GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This just makes too much sense to be used here. Remember, diesel is evil and has too much pollution (sarcastic). Yes, and using this engine as a range extender makes even less sense. When are we going to get serious in this country about reducing our petroleum use? Maybe now that the price of oil is coming back down it's time to go back to sleep.





http://www.gizmag.com/vw-golf-bluemotion-concept-car-delivers-74-mpg/9972/
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
968 Posts
Texas: "Remember, diesel is evil and has too much pollution (sarcastic)."

It's hard to see what you're getting at. Diesel is what it is. The high compression ratio made possible by the fuel and ignition method makes the engine more efficient. The higher density of the fuel means it has a higher heat content.

On the other hand, it's really difficult to make a really clean diesel as far as traditional pollutants and particulate measurements go and the higher density of the fuel suggests it contains more Carbon and, therefore, makes more CO2 per volume unit of fuel consumed.

Hybrids and EVs can more readily reduce CO2 emissions, keep traditional pollutants low and reduce oil consumption (wind, solar and nuke don't contribute any CO2 or use any oil at all).

Compared to the Prius, this is a really small car. Good fuel economy but at a price.

Also, I understand the European test yields higher MPG figures than the US test, generally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
This just makes too much sense to be used here. Remember, diesel is evil and has too much pollution (sarcastic). Yes, and using this engine as a range extender makes even less sense. When are we going to get serious in this country about reducing our petroleum use? Maybe now that the price of oil is coming back down it's time to go back to sleep.





http://www.gizmag.com/vw-golf-bluemotion-concept-car-delivers-74-mpg/9972/
The pollution problem only makes a diesel more expensive in some of the biggest markets in the US (CARB states), not unattainable. Expense is really one of the killers for this... the fuel is more expensive, which reduces the payoff potential of diesels here, the engines are more expensive due to tighter tolerances and high-pressure fuel systems, the emissions controls are more expensive and complex, and EVERYONE reports mileage on the Euro cycle and crows "lookit how much better mileage they get!" Granted, this car would probably return close to 60 mpg on an EPA cycle, but that's not 74...

Diesels make sense for people whose driving is largely highway. They're certainly not bad in town, but hybrids have an advantage in stop-and-go. All-electric or EREV is even better in urban environments. It's a really tough sell to combine the two at current gas prices, because you're combining the more-expensive diesel powerplant with a more-expensive electric hybrid system, so you end up with a really expensive vehicle that gets good fuel mileage. That's tough to sell.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Well, I for one believe we don't see diesels on our roads because of reasons not really related to pollution. Do you really think all of Europe is suffering because they are using their advanced diesel engines? Why would the government subsidize SUVs so much but not tiny efficient diesel cars? Hummmm. The percentage of our petroleum imports grows every year and is at an insane 70% but there was no real force to move to small cars. No gasoline tax like in Europe that would force people to drive small cars. Doesn't that seem a bit strange? Almost crazy? Seems like we had a different agenda. That agenda did not include reducing our use of oil imports from OPEC, I can tell you that. I guess that is what I was talking about when I said it makes too much sense to use a high technology diesel that gets 74 mpg (or 60 mpg - still better than the Prius) by saying it produces too much pollution.

Let me ask you guys this - which car would produce more pollution a huge SUV running gasoline or this car? How about this diesel option in the Volt? How much pollution would this Volt produce compared to a F150 pickup? Then repeat those questions but replace pollution with petroleum.

Next let's talk about the cost of the diesel engine itself. We are talking a few thousand dollars more at most. Say an average driver drives 10,000 miles per year for 5 years. That gives you at least 20 more miles per gallon (this number is adjusted for the premium cost of the diesel minus the extra energy it produces per gallon) and that gives you around $10,000 extra to play with (gas at $4 per gallon). So the price premium of the diesel over a ICE is quickly repaid. We are talking about much less pollution and less petroleum used for those 50,000 miles.

If everyone drove this diesel car we would not need OPEC. I know you are saying you need that massive SUV but how badly do you really need it? We all didn't need them 30 years ago. Europeans don't need them today! Only Americans need them. Funny huh? When you figure we have to have all of our troops out there ready to secure our oil sources you would think our citizens and our government would be smarter. The reality is that this is all very well planned out. It's not coincidence that we are such good friends with the Saudi's and that the US dollar is needed to purchase the world's oil. No coincidence at all. Think about it. Now do you see my sarcasm? Now do you see what I'm getting at that it makes too much sense? How ironic it is that we allow hummers on the road with one driver but not this car, even though it will produce multiple times less pollution and petroleum usage? No? Nothing strange here folks? Just move on? Hardly!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Texas, you can refuse to see anything you want, that's fine, but don't pretend your sarcasm is subtle.

I've lived in a city in Europe (Milano) and there is indeed a problem with particulate emissions from diesels. This is not an insurmountable problem, there is current technology to fix it, and there are 50-state diesel cars in the pipeline (the VW TDIs for one.) This isn't free, however. The VW diesels offer decent performance and make a great all-around car that's competitive with other cars in their class, and VW needs to do something to improve their sales here so they're offering the TDIs where they have an edge. The TDIs sold in the US are higher displacement than this engine and produce more hp and torque.

I am not arguing that Americans NEED the hp and acceleration they crave, I just want to point out that they do crave it, to the point of being irrational about it. *I* drive a car that's quicker than it needs to be, and I quite like it. The fuel mileage is only tolerable (upper 20s) but then when I bought it, Super was less than $2/gallon.

European companies put more effort into diesel cars because a) fuel prices there have been historically high and b) tax structures there have kept diesel significantly cheaper than gasoline. American companies ruined the diesel market here for several generations by producing absolute junk, and it was inexcusable. My dad was a diesel mechanic... he bought a used Mercedes 240d over a bigger American (GM) diesel car because the GM diesel was a poor design, and no one in the US wanted to touch diesels for a long time after that. Technology has marched on, but the stigma of those awful 5.7l diesels still clings to diesels in the minds of many Americans 25 years after most of them were scrapped.

Diesel and gasoline come from the same barrel of oil, in varying percentages. (How much of which fuel you get depends on the refining technique, but either way you get a mix of products.) If everyone started driving only diesels in the US, the price of diesel would go up even farther, and it's already above the price of gasoline in most places here. While philosophically we need to get off "foreign oil," what really drives most people is money. Converting the entire US fleet to diesel would drive up the price of diesel, then people would be saying "Hey, gasoline is cheaper, this 40-mpg gasoline car will cost me less to operate than this 50 mpg diesel..." and someone will post a new conspiracy theory. (And before you start, I know the bluemotion car gets more than 50 mpg, probably would even on the EPA cycle, but I think it would be a hard sell to most American buyers who'd buy the quicker TDI and put more diesel in it.)

Now, biodiesel is another issue in the long term. There have been some recent advances in designer microbes to make biodiesel from all sorts of biomass crud that are promising, but still need development. There's at least one company doing very interesting work with algae, using it to capture CO2 from fossil-fuels processes and then converting the resulting algae sludge to fuels... again, it needs development for large-scale commercial use.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have diesel options, I'm just saying they're not the be-all, end-all solution any more than the Volt is. We need a shotgun approach.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Texas, you can refuse to see anything you want, that's fine, but don't pretend your sarcasm is subtle.

I've lived in a city in Europe (Milano) and there is indeed a problem with particulate emissions from diesels. This is not an insurmountable problem, there is current technology to fix it, and there are 50-state diesel cars in the pipeline (the VW TDIs for one.) This isn't free, however. The VW diesels offer decent performance and make a great all-around car that's competitive with other cars in their class, and VW needs to do something to improve their sales here so they're offering the TDIs where they have an edge. The TDIs sold in the US are higher displacement than this engine and produce more hp and torque.

