« Researchers Demonstrate 7 wt% Hydrogen Storage Capacity in Carbon Nanotubes | Main | Lifan to Apply First China-made VVT Engine in 620 Sedan »

Survey: US New-Car Shoppers Do Not See Diesels as a Likely Mainstream Powertrain

28 January 2008

According to the latest Kelley Blue Book Marketing Research study, only six percent of new-car shoppers in the US think that diesel is most likely to succeed in becoming a mainstream vehicle powertrain type, compared to 40% identifying hybrids, 20% selecting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and 17% citing flexible-fuel systems.

When asked about their perceptions of diesel engines, nearly half of the in-market new-vehicle shoppers say that diesels are dirty and noisy. In addition, the latest study shows that shoppers increasingly believe that diesel-powered vehicles get poorer fuel mileage than conventional gasoline engines, and fewer consumers are seeing diesels as fuel-efficient.

Interest in diesels is steadily declining among in-market new-vehicle shoppers, while interest in hybrids continues to grow. The gap between shoppers’ interest in diesels versus hybrids has greatly widened particularly in the last month, with the nine-point gap in December 2007 jumping to a 17-point gap in January 2008.

Many automakers are looking toward diesels as a very workable solution for the future, especially in light of the recently passed energy bill, but the results of this study should give them pause and make them realize they need to do a better, more thorough job of winning over the American consumer. Clearly many Americans still think of the dirty diesels of the past and are not aware of the benefits of new clean-diesel technology.

—Jack R. Nerad, executive editorial director and executive market analyst for Kelley Blue Book

While diesel consideration and favorability are declining in the eyes of in-market new-vehicle shoppers, hybrids continue to gain favor. In addition to hybrids being seen as the most viable mainstream powertrain choice, interest in hybrids has steadily increased in recent months, with 61% of shoppers saying they are interested in hybrids in the latest study.

When asked about the premium they are willing to pay for a gas/electric hybrid over a traditional gasoline-powered version of the same vehicle, this month shoppers are willing to pay an average premium of $3,135, up from an average premium of $2,645 a month ago in December 2007.

When asked about which hybrid vehicles they would consider for their next purchase or lease in the latest study, in-market new-vehicle shoppers cite the Honda Civic as most popular with 35%. The next most-popular models are the Ford Escape and Toyota Highlander, each garnering 23%. Toward the bottom of the consideration list is the vehicle that arguably put hybrids on the mainstream map—the Toyota Prius—which only garnered 12% of the consideration.

Prius sales accounted for more than 52% of hybrids sold in the US in 2007.

The latest Kelley Blue Book Marketing Research study was conducted on Kelley Blue Book’s kbb.com among in-market new-vehicle shoppers during January 2008. Kbb.com is rated the No. 1 automotive information site by Nielsen//NetRatings and is ranked as the most visited auto site by J.D. Power and Associates eight years in a row. Nearly one in every three American car buyers performs their research on kbb.com.

January 28, 2008 in Diesel, Market Background | Permalink | Comments (115) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/25550898

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Survey: US New-Car Shoppers Do Not See Diesels as a Likely Mainstream Powertrain:

Comments

We Americans are really ignorant when it comes to diesel. The diesel cars of the 80's get blamed but I believe most people never knew about the 80's diesels or remember them. The only diesels on the roads here the last 20 years are big pick ups. Until recently they were loud, stunk and smoked a little.

Yes I know Volkswagon has diesels but it's small number of cars in the big picture.

Posted by: Kevin | Jan 28, 2008 7:17:13 AM

Count me in with the 94% who think the diesel is "unlikely to become a mainstream powertrain type". My opinion is based on extensive research that shows the emissions laws will not allow them to be sold here. Why should automakers try to win over customers?

JRod.

Posted by: Jrod | Jan 28, 2008 7:28:29 AM

LOL A population where 20% think that a hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is in their future is a population that has it's head throughly up its tailpipe.

Posted by: DS | Jan 28, 2008 7:31:15 AM

What about availability of diesel? if crude production is leveling and in decline then increasing use of diesel will send prices to the stratosphere. There is less diesel coming from a barrel of crude than there is gas.

Posted by: BOB | Jan 28, 2008 7:31:42 AM

does not sound a like a reliable survey

Posted by: Herm | Jan 28, 2008 7:35:07 AM

A survey that places the Prius in 5th place is questionable.

Diesel is just another variant of ICE machines and should be replaced as soon as better ESSUs become available.

For future PHEV-60+, it wouldn't matter that much if the small ICE motor driving the generator a small 2-cyls, a rotary, or a diesel or even a fuel cell because it wouldn't be used that much or less than 15% of the time.

Posted by: Harvey D | Jan 28, 2008 7:41:49 AM

Just goes to show how little consumers know!

Posted by: Ruaraidh | Jan 28, 2008 7:49:50 AM

I question the validity of this survey as well, in particular when it comes to the hybrid preferences. But the sentiment on diesel may be right. Too many times, since the early 80's, manufacturers and car experts/magazines have extolled the virtues of diesel, largely in vain. In this country (US) diesel does not make sense as the price of the fuel is usually at a considerable premium over normal gasoline, so any savings from greater economy are offset by higher prices at the pump.

Posted by: Joe | Jan 28, 2008 7:52:18 AM

A majority of Americans also believe/believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11. Many, including a presidential candidate, don't believe in evolution.

Posted by: | Jan 28, 2008 8:05:12 AM

They surveyed mainstream consumers, so it comes as no surprise they are mainly interested in mainstream cars. The Prius isn't that for different reasons. The Prius has more appeal with the the early adopters that want to be seen as such by everybody.

Posted by: Anne | Jan 28, 2008 8:12:15 AM

I wouldn't put any stock into any automotive surveys. Time and time again people will say one thing, but when it comes to putting money on the table, they end up buying something else.

I think the automakers already know the answer about the diesel market trends. There is no profit in offering diesel as a fuel-saver for passenger cars. VW may want to keep that diesel niche, but all other companies are only offering diesels for trucks and as a gimmick for luxury brands.

Posted by: Charles S | Jan 28, 2008 8:16:29 AM

The survey may be tainted by Americans view of diesels in passenger cars as smoky, smelly, noisy, underpowered and slow. They may remember the diesel VW Rabbit cars from the early 80s.

If you can show them a modern diesel that is quiet, clean, powerful, efficient, and affordable, their opinions might change. I do not think Americans care what engine or fuel is used. As long as the fuel is available and affordable and the car does the job, they might listen.

Posted by: sjc | Jan 28, 2008 8:16:46 AM

I think this kind of survey is meaningless. Put diesels in showrooms that give consumers significantly better fuel efficiency at very little (or no) additional up-front cost, and these attitudes will turn around in record time.

Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Jan 28, 2008 8:21:04 AM

Kneejerk comment:

Unfortunately, the headline is probably accurate. We, Americans, are oblivious to all the diesel freight bringing to us all that we consume.

Posted by: jcwinnie | Jan 28, 2008 8:24:47 AM

See that. It's me, laughing at all the uniformed sitting in line at the gas station. 733 miles on my last tank. Idiots!

Sorry for the rudeness, but I have been telling anyone who will listen about TDI's for a decade.

By the way, Dino is less than midgrade here and I buy Bio for $2.25 a gallon.

Posted by: Joseph | Jan 28, 2008 8:32:05 AM

@Lou:

Where does this your information come from that a diesel has no price premium? To my knowledge diesels are always more expensive.

Take for instance the Volkswagen Jetta. The base version with a 1.6l gasoline version is sold for € 20.050. That same version with the diesel is € 22.175 and € 22.750 if you want a particulate filter. That's more than € 2000!

Posted by: Anne | Jan 28, 2008 8:36:19 AM

I agree , here in Italy , the petrol car seems to be becoming a rarity
with diesel outselling 3 to 1 , and we are paying for it , go down into
the town centre at 8 on a cold morning and the air is foul , all the
kids waiting for the school bus are getting a liberal dose of nano-particles
deep down in their still- forming lungs , God only knows what their
health is going to be like into their adulthood .
My local mechanic told me the other day that he had been warned
whilst on an in- house BOSCH training course , that under no circumstances
where they to carry out repairs on modern common-rail diesels in
an enclosed space without extraction equipment , the reason given was
that the particles from this type of car had been linked to the formation
of lung tumours .
I think this proves that the industry is aware of the problems
associated with diesel emissions , so way are they so eager to push this
technology out in the States , it could end up as expensive in the long
haul as the tobacco problem !

Posted by: | Jan 28, 2008 8:42:59 AM

Joseph

I don't know where you live that diesel is cheaper than midgrade, but that must be a quite exceptional place. Here is the website that shows the difference in pricing.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

And, I agree with Anne, diesel engines are more expensive to make and typically carry a premium of 3000-4000 dollars compared with the gasoline model. You would have to drive an awful lot of miles before you make any savings, if any, with diesel in the US.

Posted by: Joe | Jan 28, 2008 8:47:24 AM

I think the best use of market research is to adjust and improve existing products in consumers' hands. But when you use it on a nonspecific, theoretical diesel car which you can't buy and no one's neighbor owns, you just mirror the general fact that the broad mass of consumers will always resist new things. No one wants to take a risk being the nerd with the weird-o-mobile in the corner.

Executives have a duty to themselves not to defer their leadership and hide cowardice and inaction behind this kind of data. It must be expected. Consumer tastes aren't carved in stone, they change with time. For any serious innovation, it takes the handful of daring consumers with cash, the early adopters, to lead the way for everyone else. If the concept, implementation and marketing are right, people will follow along because your car is better than the alternatives. In this case, the high oil prices are an opportunity to drive it along nicely, and that reduces the risk.

Posted by: Jim G. | Jan 28, 2008 8:48:05 AM

I find this rather discouraging. I understand there are legacy perceptions of diesels being "dirty", slow, noisy, etc., but I have to wonder where the "...diesel-powered vehicles get poorer fuel mileage than conventional gasoline engines, and fewer consumers are seeing diesels as fuel-efficient" came from.

Regarding the comment about less diesel coming from a barrel of crude than gasoline, it is my understanding that there is considerable flexibility here. There was a post here on GCC a while ago about Marathon increasing diesel production relative to gasoline (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/04/marathon_increa.html#more) as well as another refiner (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-diesel_06bus.ART0.State.Edition1.2af09c3.html).
I also recall that Rafael Seidl mentioned in one of his posts that a significant amount of middle distillate is converted ("cracked") into gasoline (in the U.S.). Rafael, care to elaborate?

