European Carmakers defend diesel to lower CO2 emissions

I agree (with TrollBait)...

Re: Automotive technology - there's some chicken and egg. What really forced lead (Pb) and later sulfur phase-out was development of catalysts/systems that could solve the emissions problems. Once you have a cost-effective technical solution, then you can be sure the autos are going to force the fuel quality to their needs. Meanwhile we are talking quite some years to replace old vehicles and reconfigure and rebuild refineries to EPA's reformulations. Not just waiving some magic wand and now we have instant fix.

 

You do realize that there is heavy overlap between the gasoline and diesel lobbies, right? There are a couple diesel only engine and commercial truck manufacturers that wouldn't be part of the larger gasoline group. There extra clout wouldn't have made much more difference when combined with the major auto and oil companies. The shipping industry and truckers' unions may had more sway, but their possible reason against tighter regulations would have been echoed by most of the public in not wanting to pay more for stuff from possible cost increases.

Most likely, the reason for not getting stricter with diesel earlier on is simple practicality. Gasoline cars formed a vast majority of the vehicle fleet. Starting out in cleaning up car exhaust, it was likely easier to start with gasoline. So beginning with them was viewed as the best place to start. Then for not messing too much with diesel was the possibility of it increasing costs for goods, and hurting the economy. Plus, Europe wasn't clamoring for cleaner diesels back then, so the R&D costs for the manufacturers would have been spread across US trucks and the few cars. Diesels didn't get avoid all regulations, and they've had two way catalytic convertors awhile.

Um, they do. The 328d might even qualify for SULEV II.
The issue is that the emission testing for those standards doesn't accurately reflect driving conditions outside the lab, and the manufacturers, of all car propulsions, can design their cars' emission operation just around those tests, i.e. the old EPA never tested a gas car with the AC on, so the manufacturers never tuned the emission controls with the AC running, and we ended up with twice the NOx emissions whenever the compressor was engaged.

Portable emission testing equipment(PEMS) recently reached a price where they could be more widely used, and it sounds like the US and Europe is considering moving to those systems for official standards. I'm a bit hesitant for the same reason that I don't like CR's fuel economy testing, repeatability and comparability. They can be used to come up with a better test cycle for emissions. At least one more representative of today's commutes, but I wouldn't be against a worse case one.

PEMS could still be used in conjunction with current test styles. Using it alone, I don't see how it would be practical once variables are considered.

 

All this about the harmful toxins via diesel ... and then the next thread will debate how fossil fuels drop in 'price' makes running on fossil fuels 'cheaper' ... because everyone knows - 'price' is all about your cost at the pump.
.

 

Wonder if wxman is sticking to his story? or time to edit!

 

Having just spent $5000 on hybrid batteries, I still prefer a straight diesel or gasoline car. Less complication is a good thing. (See my post in G3 forum.)
.

 

wow, disingenuous at best.

 

A modern diesel less complicated than an HSD ? I doubt. Double clutches, turbocharger, DPF, SCR, all things than can fail and cost as much or more than a full battery replacementent.
BTW if you had the hybrid check regularly done, you would had the G3 battery replaced for free. Try to ask a diesel carmaker to extend the warranty of its turbocharger to 10 years ...

 

I notice he doesn't own one - just look at his signature

 

Damn tapatalk not showing signatures.... Well the warranty could be extended also on G2s with at most ten years and last one year (no mileage limit) so just the first G2s sold in the first 9 months of 2004 are completly out of any battery warranty now.

 

I had surveyed the EPA lists for EVs, hybrids, and diesels (gassers need not apply.) So adopting the EU style of fuel/100 distance, I generated this chart:

• Fuel costs vary - the cost per mile follows a straight line starting at o.oo/o.oo. The EV is shown as MPGe.
• Although diesels and hybrids have similar MPG, the diesels become substantially more expensive in City driving.
• EVs and hybrids follow a similar fuel energy per mile slope. The offset makes sense as the hybrid engine has to dispose of the waste heat. In contrast, the EV has very little heat waste.

I had plotted the City and Highway MPG but realized the graph was misleading. This version is easier to explain even though they have similar groups but mirror inverted. Also, since this is EPA measured data, it is not subject to the VW cheat.

Bob Wilson

 

We don't have that battery check extended warranty in the US.

 

"The absence of a thing does not prove it does not exist." The signature space doesn't have room for every car I've ever owned: Mercedes F Cell, New Beetle, Dodge Avenger, Dodge Shadow, Plymouth Caravelle, Dodge Omni. Plus any sig longer than 5 lines is very bad netiquette.

So I decided to only list the hybrids, and to show everyone the "junk hybrids" from Honda that many Prius owners hate (john1701) actually save more gasoline than the Toyota, since they have 30-40% smaller engines.

To quote Brian Cooley of CNET: "I've done the hybrid thing." When the battery dies again, I'll try BMW 335diesel with the smooth-running I-6. Or possibly go economical with a $16,000 Focus that gets 44mpg highway
.

 

If you are comparing 2/2.5 SkyActiv with 2.2 diesel they are rated ~20% higher, which is very consistent with higher CR and higher energy content.

 

Was it in Prius or in Civic? I've heard of issues with Honda batteries.

 

Owh, the thread was about European automakers, and they fear more the competition they have in Europe where they sell ten times more diesels than in the US. Well, they say diesel is better because it's what they have to sell, because they were never able to find a way to produce a competitive non-plugin hybrid. If they had developed cola fueled cars, the would say that they were better. Indeed, in Europe the last Euro 6 diesel have increased so much in price than now they cost as mush as a gasoline with an additional CNG equipment, and because it's easy to make one (just add an OEM CNG equipment to an almost-standard gasoline car), VW has started to push heavily them in mainland Europe since last year.

 

Too bad you can't try the Diesel Civic in the US, at least last Honda 1.6 diesel engine is far better than German ones in real world mileage, competing with HSD values (which stil gives ten years old HSD3 a 10% efficency advantage, because they run with a 10% less energetic fuel).

 

Read an interesting article comparing the comparative costs of the relatively same VW car with gas and diesel engines in the EU and the US. In the EU, the diesel is cheaper to buy, in the US, the gas is cheaper by $700-2,700. Add in the increased cost of diesel fuel and the spreadsheets just didn't give the diesel answer to me in a 10 year 80k miles ownership projection.

 

Cost effectiveness is interesting thing, and when you apply it hybrids don't make much sense either. For example when you compare Prius C with Mirage, it would take 300 to 500,000miles to break even.

 

Does this quick calculation take into account values of the two used cars?

 

After 500,000mi?