Diesel News: POST HERE

[Off Duty]

You're paying more like $2K for the Diesel option in a similarly equipped Cruze. The fact that you can't get a lesser equipped Cruze is irrelevant to your point.

Actually, it's very relative.
The fact that you disagree, now that may be irrelevant

It's still less than a base VW Jetta TDI auto with a vinyl interior, it makes more power, it's rated 2mpg higher, and it has a much longer warranty.

While I haven't taken the time to substantiate those claims, I'll take your word for it.
Unfortunately, the Chevy doesn't have the track record the VW does.

The US companies have stepped up to the plate. They offer great diesels around the world, and have for decades.
If they don't bring them here to the US, what does that tell you?
That the R&D recoup is too high? Nope. They're long since covered with their sales in other countries, outside the US.
It's that Americans don't want diesels. It's really that simple.
Enthusiasts (like us) get all excited for them, but John Q Public doesn't buy enough of them overall to make a good business case.

Tell that to VW, where almost a quarter of their sale (by your latter figures) are Diesel.

Maybe if they actually "offered" these "great diesels" in the US, they'd sell?
If they don't offer, we'll never be able to determine the feasibility, and we'll all just continue to guess.

If the R & D truly has been recouped in overseas sales, then what do they have to lose to make the offering?

CAFE motivates manufacturers to offer diesels, hybrids, electrics, and alternative fuel vehicles.
But they may not sell well enough to have made the initial gamble without the government carrot/stick.

More like mandates, than motivates.
If they don't meet CAFE Standards, they may not be able to market their vehicles in the U.S.
Yep, that's "motivation" from a government perspective.(LOL)

And again, as previously stated, if they've already recouped their R&D cost, then why not?
Except that the vehicles they're offering in other countries, may or may not meet U.S. CAFE standards.
Thus the need for more R&D to meet our crazy standards.

The Germans and Japanese are no further ahead of the US manufacturers, they just have a little different mix of the global market to consider.

Dang dude.
Did I hit a sensitive chord or something? Almost sounds like you work for them?

Again, I'll have to beg to differ with you in your opinion.
They've been offering diesel cars to the American car buying public for decades
Hard to argue with that.

Trust me, I'd love to see the U.S. automakers get more involved in the diesel car industry.
And I don't necessarily blame them for all the problems with the higher costs.
As long as our government keeps getting involved in the auto industry, and as long a the fuel manufacturers continue to jack up the price of diesel (even though it costs less to manufacture) simply because we can use less than an equivalent amount of gasoline to do the same thing, we'll continue to be behind the curve in diesel automobiles (HD trucks excluded).

All that said, until they quit taking advantage of the diesel option and jacking up the prices, my uneducated gut feeling is, domestic diesel "cars" will not catch on as well as their truck counterparts.

As for people not wanting them, it's like anything else.
Once more and more people see the benefit of the diesel, the old stereotypes are broken, and the savings can be realized, more and more people will likely jump on the wagon.
Then again, diesel is going to have to become more "mainstream" (ie-I can get it at the corner convenience store almost anywhere), and less costly, for that to happen for mom and pop.


JMHO

 

[Kaisen]

Actually, it's very relative.
The fact that you disagree, now that may be irrelevant

Yet you don't point out that, as only one example, you can buy a basic Jetta 5 speed that gets 34 mpg for $17,515 yet the cheapest 42 mpg Jetta TDI is $23,840, where you have to pick SE trim with Convenience Pkg at minimum to get the diesel. Can we then say Volkswagen's diesel option is $6300?? And does that affect their sales? You've already answered that, a record 24% chose diesels last month (another way to look at it: 76% chose gasoline)

Apples to apples equipment, the diesel option in the Cruze adds less than $2K. Same as a VW.

Maybe if they actually "offered" these "great diesels" in the US, they'd sell?
If they don't offer, we'll never be able to determine the feasibility, and we'll all just continue to guess.

Yes, because no auto manufacturers have well-educated analysts that look at that stuff all the time, right?
If there were a business case to be made, there would be more diesels in the US, organically, without CAFE "forcing" that option

If the R & D truly has been recouped in overseas sales, then what do they have to lose to make the offering?

Incredibly expensive certification and emissions, higher warranty costs, more parts to stock, more tools, specific training, etc, etc.
But yes, again, GM (and Ford) have millions of their diesel cars all over the world that they have not chosen to sell here in the US. For a reason.

More like mandates, than motivates.
If they don't meet CAFE Standards, they may not be able to market their vehicles in the U.S.
Yep, that's "motivation" from a government perspective.(LOL)

Kind of. CAFE just states that the AVERAGE of the cars (and trucks) a manufacturer sells has to be higher than XXmpg. The manufacturers get to choose how to achieve that average. Could be electric. Could be hybrid. Could be small lightweight econoboxes. Could be diesel. ETC. ETC. No one is forcing them to sell diesels. Which is why they haven't really offered them in any great numbers. Again, it's less than 2% of the total market.

They could sell diesels at a LOSS as long as it helps with CAFE to sell higher-profit cars/trucks that people actually want. For every 46mpg Cruze Diesel Chevrolet sells, it may allow them to sell a more profitable Traverse ad still stay within the average. So if GM breaks even on each Cruze (low volume and all), they are still ahead of the game. The Volt is a great example of how this works.

Again, I'll have to beg to differ with you in your opinion.
They've been offering diesel cars to the American car buying public for decades
Hard to argue with that.

Really? What Japanese diesel car or truck has been sold here in the last decade???? Two decades???

German, yes. But only VW. Heck, even Mercedes stopped selling diesels here for awhile. BMW sells them in TEENY TINY numbers compared to their gasoline models. Audi is finally offering them, but again, in very small volumes.

All that said, until they quit taking advantage of the diesel option and jacking up the prices, my uneducated gut feeling is, domestic diesel "cars" will not catch on as well as their truck counterparts.

The Powerstroke is a $8100 option over the 6.2L
The Duramax is a $8400 option over the 6.0L
The Cummins is a $8300 option over the 5.7L

So.....sounds like the manufacturers are taking advantage of the diesel option and jacking up the prices? If they've caught on so well with the "truck counterparts" at $8100-8400, it appears that the cars are a bargain and will sell like hotcakes.

As for people not wanting them, it's like anything else.
Once more and more people see the benefit of the diesel, the old stereotypes are broken, and the savings can be realized, more and more people will likely jump on the wagon.

And what exactly are the benefits of the diesel? Seriously!
The benefits are shrinking all the time
We are now offered high-compression, direct-injection, turbocharged gasoline cars that make lots of low-end torque, last darned near forever, use cheaper fuel, don't cost as much initially, and get nearly the same fuel economy.
So won't many Americans ask, "why should I buy a diesel?"

 

[evilfij]

If you walk into a VW dealer, they point you to a gas model, you have to ask to be shown the TDIs. Many dealers do not discount at all on TDIs and VW specials are always excluding TDIs. A TDI sportwagen (like I have) is real world $3k more than a similarly equipped 2.5 gas and near on 5-6k more real world than the base 2.5 which you cannot get a TDI in base trim. It is more pronounced on the jetta and passat (VW please bring the passat wagon to the US or how about a diesel Tiguan or anything awd). The demand is there, the supply is not. Every VW TDI sells easily. Not so much for gas models. Resale is excellent. MPG is excellent at 40mpg real world mixed driving (and would be even better without the stupid DPF and urea is equally silly).

I said before the sprinter, a euro style van with a diesel would be popular. It was. I have been saying since the 90s a small SUV or pick up with a small diesel would sell well (they will). If manufacturers bring in diesel vehicles, they will sell, it is just that the .gov makes it too hard and expensive to do.

Good for Chevy on the Cruze. Put that motor in a Colorado and a small SUV next.

 

[haven]

I think the GM marketing folks had to decide what vehicles would be cross-shopped by potential Cruze diesel buyers. They apparently chose the VW Jetta and Passat diesels. So GM made sure to load up the Cruze with plenty of comfort and convenience features, and then then priced the vehicle just below the price of a diesel Jetta. Sounds like a winning combination, with one problem.

In my opinion, potential Cruze customers will cross-shop high mpg gasoline models. These days, it's not unusual to find a compact gas powered automatic that can achieve an EPA rating of 40 mpg highway. Candidates include Mazda 3, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Dodge Dart, and other high volume vehicles. These cars are reguarly discounted, making the out-the-door price difference between these models and diesels like the Cruze and Jetta even greater than $5K.

If it takes 100,000 miles for compact diesel cars to show a small advantage in total cost of ownership, why bother?

And then there are the hybrids. For a MSRP that's similar to the diesel cars, hybrids like the Toyota Prius deliver much better mpg in city driving, and similar mpg in highway driving. For example, the ubiquitous (at least in northern California) Toyota Prius is rated at 50 mpg city, 48 highway. MSRP starts at $25K, including delivery fee. Here's a second class of gasoline powered compact car with total cost of ownership that beats similar diesel vehicles.

Maybe this is why I see Prius taxi cabs everywhere. I have yet to see a Jetta diesel taxi in California.

This reasoning applies only to compact diesel cars. The larger cars and trucks offer a different set of parameters, and here diesel has a place.

 

[Off Duty]

...The demand is there, the supply is not...Resale is excellent. MPG is excellent at 40mpg real world mixed driving (and would be even better without the stupid DPF and urea is equally silly)...I have been saying since the 90s a small SUV or pick up with a small diesel would sell well (they will). If manufacturers bring in diesel vehicles, they will sell, it is just that the .gov makes it too hard and expensive to do...Good for Chevy on the Cruze. Put that motor in a Colorado and a small SUV next.

Exactly my points sir:beer:
We've been saying in the Toyota 4wd world for as long as I can recall, please send the diesels to the US!!

The problem is us (U.S.), not so much the manufacturers.
We (our government) make it too difficult and subsequently more costly, to offer them in the US

Your thoughts are spot on IMO!

I think the GM marketing folks had to decide what vehicles would be cross-shopped by potential Cruze diesel buyers. They apparently chose the VW Jetta and Passat diesels. So GM made sure to load up the Cruze with plenty of comfort and convenience features, and then then priced the vehicle just below the price of a diesel Jetta. Sounds like a winning combination, with one problem.

In my opinion, potential Cruze customers will cross-shop high mpg gasoline models. These days, it's not unusual to find a compact gas powered automatic that can achieve an EPA rating of 40 mpg highway. Candidates include Mazda 3, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Dodge Dart, and other high volume vehicles. These cars are reguarly discounted, making the out-the-door price difference between these models and diesels like the Cruze and Jetta even greater than $5K.

If it takes 100,000 miles for compact diesel cars to show a small advantage in total cost of ownership, why bother?

And then there are the hybrids. For a MSRP that's similar to the diesel cars, hybrids like the Toyota Prius deliver much better mpg in city driving, and similar mpg in highway driving. For example, the ubiquitous (at least in northern California) Toyota Prius is rated at 50 mpg city, 48 highway. MSRP starts at $25K, including delivery fee. Here's a second class of gasoline powered compact car with total cost of ownership that beats similar diesel vehicles.

Maybe this is why I see Prius taxi cabs everywhere. I have yet to see a Jetta diesel taxi in California.

This reasoning applies only to compact diesel cars. The larger cars and trucks offer a different set of parameters, and here diesel has a place.

Agreed!
Years back, when fuel was at an even more ridiculous high, NYC bought a fleet of Prius' for Taxi use.

For the cost of purchase, the additional cost of maintenance, and higher fuel cost of diesel, it still makes little sense throw the extra $$$$ at one, when a gasser can get danged near the same mileage and is cheaper over all.

 

[Off Duty]

Not trying to be an ***, I'm just curious?
Do you work for GM?
If not, you really should
(and I mean that as a compliment, not a snide insult).

Yet you don't point out that, as only one example, you can buy a basic Jetta 5 speed that gets 34 mpg for $17,515 yet the cheapest 42 mpg Jetta TDI is $23,840, where you have to pick SE trim with Convenience Pkg at minimum to get the diesel. Can we then say Volkswagen's diesel option is $6300?? And does that affect their sales? You've already answered that, a record 24% chose diesels last month (another way to look at it: 76% chose gasoline)

Those were your numbers IIRC, but yes, "we" can say that about VW, just as we can say that about GM.
Again, IMO, if diesel were made more available and less expensive, if our government would let the manufacturers dump some of the ridiculous emission crap, and drop the CAFE and EPA nonsense, then yes, if the retail was closer in line to gas, I think diesels would catch on among the average mom & pop family car buyer.

Apples to apples equipment, the diesel option in the Cruze adds less than $2K. Same as a VW.

ok.

Yes, because no auto manufacturers have well-educated analysts that look at that stuff all the time, right?
If there were a business case to be made, there would be more diesels in the US, organically, without CAFE "forcing" that option

Sure they do; however...

Incredibly expensive certification and emissions, higher warranty costs, more parts to stock, more tools, specific training, etc, etc.

But yes, again, GM (and Ford) have millions of their diesel cars all over the world that they have not chosen to sell here in the US. For a reason.

Again, refer back to the lack of EPA and CAFE nonsense we have here as compared to elsewhere in the world.

Kind of. CAFE just states that the AVERAGE of the cars (and trucks) a manufacturer sells has to be higher than XXmpg. The manufacturers get to choose how to achieve that average. Could be electric. Could be hybrid. Could be small lightweight econoboxes. Could be diesel. ETC. ETC. No one is forcing them to sell diesels. Which is why they haven't really offered them in any great numbers. Again, it's less than 2% of the total market.

I understand what CAFE is and does, and how the numbers are derived.
And again I'll go back to my original premise.
"If" the offerings were made, the prices were more in line with gassers, "if" there wasn't the higher maintenance costs, and "if" fuel costs were more realistic as compared to gas, then "maybe" there would be a larger interest?

Then again, "if" the Queen had balls, she's be the King (lol).

They could sell diesels at a LOSS as long as it helps with CAFE to sell higher-profit cars/trucks that people actually want. For every 46mpg Cruze Diesel Chevrolet sells, it may allow them to sell a more profitable Traverse ad still stay within the average. So if GM breaks even on each Cruze (low volume and all), they are still ahead of the game. The Volt is a great example of how this works.

I understand the game

Really? What Japanese diesel car or truck has been sold here in the last decade???? Two decades???

Sorry, that was my faux pas.
The Japanese have not to my knowledge, sold or imported a "New" diesel into the US, in decades. All due to the CAFE/EPA requirements, and at least for a short time, due to tariffs.
Yep, we kept out the diesels again.

German, yes. But only VW. Heck, even Mercedes stopped selling diesels here for awhile. BMW sells them in TEENY TINY numbers compared to their gasoline models. Audi is finally offering them, but again, in very small volumes.

LOL-True, but one way or another, they've had an offering for as long as I can recall.
Even the "TEENY TINY" numbers your suggest, are still sales. It's $$$ the U.S. automakers "could" be making.

The Powerstroke is a $8100 option over the 6.2L
The Duramax is a $8400 option over the 6.0L
The Cummins is a $8300 option over the 5.7L

So.....sounds like the manufacturers are taking advantage of the diesel option and jacking up the prices? If they've caught on so well with the "truck counterparts" at $8100-8400, it appears that the cars are a bargain and will sell like hotcakes.

Actually yes, we finally agree on something
I do think they're taking advantage of the diesel option
Do I agree with it? Hell no!
But as with anything else in business, it is what it is, and the options are limited.

As far as diesel cars go, not so.

I would purchase a diesel truck if I owned a business, or had a reason, to haul heavy loads on a regular basis.
The diesel option is more economical than gasoline, the engines typically last considerably longer than the gas engines under regular and heavy work loads, and the workload is more easily handled by the diesel than the gasser.

One of my companies once had a branch that hauled boats and other heavy items, cross country.
We had the opportunity to compare costs between the Duramax and Cummins, as compared to a similarly equipped 2500 gasser.

The gasser would haul the loads, but you could tell they were there, both on the road and at the pumps.
The diesels...sometimes you had to look in your mirrors to see if you forgot to attach the trailer (lol).

We could go further between fill ups, and overall, the cost of operation was less than the gasser.

That said, we can justify the cost of a diesel TRUCK over the gasser for "HD-business" use; however, I wouldn't pay the premium for a diesel "car" for personal use.

As stated, the options are limited for trucks.

For cars however, not so much.
I have a Scion that routinely get's around 30 mpg combined.
It has 4 doors, is comfortable, and relatively cheap to own and maintain.
Purchase price new with the travel condoms still on the car....$<20k pretty much fully optioned.
And I can get fuel anywhere. There are still quite a few places around here, that do not carry diesel.

And what exactly are the benefits of the diesel? Seriously!
The benefits are shrinking all the time

Seriously?
Ok, taking the statement in context, you are right, the benefits today are shrinking.
In years past, there were alternative fuel sources, that one could produce, saving a significant amount of $$$.
Not so much anymore with all the EPA crap Not mention voiding warranties.

Diesels are again, more efficient at hauling/pulling heavy loads over longer distances, and last longer than a comparable gas engine. Just a couple of advantages

We are now offered high-compression, direct-injection, turbocharged gasoline cars that make lots of low-end torque, last darned near forever, use cheaper fuel, don't cost as much initially, and get nearly the same fuel economy.
So won't many Americans ask, "why should I buy a diesel?"

Exactly my points.
Looks like we're starting to see alike.

For a "car", unless the oil companies get realistic in diesel pricing (not likely to happen), the auto industry gets their pricing comparable to a gasser, and the availability of diesel fuel compared to gasoline become closer to equal, there won't be.

As for longevity, that remains to be seen.
The average gas engine is good for around 150-200k before having to do some serious maintenance (unless those figures have increased in the last couple of years).
The average diesel starts breaking in at around those numbers (lol).
Then again, I don't really know what the cars are going to do.
I'm basing my figures off of HD trucks.

 

[Clutch]

Volt is a flop? By what measure? The Volt outsells the Toyota Sequoia. Volt outsells the Toyota Land Cruiser. Volt outsells the Honda Ridgeline. Are they all flops?

Would like a more apple to apple comparisons. How is the Volt stacked up to cars that are similar size, *energy consumption, and cost of ownership?

*From extraction, refining, storage, transporting, final consumer usage.

 

[Kaisen]

Can anyone tell us WHY a diesel engine last longer than a gasoline engine?

I'll answer that: they don't

There is simply not one single reason a diesel in a passenger car or light truck would last longer than a gasoline engine
There is nothing inherent in the diesel combustion stroke, nor diesel fuel that would help the engine last longer
In fact, if anything the higher piston forces required of the diesel stroke (compression ignition) would cause more stress on the engine

Soooo......diesel engines are typically engineered to be stronger to take those additional stresses

But what if a gasoline engine were built to the same specs? Would it not last longer than a diesel engine? Likely yes

Today's diesel engines are complex and powerful. Can you find a non-turbocharged diesel? Nope, not one.
The old conventional wisdom that diesels last longer is from low-rpm, low-power, low-stress applications like long-haul semis (18 wheelers). A modern Class 7 truck (Cummins, Mercedes, Detroit, et al) have 14.8L motors that peak out at 1800 rpm. They make the same torque-per-liter as a Duramax, Cummins, or Powerstroke.....yet almost no more horsepower, even though they are more than twice the displacement. Why? Because horsepower is simply a function of torque over time (rpm). So redlining at 2000 rpm limits the horsepower, but like a Duramax, Cummins, or Powerstroke (or most any high-compression forced-induction motor, gas or diesel) they make their peak torque at low rpm. By limiting rpm, they don't spin as many revolutions per mile, or as many times in, say, 100K miles as a typical car motor. Of course, they also have 12 speeds to choose from to utilize such a narrow powerband. That simply doesn't fly in a smaller passenger vehicle or light truck that has to also serve as a daily commuter in stop-and-go traffic.
Allow me to put on 150K miles per year cruising the freeway at a steady 65 mph and I'll make a small block GM last a couple million miles too.

Then there's the issue of cost.
IF a small block GM motor suffers a catastrophy, a new GM replacement 2007 6.0L LQ4 crate motor (complete from sump to valve covers) is $3200, shipped, no core
Just a set of stock GM injectors for a 2007 Duramax diesel is $3600, shipped, no core

What does this mean?
Let's say a Cummins, Powerstroke, or Duramax really does last 500K miles and a gasser only lasts 250K miles
Since the diesel option is $8300, I could afford to buy a new motor for the gasser, pay for more fuel, and still come out ahead over half-million miles
That's IF nothing at all goes wrong with the diesel. No turbo problems. No problems with fuels or injection components. No EGR issues.

I've owned a Cummins, two Powerstrokes, and three GM diesel trucks. I've owned diesel cars too, but that doesn't make my point.
If I compare my diesel trucks, empty, they all got 20 mpg on the freeway, +/- 2 depending on conditions.
My gassers, empty, all got about 16 mpg on the freeway, +/- 1
Diesel here in the Midwest averages $.70 per gallon more than gasoline over the course of a year
In 20,000 miles I'd use 1,000 gallons of diesel @ 20mpg
In 20,000 miles I'd use 1,250 gallons of gasoline @ 16mpg
At $3.29 for gasoline and $3.99 for diesel (what it is right now), that would be $3,990 in diesel and $4,113 in gasoline.
I'd save $123 a year going with the diesel.....how long would it take me to offset the ~$8300 initial cost? 67 years?

People buy diesel trucks for POWER, and what they think that power can do for them (tow more, haul more, etc), and fuel economy is simply a justification.

The 1/2 ton RAM Diesel will be a good bellwether. It's a $3,400 option over a 3.6L V6 8speed. The gasser gets 25 mpg freeway where the Diesel may get 30mpg (same delta as the same drivetrains in a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee). Using the same data as above, the diesel would save $30 a year in fuel. Sure, it has more torque (but less horsepower) but if you're buying it for empty fuel economy it will never pencil out.

 

[Kaisen]

Would like a more apple to apple comparisons. How is the Volt stacked up to cars that are similar size, *energy consumption, and cost of ownership?

*From extraction, refining, storage, transporting, final consumer usage.

I wouldn't even begin to go there with you. You've shared your beliefs. Your mind is closed. End of discussion.

 

[Off Duty]

Kaisen,

We're not that far off in our assertions.

I've said from the beginning, that other than HD hauling applications, I wouldn't buy a diesel. And with everything we've discussed here, I wouldn't buy a diesel car period, unless the cost going in were at or below that of the equivalent gasser.

The fact that the diesel has to work less to get the job done (vs. a gasser) is exactly why they last longer (proven time and time again). The byproduct of better fuel economy while doing so is a simply a plus.

You have a good point on the replacement costs; however, in all the years I've been following diesels, I've seen very few have to be totally replaced.

Yes, the injectors can and do go bad on occasion.
I guess it's all in what you need.

If I can get a diesel that will last 2-3+ times longer than a gasser (in an HD application that is), then I'll take the chance on the injectors.
By the way, not all injectors are that ridiculously priced, and depending on the problem, many times they can be repaired.

If I have to replace a worn out crate (or possibly 2?) in the same time frame (mileage), am I really saving that much with the gasser?

Anyway, all that aside, we just have differing viewpoints on the matter, while essentially saying the same thing.

For me, at this time, it'll be a gasser car, and if the need ever arises again, a diesel truck.
For now, anything I haul/tow, can be done effectively with a gasser truck. Not as "efficiently", but just as effectively (mostly airboats, boats up to 26', etc.).

Wishing you all the best, I'm out

 

[Kaisen]

We're not that far off in our assertions.

Agreed. I'm not addressing you specifically, more to the lurkers who will read this. No worries.

The fact that the diesel has to work less to get the job done (vs. a gasser) is exactly why they last longer (proven time and time again).

This is where we disagree in theory, although you're likely right in application.

Here's what I mean:

The energy in a gallon of gasoline is roughly 114,500 BTU/gal
The energy in a gallon of #2 diesel is roughly 128,500 BTU/gal
So diesel fuel has 11% more potential energy than gasoline

Neither gas nor diesel internal combustion engines extract 100% of that potential (turning combustion into moving force at the crank -- aka torque)
Turbodiesels typically convert about 30% and gasoline about 25% (thermal efficiency over operating range)
No matter how you slice it, a turbocharged diesel will more efficiently translate that potential energy into torque

Diesel engines work well at lower rpms, but there is no reason that modern gasoline motors won't as well
With enough torque (and enough gears), horsepower at higher rpms isn't necessary
A high-compression, direct-injected force-fed (turbocharged or supercharged) gasoline motor can make just as much torque at low rpms as a diesel motor
For example, the gasoline 2.0L Turbocharged DI 4 cylinder in the 2014 Cadillac CTS (or 2014 Malibu) makes 295 lb-ft at just 1700 rpm
Compared to the diesel 2.0L Turbocharged DI 4 cylinder in the 2014 Cruze Diesel that makes 264 lb -ft at 2600 rpm (250 lb-ft at 1700 pm)
If geared and loaded similarly, this particular gas engine could pull the same load as the diesel at just as low an rpm without having to downshift....actually better if lugged at 1700 rpm.

If used similarly in the same exact car, which engine would last longer?

There is no reason the answer wouldn't be the gas engine. Both motors would see the same forces, stresses, and temperatures. Both are DOHC, turbocharged, direct-injection motors. In fact, they are of the same basic architecture. The gasser is actually built stronger to rev higher (7,000 rpm redline).

It could work less to get the job done. But that engine and all of the choices for mapping and gearing are positioned for performance attributes first (272hp vs 138hp diesel). If it were mapped and geared instead for fuel economy, it could easily come within a couple mpg of the diesel in the same application.

My point is there is nothing inherent about an engine burns diesel that would make it last longer than the same motor burning gasoline.

 

[Clutch]

I wouldn't even begin to go there with you. You've shared your beliefs. Your mind is closed. End of discussion.

Awe c'mon...don't be a poo-poo pants

I am very open minded, but it has to make sense: Time, money, and effort.

Don't we have to look at the big picture now-a-days? Instead of just mpg's?

Cradle to grave? From the the first extraction of resources to the end of service life for both vehicle and sources of energy.

You know you dying to break out your calculator. Do it!

Defense contractor engineer friend of mine says, 91 octane is hard to beat for vehicle fuel...what does your slide rule say?

 

[Kaisen]

Cradle to grave? From the the first extraction of resources to the end of service life for both vehicle and sources of energy.

You find honest, real data from the first extraction to the pump and plug, and I'll do the rest.

Thing is, you won't find it. It's an argument you can set up either way. I've read plenty of politically biased articles that want to talk all day about how much energy it takes to make electricity and they'll even break it down to the heat resistance in the wiring......yet forget in their argument the fuel used for the supertanker to ship the crude or the fuel used by the eighteen wheeler to transport the finished gasoline from the storage tank to the filling station, etc, etc, etc.

It's also hard with electricity because it varies so much regionally, both in retail costs and source. Could be coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, biomass (trash), or any combination. Those will all have different values in your argument.

And everyone wants to compare a VOLT to an economy car like a Cruze, which is simply unfair once you've driven one. Any nicer car doesn't make sense when compared to a cheap car of similar size. If that were the only metric, no one would ever buy a BMW 3-series.

People who own VOLTs buy a lot less gasoline, and it cost most people a lot less to drive on electricity then what their gas bill on a comparable car would cost. I guess that's the allure.

 

[Clutch]

You find honest, real data from the first extraction to the pump and plug, and I'll do the rest.

Thing is, you won't find it. It's an argument you can set up either way. I've read plenty of politically biased articles that want to talk all day about how much energy it takes to make electricity and they'll even break it down to the heat resistance in the wiring......yet forget in their argument the fuel used for the supertanker to ship the crude or the fuel used by the eighteen wheeler to transport the finished gasoline from the storage tank to the filling station, etc, etc, etc.

It's also hard with electricity because it varies so much regionally, both in retail costs and source. Could be coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, biomass (trash), or any combination. Those will all have different values in your argument.

And everyone wants to compare a VOLT to an economy car like a Cruze, which is simply unfair once you've driven one. Any nicer car doesn't make sense when compared to a cheap car of similar size. If that were the only metric, no one would ever buy a BMW 3-series.

People who own VOLTs buy a lot less gasoline, and it cost most people a lot less to drive on electricity then what their gas bill on a comparable car would cost. I guess that's the allure.

No arguing here. Would really like to know...as you alluded, pretty dang hard to find the answer to. waaay beyond my fuzzy math skills.

Then add in how many jobs different energy sources provide, plus environmental impact...what is the best source of energy for humanity as whole?

 

[charlieaarons]

Turbodiesels typically convert about 30% and gasoline about 25% (thermal efficiency over operating range)
.

Nowadays the numbers are about 40% and 30% respectively.

Charlie