Some of that benefit is eroded because normal petrol is $2.00/gal vs. $2.40 of diesel.
Car decision: diesel or petrol?
- Thread starter PARANOiA
- Start date
Diesels have better off-idle torque characteristics than a comparative displacement gas/petrol engine (regardless of oversquare/undersquare configuration). Direct Injection on gas engines leads to greater efficiency, reduced emissions, and substantial increase in power & torque, so most benefits of diesel are reduced. The latest diesels are coming closer to petrol engine characteristics such as the superb looking VM Motori 60 degree, 3.0l V6. I was forced to select between an E60 BMW 530i or 530d as a company car a few years ago. I chose the 530i as it was livelier on road. However, compared with my own car it was both gutless & poor in fuel consumption. Refinement/handling was great, but the combination of small, low torque I6 & ~1500kg meant fuel consumption of ~14l/100km. I got ~15l/100km from a 6.0l LS2 & a helluva lot more fun... 
I even didnt know there are people driving diesel in the US
2.26 is still dirt cheap . hope it stays that way
Thanks for all the feedback, all. I've done a bit more research and have shied away from a diesel car, due to the poor quality of diesel fuel and standards in Australia. It looks like the pollution from diesel engines remains a health concern above those of petrol engines here still - I believe that Europe is some ways ahead of us in that regard.
For further reading, Aussies may like to check out greenvehicleguide.gov.au - rating all cards on the market against both CO2 and pollutants.
I'm still no closer to choosing a vehicle for the low-mid $20k's. Sigh.
For further reading, Aussies may like to check out greenvehicleguide.gov.au - rating all cards on the market against both CO2 and pollutants.
I'm still no closer to choosing a vehicle for the low-mid $20k's. Sigh.
I even didnt know there are people driving diesel in the US
2.26 is still dirt cheap . hope it stays that way
Lots of people drive diesels it just so happens that lots of those diesels are trucks and get horrible mileage anyway. Now that low sulfur diesel is introduced in the US I think diesel cars will become more common as well.
Assuming the diesels that BMW is coming out with in 2008 have a good performing 3-series wagon, that's my next car.
*begs the BMW gods to come out with a 330d or 335d wagon in the US.
*begs the BMW gods to come out with a 330d or 335d wagon in the US.
Well it's the laws over there that prevent it, not the lack of diesel on BMW side. But since Mercedes made it (somewhat) with the limits, I guess BMW should soon follow.
I dunno. There isn't a 335i wagon here, either. For whatever reason, wagons are not "sports" cars, so all you can get is the 323/automatic.
It just doesn't compare with what Subaru has to offer in terms of performance.
It just doesn't compare with what Subaru has to offer in terms of performance.
We have a 335i sedan and coupe, just no wagon. There is a 328 wagon. Strangely, there is a 540 wagon.
It was the same when it was 323/330. Only a 323 wagon.
I think BMW is simply a boutique seller here and they don't want too many models (because they all can't be sellers). I'm sure the wagon just doesn't get enough interest. IMHO, that's going to change, as SUVs go out of vogue and the desire for the extra storage is still there.
It was the same when it was 323/330. Only a 323 wagon.
I think BMW is simply a boutique seller here and they don't want too many models (because they all can't be sellers). I'm sure the wagon just doesn't get enough interest. IMHO, that's going to change, as SUVs go out of vogue and the desire for the extra storage is still there.
SUVs trend out in favor of wagons? Why would you think that? Wagons are (imo) nearly as unhip as Minivans. Ick.
Hmm, I had forgotten about crossovers even though I was toying around with the idea of getting one before I settled on our Highlander. Dunno if you consider them wagons in this regard or more of their own breed?
That said pointing out that are "more new crossover models than new SUV models" doesn't necessarily mean the market is shifting from SUV to Wagon. It could just mean that the SUV market is saturated aplenty with tons of available models already.
/shrug
I think gas prices are pushing people away from SUVs.
See the massive rebates and discounts being offered by American manufacturers (particularly Chevy) on SUVs.
See the massive rebates and discounts being offered by American manufacturers (particularly Chevy) on SUVs.
ShootMyMonkey
Veteran
Biodiesel is actually a popular tree-hugger fuel because it is not only a carbon-neutral biofuel, but it is also one that doesn't adversely affect fuel mileage (something ethanol cannot claim) and it can be derived in ways that help to reduce waste (e.g. using used-up cooking oil from a fast-food restaurant which would otherwise be thrown away -- again, something ethanol cannot claim). And since pretty much any modern diesel can run on it, it works out rather cheap.
Of course, because of the way emissions are measured in the US (by volume rather than by mile), diesels get bad results on emissions tests -- in particular NOx, and biodiesel IIRC doesn't do much for NOx emissions levels. The US is the only country where a subcompact 35 mpg sedan can have slightly poorer results on its emissions tests than a Corvette. While most all of them can be remedied using additional components like urea injection, it does mean another fluid to replace frequently, which the EPA feels is largely above the mental capacity of the American driver to remember or keep track of (and I'd agree with this assessment).
Well, it's also something of a sidestep of the inconveniences of small cars and small high-mileage hybrids (and the holier-than-thou attitude associated with them)... When you can buy something that is essentially not far removed from an SUV, but it's not *really* and SUV, and you can get one that gets halfway decent gas mileage (about the same as a typical family sedan), you basically get everything.
Yeah, but they usually don't need to do that for very long stretches of time -- there's always an amnesia with the American public and gas prices. One day, pump gas is $3.00 a gallon, and people are outraged. A few weeks later, it's $2.45 and people dance through the streets singing "Oh What a Beautiful Day" and thinking that they can now consider that Hummer they've wanted for a while.
That could be.
Crossovers are also sexier (at least to me) and definitely blur the line between SUV and Wagon. I think the Nissan Murano and maybe the Infiniti FX (same platform) are considered to be crossovers though they look much more like a SUV to me.
That's ethanol. In general, biodiesel has the same or very slightly lower energy content compared to regular diesel (~140K BTU/gal vs ~130K BTU/gal). Biodiesel is also better for your engine, since it's a much better lubricant.
More like 130K vs. 120K. I looked for the data, with the latest engines it's about 5% higher consumption and 5% less power.
Also:
Biodiesel helps produce more ozone, which just plain sucks for the environment. Also +40% COx and higher NOx. Also for 50 l diesel, you need about ~450 square meter of crops as raw material.
Long-term, it's actually extremely bad for the lubrication, since it doesn't evaporate from the motor oil due to the higher temperature required, but instead builds kinda slimy particle mass which can lead to the destruction of the engine. Thus you'll be frequently changing oil with it.
Also, the fuel pump, the fuel filter and the injectors are much more prone to damage, since the bigger and less lubricating (because it's more viscous/thick) molecules will clog everything up much faster.
It's also bad for zinc coatings (can dissolve them through inducing lower pH-value due to its higher moisture-binding properties).
As for the energy economics, look at the energy output/input ratio for biodiesel:
And the same for normal diesel:
And finally, if ALL available area for agriculture in Europe was used solely for Biodiesel, it would be barely enough to cover about 10% of the current consumption.
So all in all, just forget it and move on to some better alternatives.
Also:
Biodiesel helps produce more ozone, which just plain sucks for the environment. Also +40% COx and higher NOx. Also for 50 l diesel, you need about ~450 square meter of crops as raw material.
Long-term, it's actually extremely bad for the lubrication, since it doesn't evaporate from the motor oil due to the higher temperature required, but instead builds kinda slimy particle mass which can lead to the destruction of the engine. Thus you'll be frequently changing oil with it.
Also, the fuel pump, the fuel filter and the injectors are much more prone to damage, since the bigger and less lubricating (because it's more viscous/thick) molecules will clog everything up much faster.
It's also bad for zinc coatings (can dissolve them through inducing lower pH-value due to its higher moisture-binding properties).
As for the energy economics, look at the energy output/input ratio for biodiesel:
And the same for normal diesel:
And finally, if ALL available area for agriculture in Europe was used solely for Biodiesel, it would be barely enough to cover about 10% of the current consumption.
So all in all, just forget it and move on to some better alternatives.
Similar threads
- Locked
