Toyota future B-segment hybrid concept to produce 50% less CO2 than average supermini
CoolPlanet BioFuels claims conversion yield of 4K gallons gasoline per acre biomass

Renault introducing two new Energy range engines: Energy dCI 90 and 75

Renault_31532_1_6 (1)
New Energy dCi 90 engine. Click to enlarge.

Renault is introducing two new 1.5L diesel engines in its Energy family (earlier post)—the Energy dCi 90 and 75—and applying them first in the Kangoo range. Fuel consumption will be 4.4 liters/100 km (53.5 mpg US), equivalent to 115g of CO2/km. Oil change intervals have been extended to every 40,000 km/two years, instead of every 30,000 km/two years, the longest in the engine’s class. In total, running-cost savings amount to 14%.

Renault says that the release of the new 1.5-liter, 4-cylinder engines marks the beginning of a new phase in the company’s powertrain strategy. The introductions of the Energy dCi 90 and 75 take the number of engines in the current Energy range to seven. Renault is striving to be the number one brand in Europe with regard to CO2 emissions not only through new technologies for its internal combustion engines, but also from the development of a range of electric powertrains.

Kangoo Energy dCi 90 will be on display at the Geneva Motor Show and is poised to go on sale in France this March; the 75-horsepower version will be available in April.

Renault reworked the current 1.5 dCi 90hp and 75hp engines with the incorporation of technology from the Energy dCi 110 engine which already features in the Mégane and Scénic. The Energy dCi 90 and 75 include features that stem from Renault’s presence in Formula 1. For example, the DLC-coated cam followers use a technique (Diamond Like Carbon) that has been employed in motor racing for some years. The mechanical properties of DLC significantly reduce friction and improve energy efficiency to deliver enhanced performance and contained fuel consumption.

The latest diesel engines also come with ESM (Energy Smart Management) braking/deceleration energy recovery, plus latest-generation Stop&Start developed specifically to enhance driver and occupant comfort due to the following:

  • No undesirable cutting of the engine in slow-moving traffic: the vehicle’s speed must exceed 4 km/h before the Stop&Start system is re-triggered following a stop.

  • No fluctuations in cabin temperature, while the audio/navigation systems do no switch off.

  • Less noise, since the ventilator fan speed is reduced when the engine stops.

Peak torque of the 90 hp (67 kW) version is 200 N·m (148 lb-ft), which is available from 1,750 rpm. Maximum power of the Energy dCi 75 version is 75 hp (56 kW), with maximum torque of 180 N·m (133 lb-ft) available from 1,750 rpm.



why is it so hard to offer these engines in NORTH AMERICA even with our stingent pollution standards? And bravo to the long oil change intervals despite people's habits to change their oil every 3000 miles due to tradition -_-;


It is simple. You do not like diesel engines in the USA. Presumably, you do not even like Renault cars, in general. Consequently, nobody in the USA would buy this car.


That, and the fact that ULSD is quite a bit more expensive than unleaded regular, and you can get similar economy in much bigger cars like the Prius.


Wow...that is quite an interval on those changes. I typically do 4,000mi for conventional oil (3,000 on my truck because it's old), and 5,000mi for synthetic oil. My vehicles last a very long time doing this - I can't imagine leaving oil in there for 40,000km regardless of what the manufacturer claims.


You can't really compare the Prius and Kangoo.
The prius is a car, the Kangoo is a mini van (not a minivan).

The Prius might be 200mm longer than a Kangoo, but a Kangoo has a much larger internal volume.
The Prius is stylish, the Kangoo is "functional".

+ the Kangoo is a lot cheaper than a Prius.



It has mostly to do with tax policy. In a number of European countries, gasoline has a much higher tax rate than diesel making diesel a less expensive fuel. Diesel engines are generally more expensive than gasoline engines so combined with the higher initial price and the higher per gallon fuel price, a diesel engine in the US probably does not save money unless the engine is used heavily as in larger trucks.

It will be interesting to see if the new diesel engine that GM is introducing in the US for the Chevy Cruze later this year sells well.


As the ratios of the amount of petrol and diesel that can be extracted from crude oil is fairly fixed, the popularity of diesel cars outside North America is already putting price preasure on diesel. In a way the world needs North America to carry on using lots of petrol and shipping us their unused diesel...


No, it is not only about taxes. European countries have considerable variation in fuel tax. However, even countries with similar – or higher – tax on diesel fuel (such as the UK) still have quite high market penetration of diesel cars. It may be about tradition, e.g. that US car buyers have not even considered diesel cars. If US car dealers could lure buyers into testing diesel cars, many of them would actually buy one. This is not a joke, it actually happened in Sweden during a period less than 10 years, when the market penetration of diesel cars increased from <10% to 60%. Tax and incentives changed only marginally during this period. Somehow the customers became convinced into buying diesel cars during this period. It did not happen overnight but relatively quickly after all.

If oil refining would be made closer to the oil well instead of close to the market, the current imbalance on some markets could be corrected. In this hypothetical scenario, the gasoline/diesel fuel ratio could even be closer to optimum than today with higher total efficiency as a result. In the long run, a too high diesel penetration would lead to sub optimization. However this should not stop us from increasing efficiency from the point where we are today.


good points everyone, i guess the prius C will keep everyone happy in the mean time when it comes to effiency to cost ratio :)


"As the ratios of the amount of petrol and diesel that can be extracted from crude oil is fairly fixed,..."

I found this in a C&D article from 2008:
...Most U.S. refineries are set up for catalytic cracking, which turns each barrel of crude oil into about 50-percent gasoline, 15-percent diesel, and the remainder into jet fuel, home heating oil, heavy fuel oil, liquefied petroleum gas, asphalt, and various other products. In Europe and most of the rest of the world, refineries use a hydrocracking process, which produces more like 25-percent gasoline and 25-percent diesel from that barrel of oil.
.... a switch, (from catalytic to hydrocracking), amounts to a major refinery change that would take 5 to 10 years to accomplish....

Elsewhere I found that a high demand for jet fuel usually pushes diesel prices higher (globally), as reportedly refineries can play around to produce more of one at the expense of the other.


True, the diesel share could easily be increased if refineries would be rebuilt from scratch. This was what I indicated. Increase in jet fuel demand is negative but decreasing the use of heating oil (i.e. using other alternatives for heating) would be positive. However, a lower diesel share in Europe and higher in the USA would make life easier for refineries on the short term horizon.

Thomas Pedersen

Curiously, diesels are actually more suited to the driving pattern of USA than Europe, giving longer driving distances and more cruising, where diesels really shine. 55-65 mph cruising is exactly what diesels are best at.

Furthermore, diesels can more annoying to drive with manual shift - I know that from my own 2.0 TDI. Automatic transmissions boost the comfort of driving a diesel engine. Automatic transmissions also effectively allow higher overall gear ratio (because they can make more shifts than would be comfortable with manual shift) which also helps economy. This is demonstrated with the new BMW 3-series where the 8-speed automatic transmissions have marginally better economy than the 6-speed manual. And while diesels have high torque at cruising rpm, they generally have a more narrow rpm-range of useful torque, which also begs for an automatic transmission.

In Europe there are more small roads that invite drivers to drive 'like rally drivers'. These can actually be quite fun in a small car with a small petrol engine that you can really rev.

Having said that, I applaud the US insistence on prioritizing local pollution and emissions over gas mileage and CO2 emissions. Only the most crazy climate-fanatics would insist that CO2 is more harmful than NOx and particulates. Just don't forget those pesky 2.5 nm particles produced by direct gasoline injection that are so darn hard to measure...


Diesel now costs about the same as petrol in Ireland. Diesel has now 73% market share.

The reason for this is that diesel cars get about 30% better mpg than gasoline cars, and have lower CO2 emissions, which affect our car purchase tax (14 - 35% of the car price on top of a 23% VAT tax on all cars).

Farmers can use "red diesel" which has no tax and is dyed red to distinguish it from normal diesel for tax payers.

There is a considerable industry in "washing" red diesel and reselling it, mainly along the border with Northern Ireland. This is run by paramilitaries and other criminals and mainly funds their operations (which are quite low level now).

These are good little engines, and will be seen in loads of Renault and Nissan cars in the next couple of years.

@Thomas, Europe has plenty of motorways and people seem to cope with gearstick use on diesels on smaller roads.

However, I would agree with your comment on the local vs global pollution rates. Our laws were changed by a Green coalition which skewed it in favour of low CO2, which means diesel in Europe. (And particulates in cities).


I don't understand the comment about relative prices of diesel in the US. ULSD runs about 10% more than 87 octane unleaded. A good rule of thumb for a diesel is that it'll be about 30% more fuel efficient. The savings are clear. A diesel will probably add a marginal amount to the purchase price of the vehicle, which will be made up over time by the fuel savings.



In Utah, until yesterday, the lowest prices for reg unleaded were about $2.95 and for diesel were about $3.70. This almost wipes out the mileage advantage for diesel. (The prices took a big jump yesterday afternoon).

I have a colleague who owns a VW diesel and likes it as he gets almost the same mileage as a Prius but has a car that is still fun to drive. However, the fuel still cost considerably more.


The early 1970's GM diesel cars fiasco may have something to do with today's lack of enthusiasm for diesel powered cars in USA.


On diesel fuel production, the article I read on the Mobil methanol conversion process said that they had Methanol to Gasoline and Methanol to Diesel processes that could turn natural gas into either at whatever ratios you need.

This process was proven on a large scale in New Zealand in the 1980s and continued production until the world price of oil dropped and stayed lower. We can do many wonderful things if and when we want to, but more than just economic considerations need to be taken into account to make a better decision.


Regarding to convert NG to gasoline and diesel, has anyone consider the carbon emission and capital expenditure involved?

Are we willing to pay for it?

I'm appalled so many commentators are interested in an engine with 75 or 90 hp for a mini van. Remember the Geo Metro with three speed auto transmission, anyone?


For the record, Prius might be a passenger car, it also has a lower carbon emission (89-92 g/km in U.K. spec; a diff. of 26 g/km may not sound much, but that's a diff. of 22.6%) than Renault Kangoo.

Account Deleted

Renault is known as one of the best reputed brand all over the world. This dCI 90 and 75 engine are really amazing with amazing potential. I am sure this 2 engine will the automotive world.

Test Drive

The comments to this entry are closed.