• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Forget hybrids, America; diesels will provide economy, performance

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Phil
Originally posted by: Chadder007
Originally posted by: MaxFusion16
i don't get it, diesel is about the same price as petro

and 27.6mpg is not that impressive.
Click to expand...

Diesel here used to be below the price of regular gas..... now its above the price of Premium. What happened??? Its a less refined gas and should cost less. Price of regular here is $2.45 , Diesel is $3.35 WTF??
Click to expand...

Same thing's happening over here in the UK; diesel is 3-4p per litre above the price of petrol, and it's because the government's realised that they can get some extra cash from taxing diesel higher. What with diesels becoming a lot more popular over here and the petrol/diesel situation after hurricanes, etc, a crapload of people are buying diesels now.
Click to expand...


Yeah this really sickened me. People concerned about fuel economy chose to sacrifice the advatages of a petrol to go for a more economic and efficient engine type, but the govenrment figured they could squeeze some cash from these people. It's wrong on every level.


Oh, and welcome to 1990, America. It's a world where the government tries to help out the environment, albeit at some inconvenience to the public. It's the way of the future.
 
Originally posted by: Pablo
I went up to washington a couple of weeks ago for a conference, got to speak with several Senators and Reps about the future of fuel. For some reason, among those leaders, its unanimous that Hydrogen is the where we are aiming in the next 15-20 years, but in the meantime, fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel will probably be getting a good deal of funding from the Federal government.
Click to expand...

they are politicians, not researchers. with current technology, a hydrogen economy is not feasible - i.e. the production, transport, and delivery of hydrogen is very inefficient. this has been modeled extensively already in Europe, most notably examining the use of renewables (e.g. wind) to produce hydrogen.

as of right now, the majority of hydrogen is produced by hydrocarbon reforming...so we will still need oil. with currently cycles, you end up expending more energy than what you end up recovering.
 
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Ok, I do think the 27.6 mpg defeats the purpose of the buying a diesel, but keep in mind that the car pictured is about 210 HP. If the torque is proportional to my wife's TDI Jetta, that thing must absolutely leap forward from a red light stop. It might not be that bad after all.
Click to expand...

177ft-lbs of torque.
For comparison (as I said in my other post), my last car was a 1.5l with 200ft-lbs of torque. My father's Mondeo is a 2.0l Duratorq unit that gives ~330ft-lbs, apparently when the "transient overboost" 😕 is being used.
Seriously, it's terrible. I really hope it's a typo!

Wife's TDI - Have guaged this. 49.5 mpg highway and about 44 in heavy city driving. Diesel is about $2.95 right now. Her car is a *manual* TDI, which makes all the difference in properly harnessing that torque to accelerate quickly. She can basicly keep up with my heavier V6 automatic. So, essentially, the fuel cost of operating her car is about 50% of mine. As a result, we take it on every trip under 4 or 5 hours (it's a little small for 8 hour trips). I'd buy another TDI in a heartbeat. It's a tad noisey and smells strong in the garage, but otherwise it's great.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Again with my last car, I was seeing 70-75mpg on the motorway (freeway?), and over a month, 55-60mpg average. I remember something about the diesel in the US being less refined than the UK, which explains some of the difference, but this much of a difference on a 2.7l diesel is really, really poor.

Still, with a choice between petrol and diesel, I'd take diesel any day. My current company car is a 1.8l beater, and although it's slow, it's economical and devours hills. It's being changed for a Focus 1.6l petrol at the end of November, and I'm really not looking forward to the increased fuel bills. I might even stay with the beater, even though it's done 135,000 miles, as it's just that much more economical.
 
Originally posted by: loic2003
Originally posted by: Phil
Originally posted by: Chadder007
Originally posted by: MaxFusion16
i don't get it, diesel is about the same price as petro

and 27.6mpg is not that impressive.
Click to expand...

Diesel here used to be below the price of regular gas..... now its above the price of Premium. What happened??? Its a less refined gas and should cost less. Price of regular here is $2.45 , Diesel is $3.35 WTF??
Click to expand...

Same thing's happening over here in the UK; diesel is 3-4p per litre above the price of petrol, and it's because the government's realised that they can get some extra cash from taxing diesel higher. What with diesels becoming a lot more popular over here and the petrol/diesel situation after hurricanes, etc, a crapload of people are buying diesels now.
Click to expand...


Yeah this really sickened me. People concerned about fuel economy chose to sacrifice the advatages of a petrol to go for a more economic and efficient engine type, but the govenrment figured they could squeeze some cash from these people. It's wrong on every level.


Oh, and welcome to 1990, America. It's a world where the government tries to help out the environment, albeit at some inconvenience to the public. It's the way of the future.
Click to expand...

as Marlin1975 stated above, diesel is used as a heating oil, and will fluctuate across seasons, and will always be more expensive in the fall/winter months...as winter approaches, expect to to see high diesel prices as long as crude oil prices still remain high

you see unleaded gas prices falling now because of dropping demand, and the summer driving season is over. also, refineries are getting back online, and wilma had minimal effect on the refineries
 
yea.. but i get 50 miles to the gallon on my diesel.. pretty close to double most unleaded cars.. so paying a buck more a gallon works out to still be ahead of most cars
 
Originally posted by: drnickriviera
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: DEMO24
New one has 177lb of torque, not to shabby considering its down pretty low. But didnt the old ones only have about 140-150? Diesels can easily do better than that, but at the present time I guess to hard to pass emissions
Click to expand...


