Choking on fuel efficiency

[wyvrn]

link poo

I thought this was an interesting article.

 

[conjur]

Requires registration.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Some ideas are stinkier than others.

This one comes from Europe and its carmakers. Specifically, both Volkswagen and DaimlerChrysler are planning to start selling some diesel-powered SUVs in this country. Soon.

The idea is to make a gesture toward improving the poor fuel mileage of SUVs.

Unfortunately, putting a diesel engine in an SUV will make it more of a social menace than it already is. (Before you start heckling and tell me to get my head out of the granola, allow me to confess that the Burns family owns a 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee and a 2003 Toyota Prius. The Jeep is indispensable for hauling large quantities of stuff, and I like it. But like having a friend with a good heart and bad manners, it doesn't get out much.)

Urban threat


In fact, having an SUV that is big and smelly is probably OK if you live in a large, open, windswept area and plan your life around being downwind from other people. Certain areas in Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas come to mind.
Unfortunately, that's not where these new vehicles are likely to go. They are far more likely to be driven by hard-pressed soccer moms who live in metropolitan areas and spend a good deal of time in heavy traffic or waiting in pickup lines for their kids.

So all the stuff that comes out the tailpipe will go into fairly urban air.

And that makes me ask a question: What are the real trade-offs and economics? Let's start with the math.

The new Volkswagen Touareg is supposed to have a sticker price of $43,000 and be equipped with a 15.9 miles-per-gallon, eight-cylinder gasoline engine.

The same car, equipped with a 19.3 mpg, 10-cylinder diesel engine, sells for $53,000. That's a $10,000 premium for some fuel economy. If fuel costs $1.60 a gallon, it will take a mere 567,000 miles to recover the additional cost in fuel savings.

Additional savings?


That, however, doesn't count the earning power of the additional expense. Invested in, say, Exxon Mobil Corp., it would yield 2.8 percent, or $280 a year. That's about enough to cover the extra fuel cost now that dividends are taxed at only 15 percent. At the end of 10 years, you'd have some stock instead of an aging SUV with a diesel engine.
If you're pressed for income, there are several energy stocks that yield more than Exxon Mobil, such as BP (3.5 percent) and ChevronTexaco Corp. (3.9 percent).

Bottom line: Pay too much extra for a diesel engine and it doesn't compute in simple dollars.

But let's not take an extreme example. Let's compare the Volkswagen Jetta GLS 2.0 and the Volkswagen Jetta TDI, both with automatic transmissions.

Equipped with a four-cylinder gasoline engine, the GLS has a sticker price of $20,240, according to Carpoint.com. The diesel version has a sticker price of $21,420. That's only $1,180 more.

Based on the mileage difference, you'll recover the additional cost in a bit less than four years, assuming 15,000 miles a year. In simple dollars, it's a reasonable investment.

But the real costs don't end there unless you are very good at making The Toilet Assumption ? flush it, and it will go away.

The real trouble with diesel engines is that emissions don't go away. We breathe them.

Although diesels score well against gasoline engines in terms of carbon emissions ? the stuff that contributes to global warming ? they are many times worse when it comes to the stuff that will kill us sooner ? the nitrous oxide, particulate and carcinogen emissions.

Flunking the EPA test


According to the Environmental Protection Agency's ratings of all vehicles, the gasoline Jetta rates a 6 and the diesel Jetta rates a 1 ? where the top score is 10.
The same Web site also will tell you that vehicles rated 1 put out about four times the amount of smog-forming pollutants as vehicles rated 6, and nearly 50 times the pollutants of the few vehicles rated 10.

Dallas County, where I live, is already rated among the "dirtiest/worst" 10 percent of counties in the United States.

It receives 95 percent of its added air-based cancer risk from "mobile sources"; i.e., cars and trucks. You can check how you're doing in your ZIP code by visiting www.scorecard.org.

Bottom line: If we put a value on the air we breathe, diesel engines just don't cut it.

 

[tweakmm]

That makes sense, but I don't think people are going to be buying the V10 TDI Toureg because of it's gas efficiency.

 

[Linux23]

NJ already has the worst air quality, this will not help.

 

[d33pt]

he forgot to mention the other benefit of deisel...gobs of torque. if it all came down to numbers like that, we'd all be driving geo metros and hyundai accents. people don't really buy cars because of gas mileage. that's like the 10th thing on the list when i'm looking at a car..

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: d33pt
he forgot to mention the other benefit of deisel...gobs of torque. if it all came down to numbers like that, we'd all be driving geo metros and hyundai accents. people don't really buy cars because of gas mileage. that's like the 10th thing on the list when i'm looking at a car..

Absolutly correct, people give lip service to fuel economy, but the reality is, that for most automobile purchasers, it's an emotional decision with very little logic involved

My thing about autos is that they need to get from paint A to point B, they need to be very functional & cheap, automobiles are an expense not an investment.