Posted by: Carl | Jan 28, 2008 8:48:08 AM

As someone who owns and drives diesels daily, I can honestly say that I would love to have more diesel options going forward. If we lived in or near the city, we would consider the Prius but, driving mostly highway miles, the advantage clearly goes to the diesel IMO. Not only do we get 20-30% better fuel mileage but, the retained resale value for the diesel is quite substantial, about 5k more than a comparable gasser on our VW, several times more than the initial diesel premium at purchase.

I agree that the best solution would be to drastically cut ICE use but, the question is how. Most people are not going to be willing to make the changes necessary until the need becomes much more obvious. In the meantime, baby steps will have to do.

Posted by: Dino | Jan 28, 2008 8:48:34 AM

Yes, the TDI's can be more expensive. However, other than the better engine, regular Jetta's come standard with 'Package 0' interior, the TDI comes with 'Package 1' standard, big difference. My 05 TDI was 20,500.

Posted by: Joseph | Jan 28, 2008 8:48:41 AM

No, the prices I quoted are for exactly the same car, only different engines. For other brands I have observed the same difference between diesel and gasoline.

Posted by: Anne | Jan 28, 2008 8:54:36 AM

Again, it doesn't matter what people say about diesels or hybrids, when it comes to the time that they are ready to buy, people always end up buying what they want and saving fuel is often low in priority (strike against diesel).

I have two diesel-heads who are always singing songs about how they love their cars (dirty pre-t2bin5 diesels), and ended up trading in both diesels for petro SUVs last year.

In this blog, we all push for some kind of alt-fuel vehicle, but in the end, just about most of the vehicles sold will still be petro SUVs in US.

Posted by: Charles S | Jan 28, 2008 8:56:53 AM

An afterthought: we must of course consider where the prices of a car are determined, and this is not in the manufacturing department. It's the marketing department that sets the prices.

The same applies to the hybrid/non-hybrid discussion. Most people tend to think that the fact that hybrids cost x $$$/€€€ more than non-hybrids is caused by the differences in manufacturing costs. This is dangerous to conclude. Hybrids are trendy/hyped, and can be sold at a higher margin. The actual difference in cost is not reflected in the price.

Posted by: Anne | Jan 28, 2008 9:00:58 AM

The only vehicle I know of where there isn't a premium for diesel is the dodge ram 2500, that was for 06' may have changed now that they had to add the bluetech. i get 23mpg with no mods 20-50% biodiesel blends on the freeway. if it was a diesel parallel hybride then i would be up around 50mpg in a stupid 8000lb vehicle. my opinion is that this is all laziness on the side of the us auto industry; marketing laziness and technology integration laziness.

Posted by: phronesis | Jan 28, 2008 9:02:11 AM

if it was a diesel parallel hybride then i would be up around 50mpg

Based on what?

Posted by: Anne | Jan 28, 2008 9:06:36 AM

The average American is just that the average American which sadly is a blundering idiot with a low IQ and even lower common sence. Stay off Diesel soccor mom americans its better spent fueling my 4x4. I get 23 mpg Diesel in a truck thats 2 times as big as some of the SUV driving soccor slugs getting 20 or less. 8500lbs at 23mpg brought to you only by Diesel. Thank you Rudolf

Posted by: CumminsMan | Jan 28, 2008 9:10:23 AM

its interesting to read all of the comments mentioning the narrow minded and short sighted thoughts about americans and i can't say i disagree. clearly as a country some important changes need to occur and we may or may not be running out of time to make those changes. optimistically i hope for a major shift in social responsibility for the country. pessimistically i think money and big business/government might get in the way of the informed and conscientious consumer getting what they want.

Posted by: phronesis | Jan 28, 2008 9:11:00 AM

Joe

Not exceptional at all. I live in the southwest, the numbers on that report are average numbers. Last week the 'corner store' 1 mile from my house was selling Dino for $3.24, the truck stop 5 miles away was $2.97.

Also, I pay $.08 per gallon less than the advertised price because I am a Light Duty Diesel and do not have to pay the extra tax.

The more you know!

Posted by: Joseph | Jan 28, 2008 9:11:46 AM

Anne

based on the fact its more efficient, don't be ridiculous. do you want me to go find every article that supports this cause i didn't really think it was necessary for the type of audience here

Posted by: phronesis | Jan 28, 2008 9:13:14 AM

I'm kind of open to all those future technologies, but have to choose what is available to me in the California market. In 2005 that was the Prius, with stickers for the car-pool lane, a pretty good deal.

So sure auto-makers, beat that, and show me the independent rankings for maintenance repairs and TCO (total cost of ownership) ... maybe you can build my next car.

Posted by: odograph | Jan 28, 2008 9:15:02 AM

i didn't really think it was necessary for the type of audience here

You're drawing the wrong conclusion. That's exactly what the audience here does want.

I suspect you're just throwing in a number, and don't have a clue what you're talking about. Hybridization can improve your real-world fuel economy by 30%, not the 117% you're suggesting.

Posted by: Anne | Jan 28, 2008 9:18:35 AM

diesel price in seattle is about 3.59 and bio-diesel here is over $4, i paid $4.29 the other day. most bio that comes here is from the midwest, all our local bio refiners sell to europe because its all non gmo canola

Posted by: phronesis | Jan 28, 2008 9:20:41 AM

Joseph

Even in yr case I still think the basic premise holds true, i.e. diesel is more expensive than gasoline. For example, I checked the prices of Phoenix, AZ on the web and the difference between normal grade and diesel is generally 20c and upward.

Posted by: Joe | Jan 28, 2008 9:26:31 AM

Diesels are more polluting. The small sized particulate particles that escape from the particulate filter turn out to be the most damaging to the lungs.

Posted by: Lulu | Jan 28, 2008 9:43:23 AM

anne,

considering my diesel is running at about 50% its capacity to start with, if you optimize the engine and add the electric motor with an increase of 30-50% it would not be at all unreasonable to achieve the 50mpg. the manufacturer could always build the engine out of something a little lighter than iron.

my apologies I guess I was assuming more improvements beyond just the addition of the electric motor, nonetheless it would be possible to achieve this efficiency in a full size truck and not just in a one off capacity

Posted by: phronesis | Jan 28, 2008 9:52:58 AM

Joe, try this site: http://www.phoenixgasprices.com

Mid grade range from $2.79 - 3.18. Dino range from $2.97 - $3.41. Depending on where you buy. Currently 1/2 mile from my work; Mid grade $3.09, Dino $3.06.

Posted by: Joseph | Jan 28, 2008 10:08:15 AM

lulu

the ability to control diesel emissions increases as the sulfur is removed from the fuel. the need to remove sulfur from fuel is akin to the removal of lead from gasoline

Posted by: phronesis | Jan 28, 2008 10:10:49 AM

Then why are the gas companies not doing this then !
Oh yeah , I forgot, its that cost thing again , you when
cost out-weighs the public good !

Posted by: | Jan 28, 2008 10:32:51 AM

the companies and our ever failing EPA, its not like its new technology they just came up with to remove sulfur

Posted by: phronesis | Jan 28, 2008 10:52:26 AM

I owned a diesel Jeep Liberty CRD for two years. It was a 2005 model with nearly-current technology and it was noisy and polluting. Not nearly as bad as diesels from 10 or more years before, but much noisier and more polluting than any gas engine vehicle from 2005. I could tell that I was breathing diesel fumes regularly as the driver of it.

Now pile on that in my area diesel costs $0.50 more/gallon than regular gasoline, and all reports I hear are that 2007+ diesels meeting the new emissions requirements have little or no fuel efficiency benefit over gasoline in the real world (based on numerous owners of diesel and/or gasoline heavy duty pickups, on a different board I use) and I am hard pressed to see diesel making much sense. Sure, the 6% rate is amazing and is probably less than the number of Americans who've been to Europe in the last 10 years, but I don't think it's crazy. From where I stand diesels can either be efficient or clean, but doing both doesn't seem to be something they have yet achieved.

On top of this, gasoline direct injection is making major gains in terms of thermal efficiency, to where it is only slightly behind diesels in efficiency and perhaps ahead when current market prices of fuel and the diesel engine premium are factored in.

Posted by: Zach | Jan 28, 2008 10:55:57 AM

i guess i should say that it is now required that sulfur be removed down to 15ppm from the previous of 500ppm. off highway diesel still maintains no regulations on sulfur and marine diesel and then bunker fuel are also ridiculous

Posted by: phronesis | Jan 28, 2008 10:58:43 AM

Zach

I haven't looked at the efficiency of the new diesels (08' and newer t2bin5) but the older diesels can be just as clean and maintain efficiency by blending biodiesel in at 20%.

Obviously we have other obstacles to overcome with ag based biodiesel reaching 20% of the 65 billion gallons of on highway diesel production

Posted by: phronesis | Jan 28, 2008 11:32:10 AM

All this study shows is how ignorant the surveyed are. Hydrogen... Yeah right!

Most people are incapable of making intelligent discisions regarding car safety (SUV's that flip over and kill other more responsible drivers) and environmental responsibility.

Posted by: GdB | Jan 28, 2008 11:45:05 AM

Zach's testimonial above is one of the first I've read about the Liberty CRD. While it was described as a success by DCX (about 10,000 units over 2 years), I'm not sure we'd see another Liberty-class diesel again. It seems the trend for diesels now is mainly in the premium market (large, higher-margin trucks and SUVs, and luxury brands).

Of course, there's the rumored Honda diesel for Ridgeline, which is still not certain. The speculated TSX diesel probably will be Honda's first diesel in US. That model will certainly carry a premium over same class of cars. We'll see if diesel variants will help boaster the Acura brand, which seems to have taken a beating in 2007.

Posted by: Charles S | Jan 28, 2008 11:47:33 AM

Holy Cow, the TSX is a $30k car... ! 2007 sales was about 33,000 units, down over 13% from 2006. It seems that Acura plans for diesel will only go up in price from there, as future diesels will move upward to the higher priced Acura vehicles.

Posted by: Charles S | Jan 28, 2008 12:00:13 PM

This goes to show you how ignorant the average American is.