Course they can do better, but then your milage suffers.
Theres a reason the Big 3 diesel pickups have 500 some odd ft/lbs of torque. Theres also a reason they onyl get 12 MPG too.
Click to expand...


You're crazy. Yea maybe 12mpg when you are towing 10000lbs at 80mph on the highway. Try 18-20mpg unloaded. around 16 towing a normal load on the highway.
Click to expand...


My brother has an 04' F250 Powerstroke. According to him, it gets 15-17 MPG when he drives, and 11-12MPG with his wife behind the wheel. 😉

*going by the in-dash computer*
 
that is a terrible terrible diesel... 27.4 mpg is incredibly low (for a diesel that's meant to be economical). i remember seeing a 85k benz that got 45mpg on a diesel engine (and it was a big one too!)
 
Originally posted by: Phil
177ft-lbs of torque is also terrible. In fact, it's abysmal. My last car was a 1.5l turbo diesel (commonrail), and it was giving 200ft-lbs of torque. 30ft-lbs less from an engine that's almost double the size? Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that's gotta be a typo. Has to be. That's about the same torque as a Jetta 1.8Ti, no?

How does the curb weight compare?

 
THE 177FT-LBS WAS FOR A VW TDI ENGINE NOT THE 2.7L V6 IN THE ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The article never mentions the power. If its the same 2.7l diesel engine that they use in the jags its 206hp and 320ft-lbs and gets 35-40mpg depending on which article you read.


Text1
about halfway down in this one
One for the car in the article that isn't written by an idiot
33.2mpg combined 202hp and 330ft-lbs and in a 4000lbs car that isn't to bad.
 
I'll just reiterate what others have already pointed out:

27 mpg is fkn horrible for a diesel.

Its too bad American car companies don't follow Japanese car companies' philosophy of making cars of higher quality while maintaining a competitive price. Even 3-5 year old Toys and Hondas do much better compared to it.
 
Originally posted by: GeneValgene
Originally posted by: Pablo
I went up to washington a couple of weeks ago for a conference, got to speak with several Senators and Reps about the future of fuel. For some reason, among those leaders, its unanimous that Hydrogen is the where we are aiming in the next 15-20 years, but in the meantime, fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel will probably be getting a good deal of funding from the Federal government.
Click to expand...

they are politicians, not researchers. with current technology, a hydrogen economy is not feasible - i.e. the production, transport, and delivery of hydrogen is very inefficient. this has been modeled extensively already in Europe, most notably examining the use of renewables (e.g. wind) to produce hydrogen.

as of right now, the majority of hydrogen is produced by hydrocarbon reforming...so we will still need oil. with currently cycles, you end up expending more energy than what you end up recovering.
Click to expand...

Yes, these are politicians, looking at studies from the National Science Foundation and other private testing.. They're not talking about hydrogen feasibility in the next ten years, we're talking 15-20 years at the shortest. What you're failing to realize is that the government is currently spending a lot of money researching and subsidizing research for alternative fuels (hydrogen), and even though right now it costs more energy than it produces, I have a feeling that's where the investment money (grants) are being spent, and its probably where we are headed.
 
Originally posted by: Atomicus
I'll just reiterate what others have already pointed out:

27 mpg is fkn horrible for a diesel.

Its too bad American car companies don't follow Japanese car companies' philosophy of making cars of higher quality while maintaining a competitive price. Even 3-5 year old Toys and Hondas do much better compared to it.
Click to expand...


ITS A 4000LB CAR AND GETS 33.2 COMBINED.
read that instead
 
Diesel is way more expensive than regular here, and not as readily available.

Manufacturers will have to start putting diesel engines in cars I like in order for me to consider buying one.
 
Originally posted by: Pablo
Originally posted by: GeneValgene
Originally posted by: Pablo
I went up to washington a couple of weeks ago for a conference, got to speak with several Senators and Reps about the future of fuel. For some reason, among those leaders, its unanimous that Hydrogen is the where we are aiming in the next 15-20 years, but in the meantime, fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel will probably be getting a good deal of funding from the Federal government.
Click to expand...

they are politicians, not researchers. with current technology, a hydrogen economy is not feasible - i.e. the production, transport, and delivery of hydrogen is very inefficient. this has been modeled extensively already in Europe, most notably examining the use of renewables (e.g. wind) to produce hydrogen.

as of right now, the majority of hydrogen is produced by hydrocarbon reforming...so we will still need oil. with currently cycles, you end up expending more energy than what you end up recovering.
Click to expand...

