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

Via Green Car Congress:

According to the latest Kelley Blue Book Marketing Research study, only six percent of new-car shoppers in the US think diesel is most likely to succeed in becoming a mainstream vehicle powertrain type, compared to 40% identifying hybrids, 20% picking hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and 17% citing flexible-fuel systems.

Oh. My.

If this is in any way representative of the true state of things, we're in bigger trouble than I would have guessed. More people said hydrogen fuel cells would be more prominent?!

When asked about their perceptions of diesel engines, nearly half of the in-market new-vehicle shoppers say that diesels are dirty and noisy. In addition, the latest study shows that shoppers increasingly believe that diesel-powered vehicles get poorer fuel mileage than conventional gasoline engines, and fewer consumers are seeing diesels as fuel-efficient.

That's frankly amazing. Did none of the survey respondants have any contact with Europeans at all? :eek:

Interest in diesels is steadily declining among in-market new-vehicle shoppers, while interest in hybrids continues to grow. The gap between shoppers’ interest in diesels versus hybrids has greatly widened particularly in the last month, with the nine-point gap in December 2007 jumping to a 17-point gap in January 2008.

Full article: Survey: US New-Car Shoppers Do Not See Diesels as a Likely Mainstream Powertrain

MetroMPG -

I used to think that diesel was only about 20% of European sales, but it's probably at least 50% by now :

Diesel Auto Sales Trending to Exceed Gasoline in Europe in 2006 - 30 January 2006
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006..._auto_sal.html
Once auto-companies start offering "clean diesel" solutions in the USA, I think the awareness will go up.

CarloSW2

You're right on that. If/when Honda offers its diesel Accord in the North American market, attitudes will start changing in a hurry.

I'm still astonished by the lack of awareness on basic drivetrain issues, however. (Assuming the survey is representative.)

Diesel is such a great means of powering a car. I think that the only reasons that Americans believe otherwise is due to the reason why many Americans believe many of the things they do, because it's how the media portrays it. In my experience, many people see diesel as being very dirty and very inefficient because of what they see on many of today's diesel applications, those being in the commercial world on large trucks which are always covered in soot and bellow out black clouds. What many people don't see are things like the Audi Le Mans series race cars that are turbo diesels that have won their class every time since their introduction and things like Johnathan Goodwin are doing, doubling their gas millage while tripling their performance.

In other news, roughly 6% of Americans have bothered to use their brains in the last year... :(

US citizens talking to europeans? I think not...

An interesting display of the percentage of people informed by advertisements versus the amount of people informed by information. However, the results are pitiful enough that I think it's fair to say regardless of what people think it'l likely end up some other way. :p

After two years of doing hydrogen fuel cell work for my university, producing them for an internship at a machine shop, and observing a senior project based on the hydrogen fueling station in Montpelier, VT, I can honestly say we are a long ways from using them in cars for the consumer. I can't believe people honestly think this is a viable solution. It just seems like a way for oil companies to funnel the governments money into dead end technology instead of grabbing the low-hanging fruit.

I see you've figured out it's a zero sum game...
http://op-for.com/mr%20burns.jpg

Balance in all things, Grasshopper.

I like to think of myself as being smarter than the average bear on the subject of diesels. My first job out of high school in 1969 was at a factory that made diesel-electric locomotives. I've driven a diesel vehicle continuously since 1983.

That said, I am not a bit sanguine about diesels ever doing well in the US.

Two reasons drive that opinion.

First it US regulatory excess. The EPA's Tier II requirement for diesels is considerably more stringent the the Euro 5 spec used across the pond. Under current technological constraints meeting Tier II requires EGR, a barrier filter and in some cases selective noncatalytic reduction.

Any engine subjected to these will not get very good MPG and it will suffer from poor reliability. Already the diesels avaialble on three-quarter ton and up pickup trucks are in trouble. The EGRs cause reduced engine efficiency and excessive cylinder pressures resulting in cylinder head gasket failures. The barrier filter undermines efficiency in two ways. First of all, any barrier filter imposes back pressure and increases pumping power requirements on the engine. It is like running with an exhaust brake constantly on. Secondly the filter occasionally has to "regenerate." This means an auxiliary burner comes on and oxidizes the captured graphite into carbon dioxide. That entials even more fuel burn.

Now M-B is going to import their "Blue-Tec" technology into the US. To make this work you have to fill a small tank with urea periodically and another with tap water. Tap water and urea react to make a dilute ammonia solution that (if the temperatures are right) reacts the NOx into nitrogen and water vapor. If it works. selective non-catlytic reduction is a very tempermental pollution control technology. If the temperature is not within a fairly narrow band, the reaction does not go to completion and the tailpipe emits not only unreacted oxides of nitrogen but also noxious ammonia - a vapor the human nose easily detects in very low concentrations. This technology has a very checkered past in stationary applications with constant monitoring and maintenance by professionals. Just how reliable do you think it will be in a mobile application subjected to the rigors of the road?

Diesels are necessarily more expensive than gas engines of equal power output. No with all these (dubious) pollution control add-ons it may very well be that a diesel vehicle will require a $10,000 cost premium over an equivalent gas engined vehicle. A $10,000 price premium on a small car is a deal-killer.

The other big reason that diesels will not fly in the US is that Americans prefer automatic transmissions and diesels' torque characteristics tend to destroy automatics. As much as I love them I just don't think americans will want relaible and efficient manual transmissions. They are too busy talking on their cell phones. Yes there are some automatics that are designed for diesel service. The transmission offered on GM pickups (a value-engineered Allison 1000) has some problems and still commands a $4,000 premium over the mass-produced gas-engine automatics.

Thanks to regulatory excess, todays diesels will be unreliable, possibly noxious to be around, very costly and just not efficient enough to to justify all the deficiencies.

A lot of work and governmental compromise will be needed to make the diesel popular.

Big Dave, I wonder how VW was able to crank up the the power from 100 hp - 177 lbs/ft in the 2006 TDI to 140 hp - 235 lbs/ft in the new 2009 50 state compliant TDI while keeping the same FE ratings. IMHO diesels in passenger cars have a bright future in NA.

Who wouldn't want to drive one of those

http://images.worldcarfans.com/artic...031.015.1M.jpg

Let's not ask questions we don't want to know the answer to, :D. JPJP

There is often a gap between the hucksters' claims and harsh reality. Let's wait and see if VW can deliver on their claims.

How much of a premium will these diesels command over the same car with a gas engine?

Big Dave -

I don't mind the emissions restrictions because I live in LA and the EU is trying to go in the same direction because of the Kyoto protocols anyway.

I don't have much faith in Blue-Tec, but what about Honda's diesel solution :

Acura Will Have First Application of Honda i-DTEC Diesel in North America - 13 January 2008
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008...will-have.html
But, I never knew about the "diesels are bad for automatics" scenario. I actually like that because I am biased against automatics :D .

CarloSW2

As far as VW diesels are concerned it's always been fairly easy to beat the EPA ratings, and from what I've read over at TDIclub of peoples who have test driven the car, the new engine walks the walk in regards to FE and power figures.

The comment about automatics should be more like "diesels are bad for cheaply made automatic transmissions". Build it strong enough and there won't be any problems.

The EPA thing has more to do with the adjustment for the energy content of the fuel than anything else. AFAIK, compensating for this shows that diesels and gassers both tend to get however much higher or lower than the EPA figures on average.

In regards to my comment on the EPA ratings, it's based on my personal experience with VW diesels. All I know is that my worst tank on my TDI was 34 mpg with all sub 10 miles city trip and I was driving it like I stole it. Still the city rating for my car is 33 mpg. I was not tracking FE on my previous cars but I remember my 92 TD Jetta and my 90 D Golf to beat the hwy ratings on long enough highway trips @ 70 mph.

The EPA adjusts their mileage figures downward by ~12-14%, or however much more energy diesel has compared to gasoline, so on average people with diesels will do much better than the EPA compared to gassers.

Is that how they do it?

I wonder, because those who calculate mpg differences based on BTU content, like that between regular and E85, inevitably end up way off.

Off how?

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.

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.

Ed Zachary.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

tasdrouille -

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

CarloSW2

Wargo, John, Children’s Exposure to Diesel Exhaust on School Buses, North Haven, CT: Environment and Human Health, Inc. 2002).


