Driving Euro diesels from Audi, BMW, Chrysler, and Mini

[RF]

From Consumer Reports:

September 18, 2008
Driving Euro diesels from Audi, BMW, Chrysler, and
Mini
More than half the cars sold in Europe are
high-mpg diesels. So given the opportunity to
sample four models directly from the Continent, we
hoped to find out if modern European diesels are
good enough to entice American drivers.

Small-displacement engines with big torque and
fuel economy numbers have long been considered
forbidden fruit to the U.S. market. With the
revised, ultra-low-sulfur fuel recently adopted in
the States, we are seeing a slow influx of
European diesel models reach our shores.
Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen have lead this wave
of new diesels, and several other automakers have
announced plans to bring more here.

So, what do we have to look forward to? We got a
taste last week by attending the annual
International Motor Press Association (IMPA) track
days at Pocono Raceway, where we piloted several
imported diesel models provided by Bosch. We
sampled four European-market diesel models: 2009
Audi A4 3.0 TDI Quattro, 2007 BMW 123d hatchback,
2007 Chrysler 300D, and 2008 Mini Cooper D. (Bosch
supplies some of the fuel injection and emissions
control equipment for these cars that allow them
to meet stringent air quality standards in Europe.
They say the cars could also be made 50-state
compliant in the U.S.)

In our review of the Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec
diesel last year, we raved that its modern diesel
engine was not only clean, but also felt as smooth
and powerful as a gasoline engine. (Watch our
video road test.)

In driving the four European cars at IMPA, it is
clear that modern diesels are much smoother and
quieter than those engines Americans may remember
from the 1980s. But not all are as refined as gas
engines, or as that E320.

I was very impressed with the Audi A4 3.0 TDI.
This A4 has 236 hp and a whopping 369 lb-ft of
torque, giving it impressive acceleration. The car
was also quiet, relaxed, and refined in driving on
the street. It’s rated at a combined 36 mpg on the
European fuel economy test cycle. And several of
us came away from a lap around the road course
wearing wide smiles.

The Mini Cooper D gets impressive fuel economy
(rated at 60 mpg combined on the European fuel
economy test cycle). The Cooper D driven at Pocono
didn’t require as much shifting as our base Mini
Cooper with a manual transmission to stay in the
power band, but it had a notably gruff engine
sound. The same was true for the torquey and
entertaining BMW 123d hatchback, which was rated
at 45 mpg overall. Both the Mini and the BMW
included an auto-stop feature that shut the engine
off when the car was stopped to avoid wasting fuel
when idling.

Bosch tells us the Chrysler 300D uses the same
3.0-liter V6 diesel engine as the Mercedes we
tested. It was plenty powerful in the Chrysler,
but not as smooth as in the Mercedes. (Also, we
smelled diesel fumes after making a U-turn,
whereas we couldn’t smell a thing in the Mercedes,
even with our nose near the tailpipe while it was
idling.) It’s rated at 35 mpg overall.

In the end, the lesson is that while modern
technology has dramatically reduced diesel
vibration and sluggishness, they aren’t as smooth
as the best gas engines. Powertrain noise and
vibration suppression are a combination of engine
design, noise reduction under hood, and engine
mounting technology. Nevertheless, the sacrifices
to drive a diesel are much smaller than they once
were, making the fuel economy improvements and
abundant torque all the more compelling.

Now if only diesel fuel prices were closer to
regular gasoline…

—Eric Evarts

[unknown]

Tough to beat those Mercedes diesels!

[heav]

