulations that are currently in effect.

Meanwhile, direct PM2.5 emissions from "non-diesel highway sources" (i.e., mostly gasoline) will rise to almost 60,000 tons. Add to this the indirect SOA contribution of gasoline sources, and diesel sources become essentially trivial in comparison.

Again, not bashing hybrids (I think the technology has a great deal of promise), just trying to put this "dirty diesel" perception into perspective.

How about if auto makers produce many good options and the consumer can pick what meets thier needs the best. I currently own an older VW TDI becasue it meets my needs best - if I I drove more short tips, and didn't live in an area where I can get BioDiesel, I probably would have gone with a Prius.

Here are some other options for people. An older Honda CRX - 1986 through 1988 HF model gets excellent fuel efficiency. The mid 1990's Saturn SL1 with a 5 speed transmission does nicely and is considered a very "safe" car, with airbags and safety cage. Look these cars up on autos.msn.com - the '88 Honda CRX HF is going to supprise you!

I for one am fairly dissapointed in most auto manufacturer's current efforts.

1. GM deserves to be in thier current financial situation since thier best efficiency is with thier Daewoo Designed Chevy Aveo at 37 MPG Highway. A 10 year old Saturn SL1 5sp is a nicer car, and can get 39 on the freeway. They haven't put a diesel engine in a Suburban or 1/2 ton pickup since 1999. Shame on them.
Thier only noteworthy work has been on hybrid Metro Busses.

2. Kudos to Daimler-Chrysler to bringing the Dodge Sprinter (Freightliner, MB) to the US - Small contractors and airport shuttles have saved a lot of fuel with the 5 cylinder Diesel.

3. Kudos to BMW with some of their new advances with mini-hybrid (like some regenerative braking and take-off assist from the alternator)

4. Kudos to Toyota for bringing us the Prius- may not meet my neeeds, but a lot of people with disposable income in the Seattle area are buying them in droves and at least it is better than if they wasted thier money on multiple SUVs - many now have an SUV for when then need it and a Prius for commuting.

5. I am neutral on Ford, but give them credit for thier hybrids. Would like to see them putting a small diesel in the 1/2 ton ford pickups and thier SUV Counterparts.

7. Kudos to VW for continuing to support Diesel in the US Car market. It is a tough road, as dealer service is not good, and the overall quality of the vehicles is poor, but for those willing to be thier own mechanic, there is a lot of good support on the Internet.

If you believe we have a free and open auto market, you must also accept the concept of flying reindeers. It is apparent that the auto companies and the oil companies have agreed to bring diesel ICEs back to the American market. The evidence is the development of "light block" direct high pressure cylinder injection, expensive particulate filters and the reduction of the sulfur content of diesel from 500 parts per million to ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) at 15 parts per million by ultra refining the oil. Additionally, Audi has for sometime now publicized its winning diesel powered race cars. And, indeed Honda and others have already announced their up coming diesel ICEs. If you like diesels, the stage has been set and in the next few years, you will have the opportunity to purchase them from several companies. These diesels will be more expensive because the companies expect to recover their investments in cleaning up the technology. And, I believe the attention paid to diesel ICEs will delay the electrification of the U.S. personal transportation systems(cars). For various reasons, or excuses, no company is ready to risk mass marking PHEVs or BEVs yet. But, I believe diesels will be placeholders until PHEVs and BEVs become the car of choice. So the plan is: Gasoline and Diesel ICEs and HEVs for now and the near future, followed by a mixing in of PHEVs and then BEVs will be added to the PHEVS as diesel and gasoline ICEs fade from use. I think this is the evolution process planned by the automobile manufacturers as coordinated by their alliance lobbyist, the AAM.

The MPG Record-Holder until today was the Audi A2 1.2 a Diesel . And he did it in the Year 2000 without Hybrid .

( about same size as the Prius2 with 78,4 mpg and 81 G / KM CO2 where a 2007 Prius2 gets only 104 G / KM )

But if fossil fuel is finished you are better of with an electric Car .

Spangenberg

Fuel taxes are based on volume here in the U.S., not carbon content (don't expect that to change anytime soon)

Currently diesel here costs less than the cheapest grade of petrol, and I wouldn't expect that to change soon either.

Since it has a higher BTU content per volume than petrol, and a more efficient combustion cycle, I'm very much looking forward to clean diesels over the next 24 months.

Those will be 50 state approved diesels, with VW/Audi next spring, Asian automakers a year later (e.g., U.K. diesel Accord, 53 mpg imperial combined cycle)

Series hybrids (if anyone can get them to market) could give diesels a run for their money.

It will be a long time before PHEV are anything but toys for the rich, given the costs of the battery pack alone (currently $25,000 for Tesla's, $75,000 for Altair's NanoSafe)