Posted by: gary | Jan 28, 2008 12:01:48 PM

Phronesis, as a matter of fact the Liberty CRD ran noticeably better and cleaner when I could run B20 (20% biodiesel from soybean oil). The smell was still there but wasn't as bad. But go back and see the article from a year ago that biodiesel may create more of the micro soot that's actually worse for lungs. Also, there are few biodiesel pumps even though I'm in a top soybean farming state, and it made no sense to drive 20+ miles out of the way for B20.

Charles, DCX really hyped the CRD, and even sold slightly more than they expected, but it was basically a failure. The main issue was reliability and driveability - it had SERIOUS problems with both. Gas mileage and power were both good, but who cares if the vehicle spends 3 weeks a year in the shop. All CRDs had numerous recalls and repairs, and many were bought back. I traded mine because I couldn't put up with the problems any more. The issues partially relate to severe compromises to make the euro-spec engine meet US emissions standards (pre-2007!) with LSD. ULSD made things better but not fixed. There are also just plain engineering failures like using a transmission that couldn't survive the diesel engine's torque at low rpm.

I've read lots about the wonderful cheap, economical euro market diesels, but then on further reading it turns out hardly any of them meet tier 2, bin5 emissions standards. I guess if anyone can make a diesel that works and is both clean and efficient, Honda will be the one. But I'll believe it after it's been running in the US market for a year without recalls or failures. I know most people on this site don't follow or like big pickups, but among people who own them, the reports of 2007+ diesels are very discouraging, primarily for mileage/efficiency (most of them are still very powerful, in fact more than is really needed). Chrysler has a Mercedes diesel in the 2007+ Grand Cherokee, but the cost is incredible (over $40k for the vehicle with the diesel) and reports of gas mileage aren't all that terrific - maybe 20mpg or so. Having been a guinea pig once for a diesel that was supposed to be modern, clean, reliable etc. and finding out it wasn't clean or reliable, I'm not eager to be a guinea pig again.

Posted by: Zach | Jan 28, 2008 12:34:55 PM

Zach, thanks for the info on both Liberty CRD and 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee Diesel. You're right, I, for one, don't normally follow the long-term reports on such vehicles.

I know that common myth among hybrid vs. diesel debate is that diesels are worth the premium because it will last longer. In general, I think every type of vehicles have their own success/failure stories. I think it is too optimistic to believe that just because a car has a diesel engine, it is automatically assumed it's reliable.

Of course, this comes back to Honda's branding image; assume by many, including happy owner such as myself, as a brand for reliability. I think the TSX diesel has an uphill battle against the competitions in the same class. If it manage to be successful, it will certainly do a lot on public perception of diesels.

Posted by: Charles S | Jan 28, 2008 1:16:44 PM

My .02 is that all of those "Free" Americans (AKA Sheeple) will buy what ever the marketers tell us to buy. It blows my mind how uninformed and easily lead the majority of Americans are.

Posted by: Tim Russell | Jan 28, 2008 1:54:33 PM

phronesis said:

i get 23mpg with no mods 20-50% biodiesel blends on the freeway. if it was a diesel parallel hybride then i would be up around 50mpg in a stupid 8000lb vehicle.

I doubt that very much. You have no throttling losses due to your bigger engine, and frictional losses in it are nowhere near 50% of your engine power.

Posted by: Reality Czech | Jan 28, 2008 2:06:16 PM

The purpose of the survey was to reflect the extent to which certain car maker's recent efforts to popularize clean diesel have been successful. The result shows there is still a lot of historical prejudice and negative perceptions based on false information to overcome.

As with so many other things, the proof is in the pudding. Most prospective buyers don't much care about or even understand the technology under the hood. They're buying a car to be mobile, not for the sake of widget X or Y. Therefore, many will make no effort to educate themselves on clean diesel options until automotive journalists write up "independent" reviews of models that consumers can actually take for a test drive. This will start to happen later this year.

Even then, few consumers will actually become early adopters. Most are fairly conservative and will insist on a track record of how reliable those T2B5 exhaust gas aftertreatment systems really are and how resale values evolve before they will consider a purchase. Clean diesel market share will therefore probably rise only slowly in the first few years. Gasoline hybrids didn't become mainstream overnight, either.

Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jan 28, 2008 2:28:25 PM

There's two things that need to happen before Americans start to consider and buy diesels.

1) Availability need to increase: VW has been taking about their new T2B5 diesels for years, but they keep delaying the introduction (now it's Oct 2008). And then they need to make LOTS of them. The Mercedes E320 Bluetec supposedly became available last year, but apparently only for lease and in limited numbers
We need these cars being promoted and available first.

2) Gas/Diesel prices are still too low to make people seriously consider them. Preferably they'll raise taxes now, but at some point peak oil will take care of it.

Posted by: Karkus | Jan 28, 2008 2:32:47 PM

"no effort to educate themselves on clean diesel options until automotive journalists write up "independent" reviews of models that consumers can actually take for a test drive. This will start to happen later this year."

I totally disagree. Just about every major "review" of diesel vehicles in US had been positive. Just look up Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD and Mercedez BlueTec and reviewers just gush endlessly over them.

The word "clean diesel" has been thrown around for the last 3 years, in just about every publication out there. Above it all, it's always goes hand in hand with bashing hybrids. There is absolutely no excuses when it comes to diesel media blitz.

If I have to bet, it's highly likely that plenty of people out there have already been exposed to the term "clean diesel" but after some research, they still gravitate toward the vehicle they wanted to buy in the first place (which likely happened to not have a diesel variant).

Posted by: Charles S | Jan 28, 2008 2:50:34 PM

I'm another reader getting 50 mpg running B99 in my 2001 Golf TDI. I wouldn't trade this car for a gasser and will never go back to driving a gasser. Once you've experienced how diesels make power, there's little incentive to going back to gasoline. I don't miss changing spark plugs or distributor wires. 10K oil change intervals are nice. I like the fact that the relatively low-RPM engine will probably last me 500K miles w/o a rebuild. Also, it's the ultimate multi-fuel vehicle - canola/soybean/algal/jatropha biodiesel, kerosene, d2, ulsd-d2, jet fuel. It all burns just fine. Until a reasonable electric vehicle with an onboard, easily removable, modular genset ("range extender") is available, I'll be burning biodiesel my usual 800 mi/tank.

Here are some countries that have massive diesel penetration in the passenger vehicle market - Italy, France, Spain. Here are some countries where, on avg., the people live longer than in the U.S. - Italy, France, Spain. Ultimately CO2 emissions will kill orders of magnitude more people than soot. All else being equal a gasoline engine emits more CO2/km. and most of them have no provision for burning carbon-neutral fuels. As soon as the soot is gone (a short-term tech. problem), there will be absolutely no point to gasoline engines.

-mt

Posted by: Marshall | Jan 28, 2008 3:22:43 PM

Marshall:

I have nothing against people who loves their diesel vehicles. I happen to agree that diesel has the advantage of burning wider variety of bio-fuels. However, I do want to offer some critique in terms of the "advantages" you've mentioned about diesel cars.

First, my gasser MINI has a 10K oil change interval (synthetic) and my Honda has a 7500 miles oil change interval, so I'm not sure if that's unique to diesel vehicles.

Second, the argument about life expectancy is a bit far fetched. It's just easily to say that obesity (diet) is the more likely cause of lower lifespan in US.

Lastly, CO2 emissions is somewhat relative. The Prius II, compare to same class vehicle like 2001 Passat TDI, still has better CO2 emission (102g/km vs 154g/km). The only diesel that I heard that came close is a new 2007 MINI Cooper Diesel, which is a different category in terms of size and mileage.

Posted by: Charles S | Jan 28, 2008 3:49:27 PM

Kelly BB asks the average new-car shoppers? What answer did they expect?
Diesels are made to be in constant-use, probably commercial vehicles...cabs, coppers, delivery, sales, commuters...not "I'm driving to the mall or the train station". When youre puttin 50+ miles a day on a vehicle, diesels start to make the annual fuel bill shrink. They should never be recommended for the "average" new-car buyer.

Posted by: fred dzlsabe | Jan 28, 2008 3:57:42 PM

So... what did they end up buying, it's not the Highlander, or the Civic really. Neilsen, J.D. and KBB need to finish the survey here and provide some REAl results. Conpare this BS to actual sales people!

Posted by: ed | Jan 28, 2008 5:02:39 PM

Sorry, here are actual hybrid sales. the sad thing really is that noone is making cars that
should be available.

http://bioage.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/hybrid_sales_jun061.png

Posted by: ed | Jan 28, 2008 5:14:25 PM

Agree that Americans are at least 4 stages behind on their auto knowledge. But posters here referring to 'clean diesels' are at least 3 stages behind on their pollution IQ. Two posters mentioned the pollution of diesel & bio fuels, & the only response was about sulfur.

To extrapolate & clarify: Mark Jacobson in GCC in April 2007 mentioned the adverse effects of E85 fuels, noting that such fuels are NOT 'more healthy' than gas fumes. Recent studies have shown that fine particulate particles are not only detrimental to lung function, but to heart function too. Therefore, a goodly percentage of the extreme numbers of heart diseases & deaths are laid directly at the door of diesel.

Now Europe proudly boasts their diesel emissions are filtered. But even for fine diesel particulates their control is iffy. Of course, the U.S. diesel truck population isn't even regulated as well as Europe.

However, very recent studies indicate that nano particles are prevalent in heart problems. & filtration science of nano particles hasn't even begun yet, much less reached the market. Not only nano particles from diesel engines, but also from gasoline engines are implicated in nano particle heart disease.

Therefore, our grudging control of emissions in the 70's, 80's & 90's, culminating in the 3 way catalytic converter is showing that emissions weren't controlled enough. Children living, playing & schooling near freeways are in grave danger from emissions.

I've been chastised for my continual referrals to these studies.

Now these studies have been out for as much as 9 months with the very recent studies done within the last month & have been reported here on GCC. Why 'you expert' car enthusiasts are still playing the 'clean diesel' song is beyond me.

I repeat: let us get electric storage densities way up, electric charge times way down, & EVs on the road way many. May ICE die(an economic death) that people will live. Long live EVs.

Posted by: litesong | Jan 28, 2008 5:30:59 PM

Why does it have to be a dichotomy? Is a diesel-hybrid not possible? A flex-fuel or biodiesel hybrid could work too. Plug-in hybrids are going to need a small genset be it gasoline, E85, biodiesel, diesel or if insanity really hits hard hydrogen, why not all of them and see which one comes out on top?

