if americans like torque, why not buy diesel engined cars?

[teatako]

i hear you get quite a bit of low end grunt these days from a decently sized turbodiesel.

[Quiggs]

Because the mental picture of dirty, smelly, polluting dump trucks and late-70's diesels are stuck in the buying public's mind.

Add to that Kalifornia's Nazi-like CARB, and the 4 other states (and 5 others considering adopting it), and you have cars that could potentially not be sold in 1/5 of the states. Mainly the ones where the most cars are sold.

[johnnynumfiv]

This is why I'm going to invest in go fast parts for my beetle tdi. 500ftlbs here i come.

[2ndclasscitizen]

Add to that Kalifornia's Nazi-like CARB, and the 4 other states (and 5 others considering adopting it), and you have cars that could potentially not be sold in 1/5 of the states. Mainly the ones where the most cars are sold.
What's CARB?

[Fleet 500]

What's CARB?
California Air Resources Board.

[digitalcraft]

All americans also like swiss cheese and have green eyes too:rolleyes:

[PerfAdv]

Diesel is now more profitable than Gasoline, it's making its way back now. :D

[drakkie]

As for the CARB board they should make petrol engines unsellable :D They produce more sh!t out of the exhaust in the latest Euro5 types :)

[henk4]

prejudice

[Ferrer]

prejudice
Indeed, but wait till Mercedes and Volkswagen start making Bluetec diesels, and things might change.

[lightweight]

IMO it all depends on the energy policy of each country.

The US energy policy favours investments on electric motors and Hydrogen consumption. The rationale behind this is, in the long term to form a Hydrogen based economy. Internal combustion engines will be largely replaced by electric motors or fuel cells that are consuming Hydrogen. Hydrogen will be produced in Nuclear plants.

That's why the US legislation (CARB included) favors the use of hybrids instead of diesels. Diesels emit large quantities of NOx, which are not acceptable by CARB regulations.

Europe, on the other hand does not seem to adopt this plan yet. The European manufacturers have invested heavily on Diesel technology (common rail Diesels, piezo-electric injectors etc, BlueTec) because there was room in the European legislation to do so. The laws are not that strict as far as NOx are concerned.

So, the type of engine that is used on each country is largely dependent on the direction taken by its regulatory bodies.

[Sweeney921]

Actually, more Americans are sold on horsepower than torque, sadly. That's one of the main reasons the Mustang and Corvette are so successful. They don't understand how horsepower works. They also don't know that torque is what they need for everyday driving.

[henk4]

IMO it all depends on the energy policy of each country.

The US energy policy favours investments on electric motors and Hydrogen consumption. The rationale behind this is, in the long term to form a Hydrogen based economy. Internal combustion engines will be largely replaced by electric motors or fuel cells that are consuming Hydrogen. Hydrogen will be produced in Nuclear plants.

That's why the US legislation (CARB included) favors the use of hybrids instead of diesels. Diesels emit large quantities of NOx, which are not acceptable by CARB regulations.

Europe, on the other hand does not seem to adopt this plan yet. The European manufacturers have invested heavily on Diesel technology (common rail Diesels, piezo-electric injectors etc, BlueTec) because there was room in the European legislation to do so. The laws are not that strict as far as NOx are concerned.

So, the type of engine that is used on each country is largely dependent on the direction taken by its regulatory bodies.

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html

this is an interesting site and if you take some time to check on the standards for the various countries, you may even notice that the California requirement for Nox from passenger diesel cars is the same as the Euro 5 norm, (0.2 gram, except that in California it is per mile, while in Europe per km). Toyota has been applying Nox converters already.

I really doubt that there is a consistent US Gvt energy policy, aiming at stimulating hybrids. The only reason why they may want to stimulate that now is to protect their own industry, having seen the success of Toyota...

[MRR]

Because the mental picture of dirty, smelly, polluting dump trucks and late-70's diesels are stuck in the buying public's mind.

Add to that Kalifornia's Nazi-like CARB, and the 4 other states (and 5 others considering adopting it), and you have cars that could potentially not be sold in 1/5 of the states. Mainly the ones where the most cars are sold.

As an American I absolutely agree. We should by more diesel cars and suvs especially now that diesels are cleaner then they ever have been. Unfortunately as Quiggs mentions the stereotypical diesel image in the US is the smoky, smelly, and slow diesels of old.

Another reason is that the US has the same standards for cars with diesels and petrol whereas in Europe there are separate standards for the two fuels (correct me if I am wrong). Furthermore the CO2/km ratings of diesels are less then comparable gas/petrol engines so why is the EPA and CARB boards so stupid as to think that diesels are worse for the environment? Even the Mercedes E320 Blutec diesel that is finally being sold in the US still doesnt meet the emissions requirements of 5 states even though the comparable E350 consumes more fuel and spews out more CO2 (although less NOx gases).

Since Americans seem to have a taste for large SUVs and trucks a complete switch to diesel in large vehicles would partly solve fuel efficiency problems in this sector.

In general we have stupid emissions laws that are counterproductive and don't encourage manufacturers to sell diesel passenger cars and trucks in the US.

[Quiggs]

Since Americans seem to have a taste for large SUVs and trucks a complete switch to diesel in large vehicles would partly solve fuel efficiency problems in this sector.

In general we have stupid emissions laws that are counterproductive and don't encourage manufacturers to sell diesel passenger cars and trucks in the US.
Ford is actually addressing this by making a Diesel F150 option on the next gen. It's not a total fix, but it is a start.

[henk4]

Ford is actually addressing this by making a Diesel F150 option on the next gen. It's not a total fix, but it is a start.
you also should realise that proper "almost" sulphurfree has only become available in the USA at the beginning of this year. Another excuse gone of the big three not to develop suitable diesel technology for themselves (Ford went to PSA, Chrysler can use Mercedes and GM runs a little bit behind with Opel/Isuzu technology.

[Quiggs]

you also should realise that proper "almost" sulphurfree has only become available in the USA at the beginning of this year. Another excuse gone of the big three not to develop suitable diesel technology for themselves (Ford went to PSA, Chrysler can use Mercedes and GM runs a little bit behind with Opel/Isuzu technology.
Absolutely. It was supposed to be out last year, but after Hurricane Katrina, the oil companies bitched and moaned about production hardships, and the government let them delay the roll out.

That, along with the new CARB and EPA standards, have made the current gen TDI's and Mercedes diesels impossible to sell for the 07 model year. They're supposed to be back in 08 though.

[Waugh-terfall]

VW Touareg 5.0-V10 TDI ftw..
or even just wait for the
Audi Q7 S-Line V12 TDI

[Ferrer]

you also should realise that proper "almost" sulphurfree has only become available in the USA at the beginning of this year. Another excuse gone of the big three not to develop suitable diesel technology for themselves (Ford went to PSA, Chrysler can use Mercedes and GM runs a little bit behind with Opel/Isuzu technology.
GM motors also uses VM Motori diesel engines in some of their cars.

