Tx Jim
Well-known Member
- Location
- Coyote Flats, Texas
I saw a TV commercial stating diesel auto's were coming back USA
- Thread starter Tx Jim
- Start date
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Hard to believe......A country so environmentally friendly as germany and there are diesel cars everywhere...... Just get inspected and emissions chectedb and act accordingly...... Wife has a kia sorento that we wouldn't be able to afford to drive if a gasoline model..... 50mpg decent size cars aren't uncommon either.
With all the extra mandated emissions equip. and controls it is driving up the costs and lowering the MPG. So a gas counterpart is still a better overall value. Same with the hybrids you don't gain enough MPG savings to offset the extra costs.
The new EPA standards coming at the end of this year are driving up the costs of an off road engine from $ 4,000 to $ 7,000 ? added to the price of a NEW engine. So the final price of a machine being built will also have to go up !
The new EPA standards coming at the end of this year are driving up the costs of an off road engine from $ 4,000 to $ 7,000 ? added to the price of a NEW engine. So the final price of a machine being built will also have to go up !
I can't understand that, a few years ago my father in law
bought a vw jetta tdi, than they couldent sell them here for a
year or two because of emmissions, My point is his jetta gets
52 miles a gallon of diesel, my brother has a Suzuki forensa
that gets 28-30 mpg on gasoline. Since the jetta goes further
on a gallon of diesel, wouldent that be less pollution than the
Suzuki??
bought a vw jetta tdi, than they couldent sell them here for a
year or two because of emmissions, My point is his jetta gets
52 miles a gallon of diesel, my brother has a Suzuki forensa
that gets 28-30 mpg on gasoline. Since the jetta goes further
on a gallon of diesel, wouldent that be less pollution than the
Suzuki??
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
The EPA is not interested in facts. Only Appearances and
votes for polititical friends
votes for polititical friends
Bryan in iowa
Member
Amen ,,,and to make sure they sustain the EPA .
There is a compact VW diesel I saw on Top Gear (BBC America) that gets 74 mpg highway. Called a Bluetec or something? Small, small car.
Hasn"t been for sale in the US, I"d guess oil companies keep those higher mpg autos out, not the EPA. I mean, isn"t western Europe even worse about enviro concerns than the U.S.?
Hasn"t been for sale in the US, I"d guess oil companies keep those higher mpg autos out, not the EPA. I mean, isn"t western Europe even worse about enviro concerns than the U.S.?
What the EPA is going on about is "particulate mater".
In yesteryear carberated gas engines were on the average of 60% efficient. That means that about 40% of the fuel run through them were turned into hydro carbons. Older diesels, non turbo were about 80% efficient but billowed lots of black smoke and put a lot of particulate matter into the air. That visual effect is what stays in the EPA's for front. They care not at all about fact but in their belief that they are saving the world. If you look at their thinking, better rail systems will save by eliminating trucks on the road meaning less need for roads that cut into the enviorment and the machines needed to build the roads....ECT....ECT...ECT!
Don't look for logic in the EPA, there isn't any!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/b...g-unavailable-biofuel.html?_r=2&ref=earth
Rick
In yesteryear carberated gas engines were on the average of 60% efficient. That means that about 40% of the fuel run through them were turned into hydro carbons. Older diesels, non turbo were about 80% efficient but billowed lots of black smoke and put a lot of particulate matter into the air. That visual effect is what stays in the EPA's for front. They care not at all about fact but in their belief that they are saving the world. If you look at their thinking, better rail systems will save by eliminating trucks on the road meaning less need for roads that cut into the enviorment and the machines needed to build the roads....ECT....ECT...ECT!
Don't look for logic in the EPA, there isn't any!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/b...g-unavailable-biofuel.html?_r=2&ref=earth
Rick
Fordfarmer
Well-known Member
There are a couple of them here in our small town. Parked by one with my F350 ex-cab long box...hid the thing. Would NOT want to be in one in an accident!!
rustyfarmall
Well-known Member
There is at least one of the current candidates that wants to get rid of the EPA. Pay attention folks.