Post by RF
September 18, 2008
Driving Euro diesels from Audi, BMW, Chrysler, and
Mini
  More than half the cars sold in Europe are
high-mpg diesels. So given the opportunity to
sample four models directly from the Continent, we
hoped to find out if modern European diesels are
good enough to entice American drivers.
Small-displacement engines with big torque and
fuel economy numbers have long been considered
forbidden fruit to the U.S. market. With the
revised, ultra-low-sulfur fuel recently adopted in
the States, we are seeing a slow influx of
European diesel models reach our shores.
Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen have lead this wave
of new diesels, and several other automakers have
announced plans to bring more here.
So, what do we have to look forward to? We got a
taste last week by attending the annual
International Motor Press Association (IMPA) track
days at Pocono Raceway, where we piloted several
imported diesel models provided by Bosch. We
sampled four European-market diesel models: 2009
Audi A4 3.0 TDI Quattro, 2007 BMW 123d hatchback,
2007 Chrysler 300D, and 2008 Mini Cooper D. (Bosch
supplies some of the fuel injection and emissions
control equipment for these cars that allow them
to meet stringent air quality standards in Europe.
They say the cars could also be made 50-state
compliant in the U.S.)
In our review of the Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec
diesel last year, we raved that its modern diesel
engine was not only clean, but also felt as smooth
and powerful as a gasoline engine. (Watch our
video road test.)
In driving the four European cars at IMPA, it is
clear that modern diesels are much smoother and
quieter than those engines Americans may remember
from the 1980s. But not all are as refined as gas
engines, or as that E320.
I was very impressed with the Audi A4 3.0 TDI.
This A4 has 236 hp and a whopping 369 lb-ft of
torque, giving it impressive acceleration. The car
was also quiet, relaxed, and refined in driving on
the street. It’s rated at a combined 36 mpg on the
European fuel economy test cycle. And several of
us came away from a lap around the road course
wearing wide smiles.
The Mini Cooper D gets impressive fuel economy
(rated at 60 mpg combined on the European fuel
economy test cycle). The Cooper D driven at Pocono
didn’t require as much shifting as our base Mini
Cooper with a manual transmission to stay in the
power band, but it had a notably gruff engine
sound. The same was true for the torquey and
entertaining BMW 123d hatchback, which was rated
at 45 mpg overall. Both the Mini and the BMW
included an auto-stop feature that shut the engine
off when the car was stopped to avoid wasting fuel
when idling.
  Bosch tells us the Chrysler 300D uses the same
3.0-liter V6 diesel engine as the Mercedes we
tested. It was plenty powerful in the Chrysler,
but not as smooth as in the Mercedes. (Also, we
smelled diesel fumes after making a U-turn,
whereas we couldn’t smell a thing in the Mercedes,
even with our nose near the tailpipe while it was
idling.) It’s rated at 35 mpg overall.
In the end, the lesson is that while modern
technology has dramatically reduced diesel
vibration and sluggishness, they aren’t as smooth
as the best gas engines. Powertrain noise and
vibration suppression are a combination of engine
design, noise reduction under hood, and engine
mounting technology. Nevertheless, the sacrifices
to drive a diesel are much smaller than they once
were, making the fuel economy improvements and
abundant torque all the more compelling.
Now if only diesel fuel prices were closer to
regular gasoline…
—Eric Evarts

Diesel engines put more carbon in the air per gallon burned because of
their higher btu content. Financially, a gallon of diesel is about
the same as a gallon of gasoline, but carbon wise, the diesel has a
greater cost on the environment.

[JD]

Post by heav

Post by RF
September 18, 2008
Driving Euro diesels from Audi, BMW, Chrysler, and
Mini
More than half the cars sold in Europe are
high-mpg diesels. So given the opportunity to
sample four models directly from the Continent, we
hoped to find out if modern European diesels are
good enough to entice American drivers.
Small-displacement engines with big torque and
fuel economy numbers have long been considered
forbidden fruit to the U.S. market. With the
revised, ultra-low-sulfur fuel recently adopted in
the States, we are seeing a slow influx of
European diesel models reach our shores.
Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen have lead this wave
of new diesels, and several other automakers have
announced plans to bring more here.
So, what do we have to look forward to? We got a
taste last week by attending the annual
International Motor Press Association (IMPA) track
days at Pocono Raceway, where we piloted several
imported diesel models provided by Bosch. We
sampled four European-market diesel models: 2009
Audi A4 3.0 TDI Quattro, 2007 BMW 123d hatchback,
2007 Chrysler 300D, and 2008 Mini Cooper D. (Bosch
supplies some of the fuel injection and emissions
control equipment for these cars that allow them
to meet stringent air quality standards in Europe.
They say the cars could also be made 50-state
compliant in the U.S.)
In our review of the Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec
diesel last year, we raved that its modern diesel
engine was not only clean, but also felt as smooth
and powerful as a gasoline engine. (Watch our
video road test.)
In driving the four European cars at IMPA, it is
clear that modern diesels are much smoother and
quieter than those engines Americans may remember
from the 1980s. But not all are as refined as gas
engines, or as that E320.
I was very impressed with the Audi A4 3.0 TDI.
This A4 has 236 hp and a whopping 369 lb-ft of
torque, giving it impressive acceleration. The car
was also quiet, relaxed, and refined in driving on
the street. It’s rated at a combined 36 mpg on the
European fuel economy test cycle. And several of
us came away from a lap around the road course
wearing wide smiles.
The Mini Cooper D gets impressive fuel economy
(rated at 60 mpg combined on the European fuel
economy test cycle). The Cooper D driven at Pocono
didn’t require as much shifting as our base Mini
Cooper with a manual transmission to stay in the
power band, but it had a notably gruff engine
sound. The same was true for the torquey and
entertaining BMW 123d hatchback, which was rated
at 45 mpg overall. Both the Mini and the BMW
included an auto-stop feature that shut the engine
off when the car was stopped to avoid wasting fuel
when idling.
Bosch tells us the Chrysler 300D uses the same
3.0-liter V6 diesel engine as the Mercedes we
tested. It was plenty powerful in the Chrysler,
but not as smooth as in the Mercedes. (Also, we
smelled diesel fumes after making a U-turn,
whereas we couldn’t smell a thing in the Mercedes,
even with our nose near the tailpipe while it was
idling.) It’s rated at 35 mpg overall.
In the end, the lesson is that while modern
technology has dramatically reduced diesel
vibration and sluggishness, they aren’t as smooth
as the best gas engines. Powertrain noise and
vibration suppression are a combination of engine
design, noise reduction under hood, and engine
mounting technology. Nevertheless, the sacrifices
to drive a diesel are much smaller than they once
were, making the fuel economy improvements and
abundant torque all the more compelling.
Now if only diesel fuel prices were closer to
regular gasoline…
—Eric Evarts

Diesel engines put more carbon in the air per gallon burned because of
their higher btu content. Financially, a gallon of diesel is about
the same as a gallon of gasoline, but carbon wise, the diesel has a
greater cost on the environment.