2002 and high sulfur fuel is history. IMO 2007 and up compression ignition engines are efficient and clean. In order for spark ignition engines to survive their inherit inefficiencies, we need to get the flex-fuel engines designed with the direct cylinder injection, so we can get the compression up there where it needs to be. Then spark engines can be fuel controlled instead of air controlled. IMHO the pure spark ignition engine as we know it, is history. Just as the pre '07 compression engine is history. Compression engines will become more like the spark with fewer emissions and the spark engine will become more like the compression engine with better efficiency. And they all might be able to burn the same fuel. So its not us and them its we.

Here' an interesting article in regards to the new diesels and market penetration

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/auto...-engine-diesel

Thanks for being so honest!

I was skeptical myself when President Bush championed the technology. I decided early on that it was a rue to make Americans think something was being done about our oil dependence. I have met thoughtful people who for what ever reason were not forced to consider, to start with, that hydrogen was not a source for energy.

If you have the time please visit my web site: http://www.inventhp.com . This site might seem preachy. But if you can stand that, you will find other opinions of mine and hopefully you will find other stuff of interest.

And regarding diesels: Would not a diesel hybrid be a good idea. The diesel could run at its cleanest and most efficient speed and the electric motors could take care of acceleration when it is needed.

Mark / from Iowa

welcome mark, chime right in anytime, we enjoy hearing what you got to say.

Mark, got a question for you, on a gasoline engine, would a different cam profile or timimg be better for economy if i disreguard any compromise for power?

Sounds like an initiation queston. The answer is yes. It would hard to believe no wouldn't it.

I do want you to know that my understanding of engines is all book learned. So I won't even pass as a "self professed expert".

So you might expect the explanation to your question to sound like it came out of a book. One way to improve thermal efficiency is to use the "Miller Cycle". This is essentially a regular engine with an adjusted valve timing. The key is the intake valve closing time. You can close the intake valve early or late so to reduce the intake charge which in effect reduces the compression ratio. But the expansion ration hasn't been changed so that the burnt charge can expand to a lower pressure before it is exhausted.

YES! My "Dream Car" for a while was the Citroën C4 Diesel-Hybrid. Rally-Racing meets Efficiency.

http://images.motortrend.com/auto_sh...river_side.jpg
I know, a quirky French vehicle, but the only Diesel-Hybrid that I could find

Before the Low Sulfur mandate was imposed, emissions were, frankly, less-than-ideal. Major metros (especially in Europe -- like London) suffers from Diesel soot pollution. Respiratory problems are rampant in these environs -- primarily childhood Asthma.

I breathed the exhaust of a common-rail Diesel Ford F-350 Ambulance conversion and other large fire/EMS apparatus for 4+ years. You can feel the immediate effects of exposure.

The new Diesels are squeaky clean. An EPA report shows the reduction. Being around them is night and day. Little to no visible soot, reduced overall emission strategy. Good stuff.

Let's step back and look at the big picture. The solution isn't going to be all Diesel, all Ethanol, all Hybrid, Hydrogen, etc. -- but rather a combination of technologies.

I have to say, I've tested Ethanol, and right now, it's not environmentally responsible. FE drops, GHGs potentially increase, and the farming industry is stressed to meet demand (creating shortages of other crops, and increased runoff).

RH77

Please read this page on my site: http://www.inventhp.com/bioenergy-pros-and-cons.html

For some of the reasons you site, I might be wise not to mention that there are "pros" for using ethanol.

Good evaluation. There are, indeed, "Pros" to using Ethanol. Perhaps when (if) Cellulosic ethanol develops more, one part of the equation will balance.

I completely agree with the conclusion of conservation. The problem is: America does not conserve, in majority, without being forced to do so. The populace likes "alternatives" that produce the same power -- as ethanol and Bio-D offers. The ethanol cars I drove made much more power when on E-85 vs. 87-octane, but it didn't even-out in cost, emissions, and sustainability. IMHO, these outweigh dependence on foreign oil, world market impact, and other Pros.

For me, it's the environment and public health first.

RH77

Perhaps I should update the article since E85 is not addressed. But if that fuel is the topic, perhaps all the pros should be erased.

The push for E85 is what made me rethink my support for the ethanol industry and the subsidies that support it ( but I have to admit I still usually us E10).