Posted on 08/08/2005 10:40:08 AM PDT by newgeezer
Automakers are eager to sell you a diesel-powered vehicle. ... The new energy bill establishes a tax credit as large as $3,400 for diesels, matching the break allowed for hybrids.
Diesel-fueled vehicles do afford somewhat better mileage and may not require as much maintenance as gasoline-burners. But now and for years to come, the U.S. refining industry simply cannot produce enough diesel fuel to accommodate a significant increase in the number of vehicles that burn it.
At this year's auto show in New York, a DaimlerChrysler executive responsible for research and technology cited the success of diesel-engine automobiles in Europe while suggesting that these vehicles could gain a 5 to 10 percent share of the U.S. market. ...
European governments, working with automakers, have persuaded their citizens to replace gasoline-powered cars with diesel. They set tax rates to render diesel fuel cheaper than gasoline. But oil companies had no reason to invest in additional equipment for diesel production. Demand for diesel therefore bumps against the limit of supply. The marketplace will remedy such a situation, but it will be slow (because building new refining equipment takes time) and painful (because high-cost fuel hurts the financially weak the most).
... Europe has raised its diesel quality standards to such a high level that very few refineries in other parts of the world can manufacture an acceptable product. Interestingly, the United States can. During a few months last winter, U.S. refiners quietly shipped diesel to Europe. Due to our own demand, that could not continue.
These exports undoubtedly raised U.S. prices while they lasted. In this country, we burn diesel mostly for commercial transportation. As our economy expands, we will need more fuel for trucks and locomotives to transport goods. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Wow, you must do some serious hauling. You get your money's worth.
Why not just drive a multi-fuel vehicle...
My M35A2 Duece and a half will run on quite a few different fuels and mixtures.
Mike
I have a similar situation. I build most of my hardware/software at home, then travel to the field to do the delivery. I do have to interact with code bases on servers around the country. That works fine via my DSL line and appropriate VPN software. My home is my office. There is no need to commute at all. Travel to the field has to start somewhere. For me, that "somewhere" is now Pocatello, ID instead of San Diego, CA. Much lower cost of living, no commuting. The only real inconvenience is having to take a short commuter flight from Pocatello to Salt Lake City to access a major airline with world wide connectivity.
Really? That's impressive. Do you really mean to say your diesel-powered tow vehicle would get 75% less fuel mileage if it were equipped with a gasoline engine??!!
I find that extremely hard to believe. But, I'm no physicist.
"So we would be driving locomotives. Cool!"
Sort of. The small diesel would only serve as an electric generator, at a steady RPM. Might not even have to shut down at stoplights to make a go of it.
Yup. A gasoline powered F350 (a typical tow vehicle for a family of 4) pulling a large fifth wheel will get around 4 miles a gallon (according to the owners I've talked to). A diesel F350 pulling the same load will get around 12. This is for the years I'm familiar with. I'd need someone to tell me if the numbers for the 2005 or 2006 models has remained the same.
He probably won't win an Oscar, either.
More accurately, diesel knock.
"Diesel engines have never really caught on in passenger cars. During the late 1970's, diesel engines in passenger cars did see a surge in sales because of the OPEC oil embargo (over half a million were sold in the U.S.), but that is the only significant penetration that diesel engines have made in the marketplace. Even though they are more efficient, there are eight historical problems that have held diesel engines back:
-"Diesel engines, because they have much higher compression ratios (20:1 for a typical diesel vs. 8:1 for a typical gasoline engine), tend to be heavier than an equivalent gasoline engine.
-"Diesel engines also tend to be more expensive.
-"Diesel engines, because of the weight and compression ratio, tend to have lower maximum RPM ranges than gasoline engines (see Question 381 for details). This makes diesel engines high torque rather than high horsepower, and that tends to make diesel cars slow in terms of acceleration.
-"Diesel engines must be fuel injected, and in the past fuel injection was expensive and less reliable.
-"Diesel engines tend to produce more smoke and "smell funny."
-"Diesel engines are harder to start in cold weather, and if they contain glow plugs, diesel engines can require you to wait before starting the engine so the glow plugs can heat up.
-"Diesel engines are much noisier and tend to vibrate.
-"Diesel fuel is less readily available than gasoline.
"One or two of these disadvantages would be OK, but a group of disadvantages this large is a big deterrent for lots of people.
"The two things working in favor of diesel engines are better fuel economy and longer engine life. Both of these advantages mean that, over the life of the engine, you will tend to save money with a diesel. However, you also have to take the initial high cost of the engine into account. You have to own and operate a diesel engine for a fairly long time before the fuel economy overcomes the increased purchase price of the engine. The equation works great in a big diesel tractor-trailer rig that is running 400 miles every day, but it is not nearly so beneficial in a passenger car.
"As mentioned, the list above contains historical disadvantages for diesel engines. Many of the new diesel engine designs using advanced computer control are eliminating many of these disadvantages -- smoke, noise, vibration and cost are all declining. In the future, we are likely to see many more diesel engines on the road. "
" How much could we save if tens of millions of people only commuted half as much as they do now?"
How much would we save if all the various municipalities would just sync their traffic signals to allow a continuous flow into commuter destinations during the high-traffic "window," and away from these destinations at the end of the day? Some cities are better than others, but most are a nightmare.
I've honestly begun to believe that all the self-defeating progresso-fascists intentionally snarl commuter traffic with irrationally slow signal timing, in the mistaken assumption that they're fighting "sprawl."
Don't forget having exhaust that smells like fried chicken. :) Wait, that means the health nazis will get in on this, telling us we can't because that might lead more people to eat fattening food.
BTW, last year a British guy did this (using waste oil from a restaurant) and the government went after him for tax evasion in not paying his petrol tax.
"BTW, last year a British guy did this (using waste oil from a restaurant) and the government went after him for tax evasion in not paying his petrol tax."
If it wasn't sold, it can't very well have been taxed, now could it?
http://www.imaopodcast.com/podcast/IMAO-Aug8.mp3
The August 8 show (TO LISTEN, YOUR PC MUST HAVE SPEAKERS) features:
Turn it up! It's safe for work Freeper-Friendly conservative funny!
The answer is simple. Americans have to start showing some guts. I mean the majority of us. We have to stand up to the enviro weenies and trash the stupid laws that keep us from exploring for oil and building new refineries and nuclear power plants. We need SOME enviro laws but not many and we certainly don't need the ones the keep us from doing what we have to do to make us independent of foreign oil or at least less dependent.
Good for you! Leave it to the market and people will always find ways to solve what they consider their problems. My commute is only 5 miles one way but still it would be nice to do my work from home. Then I could use my fuel for weekend trout fishing trips. :)
At one time there were any number of jap and euro automobiles that delivered a decent ride and 35-40mpg. They all had 1-3,1.5 liter engines, but the engines were high compression, high revving little buzz-bombs that required premium fuel (I am thinking of a whole string of FIATS, Peugeots, VW Rabbits, etc.)
They were killed by emission regulations which could only be met by dropping the compression ratio, crash regulations that raised vehicle weights to the point that bigger engines were needed to move them, etc. etc.
New cars are engineering marvels and fast as the dickens with their hot 3.5 liter DOHC V-6's, hot 4-cylinders, both with variable valve timing. I drive an old MB 300E, which certainly isn't a slouch, but I am blown off the road everyday by Honda Civics signalling me out of the way and doing horizon jobs on me when I am on cruise control at 75.
So maybe we can borrow an idea from the (cough cough) the French, and tax horsepower, or the (harumph harumph) the Italians and tax displacement. In the 60's , 0-60 in 10 seconds was considered mindblowing. But nowadays, the standard is 6 seconds and below. I don't believe that "Speed Kills," but I do believe that excessive speed wastes gas! E.G., my trusty Benz will get 22mpg at 75, but 28mpg at 60mpg
With smaller engines, fleet averages could go substantially upwards. I do love the hybrid concept, especially the plug-in hybrids. BUT, they simply are not cost-effective. It takes a decade to recoup the original cost and that's not counting battery replacement, which is a coupla grand at least.
My ideal solution? No emission regs at all on cars under 1.5liters. Sure their ppm of pollutants is greater, but there are far fewer millions of parts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.