Posted by: Ben | Jan 28, 2008 6:31:57 PM

First comment after me, was not about the dead & diseased children, but about pleasant compromises & complex mechanisms to continue the use of internal combustion engines(ICE). They will be small & clean & let the consumer determine which comes out on top.

That explains where priorities are for the poster. The same speech has been used before to chastise me who did not believe that ICE was clean.

The lead consumer(breather) of ICE has been children & they keep dying from our pollutions that we declared as 'SO CLEAN'.

ICE has had its time & killed too many people. To compromise at this too late date, is to kill more children. Hey, we are talking about OUR CHILDREN'S SAFETY. We have compromised their safety for 30 years, thinking ourselves the saviors of our children.

Now we see that we aren't our children's saviors.

The first post is about compromising our children's safety. VOTE AS YOU MAY.

As for me, my northwest produces power, kilowatt to HP at 4% of the pollution of an ICE. That pollution is NOT generated next to children. Electric motors use that power 3 times more efficiently than ICE. Let us get energy densities way up, charge times way down, & EVs on the road way more. Let ICE die that people can live. Long live EVs.

Posted by: litesong | Jan 28, 2008 7:25:12 PM

If they offer a diesel, I hope they offer it as a stand alone option instead of bundling it with a bunch of options. The Hybrid Accord had premium of several thousand dollars but most of that went to leather, satellite radio, Navigation etc and other options. A base Accord with a hybrid power train would have been much cheaper then the top of the line Accord Hybrid.

Hopefully The next diesels will be sold in all levels of a vehicle instead of being put in top of the line models only.

Posted by: eliot | Jan 28, 2008 7:32:02 PM

Americans disdained diesel engines up until now because they used to generate a lot of smoke, clattered loudly at idle and lacked high-end acceleration power. But thanks to pressurized common-rail direct fuel injection and current exhaust emission controls, all those complaints don't exist, more or less. Go drive a Mercedes-Benz E320CDI or the BMW 335d--they offer just as much performance as their gasoline-fuelled equivalents, gets 30-35% better fuel economy, and now no longer leave a visible trail of smoke, thanks to particulate filters.

In fact, by 2010 expect many cars to start offering clean-burning turbodiesel engines, many of which will emit less emissions than required by the EPA Tier 2 Bin 4 standard. The reason is simple: this offers an easier way to meet tomorrow's stricter fuel economy rules.

Posted by: Raymond | Jan 28, 2008 7:59:19 PM

See folks. Eliot, & Raymond don't understand that ICE kills children & my posts went right over their heads. Whether they even care if their fumes kill can only be answered by them. It doesn't matter if they are at stage 4 or 3 or 2.

Posted by: litesong | Jan 28, 2008 8:50:42 PM

litesong,

I don't have a problem wit the ICE being replaced with a EV, it is just until batteries have the price and range hybrids are going to be a intermediate solution. Unless your talking about fuel cells, which need not only reduced price but infrastructure and more power plants, possibly polluting ones.

Posted by: Ben | Jan 29, 2008 5:13:30 AM

When VW releases its new diesels in the US, I will be trading in my gas powered vehicle.
Though diesel fuel may be more expensive in some states, the increased fuel mileage and the longer durability of the diesel engine will offset the increased expense.
The hybrid is nice, but I will take a pass on that technology at this time.

Posted by: John M | Jan 29, 2008 6:13:32 AM

@ litesong

I tried to post comments complete with several links earlier, but it was apparently kicked out as spam. I’ll try again with fewer links.

Basically, I disagree with your premise that clean diesel vehicles emit lots of nanoparticles. DPF is so effective that the particle number levels in the exhaust are actually lower than the intake air supplied to the engine, and they’re effective across the entire PM size range including nanoparticles (see, e.g., http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2003/session9/2003_deer_storey.pdf (slides 10 and 11)).

Studies have been done which show that DPF have essentially eliminated health effects from diesel engines:

“…Health effects were eliminated or reduced to non-significant levels [with use of DPF]…
…BOTTOM LINES - The problem is emissions - not diesel emissions…”
Mauderly, et al., “COMPONENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF INHALED ENGINE EMISSIONS.” Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque, NM

I acknowledge that EVs would be the best alternative wrt urban air pollution, but as several other commenters have mentioned, EVs are not really “ready for prime time” yet. Until then, based on everything I’ve seen, clean diesel is the best option from an air quality perspective at this time.

Posted by: Carl | Jan 29, 2008 7:49:47 AM

Most people realy dont give a flying bleep... They just want a car that after they get it everyone shuts the f up and goes the hell away to pester someone else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No more smog checks.. no more regurgitaed reregulated reformulated recombenant fuels that screw with your freaking car just when your kids hit colledge..

Yjay means ev fuel cell and nothing else.... Everything else still has politicos and whiner bastards messing withy your stuff and getting you scrwed.

How much would you pat to make all the morons go away? Just buy ev ir h2 and make yjrm all go away... THAT is the true power behind ev and h2. Not money... not fuel econ... not sanity... not the environment.. just the blessed dream of making all those people go the hell away. Now how much is that future worth?:)

Posted by: wintermane | Jan 29, 2008 9:16:32 AM

Having used, sold and repaired diesel vehicles all my adult life i would like to add a few obversations.
The most relevant work is perhaps the maintenance and repair of about 150 mini buses used by hotels and parking lot operators around our airport. We have extremes of weather and perhaps the least qualified drivers that exist compounded by the worst duty cycle possible.
That said I must say that the proceeding comments are for the most part just as far off as the KBB survey, to wit: the care and feeding of a diesel engine is out of reach for most people, I have drainded and flushed the fuel systems of many diesel buses because the driver could not remember to put diesel fuel in them. I also have maintained many 351 and 460 Fords that made it well past 500000 miles without overhaul, in fact that is one of the pro diesel misconceptions because most peoples cars never see 100000 miles as they beat them up so bad or just get tired of them.
If you want to see whats possible go to your Freightliner dealer and test one of there Sprinter vans based on a Mercedes with a small 5 cyl Bluetec diesel engine, both the mileage and power will impress you.
The answer is diesel for the near term as it will be 10 to 25 years before EV's or any thing else that will work will be along.

Posted by: Jeff | Jan 29, 2008 11:25:13 AM

We're still at least ten years away from coming up with a decent means to store electric power on an automobile with a battery pack that is reasonably light, charges quickly and offers decent range. The supercapacitor battery made from carbon nanotubes I've talked about recently could be that solution, but we've yet to reach the prototype stage for such a means of storing electrical power.

For now, the best solution is advanced turbodiesels that are just as clean as gasoline engines, something that has finally reached reality now.

Posted by: Raymond | Jan 29, 2008 11:31:34 AM

Raymond...If all people expect science to develope acceptable electric storage units in 10 years & those same people continue to spew fine & nano particles into their children calling it 'clean' like you do, then science might get around to electric storage density in 20 years. & people's lethargic neglect of children shall kill more children to match the levels of death we have already meted out to ourselves.

As for me, my electric bike has shown me the way as my ailing body goes easily thru town generating only 1/700th the pollution of an ICE car. Whether the technology develops fast or slow, I will have an EV car & it won't be 10 or 20 years from now. If at the worst, I have to make-do with low tech Pb-Acid batteries & charge up in every fifth town, I will count such inconvenience as that much less fine & nano particles in my fellow citizens.

Posted by: litesong | Jan 29, 2008 12:25:42 PM

Quote: "Count me in with the 94% who think the diesel is "unlikely to become a mainstream powertrain type". My opinion is based on extensive research that shows the emissions laws will not allow them to be sold here. Why should automakers try to win over customers?"

You mean the new emmission standareds that will allow VW to start selling the TDI again in 2008? Or the Honda Accord diesel in 2009? Or the Subaru diesel in 2010?

============================

Quote: "In this country (US) diesel does not make sense as the price of the fuel is usually at a considerable premium over normal gasoline, so any savings from greater economy are offset by higher prices at the pump."
The extra cost of diesel does offset some of the savings but not all of it. Diesel is 20% more in cost but the fuel efficiency of a comparable car (Gas Jetta versus Diesel Jetta) is 45% better.

High MPG cars are most interesting to people who drive many miles in a year. For people who drive 10,000-15,000 (or less), it would be hard to recover the extra cost (if there is any) of a more efficient car (the "premium") with decreased fuel costs.

Posted by: njkayaker | Jan 29, 2008 1:07:40 PM

Quote: "I think the automakers already know the answer about the diesel market trends. There is no profit in offering diesel as a fuel-saver for passenger cars. VW may want to keep that diesel niche, but all other companies are only offering diesels for trucks and as a gimmick for luxury brands."
Many manufacturers produce diesel non-luxury cars for sale in Europe. They might be able to charge a bit more for the diesel (though diesels cost a bit more to produce). The "difference" in profit is mostly shipping a diesel instead of a gasser (ie, nothing).

Quote: "Availability need to increase: VW has been taking about their new T2B5 diesels for years, but they keep delaying the introduction (now it's Oct 2008)."

VW has been held back by the availibility of ULSD diesel and the change in emission requirements). Since they managed to sell every Jetta TDI with no real discounting (unlike the gas Jetta), it's clear VW would like to have been able to sell diesels in 2007. Part of the problem with VW in the US is that the US is a small market that they lose money in. It looks like Honda and Subaru are planning on selling diesel passenger cars in the US soon.

Quote: "First, my gasser MINI has a 10K oil change interval (synthetic) and my Honda has a 7500 miles oil change interval, so I'm not sure if that's unique to diesel vehicles."

Yes, the oil change interval is mostly due to better (ie, synthetic) oil.

QUote: "Second, the argument about life expectancy is a bit far fetched."

I agree. Good modern engines (gas or diesel), should have no problem going 200,000-300,000 miles so the alleged extra longevity of diesel engines is moot. Not many people keep cars for 10-15 years.

QUote: "Lastly, CO2 emissions is somewhat relative. The Prius II, compare to same class vehicle like 2001 Passat TDI, still has better CO2 emission (102g/km vs 154g/km"

The Prius II (a nice car) is quite a bit smaller than a Passat.

Anyway, the CO2 emmission is directly related to the fuel consumption (and the type of fuel): gallons consumed per mile (1/MPG). Nothing else. Since diesel is denser than gas, there is a slight emission penalty for diesel (ie, about 5-10% more Co2 emission per gallon consumed compared to gas).

QUote: "I repeat: let us get electric storage densities way up, electric charge times way down, & EVs on the road way many. May ICE die(an economic death) that people will live. Long live EVs."

I'd like to see EVs too. Two things are keeping EVs off the road: range and speed of refueling.

QUote: ""Why does it have to be a dichotomy? Is a diesel-hybrid not possible?"

It's possible but more expensive. One advantage of the gas hybrid is that it is easier to get better emissions.

QUote: "I also recall that Rafael Seidl mentioned in one of his posts that a significant amount of middle distillate is converted ("cracked") into gasoline (in the U.S.)."

Yes, the heavier oil can be broken up into lighter stuff (gas) by "cracking" but it does cost some. It appears that the refineries in the US are geared to producing more gasoline and the refineries in Europe are geared to produce more diesel. I think you can't change the degree of "cracking" on a whim (the plant has to be built with the intended amount of cracking).

Posted by: njkayaker | Jan 29, 2008 1:43:58 PM

njkayaker,

that is a pretty poor example of relative efficiency comparing the Jetta gasoline engine versus the Diesel TDI. VW has always had some of the worst (efficency) gasoline based engines of any major manufacturer outside of Korea and China. The typical 2.0L gasoline 4 banger was struggling to push out 120hp and could barely register 27mpg combined Old EPA and 24mpg combined New EPA. A very unresponsive engine as if the manufacturer didn't care what was in the car as long as it seemed to move.

Now with diesel, VW seems to have put some "real" work into development. A more fair comparison would be to put it up against a gasoline engine from a manufacturer who puts "real" work into development of a 4 banger.

Posted by: Patrick | Jan 29, 2008 3:23:21 PM

Here at the Diesel Technology Forum, we’re not overly surprised that consumers aren’t more aware or optimistic about clean diesel technology. New diesel cars – the kind that are so successful in Europe – aren’t currently available in great numbers here in the U.S. That is changing beginning this year, with more than 13 automakers announcing plans to roll out diesel models by the end of the decade. We suspect a survey like this done in a few years might yield some very different results with respect to diesel.

As we continue to spread the word, and as these models start to appear in showrooms and people begin driving them, we’re confident Americans will embrace clean diesel. Consumers will experience firsthand what we’ve known for years—that diesel vehicles are clean, quiet, efficient, and environmentally sound.

http://www.dieselforum.org

Posted by: ChrisDiesel | Jan 29, 2008 4:08:05 PM

Quote: "VW has always had some of the worst (efficency) gasoline based engines of any major manufacturer outside of Korea and China. The typical 2.0L gasoline 4 banger was struggling to push out 120hp and could barely register 27mpg combined Old EPA and 24mpg combined New EPA. A very unresponsive engine as if the manufacturer didn't care what was in the car as long as it seemed to move."

I don't disagree with this.

=================

Quote: "that is a pretty poor example of relative efficiency comparing the Jetta gasoline engine versus the Diesel TDI."

It's not really that poor of an example.

I was using 42MPG (TDI) versus 29MPG (gas 2.5) to get 45%. (My lifetime average in the 2006 Jetta TDI is 47. So, I could have claimed a larger number.) If you use 31 MPG for a 4cyl Accord, the number is 35%.

It seems fairly common for diesels to see better than EPA MPG. It seems less common for gassers to see better than EPA MPG.

=================

Anyway, my point was to demonstrate that the following isn't exactly true:

"so any savings from greater economy are offset by higher prices at the pump."

Certainly, diesel versus gas is a wash, economy-wise, unless the MPG of the diesel is > 20% different (or whatever the RUG versus diesel difference is).

=================

Quote: "Now with diesel, VW seems to have put some "real" work into development. A more fair comparison would be to put it up against a gasoline engine from a manufacturer who puts "real" work into development of a 4 banger."

But then everybody would say that the comparision was "apple and oranges"! What car would you compare the 2006 Jetta TDI to?

As far as I understand, the VW gas engines are good but not very efficient. As far as I understand, the Honda gas engines are good and fairly efficient as well.

Posted by: njkayaker | Jan 29, 2008 4:58:46 PM

Based on personal experience owning two diesels and numerous gas engine cars, including a Civic Hybrid, I think the diesel efficiency advantage has been overhyped and does not go as well in US real world driving. I do not have a particular leadfoot either.

For all the concerns about hybrids, my Civic Hybrid never hiccuped once, had no significant issues other than slightly weak snow performance (mostly due to low rolling resistance tires) and returned an average of 40-42mpg in city commuting, trips of only 6 miles or less in all weather conditions including snowy winter and hot summer with AC use. Lowest tanks ever were in the 37mpg range and I regularly got 44-45mpg in either mild weather or trips. There was almost no compromise.

I track my gas mileage, conditions, fuel types (octane level and ethanol % for gas, biodiesel content for diesel) and in my real experience, the efficiency benefit of diesel is usually wiped out completely by the higher initial cost, the higher cost of the fuel (which now appears to be permanent, and makes sense based on its higher BTU content) and the significantly higher maintenance requirements, including using much more engine oil in each fill and requiring regular fuel filter changes to continue running on a long term basis. Diesel owners also need to be familiar with antigel additives if they live in a place where it gets cold (yes, I know stations are supposed to sell properly blended fuel, but they don't always, or you may drive home with fuel in the tank bought someplace warmer). Also, while it hasn't happened to me, use the wrong fuel (gasoline) or badly contaminated fuel once and you may be paying $3000 to replace the injector pump. There is nothing on a typical gasoline drivetrain that costs that much, including the entire long block on most vehicles.

I would also second Patrick's point about VW's gas engine efficiency. My mom has a 2005 Jetta with the 2.5L I-5 base engine, and gets only 15-20mpg in commuting. On the freeway she may get 30mpg, which is still nothing special for that class of car. Sometimes there is just plain bad engineering, which can be fixed.

The diesels before 2007 did have a big advantage in heavy trucks (16-20mpg vs. 10-15), but reports from 2007+ MY diesels are not encouraging (as little as 7-9mpg city for the Fords with 6.4L, and hardly anyone is reporting above 15 for any 2007+ diesel in a 3/4 or 1 ton pickup; in comparison gas engine trucks are improving incrementally all the time).

The DPF technology looks very promising and may eliminate the emissions drawbacks. But it appears to come at the cost of efficiency, again based on real world reports of people with 2007+ diesels in trucks. Also, don't put too much stock in the high pressure common rail systems. Yes, they are far better than the earlier primitive systems, but my Liberty CRD had a modern common rail system (that's why it was called the CRD!) and still put out a lot of soot in many acceleration conditions. The EGR valve necessary to meet NOx requirements was likely a large part of the cause, but you are choosing between which type of pollution. A DPF probably would have eliminated the soot I saw without increasing NOx, but if it had also knocked 2-3mpg off my efficiency, there would be no point to have the diesel in the first place.

My personal vote would be for hybrid cars that are designed from ground up as electric cars, with a modest battery range (perhaps only 10-20 miles) and then adding an onboard generator to keep those batteries charged and put out enough power to maintain 60-70mph. I think a typical car requires only about 10-15hp at 60mph, so the engine required should be tiny, perhaps 200-400cc. I see no reason this couldn't be built today, without requiring any new technology. And an engine optimized for one speed to run a generator should be capable of higher thermal efficiency than a car engine that has to idle, accelerate, and operate at a wide range of speeds and loads.

Posted by: Zach | Jan 29, 2008 5:02:51 PM

Two things to add. First, if you are looking at diesel efficiency from a GHG perspective, keep in mind that those extra BTU's in diesel fuel represent extra carbon per gallon. 15% extra, roughly. So the first 15% of diesel fuel efficiency compared to gasoline (based on distance per gallon) has no GHG benefit.

Second, while diesel torque characteristics are quite nice for everyday driving, hybrid torque - with the motor producing full torque at 0 rpm - is even nicer. The Civic Hybrid (first gen) didn't have much peak hp or impressive 0-60 times, but it was never slow around town or even at legal freeway speeds. (If you want to drive above 80mph, it wouldn't be a good choice.) I haven't driven the second gen Civic Hybrid but I assume it is even nicer. Hopefully the automakers will start building hyrbids for efficiency again and not for minor acceleration gains and ego-boosting greenwashing factor, as Toyota has been doing too much lately (and also with Honda's failed Accord Hybrid).

Posted by: Zach | Jan 29, 2008 5:26:53 PM

Quote: "I think the diesel efficiency advantage has been overhyped and does not go as well in US real world driving"

Modern diesels work fine in the US. They are better suited for highway driving but they do better in the city than plain gassers do.

Quote: "For all the concerns about hybrids, my Civic Hybrid never hiccuped once, had no significant issues other than slightly weak snow performance (mostly due to low rolling resistance tires) and returned an average of 40-42mpg in city commuting, trips of only 6 miles or less in all weather conditions including snowy winter and hot summer with AC use. Lowest tanks ever were in the 37mpg range and I regularly got 44-45mpg in either mild weather or trips. There was almost no compromise."

The Civic Hybrid is a great car. There really should be little reliability concern about them. Hybrids are much better suited for stop-and-go driving than any other ICE based vehicle. The advantage of the hybrid technology is much less in highway driving.

Quote: "in my real experience, the efficiency benefit of diesel is usually wiped out completely by the higher initial cost"

The premium for hybrid technology is higher than for diesels (but it was offset by the tax rebate).

Quote: "the higher cost of the fuel (which now appears to be permanent,"

Quote: "and makes sense based on its higher BTU content)"
While this seems logical, the thing that drives the price differential is supply-and-demand (ie, basic economics), not the energy content.

Quote: "the significantly higher maintenance requirements, including using much more engine oil in each fill and
requiring regular fuel filter changes to continue running on a long term basis."

The OCI in the Jetta TDI is 10,000 miles. It uses expensive synthetic oil. The OCI for the 2.0T gas engine is 5000 miles and it uses similarly-priced oil. I think the Jetta TDI uses 5 quarts. I can't imaging that a similarly-sized gas engine uses much less oil. Fuel filters are $60 and are supposed to be replaced every 20,000 miles. Overall, the maintanence cost might be higher but not by much (that is, they are not "significant").

Quote: "Diesel owners also need to be familiar with antigel additives if they live in a place where it gets cold".

This is a valid concern. It has to be very cold (like -15'F) for this to be a problem.

Quote: "you may be paying $3000 to replace the injector pump. There is nothing on a typical gasoline drivetrain that costs that much, including the entire long block on most vehicles."