Oldtankers efficiency figures are about double what I read-30% for gas and 40% for diesel under ideal conditions, real life more like 25% gas, 30/35% diesel. I got 48mpg on 1981 diesel rabbit, younger brother had similar vintage Ford escort with diesel and got 40 to 50 estimate- he wasn"t checking milage to gallons fillup for 2000 miles like I did. European small diesel not sold in US for various reasons and EPA rules on testing and fuel availability is a large concern. diesel Smart car gets about 80mpg in European highway tests-- but class of vehicle means that it must pass EPA tests standards that require computer controll/diagnostics on computer control shifting--which is hard to do with manual transmission-- and knock sensor/spark ignition retarding-- which is strangly enough not used on diesel, go figure. The testing procedure for over 10,000 pound trucks lets a man (or woman) in vehicle do shifting and the diesel class section measures tailpipe output directly without checking a computer for spark advance-- the demonstration Smart car diesel can pass this test easily with the new ultra low sulfur fuel that has been European standard for 5 to 10 years longer than available in US -2007/2009--- But the Smart car is not a "commercial/utility vehicle" and is under 10,000 pounds. The testing rules were in early 2011 being looked at for possible changes in allowed procedures. Particulate rules, testing procedures, general aggravating government rules mean some makers of diesel optioned car won"t suffer the aggravation for American market when they have a gas engine option available for the market-- which with $3.00/gallon gas isn"t as fuel efficient friendly as a 5.00/gallon- 1.5 Euro/liter market. RN
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Every now and again I hear whispers about small diesels in
farm & industrial equipment being too $$$ to build for use in
low priced, small equipment.manufactures are looking at the
very clean, compact, efficient and "cheap" direct injection four
stroke gassers used in ATV's, boats, snowmobiles,
motorcycles etc.
The lower cost per gallon fuel is attractive too as well as the easy cold starting
farm & industrial equipment being too $$$ to build for use in
low priced, small equipment.manufactures are looking at the
very clean, compact, efficient and "cheap" direct injection four
stroke gassers used in ATV's, boats, snowmobiles,
motorcycles etc.
The lower cost per gallon fuel is attractive too as well as the easy cold starting
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Gas engines are about 30-35% efficient. 30% of the heat in the gasoline consumed is turned into work. The rest is wasted heat. Diesel engines are 40-45% efficient or about 40% more efficient than a gas engine. Diesels can run a much leaner fuel air ratio than a gas engine which needs to stay around the 1/14 ratio. That is why it takes longer to get heat out of the heater of a diesel vehicle.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Used to be but things have changed. If comparing a carburetor low compression to a Turbo intercooled diesel running at 90% or more of max rated HP . Then sure. Now let's move 30 years ahead into the present and consider a tier IV diesel making 45 of it's potential 400HP rolling down the road. Vs a direct injection gasser running on four of eight cylinders and using variable cam timing.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
One would think so but those days are past. Today's low sulfur diesel is a highly processed fuel fuel made from high priced light sweet crude.plus refineries are charging what the home heating, military JP6, civilian Jet A-1, industrial, farm,marine and highway transportation will pay for light fuel oils.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
One would think so but those days are past. Today's low sulfur diesel is a highly processed fuel fuel made from high priced light sweet crude.plus refineries are charging what the home heating, military JP6, civilian Jet A-1, industrial, farm,marine and highway transportation will pay for light fuel oils.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Better to compare miles per barrel of light and heavy, sour and sweet crude oil.and compare miles per dollar of gasoline and miles per dollar of diesel. Refineries burn a lot of crude byproduces to provide process heat.
All them 70 to 80 mpg cars in Europe now would cost too many important people too much money. Follow the money,,,,,,,
In the AP story in the local news paper stated that one reason Ford was give'n up on the Ranger is because it's 27 mpg in a four banger was not a big enough of an improvement over the half ton's 24. For a year I have been drive'n an 82 S-10 back and forth to my night job. 2 wheel drive, long bed, V6, and a 4 speed manual that is geared low enough than unless there is a hill in front of me I take off in 2nd. I checked it on every fill up for 3 months and it averaged 22.5 mpg. 30 years worth of gizzmos, two less pistons, an extra gear and 4.5 mpg is all the over educated folks in ditroit could get out of a small pick up?
(Rant over)
Dave
Dave
In the AP story in the local news paper stated that one reason Ford was give'n up on the Ranger is because it's 27 mpg in a four banger was not a big enough of an improvement over the half ton's 24. For a year I have been drive'n an 82 S-10 back and forth to my night job. 2 wheel drive, long bed, V6, and a 4 speed manual that is geared low enough than unless there is a hill in front of me I take off in 2nd. I checked it on every fill up for 3 months and it averaged 22.5 mpg. 30 years worth of gizzmos, two less pistons, an extra gear and 4.5 mpg is all the over educated folks in ditroit could get out of a small pick up?
