News: Only 6% of Americans think diesel will succeed as powertrain option

[Frank Lee]

Well they look at E85 BTU whatever that is, then they look at regular gasoline BTU, whatever that is, and they claim some stupid schizz like E85 drops fuel economy by 30%, when in the real world, it doesn't.

[roflwaffle]

Oh sure. They're assuming there are no mechanisms such as timing advance and/or more EGR that allow the engine efficiency of something on E85 to be higher than gas even though the energy content per gallon is lower.

[Frank Lee]

Ed Zachary.

[Who]

Dave, remember back in the 70s when they first put emission controls on cars? The mileage tanked, people were ripping things out, V8s had less HP than 4 cylinders do now. Look at gas engines now. Nowadays good emissions can go hand in hand with supercar performance levels which was unthinkable back then. And on the flip side, think about just how noticeable the tailpipe fumes are around any older pre-emissions gasoline powered car.

I don't think the stricter emissions will hurt diesels. I really think it'll help them... it just might take 5 or 10 years but it's worth it for future generations.

[Formula413]

I have heard the idea of diesel hybrids tossed around before, imagine the fuel economy that setup could achieve. Maybe that would get consumers interested.

[diesel_john]

My first diesel... a '61 M-B 190D 4 spd. 30+MPG $0.16/gal. My friends laughed at me. They had 426's,427's,428's, and 429's, but no 4210's. Now, they drive hummers and light their cigars with 20 dollar bills and i drive a beat up old rabbit. i am beginning to see a pattern here.


ref#22 And E85 needs what about 12 to 1 compression to take full advantage. maybe flexfuel engines should be turbo'd so they can vary effective compression ratio.

[Formula413]

Originally Posted by diesel_john

E85 needs what about 12 to 1 compression to take full advantage. maybe flexfuel engines should be turbo'd so they can vary effective compression ratio.

Wow, I didn't know that, that's very high. Even 93 Octane would not work well (if at all) at that CR. The highest CR I have ever heard of in a production car is 11/1. Perhaps a turbocharged engine with a boost controller that would increase boost when running E85 would be the solution.

[8307c4]

The one and only reason is diesels always have and always will pollute more than gassers. Even with today's higher standards they still spew more pollutants and this is the reason why diesels are a rare breed and also why it will never change.

Everything else is speculation.

[tasdrouille]

Originally Posted by 8307c4

The one and only reason is diesels always have and always will pollute more than gassers. Even with today's higher standards they still spew more pollutants and this is the reason why diesels are a rare breed and also why it will never change.

Everything else is speculation.

That was true in the mechanical injection days. Diesels have long been way better than gassers in regards to greenhouse gasses due to the fact that they burn way leaner. With the new "clean" diesels, they're on par in regards to nox and particulates with better engine and fueling management systems, urea injection and diesel particulate filters.

[cfg83]

tasdrouille -

Originally Posted by tasdrouille

That was true in the mechanical injection days. Diesels have long been way better than gassers in regards to greenhouse gasses due to the fact that they burn way leaner. With the new "clean" diesels, they're on par in regards to nox and particulates with better engine and fueling management systems, urea injection and diesel particulate filters.

I agree that clean diesel is good, but I still want more details on the technology and emissions performance. Classical lean-burn lowers HC and CO while increasing NOx. But don't forget that enablers like low-sulfur diesel fuel only recently became available in the USA. I don't think the urea-solution has been officially approved in the states. I am holding out more hope for the Honda clean-diesel solution, especially since it sounds like it has very tight emission monitoring systems.

Reading stuff like this makes me want reassurance that today's diesel is equal to gassers on emissions :

http://www.cseindia.org/aboutus/pres...s_20040123.htm

Recent disclosures about the cancer risk from diesel fumes that our regulators, industry and buyers of diesel cars ignore

The US

* U.S. studies have concluded that diesel particulate matter is responsible for 70% - 89% of the total cancer risk caused by air pollution in the U.S. A study by Environment and Human Health Incorporated on children’s exposure to diesel particulate matter on school buses found that PM2.5 levels measured on school buses were often 5-10 times the levels recorded at monitoring sites, with the worst measurements recorded when school buses were idling to pick up and drop off children. Due to their smaller size, children breathe proportionately more air than adults – nearly 50% more per unit of body weight - further increasing their inhalation of diesel particulate matter. Because children’s organs and respiratory and immune systems are still developing, they may have increased sensitivity to diesel particulate matter. (Wargo, John, Children’s Exposure to Diesel Exhaust on School Buses, North Haven, CT: Environment and Human Health, Inc. 2002).

CarloSW2