2011 Mustang: First car with 300 hp and 30 mpg.

[_xxx_]

eastman: it would be easy to switch any pump from gas to diesel and relabel it, that happens like within a day. That's not the reason, but the low demand.

Mize: the "fixed rate" of production is nowhere near 10:1 though, or am I wrong? You're far away from any healthy balance there.

Dr. Evil: good buy, the Golf can indeed make 5l/100km if you're not pushing the throttle much. A nice little engine they built there.

 

[eastmen]

eastman: it would be easy to switch any pump from gas to diesel and relabel it, that happens like within a day. That's not the reason, but the low demand.

Mize: the "fixed rate" of production is nowhere near 10:1 though, or am I wrong? You're far away from any healthy balance there.

Dr. Evil: good buy, the Golf can indeed make 5l/100km if you're not pushing the throttle much. A nice little engine they built there.

I'm pretty sure by law in the states diesel needs a diffrent tank from the gas counter parts.

 

[Mize]

The fear of too few diesel pumps is only justified if you live 20+ miles from an interstate since the US trucking industry is all diesel.

 

[Sxotty]

In which case you live in an agricultural area probably, and they have diesel there as well

 

[_xxx_]

eastman: forgot about that, you're right.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

Nonetheless, the point about low demand is still the root cause of the lack of diesel pumps. Same is the case if you want to talk about lack of CNG pumps or E85 and so on. You head to any region of the world where those fuels are actually in demand, and you won't ever see an issue.

With Hydrogen, you can at least argue that not only is the infrastructure not there, but the technology itself isn't far enough in to make it worthwhile. That isn't really the case with diesel, and to a lesser extent, E85 as well, where either one would have availability of pumps on the basis of demand. There's a certain rise in this here in the Bay Area already because of the fact that the Jetta TDI is such a big seller.

 

[Blazkowicz]

I don't know what the obsession with diesel is about. When we refine oil, we get diesel and gas in a fixed ratio. Right now we have a good balance between the two types of vehicles, making the price roughly similar.

If there were many more diesel vehicles, demand for diesel would go up, price would go up while gasoline cost would go down, and you'll have pressure to restore the balance back to the way it is now. It would be pointless for car manufacturers to make push for diesel cars in North America.

Diesel are good for some typical american uses (towing huge trailers, etc.) because of te high torque (though that was brute-forced with huge V8s).

But more importantly, we all know that US cars explode way too easily, even from handgun shot or a little bump in the road. Diesel fuel doesn't explode even if you drop a match in it.

The fear of too few diesel pumps is only justified if you live 20+ miles from an interstate since the US trucking industry is all diesel.

except the truck from Terminator 2, which totally gets wasted.

 

[Mize]

But more importantly, we all know that US cars explode way too easily, even from handgun shot or a little bump in the road. Diesel fuel doesn't explode even if you drop a match in it.

LOL. Yeah, movies are great. Gasoline also isn't explosive and you can drop a lit cigarette in a barrel of gas and not get ignition. Gas vapor is explosive, however.

 

[Sxotty]

Well the last one was a turbodiesel Jaguar station wagon. My point is that driving them is pretty different and probably just isn't a realistic engine change for an established American car like the Mustang.

Diesel generally have more torque than similar displacement gas engines so that seems exactly the opposite.

BTW I have heard that biodiesel quality is hugely variable and many clog the filters required on new diesels so they can meet the particulate emissions requirements. Don't know if it is accurate though.

 

[Mintmaster]

Not when you make biodiesel!

I think biodiesel is going to die or at least stop growing because cellulosic ethanol has suddenly become viable and biowaste is going to go there. It's going to become even cheaper than subsidized corn-based production.

Diesel are good for some typical american uses (towing huge trailers, etc.) because of te high torque (though that was brute-forced with huge V8s).

Absolutely. My point is that I don't understand why people want more diesel cars in North America, like ShootMyMonkey (or _xxx_ when talking about how they're better than gasoline hybrids). The price of gas and diesel will always adjust themselves to maintain the ratio of consumption.

 

[Mintmaster]

Diesel generally have more torque than similar displacement gas engines so that seems exactly the opposite.

But usually less peak power, which is what determines peak acceleration. The "more torque" argument is poorly worded, as any motor can be geared down to make as much torque as the drivetrain can take. What people really mean is diesel engines have more low-rev power.