I am not arguing that Americans NEED the hp and acceleration they crave, I just want to point out that they do crave it, to the point of being irrational about it. *I* drive a car that's quicker than it needs to be, and I quite like it. The fuel mileage is only tolerable (upper 20s) but then when I bought it, Super was less than $2/gallon.

European companies put more effort into diesel cars because a) fuel prices there have been historically high and b) tax structures there have kept diesel significantly cheaper than gasoline. American companies ruined the diesel market here for several generations by producing absolute junk, and it was inexcusable. My dad was a diesel mechanic... he bought a used Mercedes 240d over a bigger American (GM) diesel car because the GM diesel was a poor design, and no one in the US wanted to touch diesels for a long time after that. Technology has marched on, but the stigma of those awful 5.7l diesels still clings to diesels in the minds of many Americans 25 years after most of them were scrapped.

Diesel and gasoline come from the same barrel of oil, in varying percentages. (How much of which fuel you get depends on the refining technique, but either way you get a mix of products.) If everyone started driving only diesels in the US, the price of diesel would go up even farther, and it's already above the price of gasoline in most places here. While philosophically we need to get off "foreign oil," what really drives most people is money. Converting the entire US fleet to diesel would drive up the price of diesel, then people would be saying "Hey, gasoline is cheaper, this 40-mpg gasoline car will cost me less to operate than this 50 mpg diesel..." and someone will post a new conspiracy theory. (And before you start, I know the bluemotion car gets more than 50 mpg, probably would even on the EPA cycle, but I think it would be a hard sell to most American buyers who'd buy the quicker TDI and put more diesel in it.)

Now, biodiesel is another issue in the long term. There have been some recent advances in designer microbes to make biodiesel from all sorts of biomass crud that are promising, but still need development. There's at least one company doing very interesting work with algae, using it to capture CO2 from fossil-fuels processes and then converting the resulting algae sludge to fuels... again, it needs development for large-scale commercial use.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have diesel options, I'm just saying they're not the be-all, end-all solution any more than the Volt is. We need a shotgun approach.




I'm not trying to be subtle. I'm throwing this though a plate glass window! lol. Now what exactly am I refusing to see? I believe my eyes are wide open. Are yours?

I think you may have confused my hypothetical example (everyone running the same identical car) for what I think is practical. Of course nobody would actually suggest everyone could or would drive the same car (that would require the decree of a dictator). Additionally, if you read any of my previous posts you would know that I'm all for the shotgun approach and have actually used that word many times.

The point that I failed to make with you is that our country currently does not allow advanced diesel engines (that are allowed all over the world) on our roads, even for tiny cars, but does allow hummers to run free. They claim it's for the pollution but it's proven that this advanced diesel engine will produce far less pollution and use far less petroleum than a hummer or SUV. Do you argue with that fact? I mean isn't it the plan of the US to get off of imported oil because of all the problems? Or to reduce our pollution?

My sarcasm results because it's obvious (to me) that there must be a different plan or agenda. Otherwise, how could such an error be continued for so long and with such strong government support?

Let's get our heads out of the past. New diesel technology is not the same as that of the diesel rabbit back in the 80's. The noise, smell, pollution problems have long been corrected. Anyone who is anyone knows this. Surely this technology should be at least one pellet in the shotgun shell. No?

You are right. I didn't even get into the biodiesel topic. That is coming because it will be needed for our trucks and heavy equipment if we are serious about getting off of petroleum. We are not likely to see electric semi trucks on the roads in massive numbers during the next ten years (unless EEscam really does have a product). However, this is a different topic. I'm talking just straight diesel use. Even without talking about the benefits of running biodiesel the argument remains strong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
812 Posts
After the 70s oil shocks reducing our oil consumption WAS a national priority... until the next Republican president got elected. All efficiency standards and consumption goals out the window! Yeehaw, the market is flooded with cheap oil so it's our patriotic duty to burn it up as fast as possible! What's good for Exxon is good for America! It's trickle-down economics you see, if a few very wealthy people up top get even MORE wealthy then that wealth will somehow trickle down into the economy and all will be well. A very convenient theory.

