Diesel News: POST HERE

[Balzer]

I have a hard time talking about diesels without getting a chip on my shoulder about it.

Here is my story and my oppinion.

I worked driving truck before during and after the ultra low sulfer change. Driving the same truck the whole time.

I would also like to note that we got fuel from a large tank at our shop and that it changed from regular diesel to ULSD in 3 deliveries of fuel so very close to an instant change.

Before ULSD:
My truck had plenty of power (if there was such a thing I would say more than it needed)
My truck got consistant 8-9 MPG
My truck NEVER blew out black smoke (or any other color smoke for that matter)
I was happy with my truck

After ULSD
My truck stuggled up hills and felt sluggish (if I had to guess I would say 30-40% power loss) *yea seriously that bad*
My truck dropped to a solid 4 MPG no matter what, loaded,empty.drive hard, take it easy.
My truck smoked like an old coal train (cool to watch I guess)
I was unhappy with my truck.

Atthe time I worked 6 days on 3 days off and this change happened in about 27 to 30 days

In my oppinion the ULSD change was a money making scam bigger than the gasoline scam in the 70's (change from high compression to low compression)

years ago I had a 6.2L diesel chevy blazer I got mid to high 20'sMPG ( could sneak into the very low 30's when I tried)
A friend of mine bought a new powerstroke ford in 06 it got 13 MPG the whole time he owned it.

The other day just for kicks I test drove a 2011 GMC duramax. It was VERY impressive. But the claimed MPG was still far lower than I feel it should be.

Sorry this isnt new info and is simply my oppinion, but I lost a ton of intrest in diesels when ULSD came out and then the price of diesel quickly went above the price of gasoline. And even more so when diesels started getting ADD ON emission equipment.

I had auto/diesel class in school and I know the fundementals of a diesel engine as follows. Diesel is ignighted by compression. the sooner it reaches ignition the less fuel is required and the more completely it burns and produces more power.

My wish is that everyone speaks up and tells "the man" that we are not going to fall for your bull**** anymore. Give back real diesel, build diesels that run properly, and shove your emissions equipment up your back side.

Sad fact is that is not going to happen any time soon and those of us that "know better" will have to suffer with the fabricated facts they throw at us and take it in the rear when buying the stuff we want.

RANT OFF:

 

[Balzer]

Sorry I cant leave this alone now that i am thinking about it. just a few more things i have to point out.

1 you cant kill yourself due to poision by sitting in your garage with your diesel engine running. *true after a few days you will run out of oxygen*

2 a properly running/tuned diesel engine SHOULD NOT need after the fact emissions equipment it should run clean by todays standards.

3 these MPG numbers are rediculous people get excited about mid 30's to low 40's when its common knowlage that many cars from 10-15 years ago where getting 50's and 60's. Some examples are VW rabbit diesels and some of the ford escort based diesels.

4 diesel started out as a byproduct of gasoline, but is now more refined/processed than gasoline

5 volcano eruptions put out more pollution than humans by a huge amount every day

6 Emissions equipment is a huge money making gimmik. We have the know how to build better engines that dont require after the fact emissions equipment that robs power and MPG. They can build engines with more power and run cleaner without the extra crap thrown on the end.

 

[haven]

Remember two weeks ago, a new MPG record was set for a gas powered vehicle that drove 9000 miles around USA? That trip in a stock 2012 Chevrolet Cruze Eco sedan averaged 64.42 mpg. http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/08/aussie-hypermilers-set-mileage-record/

Now a team driving a 2011 Kia Optima hybrid has set a new standard. Driving for 8000 miles, the vehicle averaged 64.55 mpg. http://green.autoblog.com/2011/09/13/wayne-gerdes-hypermiles-2011-kia-optima-hybrid-to-guinness-recor/

That's still not as good as the 67.9 mpg recorded on a similar trip in 2009 in a VW Jetta turbodiesel. http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/hypermiling/

 

[SSF556]

PSA Beware of bio diesel....it will ruin your fuel economy.

 

[Bill Beers]

PSA Beware of bio diesel....it will ruin your fuel economy.

I don't know about ruin, but bio-diesel has about 11% less energy per unit volume than petroleum diesel, so it will never have as good a fuel economy.

 

[jeepdreamer]

I just don't understand all the bio-hate? Maybe Dino diesel has more power than currently produced (I'd like numbers though) bio does but isn't it somewhat cleaner burning? Doesn't it's nature generally leave far less deposits I'n one's engine than patrolium? And wouldn't bio from alge harvested from solar tubes be a double win (fuel AND electricity)? And if we could get out from under the yolk of OPEC's whims of price increase, would it even matter if we got less mpg if the fuel (bio) cost less than half??? Sure... It has it's own bugs to work out, namely cold weather applications.But if scientists and engineers can split an atom i hardly think that a fuel fix is impossible! And unlike electric or alternative fuels, one can basically use current diesel technology to run it,now!! No new car needed if you already owna diesel! At worst maybe some new bio-friendly fuel line and some new filters..! I just don't understand.

 

[overlander]

i personally look forward to my first algae based fillup!

We need a real energy policy now!

 

[doug720]

i personally look forward to my first algae based fillup!

We need a real energy policy now!

I agree on a real energy policy. But the reality is, we will be paying the same energy companies for algae juice, bean oil, or what ever it may be in the future, that we pay now for gas and diesel! With the same high prices too I bet!

The energy companies that control oil will control the new technology too. BP, Chevron, Exxon for vehicles. Edison, PGE, SoCal Gas for your homes and buildings for solar, wind and geo thermal. Ever wonder why all the big solar sites are in the middle of nowhere? They can't charge if it's on your private property.

In future, big business will control energy just like they do now.

Doug

 

[overlander]

I disagree. It will be much easier to force transparency in production cost with global energy companies than with OPEC now. New energy policy can progressively function just like automotive safety regulations, mandating a gradual change over time by saying something like "if you want to do business here, then you have to hit x% of your available supplies to market with these specific alternative fuels, which must be priced within X% of your petroleum based products AND they must be made to X standards of quality." Real energy policy can also do the opposite by giving future shrinking targets by stating that for example in 5 years, petroleum products must decrease to X% of your total sales or volume. This forces energy company to make up revenue differences with alternative fuels, which would also force them to invest in production and distribution to lower their unit cost so that revenues can make up the difference to equal what petroleum made in the past without regulation.

Smart regulation and policy CAN make this happen. We just lack comprehensive industry and federal standards to jump start this. It's like the federal government is sitting back and withholding policy hoping the markets will define which alternative energy sources will naturally jump ahead of others, before placing policy bets on it. It's NOT going to happen. Doing the same thing with energy is going to be cheaper for sometime then making a change. I'm for smaller government, but energy policy is one of the exceptions where the fed needs to step in and take leadership to move us in a new direction!

Just to be clear, I trust Exxon-Mobil and BP (yes BP!) MORE than I trust OPEC because the petroleum companies have a longer term interest in our consumption patterns and share more mutual interest with American energy consumers. OPEC is solely interested in selling us petroleum for as long as possible til the well is dry, and using their money to party like rock stars when that well does go dry, and enjoying their geothermal and solar goodlife that we funded with our petroleum dependency. If you don't think Arab states are going after alternatives to petroleum based energy, you're mistaken. They know what the future looks like, and theirs is so bright they have to wear shades.

 

[doug720]

"Just to be clear, I trust Exxon-Mobil and BP (yes BP!) MORE than I trust OPEC because the petroleum companies have a longer term interest in our consumption patterns and share more mutual interest with American energy consumers."

I to trust the oil companies more than OPEC, but not by much! My wife was in management of a Major oil company, (Guess which one by my Home Town?), and I'm not so sure "we" are their main interest as much as we offer a way to make great amounts of profits.

Pay attention to whats happening on the downstream (distribution and retail sales) side of the oil companies. All are getting out of this side of the business. No more oil company owned stations selling fuel, or trucks delivering the fuel to stations. No profit there, lots of regulations and liability.

Exxon just shut down a major refinery in the Eastern US "So it can be sold", Chevron is thinking of closing their Richmond refinery. This is done to restrict refinery capacity and create artificial shortages and drive up prices and profits. It works, every refinery hiccup results in higher prices at the pump, wait as the oil companies shrink refinery capacity in the coming years.

Oil companies want to (Do!) control the up stream side of oil, exploration and refining of oil. Lots of huge profits on that side and much of the profit is made outside of US government control.

All I was saying before was, we ill continue to pay the same companies we now pay, to drive in the future.

Doug

 

[Pskhaat]

OPEC is solely interested in selling us petroleum for as long as possible til the well is dry, and using their money to party like rock stars when that well does go dry, and enjoying their geothermal and solar goodlife that we funded with our petroleum dependency. If you don't think Arab states are going after alternatives to petroleum based energy, you're mistaken. They know what the future looks like, and theirs is so bright they have to wear shades.

Couldn't have said that better. They have a limited (though in great volume) resource that they're selling off and re-investing to ensure they themselves are not dependent on it.

We on the other hand play a 1950s strategy of ensuring we deplete other country's resources prior to out own as a safety strategy. I don't disagree with that approach but yeah, I'm not seeing the thought leadership with our private enterprises to solve the future problem. Don't you think the oil producing countries know how to report reserves at the precise metric to perfectly discourage investment for future value in alternative energy investment in other countries?

 

[overlander]

And let's not forget that a REAL energy policy would spur the most feasible alternative fuels into production in a scale that would get them beyond breakeven, which would provide more competition to petroleum energy and the companies that control/exploit them. That alone would not only force the oil companies into investing into those alternatives just to stay competitive, but would also give consumers choice on which energy source to use, which gives the consumer a vote at the pump.

And good for oil companies divesting themselves of their distribution network. That makes the independent gas stations and distribution hubs the customer of the refineries, and also means that end consumers like us have more weight with those station owners.

 

[Pskhaat]

I believe the most fair way is for net-metering and electricity as the means for energy. It has an existing distribution network and for the most part can be easily generated by consumers in commercial needs. There is indeed transmission loss, but I'm not convinced it is any more than the real cost of liquid/gas fuel infrastructure funding (roads, tax money, trucking, &c, pipelines, right-of-way). This still allows for both consumer and producer generation based upon the most fair cost models that we have today. Surely we'll figure out some way to mess that up.

I as a consumer may choose to generate my own via solar or via fuel, whatever, I can then choose to purchase the energy from the grid or provide back to the grid as a producer. Pie in the sky and 1990s thinking maybe, but it really makes so much sense.

Our big problem is that we cannot fully sustain the energy growth which is required to grow our economies. (You can easily correlate the drop in the Dow by the rise on retail gasoline prices; note 2008 & 2011) An interesting narrative on this problem can be read here: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ where even with full efficiency we still cannot solve our energy consumption issues.

 

[haven]

The Detroit News sent a reporter to Europe to drive the current version of the Chevy Cruze with 2.0L diesel. 600 miles later, a 42 mpg average. That's the same mpg as the Chevy Cruze Eco gasoline model sold in USA. Hopefully, the version coming to USA will get extra fuel saving goodies, like auto stop-start (no engine idling at a traffic light).

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/10/11/chevy-cruze-diesel-1-tank-8-countries-587-miles-42-mpg/

 

[theMec]

The diesel Cruze 42 mpg is for the trip. The US's gas model is 42 mpg highway.

Autoblog Green sent a reporter to Europe to drive the current version of the Chevy Cruze with 2.0L diesel. 600 miles later, a 42 mpg average. That's the same mpg as the Chevy Cruze Eco gasoline model sold in USA. Hopefully, the version coming to USA will get extra fuel saving goodies, like auto stop-start (no engine idling at a traffic light).

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/10/11/chevy-cruze-diesel-1-tank-8-countries-587-miles-42-mpg/