[lightweight]

the California requirement for Nox from passenger diesel cars is the same as the Euro 5 norm

Yes, but the Euro 5 is not implemented yet.


I really doubt that there is a consistent US Gvt energy policy, aiming at stimulating hybrids. The only reason why they may want to stimulate that now is to protect their own industry, having seen the success of Toyota...

I agree with you that they are trying to protect their industry. However, I do believe also that there is an effort to promote alternative ways of propulsion and in particular fuel cells and hybrids. There are many reports on pilot programmes that use these types of vehicles.

As far as the European use of diesel is concerned, there is an extra fact leading towards this direction. The European manufacturers and the EU have agreed on a certain level of emissions until 2008 (I think that is the year, could be wrong though). However, these targets cannot be met with petrol engines, as it will be too expensive to commercialize the technologies required in such a short timeframe. It was judged as a more efficient way to invest on Diesels. However, even with the Diesels being widely adopted by consumers (nearly 50% of the European car market), these targets will probably not be met

[Waugh-terfall]

Torque?

TRACTORS FOR THE WIN!!!! John Deer 6-Cylinder Diesels I hear Chris Butcher cry...

[rev440]

Diesal cars cost more as well the fuel is just more expensive.

[Slicks]

Yes, other than prejudice diesel fuel is still more expencive than our premium 93.

[Slicks]

Torque?

TRACTORS FOR THE WIN!!!! John Deer 6-Cylinder Diesels I hear Chris Butcher cry...
Ignorance FTW!
Your car accelerates on the torque curve exactly, for example if your making 300ft.lbs at 2000RPMs, and 300ft.lbs at 4000RPMs (same car),in a single gear its not going to be pulling any harder although the hp is double.

[The_Canuck]

Yes, other than prejudice diesel fuel is still more expencive than our premium 93.

Ignorance FTL!

You get better MPG with diesels so it evens out...

[Slicks]

Ignorance FTL!

You get better MPG with diesels so it evens out...
Uh, no. I said it was more expencive than our premium, which is usualy 30-40 cents more expencive than our regular grade, which economy cars run on. So chances are the slightly better mpg is not going to help with the 50+ cents per gallon difference in money.

[The_Canuck]

Uh, no. I said it was more expencive than our premium, which is usualy 30-40 cents more expencive than our regular grade, which economy cars run on. So chances are the slightly better mpg is not going to help with the 50+ cents per gallon difference in money.
It would be close...plus think of what kinda of cars run on premium and what ones run on Diesel.

[Ferrer]

Uh, no. I said it was more expencive than our premium, which is usualy 30-40 cents more expencive than our regular grade, which economy cars run on. So chances are the slightly better mpg is not going to help with the 50+ cents per gallon difference in money.
Sometimes and depending on the cars compared the difference in fuel consumption is not small.

[Mr.Tiv]

Uh, no. I said it was more expencive than our premium, which is usualy 30-40 cents more expencive than our regular grade, which economy cars run on. So chances are the slightly better mpg is not going to help with the 50+ cents per gallon difference in money.
I've never seen a gap that wide in fuel cost. In Maryland, by my observation, diesel is usually 20-30 cents more than regular grade petrol, and so is premium.

[lightweight]

I've never seen a gap that wide in fuel cost. In Maryland, by my observation, diesel is usually 20-30 cents more than regular grade petrol, and so is premium.

The fuel cost is highly dependent on the taxes that are implemented per fuel unit.

The final price of the car that is available to consumers, is also highly dependent on the taxes.

So, the total cost of using a diesel car, can vary significantly from country to country (or from state to state). The same applies to hybrid cars.

This is another reason for which I believe that there is a US Goverment policy that favours hybrids.

This is not meant in a bad way. They decided that their energy policy will be better by using hybrids. A logical assumption.:)

[Waugh-terfall]

I know what Torque is, but I'm just saying that tractors have a LOT of torque... ok!?

[NSXType-R]

Quiggs is right on the money. Diesels aren't bad anymore. People still think they are though. Actually, there are many tractor trailers that spew a lot of diesel fumes. Clean them up first and then worry about other stuff. They stink! :p

Again, the old crappy ones do. The newer ones don't. If you get rid of all the old ones the image could improve.

[Waugh-terfall]

Quiggs is right on the money. Diesels aren't bad anymore. People still think they are though. Actually, there are many tractor trailers that spew a lot of diesel fumes. Clean them up first and then worry about other stuff. They stink! :p

Again, the old crappy ones do. The newer ones don't. If you get rid of all the old ones the image could improve.

Buy a Diesel and run it on chip fat for 20p per litre in UK I think...
Used fat or new cooking oil will do

[lightweight]

Buy a Diesel and run it on chip fat for 20p per litre in UK I think...
Used fat or new cooking oil will do

You've been watching too much Fifth Gear:p

[lightweight]

A relevant question: I am under the impression that European Diesels have DOHC technology. Is this technology really useful, or it's just there for the Marketing hype? Diesels are not high-revving engines, they don't need overhead cams. A pushrod would be cheaper, lighter and more efficient in the low-mid revs.

[johnnynumfiv]

I know what Torque is, but I'm just saying that tractors have a LOT of torque... ok!?
This is somewhat due to gearing.

[Ferrer]

A relevant question: I am under the impression that European Diesels have DOHC technology. Is this technology really useful, or it's just there for the Marketing hype? Diesels are not high-revving engines, they don't need overhead cams. A pushrod would be cheaper, lighter and more efficient in the low-mid revs.
Most new diesels also have 4-valves per cylinder.

[henk4]

A relevant question: I am under the impression that European Diesels have DOHC technology. Is this technology really useful, or it's just there for the Marketing hype? Diesels are not high-revving engines, they don't need overhead cams. A pushrod would be cheaper, lighter and more efficient in the low-mid revs.

Four valve technology is probably better to control the flows in the cylinder head. OHV and 4 valves haven't been mated as far as I know, even the rumoured LS2 4 valve version is still there.

[jediali]

the older honda civic engine (i know no codes) used SOHC and 4VPC. Older cars also used DOHC and 2VPC..

[Ferrer]

the older honda civic engine (i know no codes) used SOHC and 4VPC. Older cars also used DOHC and 2VPC..
Yes, but lightweight was referring to pushrods, not overhead cams.

[jediali]

Yes, but lightweight was referring to pushrods, not overhead cams.
ok my apologies. I worked in the mechant navy for a while and i worked on some really big 6-cyl 4-stroke TC diesels that had a single camshaft at the side of the engine which activated 4VPC. the camshaft had 12 lobes each activating the nearest valves then the 2nd row of valves was operated by the 1sts rocker. heres a snap of that engine:

[NSXType-R]

Buy a Diesel and run it on chip fat for 20p per litre in UK I think...
Used fat or new cooking oil will do

No, my complaint was to clean up the lorries. Some of them are in such a bad state of repair. Their emissions are horrible. They hog the road and stink it up too while they're at it. I'm perfectly fine with diesels. I like them. The old ones really suck at the emission and they're not exactly efficient. If you cleaned them up (as in get rid of them and get newer tractor trailers that are more efficient), it could give a better image in the long run. I can imagine a street smelling like french fries. Good stuff there. :D

[lightweight]

Four valve technology is probably better to control the flows in the cylinder head. OHV and 4 valves haven't been mated as far as I know, even the rumoured LS2 4 valve version is still there.

Do Diesels also use Variable valve timing?

[jediali]

VVT may help diesels but because they are usually TC and have direct injection (thats heteregeneous mixture control) there is less need to manage polution and air inntake from the point of view of VVT

[DesmoRob]

What's CARB?

What the Governator drinks for breakfast.

[henk4]

Do Diesels also use Variable valve timing?

no, not in my car at least (2.2 liter DOHC)...

[Ferrer]

no, not in my car at least (2.2 liter DOHC)...
Well your car's engine is hardly cutting edge now... ;)

[henk4]

Well your car's engine is hardly cutting edge now... ;)

true, it is a five year old design at least..and actually the very first with a particulate filter..

[kigango123]

Because the mental picture of dirty, smelly, polluting dump trucks and late-70's diesels are stuck in the buying public's mind.

Add to that Kalifornia's Nazi-like CARB, and the 4 other states (and 5 others considering adopting it), and you have cars that could potentially not be sold in 1/5 of the states. Mainly the ones where the most cars are sold.

Let me ask a straight forward question, and i hope that none of you will look at me badly,
what is up with carlifornia and car regulations, i had even heard about it in africa, their own laws in racing, their own emissions stardard and now they hate the hummer so much that you cannot be elected gorvener if you have one,and the horific stories of people and their cars being broken into by the police just for having a "non-compliant" part in them
to tell you the truth now that i am modifying my car, i do not plan to drive into carlifornia, id rather take the bus.

[Waugh-terfall]

No, my complaint was to clean up the lorries. Some of them are in such a bad state of repair. Their emissions are horrible. They hog the road and stink it up too while they're at it. I'm perfectly fine with diesels. I like them. The old ones really suck at the emission and they're not exactly efficient. If you cleaned them up (as in get rid of them and get newer tractor trailers that are more efficient), it could give a better image in the long run. I can imagine a street smelling like french fries. Good stuff there. :D

Oooh, right, yeah, HAHA, I'd go for the unused oil...


This is somewhat due to gearing.

Yeis!


You've been watching too much Fifth Gear:p

I have, haven't I... Good ol' Jonny and his hair...

[kingofthering]

Let me ask a straight forward question, and i hope that none of you will look at me badly,
what is up with carlifornia and car regulations, i had even heard about it in africa, their own laws in racing, their own emissions stardard and now they hate the hummer so much that you cannot be elected gorvener if you have one,and the horific stories of people and their cars being broken into by the police just for having a "non-compliant" part in them
to tell you the truth now that i am modifying my car, i do not plan to drive into carlifornia, id rather take the bus.
Well, as a native San Franciscan, we (the state) think we are the savior of the Earth, that we must spend taxpayer dollars debating over the official wine or how we can jack up the taxes on the middle class to pay for worthless aid programs. Plus we look at cars as evil, satanic vehicles. We will protest and destroy and blah blah blah to save the goddamn Earth.... wow that felt good.
As for the non-compliant part thing, I have never heard of that happening.

[Quiggs]

California has pollution problems. Among other things.

They can impound your car if they find non-CARB approved/exempt parts, or if it's too low, or if you don't have DOT-approved lighting. (Boy, I'd be in trouble.)

[The_Canuck]

California has pollution problems. Among other things.

They can impound your car if they find non-CARB approved/exempt parts, or if it's too low, or if you don't have DOT-approved lighting. (Boy, I'd be in trouble.)
You should take your muffler and catalytic converter off and drive over there just to spite them! :p

[Quiggs]

They couldn't touch me. I have out of state registration. ;)

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

They couldn't touch me. I have out of state registration. ;)
Diplomacy for the win :D

[Juggs]

theres no diesel cars that make the kind of torque we're lookin for. i would love to have a diesel car tho. i'd especially love to have a diesel truck

[NSXType-R]

theres no diesel cars that make the kind of torque we're lookin for. i would love to have a diesel car tho. i'd especially love to have a diesel truck

How much torque could you actually want? :D A diesel approximately produces twice the torque of an engine that is equivalent to it in displacement. (Ok, I was generalizing, but you get the point)

A Honda doesn't have much torque but it's still enough to get around town. A diesel would be more than enough.

[The_Canuck]

They couldn't touch me. I have out of state registration. ;)
+ they can't catch you if you have a 1.8T, ;)

[mattmacklind]

Well, it seems to me that those in the US that really like the characteristics diesels have are not hesitant to buy one. People I know who really, I mean really use a truck for work or play have diesels or talk about wanting one if they could afford it because there is a bit of a premium on them. As far as regular cars go, they never gained enough of a footing here and those that did sell back in the day, at least other than Benz's, didn't fair so well. I'm thinking specifically of Peugots, GM's botched attempt, and the diesel VW's.

When I recently looked at Jetta's, the TDi, and these were 06 models, had a premium of around 8K over a gasser, and the TDI doesn't carry all kinds of other mad options along with it, you're really paying for the diesel. So, if you're driving a diesel VW at least you must really want a diesel. I can't think of anyone else really in the diesel game for passenger cars in the US right now.

[SlickHolden]

When diesel brings in power and torque in a perfect package with hot sound i'll buy one.
But i like too be able too rev a big and pull with a mix of torque and power.
I probably wouldn't buy a diesel on sound and price right now.
Wouldn't mind a 300kw 700Nm diesel plant but:)

But i was just driving Holdens new Calais V6 5 speed auto.
Got some great fuel figures out of that car... 195kw 345Nm running on 91 unleaded fuel. Average fuel used was 9.1l/100... Best of 8.3l/100.. Large car 1700kg with 4 and boot full i was pretty happy with that.. And it will buzz too 100kp/h in under 8 seconds.

[P4g4nite]

Got some interesting BMW diesel specs on this page
http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_101567/newsarticle.html


Got some great fuel figures out of that car... 195kw 345Nm running on 91 unleaded fuel. Average fuel used was 9.1l/100... Best of 8.3l/100.. Large car 1700kg with 4 and boot full i was pretty happy with that.. And it will buzz too 100kp/h in under 8 seconds.
And for comparison Vs a 6 cyl diesel...