Yes, these are politicians, looking at studies from the National Science Foundation and other private testing.. They're not talking about hydrogen feasibility in the next ten years, we're talking 15-20 years at the shortest. What you're failing to realize is that the government is currently spending a lot of money researching and subsidizing research for alternative fuels (hydrogen), and even though right now it costs more energy than it produces, I have a feeling that's where the investment money (grants) are being spent, and its probably where we are headed.
Click to expand...

my worry is that i feel like the US has 'missile lock' on hydrogen and fuel cells as the answer...but there are fundamental flaws, that will require some revolutionary break through to overcome. the investment is huge, and the payoff is uncertain. i just hope we don't overlook something else because we are so set on forcing hydrogen to be our energy savior
 
Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
THE 177FT-LBS WAS FOR A VW TDI ENGINE NOT THE 2.7L V6 IN THE ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The article never mentions the power. If its the same 2.7l diesel engine that they use in the jags its 206hp and 320ft-lbs and gets 35-40mpg depending on which article you read.


Text1
about halfway down in this one
One for the car in the article that isn't written by an idiot
33.2mpg combined 202hp and 330ft-lbs and in a 4000lbs car that isn't to bad.
Click to expand...

Settle down, Beavis.
Okay, so it's a fair bit better than first thought. However, I'll go back again to my father's car.
2.0l, 138bhp, ~330ft-lbs, what would seem to be roughly the same weight. Still gets an average of 60mpg with it. Peugeot can do a lot better than this, as they and Citroen have been building diesel engines for a very very long time, and they're pretty good at it.
 
Originally posted by: Pablo
Originally posted by: GeneValgene
Originally posted by: Pablo
I went up to washington a couple of weeks ago for a conference, got to speak with several Senators and Reps about the future of fuel. For some reason, among those leaders, its unanimous that Hydrogen is the where we are aiming in the next 15-20 years, but in the meantime, fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel will probably be getting a good deal of funding from the Federal government.
Click to expand...

they are politicians, not researchers. with current technology, a hydrogen economy is not feasible - i.e. the production, transport, and delivery of hydrogen is very inefficient. this has been modeled extensively already in Europe, most notably examining the use of renewables (e.g. wind) to produce hydrogen.

as of right now, the majority of hydrogen is produced by hydrocarbon reforming...so we will still need oil. with currently cycles, you end up expending more energy than what you end up recovering.
Click to expand...

Yes, these are politicians, looking at studies from the National Science Foundation and other private testing.. They're not talking about hydrogen feasibility in the next ten years, we're talking 15-20 years at the shortest. What you're failing to realize is that the government is currently spending a lot of money researching and subsidizing research for alternative fuels (hydrogen), and even though right now it costs more energy than it produces, I have a feeling that's where the investment money (grants) are being spent, and its probably where we are headed.
Click to expand...

Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is an energy transport medium. It will always "cost more energy than it produces". Research is working on ways of more efficiently converting hydrocarbons and water into hydrogen, and ways to more effectively store and transport hydrogen. These are major challenges.

R
 
Originally posted by: Yreka
Originally posted by: drnickriviera
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: DEMO24
New one has 177lb of torque, not to shabby considering its down pretty low. But didnt the old ones only have about 140-150? Diesels can easily do better than that, but at the present time I guess to hard to pass emissions
Click to expand...


Course they can do better, but then your milage suffers.
Theres a reason the Big 3 diesel pickups have 500 some odd ft/lbs of torque. Theres also a reason they onyl get 12 MPG too.
Click to expand...


You're crazy. Yea maybe 12mpg when you are towing 10000lbs at 80mph on the highway. Try 18-20mpg unloaded. around 16 towing a normal load on the highway.
Click to expand...


My brother has an 04' F250 Powerstroke. According to him, it gets 15-17 MPG when he drives, and 11-12MPG with his wife behind the wheel. 😉

*going by the in-dash computer*
Click to expand...

Dude Specop 007 you must be high, because your talking out of your @$$. My (dads) 04 Chevy 2500 HD Diesel gets 17/22 mpg city/hw. I have never seen it get worse than 15mpg even when towing 8 tons around town. Besides the way I drive the truck, gets great mpg compared to what a gasoline truck would get, the acceleration is faster than you think with a 2.5 ton truck. And if you use a mod chip like I have, it gets even better mpg while towing (at medium settings).
 
Originally posted by: Soccerman06

Dude Specop 007 you must be high, because your talking out of your @$$. My (dads) 04 Chevy 2500 HD Diesel gets 17/22 mpg city/hw. I have never seen it get worse than 15mpg even when towing 8 tons around town. Besides the way I drive the truck, gets great mpg
Click to expand...
Just for comparison, a 4 cyl Ranger manual gets 19/22 mpg. Yes, I know that sucks.
 
diesels will never be as fun to drive as a gasoline car. Even compared to a hybrid.

THe new range rover sports comes with v6 twin-turbo diesel and a v8 supercharged. Getting the v6 twin turbo diesel is the same thing as taking your mother to a strip club and ask her to strip for you. "I mean, she's a woman too, right?

my point is, really 27.6 mpg isn't hat impressive when you can get 50 mpg. Also diesel costs more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top