Why don't more cars use diesel if it's the superior fuel?

[LS20]

dullard is a quite agreeable chap

 

[Triforceofcourage]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: dullard
...
See that logic doesn't quite make sense.

What kind of idiotic statement is that?

I posted an idiotic statement using the same "logic" as the OP. I did that to show how idiotic the OPs idea was. I even pointed out that it was an idiotic statement in my post. See the underlined portion above. Thank you for agreeing with me that the OPs logic was idiotic.

My OP was not a statement you moron, it was more of a question. Now please learn to read or STFU.

 

[zephyrprime]

nm

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: dullard
You get more miles per "gallon" using uranium. Thus, uranium must be a superior fuel. Why don't cars all use uranium?

See that logic doesn't quite make sense. Same applies to diesel. Having more energy per volume doesn't make a fuel superior. There are many other important characteristics to consider.

What kind of idiotic statement is that? Uranium isn't even remotely comparable to diesel/petrol. You are just being stupid.

1. Turn someone?s generality into an absolute. For example, if someone makes a general statement that Americans celebrate Christmas, point out that some people are Jewish and so anyone who thinks that ALL Americans celebrate Christmas is stupid. (Bonus points for accusing the person of being anti-Semitic.)

2. Turn someone?s factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with pedophiles.

3. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn?t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

4. Omit key words. For example, if someone says that people can?t eat rocks, accuse the person of being stupid for suggesting that people can?t eat. Bonus points for arguing that some people CAN eat pebbles if they try hard enough.

5. Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.

6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

7. Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.

That's briliant. Were did that come from?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: dullard
You get more miles per "gallon" using uranium. Thus, uranium must be a superior fuel. Why don't cars all use uranium?

See that logic doesn't quite make sense. Same applies to diesel. Having more energy per volume doesn't make a fuel superior. There are many other important characteristics to consider.

Even negating the additional energy content per unit volume of diesel fuel, a diesel engine is significantly more efficient than a gasoline engine. This is due partially to the much higher compression ratio and partially to the vastly lower pumping losses by virtue of diesels not having a throttle butterfly.

ZV

 

[Vic]

The problem is that the new European diesels rely heavily on modern turbochargers for power, efficiency, and cleanliness. Earlier American diesels, sold mostly during the Oil Crisis of the 70s, were either not turbocharged or they used the older, much less reliable turbochargers of the time. As such, they were mostly slow, not nearly as efficient or reliable, and downright filthy. This really turned Americans off to them. An NA diesel just plain sucks (pun intended ).
The irony here is that it was a west coast American trucking company, Consolidated Freightways, who developed turbocharging diesels with the Freightliner line of trucks so they could get their trucks up over the high mountain passes.

Diesel is the fuel of the near future. 10 years from now, most new cars will be diesels, even the hybrids. It's more efficient, it's easier to refine, and allows for more and easier alternative fuel usages. The next generation of diesels will run so much like gasoline engines, clean, quiet, smooth, and high-revving, that most drivers won't even be able to tell the difference. There will be diesel sports cars.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Vic
The problem is that the new European diesels rely heavily on modern turbochargers for power, efficiency, and cleanliness. Earlier American diesels, sold mostly during the Oil Crisis of the 70s, were either not turbocharged or they used the older, much less reliable turbochargers of the time. As such, they were mostly slow, not nearly as efficient or reliable, and downright filthy. This really turned Americans off to them. An NA diesel just plain sucks (pun intended ).
The irony here is that it was a west coast American trucking company, Consolidated Freightways, who developed turbocharging diesels with the Freightliner line of trucks so they could get their trucks up over the high mountain passes.

Diesel is the fuel of the near future. 10 years from now, most new cars will be diesels, even the hybrids. It's more efficient, it's easier to refine, and allows for more and easier alternative fuel usages. The next generation of diesels will run so much like gasoline engines, clean, quiet, smooth, and high-revving, that most drivers won't even be able to tell the difference. There will be diesel sports cars.

Europe had the same problem.
In the mid 90's my dad was anti-diesel because of its history, but modern diesels are much better, and now he won't buy anything except a diesel.
We have the additional pressure of higher fuel prices though, which the US doesn't have, so while US diesels have probably followed the same pattern as european ones in terms of improving the cleanliness and power, in the US there has been little reason to reappraise the value of diesels, since fuel prices aren't high enough for people to be that bothered by efficiency.

Also, a diesel won Le Mans IIRC. Diesels have already moved beyond sports cars and into racing cars

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Vic
There will be diesel sports cars.

Mercedes C 111-III. Averaged 14.7 mpg and 195.4 mph over a 12-hour test.

Can't wait to see what the next diesel sportscars will be like.

ZV

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: brandonbull
IMHO US automakers don't want to spend time and money retooling car building processes to switch from gas to diesel.

US automakers like to sit back and think that it's 1950 where every other industralized country had been bombed into rubble.

Que? You just drop in a Diesel motor, it's hardly a 'retool' job.

Chrysler sell the 300 in Europe with a Diesel, for example. The Voyager, the PT cruiser, the Calibur. All with Diesels.

Silly me. I guess the only difference between a gas engine a diesel one is that some silly willy wanted to call some engines gas-powered and others dieseled-powered.

:roll:

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Not really helping with our dependence on foreign oil.

You can stick almost any oil in there. Vegetable, mineral, you name it.

Hemp

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Chryso
We use a much lower grade of diesel here in the US.

Isn't diesel supposed to be a higher grade here in the U.S. by the end of the year ....or maybe its already happened. I know at a local station here they have it listed as a higher grade low sulfur diesel now.

 

[Strk]

They can't be sold in five states, which include some of our largest, so they aren't worth selling in the US for most companies.

 

[GPett]

The US produces an inferior blend of diesel fuel as for example Europe. An 05 or 06 regulation forced much tighter sulfer content in diesel. I bet the US diesel is still far worse than other countries. Diesel cars are popular and sold in many other countries. Hopefully we see a resurgence here. Volkswagon and Mercades are he only companies to sell diesel cars in the US that I know of.

Just search diesel on wikipedia they have the info.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Not really helping with our dependence on foreign oil.

You can stick almost any oil in there. Vegetable, mineral, you name it.

Hemp

That would be a waste, but would be fun if the people behind don't have recirculate on...

 

[Eli]

It's pretty much been covered.

I think the biggest issue here in the states is market perception.

 

[mercanucaribe]

American diesel pollutes a lot more. Is the low sulphur stuff out yet??

 

[MrMajestyk]

You guys in he US are denied some great Diesel cars. The BMW 330D, 530D is a truly great powerplant.

Fuel consumption figures are for Imperial gallon, which is 10% larger than US gallon.

Cylinders/valves 6/4
Capacity cc 2993
Stroke/Bore (mm) 90/84
Max output (kW/hp/rpm) 170/231/4000
Max torque (Nm/rpm) 500/1750
Fuel consumption (Imperial)
Urban (mpg) 31.7 (28.2)
Extra-urban (mpg) 55.4 (47.9)
Combined (mpg) 43.5 (38.2)

Then there's the 32OD four banger

Max output (kW/hp/rpm) 120/163/4000
Max torque (Nm/rpm) 340/2000
Fuel consumption (Imperial) Urban (mpg) 36.2(31.0)
Extra-urban (mpg) 62.8(53.3)
Combined (mpg) 49.6(42.2)

www.bmw.co.uk

For many years, we in the UK were denied diesel models of BMW, Mercedes and Audi. Although you could buy them in Europe, albeit in LHD, we could not.
All because Mercedes and BMW didn't want their marque associated with 'dirty diesels' and overcharged UK buyers for equivalent gas models compared to their European partners.
I don't think that is happening in the US, although when I visit I'm amazed at how few BMW's and Mercs you actually see. They still seem to be a 'rich man's car'. Come to London and you'll see as many Merc's as you will Nisssans. And cars are not cheap here compared to the US.

 

[Fox5]

1) Diesel doesn't really solve the bigger picture problems. Diesel gets more energy per gallon, because it consumes more oil per gallon of diesel. The gallon of fuel isn't a good measure. We should look at miles per the amount of used energy stored in the oil. In that case, diesel really isn't better. For a similar analogy: I can take $100 and split it into $20s or $10s. Yes, you could claim you get more items purchased per $20 bill (you get more miles per gallon of diesel). But, if you look at the whole picture, starting at $100 you don't get any advantage if you went to $20s or $10s. If we compared items perchased per original amount of money, it is the same. If we compare miles per stored energy in oil, they are the same.

Can you give exact values? Up until recently, I always recall that a gallon of diesel was notably cheaper than a gallon of gas. Even now, diesel typically isn't that much more expensive and it's produced at a much lower volume (so less economies of scale, theoretically) so it may win out in cost per energy anyway.

4) Diesel infrastructure isn't here. We'd have to retrofit hundreds of thousands (if not more) of gas stations to get diesel more available. Again, that means more costs tacked onto the cost of diesel.

It wouldn't happen overnight. The build up could happen slowly as more and more cars transition to diesel. Besides, switching to diesel is probably easier than switching to any other alternative, and as mentioned primes us for other alternative sources of diesel.

5) Diesel just isn't available in the quantities that we would need. You simply CAN'T make all the diesel we need from the amount of oil we have available right now. Yes, they can change the refining a bit to help, but not much. Soaring demand for diesel with relatively fixed supplies will make diesel costs soar.

Why's that? Does it depend on a limited source? Does it require far more expensive plants to produce?

The limited production of consumer vehicles using diesel in Europe does seem to imply there's a net cost advantage to using diesel.

 

[drnickriviera]

ULSD (15 ppm) has been at all the diesel pumps i've been to since early this year. IIRC Europe is still at 50 ppm and converting to 10 ppm now.

 

[91TTZ]

I think diesel-electric cars will be the way of the future. Just like trains, it'll allow the engine to rev at its most efficient range and eliminate the transmission.

 

[PingSpike]

I don't understand the infrastructure concerns. At least not on the distribution network end of things. Diesel is pumped through the same pipeline system that regular gasoline is, so thats fine. And while I see a few gas stations that lack a diesel pump exist, around here at least its just that a few. Conservatively, I say more than half, probably more than three quarters of gas stations have at least one diesel pump. And considering how many gas stations there are everywhere, thats hardly any kind of deal breaker IMO.

Diesel's problem is market perception as dirty, so much so that the nuts in my state decided they had to ban the sale of new diesel cars. To me, diesel cars will be a gateway to the acceptance of biofuels. America hates change, and biodiesel would the least painful change.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I think diesel-electric cars will be the way of the future. Just like trains, it'll allow the engine to rev at its most efficient range and eliminate the transmission.

:thumbsup:

I'd tend to agree.


I dunno though, I think we need to make some technological advancements. Is it really going to be better to operate an automobile using engine > generator > batteries > electric motor than just a single gasoline engine?

I guess with enough engineering and forethought, we could make some pretty damn efficient single-RPM diesel engines and generators... I'd be really interested to know how this panned out energy consumption wise.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Can you give exact values? Up until recently, I always recall that a gallon of diesel was notably cheaper than a gallon of gas. Even now, diesel typically isn't that much more expensive and it's produced at a much lower volume (so less economies of scale, theoretically) so it may win out in cost per energy anyway.

I believe 1 gallon of diesel needs 17% more equivalent oil than gasoline. I don't know the exact numbers for different vehicles for diesel MPG vs gas MPG, but you can bet for most vehicles it isn't so drastically high as to overcome that 17% difference. Big semis are another story though.

Why's that? Does it depend on a limited source? Does it require far more expensive plants to produce?

Oil when typically refined gives about 2 gallons of gas per gallon of diesel. That can be tweaked slightly (as neither gasoline nor diesel are pure products you can get a little diesel in the gas or a little gas in the diesel and still be ok). If we all had diesel only, what would we do with all that leftover gas? Also, our refineries are nearly maxed out now, we'd need double the volume of oil to switch to diesel. You'll really see worldwide ~2/3rds gas to ~1/3rd diesel usage in the long run for that reason. Any significant deviation would give significant cost difference between diesel and gasoline.

The limited production of consumer vehicles using diesel in Europe does seem to imply there's a net cost advantage to using diesel.

I believe diesel tax is far, far less than gas tax in Europe. Thus, there is a good reason to want a diesel vehicle there.

Diesel is nice. But to just call it outright superior is wrong.

 

[nweaver]

It's all about the turbo charging baby...

not to mention, cheap blue windshield washer fluid > NOX (might get that on my 93 Dodge this winter)

Oh, and as far as "crappy" NA diesel engines/manufacturers....that's a load of bull. Yes, GM made the crappiest diesel ever to exist, but here, we have:

1. Caterpillar....IMHO the best of the best (but not for regular cars/trucks, only AG/Construction/Big rigs
2. Cummins....Again, the reputation FAR exceeds many others. I know some folks with Cummins engines with almost a million on the clock with no significant repairs

I also know folks with trucks from the early 90's that can run 1/8th mile in low 9's@75...not too bad for an old Diesel engine.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Fox5
Can you give exact values? Up until recently, I always recall that a gallon of diesel was notably cheaper than a gallon of gas. Even now, diesel typically isn't that much more expensive and it's produced at a much lower volume (so less economies of scale, theoretically) so it may win out in cost per energy anyway.

I believe 1 gallon of diesel needs 17% more equivalent oil than gasoline. I don't know the exact numbers for different vehicles for diesel MPG vs gas MPG, but you can bet for most vehicles it isn't so drastically high as to overcome that 17% difference. Big semis are another story though.

Why's that? Does it depend on a limited source? Does it require far more expensive plants to produce?

Oil when typically refined gives about 2 gallons of gas per gallon of diesel. That can be tweaked slightly (as neither gasoline nor diesel are pure products you can get a little diesel in the gas or a little gas in the diesel and still be ok). If we all had diesel only, what would we do with all that leftover gas? Also, our refineries are nearly maxed out now, we'd need double the volume of oil to switch to diesel. You'll really see worldwide ~2/3rds gas to ~1/3rd diesel usage in the long run for that reason. Any significant deviation would give significant cost difference between diesel and gasoline.

The limited production of consumer vehicles using diesel in Europe does seem to imply there's a net cost advantage to using diesel.

I believe diesel tax is far, far less than gas tax in Europe. Thus, there is a good reason to want a diesel vehicle there.

Diesel is nice. But to just call it outright superior is wrong.

your numbers mean nothing without something to back them up...not saying you are wrong, just asking for you to document the numbers.