My wife also has more than a little influence on my purchasing decisions, for instance, I want a used Honda Insight
AFV Market & she keeps using things like my "Honda Curse" (the last 3 Hondas I've owned were totaled in collisions that were blatently not my fault, & I've totaled no other brand automobile, despite owning ~25 vehicles), and that she doesn't like the looks or the 2 seater limitations

 

[Pliablemoose]

I really hope no one recognizes my pics from when I vandalized all those Hummers in CA

SUV vandalism

 

[StageLeft]

I'm really starting to think that the gov't should HEAVILY tax vehicles that get poor mileage. Ie, for every mpg less than 25 mpg raise the price by a thousand or something. This will do nothing but result in less gasoline sales - something I think we can all agree is great not only for the environment, but for oil dependence.

And don't think that people will buy a civic if they can't buy their $40k SUV - no, the auto industry will still see their money because people will buy luxury sedans instead.

Hmm, perhaps a better idea to do that tax on SUVs - thus you can still buy a 14 mpg pickup no problem. Not many soccer moms are gonna do that and if you need it for work you can buy it.

Free market or right to choose what you want to buy aside it's OBSCENE that the average vehicle today gets worse gas mileage than those 20 years ago. It's absolutely ridiculous. This arms race of size just has to be stopped. There is no reason for it and the price will be paid eventually in the form of ghastly oil prices as reserves dry up in the coming century and more significantly the degrdation of the environment.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: d33pt
he forgot to mention the other benefit of deisel...gobs of torque. if it all came down to numbers like that, we'd all be driving geo metros and hyundai accents. people don't really buy cars because of gas mileage. that's like the 10th thing on the list when i'm looking at a car..

Gas is capable of high levels of torque also.. remember most of these Diesels have forced induction. my 5.3 liter only had 325lbs of TQ N/A the 7.3 liter Power Stroke Diesel with a TURBO has 520 from the factory... I added a Twin Screw SC and with only 5lbs of Boost I hit 500lbs of torque out of my little small block.. the 8.1 liter from GM with a 7lb of boost twin screw hits 680lbs *Poops pants* but only gets about 6mpg while doing it .

Look at the numbers of a N/A diesel.. not super impressive as far as torque really the benefit of the Diesels comes from it's efficiancy, 7.3 liter PS gets better milage (especially while towing) then me for the same power levels and also because of it's harder heavier parts it lasts far longer

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: d33pt
he forgot to mention the other benefit of deisel...gobs of torque. if it all came down to numbers like that, we'd all be driving geo metros and hyundai accents. people don't really buy cars because of gas mileage. that's like the 10th thing on the list when i'm looking at a car..

Deisel fuel has nothing to do with torque. Torque is a function of crankshaft stroke and engine design.

Most deisels are not naturally aspirated. Why? Because they make so little power without some form of forced induction. Big V8s are a little different because of sheer size.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'm really starting to think that the gov't should HEAVILY tax vehicles that get poor mileage. Ie, for every mpg less than 25 mpg raise the price by a thousand or something. This will do nothing but result in less gasoline sales - something I think we can all agree is great not only for the environment, but for oil dependence.

And don't think that people will buy a civic if they can't buy their $40k SUV - no, the auto industry will still see their money because people will buy luxury sedans instead.

Hmm, perhaps a better idea to do that tax on SUVs - thus you can still buy a 14 mpg pickup no problem. Not many soccer moms are gonna do that and if you need it for work you can buy it.

Free market or right to choose what you want to buy aside it's OBSCENE that the average vehicle today gets worse gas mileage than those 20 years ago. It's absolutely ridiculous. This arms race of size just has to be stopped. There is no reason for it and the price will be paid eventually in the form of ghastly oil prices as reserves dry up in the coming century and more significantly the degrdation of the environment.

Actually people will still pay more for the larger vehicles.

Why buy a civic when you need a larger vehicle? Pick up trucks get poor fuel economy. Should we heavily tax them? They are needed as work vehicles and as such are not meant to get great fuel economy. A vehicle should be designed to do the job it is intended to and let fuel economy land where it may.

Why do people buy SUV's in the first place? It because buyers want a larger vehicle that is more rugged than a minivan. The disappearance of the full size RWD station wagon is the primary cause. We hear people say "get a minivan". Minivans are not for everyone. I hate minivans with a passion. Nothing like forking out $2500 to rebuild that transaxle when it fails.

 

[0roo0roo]

don't diss minivans, their safety record beats suv. they don't roll over you see they probably kill less people too, considering their bumpers aren't mismatched with other vehicles out of vanity. suvs are mostly dangerous to the users and disproportionatly to others for reasons of vanity. its a most irresponsible vehicle. in america, your free ot be irresponsible, until it begins to affect others.

the fact is, we provide tax breaks to people that buy humvees. its not something to be encouraged, in fact it should probably be taxed.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
don't diss minivans, their safety record beats suv. they don't roll over you see they probably kill less people too, considering their bumpers aren't mismatched with other vehicles out of vanity. suvs are mostly dangerous to the users and disproportionatly to others for reasons of vanity. its a most irresponsible vehicle. in america, your free ot be irresponsible, until it begins to affect others.

the fact is, we provide tax breaks to people that buy humvees. its not something to be encouraged, in fact it should probably be taxed.

That is just stupid.

SUVs aren't some vanity item.

And so what that your (not necessarily yours, just as an example) civic gets seriously damaged if it is hit by an SUV? That's what you get when you drive little pieces of crap. It would be no different if you were hit by a pickup truck or my Crown Vic.

SUVs aren't all the same either. They come in different sizes. The big ones based on pickup trucks (suburban, excursion, etc) are way safer than any minivan. And minivans don't roll over? Hahaha. I have seen it with my own eyes.

So don't diss SUVs unless you single out a particular one.

 

[sandorski]

I wonder though, if Euro Deisel was used to compare the Gas vs Deisel comparison, how the Deisel would compare for emmissions. The Deidel we use in NA is crap compared to what Europeans have. Maybe we should change our Deisel.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I wonder though, if Euro Deisel was used to compare the Gas vs Deisel comparison, how the Deisel would compare for emmissions. The Deidel we use in NA is crap compared to what Europeans have. Maybe we should change our Deisel.

There is a new deisel fuel comming out here in Canada. It will be required by federal law. It is called Bio-Deisel. It has almost zero emmissions and is backward compatible with current deisel engines. At least that is the scuttlebutt.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
don't diss minivans, their safety record beats suv. they don't roll over you see they probably kill less people too, considering their bumpers aren't mismatched with other vehicles out of vanity. suvs are mostly dangerous to the users and disproportionatly to others for reasons of vanity. its a most irresponsible vehicle. in america, your free ot be irresponsible, until it begins to affect others.

the fact is, we provide tax breaks to people that buy humvees. its not something to be encouraged, in fact it should probably be taxed.

That is just stupid.

SUVs aren't some vanity item.

And so what that your (not necessarily yours, just as an example) civic gets seriously damaged if it is hit by an SUV? That's what you get when you drive little pieces of crap. It would be no different if you were hit by a pickup truck or my Crown Vic.

SUVs aren't all the same either. They come in different sizes. The big ones based on pickup trucks (suburban, excursion, etc) are way safer than any minivan. And minivans don't roll over? Hahaha. I have seen it with my own eyes.

So don't diss SUVs unless you single out a particular one.

But in my Civic, I can steer sharply around traffic threats without rolling, like certain type of top-heavy Soccer-Mom populated vehicles have a tendency to do.

And I'd much rather drive a minivan than an SUV.

- M4H

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: d33pt
he forgot to mention the other benefit of deisel...gobs of torque. if it all came down to numbers like that, we'd all be driving geo metros and hyundai accents. people don't really buy cars because of gas mileage. that's like the 10th thing on the list when i'm looking at a car..

Deisel fuel has nothing to do with torque. Torque is a function of crankshaft stroke and engine design.

Most deisels are not naturally aspirated. Why? Because they make so little power without some form of forced induction. Big V8s are a little different because of sheer size.

Sure it does. There are a few reasons.

Torque IS a function of stroke, but it is also a function of force. Furthermore, diesels by design have a greater stroke than similar gas engines because of the high compression they need.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: d33pt
he forgot to mention the other benefit of deisel...gobs of torque. if it all came down to numbers like that, we'd all be driving geo metros and hyundai accents. people don't really buy cars because of gas mileage. that's like the 10th thing on the list when i'm looking at a car..

Deisel fuel has nothing to do with torque. Torque is a function of crankshaft stroke and engine design.

Most deisels are not naturally aspirated. Why? Because they make so little power without some form of forced induction. Big V8s are a little different because of sheer size.

Sure it does. There are a few reasons.

Torque IS a function of stroke, but it is also a function of force. Furthermore, diesels by design have a greater stroke than similar gas engines because of the high compression they need.

read my post

like he and I said, look up a NA diesel engine, they are gutless wonders... add Forced to a Gas engine and it roars like a Lion too

Diesle fuel just has more calories (efficiancy)

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: d33pt
he forgot to mention the other benefit of deisel...gobs of torque. if it all came down to numbers like that, we'd all be driving geo metros and hyundai accents. people don't really buy cars because of gas mileage. that's like the 10th thing on the list when i'm looking at a car..

Deisel fuel has nothing to do with torque. Torque is a function of crankshaft stroke and engine design.

Most deisels are not naturally aspirated. Why? Because they make so little power without some form of forced induction. Big V8s are a little different because of sheer size.

Sure it does. There are a few reasons.

Torque IS a function of stroke, but it is also a function of force. Furthermore, diesels by design have a greater stroke than similar gas engines because of the high compression they need.

You need to take a basic engine course. They have greater stroke because they must generate more torque because deisels make very little power to start with.

Seriously, compare the Cummin's turbo deisel inline 6 with a normal gas inline six. Now you will notice that deisels have huge stroke and not a whole lot of piston travel. Why? Deisels can't rev like gas engines so they make up for that by having lots of stroke to generate more torque so they can be effective for use in heavy duty towing and heavy payload applications. Their power comes on sooner (unlike gas engines) and with forced induction make tremendous power.