Hybrid/Flex Fuel......Why not diesel??? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

jshadows · #16 08-29-2006, 10:08 PM

Actually if I'm not mistaken MB already has some hybrid diesel commuter buses running in a few places this side of the pond. Don't have a link off hand, but I'm sure I posted it on here somewhere else at one time.

Glad to see someone else isn't afraid to post a positive statement about peugeots. I drove a 307HDI (non hybrid) and actually found it a nicer drive than the Euro VW Golf TDI. When I lived in France, the Peugeot 205 has to be the most successful production car in the country. They're absolutely everywhere and must run for next to ever since they don't seem to die easily.

That said, I'm disgusted with current and past US policy regarding diesel cars. It is inconsistent and lacks rational logic. Unfortunately a lawsuit challenging it would probably fail for a myriad of reasons.

bill murrow · #17 08-29-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmckechnie

Do any of you remember that in 84 (I think) Olds also had a V6, 4.3 I believe, diesel in the Cutlass. I had one and as I remember, it was a perty good car. Ran good enough and got great mileage but by then the American public was not going to buy anything made by Olds. I remember I had to go get my parents during the worst of Hugo (any one remember Hugo). The little olds diesel did a good job inspite of being blown all over the road, having to go through trees down across the road, and rain so bad it was hard to see the Olds emblem on the hood. But it got my parents out of harms way and got us back to my house. Later that night, a huge tree fell across my parents house and landed in their bed..
Anyway, Olds did build a V6 diesel which was a great engine. Just too late.

Hmmmm....I don't remember this engine. Age I guess.

Great story. I do remember Hugo. And Agnus.....and gas lines/odd/ even.

Cheers,

Bill

F18 · #18 08-29-2006, 10:27 PM

Jshadows,

I use to go into New York City alot on business in the early 80's and remember all the Diesel Peugeots being used as cabs by one of the major cab companies.....I thought at the time that they must be one rugged vehicle if they can handle New York City traffic. I don't think it was much longer before Peugeot pulled out of the US market.

In Europe Peugeot and Citroen are burning up the market with some hot looking new diesels. Very respected companies over there......

Blevinsax · #19 08-29-2006, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jshadows

...I'm disgusted with current and past US policy regarding diesel cars. It is inconsistent and lacks rational logic. Unfortunately a lawsuit challenging it would probably fail for a myriad of reasons.

You're absolutely right - except for the part about lacking rational logic. You have to think about the scenario from the other side. You must break the paradigm of thinking that things are always done in the best interests of the common man...

Try this line of logic...

We know that diesel cars...

1. Are more fuel efficient, therefore the consume less fuel. Who does that benefit? Consumers (except the pollution element, but that is long-term and Americans are a very short-sighted people.) Who does it NOT benefit? Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc. because it would mean that we consumers would not be buying as much fuel and therefore they would not make the profits they owe to their investors. The next question you must ask is: Who makes the decisions about automobile policy, emissions standards, etc.? And then finally you must ask: With whom do those decision-makers place their loyalty? Is it with the consumers, or is it with Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc... I'll let you decide...

2. Last longer because the engines (when built properly) are more durable than gas-powered engines. Again, who does that benefit? Consumers. Who does it NOT benefit? GM, Ford, Chrysler, all other auto makers, etc. because it would mean that we consumers would not be buying as many new automobiles and therefore they would not make the profits they owe to their investors. And again the next question you must ask the same question: Who makes the decisions about automobile policy, emissions standards, etc.? And then finally you must ask: With whom do those decision-makers place their loyalty? Is it with the consumers, or is it with GM, Ford, Chrysler, all other auto makers, etc... Again, I'll let you decide...

When you think about the situation from the other side, it makes perfect rational logical sense. It is called capitalism and although I do believe it is a great economical social system, it is out of control in this nation. I will not elaborate, but just think about health care in this country.... life and health is not a commodity and cannot be issued a dollar-value, yet it is done here daily...

You are, of course, right about the law suit. It would fail instantaneously and would not even get coverage on public-access TV news - much less NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or Fox News.

#20 08-29-2006, 11:48 PM

I suspect the real reason we don't have diesel/electric hybrids is just economics. There is currently about a $5k premium for hybrids, there is also a premium for diesel cars of a couple of $1000. Therefore, it appears that a diesel hybrid would cost a couple of $1000 more than a gas hybrid. If you compare the mileage of a current diesel (a VW TDI for example) with the expected mileage of a hybrid diesel, how much difference would there be? How many miles would you have to drive a hybrid TDI to make up the cost difference? It appears to me that combining diesel technology and hybrid technology in one car would not be cost beneficial. How many people would pay $30K for a diesel hybrid Jetta to increase their mileage from 45 to 65 mpg?

Also, I think there is a marketing problem. Many people seem to buy hybrids based on the concept of them being green, even if they can't justify the economics. Many of these same folks are very anti-diesel. Until/unless diesel establish a reputation of being green in the U.S., they are not going to get into that market.

Lycoming-8 · #21 08-30-2006, 12:07 AM

Jeremy5848

As you indicated, the current from the generator(s) on a Diesel-electric locomotive drives the traction motors that are hung from and geared to the drive axles. These locos are often provided with dynamic braking which utilizes the motors as generators, sending the power to a resistor grid to be dissipated as heat. However this is not nearly as efficient as the hybrid automobiles, when they use regenerative braking, sending the power from the motor generator back to the batteries to be used again later.

Personally have to agree that if the number of diesel cars were to double in the US, the price of diesel fuel would increase considerably. Like it or not there is not a lot that can be done easily or economically about the yield from a barrel of oil to increase the amount of diesel. The oil companies won't really care if a lot more diesels are sold, as they will still be selling all the fuel they can make. The price of gasoline would go down some, so the remaining gas cars would be driven farther which then runs the demand for gas up.

pmari · #22 08-30-2006, 01:19 AM

GM is toying with the idea, (Opel Astra: GM's Hybrid Crown Jewel )

but fuel cell technology is where I think they are hedging their bets on the future personal transportation power plant.:fork_off:

And yes as mentioned, GM (DC) has released buses and large trucks to be tested by cities and towns. http://www.dieselforum.org/technology-spotlight/diesel-hybrid-corner/
http://www.dieselforum.org/fileadmin/templates/whitepapers/diesel-electric.pdf

aklim · #23 08-30-2006, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F18

Bill,
It does seem to most of us who drive diesels that a diesel hybrid would be a natural and responsible product to bring to market.....but in US the % of current diesel passenger vehicles is microscopic. "Joe Public" still thinks in terms of diesel as Farm Equipment and 18 Wheelers. We are a gasoline nation
and the auto makers market and sell what "joe public" understands and demands. They are not going to reinvent the wheel for us unless they absolutely have to.

But ethically the auto makers did have some responsibility to educate the consumer about diesel...but they have done very little over the years. These are the same US auto makers (ie. Ford and GM) that produce diesel passenger vehicles in their Europe plants for the Europen market...why? because the Europeans have demanded efficient diesel vehicles since World War II.

I don't know. Hybrids so far have been great in stop and go traffic but how much better are they in highway driving? I drove a Prius and was NOT impressed. Gasoline has it's advantages. Yes, it may not be as fuel efficient per gal but having driven gas for years, I don't have to plug in my gas cars. It gets below 25 and I have to plug the Powerstroke in if I want it to start tomorrow.

No. The responsibility to educate yourself lies with the person whose face you see in the bathroom mirror. I sell stuff. Personal responsibility. The wife was doing a lot of long distance travel. I opted for the diesel when I replaced my 99 C280. Today, if she gets an in town job and we needed a new car, it would be gas. What has ethics got to do with business anyways as far as education goes. They are selling you what you want.

aklim · #24 08-30-2006, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmckechnie

I've said it before and I will say it again. The reason diesels are not sold in this country is because:
From each barral of crude they can extract X amount of Diesel, and X amount of gasoline. I know that they can modify this to some extent, for instance they can CRACK diesel and get gas, but they can't do any thing to gas to get Diesel. Now suppose the people in power let anyone build and sell diesels, which are proven to be more efficient, what would the gas companies do with all the left over gasoline? The new 2007 trucks (big trucks) will cost from $10,000 to $15,000 more because of modifications to filter out the particulat (sp) matter from the exhaust. Some of these trucks get as high as 10 mpg while SUVs are only geting 12 mpg. Now we are talking about one truck getting 10 mpg with a total weight of 80,000 lbs and the SUV with a total weight of 6000 lbs. Which is more efficient? The gas companies are not going to let large numbers of diesel be sold here. They have the balance just about where they want it.
Now go ahead and flame me, as I know you will, or wake up and smell the roses.

They can let or not let anything they want. How would they pay off GM, Ford and DCX to hold back? Europe has all the diesels and it wouldn't take much to make it work here. They would have profits with no issues insted of taking bribe money with possibilities of problems. Everyone keeps saying that the gas companies are paying off the car manufacturers. Yet no one can prove it for sure. Sounds like the Hodag in WI. State animal but no one I know of has proven it exists.

aklim · #25 08-30-2006, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F18

Germany's whole fleet of Subs (U-Boats) that were the curse of the high seas in WWII were diesel/electric hybrids.

You sure about that? I thought they were all diesel electric because of diesel being less flamable and electric because you cannot run a diesel engine underwater.

aklim · #26 08-30-2006, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blevinsax

It doesn't take long to see that our current president is a (failed) oil man from an oil family - any wonder why all the focus is on the gas guzzling cars?? Even the hybrids aren't that great - and they're focusing on the wrong thing... They say, "This wonderfuly hybrid has a 6-cylinder engine, but the power of a V-8 thanks to the hybrid technology!"

Added power is not the point, the point is FUEL ECONOMY. The fuel economy on some of these hybrids is the same (or ALMOST the same) as a regular 6-cylinder, so there is no real fuel economy improvement - therefore the oil companies continue to make their record profits.

Could it be that it is because people want the power in the cars? I wouldn't own another 4 cyl car. Even my 6 cyl turbodiesel is poochy.

Added power is the point. You have a harder time selling a car with lower power in the US. I paid 500 more for my ATV because it was an 800cc while the cheaper one is exactly the same except less power because it is 700cc. If there is a glut of fuel, oil companies will have to shut down or give the stuff away practically. What about your company? What is the revenue vs profit? They make 10 bil but spend 100 bil. Still 10%. Is that a record profit when you see how it is made?

aklim · #27 08-30-2006, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jshadows

That said, I'm disgusted with current and past US policy regarding diesel cars. It is inconsistent and lacks rational logic. Unfortunately a lawsuit challenging it would probably fail for a myriad of reasons.

MB has had diesels since who knows when. Can you explain why they stopped in 99 and didn't start up again till 05 with the E320 CDI? I think it is about the EPA

aklim · #28 08-30-2006, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blevinsax

1. Are more fuel efficient, therefore the consume less fuel. Who does that benefit? Consumers (except the pollution element, but that is long-term and Americans are a very short-sighted people.) Who does it NOT benefit? Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc. because it would mean that we consumers would not be buying as much fuel and therefore they would not make the profits they owe to their investors. The next question you must ask is: Who makes the decisions about automobile policy, emissions standards, etc.? And then finally you must ask: With whom do those decision-makers place their loyalty? Is it with the consumers, or is it with Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc... I'll let you decide...

2. Last longer because the engines (when built properly) are more durable than gas-powered engines. Again, who does that benefit? Consumers. Who does it NOT benefit? GM, Ford, Chrysler, all other auto makers, etc. because it would mean that we consumers would not be buying as many new automobiles and therefore they would not make the profits they owe to their investors. And again the next question you must ask the same question: Who makes the decisions about automobile policy, emissions standards, etc.? And then finally you must ask: With whom do those decision-makers place their loyalty? Is it with the consumers, or is it with GM, Ford, Chrysler, all other auto makers, etc... Again, I'll let you decide...

I will not elaborate, but just think about health care in this country.... life and health is not a commodity and cannot be issued a dollar-value, yet it is done here daily...

You are, of course, right about the law suit. It would fail instantaneously and would not even get coverage on public-access TV news - much less NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or Fox News.

So your thesis is that the oil companies will have less fuel to sell? If the US cut it's demand by half, what do you think Exxon will do? Go home and cry or sell it to the Chinese and what not? Emmissions are by the EPA.

You do realize that we are a throwaway world don't you? Which is cheaper? To keep buying Bics or to buy a zippo and refill it? We have people dumping cars that are a few years old for something newer. Longevity is not so much an issue anymores. I don't care, this new car I buy will be tossed in a few years. Not my issue. Why should I pay a premium on diesel engines, have to have temp issues, etc, etc, and lose it when I sell it?

Yes it is. My wife didn't go to school to do free work. If I were an MD, I didn't sweat my ass off, risk myself daily from lawsuits and disease exposure to make a living. I want to make a good living. You have the right to life, liberty and the PERSUIT of happiness. Nothing about happiness being thrust upon you.

How so? Page one of the newspaper mentioned about the 10 bil profit oil companies make. cont to page XX. One line mentioned about how much they spent to make 10 bil.

aklim · #29 08-30-2006, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I suspect the real reason we don't have diesel/electric hybrids is just economics. There is currently about a $5k premium for hybrids, there is also a premium for diesel cars of a couple of $1000. Therefore, it appears that a diesel hybrid would cost a couple of $1000 more than a gas hybrid. If you compare the mileage of a current diesel (a VW TDI for example) with the expected mileage of a hybrid diesel, how much difference would there be? How many miles would you have to drive a hybrid TDI to make up the cost difference? It appears to me that combining diesel technology and hybrid technology in one car would not be cost beneficial. How many people would pay $30K for a diesel hybrid Jetta to increase their mileage from 45 to 65 mpg?

Also, I think there is a marketing problem. Many people seem to buy hybrids based on the concept of them being green, even if they can't justify the economics. Many of these same folks are very anti-diesel. Until/unless diesel establish a reputation of being green in the U.S., they are not going to get into that market.

But if they kept it long enough it would pay for itself. However the problem is that we toss them real fast for something newer and shinier. So no, it isn't worth the premium.

Well, when you see the belching smoke from a diesel accelerating, and the clean gas cars, it is a hard sell. Plus the memories of yesteryear where diesels were bug killers on the highway is hard to get over.

#30 08-30-2006, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

MB has had diesels since who knows when. Can you explain why they stopped in 99 and didn't start up again till 05 with the E320 CDI? I think it is about the EPA

Emissions and low demand.

Technology is allowing them to meet emissions with our cr@ppy fuel quality. Demand is ramping up again now that americans are starting to see that diesels are no longer slow and dirty.