To he!! with diesel...

[Brian D.]

I know, VW TDI cars & Rabbits get great MPG...and use diesel fuel. I am just happy I don't rely on diesel fuel right now. The pricing runs neck & neck sometimes, but often enough diesel is more expensive than regular unleaded. Even if I can get 50MPG with a particular diesel vehicle, it just doesn't compare with gasoline...not at these prices. Ouch! Anyone here currently buying diesel?

[rh77]

Originally Posted by Brian D.

I know, VW TDI cars & Rabbits get great MPG...and use diesel fuel. I am just happy I don't rely on diesel fuel right now. The pricing runs neck & neck sometimes, but often enough diesel is more expensive than regular unleaded. Even if I can get 50MPG with a particular diesel vehicle, it just doesn't compare with gasoline...not at these prices. Ouch! Anyone here currently buying diesel?

I'm not buying D now, but I support the EPA's Clean Diesel Initiative. I think it's a piece of the complex puzzle that's going to have to occur to resolve our fuel issues. Bio-Diesel can replace Ethanol, and have LOTS, I literally mean TONS less emissions. Check out the link, there's a good video on there that describes what's happening.


RH77

[GasSavers_Brock]

Well until the cost of diesel hits 1.5 times the cost of gasoline it's still cheaper to run. Heck our Sienna van gets 25 mpg and the VW TDI gets 60 mpg. So between the two of them gasoline would have to be twice the price. What really matters in the end is the cost per mile of the fuel. Although I admit I often burn soy bio diesel which has a slightly lower energy content rating then straight D2.

[cfg83]

Hello -

I'm less interested in the cost of the fuel versus the maintainability of the diesel engine and the "dirty diesel" fuel itself that is sold in the USA. If Honda's new diesel is as clean as it says it is, that's great, but it needs to stay clean over the life of the car, with or without good maintenance. I don't think you can assume that a diesel will be well-maintained by the owner. It needs to be mostly worry free like a conventional gasoline engine :

...
"We say 'go for it' once they can meet California's standards" and provide in-car monitoring systems to ensure that the vehicles continue to run clean as the engines age, said Patricia Monahan, a Berkeley-based senior analyst for diesel issues for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
...

From :

http://www.latimes.com/business/prin...032,full.story

CarloSW2

[omgwtfbyobbq]

At current prices, gas has to get down to ~$2, with diesel at $2.55, for there to be no gain by using diesel. While I've seen diesel that's ~20-30 cents more expensive than gas, I've never actually seen it cheaper per BTU, even with all the jumps and drops the two have done around each other. If you're in CA we're already using USLD fuel.

And it's a huge coincidence that we're finally seeing the equivalent the equivalent of catalytic converters on diesel passenger cars after new semi trucks finally had mandatory emissions requirements.

[Rstb88]

The newer deisels are going to be cleaner because their going to run off USLD and low soot engine oil. theres no sch thing as dirty deisel any whoo its the oil that burns that is dirty not the fuel itself. And by age she means the condition of the engine. If you want to complain about something complaion about all the old cars that get aweful gassmilage but not even this much attention. But i do agree about maintain ability, if a deisel runs out completely you have to take it to a technician to fix and i don't like the sound of that $$. This is the only good thing (in my opinion) that has come out of the government this year.

[GasSavers_Brock]

I was just going to say ULSD, ultra low sulfur diesel, is just about completely across the US now (suppose to be complete by Jan 07), which greatly reduces emissions compared to what our old stinky 500pmm sulfur diesel was. The situation is very similar to when gasoline finally got the lead out of gasoline. And yes now they can add much better emission equipment without all the sulfur to clog it up. Some people have suggested this is why diesel is more expensive now, with all the refineries passing the upgrading modifications on to the diesel consumer.

BUT if I burn soy bio-diesel I have better emissions then almost all of the gasoline burning vehicles out there.

[Lug_Nut]

Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq

And it's a huge coincidence that we're finally seeing the equivalent of catalytic converters on diesel passenger cars after new semi trucks finally had mandatory emissions requirements.

Finally? They've been in use on North American light duty passenger diesels since 1996. EGR was introduced for the NA market even earlier. Perhaps not all the medium duty or other EPA exempt diesel trucks since 96 have had cats and EGR, but the diesel cars have had them.
My 1996 TDI was both EPA and CARB compliant when manufactured. Requirements are stricter now. As a result, like a 1996 gasoline powered car, it doesn't meet the present stricter standards required of new vehicles.
What's annoying is that once it was sold it has not been tested for continued emission compliance, not even to the more lenient standards in effect in 1996. My diesel isn't smog checked, just a smoke opacity test. Since I run on B100 biodiesel even that is not detectable by the check devices.

[Sludgy]

Diesel is about 30 cents higher per gallon than regular gas around here. Diesel was cheaper than gas for years, but the new ULSD requirement squashed that.

Just another reason for me to hate my F350 Powerstroke.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by Lug_Nut

Finally? They've been in use on North American light duty passenger diesels since 1996.

The urea/ammonia systems to take care of NOx? They've just popped up in PRs. Aside from that, all diesels have had is soot reduction and EGR to reduce NOx, no comprehensive system comparable to the catalytic converter in gasoline vehicles. It's been a trade off between NOx and PM, with no comprehensive active testing for passenger vehicles that I know of, either nothing, or opacity testing.

In terms of heavy diesels, iirc carriers/manufacturers had the option of getting tax breaks or something like that for purchasing/retrofitting their equipment with basic diesel emissions systems as early as 2001, and it was just recently (2004) that they cut NMHC + NOx to a third of what it was, and in 2007, emissions levels will have to be a sixth of the 2004 levels.

The point being, now that heavy duty diesel manufacturers have to comply with stringent emissions standards, any potential pressure for auto manufacturers to not investigate comprehensive emissions systems is gone. If we had come out with emissions equipment comparable to the catalytic converter for diesels say, ten years ago, then aside from the financial aspect, manufacturers would've had no reason not to use the emissions equipment, so in that context, given how small a market light duty diesels were for auto manufacturers, research into comprehensive emissions systems was probably discouraged. It's interesting that only after heavy duty diesel emissions mandates were on paper in the US, did we see any comprehensive emissions system for diesels.