Quote: "Also, while it hasn't happened to me, use the wrong fuel (gasoline) or badly contaminated fuel once and you may be paying $3000 to replace the injector pump. There is nothing on a typical gasoline drivetrain that costs that much.

There really has to be some reference for this cost. It would seem that the fuel pumps in direct-injection gas cars would cost about the same (since it's similar technology). What about those $7000 batteries in your Hybrid?

Quote: "I would also second Patrick's point about VW's gas engine efficiency. My mom has a 2005 Jetta with the 2.5L I-5 base engine, and gets only 15-20mpg in commuting. On the freeway she may get 30mpg, which is still nothing special for that class of car."

Compared to what car? The Jetta is heavy. The Corolla does better but it is a much lighter car. To repeat myself, I agree that VW should do better with the gas MPG.

Quote: "The DPF technology looks very promising and may eliminate the emissions drawbacks. But it appears to come at the cost of efficiency, again based on real world reports of people with 2007+ diesels in trucks. Also, don't put too much stock in the high pressure common rail systems."

The upcoming Jetta TDI (with the common rail engine) is rated at 140 HP and has better fuel economy than the 2006 Jetta rated at 100 HP. And it has better emissions.

Quote: "Yes, they are far better than the earlier primitive systems, but my Liberty CRD had a modern common rail system (that's why it was called the CRD!) and still put out a lot of soot in many acceleration conditions. The EGR valve necessary to meet NOx requirements was likely a large part of the cause, but you are choosing between which type of pollution. A DPF probably would have eliminated the soot I saw without increasing NOx, but if it had also knocked 2-3mpg off my efficiency, there would be no point to have the diesel in the first place."

Without real measurements, "a lot of soot" is not very meaningful. The point of the diesel in the Liberty CRD was torque not high MPG. If you were not towing anything, it was an odd choice.

Quote: "The diesels before 2007 did have a big advantage in heavy trucks (16-20mpg vs. 10-15), but reports from 2007+ MY diesels are not encouraging (as little as 7-9mpg city for the Fords with 6.4L, and hardly anyone is reporting above 15 for any 2007+ diesel in a 3/4 or 1 ton pickup; in comparison gas engine trucks are improving incrementally all the time)."

I suppose you are talking about pickups (it's hard to tell). The primary purpose of diesel in trucks is torque not fuel efficiency. Considering the rather-high premium for the diesel engines, there must be some advantage to them.

Quote: "My personal vote would be for hybrid cars that are designed from ground up as electric cars, with a modest battery range (perhaps only 10-20 miles) and then adding an onboard generator to keep those batteries charged and put out enough power to maintain 60-70mph."

It would be very interesting to see such a vehicle.

Posted by: njkayaker | Jan 30, 2008 8:29:29 AM

Quote: "Two things to add. First, if you are looking at diesel efficiency from a GHG perspective, keep in mind that those extra BTU's in diesel fuel represent extra carbon per gallon. 15% extra, roughly. So the first 15% of diesel fuel efficiency compared to gasoline (based on distance per gallon) has no GHG benefit."

I did point that out. Diesel engines are, still, inherently more efficient that gas engines even taking into account the higher energy content of the fuel.

Hybrids are very-well suited for stop-and-go driving. Much better than non-hybrids.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of the energy/GHG used in manufacturing the two different types (diesel versus hybrids).

Quote: "Second, while diesel torque characteristics are quite nice for everyday driving, hybrid torque - with the motor producing full torque at 0 rpm - is even nicer.

Quote: "Hopefully the automakers will start building hybids for efficiency again and not for minor acceleration gains and ego-boosting greenwashing factor, as Toyota has been doing too much lately (and also with Honda's failed Accord Hybrid)."

I agree. The Camry and Accord hybrids were a bit odd.

We will have to see what the Honda Accord diesel is like.

Posted by: njkayaker | Jan 30, 2008 8:42:12 AM

NJ: If you are going to quote people extensively, consider using the <blockquote> and </blockquote> HTML tags to enclose the quoted material.

Posted by: Reality Czech | Jan 30, 2008 10:16:26 AM

I don't agree that corn based fuel will be an answer for anything. The total costs for growing and delivery far out way any benefit. I think that fallacy will eventually be realized when the US government reduces farm subsidies for corn growers. 
 The cost of battery replacement is factored into the lease costs of all Toyota and Honda hybrids and the extra monthly cost outweigh the fuel savings. The consumer will always buy what's cheapest for them as an individual except for the 5 percent who are 
willing to make personal sacrifices with their wallets for the environment. I now own two Diesels and a gasser. (VW TDI, Chevy Duramax and Acura MDX. I feel the Diesel is a mixed blessing. I love driving with torque vs. horsepower which is why I think once a diesel driver always a diesel driver. I also love the 50 plus mpg from my TDI. However I live daily the downfalls of the Diesel (slow to warm up in cold climate and slightly sooty exhaust. The new common rail diesels, however, that work because of the new diesel fuel released last year (ulsd) are a different animal. Yes the increased purchase cost offsets most of the fuel savings for low mileage drivers. When you start to do the math for drivers who do 30000 kilometers per year and more it makes sense. I feel the future (next 10 years) before fuel cells are available, if in fact that is the eventual technology, the diesel / electric hybrid will 
be the answer. Electric for the urban driving and diesel for highway. Heavy cars like my MDX or a Chevy Yukon would really benefit from the torque available. In the last few months I have heard two European auto journalists talking about this direction. I see the announcements from the recent Detroit Auto show for almost a dozen new diesels in the next two years and wonder how far behind a Diesel / Electric can be.

Posted by: steve | Jan 30, 2008 12:23:45 PM

However I live daily the downfalls of the Diesel (slow to warm up in cold climate and slightly sooty exhaust.

I don't have a problem with the long warm-up but I suppose I'm not as far north (presumably, Canada) as you are.

This might be a fix for you: http://www.frostheater.com/

(Note that I was being facetious about the hybrid battery replacement cost. I believe that either the cost won't be as high as some say or they are have much more life than some say.)

Posted by: njkayaker | Jan 30, 2008 2:30:40 PM

This is a bit off topic, but I could not resist. Neil Young is converting an old Lincoln into a series hybrid to show how innovation can make a new future for us.

http://www.uqm.com/press/news/08-24.html

Posted by: sjc | Jan 30, 2008 9:15:06 PM

An awful lot of posts here say that American consumers are idiots. Maybe with respect to some things, but I think they're making the right decision here. I've been hearing about T2b5 Clean Diesel for YEARS now, but I've never seen one. "Clean Diesel" is about as real to the American consumer as the Tooth Fairy. I'm sure that we will be seeing them eventually, about the same time that PHEVs are rolling off the showroom floor.

Posted by: George | Jan 30, 2008 9:39:53 PM

I've been hearing about T2b5 Clean Diesel for YEARS now, but I've never seen one. "Clean Diesel" is about as real to the American consumer as the Tooth Fairy.

The US has been slow to change over to ULSD, which is required for the clean diesels. Anyway, the diesels have been getting cleaner over the years.

Posted by: njkayaker | Jan 31, 2008 9:31:50 AM

Clinton and Gore got low sulfur diesel passed before they left office, but the special interests wanted it delayed until last year. Having to wait more than 7 years to get clean diesel is part of the money/power politics in America.

Posted by: sjc | Jan 31, 2008 9:36:34 AM

In the face of recent fine & nano sized particulate studies, diesels are proven NOT to be clean. To continue to 'spread the word' about clean diesels is to spread lies!
Even filtered European diesels are spotty at best. The lower cost after market diesel filters for pre-2007 diesels are close to worthless on all fine & nano particles. The present diesel filters on post 2007 vehicles have little effect on nano particles, even tho diesel proponents protest they do.

Yes, nano particles are insidious. The particle studies even show the dirtiness of gasoline vehicles for lung & heart function. Further studies will implicate fine & nano particles in many other diseases.

I repeat: let's get electric energy storage density way up, electric charge times way down, & EVs way many. Let ICE die(economically), that people live. Long live EVs.

Posted by: litesong | Jan 31, 2008 10:32:37 AM

T2B5 diesels are significantly cleaner than the current Euro standard.

We'll have to wait for tests on the actual shipping models (VW this year, Honda in 2009, most others 2010) to verify your claims as to U.S. market 50-state approved diesels.

It will be at least 2010 before any kind of mass-market PHEV (e.g. the Volt) is available.

>Even filtered European diesels are spotty at best.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 31, 2008 12:27:45 PM

I repeat: let's get electric energy storage density way up, electric charge times way down, & EVs way many. Let ICE die(economically), that people live. Long live EVs.

Something else we've been waiting for for a very long time.

Posted by: njkayaker | Jan 31, 2008 2:17:08 PM

I think people forget diesel engine technology is nowadays very advanced indeed.

Between the use of really high-pressure common-rail direct fuel injection (2,500 to 3,000 bar!), better direct fuel injectors, the use of variable-timing valvetrains, the latest in particulate filters that remove even nano particles by "burning off" the particulates, and the use of urea gas injection or artificial ammonia gas generation to dramatically reduce NOx output, diesel engines will within a few years meet even the really stringent CARB ULEV-II standard, a major engineering marvel indeed.

In fact, because diesel fuel can be derived from plant sources or even oil-laden algae fairly easily, this could tremendously extend the life of ICE's until battery technology finally catches up and we can finally phase out ICE's altogether.

Posted by: Raymond | Feb 2, 2008 10:43:43 AM

this is to JRod, i think you are one of ignorant uninformed citizen of the united states of america!..i think the journals you're reading are outdated!haven't you heard about the R10 diesel of audi lately?

Posted by: tirekicker106 | Feb 3, 2008 4:46:07 PM

The promise of diesel for mainstream drivers is an illusion that is not sustainable. There have been several waves of Diesel marketing over the years, each proclaiming that the technology was improved, but in each case it wasn't ready for prime time. I worked for a company that owned Mercedes Diesels in the 1970s - great cars to drive, but troublesome, and incredibly expensive to maintain. They had such trouble starting in the winter that you'd have to keep them running 24/7. VW marketed diesels in the 80s and it was a disaster so they pulled them from the market. Nissan marketed diesels cars, which actually worked well, but they were pulled from the market. Oldsmobile's diesels didn't work for the average driver and were pulled from the market. Diesel fuel is being cleaned up but you still have to worry about it gelling in even moderately cold weather. If you doubt that, just Google "diesel fuel gelling" and you see plenty of current nightmare stories of the problems even professionals have in dealing with diesel fuel in cold weather. Paying more for the fuel and having to hunt for a station to fill up only adds to the reality that a modern hybrid makes a ton more sense than a diesel car.