(Rant over)
Dave
Dave
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Pretty much my point. Huge gains in mileage are not possible. A percent, here a percent there that's about it. Aerodynamic gains have been done, radial tires, lockup torque converters and fuel injectiion. The gains have al been made in the 1980's. Thermal efficiency of the diesel is maxed out unless tier I specs are returned so the engines are not choked with filters and EGR. Gassers have picked up their last efficiency gains with the near diesel compression ratios that direct injection allows. Only way to get 70mpg is to build a diesel motorcycle with a low drag body and drive non stop at moderate speeds. Pretty much what a 70mpg Europe diesel vehicle is.
Ken Macfarlane
Well-known Member
No mpg is not related to the emissions. A weed wacker emits many times the NOx and HC's of a car.
I don't believe there is 5-6 passenger diesel car (road legal) on this planet that gets 70-80 MPG by using USA standards. I'm talking about a normal production car that a typical USA person would be willing to buy and drive. I regard those figures as pure nonsense until I see something verified.
European and Canadian gallons are bigger then USA gallons. Also, the MPG testing "driving cycle" used for European figures is different then used by the EPA in the USA.
Right now, EPA "CAFE" average standard in the USA (California) is 32 MPG. In Europe when adjusted to EPA standards - it's 45 MPG.
The world's record for fuel efficiency for a limited edition production car weighs 1800 lbs. and has a 1.2 liter 60 horse diesel. Volkswagen Lupo. It was able to achieve 78 MPGs (USA gallons) on a long highway run with one passenger. Considering a 70s Volkswagen 1.5 liter diesel Rabbit could do the same test and could get near 60 MPG, I don't see the Lupo as a huge leap in technology. And when the Rabbit was current - diesel fuel was cheap then gas - not 40-50 cents more per gallon.
I've still got two 81 Chevette diesels, two 91 Jetta diesels, and an Isuzu 4WD diesel mini-truck. But, I'm in the minority. Car companies stopped selling them because USA people were not buying them.
European and Canadian gallons are bigger then USA gallons. Also, the MPG testing "driving cycle" used for European figures is different then used by the EPA in the USA.
Right now, EPA "CAFE" average standard in the USA (California) is 32 MPG. In Europe when adjusted to EPA standards - it's 45 MPG.
The world's record for fuel efficiency for a limited edition production car weighs 1800 lbs. and has a 1.2 liter 60 horse diesel. Volkswagen Lupo. It was able to achieve 78 MPGs (USA gallons) on a long highway run with one passenger. Considering a 70s Volkswagen 1.5 liter diesel Rabbit could do the same test and could get near 60 MPG, I don't see the Lupo as a huge leap in technology. And when the Rabbit was current - diesel fuel was cheap then gas - not 40-50 cents more per gallon.
I've still got two 81 Chevette diesels, two 91 Jetta diesels, and an Isuzu 4WD diesel mini-truck. But, I'm in the minority. Car companies stopped selling them because USA people were not buying them.
Dennis (VA)
Member
GM will release a Diesel Cruz some time this summer. Should be a good engine as its been in use by Opel (GM Germany)for a number of years. The problem is not the EPA because Benz and VW have had diesel for sale in the US for the last two or three years. The problem is that Detroit believes American won"t buy diesels their experience with the GM"s 350 cu in diesel of the 70"s. Diesels are about 30% more efficent than gas engines because of the fuel and the engines much higher compression.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Not possible to be 30% more efficient unless you are posting from 1986. Lack of diesels on north American roads? It's the price to build and certify a diesel that burns more expensive fuel for only 5-10% more mileage.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
I've explained it all to you before you neither listen or weigh facts. Just how many hours are on a truck engine with 250,000 miles? Enough to wear out a 1975 gasser several times, a 2012 gasser won't even be burning oil or smoking.we are discussing highway vehicles running at 15-25% of rated power. Not a gen set, irrigation pump or marine propulsion running 90+% for 24/7.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Heavier fuel contains more carbon and doesn't burn as clean.it's like compAring LP or NG to gAsoline . When you compare gasoline to diesel.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Higher Compression ratio does not improve efficiency. A higher expansion ratio increases efficiency. That is why a LP turbine is placed after a high pressure turbine. And why reciprocating steam engines used compound cylinders. Higher compression requires more energy on the compression stroke than a low compression ratio.High compression also also imputes more heat= higher temps in the air/fuel mixture prior to ignition. Also more heat wasted into the water jackets.Variable cam timing and some other tweaks get the gasser expansion ratio higher than the compression ratio.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Higher Compression ratio does not improve efficiency. A higher expansion ratio increases efficiency. That is why a LP turbine is placed after a high pressure turbine. And why reciprocating steam engines used compound cylinders. Higher compression requires more energy on the compression stroke than a low compression ratio.High compression also also imputes more heat= higher temps in the air/fuel mixture prior to ignition. Also more heat wasted into the water jackets.Variable cam timing and some other tweaks get the gasser expansion ratio higher than the compression ratio.
I know lots of folks with a ford focus....
Yes I know that the 80 claimed here is not the same as one would get in the real world but 50ish is still much better than the 30ish folks here have to live with.
Listen'n to the talk'n heads on tv one would think we should all live like the Euro folks do. If that's true who's stop'n me from buy'n a little diesel car and why?
Dave
UK Focus
Yes I know that the 80 claimed here is not the same as one would get in the real world but 50ish is still much better than the 30ish folks here have to live with.
Listen'n to the talk'n heads on tv one would think we should all live like the Euro folks do. If that's true who's stop'n me from buy'n a little diesel car and why?
Dave
UK Focus
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Just saying for the small equipment market . Manufactures are looking at keeping the sticker price down. As the EPA keeps placing un-ending and increasing regulations on engines . As a back handed method of eliminating the internal combustion engine. The diesel will be gone before the gasser. Look at the EPA regs, used to only be HC, CO and NOX. Those limits were met so now the EPA invented the particulate and CO2 regulations. What next?
Texasmark1
Well-known Member
Not a valid comparison.
The GM auto diesel was a joke from the start and the American buying public were quick to learn of that.....I was there. Course that went along with them putting Chevrolet engines in Oldsmobiles to replace the diesels that didn't work and that brought on another salvo of customer dislike of their beloved GM. I left the brand for like 30 years and didn't return till last April. Then only reason I did then was that a Chev dealer was the closest auto dealer to my house.
Buttttt I am pleasantly surprised. After the Feds got through with them they finally put out a really nice p/u without all the sins of the past. I really like it and have found nothing I don't like about it. That's amazing.
Mark
The GM auto diesel was a joke from the start and the American buying public were quick to learn of that.....I was there. Course that went along with them putting Chevrolet engines in Oldsmobiles to replace the diesels that didn't work and that brought on another salvo of customer dislike of their beloved GM. I left the brand for like 30 years and didn't return till last April. Then only reason I did then was that a Chev dealer was the closest auto dealer to my house.
Buttttt I am pleasantly surprised. After the Feds got through with them they finally put out a really nice p/u without all the sins of the past. I really like it and have found nothing I don't like about it. That's amazing.
Mark
If anybody but VW could successfully market a small diesel in the USA, they would figure out how to deal with the EPA.
The general person who would by a Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Buick, Chrysler or Jeep passenger vehicle has the general attitude that:
1. Diesels are noisy.
2. Diesels are smelly.
3. Diesels are messy.
Figure out a way to convince the average soccer mom that they can fuel up without getting diesel stink on their expensive shoes, or having to be leered at by "icky" truck drivers, you could probably sell enough units to make getting around the EPA worth the expense.
VW owners are not average consumers, at least not in the USA. Most VW owners have a hippie mentality to some extent, and they're willing to open their minds to new concepts and actually TRY something, instead of making vague generalizations.
The general person who would by a Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Buick, Chrysler or Jeep passenger vehicle has the general attitude that:
1. Diesels are noisy.
2. Diesels are smelly.
3. Diesels are messy.
Figure out a way to convince the average soccer mom that they can fuel up without getting diesel stink on their expensive shoes, or having to be leered at by "icky" truck drivers, you could probably sell enough units to make getting around the EPA worth the expense.
VW owners are not average consumers, at least not in the USA. Most VW owners have a hippie mentality to some extent, and they're willing to open their minds to new concepts and actually TRY something, instead of making vague generalizations.
My son works with a couple of people who last year got VW's with diesels. The guy with the bug claims close to 60 and the on with the larger model is claiming around 50 MPG. But with the direct injected gassers starting to come out I don't know if that is going to be enough of a difference to justify the extra cost of fuel. We may be on the verge of gas engines being much more efficent. I know that GM has announced that they have a direct injuection gas engine about ready.
Lee Iaccoca was ask in an interview about econemy. He explained that the gains made in the very late 70's and early 80 while astounding would not be easily repeated. He explained that in that time frame that the average car lost 1500 pounds and gained fuel injuection. The only quick way to improve mileage would be to shead more weight. Then he made a comment that go carts were not street legal.
Rick
jose bagge
Well-known Member
you'll know diesels have arrived when you can buy a Duramax powered Camaro
sixtyninegmc
Member
Some character put a duramax in a fox-body mustang and took it to the Hot Rod magazine "pump gas drags". Got 38MPG getting there, then turned the tuner up and was running VERY fast 1/4 mile times for a street car, in the 10s, i think. Handling probably stunk, but cool anyway.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy