I have said this same thing multiple times on this board. For decades, pickup trucks went above and beyond their call of duty with 150-200 hp. Even less than that in many cases. Now, everyone complains when their 300 some odd horse v-8 has to downshift pulling 12,000 pounds up donner pass. It's a shift in the way the American public views necessity. But, as an automaker you have no choice but to provide what the general public demands. Or you won't sell trucks. A handfull of people saying "we don't need ridiculous horsepower and the dismal fuel mileage it brings" arent going to change production policies when 90% of the buying public is screaming for more power. Things will eventually change. But for now, it's fun. Nothin like hauling the boat behind a hotrod!

 

i think they big 3 have secret meeting on who will will out the other on the year... fords on top this years with best hp,,, next it will be chevy then followed buy dodge.. is it just me or is there a trend here?

 

Volkswagen Lupo 83 mpg; two other models that have slightly larger displacement get fuel economy in the seventies; and many VW competitors get fuel economy in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. These, of course, are in Europe and these little bits of useful information about diesels--such as great fuel economy--are hidden from the American public--not sure why! Unlike HCCI, these cars are already in production by the millions. Keep in mind, these cars are not hybrids. Diesels can be used with hybrid technology. If you seriously look into it, you'll see that today's diesel technology is far superior to any technology that is on the road in mass quantity today. HCCI is not in production, and HCCI can be used with diesel engines or gas engines as can most technologies for ICEs. Comparing HCCI with diesels is like comparing gas-electric hybrids to diesels. You're adding a technology to one engine-type and comparing that to diesels as a stand alone.

As far as emissions, there are only two regulated emissions that diesels do worse than gas or propane vehicles. They are nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). ULSD fuel and particulate traps will solve the PM problem in 2007, so this leaves NOx as the only problem emission for diesels. NOx's contribution to smog has been questioned in many studies--most notably--"the weekend effect". NOx is a tough one for diesel technology to crack. It is by-product of efficient combustion. Diesels generally pollute less hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) than gasoline engines; and, because diesels usually sip less fuel, emit less carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air which may be linked to global warming. Still, our EPA, and many stubborn Americans that remember the diesels of yesteryear, have a bias against diesels.

Oh yeah, diesel engines can accept 100% biodiesel in the tank without any engine modifications, and unlike flexible-fuel vehicles which are designed to accept 0%-85% ethanol in a gas-powered engine; biodiesel only slightly reduces the fuel economy of the vehicle. Go to fueleconomy.gov and see how horrible a Dodge Ram and a Ford F150 FFV does burning 85% ethanol. Its about a 40% fuel economy reduction. Biodiesel comes from various plants and fryer oil; lubricates diesel engines better than petro-diesel; drastically reduces emissions--except for NOx; and, best of all, its not shipped to us from Arab countries.

Our biggest opportunity to reduce petroleum today and at the same time improve performance is with diesel engines combined with biodiesel. If HCCI used with gas engines get in to production, and are a better choice than diesels using HCCI, then we should switch to HCCI with gas. We have to start making a difference now. Diesels are ready for "now".

I'm getting 43 mpg in my new Jetta TDI. It gets better fuel economy than tiny sub-compact gas burners that are 1,300 lbs lighter. It can run on 100% American-grown biodiesel and still get 40 mpg. It has only 100 horsepower, but it has 184 lbs of torque. That's as much torque as the new Chevy Colorado 2.8 liter, 4 cylinder. Mine is only a 1.9. The Volkswagens are still using 2nd generation diesel technology, and their not even common rail. If we had diesels in 1/2 ton trucks, the advantage would be even greater, because as utility increases, so does the advantage. That's why there are no gas-powered semi trucks.

 

^Good post there^

My Mum has a 2.0l TDI VW Golf with 6 speed manual
Has 135hp and 240lbft - thing moves, when the turbo is on boost, not many non performance cars will catch it.
And with my Mum driving it gets 62mpg (40mile commute both ways).
With me driving (wearing my lead boots) it gets around 45mpg.

 

Yeah. The Aussies can get the newer designed 2.0 TDI PD in the Golf and their version of the Jetta. Its a much stronger engine that gets about 5 mpg less. I'm assuming the 62 mpg are imperial numbers. We used to get the 2.0 in America in the Passat, but it was discontinued for 2006, because global demand is outstripping their current production capacity for that engine. They dropped America first, because the current anti-diesel regulation and the lack of knowledge in the U.S. market about superior diesel technology, make it very hard to operate sales here. However, Volkswagen remains comitted to selling diesels in the U.S., and has been the only auto maker to continue offerings since the mid-80's.

Daimler Chrysler and Volkswagen staunchly support diesel cars for America and they feel this "hybrid craze" is unnecessary. Diesels are cheaper, less complicated, are proven technology, provide 30% fuel economy gains and higher for all applications, including city driving, hwy driving, towing, hauling, and working without reducing payload. Diesel technology is growing leaps and bounds above gas-engine technology, since it is not as far along on its technological life cycle.

I'm not knocking hybrid technology. It certainly has opportunity, especially for city driving, but diesels can be applied to every vehicle type for every application. Over 50% of new car sales in Europe are diesels, and the percentage grows every year. People over there love them. People over here that have them, love them. Most Americans, however, are shielded from this information. Its as if the EPA and the oil companies have a conspiracy to keep average fuel economy around 20 mpg. Just look how much more power and how much more an compact car weighs as compared to 1985.

 

The 62mpg was in US gallons - my Mum has a featherfoot, and its commute is at its peak efficiency point (pretty much a constant 50mph).

I personally agree with most of what you state there - however I don't believe that diesels are as suited for city driving, my reasoning is that the fuel economy advantage that they get at cruising is significantly diminished (to the point of being erradicated) in city driving, and thier particulate emissions make them far worse for a condensed environment.

 

Particulate emissions will be nearly eliminated in the U.S.--2007 with ULSD fuel and particulate traps. My TDI lists @ 36 mpg in the city, just 5 less than its hwy rating which is comparable to city/hwy spread in a gasoline-powered vehicle. In fact, the Toyota Corolla which has the highest U.S. fuel economy for a non-hybrid, gasser gets 41 on the hwy, but only 32 city. So my Jetta, which weighs 650 lbs more gets 4 more miles per gallon in the city and has 60 more lbs of torque @ 2500 fewer revolutions per minute. This advantage would increase drastically for 1/2 ton trucks and SUVs. So far, I've been getting about 43--city/hwy mix.

NOx; our political and regulatory environment opposing them; and our public's lack of knowledge about today's diesels are really the only hurdles left for America.

 

I agree with your position on the horsepower wars and that diesel engines pose a lot of advantages over gasoline engines. However, you seem in imply that using on of your proposed engine in a 1/2 ton pickup isn't going to have a dramatice effect on the price of the vehicle. I don't agree.

What do you estimate the price difference would be? And, yes, M-B makes this great performing diesel. But I think you'll find it will be a whole lot more than the "extra red cent" that you mention.

Something else to consider, with the high prices for the diesel available now, what do you think the price for the ultra low sulfur diesel will be?

I think from a marketing stand point, high performance diesels in a 1/2 ton pickup is a dead end.

 

Diesels cost more. My VW costs about $1,020 more than the gas model with the same features, however, the premium for diesels built by diesel engine manufaturers in the U.S.--such as Cummins--can be as high as $5,100. The "Big Three" can source the less expensive diesels from Europe that they currently use over there for panel vans and such. Some of those engines are actually built in the United States. The premium would probably be around $2,500. It would take twelve years or so to pay off, so, economically, it doesn't make sense.

We spend thousands more than just a few years ago for mandated safety features on autos. We spend up to a thousand more to meet strict EPA emissions standards. We spend hundreds more for the sophisticated gasoline engines that get the most possible horsepower per liter. But auto makers can build a car or pickup that gets only two miles per gallon and its legal. No one says a word about spending more for these "all important" features, but, at some point, we're going to have to start focusing on fuel economy. Diesel power is the least expensive current technology for making change that is out there.

Its funny to me that a car company can build a model with a standard engine, then offer a sportier engine option with more horsepower. Even if that sportier option is thousands more, it will sell like hotcakes. When you mention spending more for electric-hybrid technology or diesels that could save America millions of barrels of oil per year and, at the same time, last longer and have better torque; then most people are turned off.

We are paying for the ULSD now, and have been for a while. The refineries had to start retooling some time ago to meet the deadline in the Summer of '06. Diesel fuel has a twenty-two cent federal tax on it, plus most states tax it heavier than gasoline. Diesel fuel cost is subjected to pure supply and demand market fluctuations more so than gasoline which the federal government uses its influences to keep the prices low. If you watch the price of diesel over a couple of year period, you will notice that it is sometimes cheaper than regular gasoline and, at other times, more expensive than premium. This is normal for most commodities. Plywood and lumber may fluctuate 300% in one year, but relatively speaking, gasoline stays pretty constant. Diesel fuel is cheaper to refine than gasoline, even the ULSD will be cheaper in the long run.

 

89 300 -S6:

Interesting points you make here, most of which I agree entirely with.

In my opinion, so many of the problems you note here are due to marketing decisions by the major automakers. Obviously, they will push the models that yield the most profit, not ones that are the most efficient.