Posted by: Skip | Feb 7, 2008 9:38:35 PM

"The promise of diesel for mainstream drivers is an illusion that is not sustainable."

So, all those people in Europe and Canada driving diesel cars are not "mainstream"? There are many, many "mainstream" drivers who use them.

"I worked for a company that owned Mercedes Diesels in the 1970s - great cars to drive, but troublesome, and incredibly expensive to maintain."

Probably as expensive as a gas or hybrid Mercedes would be to maintain. There is nothing inherent in a diesel that would make it any more expensive to maintain than a gas engine.

"They had such trouble starting in the winter that you'd have to keep them running 24/7."

Diesel fuel can have problems at very cold temperatures (like -15'F). In over ten years of diesel car ownship, I've never needed to run it 24/7 and I don't use an engine block heater.

"VW marketed diesels in the 80s and it was a disaster so they pulled them from the market.

The problem is that these early VW had no turbos so they were slow. You are comparing a near 30 year old car with a current hybrid.

Nissan marketed diesels cars, which actually worked well, but they were pulled from the market.

So they "worked well" but they where "pulled" because they didn't work well? I don't understand this.

Oldsmobile's diesels didn't work for the average driver and were pulled from the market.

Oldsmobile's diesels didn't work PERIOD! GM didn't know what they were doing when the made their diesel car engines and they rushed them into market. So, because a manufacturer did a bad job, the technology is bad? This makes no sense.

"you still have to worry about it gelling in even moderately cold weather."

What does "moderately cold" mean? Gelling can be a problem but (to be specific about it) I've only seen problems with at -15'F (which isn't "moderately cold").

"Paying more for the fuel and having to hunt for a station to fill up only adds to the reality that a modern hybrid makes a ton more sense than a diesel car."

Diesel is fairly common anywhere there are trucks and the range of the a 2006 Jetta TDI is about 600 miles. This range is significanly better than the range of a Prius (I like hybrids too). It looks like hybrids are better (not a "ton") for city driving (it would be very hard to beat hybrids there). For highway driving, they are very close in performance.

Posted by: njkayaker | Feb 8, 2008 12:40:54 PM

I'm not anti-diesel and won't contest points made by a person who obviously likes diesel and knows how to get the most out of the technology. I have a friend who has a diesel Jetta, and it gets about 45 mpg - that's excellent. But he also had to buy an engine code reader and has set up his own supply chain for parts needed to keep it running because the dealer costs for reading the check engine light and installing new sensors were breaking the bank. I'm not in Europe, but I guess I should have written mainstream AMERICAN drivers, even though the subject of the article I'm commenting on is about US drivers and their distaste for diesel. The fact is Diesel has been introduced and marketed in the US in several waves in the past and has never cut the mustard. Nissan pulled its diesels because of lack of demand. Volkswagen pulled its diesels from the US market on several occasions because of a variety of problems. There are numerous references on the Internet to the problems with Diesel fuel - everything from bacterial growth, to crystalization that starts around 32F, to the declining quality of diesel fuel, the need for fuel additives, etc. It all adds up to too much hassle for the average MAINSTREAM AMERICAN DRIVER. Folks like you know where the stations are and know all the tricks to keeping things working well. But there are a lot of people who will get one bad batch of fuel, or will travel from a warm zone into a cold zone, and find themselves replacing the fuel pump and injectors at the cost of a second car. Why should the average Joe spend more for a diesel car, more for the fuel, and endure all of diesel's documented problems, when he can purchase a modern gasoline-electric hybrid that gets superior mileage, doesn't stink, is a solution that works? Diesel has had it chances, and now it's going to be trotted out again with all kinds of promises of how great it will be for the average driver. But in reality the average driver already knows the score on diesel - it's great for professionals who need to tow or haul heavy loads, but doesn't make sense for the mainstream.

Posted by: Skip | Feb 8, 2008 5:37:56 PM

I have a friend who has a diesel Jetta, and it gets about 45 mpg - that's excellent. But he also had to buy an engine code reader and has set up his own supply chain for parts needed to keep it running because the dealer costs for reading the check engine light and installing new sensors were breaking the bank.

I don't think that is common nor is it really related to the fuel being used. That experience didn't characterize my 1996 Passat (with over 200,000 miles).

I'm not in Europe, but I guess I should have written mainstream AMERICAN drivers, even though the subject of the article I'm commenting on is about US drivers and their distaste for diesel.

Europe was an example of diesel being "mainstream". There's a fair amount of "distaste" for hybrids too.

Folks like you know where the stations are and know all the tricks to keeping things working well. But there are a lot of people who will get one bad batch of fuel, or will travel from a warm zone into a cold zone, and find themselves replacing the fuel pump and injectors at the cost of a second car.

I don't know any "tricks". Outside of fuel gelling issues at <-15'F, there is no effort keeping things "working well". I've had two gelling problems (and they are very annoying) but you don't need to replace the fuel pump and injectors when it happens.

Why should the average Joe spend more for a diesel car, more for the fuel, and endure all of diesel's documented problems, when he can purchase a modern gasoline-electric hybrid that gets superior mileage, doesn't stink, is a solution that works?

That "average joe" has to spend more for the hybrid also. It only gets "superior mileage" in the city. I suspect that the new diesels will work quite well for many people and the manufactures who will sell them. It won't work for "everybody" but it doesn't have to. The market will do whatever it does regardless of any prognostication.

Diesel has had it chances, and now it's going to be trotted out again with all kinds of promises of how great it will be for the average driver. But in reality the average driver already knows the score on diesel - it's great for professionals who need to tow or haul heavy loads, but doesn't make sense for the mainstream.

But it works fine for the "mainstream"! Experiences in Canada and Europe prove that.

Posted by: njkayaker | Feb 12, 2008 2:07:44 PM

Njkayaker:
Admitting that an experienced diesel owner like yourself has had two fuel gelling episodes proves my point - who needs that kind of hassle? It's an opinion shared by 94 percent of Americans, who rejected Diesel as a viable technology in the poll mentioned above. Your relatively limited experience with gelling only reflects the fact that the quality of fuel in your region is probably better than in many parts of the U.S. Again, I would invite anyone to Google "Diesel Fuel problems," or "diesel fuel gelling" to get a sample of the problems. Here's a excerpt I found from a site called diesel fuel.com:
"Diesel fuel filter elements should last a thousand hours or more, and injectors some 15,000 hours. However, since diesel fuel is inherently unstable, solids begin to form and the accumulating tank sludge will eventually clog your diesel fuel filters, ruin your injectors and cause diesel engines to smoke...The solids that form as the result of the inherent instability of the diesel fuel and the debris formed in the natural process of fuel degradation will accumulate in the bottom of your fuel tank. The sludge will form a coating or bio-film on the walls and baffles of the fuel tank, plug your fuel filters, adversely impact combustion efficiency, produce dark smoke from the exhaust, and impact performance. Eventually fouled diesel fuel will clog fuel lines and ruin your equipment. Filter plugging can have several causes and often critical consequences. For example, low temperatures can cause wax crystallization, which can lead to fuel filter plugging. An example would be using untreated summer diesel fuel in cold weather. Wax or paraffin is part of the diesel fuel."
NJkayaker, You've minimized the documented problems with diesel and inflated its mileage performance. The fact is there isn't a diesel vehicle on the market in the U.S. that can compete with a Toyota Prius Hybrid - the US Environmental Protection Agency lists the Prius as the most fuel efficient vehicle sold in the United States - bar none. The EPA makes no mention of a diesel car matching the Prius' highway mileage, because none can. In November 2007, the Prius outsold entire the Buick, Saturn, Acura, Subaru and Mercury brands. It nearly outsold the entire Volkswagen and Cadillac brands. According to Consumer Reports, 93 percent of Prius owners would buy another one, making it number one in owner loyalty. It is also rated one of the 10 best cars for resale value - there are no diesels on that list. Americans are intelligent enough to choose a technology that works, not one that is still struggling to get off the ground after decades of hit and miss performances. Buy a Prius and you get a future technology - buy a Diesel and you get a future of problems.

Posted by: Skip | Feb 12, 2008 9:40:24 PM

One more note: after looking at more horror stories about diesel fuel, and reading about Ford's recall of its diesel trucks because the new particulate filters catch fire and shoot flames out the tailpipe, I now consider myself officially anti-diesel. Oh, and there's the report that Subaru's new four cylinder diesel being sold in Europe will cost an exta $1,500 in this country for the particulate filter. Talk about burning money...

Posted by: Skip | Feb 13, 2008 10:56:26 AM

Wow skip, youre officially an ignorant tool. Either that, or you stand lose financially or something should diesel gain wide acceptance in the USA, as it absolutely will.

In a few months, the new Jetta TDI will not only compete with the Prius for REAL WORLD mileage (not worthless EPA mpg estimates), it will likely exceed it.

Please, I can't wait for new diesels to finally get here to shut twits like you up.

Posted by: joe blow | Feb 13, 2008 6:20:50 PM

Oh, one more note: This country runs on diesel, moron.

Posted by: joe blow | Feb 13, 2008 6:23:08 PM

joe blow,

I can't wait to see what Skip thinks when Honda's new i-DTEC turbodiesel engine finally makes it to the USA probably at the end of 2008. We'll see it on the Acura TSX sedan first, then it will likely become an option on the Honda CR-V and Element small SUV's along with the Honda Accord sedan. Given the fairly decent fuel efficiency we're already getting with the CR-V now, getting 33% better fuel efficiency is a major bonus. :-)

Posted by: Raymond | Feb 14, 2008 6:56:30 AM

Joe Blow, When you lack facts to back up your opinions, you resort to name calling. I guess the 94 percent of the US population that rejects diesel cars must be morons, right? Of course our country runs, at least partially, on Diesel, and you'll see in my earlier posts that I think it's a great technology for over the road truckers and professionals who need to tow things. Here's a fact that's been lost in the new clean-diesel hype: most of the new diesel cars will have an emissions system that sprays urea (a major component of urine) into the exhaust stream to control oxides of nitrogen. You'll have to carry around a couple gallons of the stuff and if you run out, the computer won't let the car start. It's also a fact that diesel fuel is inherently unstable and that solids naturally form in the fuel, clogging the fuel filter and ruining the injectors. The new diesels coming out will allow only 5 percent biodiesel to be mixed in the fuel. The manufacturers know their engines and fuel systems are prone to problems from contaminated fuel and won't warranty them if you start trying burn french fry oil. All of these facts are directed to the point of the original story above, that the vast majority of Americans don't see diesel cars as a viable option. I think they're right - you don't. Let's leave it at that and drop the name calling. Time will tell if these new vehicles succeed in a U.S. market that seems to be gravitating toward hybrid cars.