On another note, are there really diesel engines that pollute less than gasoline? Are they cheap and widely available?
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
On another note, are there really diesel engines that pollute less than gasoline? Are they cheap and widely available?



Of course! The engine mentioned above will generate multiple times less pollution per mile than a Hummer. Yet the Hummer is allowed on the roads but not this car. Can you all see the irony now?!!!!!

Heck, I would bet that a diesel Hummer (using the same bluetech technology) produces less pollution per mile than the gasoline Hummer does. It will also use less petroleum per mile.

Here is another thought about using as much petroleum as we can. Wouldn't it be smart to first build up some countries that have massive amounts of oil resources by buying their oil and eventually draining them dry? They would then have huge and hungry populations but no money or non-oil infrastructure to support their country. They would then become financially beholden to others and thus under foreign control. Didn't the USSR go down over an oil strategy? Hummm. Makes me wonder. Also, wouldn't having huge energy resources make a country a threat in the future? A county with no resources cannot be much of a threat should war break out. Germany was forced to make oil out of coal. The lack of energy really hurt them in the end. You can run a huge military machine with the amount of oil stored under the Middle East, for example. Hummmm. Maybe this "use other's oil and not ours" strategy has long-term benefits.

Maybe the US could easily become completely energy independent. However, how could we have such deep political influence and thus exert control over global policies if it were not for oil and the petrol dollar? Can we have such influence by holding back iPods? I don't think so. There are so many conspiracy theories out there but you have to ask yourself how could we allow ourselves to become so dependent on foreign oil. To get to 70 percent of our petroleum use having to be imported by unstable and unfriendly nations? I mean do people really think our nation has been run by monkeys for the last 40 years? If you look at the point when oil is no longer needed you can see the entire Middle East reverting back to medieval times. Do they have anything to fall back on? What about all the other major oil producing nations? Since America has massive amounts of solar and wind resources as well as enormous reserves of coal and shale, that puts us in a good light (pun intended). Throw in advanced nuclear (soon fusion) technology and you have to admit that the US is in a great global position for the foreseeable future. All because the world's petroleum resources are being used up. So don't be surprised if the next president gets on TV and says we are back! Get out there and buy a Hummer! Hit the roads and see our beautiful country. Burn baby burn.

It sure will be interesting to see how the world looks in 50 years. What about all those countries with little or no renewable resources? Will they become nuclear nations like France? Convert their lands to growing biofuels? Have agreements with other nations to buy fuel, much like Japan does today?

Japan is a great example of what can be done with little natural resources but they had to put in a lot of effort to make it work. What happens to them when energy is not as cheap and plentiful as oil and NG are today? Will they cover Okinawa with solar panels? Run underwater turbines like Taiwan is planning? Have massive floating solar farms? Who knows! I'm sure they will come up with something. However, it will be very hard to compete with technically advanced nations, like the US that have unbelievable amounts of solar, wind and arable land masses. Maybe the Middle East will become electricity or hydrogen exporters in the future. Do we want them to have that control again? I doubt it. However, who knows! They have massive amounts of solar resources as well. I can imagine a future where solar rich nations are producing liquid hydrogen (or methane, etc.) for solar poor nations. Same meal different day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Of course! The engine mentioned above will generate multiple times less pollution per mile than a Hummer. Yet the Hummer is allowed on the roads but not this car. Can you all see the irony now?!!!!!

Heck, I would bet that a diesel Hummer (using the same bluetech technology) produces less pollution per mile than the gasoline Hummer does. It will also use less petroleum per mile.
Just to nit-pick a little. The VW above does not use Bluetec technology it is termed BlueMotion. Bluetec is a different implementation and is developed by Mercedes Benz. BlueTec achieves clean emissions standard, in part, due to a urea system which is significantly expensive.

BlueMotion does not use a urea based system to reduce emissions and particulates but uses other filters and common fuel rail technology. It is significantly cheapers and can be produced at a premium of a few thousand dollars over a traditional gasoline engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
812 Posts
Texas, do you really think many of these oil-exporting nations are planning ahead? A bunch of OPEC nations went on a spending spree with the latest upswing in oil prices and now they're worried about the prices dropping. If they can't plan a few months ahead of time I don't think they're even considering a future without oil wealth. Russia is different I think. I expect they're thinking very strategically about their oil and natural gas wealth. Watch out for those guys, Europe.

I think you're underestimating our dependence on petroleum products. The US has vast solar and wind resources but that is no substitute for oil. The ENTIRE transportation system relies on oil, as well as industrial agriculture. You know the vast fields of corn covering the midwest? The soil is so depleted that without petroleum derived fertilizers nothing will grow. A bunch of solar electricity and a few electric cars is not going to save us I'm afraid.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Texas, do you really think many of these oil-exporting nations are planning ahead? A bunch of OPEC nations went on a spending spree with the latest upswing in oil prices and now they're worried about the prices dropping. If they can't plan a few months ahead of time I don't think they're even considering a future without oil wealth. Russia is different I think. I expect they're thinking very strategically about their oil and natural gas wealth. Watch out for those guys, Europe.

I think you're underestimating our dependence on petroleum products. The US has vast solar and wind resources but that is no substitute for oil. The ENTIRE transportation system relies on oil, as well as industrial agriculture. You know the vast fields of corn covering the midwest? The soil is so depleted that without petroleum derived fertilizers nothing will grow. A bunch of solar electricity and a few electric cars is not going to save us I'm afraid.




No, they are not planning ahead. That was my point! Only Dubai is being very smart and building tourism infrastructure. They are probably one of the smartest countries right now. Absolutely brilliant use of the money they are making with a long-term view on their future. If only we had 100th as much vision. Germany, Japan, and a few other countries are also really looking ahead and they will be handsomely rewarded. Yes, Russia has a lot going for them, if they can clean up the corruption. They have extremely bright people with a culture of high education. They should be fine, eventually.

No, I'm not underestimating our dependence on oil. It's will eventually kill us if we don't transition at the right time - when the draining of all the other countries reserves is completed. I just don't think we are doing what we are doing by accident. We could not be screwing up so badly for over 40 years. Even Carter knew way back then that we needed to develop alternative energy sources for the eventual transition. We have been working on it and those trees are beginning to bare fruit.

Oh! You believe our solar and wind resources are not up to replacing oil? I disagree. Don't forget we also have oil and coal reserves that can be used to generate critical petrochemicals like the fertilizers you mentioned until we can develop suitable alternative (from algae, etc. as well as directly from sun generated hydrogen).

Also, let's put things in perspective. People say we should be energy independent (and I agree that the long-term benefits of that will be hard to beat) but many of our current competitors are even more dependent on others for their energy needs. Japan anyone? They have nothing! No land, no resources, no oil and gas (OK, they do have some but only a tiny fraction of what they consume). They are doing fine right now. However, they will be hurting as the price of oil continues to rise. Why are they doing so well? Because they really get a lot of bang for their energy buck. They have worked hard on their efficiency and their citizens use about 1/4 as much energy per person than Americans use. Since oil is still very cheap for the amount of energy it gives, countries like Japan can still add enough value to their products to make a nice living. Japan for example is not in debt like we are. I think our biggest problem is that we were once an oil exporter and after we reached peak it has been all downhill from there. Same with the Soviets, only they got pinched by the price of oil going down - Thanks to our Saudi friends.

See how things are not always as they seem? How complex the word of energy really is? How integrated and intertwined everyone is? It's quite fascinating actually.

So, now that the world energy production has reached peak or at least plateau, it’s now time for the transition to the next energy sources. If we don't we will be in economic stagnation until we do. You can see that today. Still 85 million barrels a day and OPEC (minus their leader Saudi Arabia) has decided to cut production. This is a step back for the global economy. We have begun our recession and must all learn to live within our flat global energy production (or now decreasing - a virtual peak oil situation because of OPECs reductions) until other sources of energy can be brought on-line in significant quantities. I'm guessing around 10 years or so of stagnation. Only a blink of the eye in the history of man.

Even though I think we should have been working much harder on this transition it really could not have gotten the political backing until the masses really started to feel the pain of the stagnating global petroleum supply. We sure felt that this summer! The public got terrified and clinched so tightly that demand retracted so fast that it almost brought down the US economy. Due to the fact that we have not been planning for this (who really knew when it was going to hit - OK guys like Amory Lovins, Matt Simmons, etc. have been screaming for years or even decades) we have to spend that much more time in the pain box. You can pay me now or pay me later type of situation.

We could have used a good 10 or 20 more years to develop the much needed electrical energy storage systems or biofuels technologies but that's the way the cards fell. The brains behind the curtain probably had no idea that global oil production would peek this soon. If they did, they would have pushed for more efficient use of our energy until suitable transition technologies were far enough along. But hey! Here we are. It's time to get to work, unless you all enjoy economic stagnation. The only economic growth we are going to see for a while is though energy efficiency gains. These are much slower and costly than the global energy increases we have been enjoying since the first oil well was tapped. Now the real work has begun. No more asking Mother Nature for more out of her purse. We now have to learn to shop more carefully with an allowance that is not only going to hold steady for a long time but may actually begin to decrease.
No fun! It's the same feeling as not getting a raise in your paycheck next year. It's even worse if the price of everything continues to go up (if energy production begins to decrease - due to physical limitations or because of OPEC or other problems).

The only way to increase our allowance now is to start generating our own. Time to go out and earn our own living! Time to farm the sun, harness the wind, cultivate the land (biofuels), etc. It's going to be hard at first but we will get better and better and our allowance will slowly start to grow and eventually far exceed what our wonderful and generous Mother Earth has been providing. We will also feel better about ourselves, I imagine. Isn't it better to earn it ourselves then to be dependent on handouts? Sure it does. Let's find that out for ourselves! It's time to grow up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
812 Posts
Dubai and planning ahead in the same sentence? It's a carbon copy of Las Vegas only with much cheaper labour to build it up. It's a freaking metropolis in the middle of a hot desert, completely designed around the personal automobile. They have no public transit to speak of in Dubai. What are their water resources like? What will they do in a time of global economic recession when suddenly only a very select few tycoons can even afford to take a vacation there?

And Japan is totally screwed, they'll be incapable of providing pensions for their elderly in the near future. That's something for another thread.

Anyway, I hope your prognosis is closer to reality than mine. I have a much more pessimistic view of the future. :(
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Dubai and planning ahead in the same sentence? It's a carbon copy of Las Vegas only with much cheaper labour to build it up. It's a freaking metropolis in the middle of a hot desert, completely designed around the personal automobile. They have no public transit to speak of in Dubai. What are their water resources like? What will they do in a time of global economic recession when suddenly only a very select few tycoons can even afford to take a vacation there?

And Japan is totally screwed, they'll be incapable of providing pensions for their elderly in the near future. That's something for another thread.

Anyway, I hope your prognosis is closer to reality than mine. I have a much more pessimistic view of the future. :(


lol! I guess your view is a bit more pessimistic than mine. Not that you are wrong. You might well be correct! If we don't come up with a good alternative to jet fuel most of the international travel we take for granted will be lost. With it the revenue streams of many countries and even our beloved Hawaii. It sure does not look good.

However! I'm guessing that this recession time will "only" last about 10 to 15 years. Dubai will eventually be run on solar energy. They have almost unlimited solar resources for their needs. That will supply all of their electric transport as well as the power to produce clean water.

With the recent news of efficient hydrolysis possibly coming to a store near you in that 10 year time-frame, it might be possible to have that hydrogen economy after all. No, not for cars, but for solar energy storage, production of clean water, airliner fuel, etc. Cars will simply be BEVs.

So, while I share some of your pessimistic views for the short-term, I see us turning it around as soon as the technologies become available and the production volumes are ramped up. Yes, it will take a long time and it could be really hard for many nations but after that things might be quite exciting. Of course if we really screw up and resort to nuclear war then all bets are off. Lord of the Rings comes to mind. Anyway, it's just too depressing not to be positive! We are here and have to live though it so we might as well make the best of it. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,544 Posts
Texas-

Why don't you write a letter to Volkswagen and ask them why they don't sell this car here. There is no law that says they can't, it just has to meet a standard set of requirements and they can sell it, diesel or not. It is their choice to sell it here or not. It's not the government's, not the oil company's and it's not the consumer's, it's Volkswagen's choice. Ask them. No big conspiracy, just to date, Volkswagen chooses not to sell it here.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Texas-

Why don't you write a letter to Volkswagen and ask them why they don't sell this car here. There is no law that says they can't, it just has to meet a standard set of requirements and they can sell it, diesel or not. It is their choice to sell it here or not. It's not the government's, not the oil company's and it's not the consumer's, it's Volkswagen's choice. Ask them. No big conspiracy, just to date, Volkswagen chooses not to sell it here.




They won't do it for the same reason Ford won't sell it's 64 mpg diesel Fiesta:

"Ford Motor in Europe has designed the Fiesta ECOnetic car that gets an astonishing 65 miles to the gallon. However, Ford America does not plan to manufacturer or sell the car in the United States because it runs on diesel.

Ford America President, Mark Fields, says, "We know it's an awesome vehicle, but there are business reasons why we can't sell it in the U.S."

Only 3 percent of cars in the U.S. run on diesel, while nearly half the cars sold in Europe last year do run on diesel.

Ford fears that the Fiesta ECOnetic car would be too pricey to import and doesn't believe the company could charge enough to profit off of the gas-sipping car.

The 2009 Fiesta ECOnetic car goes on sale in Europe this November and will sell for between $12,000 and $18,000 U.S. dollars."


http://www.wkyt.com/news/headlines/28255219.html



You see, the diesel standards have too strict for car companies to comply with for so long in America that the diesel car market is now very tiny. Now that the engines are very good and can comply with the strict emission standards it will take a lot of time, money and effort to build the market. Don't expect the government to help out, even though they will reduce emissions and our use of petroleum. Don't you find that strange? I do. I think we will see a trickle of diesels coming to the market in the next few years. I guess we will just have to wait and see how they do. The advantages of these new clean engines are:

1) They can last upwards of a million miles. This is due to their rugged design needed to handle the higher compressions.

2) More thermally efficient than gas engines around 45% compared to 30%.

3) Diesel has a higher energy content per gallon and thus requires a smaller tank.

4) Produces much higher torques at lower speeds and thus can use a smaller displacement to get acceptable performance.

5) Can run biodiesel and biodiesel blends. With a small amount of modification you can run restaurant grease in them. Algae may also proved to be a great source of biodiesel.


Well, there you go. The US diesel car fleet stands at 3% while Europe stands at 50%. If I had my druthers I would only allow biofuels to be burned in both gasoline and diesel engines because of the pollution both give off. However, petroleum based diesel is going to be around for a long time for trucks and heavy equipment. It would be smart for our government to encourage these new technology engines to be run in small cars and hybrids. The diesel has come a long way baby. How about we open our arms and help them help us. Due to the fact that the engine of a hybrid is used much less, the economics of using a more expensive diesel would have to be looked at but they just might work out, especially for something like a hybrid pickup truck.

Thus, I'm asking the government to not be so hard on the diesel if it's use is going to help us out. Don't keep upping the standard so that the engines are unable to keep up and assure manufactures that we do want to help get these super high mileage engines on our streets. The diesel engine should not be treated like the bastard stepchild anymore! Let's welcome them home to help with our family problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
A day in infamy

Have to agree with Texas here. Except, "druthers" ??? Eh ?? Try harder pardner for a better word. Fear not the CO2. It's in the beer, so it has to be good...... Hard to get Lonestar Pencil Necks here in the Golden State. :)
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top