Average US fuel economy, getting better but still bad.

[cleanspeed1]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

A VW wagon TDI would more or less do what the 307 does - same size, similar MPG (arguably better with the more modern engines). You would need to mod it and yourself to match PW's progress though

Of course in Europe we also get the 1.6 TDI engine - my dad claims 80+ MPG (imp) in his.

We have to keep some good bits for ourselves.

VW TDI wagon, ya, but oh so, well, done. You lot and your gazillion mpg automobiles, you make me want to move.

So jealous, green with envy!

[zonker]

Originally Posted by euromodder

That's because it doesn't really make sense and doesn't hold up.

Many Euro cars are just as crash-worthy if not more so than US cars or the next Korean import.
Then there's the models that do get exported to the US.
While we mostly buy them with the smaller engines, often 2L and less, these aren't even imported in US - you get the top-of-the-range power/displacement engines, and only those.

Lets take the BMW 3 series Sedan.
It gets sold in the US, so it does meet the US crash requirements.
US : 28 mpg at best, in the 2.8i , 3L, 230 HP version
EU : 37.3 mpg , 316i 1.6L, 122 HP petrol version; and if they would let you have them, the 52.3mpg 316d 2L diesel with 116HP

Clearly, it's not really a matter of crash requirements.


Next there is the protectionist ways to keep out diesels in quite a few states, under the guise of environmental protection - while big pick-up trucks with diesels can freely be sold despite polluting far more.

Yes, there is additional NOx and soot (filtered out these days) output with diesels, so it isn't the optimal solution in the long run, but it can help solve part of the problem for the time being.

I too think we could go a long way in making things easier by standardizing goverment standards across the board, however it still would keep a number of the better diesel alternatives from reaching our shores.

our grade of diesel fuel is not as refined as the diesel sold in EU. The US has/is in the process of upgrading the quality of diesel here but so far only to a cost effective point.

Higher quality diesel means higher priced diesel, and the US trucking industry is not a happy camper with that scenario since it will price themselves uncompetitive with rail. Now you know why Warren Buffet invested heavily in rail ;-)

To allow for direct injection diesel motors to reliably work here (direct injection is the key to those wUnder-diesels), more refining and even higher cost is required. This even has to do with the quality of the crude oil itself... part of the reason Libya (higher quality crude) is more important to the welfare of EU than to the US.

Theres also the question of whether the US public would jump ship to an oil burner, due to it's lower likelihood of finding a diesel station than a gasoline one. Women find the odor nasty, and the truck stops that sell them equally so.

[zonker]

Originally Posted by Bill in Houston

it's part of our culture of fear, and imagined safety. we need giant vehicles to protect us. we need to take our kids to school because so many kids get kidnapped by strangers while walking to school. also part of our culture of spoiling kids, and wanting to hold on to them forever, rather than releasing them into the world. sigh.

Yep - if you see a couple kids walking on a sidewalk to the store, you just assume they are poor or homeless and their parents don't care for them LOL

[cleanspeed1]

Originally Posted by zonker

I too think we could go a long way in making things easier by standardizing goverment standards across the board, however it still would keep a number of the better diesel alternatives from reaching our shores.

our grade of diesel fuel is not as refined as the diesel sold in EU. The US has/is in the process of upgrading the quality of diesel here but so far only to a cost effective point.

Higher quality diesel means higher priced diesel, and the US trucking industry is not a happy camper with that scenario since it will price themselves uncompetitive with rail. Now you know why Warren Buffet invested heavily in rail ;-)

To allow for direct injection diesel motors to reliably work here (direct injection is the key to those wUnder-diesels), more refining and even higher cost is required. This even has to do with the quality of the crude oil itself... part of the reason Libya (higher quality crude) is more important to the welfare of EU than to the US.

Theres also the question of whether the US public would jump ship to an oil burner, due to it's lower likelihood of finding a diesel station than a gasoline one. Women find the odor nasty, and the truck stops that sell them equally so.

The infrastructure for automotive diesel fuel is there, just that the pricing is as such that it washes out any financial benefit of owning one right now.
The ULSD that we have here can run in the Euro and world diesels, even though it is utter garbage compared to the high cetane juice that's available everywhere else.

Oh, by the way, we have had direct injected diesels for a while now. Every diesel truck engine is direct injected, as are the car diesels from VAG, BMW and Mercedes Benz.

[zonker]

Don't the EU models run a higher pressure direct injection system with finer injection pintiles than the US export models? That was my understanding why there are stark differences between EU and US.

[cleanspeed1]

I guess you are talking about common rail direct injection. We have had that with the Duramax since 2001, the Cummins ISB since 2003, the 6.4 Powerstroke since '08.

The EU diesels have run on ULSD for a while because of the mandate for it for the last 10 years or so ( the folks overseas can give an accurate answer ), but we didn't go ULSD until 2007. Since that time, the emission compliant diesels, well the few that they will let in by the aforementioned OEMs, have been sold here.

Any of the diesels that the EU has can run here without a problem.

[zonker]

i guess i should have clarified better since there are more than one type of direct injection systems being produced. It's the piezoelectric injectors thats the new technology that has allowed for very precise metering of the more refined diesel fuel.

we do have low sulfur fuel here now (and one of the reasons why diesel is now more expensive in the US than gas), but it's still a lesser grade than that used in the EU.

The low sulfur version we have allows for common rail injection systems to work, but the real impressive packages are still kept out of reach since we don't have the really good stuff.

I just found this blurb on wikipedia...

In North America, No. 2 diesel fuel is recommended, since it has a higher cetane number than No. 1 fuel, and has lower viscosity (better ability to flow) than heavier fuel oils. Some owners in North America, where cetane levels are generally poor (as low as 40), use additives, or premium diesel, to get cetane numbers closer to the standard levels found in the European market (at least 51) where the engine is designed. Improved cetane reduces emissions while improving performance, and may increase fuel economy.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by euromodder

But does anyone really need a 6L engine - even in a pick-up ?
Over here, we put that kind of engine in trucks. Real trucks that is, lorries.

In this case, yes you do. It may be 6.2ltrs but it is also only 120-165hp depending on varient. It allows monstrosity cars to do very well in terms of FE.

Its a heavy, lumbering diesel, that is very capable of high efficiency in its lower power areas. AKA most of its power is near idle spanning through about 1800rpms.

Its CHEAP, reliable and simple. Repairs are cheap and simple.

To get a diesel as popular as gas here in the US I have no doubt that it has to be
1. As cheap as or less expensive than a gasser, (the 6.2 is less complex than most modern gassers)
2. Cheap, reliable and simple to repair (it is also this)

This motor despite its added mass was able to power heavy vehicles at roughly the same fuel economy that a VW 1.9tdi would in the same application and at under half the cost. Unlike a 1.9tdi it can run near its full throttle constantly without overheating issues (for obvious reasons) It also has no timing belts, computers, failing harnessses, fuel rail issues, etc etc.

The same was true of the 4.3 diesel and the 5.7 diesel once it was fixed up correctly.

I have always believed in the KISS principle, the 6.2 is about as simple as it gets and if GM would have pulled their heads out and offered a 3.1ltr 4 banger based on the same motor in a car I would have bought it anyday. I have no doubt my cobalt would be a 50+mpg car driven normally (not hypermiling) with such a 4 banger contraption, but it would also weigh 300lbs more while still getting better FE. (albeit slower)

The thought of a big unaero car getting around 40mpg (which is what VW's in the auto varient also seem to get) is quite impressive, even the 30mpg the 3sp autos got with these caddy's was impressive (not even lockup). All it took was the right gears.

Also these came with pollution controls optionally, I have no doubt they could be cleaned up pollution wise with the same type of mods going on for other motors. My C code motor never smoked, (except when it was 20 below)

In other words the 6.2 provides the same fuel economy a very small engine would provide, it would be cheaper to produce than a high tech smaller motor and it would allow americans to drive their dream giganto cars while still getting roughly the same FE as so called Econobox's. Since many americans won't change this would be a valid option for the folks who just absolutely must drive something big because of emotional issues all the while getting the same 30-40mpg that our economy cars seem to get..

Maybe we could wean them off 600hp motors in large vehicles if they saw the same vehicle getting 35-50% better FE at the same price point or less.

If I could fit it in my cobalt (or in the former buick) I would use the 6.2 as is with a nice 4 or 5 speed stick or column setup.

If the 6.2 gets the same FE in the same vehicles as a smaller turbo diesel why not use it? Just need to beef up the front end a bit (oddly the 6.2 is lighter than a 3.9 cummins) Having a wimpy 6.2 would also appeal to machismo, I have no doubt people would ooh over the plain displacement if they were put in our "compact" 3500lb cars.

As you can see some of the above is sarcastic but most of it is completely accurate as well. In my case my craft mobile (5sp suburban) getting 30ish loaded up is definately a welcome change. I also wonder why GM didn't offer it with the XMSN and rearend I have stock.

Many so called fuel efficient cars only get about that, Heck the FIAT 500 here is only about 35mpg, makes you wonder why 30 year old tech in large unaerodynamic vehicles can outperform modern marvels?

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by zonker

I too think we could go a long way in making things easier by standardizing goverment standards across the board

That'd be a start.
Some countries have already picked up the EURO standards - though the in-force dates vary.

our grade of diesel fuel is not as refined as the diesel sold in EU.

Which means it's more of a pollutant than it should be.

The US has/is in the process of upgrading the quality of diesel here but so far only to a cost effective point.

Diesel is marginally more expensive than gas to refine, even to the higher EU standards.

The ultimate price difference is mostly due to taxes anyway, so that shouldn't be much of a problem - if the gov't comes along to reduce pollution.

Higher quality diesel means higher priced diesel

If taxes stay the same.
It will also reduce emissions a lot.

Theres also the question of whether the US public would jump ship to an oil burner, due to it's lower likelihood of finding a diesel station than a gasoline one.

Every fuel station caries diesel over here.

The only one I've ever come across that didn't, was some backroad fuel station way up in Sweden.
Come to think of it, they had but one pump and only sold 91 octane gas - that'd be 85 octane in the US - so the bike ran rather badly.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

...Its a heavy, lumbering diesel...

In the early days of Diesel cars this is essentially what a lot of companies did - they used truck engines in large capacities in cars. Guess what ? It didn't really work out that well because they drive like, well, trucks really - which is not what most people wanted.

Nowadays a 1.2 TDI makes 70hp which is more or less what it took 2.0 litres to make in the non-turbo, indirect injection, rotary pump days of circa 1990. It also makes far better FE, lower emissions and is a lot quieter. Its also a lot better to drive for most people.

As for reliability and cheapness - yes it can cost more to fix when it does go wrong, but it goes wrong far less. If it didn't then companies wouldn't be falling over themselves to up their warranties from 1-3 years to more like 3-5 even with all that extra expensive technology on board.

I really doubt that a lumbering engine of this type, or even a reduced in size version for cars would make an attractive car for a lot of people. It would be reliable - see how many Merc 300Ds are still around going strong - but would only be something an enthusiast would seek out.

For someone looking for the benefits of a truck - lugging and pulling power, the ability to go to Mars and back reliably and speed / cost of repairs then it really is suitable.

At the same time a 3.0 DCi V6 in a Nissan pickup sold here makes > 400 lb/ft of torque as standard, matches the older engines FE, probably beats it for emissions 'cleanliness' and will drive more like a car. Stick that engine into something like a Suburban or a full size American car with the aero of a small cottage and I think it would turn more heads - same performance and probably 50% better FE. With the wonders of modern Diesels it would also be a lot less truck like in the refinement stakes too. Throw in the 7-speed auto it comes with too.

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Many so called fuel efficient cars only get about that, Heck the FIAT 500 here is only about 35mpg, makes you wonder why 30 year old tech in large unaerodynamic vehicles can outperform modern marvels?

I can't see a 500 with only 35 MPG, but the bog-standard petrol 500s have pretty old-ish engines - kind of automotive porridge to be honest, like the MINI Cooper non-S.

A 1.3 Multijet (Diesel) will make 67 combined (imp) MPG and the Twin Air (Petrol) is claimed to have 68 mpg combined - although some people question if it can do that in every day motoring.

But if someone wants to sponsor me for a year, I'll long term test a TwinAir and see if its possible for an ecomodder member