Posted by: Skip | Feb 14, 2008 3:08:34 PM

Raymond:
A year ago I would have said if there's anyone that could make a practical diesel car work right and perform well enough for the average American, it would probably be Honda. But lately their stellar engineering record is a bit tarnished. The Civic Hybrid is a small car, yet can't match the economy of the Prius. They discontinued the Accord Hybrid because it was a market failure. This new diesel engine could prove to be a failure too. The people who anticipate that the new Jetta TDI will match the Prius in economy forget that the Prius is a mid-size car, not a cramped VW. Plus Toyota is currently testing the next generation Prius, which will have improved MPG and leave the new diesels two steps behind.

Posted by: Skip | Feb 16, 2008 4:55:16 PM

Diesel fuel just hit a record average of $3.54 per gallon. Combined with the $1,000 to $2,500 price premium for the vehicle, the higher maintenance costs and the documented problems with diesel cars of the past, the new "clean diesel" wave will be another sad footnote in the diesel car story.

Posted by: Skip | Feb 22, 2008 3:12:33 PM

Good points. I just read that Toyota announced the new third generation Prius will be introduced next year. It will get 70 mpg, due to improvements in the Hybrid Synergy Drive system.

Posted by: Jerry | Feb 29, 2008 6:52:04 AM

Skip, thanks for your comments. I just did some research as you suggested and learned that truckers in the midwest have been hit by huge problems with diesel fuel gelling this winter. Fuel that was supposed to remain stable to 20 below zero started gelling at ten above. It turns out that removing the sulfur from diesel fuel is causing all sorts of problems with fuel stability.

Posted by: Big T | Mar 6, 2008 11:05:19 AM

And for the privelege of burning that stinking diesel fuel you must now pay $4.00 per gallon, and that's a buck more per gallon than unleaded regular. Americans will leave diesel technology to professionals, where it belongs, and rightly so.

Posted by: Skip | Mar 23, 2008 11:16:44 AM

I'm not sure how this relates, but I drive a 50 year old Mercedes diesel with 1/4 million miles on it and I get about 40 miles per gallon. With the B99 I use, I don't care how bad the exhaust is because it smells like I'm making French fries. It's a great ride.

Posted by: richard | Apr 6, 2008 9:38:54 PM

If a 50 year old diesel car can get 40 mpg dosen't it make sense that with a little research we could filter the exhaust to remove the particulates? And at the same time even increase the mpg.
I would think that a diesel would be cheaper than a hybrid to build and obviosly would last longer.
Plus you don't have to throw away a mountain of batterys every 10 years.
Sounds like a no brainer to me.
Also diesel fuel is cheaper to produce (it's a by product of gasoline) the only reason why it cost's more than regular gas is that the oil company's are charging more.
Hopefully the government will do something about that.

Posted by: Kevin | Apr 7, 2008 11:43:13 AM

I'm so sorry. My dad has an 86 VW Rabbit pushing 350,000 miles, we had the valves adjusted for the first time this year. They didn't need it. It did need a clutch.

I drive an 84 Mercedes 190D. It has 403,000 and it has had the valve guides replaced and a clutch.

Neither car gets less than 45mpg, and with modern petroleum diesel or biodiesel fuels, smell and emissions are a moot point. They are slow, however in torque numbers their diesel engines are BOTH as or more powerful than the stand alone gas engine of the Prius.

Food for thought: diesels are heirloom vehicles, capable of going through three to four generations of abuse. Gasoline vehicles, simply do not.

Posted by: Chris | Apr 16, 2008 11:53:11 AM

"Skip: Admitting that an experienced diesel owner like yourself has had two fuel gelling episodes proves my point - who needs that kind of hassle?"

I'm just being honest. People should be aware of this issue. The potential gelling issue is the only real downside to diesel. And it's a NON-ISSUE for the many people in the US live in areas where the temperatures don't get cold enough to cause gelling.

It's an opinion shared by 94 percent of Americans, who rejected Diesel as a viable technology in the poll mentioned above. Your relatively limited experience with gelling only reflects the fact that the quality of fuel in your region is probably better than in many parts of the U.S. Again, I would invite anyone to Google "Diesel Fuel problems," or "diesel fuel gelling" to get a sample of the problems.

"Here's a excerpt I found from a site called diesel fuel.com: [etc]"

You can find scare stories about gasolene too. It's not like there isn't fuel quality issues with gasolene.

"Skip: NJkayaker, You've minimized the documented problems with diesel and inflated its mileage performance."

I haven't "minimized" anything. I haven't "inflated" milage performance. My lifetime average over 33k miles is 47mpg. This is awfully close to the mpg of a Prius for a car that may be safer.

"The fact is there isn't a diesel vehicle on the market in the U.S. that can compete with a Toyota Prius Hybrid - the US Environmental Protection Agency lists the Prius as the most fuel efficient vehicle sold in the United States - bar none."

Give it 6 months. The new Jetta will probably beat the highway MPG of the Prius.

"Skip: The EPA makes no mention of a diesel car matching the Prius' highway mileage, because none can."

They don't mention it because there isn't one available at the moment. The only diesel that is remotely comparable to the Prius is the Jetta.

Given the way hybrids work, you can't really beat a hybrid for city driving. The Prius does not have "great" highway MPG.

"Skip: In November 2007, the Prius outsold entire the Buick, Saturn, Acura, Subaru and Mercury brands. It nearly outsold the entire Volkswagen and Cadillac brands."

McDonalds sells a lot of food. Popularity doesn't prove quality.

The Prius is a great car.

"Skip: It is also rated one of the 10 best cars for resale value"

The diesel VWs have historically done very, very well for resale value.

"Skip: and reading about Ford's recall of its diesel trucks because the new particulate filters catch fire"

Diesel, as a fuel, is MUCH safer than gasolene! If you are scared by this issue, you should be MORE scared of using gasolene!

"Skip: Oh, and there's the report that Subaru's new four cylinder diesel being sold in Europe will cost an exta $1,500 in this country for the particulate filter. Talk about burning money".

There's a KNOWN premium for the Hybrid stuff too. Without the hybrid stuff, the Prius would be a $18,000 car.

Let's see: the manufacturers planning on selling diesels in the US: VW, Honda, Subaru. These guys wrong because some guy named "skip" says so!

"Skip: I guess the 94 percent of the US population that rejects diesel cars must be morons, right?"

And that over 50% of Europeans drive diesel passenger cars is meaningless?

"Skip: The people who anticipate that the new Jetta TDI will match the Prius in economy forget that the Prius is a mid-size car, not a cramped VW."

The Prius is BARELY a "mid size" car. It is on the low side of the range of mid size cars. The Camry too is a "mid size" car and it is significantly larger than a Prius! THe VW Jetta is on the high side of the range of compact cars. The Prius and the Jetta close in size and the Jetta is probably better in crashes.

"Skip: It will get 70 mpg, due to improvements in the Hybrid Synergy Drive system."

Hopefully, this number does not include energy obtained by plugging it in. If it doesn't, this is still an ESTIMATE.

"Skip: But lately their [Honda's] stellar engineering record is a bit tarnished"

Toyota's "steller" reputation is a bit tarnished with quality issues.

The Prius is a better Hybrid than the Civic. The Accord (like the Camry Hybrid) are not that efficient and neither was (is) very popular.

Posted by: njkayaker | May 10, 2008 12:43:23 PM

You all may change my mind. I've been reading some very complimentary articles on the new clean diesel cars. I hope they're as good as they would seem. I am a bit concerned that VW had promised the new Jetta TDI would be here already, and now they're delaying it until August. No argument here on the longevity of diesels - I drove a Mercedes Diesel for work and loved the car, except for the fact that it was hard to start in cold weather and only had 65 horsepower. In the winter we had to leave it idling 24/7 so the fuel wouldn't gel. I still give the edge to the Prius for city driving - you can't beat a car that shuts off the engine in stop and go driving and can go on electric only for a mile and a half. Zero emissions is best for everyone in the city. I'm currently averaging 53 mpg with mine and can get 56 all day long on the highway. The new diesels are going to have to be good, with the fuel going for $.70 per gallon over gasoline, and if the rumors about the next generation Prius being faster and getting 70 mpg are true. The Plug-in Prius coming in 2010 will do even better.

Posted by: Skip | May 18, 2008 6:46:01 PM

SKIP: "The fact is there isn't a diesel vehicle on the market in the U.S. that can compete with a Toyota Prius Hybrid - the US Environmental Protection Agency lists the Prius as the most fuel efficient vehicle sold in the United States - bar none."

NJKAYAKER:Give it 6 months. The new Jetta will probably beat the highway MPG of the Prius.

Sorry NJ Kayaker, the mileage figures for the new TDI Jetta are a lackluster 30 mpg in the city, and an unimpressive 41 on the highway. The Prius gets 60 percent better mileage than a Jetta in the city, using fuel that is nearly a dollar per gallon cheaper, and gets substantially better mileage on the highway than the Jetta. Sorry to point this out, but once again you have in fact inflated the Jetta TDI's mileage performance. I believe most Americans will see no advantage to purchasing a Diesel car at a $2,000 premium, with fuel at a 20 percent price premium to get a lousy 30 mpg city, when a clean burning Prius that costs less and performs better is already on the market and has proven to be much more reliable than past and present diesel cars. There's no doubt that diesel will be a non-starter again in the U.S.

Posted by: | May 21, 2008 7:55:10 PM

Post a comment
[Please keep comments on topic. Disagreement is fine, insults, abuse or wild diversions are not. Comments not meeting those standards will be deleted. Abuse of another commenter’s email address will result in the banning of the offender from this site. In an attempt to prevent the posting of insulting and abusive comments, this site maintains a list of prohibited words and phrases, which, unfortunately, grows with time. Including one of the prohibited words or phrases will flag the comment as "spam", and it will be blocked.]

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: