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

[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?

[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.