I personally don't see the appeal. My E46, for example, has enough low end torque in 1st gear to engage the traction control off the line, so more low end torque wouldn't be very helpful (although it should be mentioned that first gear tops out under 40 mph ). I think getting power at high revs is sort of fun.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

But usually less peak power, which is what determines peak acceleration. The "more torque" argument is poorly worded, as any motor can be geared down to make as much torque as the drivetrain can take. What people really mean is diesel engines have more low-rev power.

I personally don't see the appeal. My E46, for example, has enough low end torque in 1st gear to engage the traction control off the line, so more low end torque wouldn't be very helpful (although it should be mentioned that first gear tops out under 40 mph ). I think getting power at high revs is sort of fun.

The low end torque comes into play in normal everyday driving. You don't have to downshift nearly as much, whether to overtake or slowing down to a corner and reaccelerating after that. Pretty much every car has enough torque in first and second gear, but after that it starts to make a difference. Of course many American gasoline cars also have a lot of torque due to the large engine sizes, but a normal 2-3 liter non turbo gasoline car is going require a lot more shifting than a turbodiesel engine. The fuel economy is also a lot better.

 

[Mintmaster]

The low end torque

<pulls hair out> Low end power!

comes into play in normal everyday driving. You don't have to downshift nearly as much, whether to overtake or slowing down to a corner and reaccelerating after that. Pretty much every car has enough torque in first and second gear, but after that it starts to make a difference. Of course many American gasoline cars also have a lot of torque due to the large engine sizes, but a normal 2-3 liter non turbo gasoline car is going require a lot more shifting than a turbodiesel engine. The fuel economy is also a lot better.

I don't see why saving a shift is worth a more expensive car, higher emissions (they're acceptable now, but can't compete with the best gasoline models), conversion of pumps to diesel, etc. If that's your priority, get an automatic.

As for fuel economy, I just explained why it's a moot point. The world is going to burn the same amount of gas and diesel regardless of whether diesel cars are more prevalent in the US or not. One man's gain is another man's loss.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

<pulls hair out> Low end power!.

I hope you didn't pulled em all Well I specifically meant the torque curve...
It's true that turbo diesels will deliver the max hp at lower revs than a gasoline engine, but they still deliver the max power at their highest revs usually. A diesel engine usually tops out at 4-5k rpm and that's where the max hp is also at. A normal gasoline engine will rev out to 6-7k rpm and deliver it's max hp also near the top. However a turbodiesel already will give out its maximum amount of torque at 1.5-1.8k rpm, whereas a gasoline engine will range usually from 3.5k and up, sometimes it's close to the max hp revs.

This makes a huge difference in normal driving. With diesel you are pretty much always at the max torque range, whereas nobody drives their gasoline cars at 5k rpm, unless really pushing it. Diesel always pulls nicely when you floor it.

I don't see why saving a shift is worth a more expensive car, higher emissions (they're acceptable now, but can't compete with the best gasoline models), conversion of pumps to diesel, etc. If that's your priority, get an automatic.

As for fuel economy, I just explained why it's a moot point. The world is going to burn the same amount of gas and diesel regardless of whether diesel cars are more prevalent in the US or not. One man's gain is another man's loss.

I'm under the impression that the new diesels in Europe have pretty low emissions. Saving a shift is comforting, a good feature and a feature that actually is worth something, unlike many other features. Not everybody likes to drive an automatic.

That economy part is really weird... So I shouldn't care about how much I spend money for driving, because if everybody else would do the same, then it wouldn't be cheaper anymore!? Last time I checked the world doesn't follow me or act according to my decisions... I never said that your nation should change their cars to diesel models or any other macro economy thing. I said turbo diesels are really nice engines and currently in most places they are cheaper to run, especially if you drive a lot. I personally prefer gasoline turbos.

 

[Mintmaster]

I hope you didn't pulled em all Well I specifically meant the torque curve...
It's true that turbo diesels will deliver the max hp at lower revs than a gasoline engine, but they still deliver the max power at their highest revs usually.

<sigh>

You don't get it. Torque is meaningless on its own. Power is what moves a car. I can hide a gear inside any 100 hp engine and produce over 1000 lb-ft of torque at 500 RPM of the output shaft. It's not very useful, though.

You multiply the torque curve by RPM and you get the power curve (scaled by a factor). Whether you compare the torque curve or the power curve makes no difference, as for two engines you will have the same ratio at any RPM on either quantity.

Also, why compare turbo diesels to NA gas engines?

However a turbodiesel already will give out its maximum amount of torque at 1.5-1.8k rpm, whereas a gasoline engine will range usually from 3.5k and up, sometimes it's close to the max hp revs.

Look at my example. Peak torque is a meaningless number.

What the torque figure gives you, indirectly, is another point on the power curve. There's a broader power band, so if you don't like shifting or don't like high revs, you can get more power at low RPM. As for pulling away, a good auto box, CVT, or simply a driver who isn't lazy can do the same thing with a gasoline as he can with a diesel.

I'm under the impression that the new diesels in Europe have pretty low emissions. Saving a shift is comforting, a good feature and a feature that actually is worth something, unlike many other features. Not everybody likes to drive an automatic.

So some people like manuals over autos but don't like to shift?

That economy part is really weird... So I shouldn't care about how much I spend money for driving, because if everybody else would do the same, then it wouldn't be cheaper anymore!?

No, I'm saying that greater availability of diesel cars has no impact on worldwide emissions or cost of transportation. I assumed that you read what I wrote in this thread, which is why I thought your comment about fuel economy was directed at that.

As a personal choice, I'm not stopping you. Current availability of cars and pumps across the world is enough to balance everything out.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

<sigh>

You don't get it.
also, why compare turbo diesels to NA gas engines?

That could very well be the case. What I do get though, is that Turbo diesel engines provide the power better in normal driving. all new diesels these days have turbos atleast over here (well probably 99%), gasolines not so much, although increasingly so and in few years, they are going to be mostly turbos too, and like I said I prefer gasoline turbos, because they can bring the best of both worlds.

So some people like manuals over autos but don't like to shift?

:smile: With manual you decide what the car does.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

You don't get it. Torque is meaningless on its own. Power is what moves a car. I can hide a gear inside any 100 hp engine and produce over 1000 lb-ft of torque at 500 RPM of the output shaft. It's not very useful, though.

It would also be pretty fragile. Besides which, if power was everything, then there's no reason not to run on a gas turbine. Though in general, I do agree with the point about the real question is one of low-end power, your counterpoints are a bit extreme.

There's a broader power band, so if you don't like shifting or don't like high revs, you can get more power at low RPM. As for pulling away, a good auto box, CVT, or simply a driver who isn't lazy can do the same thing with a gasoline as he can with a diesel.

At the cost of fuel consumption, of course. You can't get all the virtues at the same time. Only some(or in some cases, none) of them any of the time. The reverse is also true, of course, but it becomes a question of what qualities are actually valued.

So some people like manuals over autos but don't like to shift?

With anything of that nature, you often tend to have this threshold you cross between enjoyment and hassle. It's why even fanatics aren't about to extoll the virtues of a manual in rush-hour traffic.

No, I'm saying that greater availability of diesel cars has no impact on worldwide emissions or cost of transportation. I assumed that you read what I wrote in this thread, which is why I thought your comment about fuel economy was directed at that..

Cost of transportation, I can see since the demand curve would basically shift from one product to another. But worldwide emissions? I mean, if the consumption is down enough as a result of a switchover, then you could be dealing with an economic impact at the very least... particularly for a nation like the U.S. which could actually eliminate foreign oil dependency on such a change. Especially since the big difference of having diesel comes not because turbodiesels burn more effectively, but because the way the typical American driver drives, they would actually be able to manage on much lower peak power on a diesel drivetrain than they would on a petrol drivetrain.

When you're talking about consumers and their usage patterns, power counts 1% of the time. What's really important is the *perception* of power.

 

[_xxx_]

Mintmaster, I don't "want" more diesels, just saying that they consume way less then even the newest gasoline hybrids, which they do.

Volvo has produced a hybrid diesel in the meantime, I'd like to give that a try.

 

[Blazkowicz]

yes, diesels are good at cruising, or acceleration on a highway lane. I don't know what's the english word but we call that "reprises". good reprises are say, a good acceleration from 50 km/h to 100 km/h on the 3rd or 4th gear.
You may typically see a turbodiesel outperforming a gas car in that test, while the gas car will be faster at 0 to 100 km/h.


btw shifting is somewhat more boring on a diesel, and I imagine a computer would easily figure it. so an automatic gearbox might be a good fit.

 

[_xxx_]

It's called elasticity around here, usually tested with acceleration 80-120 km/h or so.

Ford never fails in making high powered vehicles. But they should start to make more fuel-efficient cars especially now[/URL].

They do have small fuel-efficient cars in Europe like Focus or Fiesta, just not sold in the US (yet).