VW TDI vs. Gas comparison

[Deezler]

Why isn't CO2 considered an emission in this debate? Yes, NOx and SOx, very nasty things; smog, acid rain, health effects, and so on. But if we shift the debate to the dangers of global warming, we should be limiting our emissions of greenhouse gases (and heat, frankly). The best way to do this is with increased efficiency. When you clean up the NOx output of a new heavy duty diesel truck by cutting its mpg in half, what f&*kin good have you done!?
I have tried, unsuccessfully, to convince myself that the EPA is NOT in bed with big oil, conspiring to keep us all consuming MORE fuel. But the emissions rules applied to new diesel engines are ruining their economy and affordability.

I'd rather hold my breath when a diesel car drives by then watch global temperatures climb to levels that melt all ice, flooding cities with rising sea levels and killing millions in extreme weather swings.
If you don't agree that humans are contributing greatly to climate change, well, lets not ruin this thread with that debate now.

The ultra low gasoline prices right now make me ill. We really need a progressive tax that keeps the price floor at $4 / gallon, with proceeds to alternative energy research. Its the only way Americans will learn to conserve energy.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Deezler

But the emissions rules applied to new diesel engines are ruining their economy and affordability.

How so?

For reference... The here's the TDI Jetta specs

Automatic
2009 Jetta Automatic Diesel 2.0L 29/40 enter Full TierII Compliance
2006 Jetta s6 Automatic Diesel 1.9L 30/38
2005 Jetta s6 Automatic Diesel 1.9L 30/38
2004 Jetta s5 Automatic Diesel 1.9L 28/39
2003 Jetta s5 Automatic Diesel 1.9L 29/40
2002 Jetta s5 Automatic Diesel 1.9L 29/40
1999 Jetta s5 Automatic Diesel 29/40 Prior to TierII Transition

Manual gearbox
2009 30/41 6 speedenter Full TierII Compliance
2006 30/37 5 speed
2005 32/41 5 speed
2004 32/42 5 speed
2003 35/44
2002 35/45 5 speed
1999 35/44 5 speed

2009 - 140hp
2006 - 100hp
2005 - 100hp
2004 - 100hp
2003 - 90hp
2002 - 90hp

From fueleconomy.gov

2009 TDI Jetta - $21,990 ($4650 above base - but there's additional features other than the diesel engine :/)
2006 - $21,605 ($2390 over base) (before TierII)
2005 - $21,385 ($3485 over base)
2004 - $18,670 ($1240 over base)
2003 - $18,490 ($1390 over base)
2002 - $18,145 ($2100 over base) (before TierII Transitional period)

If we compare the 2009 TDI to the 2009 SE - where feature sets are a little better aligned (SE does have a few extras that the TDI doesn't) - the price difference is $2020....

Really, I don't see how the additional TierII emissions rules - being applied to these new diesel engines - is making them less affordable compared to what they were before... The price did go up $385 from the last year it was sold in 2006 (before the new rules came into full effect)... But $385 doesn't even keep up with inflation

The biggest jump is between 2004 and 2005... Which is when VW moved from the s5 to s6 platform....


Now, $20,000 for a car.... For me, isn't affordable... Diesel or otherwise Even the $17,000 base gasser - isn't affordable for me

The ultra low gasoline prices right now make me ill. We really need a progressive tax that keeps the price floor at $4 / gallon, with proceeds to alternative energy research. Its the only way Americans will learn to conserve energy.

It saddens me as someone on a peanut butter and bread diet - but I wholeheartedly agree


-----
Really, I want to know why so many people are claiming that the new emissions rules are drastically increasing vehicle costs and drastically reducing FE figures.... I know diesels in America generally have a negative connotation - but what gives now?

[Deezler]

Sorry, should be specific. The emissions rules are hurting new heavy duty truck engines the most, from what I've seen. I heard firsthand from an Ford engineer that the new "powerstroke" engine was initially testing at 11-12 mpg (compared to actual driver's results of 15-22 mpgs for the former engine). I've measured personally the BSFC and engine friction on a new 2011MY 5.0L turbodiesel V8 saddled with emissions equipment to be much lower than any other diesel I've run... I was also told that the DPF regeneration event on a particular new HD truck engine takes as much as a whole gallon of fuel! Just to burn off the DPF, turning what could be a small amount of airborne soot that was trapped into (more) pure CO, CO2 and heat.

Auto makers like VW, BMW, and Merc. are engineering new diesel engines marvelously. The technology needed for emissions controls makes maintenance and future repairs a bit scary though... but let's hope they've done things right. Things like in cylinder pressure sensors, DPFs, NOx traps, urea injection, multiple catalysts, hot AND cold EGR, advanced ECM calibration, higher pressure fuel rails and the associated electronics and hardware that must be more durable (heavier) to cope with these things are all EXPENSIVE. VW is cutting their profit margins on the new common rail engines in order to better promote them. The fact is that these new diesel engines could be made cheaper and more efficient if these emissions rules weren't being implemented. Somebody made a comment earlier about these engineers needing a challenge in order to get creative, and this is absolutely true. But these same challenges have discouraged the north american automakers to stay away from diesels, forcing me to buy a German car. I'd much rather drive an American vehicle, they just don't make what I want.

Anyway Treb quit reading this thread and run some CFD already!

[theunchosen]

Deezler I agree. If we throw CO2 into the equation it swings entirely in one direction. In making gasoline you produce substantially more than 2 times the CO2 you get from just burning it.

a 1% increase in engine efficiency equals at least 3% reduction in CO2 emissions. Alot of people don't like to rank CO2 with other emissions because it makes it impossible to make rules. It takes more than a gallon of gas to get CO2 into something not hazardous and not CO2, so its entirely impossible in cars.

Like I said the answer is maximizing engine efficiency bar none.

Treb. . .just because an engine gets slightly better numbers today doesn't mean the engine couldn't be better without emissions.

The reason processors for computers topped out back just into the millenium is because they started limiting their power intake. My computer has a 4.7 GHz pentium 4.

It's pretty literally one of the fastest processors out there for personal computers. The intel duo cores aren't faster. They are much more energy efficient. . .and alot slower. With 1 gig ram, and a graphics card from 03 I can lie to the software in the game without any trouble on graphics rendering. Now if you take one of those new chips and designed t for maximum power over efficiency. . .it would eat my computer alive. Same for diesels I assume. I know its true for gas engines.

The CRX 88 got 51 mpg. With new variable valve timing, more advanced ECU maps that allow for lean burning even hypermiling on a new civic you'll only get about 50. If you strip down your exhaust package to the less restrictive CRX it goes up alot.

My mother drives said Civic for the record. I ripped out all of its exhaust, replaced it with straight pipes 4,1 no cat no muffler just a small silencer(with much less backpressure than the stock muffler(or less backpressure than was between the cat and the muffler)). My mother now gets in the upper forties not doing any special techniques.

Just because the numbers go up doesn't mean advanced regulations isn't hampering them. It's equivalent to saying that Nascar's restrictions on engines had no effect. Nascar always restricts parts of the car but progressively speeds got much faster(until new restrictor plates were introduced not so long ago). It would be like saying those restrictions did not hamper speed increases because they increased anyway. It's obviously bogus. If the restrictions had never been there it would have been a drastic increase(both in speeds on track and in mpg(although greater track speeds would probably be detrimental to the sport)). I'm sure Deezler could tell you if you rip all the controls and systems of the HD trucks you gain enormous MPG.

[theunchosen]

Your statistics kind of prove the point. . . alot of other cars have seen increases in FE over that time span and yet the TDI is still the exact same mileage over ten years? No advanced gas mileage with the market being flooded with MPG friendly tech?

[arb]

Originally Posted by Deezler

I'd much rather drive an American vehicle, they just don't make what I want.

Actually do they make a much more efficent car than the Jetta TDI (Great car) - they just don't think you want to buy it HERE - they think we have all lost our emotions when car buying and simply plug the fuel cost, diesel vs gas, into a return on investment calulation and say, gee wiz, it will take years to get back the extra $2,000 that diesel engine cost me. But they don't count on us thinking about the 30% LESS CO2 we are pumping out, nor that our engine will last much longer.

When you read about the Ford with "65 mpg" - remember that is highway / city combined. The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have - BusinessWeek

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Just because the numbers go up doesn't mean advanced regulations isn't hampering them. It's equivalent to saying that Nascar's restrictions on engines had no effect. Nascar always restricts parts of the car but progressively speeds got much faster(until new restrictor plates were introduced not so long ago). It would be like saying those restrictions did not hamper speed increases because they increased anyway. It's obviously bogus. If the restrictions had never been there it would have been a drastic increase(both in speeds on track and in mpg(although greater track speeds would probably be detrimental to the sport)). I'm sure Deezler could tell you if you rip all the controls and systems of the HD trucks you gain enormous MPG.

I'm happy to see people accepting that CO2 is a big deal that needs to be dealt with... But there are other issues that need to be considered

As a greenhouse gas, NOx is 298 times more potent than CO2... Then there's all of the other tasty bits...

Benzene, for example

SpringerLink - Journal Article

(125 cc motorbike) to the lowest emission (lorry(diesel)) was of the order of 102 for benzene, 6×102 for ethyl benzene, 5×102 for toluene and 3×102 for xylenes. Among cars, those fitted with catalytic converters emitted a lower level of benzene (2 to 3 times) when compared with those without catalytic converters.

Benzene + Regulation

In an interview, William Wehrum, acting assistant administrator for EPA's air and radiation office, said the agency is protecting Americans' health by capping benzene levels. EPA estimates that the rule, which will take effect in 2011 for gasoline, will cost $400 million to implement in 2030 and produce $6 billion in health benefits.

Well your source is being deceptive. 31,000 tons of waste is more NOx SOx than the biggest 3 refineries in the world produce. Those plants only produce 32,000 tons of waste other than CO2 and those are the biggest 3 in the US. I hardly see how it would be possible for 30 refineries to reduce more than 31,000 tons each if some of them don't produce that much.

Details details... It's a combined reduction The point was in response to you saying that there won't be additional reductions for plants and refineries

alot of other cars have seen increases in FE over that time span and yet the TDI is still the exact same mileage over ten years?

Can you back your claims up?

I'm using the Corolla because, as I recall, the engine has remained fairly constant other than the usual year to year tweaks
Toyota Corolla - Standard Gearbox
2009 27/35
2008 28/37
2007 28/37
2006 28/37
2005 28/37
2004 28/36
2003 28/36
2002 28/37
2001 28/37
2000 27/34
1999 27/34

Why not, instead of fighting against current regulation, fight for reformation of current regulation? To include CO2... In this way, we work on a bunch of issues - GW, Acid Rain, and the immediate health side effects. Fighting/resisting something may make it go away - but it's not getting anything done

Anyway Treb quit reading this thread and run some CFD already!

I'm working on it.... The new box is still giving me hell

[theunchosen]

It's lovely that the cat reduces emissions of other semi toxic compounds(Benzene can be directly ingested in substantial amounts before the probability kicks in that it combines with something else in your body that makes it lethal. It's LD50 is 1800 grams so it will take a very very long time to get that much benzene into the atmosphere and even then talk to anyone who took Organic chemistry pre 1996 and they will tell you they used it by the gallon and got it all over them.)

Nevertheless 298 times .5 grams(the grams of NOx in one gallon of simply burned diesel) is just 149 grams equivalent of CO2. There are 7,200 grams of CO2 in a gallon of diesel. It's pretty obvious that limiting total gas consumption is far more important than NOx or anything else. Nox could be 14,000 times more harmful than CO2 and still the best approach would be limiting total fuel consumption.

And limiting CO2 emissions in a moving assembly is rather incredulous because it takes much more power to reclaim the CO2 or scrub the CO2 from the air than you get out of a gallon of gasoline. A stationary facility maybe, but thats because they can draw off the electric grid. It's impossible for a vehicle to go anywhere if it has to spend all(and then some) of its fuel regulating its own emissions.

40/45 Civic 09 variable trans
29/36 civic 05 variable trans
same engine size 1.7. 11 on the low and 9 on the high over just 4 years.

And to your combined reduction comment. . .I did combine them all except for CO2. Like I said they might be reducing a tiny fraction of their total CO2 output and nothing else to achieve that number.

I'm also certain that development was not an EPA instigated event. The event started at the Baytown refinery in Texas when they decided to use excess fuels that are not used to generate electricity through gas turbines. all refineries built since then have had it stock. Most refineries since then have done it anyway because it bites into their massive electric bill. The EPA claiming credit for something someone else invented and established is nothing new. Originally refineries dumped those compounds into the air. . .until they exploded. They decided on their own they should burn them and then the EPA said they had to.

My statement that new regulations could potentially break the market slips through the main claus of my whole point. The EPA made a rule to make a rule. refineries did it because its more efficient. . .not because its more eco-friendly. I have no problems with emissions controls so long as they don't cost efficiency. That post-facto regulation doesn't bother me.

Fighting and resisting things does solve problems. You are fighting resisting the idea that companies should be able to emit whatever they want. That resistance led to the EPA.

I'm fighting resisting stupid policies. I will say this again, I have no problems with controls, so long as they do not hinder efficiency of the vehicle.

The plant can draw as much juice as it wants. It's tied into the electrical grid. Your car can't. Unless you want to plug an extension cord to your car and use the electricity to filter out CO2 its not feasible.

Outside firms working for oil companies and electric power plants are developing bacteria that convert all kinds of things into useful or non-harmful things. There is no free lunch. The bacteria, or more appropriately algae, run on sunlight and compounds in emissions to create fossil fuels and emit oxygen and other gasses. other versions emit hydrogen and oxygen and several other things.

It's not possible to fit an equivalent system to a car. Cars have to move. cars can't haul around several tons of bacteria sludge to filter their emissions. You would get the same gas mileage as a tank(measured in gallons per mile). Also those critters require things that are difficult to keep in stock on a car. They need sunshine, plenty of fresh water, and the exact right amount of pollutants. . .all the time. If they don't get sunlight thats fine, obviously algae survives without it for extended periods(nights over ponds) but let's say your car sits still for a couple of days. If their metabolism is so fast it can devour your 20lbs of CO2 per gallon(50 lbs an hour for me at highway speeds) then the lack of food for even a single day could whipe out the colony.

This is the same argument as raising capital taxes. Virtually every time capital gains taxes go up the revenue generated from capital gains goes down. The inverse is also true, virtually every time capital gains taxes go down revenues from them go up. Countries that have bottomed their capital gains taxes out have seen some of the largest economic growth over the last ten years(Israel for one). Just because you increase emissions controls doesn't mandate overall emissions go down. It's not so simple.

It's enormously complex, but the easiest most obvious method as this site itself states is, use less gas(ride a bike, walk, get a motorcycle). There is also simply no way it wouldn't work. If less fuel is consumed, fewer gallons of fuel are converted into emissions that have to be converted back at the cost of lbs of coal which then have to use more coal to filter their own emissions, and transport lines that have to decrease their own mpg-freight to keep up with new policies. If you only ever add positive numbers you will never get a smaller number.

[trebuchet03]

And limiting CO2 emissions in a moving assembly is rather incredulous because it takes much more power to reclaim the CO2 or scrub the CO2 from the air than you get out of a gallon of gasoline. A stationary facility maybe, but thats because they can draw off the electric grid. It's impossible for a vehicle to go anywhere if it has to spend all(and then some) of its fuel regulating its own emissions.

Why is your first assumption always to scrub it out?


And, can you cite you .5 gram figure? Because that's stricter than some of the old EPA reqs.

It's LD50 is 1800 grams so it will take a very very long time to get that much benzene into the atmosphere and even then talk to anyone who took Organic chemistry pre 1996 and they will tell you they used it by the gallon and got it all over them.)

It's incredibly disingenuous to completely ignore long term effects

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

Why is your first assumption always to scrub it out?

It's incredibly disingenuous to completely ignore long term effects

I didn't. LD50 measurements are taken over the lifetime of an animal. So to get the LD50 of Benzene they introduced varying grams to mice. The amount that it took to kill the mouse before its natural lifetime is the LD50.

1800 grams In a single dose will not kill you right away. 1800 grams is just the point at which the lifespan is shortened.

the .5 figure is the marked up number that refineries generate per gallon(which comparedto avg mpg of diesel cars/small trucks does not meet the new emissions policies) was an estimate. Nevertheless thats minutiae, because even if it produces 10 grams per gallon there is still vastly more CO2 damage than NOx. original requirements were less than 1 gram per mile?(average was 23 mpg for diesels) so 23 grams per gallon average. Still more CO2 using diesel from the 80s. Diesel today is refined further to ensure that less pollutants are emitted if you just burn it in open air. Nevertheless since I am apparently not capable to calculate that number maybe you should tell me and we'll go from there.

It is disingenuous to make false assumptions that just because MPG didn't go down means regulation didn't hurt it.

It is also deceptive to say that emissions regulations would save money when really efficiency R&D saved money.

And where you quoted me. . . my first asnwer was not scrub CO2. It was to reclaim it. Reclaim means to rescue from an undesireable state. C02 emissions are undesireable states and changing them to something else could easily be construed as reclaiming them. So any emissions policies taken towards CO2 would be reclaiming them. I also addressed the idea of using bacteria or algae to convert it to something either not harmful or something useful.