3.0-litre turbo-diesel engine fitted to 3 Series models including the 3 Series Coupé, now also EU4 compliant. This engine is rated at 150 kW and 410 Nm of torque between 1,500 rpm and 3,000 rpm.

On-road performance is similarly breathtaking. The 330Cd accelerates to 100 km/h in 7.2 seconds (7.4 auto) and reaches a top speed of 242 km/h in manual guise. Fuel consumption is just 6.6 litres/100km according to the ECE combined cycle.


theres no diesel cars that make the kind of torque we're lookin for.

BMW’s range-topping turbo-diesel engine is the V8-powered 740d with a maximum output of 190 kW and maximum torque of 600 Nm of torque between 1,900 rpm and 2,500 rpm. Average fuel consumption in the ECE cycle is 9.7 litres/100 km.

[henk4]

P4g4nite
That was almost three year old information...
Apart from the 286 BHP 3,0 litre engine but the 7 range now has 220 KW and 700 nm (515 lbft) of torque at 1750 Rpm, from a 4.4 litre engine.
Compare the Viper 8.3 liter engine, it has 712 NM at 4200 Rpm....

[P4g4nite]

Foxes.

[henk4]

Foxes.

or badgers?

[Ingolstadt]

http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/

hur??

[kingofthering]

I'd really like to drive a BMW 130d or a 535d. I've heard they are good. Plus, it would be cool to learn to drive in one.

[Quiggs]

I prefer kangaroos.

http://www.livejournal.com/userpic/33848776/8004699

[jediali]

i luv my john dear 2010!
http://www.yesterdaystractors.com/gallery/a211_smokey2010.jpg
as you know diesels have excellent emisions...:D

[jcp123]

Actually, I think diesels are a fantastic idea, and I believe are actually a better solution than hybrids in many ways. I love low-revving engines, and diesels fit the bill nicely, with extra fuel economy, to boot. You see quite a few here in Texas, I would estimate fully 1/3 of the VW's I see here are TDi models, and of course diesel pickups are popular here too.

The rest of the nation, I think, has a bad taste in their mouths largely because of that GM 350ci diesel abomination that they foisted on the public in the late 70's/early 80's. There were other pretty bad diesels in this era, but none quite so under-engineered and widespread as the aborted boat anchor that Oldsmobile built for GM.

Also, the EPA has an outdatedly negative view on diesel emissions, although ironically, they are partly to blame! American diesel has a relatively high sulfur content, mostly because the EPA never told anyone not to refine it better. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy by now.

CARB is...well, it's CARB, and they're nutty, what more can I say. To some degree, it's because of CARB that I got into classic cars (which admittedly pollute more) in the first place, so I wouldn't have to deal with them, and I know others who have done the same and also make quite a living dodging CARB regulations. That's what you get when you not only have such strict regulations on things, but regulations that don't always keep pace with new developments and other potential solutions to problems.

[Ferrer]

P4g4nite
That was almost three year old information...
Apart from the 286 BHP 3,0 litre engine but the 7 range now has 220 KW and 700 nm (515 lbft) of torque at 1750 Rpm, from a 4.4 litre engine.
Compare the Viper 8.3 liter engine, it has 712 NM at 4200 Rpm....
Pieter I think it's unfair to compare a turbocharged engine to a normally aspirated one. I'd like to see what kind of torque would a N/A 4.4-litre diesel would manage...

I'd really like to drive a BMW 130d
Such a thing doesn't exist... :confused:

[kingofthering]

Such a thing doesn't exist... :confused:
Hey I don't live in Europe.

[jediali]

i didnt know a 130d existed, in the Uk the best is either a 120d or a 130i

[kingofthering]

found it, I have decided I want a BMW 535d or a 120d. Damn model numbers confuse me.

[culver]

As Henk4 and I were discussing in another thread:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=537&page=4


It never fails to amaze me that modern diesel cars are so geared to what is generally be considered the American style of lazy and relaxed driving, and still there is this in-built prejudice against them...




Not quite a built but they are slowly becoming more popular. Some people claim it's because we had bad experience with diesel cars in the late 70s and early 80s. I don't buy that. Too many people now wouldn't know the difference. Lots of people like diesel pickups. Personally I think its more mundane factors. First, our emissions laws haven't been very diesel friendly. That keeps a lot of the car companies from wanting to bring them over. Why put all that marketing effort into a diesel if California might get a bug up it's tail pipe and pass new emissions laws that diesels can't meet? It also didn't help that we had higher sulfur content in our gas for quite some time (now changing).
The other reasons are more economic. Diesel engine options cost a lot yet generally don't provide anything more than better mileage. While gas was cheep (and still isn't too expensive) people were happier saving the up front cost. While the new diesels are much better my impression (little first hand experience) is that they aren't really better than many of the gas offerings but for fuel economy. They are very torquy but don't rev much. I think for many people they might go too far in the other direction as compared to the ultra high reving s2000. Also, we can get that extra low end torque via more displacement which costs little in comparison to a smaller displacement motor. Why bother with a torquy 2.0L I4 when I can get a 3L V6 for less. I think when VW was offering the diesel Jetta it costs as much as the 1.8T or VR6 motor (one or the other).
Anyway, while the newest ones are smooth and quick they really aren't any smoother or quicker than most of the gas options. The engines cost more and diesel fuel costs more. It doesn't make for a very compelling case in the US. I suspect with out some major change in market forces (fuel costs, lower up front costs) diesels will never become as common as they are in Europe. Their are some arguments for them but they aren't that compelling in the US market.


and my reply

[Lagonda]

Pieter I think it's unfair to compare a turbocharged engine to a normally aspirated one. I'd like to see what kind of torque would a N/A 4.4-litre diesel would manage...
I think it's quite irrelvant since ALL diesels are turbocharged these days. Except for a few rare cases.

[Waugh-terfall]

i luv my john dear 2010!
http://www.yesterdaystractors.com/gallery/a211_smokey2010.jpg
as you know diesels have excellent emisions...:D

My friends just sold his '55 Fergie something or other having re built it and he made £150 profit.

This is before the restorations
Pic 1: Chris on it

[Ferrer]

I think it's quite irrelvant since ALL diesels are turbocharged these days. Except for a few rare cases.
Well then how much torque would make an 8.3-litre turbocharged petrol engine, then it would be an interesting comparison.

[Lagonda]

Well then how much torque would make an 8.3-litre turbocharged petrol engine, then it would be an interesting comparison.
To be fair you'd have to compare that 8.3 turbo against an 8.3 litre turbodiesel. Wouldn't you agree ?

[Ferrer]

To be fair you'd have to compare that 8.3 turbo against an 8.3 litre turbodiesel. Wouldn't you agree ?
Yes you're right ;)

EDIT Or a pair of 4.4-litre turbos...

[SlickHolden]

Got some interesting BMW diesel specs on this page
http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_101567/newsarticle.html


And for comparison Vs a 6 cyl diesel...
I like too rev it:D Need more power.
The day diesel engines run like petrol engines and give 40% better economy and sound hot, People will shift.

But with the V6 i spoke about they have got plenty more too ad too it for even better performance and economy, Like a 6 speed auto and Direct injection is still too come.

I think anyone can drive a petrol car, But with diesel you need too learn too drive it right too get the best out of it.
I remember JC on top gear driving a diesel powered car and going shit house.

[mehrshadvr4]

tractor FTW.

[P4g4nite]

4.4L turbo diesel V8 330bhp 750nm@1900rpm (BMW 745d)

4.2L turbo petrol V8 450bhp 560nm@2000rpm (Audi RS6)

[SlickHolden]

Plants like that don't come cheap:)

[henk4]

As Henk4 and I were discussing in another thread:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=537&page=4






and my reply

I am really surprised to see that sort of price difference between gasoline and diesel in the USA.

http://www.iru.org/Services/fuel/Welcome.E.html

you will not that diesel in most European countries is cheaper than gasoline, and where the taxation is the lowest (Luxembourg, Andorra), diesel still remains the lowest priced.

and for heavens sake look at the price the USa is paying for diesel, taking into account that one euro now equals 1.33 US$...

[Ferrer]

4.4L turbo diesel V8 330bhp 750nm@1900rpm (BMW 745d)

4.2L turbo petrol V8 450bhp 560nm@2000rpm (Audi RS6)
Audi's engine had the torque limited because the gearbox couldn't handle all the torque the engine produced.

[jediali]

Audi's engine had the torque limited because the gearbox couldn't handle all the torque the engine produced.

merc turbo v12 6.0L 612 hp 738 lb.ft petrol
vs
ford turbo V8 6.0L 325 hp 570 lb.ft diesel

[Ferrer]

merc turbo v12 6.0L 612 hp 738 lb.ft petrol
vs
ford turbo V8 6.0L 325 hp 570 lb.ft diesel
And the Mercedes-Benz engine is again limited because of the gearbox.

[jediali]

And the Mercedes-Benz engine is again limited because of the gearbox.

so are we saying petrol turbos more torque?

[Ferrer]

so are we saying petrol turbos more torque?
Not necessarily, altough that's the case with the Ford and Mercedes-Benz engine compared.

[Coventrysucks]

The day diesel engines run like petrol engines and give 40% better economy and sound hot, People will shift.

That happened already.

Over 50% of all new car sales in Europe are diesel, and it has been that way for a number of years.

Diesels are the way forward anyway - when biodiesel becomes more widespread it will offer almost true "zero emissions" because the CO2 coming out the back of the car will be the same as that which was absorbed by the plants that made the fuel in the first place.

Stick that in your heavy, complex and uses much more energy to manufacture fuel-cells-and-hybrid-technology-pipe and smoke it.

As for the petrol vs diesel "which produces more torque" debate - is everyone just forgetting the thread about the 5,000,000+ lb ft torque diesel engine?

[henk4]

merc turbo v12 6.0L 612 hp 738 lb.ft petrol
vs
ford turbo V8 6.0L 325 hp 570 lb.ft diesel

that Ford engine dates from pre-history and is not at all representative. Just put the new Audi V12 next to it.....5.988 cc, 500 BHP and 1000/735 NM/lbft torque, from 1700-3000 rpm

[Waugh-terfall]

4.4L turbo diesel V8 330bhp 750nm@1900rpm (BMW 745d)

4.2L turbo petrol V8 450bhp 560nm@2000rpm (Audi RS6)

Audi RS6's 4.2L V8 is Bi-Turbo...


Why not compare:

Audi A8 4.2FSI V8
with
Audi A8 4.2TDI V8

??

[Ferrer]

that Ford engine dates from pre-history and is not at all representative. Just put the new Audi V12 next to it.....5.988 cc, 500 BHP and 1000/735 NM/lbft torque, from 1700-3000 rpm
So has the Mercedes with 5980cc... ;)

And it isn't even what we'd call cutting edge...

[henk4]

And it isn't even what we'd call cutting edge...especially in terms of fuel consumption...

[MRR]

It would be close...plus think of what kinda of cars run on premium and what ones run on Diesel.

Even if it costed the same you would still be consuming less fuel (being greener is good as well as decreasing dependence on foreign oil) and most diesel cars have a higher range and thus less fuel stops then their gas counterparts.

[nota]

Regards torque, fuel consumption & emissions .. why not electric cars?

Speaking for myself, an electric car would suffice for 90% of my motoring needs and I'd love to wean off the evil petroleum/carbon teat

[Mr.Tiv]

Regards torque, fuel consumption & emissions .. why not electric cars?

Speaking for myself, an electric car would suffice for 90% of my motoring needs and I'd love to wean off the evil petroleum/carbon teat
Ah, but the interesting ones are so expensive. Although that Tesla is what, like 40.000USD, and what ever became of that most recent Venturi Fetish(I think they called it the Fetish). The fetish and the AC Propulsion TZero were both about a half a million, right?

[henk4]

Regards torque, fuel consumption & emissions .. why not electric cars?

Speaking for myself, an electric car would suffice for 90% of my motoring needs and I'd love to wean off the evil petroleum/carbon teat

unless you get electricity out of hydro powered stations, there is still the issue of burning carbon based fuels.

[Mr.Tiv]

unless you get electricity out of hydro powered stations, there is still the issue of burning carbon based fuels.
Wind Farms are surprisingly effective. Something we have to thank the Dutch for, unfortunately.

[henk4]

Wind Farms are surprisingly effective. Something we have to thank the Dutch for, unfortunately.

don't forget the Danes. And no, they are not very efficient, but a good fall back position.

[Ferrer]

especially in terms of fuel consumption...
Do you know the figures for the Audi, by the way?

[nota]

Ah, but the interesting ones are so expensive. Although that Tesla is what, like 40.000USD, and what ever became of that most recent Venturi Fetish(I think they called it the Fetish). The fetish and the AC Propulsion TZero were both about a half a million, right?
Probably right, but I thought GM's EV-1 was an interesting machine in its own right

As is this 12 second road-registered Datsun 1200 Electric :eek:
http://www.dragtimes.com/1972-Datsun-1200-Videos-7484.html

[henk4]

Do you know the figures for the Audi, by the way?

no, the engine will be put in the Q7, one of the least interesting cars available right now....

[rev440]

merc turbo v12 6.0L 612 hp 738 lb.ft petrol
vs
ford turbo V8 6.0L 325 hp 570 lb.ft diesel

With a simple retune of the diesal its at 900lb ft

[henk4]

With a simple retune of the diesal its at 900lb ft

that is not such a simple one. A simple one gives about 20-30% extra, but not 80.

[culver]

The Ford vs Merc comparison isn't valid because the two products are designed to meet MUCH different goals. The Ford engine is a work truck motor. It's designed to provide low end power, be used to tow/haul stuff (ie long runs at higher power loads). It was NOT designed with a cost is no object budget. I wouldn't be surprised if it returned almost the same mileage as the Benz despite being in a very large truck.
Yes, it hardly represents state of the art in diesels but it, like the tractor, was designed to meet a much different goal. Comparing such dissimilar motors says more about a lack of understanding of engineering design objectives than it does about the products being compared. Kind of like saying an F1 car is better than a Civic. Well that depends on the design goals.

[nota]

unless you get electricity out of hydro powered stations, there is still the issue of burning carbon based fuels.
Not with wind power, or tidal, or 'hot rocks' or solar of course including those giant 'solar towers' etc

I purposely avoid including nookulah (GWB-speak)

And unlike diesels or hybrids where you are still enslaved to petro dollars, as too with white elephants like BMW's ridiculous hydro-powered V12 7-series, the technology for electric cars (which produce zero exhaust emissions and are super cheap to run) is already proven and ready to implement

[henk4]

the technology for electric cars (which produce zero exhaust emissions and are super cheap to run) is already proven and ready to implement

for short distances for sure, and when there is enough time to recharge, yes, but what about these long distance trips where you cover 1000 km per day (and with a diesel often without refuelling). Where do you recharge? how much time will you loose?

[nota]

for short distances for sure, and when there is enough time to recharge, yes, but what about these long distance trips where you cover 1000 km per day (and with a diesel often without refuelling). Where do you recharge? how much time will you loose?
You're right, electric cars are inherently restrictive and not suitable for longer trips. I'm told that, on average, this distance-restriction confines them to approx being suitable for merely 90% of all the trips undertaken by average motorists :D

For example, according to a 2002 survey by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the average American drives 203 miles each week, and 29 miles per trip

[Ferrer]

no, the engine will be put in the Q7, one of the least interesting cars available right now....
I have to agree on this.

And you can also do a 1000km journey without refuelling much in a petrol... ;)

[Waugh-terfall]

I love the Q7 on the other hand, When is the Q7 V12 TDI coming on sale in the UK? I would've thought the 3.0TDI would be underpowered but having recently been in a Mercedes ML320 CDI, I found that 3.0 V6 TurboDiesels in huge SUV's aren't that bad... The Merc seemed pretty damned powerful and being thrown back into myseat when Jon floored it from the lights really hurt... That things got some power I tell thee...

[Ferrer]

I love the Q7 on the other hand, When is the Q7 V12 TDI coming on sale in the UK? I would've thought the 3.0TDI would be underpowered but having recently been in a Mercedes ML320 CDI, I found that 3.0 V6 TurboDiesels in huge SUV's aren't that bad... The Merc seemed pretty damned powerful and being thrown back into myseat when Jon floored it from the lights really hurt... That things got some power I tell thee...
Then imagine how good the C320 CDI must be...

[Waugh-terfall]

Then imagine how good the C320 CDI must be...

Oooh, stick in in the A-Class.. A320 CDI = 1.8T beater????????????

[Ferrer]

Oooh, stick in in the A-Class.. A320 CDI = 1.8T beater????????????
You can actually buy a C320 CDI... :mad:

[Waugh-terfall]

You can actually buy a C320 CDI... :mad:

I know, I'm just saying that if you actually put in an A-Class, it could well be a 1.8T muncher...

[Ferrer]

I know, I'm just saying that if you actually put in an A-Class, it could well be a 1.8T muncher...
Of course you understand nothing...

[Waugh-terfall]

Of course you understand nothing...

What the hell?

[kingofthering]

sigh... nothing can beat an 1.8t.

[Waugh-terfall]

sigh... nothing can beat an 1.8t.

But it can.... First hand experience!!

Or is that part of the joke?

[Ferrer]

What the hell?
You say the ML320 CDI is a good car and I disagree. I answer you saying that the Mercedes-Benz C-class with the same engines is a much better proposition. And all you have to say is some stupid joke? I come here to discuss about cars, not to hear (read would probably be more appropiate) stupid things.

That's what caused me to leave time ago, and since I returned things have gone worse instead of improving.

[Waugh-terfall]

You say the ML320 CDI is a good car and I disagree. I answer you saying that the Mercedes-Benz C-class with the same engines is a much better proposition. And all you have to say is some stupid joke? I come here to discuss about cars, not to hear (read would probably be more appropiate) stupid things.

That's what caused me to leave time ago, and since I returned things have gone worse instead of improving.

Well I'm sorry... Jeez Louise!

[jediali]

The Ford vs Merc comparison isn't valid because the two products are designed to meet MUCH different goals. The Ford engine is a work truck motor. It's designed to provide low end power, be used to tow/haul stuff (ie long runs at higher power loads). It was NOT designed with a cost is no object budget. I wouldn't be surprised if it returned almost the same mileage as the Benz despite being in a very large truck.
Yes, it hardly represents state of the art in diesels but it, like the tractor, was designed to meet a much different goal. Comparing such dissimilar motors says more about a lack of understanding of engineering design objectives than it does about the products being compared. Kind of like saying an F1 car is better than a Civic. Well that depends on the design goals.

not too blow any brass instruments but i know more than i let on! i was perpetuating the incorrect number comparison game, where it in fact isnt that serious. ok so the merc engine is in £150k cars so it is well engineered but less durable than the Ford unit which goes to a market where high tech has less importance. Of course there are many constraints on engine design. starting with company values and expertise a company one has to consider safety (room for crumple zone), cost of design and manufacture, critical reliability, fuel economy, weight, power/torque distribution, variable technologies, lubrication, cooling, sound insulation, servicing and more. see:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29726
or
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29685
for my take on all things engine design. I have found engines hard to understand on paper, only driving em makes the difference. My favourite car i owned was a civic vti because it was just fun. the engine matched the chassis in the sense that both wanted you to push harder and faster. My current LR defender is more for my work but is more practical and makes large loads and weights easier to shift around the sites i am on. so..take these things in context please.

[culver]

not too blow any brass instruments but i know more than i let on! i was perpetuating the incorrect number comparison game, where it in fact isnt that serious. ok so the merc engine is in £150k cars so it is well engineered but less durable than the Ford unit which goes to a market where high tech has less importance. Of course there are many constraints on engine design. starting with company values and expertise a company one has to consider safety (room for crumple zone), cost of design and manufacture, critical reliability, fuel economy, weight, power/torque distribution, variable technologies, lubrication, cooling, sound insulation, servicing and more. see:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29726
or
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29685
for my take on all things engine design. I have found engines hard to understand on paper, only driving em makes the difference. My favourite car i owned was a civic vti because it was just fun. the engine matched the chassis in the sense that both wanted you to push harder and faster. My current LR defender is more for my work but is more practical and makes large loads and weights easier to shift around the sites i am on. so..take these things in context please.

OK :)
I haven't been following the whole thing. It's sometimes hard to tell who takes things like Hp/L seriously vs who take it in context. Keep on trucking ;)

[jediali]

OK :)
I haven't been following the whole thing. It's sometimes hard to tell who takes things like Hp/L seriously vs who take it in context. Keep on trucking ;)

well ts easy for boys to get distracted by numbers and (maybe pointless) technology, however it is about the context.

[MRR]

"As a means of producing so much power with a minimum of environmental impact and a maximum of fuel efficiency, it’s no surprise that BMW will be among the first to introduce 50-state clean diesel technology. After all, it often takes an independent company like ours to bring an idea like this to the public."

-BMW NA

This was on BMW of North America's website and from what I have heard they will begin introducing diesel models to the American market (and I guess they meet California emissions). I am starting to see a trend (maybe)...

[henk4]

"As a means of producing so much power with a minimum of environmental impact and a maximum of fuel efficiency, it’s no surprise that BMW will be among the first to introduce 50-state clean diesel technology. After all, it often takes an independent company like ours to bring an idea like this to the public."

-BMW NA

This was on BMW of North America's website and from what I have heard they will begin introducing diesel models to the American market (and I guess they meet California emissions). I am starting to see a trend (maybe)...

Yes BMW will introduce their technology in 2008, and it will be more advanced than the Mercedes/Audi/VW Bluetec ssytem.

[ninetwoeight]

CARB opposition to diesels was based on particulate emissions. It is probable that with the new low sulfur fuel and urea processing that the newest diesel cars will be approved by CARB. However, in many parts of the U.S., diesel fuel is considerably more expensive than even premium gasoline so there is little economic incentive to make the change. Furthermore, if diesels are so hot why don't we see them in the Mercedes 600SL?

[Ferrer]

CARB opposition to diesels was based on particulate emissions. It is probable that with the new low sulfur fuel and urea processing that the newest diesel cars will be approved by CARB. However, in many parts of the U.S., diesel fuel is considerably more expensive than even premium gasoline so there is little economic incentive to make the change. Furthermore, if diesels are so hot why don't we see them in the Mercedes 600SL?
We will, once american start buying diesels. There were talks of a diesel V12 from Mercedes-Benz based on two V6 blocks and Audi have recently introduced the Q7 V12 TDI as a concept car. First it will be big saloons and SUV and I fear it won't be long till we see the first diesel engined sportscar.

[Waugh-terfall]

We will, once american start buying diesels. There were talks of a diesel V12 from Mercedes-Benz based on two V6 blocks and Audi have recently introduced the Q7 V12 TDI as a concept car. First it will be big saloons and SUV and I fear it won't be long till we see the first diesel engined sportscar.

Peugeot...

Concept car mind you...

2000 Peugeot RC Concept

[henk4]

Peugeot...

Concept car mind you...

2000 Peugeot RC Concept

it became much more of a concept, it was used in a French single marque racing series for diesel powered cars, running bio-diesel.....

[Ferrer]

Peugeot...

Concept car mind you...

2000 Peugeot RC Concept
It technically isn't a road car, but yes you could say that was the first diesel powered sportscar. Maybe I should rephrase, it won't be long till we see a diesel powered supercar.

[henk4]

Furthermore, if diesels are so hot why don't we see them in the Mercedes 600SL?


have a good look here....

[Gtek-i]

Because diesel is more expensive at the pump here and some diesels are bad on emissions. Hybrids are proven to be cleaner but lack oomph. Diesels are like Hybrids...but less electronic stuff and more oomph. Only Volkswagen has been doing pretty good in North America.

[Prius]

I will explain it all, listen, my children.

Ok, back in the early 80s, GM thought that a good place to persue in the market was using diesel engines, due to the rising gas prices. But, because GM seemsed brainded in the 80s, they used an aluminum block, with steel inserts in the cylanders. It was basically a modified gas engine. And since the soft metal can't stand the high compression of a diesel engine, the engine would tear itself apart in a matter of time, and the cars would die prematurely. And since they made the diesel engine STANDARD on the Cadillac Seville, and plus since they installed them in the Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera, a real high selling car, many of these engines sold, and that meant a large handful of problems. So, not only has GM's reputation been hurt, but the diesel engine in general is shunned by americans doe to the disaster, even though it was 20 years ago. So, americans will never want to buy diesels due to this debiacle. but, DaimlerChrysler is trying this again, with offering a diesel engine in the Jeep line. Since this is a German engineered engine, we know that is is done right, and hopefully it can heal the Delsel's fledging reputation.

[nota]

I will explain it all, listen, my children.

Ok, back in the early 80s, GM thought that a good place to persue in the market was using diesel engines, due to the rising gas prices. But, because GM seemsed brainded in the 80s, they used an aluminum block, with steel inserts in the cylanders. It was basically a modified gas engine. And since the soft metal can't stand the high compression of a diesel engine, the engine would tear itself apart in a matter of time, and the cars would die prematurely. And since they made the diesel engine STANDARD on the Cadillac Seville, and plus since they installed them in the Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera, a real high selling car, many of these engines sold, and that meant a large handful of problems. So, not only has GM's reputation been hurt, but the diesel engine in general is shunned by americans doe to the disaster, even though it was 20 years ago. So, americans will never want to buy diesels due to this debiacle. but, DaimlerChrysler is trying this again, with offering a diesel engine in the Jeep line. Since this is a German engineered engine, we know that is is done right, and hopefully it can heal the Delsel's fledging reputation.
Your brain might be composed of soft aluminium but that Oldsmobile-built GM V8 diesel was not, it was all iron

[henk4]

Your brain might be composed of soft aluminium but that Oldsmobile-built GM V8 diesel was not, it was all iron

Whatever is was made of, it did do its job of tarnishing the reputation of diesel engines to a very great extent....

[Ferrer]

Your brain might be composed of soft aluminium but that Oldsmobile-built GM V8 diesel was not, it was all iron
Anyway diesels with aluminium block can be built, as long as they are properly engineered. So even it had been aluminium the problem wouldn't have been lying there.

[henk4]

here is an alloy one...

[Quiggs]

I don't see a diesel engine, all I see is a giant turbo that I want to touch...

[henk4]

post was not meant for the myopic

[Quiggs]

Are you saying I'm intolerant? http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/redface.gif

[Coventrysucks]

Because diesel is more expensive at the pump here

You consume less diesel than you would do petrol so you spend less money on fuel, despite the higher cost per unit volume.


Wind Farms are surprisingly effective.

"Ineffective", is the word you are looking for.

[Mr.Tiv]

"Ineffective", is the word you are looking for.
No, it wasn't. Effective is quite a bit different from cost-effective.

[cmcpokey]

No, it wasn't. Effective is quite a bit different from cost-effective.
that also depends on where you are at. i grew up in Souther California and one of the largest wind farms in the world was just a few miles from my house. there they could manufacture enough energy that they can replace the windmills with more and more efficient mills every 3-5 years. they are now powering like 6 times what they were 10 years ago.

[MRR]

theres no diesel cars that make the kind of torque we're lookin for. i would love to have a diesel car tho. i'd especially love to have a diesel truck

Audi V12 TDi produces like 730+ lb-ft of torque

another the E320 Bluetec has close to 400 with the BMW 3.5 liter turbo 6 diesel pumping 412 or something (the list goes on). Way more torque then their gas 8-cylinder counterparts.

[MRR]

I fear it won't be long till we see the first diesel engined sportscar.

Too late!! Audi supposedly is planning a diesel V12 R8.

[culver]

I will explain it all, listen, my children.

Ok, back in the early 80s, GM thought that a good place to persue in the market was using diesel engines, due to the rising gas prices. But, because GM seemsed brainded in the 80s, they used an aluminum block, with steel inserts in the cylanders. It was basically a modified gas engine. And since the soft metal can't stand the high compression of a diesel engine, the engine would tear itself apart in a matter of time, and the cars would die prematurely. And since they made the diesel engine STANDARD on the Cadillac Seville, and plus since they installed them in the Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera, a real high selling car, many of these engines sold, and that meant a large handful of problems. So, not only has GM's reputation been hurt, but the diesel engine in general is shunned by americans doe to the disaster, even though it was 20 years ago. So, americans will never want to buy diesels due to this debiacle. but, DaimlerChrysler is trying this again, with offering a diesel engine in the Jeep line. Since this is a German engineered engine, we know that is is done right, and hopefully it can heal the Delsel's fledging reputation.

I don't buy these arguments. Basically the claim is we got a bunch of crappy diesel cars almost 30 years ago so we won't buy them now. No. A huge segment of the driving population wasn't driving (or even born) then.
Again, here is my view:


Some people claim [that Americans don't like diesels] ...because we had bad experience with diesel cars in the late 70s and early 80s. I don't buy that. Too many people now wouldn't know the difference. Lots of people like diesel pickups. Personally I think its more mundane factors. First, our emissions laws haven't been very diesel friendly. That keeps a lot of the car companies from wanting to bring them over. Why put all that marketing effort into a diesel if California might get a bug up it's tail pipe and pass new emissions laws that diesels can't meet? It also didn't help that we had higher sulfur content in our gas for quite some time (now changing).
The other reasons are more economic. Diesel engine options cost a lot yet generally don't provide anything more than better mileage. While gas was cheep (and still isn't too expensive) people were happier saving the up front cost. While the new diesels are much better my impression (little first hand experience) is that they aren't really better than many of the gas offerings but for fuel economy. They are very torquy but don't rev much. I think for many people they might go too far in the other direction as compared to the ultra high reving s2000. Also, we can get that extra low end torque via more displacement which costs little in comparison to a smaller displacement motor. Why bother with a torquy 2.0L I4 when I can get a 3L V6 for less. I think when VW was offering the diesel Jetta it costs as much as the 1.8T or VR6 motor (one or the other).
Anyway, while the newest ones are smooth and quick they really aren't any smoother or quicker than most of the gas options. The engines cost more and diesel fuel costs more. It doesn't make for a very compelling case in the US. I suspect with out some major change in market forces (fuel costs, lower up front costs) diesels will never become as common as they are in Europe. Their are some arguments for them but they aren't that compelling in the US market.

Basically in my view it's a cost thing. The savings in mileage don't ofset the purchase price. I haven't seen anyone dispute that claim.

[henk4]

I don't buy these arguments. Basically the claim is we got a bunch of crappy diesel cars almost 30 years ago so we won't buy them now. No. A huge segment of the driving population wasn't driving (or even born) then.
Again, here is my view:


Basically in my view it's a cost thing. The savings in mileage don't ofset the purchase price. I haven't seen anyone dispute that claim.

Costs are blurred by taxation, so it is a price thing....I pay about 40$cents less per liter, but I pay about 450US$ per quarter as road tax (more than twice of a petrol engined similar car) There are also additional purchase taxes for diesel engined car. (and yet I drive one, because I love the easy way in which it develops performance)

[culver]

True, I should have also added my other point, it used to be the only compelling argument for a diesel was mileage. They were smelly, noisy etc. Well now they aren’t smelly, noisy etc but they also aren’t really any better than some of the large displacement gas motors we can get in the US (except for the mileage advantage). So in the US the only thing they really offer is better mileage for a higher up front cost (they also seem to be heavier than an equivalent gas motor). Again, not a very compelling case in the US.

[henk4]

True, I should have also added my other point, it used to be the only compelling argument for a diesel was mileage. They were smelly, noisy etc. Well now they aren’t smelly, noisy etc but they also aren’t really any better than some of the large displacement gas motors we can get in the US (except for the mileage advantage). So in the US the only thing they really offer is better mileage for a higher up front cost (they also seem to be heavier than an equivalent gas motor). Again, not a very compelling case in the US.

Let's see what happens now that Mercedes is going to offer its GL-SUV with a V8 diesel, with only 290 BHP but 700 Nm or torque (515 lbft?) this year in the USA.

[Ferrer]

Let's see what happens now that Mercedes is going to offer its GL-SUV with a V8 diesel, with only 290 BHP but 700 Nm or torque (515 lbft?) this year in the USA.
However it's not as performing as other applications of the same 4-litre twin turbo V8 diesel. In the E-class for instance it develops 315bhp and 730Nm (540ft-lb). Is it because of the Bluetec or because in the GL-class the engine has less performance?

[henk4]

could be the bluetec, I also read a short review in Auto Motor und Sport, and they found the car less responsive compared to the European version, although in absolute terms still good enough.

[henk4]

VW has just announced the Jetta TDi bluetec Concept Car, which will meet the Californian emission requirements.

[Prius]

Your brain might be composed of soft aluminium but that Oldsmobile-built GM V8 diesel was not, it was all iron
Well, despite what material they made it out of, it was very faulty, and would tear itself apart over time.

[henk4]

Well, despite what material they made it out of, it was very faulty, and would tear itself apart over time.

another classic case of "think before you write"

[MRR]

VW has just announced the Jetta TDi bluetec Concept Car, which will meet the Californian emission requirements.

I know I have asked this somewhere but in Europe there are separate standards for the two fuels right? Why that is not the case in the states still baffles me.

[henk4]

I know I have asked this somewhere but in Europe there are separate standards for the two fuels right? Why that is not the case in the states still baffles me.

Maybe because there virtually is only one fuel?

[MRR]

Perhaps but there still is a fair amount of petrol cars sold. Also I have heard that there is tax incentives given for diesel and hence a slightly cheaper price then petrol in Europe anyway.