This is a case of twisted numbers. Yes, diesel puts out more carbon *per
gallon* but when you factor in the fuel economy relative to a similar
gasoline car the net carbon output is less *per mile driven*. Analogous
to this is the fact that my '92 Mercedes 300D costs $0.06/mile *less* to
drive on diesel @ $4.05/gal than my '05 Taurus burning $3.56/gal ULR. On
that basis even old tech diesels have a lower carbon footprint than
their gasoline powered brethren.

JD

[Tiger]

Also... with only 3% of the US passenger car as diesel... WHAT FOOTPRINT?

[Wan-ning Tan]

Correct. My 25 years old 190D gets 38 miles per gallon. Similar size
of gasoline engine (2.2 liters) around that age (or even newer) probably
get no more than 25. Even with more carbon in a gallon, the carbon per
mile is still MUCH less than gasoline.

Post by JD

Post by heav

Post by RF
September 18, 2008
Driving Euro diesels from Audi, BMW, Chrysler, and
Mini
......

Diesel engines put more carbon in the air per gallon burned because of
their higher btu content. Financially, a gallon of diesel is about
the same as a gallon of gasoline, but carbon wise, the diesel has a
greater cost on the environment.

This is a case of twisted numbers. Yes, diesel puts out more carbon *per
gallon* but when you factor in the fuel economy relative to a similar
gasoline car the net carbon output is less *per mile driven*. Analogous
to this is the fact that my '92 Mercedes 300D costs $0.06/mile *less* to
that basis even old tech diesels have a lower carbon footprint than
their gasoline powered brethren.
JD

[runbiodiesel]

And if burn biodiesel you have a net zero carbon footprint (the only
carbon released is that removed from the atmosphere by the plants that
produced the oil). Not to mention ZERO sulphur.

Correct.  My 25 years old 190D gets 38 miles per gallon.  Similar size
of gasoline engine (2.2 liters) around that age (or even newer) probably
get no more than 25.  Even with more carbon in a gallon, the carbon per
mile is still MUCH less than gasoline.

Post by JD

Post by heav

Post by RF
September 18, 2008
Driving Euro diesels from Audi, BMW, Chrysler, and
Mini
......

Diesel engines put more carbon in the air per gallon burned because of
their higher btu content.  Financially, a gallon of diesel is about
the same as a gallon of gasoline, but carbon wise, the diesel has a
greater cost on the environment.

This is a case of twisted numbers. Yes, diesel puts out more carbon *per
gallon* but when you factor in the fuel economy relative to a similar
gasoline car the net carbon output is less *per mile driven*. Analogous
to this is the fact that my '92 Mercedes 300D costs $0.06/mile *less* to
that basis even old tech diesels have a lower carbon footprint than
their gasoline powered brethren.
JD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[unknown]

I have never understood why the car companies refuse to sell high
mileage cars in the USA. In Europe you can by a new E Class that gets
48 mpg highway, and 38 mpg combined. That's better than any car
currently sold in the US except the Pius.

They even make things like Diesel Chrysler minivans and Jeeps in the
US for the European market, that they won't sell in the home market.

Even something as seemingly fuel efficient as the Smart Car is
crippled for the US. The US version gets a combined 36 mpg, while in
Europe you can get a Diesel version that gets a combined 71 mpg.

It wasn't always this way. In 1987 you could buy a Honda Civic that
got an EPA combined rating of 54 mpg.

Why are the car companies screwing around with hybrids and other
complicated solutions, when the obvious answer could be on the road
tomorrow?

TFN

Post by JD

Post by heav

Post by RF
September 18, 2008
Driving Euro diesels from Audi, BMW, Chrysler, and
Mini
More than half the cars sold in Europe are
high-mpg diesels. So given the opportunity to
sample four models directly from the Continent, we
hoped to find out if modern European diesels are
good enough to entice American drivers.
Small-displacement engines with big torque and
fuel economy numbers have long been considered
forbidden fruit to the U.S. market. With the
revised, ultra-low-sulfur fuel recently adopted in
the States, we are seeing a slow influx of
European diesel models reach our shores.
Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen have lead this wave
of new diesels, and several other automakers have
announced plans to bring more here.
So, what do we have to look forward to? We got a
taste last week by attending the annual
International Motor Press Association (IMPA) track
days at Pocono Raceway, where we piloted several
imported diesel models provided by Bosch. We
sampled four European-market diesel models: 2009
Audi A4 3.0 TDI Quattro, 2007 BMW 123d hatchback,
2007 Chrysler 300D, and 2008 Mini Cooper D. (Bosch
supplies some of the fuel injection and emissions
control equipment for these cars that allow them
to meet stringent air quality standards in Europe.
They say the cars could also be made 50-state
compliant in the U.S.)
In our review of the Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec
diesel last year, we raved that its modern diesel
engine was not only clean, but also felt as smooth
and powerful as a gasoline engine. (Watch our
video road test.)
In driving the four European cars at IMPA, it is
clear that modern diesels are much smoother and
quieter than those engines Americans may remember
from the 1980s. But not all are as refined as gas
engines, or as that E320.
I was very impressed with the Audi A4 3.0 TDI.
This A4 has 236 hp and a whopping 369 lb-ft of
torque, giving it impressive acceleration. The car
was also quiet, relaxed, and refined in driving on
the street. It’s rated at a combined 36 mpg on the
European fuel economy test cycle. And several of
us came away from a lap around the road course
wearing wide smiles.
The Mini Cooper D gets impressive fuel economy
(rated at 60 mpg combined on the European fuel
economy test cycle). The Cooper D driven at Pocono
didn’t require as much shifting as our base Mini
Cooper with a manual transmission to stay in the
power band, but it had a notably gruff engine
sound. The same was true for the torquey and
entertaining BMW 123d hatchback, which was rated
at 45 mpg overall. Both the Mini and the BMW
included an auto-stop feature that shut the engine
off when the car was stopped to avoid wasting fuel
when idling.
Bosch tells us the Chrysler 300D uses the same
3.0-liter V6 diesel engine as the Mercedes we
tested. It was plenty powerful in the Chrysler,
but not as smooth as in the Mercedes. (Also, we
smelled diesel fumes after making a U-turn,
whereas we couldn’t smell a thing in the Mercedes,
even with our nose near the tailpipe while it was
idling.) It’s rated at 35 mpg overall.
In the end, the lesson is that while modern
technology has dramatically reduced diesel
vibration and sluggishness, they aren’t as smooth
as the best gas engines. Powertrain noise and
vibration suppression are a combination of engine
design, noise reduction under hood, and engine
mounting technology. Nevertheless, the sacrifices
to drive a diesel are much smaller than they once
were, making the fuel economy improvements and
abundant torque all the more compelling.
Now if only diesel fuel prices were closer to
regular gasoline…
—Eric Evarts

Diesel engines put more carbon in the air per gallon burned because of
their higher btu content. Financially, a gallon of diesel is about
the same as a gallon of gasoline, but carbon wise, the diesel has a
greater cost on the environment.

This is a case of twisted numbers. Yes, diesel puts out more carbon *per
gallon* but when you factor in the fuel economy relative to a similar
gasoline car the net carbon output is less *per mile driven*. Analogous
to this is the fact that my '92 Mercedes 300D costs $0.06/mile *less* to
that basis even old tech diesels have a lower carbon footprint than
their gasoline powered brethren.
JD

[Tiger]

Yeah I don't understand either

[RF]

Maybe they are in bed with the oil companies?

Post by unknown
I have never understood why the car companies refuse to sell high
mileage cars in the USA. In Europe you can by a new E Class that gets
48 mpg highway, and 38 mpg combined. That's better than any car
currently sold in the US except the Pius.
They even make things like Diesel Chrysler minivans and Jeeps in the
US for the European market, that they won't sell in the home market.
Even something as seemingly fuel efficient as the Smart Car is
crippled for the US. The US version gets a combined 36 mpg, while in
Europe you can get a Diesel version that gets a combined 71 mpg.
It wasn't always this way. In 1987 you could buy a Honda Civic that
got an EPA combined rating of 54 mpg.
Why are the car companies screwing around with hybrids and other
complicated solutions, when the obvious answer could be on the road
tomorrow?
TFN

Post by JD

Post by heav

Post by RF
September 18, 2008
Driving Euro diesels from Audi, BMW, Chrysler, and
Mini
More than half the cars sold in Europe are
high-mpg diesels. So given the opportunity to
sample four models directly from the Continent, we
hoped to find out if modern European diesels are
good enough to entice American drivers.
Small-displacement engines with big torque and
fuel economy numbers have long been considered
forbidden fruit to the U.S. market. With the
revised, ultra-low-sulfur fuel recently adopted in
the States, we are seeing a slow influx of
European diesel models reach our shores.
Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen have lead this wave
of new diesels, and several other automakers have
announced plans to bring more here.
So, what do we have to look forward to? We got a
taste last week by attending the annual
International Motor Press Association (IMPA) track
days at Pocono Raceway, where we piloted several
imported diesel models provided by Bosch. We
sampled four European-market diesel models: 2009
Audi A4 3.0 TDI Quattro, 2007 BMW 123d hatchback,
2007 Chrysler 300D, and 2008 Mini Cooper D. (Bosch
supplies some of the fuel injection and emissions
control equipment for these cars that allow them
to meet stringent air quality standards in Europe.
They say the cars could also be made 50-state
compliant in the U.S.)
In our review of the Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec
diesel last year, we raved that its modern diesel
engine was not only clean, but also felt as smooth
and powerful as a gasoline engine. (Watch our
video road test.)
In driving the four European cars at IMPA, it is
clear that modern diesels are much smoother and
quieter than those engines Americans may remember
from the 1980s. But not all are as refined as gas
engines, or as that E320.
I was very impressed with the Audi A4 3.0 TDI.
This A4 has 236 hp and a whopping 369 lb-ft of
torque, giving it impressive acceleration. The car
was also quiet, relaxed, and refined in driving on
the street. It’s rated at a combined 36 mpg on the
European fuel economy test cycle. And several of
us came away from a lap around the road course
wearing wide smiles.
The Mini Cooper D gets impressive fuel economy
(rated at 60 mpg combined on the European fuel
economy test cycle). The Cooper D driven at Pocono
didn’t require as much shifting as our base Mini
Cooper with a manual transmission to stay in the
power band, but it had a notably gruff engine
sound. The same was true for the torquey and
entertaining BMW 123d hatchback, which was rated
at 45 mpg overall. Both the Mini and the BMW
included an auto-stop feature that shut the engine
off when the car was stopped to avoid wasting fuel
when idling.
Bosch tells us the Chrysler 300D uses the same
3.0-liter V6 diesel engine as the Mercedes we
tested. It was plenty powerful in the Chrysler,
but not as smooth as in the Mercedes. (Also, we
smelled diesel fumes after making a U-turn,
whereas we couldn’t smell a thing in the Mercedes,
even with our nose near the tailpipe while it was
idling.) It’s rated at 35 mpg overall.
In the end, the lesson is that while modern
technology has dramatically reduced diesel
vibration and sluggishness, they aren’t as smooth
as the best gas engines. Powertrain noise and
vibration suppression are a combination of engine
design, noise reduction under hood, and engine
mounting technology. Nevertheless, the sacrifices
to drive a diesel are much smaller than they once
were, making the fuel economy improvements and
abundant torque all the more compelling.
Now if only diesel fuel prices were closer to
regular gasoline…
—Eric Evarts

Diesel engines put more carbon in the air per gallon burned because of
their higher btu content. Financially, a gallon of diesel is about
the same as a gallon of gasoline, but carbon wise, the diesel has a
greater cost on the environment.

This is a case of twisted numbers. Yes, diesel puts out more carbon *per
gallon* but when you factor in the fuel economy relative to a similar
gasoline car the net carbon output is less *per mile driven*. Analogous
to this is the fact that my '92 Mercedes 300D costs $0.06/mile *less* to
that basis even old tech diesels have a lower carbon footprint than
their gasoline powered brethren.
JD

[Roland Franzius]

Post by unknown
I have never understood why the car companies refuse to sell high
mileage cars in the USA. In Europe you can by a new E Class that gets
48 mpg highway, and 38 mpg combined. That's better than any car
currently sold in the US except the Pius.
They even make things like Diesel Chrysler minivans and Jeeps in the
US for the European market, that they won't sell in the home market.
Even something as seemingly fuel efficient as the Smart Car is
crippled for the US. The US version gets a combined 36 mpg, while in
Europe you can get a Diesel version that gets a combined 71 mpg.
It wasn't always this way. In 1987 you could buy a Honda Civic that
got an EPA combined rating of 54 mpg.
Why are the car companies screwing around with hybrids and other
complicated solutions, when the obvious answer could be on the road
tomorrow?
TFN

In spring 2006 when in NYC I found the Smart as a design exhibition
piece in the Museum of Modern Art an article in the NYTimes IIRC praised
it as a pendant for young ladies car key ring.

Worldwide, the Smart car branch was one of the big money pits for DC
until the day before yesterday, when the basically valuefree option
capital swashed from mortgages into the commodity market and even the
most advanced economy on earth got a feeling for the true value of energy.

[Happy Trails]

I have never understood why . . .

A few thoughts come to mind:

- a "US" gallon is smaller than an imperial gallon - are you
comparing apples and apples here?

- comparisons of mileage ALWAYS involve stats from the sales
brochures for the vehicle/fuel/continent favored versus stats from
actual drivers for the vehicle/fuel/continent not favored.

- the US of A really should lose their "SUPER-SIZE ME" culture that
affects them, and the rest of the world, adversly in so many ways. If
all they were doing was contributing to the further undoing of their
own economic and social structure, it would not be of such great
concern to me, but the reality is that when they shit their pants in
New York, it smells bad in Tokyo, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Shanghai,
and even way down in Sydney!

[unknown]

Happy trails;

The figures I have used in all cases were either the official EPA
'window sticker' numbers, or the official published EU "Euro cycle"
numbers for the Euro models. While the methodology does vay somewhat
between the two systems, the US EPA test uses slower speeds and
normally results in higher mileage numbers.

The conversions from Litres/100 km to miles/ US gallon were all done
accurately.

TFN.

Post by Happy Trails

I have never understood why . . .

- a "US" gallon is smaller than an imperial gallon - are you
comparing apples and apples here?
- comparisons of mileage ALWAYS involve stats from the sales
brochures for the vehicle/fuel/continent favored versus stats from
actual drivers for the vehicle/fuel/continent not favored.
- the US of A really should lose their "SUPER-SIZE ME" culture that
affects them, and the rest of the world, adversly in so many ways. If
all they were doing was contributing to the further undoing of their
own economic and social structure, it would not be of such great
concern to me, but the reality is that when they shit their pants in
New York, it smells bad in Tokyo, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Shanghai,
and even way down in Sydney!

[Lloyd]

Post by unknown
I have never understood why the car companies refuse to sell high
mileage cars in the USA. In Europe you can by a new E Class that gets
48 mpg highway, and 38 mpg combined. That's better than any car
currently sold in the US except the Pius.
They even make things like Diesel Chrysler minivans and Jeeps in the
US for the European market, that they won't sell in the home market.
Even something as seemingly fuel efficient as the Smart Car is
crippled for the US. The US version gets a combined 36 mpg, while in
Europe you can get a Diesel version that gets a combined 71 mpg.

Diesel fuel is more expensive than gas in the US -- usually even more
expensive than premium, by often up to 70 cents a gallon. Depends on
the time of year. Also, low-sulfur fuel was just required last year;
no diesel could meet the then-current Calif. standard and the now-
current national standard with the old high-sulfur diesel. Plus, the
US has particulate and NOx standards that are much more rigorous than
Europe does, and diesels make more of those two.

But Mercedes has a diesel, VW is introducing one, BMW is introducing
one. Honda promises one very soon.

Post by unknown
It wasn't always this way. In 1987 you could buy a Honda Civic that
got an EPA combined rating of 54 mpg.

The EPA has changed its way of computing mpg several times. You can't
compare one 20 years ago with one now.

Post by unknown
Why are the car companies screwing around with hybrids and other
complicated solutions, when the obvious answer could be on the road
tomorrow?
TFN

Post by JD

Post by heav

Post by RF
September 18, 2008
Driving Euro diesels from Audi, BMW, Chrysler, and
Mini
  More than half the cars sold in Europe are
high-mpg diesels. So given the opportunity to
sample four models directly from the Continent, we
hoped to find out if modern European diesels are
good enough to entice American drivers.
Small-displacement engines with big torque and
fuel economy numbers have long been considered
forbidden fruit to the U.S. market. With the
revised, ultra-low-sulfur fuel recently adopted in
the States, we are seeing a slow influx of
European diesel models reach our shores.
Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen have lead this wave
of new diesels, and several other automakers have
announced plans to bring more here.
So, what do we have to look forward to? We got a
taste last week by attending the annual
International Motor Press Association (IMPA) track
days at Pocono Raceway, where we piloted several
imported diesel models provided by Bosch. We
sampled four European-market diesel models: 2009
Audi A4 3.0 TDI Quattro, 2007 BMW 123d hatchback,
2007 Chrysler 300D, and 2008 Mini Cooper D. (Bosch
supplies some of the fuel injection and emissions
control equipment for these cars that allow them
to meet stringent air quality standards in Europe.
They say the cars could also be made 50-state
compliant in the U.S.)
In our review of the Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec
diesel last year, we raved that its modern diesel
engine was not only clean, but also felt as smooth
and powerful as a gasoline engine. (Watch our
video road test.)
In driving the four European cars at IMPA, it is
clear that modern diesels are much smoother and
quieter than those engines Americans may remember
from the 1980s. But not all are as refined as gas
engines, or as that E320.
I was very impressed with the Audi A4 3.0 TDI.
This A4 has 236 hp and a whopping 369 lb-ft of
torque, giving it impressive acceleration. The car
was also quiet, relaxed, and refined in driving on
the street. It’s rated at a combined 36 mpg on the
European fuel economy test cycle. And several of
us came away from a lap around the road course
wearing wide smiles.
The Mini Cooper D gets impressive fuel economy
(rated at 60 mpg combined on the European fuel
economy test cycle). The Cooper D driven at Pocono
didn’t require as much shifting as our base Mini
Cooper with a manual transmission to stay in the
power band, but it had a notably gruff engine
sound. The same was true for the torquey and
entertaining BMW 123d hatchback, which was rated
at 45 mpg overall. Both the Mini and the BMW
included an auto-stop feature that shut the engine
off when the car was stopped to avoid wasting fuel
when idling.
  Bosch tells us the Chrysler 300D uses the same
3.0-liter V6 diesel engine as the Mercedes we
tested. It was plenty powerful in the Chrysler,
but not as smooth as in the Mercedes. (Also, we
smelled diesel fumes after making a U-turn,
whereas we couldn’t smell a thing in the Mercedes,
even with our nose near the tailpipe while it was
idling.) It’s rated at 35 mpg overall.
In the end, the lesson is that while modern
technology has dramatically reduced diesel
vibration and sluggishness, they aren’t as smooth
as the best gas engines. Powertrain noise and
vibration suppression are a combination of engine
design, noise reduction under hood, and engine
mounting technology. Nevertheless, the sacrifices
to drive a diesel are much smaller than they once
were, making the fuel economy improvements and
abundant torque all the more compelling.
Now if only diesel fuel prices were closer to
regular gasoline…
—Eric Evarts

Diesel engines put more carbon in the air per gallon burned because of
their higher btu content.  Financially, a gallon of diesel is about
the same as a gallon of gasoline, but carbon wise, the diesel has a
greater cost on the environment.

This is a case of twisted numbers. Yes, diesel puts out more carbon *per
gallon* but when you factor in the fuel economy relative to a similar
gasoline car the net carbon output is less *per mile driven*. Analogous
to this is the fact that my '92 Mercedes 300D costs $0.06/mile *less* to
that basis even old tech diesels have a lower carbon footprint than
their gasoline powered brethren.
JD

[Dori A Schmetterling]

After the (small) tax advantage on diesel fuel was abolished in the UK a few
years ago the price of diesel rose to similar levels as standard 95 octane
(c. 91 US) petrol. Now diesel is a lot dearer than standard petrol here.
Still people buy diesel vehicles. But in my case (< 5000 miles p.a.) it
would make no sense.

One contributor to the relatively high price of diesel is -- so I read a
while ago -- that demand for it is in greater proportion than its fraction
in the distillation process. This means that whereas previously diesel was
'byproduct' of petrol distillation and could be sold at a 'marginal' price,
now the distillation has to run more for diesel, whose fraction in the
process is smaller than petrol's.

Put crudely, so to speak, you are running a big expensive process to extract
a 'minority' product, so a greater proportion of the costs have to be loaded
onto it.

Either reduce demand for diesel or increase the demand for petrol. Roll on
the big petrol-powered 4 x 4s... :-)

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd" <***@emory.edu> wrote in message news:9c401ded-f8c4-4e43-8958-***@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 24, 11:17 pm, TFN wrote:
[...]

Diesel fuel is more expensive than gas in the US -- usually even more
expensive than premium, by often up to 70 cents a gallon. Depends on
the time of year. Also, low-sulfur fuel was just required last year;
no diesel could meet the then-current Calif. standard and the now-
current national standard with the old high-sulfur diesel. Plus, the
US has particulate and NOx standards that are much more rigorous than
Europe does, and diesels make more of those two.
[...]

[unknown]

Post by Lloyd

Post by unknown
I have never understood why the car companies refuse to sell high
mileage cars in the USA. In Europe you can by a new E Class that gets
48 mpg highway, and 38 mpg combined. That's better than any car
currently sold in the US except the Pius.
They even make things like Diesel Chrysler minivans and Jeeps in the
US for the European market, that they won't sell in the home market.
Even something as seemingly fuel efficient as the Smart Car is
crippled for the US. The US version gets a combined 36 mpg, while in
Europe you can get a Diesel version that gets a combined 71 mpg.

Diesel fuel is more expensive than gas in the US -- usually even more
expensive than premium, by often up to 70 cents a gallon. Depends on
the time of year.

Currently true, but as someone who has driven Diesels for years, I can
report that this is a recent phenomemon. In the past it typically cost
somwhere near mid grade, or at times less than regular. The Federal
government and most states charge more tax per gallon for Diesel,
which makes no sense from a business standpoint as most goods are
trasported by Diesel trucks and trains. In Europe, Diesel is
significantly less expensive than regular gas.


Also, low-sulfur fuel was just required last year;

Post by Lloyd
no diesel could meet the then-current Calif. standard and the now-
current national standard with the old high-sulfur diesel. Plus, the
US has particulate and NOx standards that are much more rigorous than
Europe does, and diesels make more of those two.

True, but Diesels produce far less hydrocarbons, almost no carbon
monoxide, and have far lower CO2 emissions which contribute to global
warming.

Post by Lloyd
But Mercedes has a diesel, VW is introducing one, BMW is introducing
one. Honda promises one very soon.

Post by unknown
It wasn't always this way. In 1987 you could buy a Honda Civic that
got an EPA combined rating of 54 mpg.

The EPA has changed its way of computing mpg several times. You can't
compare one 20 years ago with one now.

The EPA has changed their methodology once. They have since published
"new" MPG figures for older cars going back to 1985. Even using these
questionable updated figures (no new testing was done) The 1987 Honda
Civic HF still gets the exact same overall figure as the 2009 Pius,
and significantly better highway mileage than any car sold in the US
today.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySidePopUp.jsp?column=1&id=2911

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year=2009&make=Toyota&model=Prius&hiddenField=Findacar

My theory is that the steady slip in mileage figures over the last two
decades was getting too embarrasing for the EPA, so they needed to
rewrite history a bit.

TFN.

Post by Lloyd

Post by unknown
Why are the car companies screwing around with hybrids and other
complicated solutions, when the obvious answer could be on the road
tomorrow?
TFN

Post by JD

Post by heav

Post by RF
September 18, 2008
Driving Euro diesels from Audi, BMW, Chrysler, and
Mini
  More than half the cars sold in Europe are
high-mpg diesels. So given the opportunity to
sample four models directly from the Continent, we
hoped to find out if modern European diesels are
good enough to entice American drivers.
Small-displacement engines with big torque and
fuel economy numbers have long been considered
forbidden fruit to the U.S. market. With the
revised, ultra-low-sulfur fuel recently adopted in
the States, we are seeing a slow influx of
European diesel models reach our shores.
Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen have lead this wave
of new diesels, and several other automakers have
announced plans to bring more here.
So, what do we have to look forward to? We got a
taste last week by attending the annual
International Motor Press Association (IMPA) track
days at Pocono Raceway, where we piloted several
imported diesel models provided by Bosch. We
sampled four European-market diesel models: 2009
Audi A4 3.0 TDI Quattro, 2007 BMW 123d hatchback,
2007 Chrysler 300D, and 2008 Mini Cooper D. (Bosch
supplies some of the fuel injection and emissions
control equipment for these cars that allow them
to meet stringent air quality standards in Europe.
They say the cars could also be made 50-state
compliant in the U.S.)
In our review of the Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec
diesel last year, we raved that its modern diesel
engine was not only clean, but also felt as smooth
and powerful as a gasoline engine. (Watch our
video road test.)
In driving the four European cars at IMPA, it is
clear that modern diesels are much smoother and
quieter than those engines Americans may remember
from the 1980s. But not all are as refined as gas
engines, or as that E320.
I was very impressed with the Audi A4 3.0 TDI.
This A4 has 236 hp and a whopping 369 lb-ft of
torque, giving it impressive acceleration. The car
was also quiet, relaxed, and refined in driving on
the street. It’s rated at a combined 36 mpg on the
European fuel economy test cycle. And several of
us came away from a lap around the road course
wearing wide smiles.
The Mini Cooper D gets impressive fuel economy
(rated at 60 mpg combined on the European fuel
economy test cycle). The Cooper D driven at Pocono
didn’t require as much shifting as our base Mini
Cooper with a manual transmission to stay in the
power band, but it had a notably gruff engine
sound. The same was true for the torquey and
entertaining BMW 123d hatchback, which was rated
at 45 mpg overall. Both the Mini and the BMW
included an auto-stop feature that shut the engine
off when the car was stopped to avoid wasting fuel
when idling.
  Bosch tells us the Chrysler 300D uses the same
3.0-liter V6 diesel engine as the Mercedes we
tested. It was plenty powerful in the Chrysler,
but not as smooth as in the Mercedes. (Also, we
smelled diesel fumes after making a U-turn,
whereas we couldn’t smell a thing in the Mercedes,
even with our nose near the tailpipe while it was
idling.) It’s rated at 35 mpg overall.
In the end, the lesson is that while modern
technology has dramatically reduced diesel
vibration and sluggishness, they aren’t as smooth
as the best gas engines. Powertrain noise and
vibration suppression are a combination of engine
design, noise reduction under hood, and engine
mounting technology. Nevertheless, the sacrifices
to drive a diesel are much smaller than they once
were, making the fuel economy improvements and
abundant torque all the more compelling.
Now if only diesel fuel prices were closer to
regular gasoline…
—Eric Evarts

Diesel engines put more carbon in the air per gallon burned because of
their higher btu content.  Financially, a gallon of diesel is about
the same as a gallon of gasoline, but carbon wise, the diesel has a
greater cost on the environment.

This is a case of twisted numbers. Yes, diesel puts out more carbon *per
gallon* but when you factor in the fuel economy relative to a similar
gasoline car the net carbon output is less *per mile driven*. Analogous
to this is the fact that my '92 Mercedes 300D costs $0.06/mile *less* to
that basis even old tech diesels have a lower carbon footprint than
their gasoline powered brethren.
JD

[Richard Cole]

Post by unknown

Post by Lloyd

Post by unknown
I have never understood why the car companies refuse to sell high
mileage cars in the USA. In Europe you can by a new E Class that gets
48 mpg highway, and 38 mpg combined. That's better than any car
currently sold in the US except the Pius.
They even make things like Diesel Chrysler minivans and Jeeps in the
US for the European market, that they won't sell in the home market.
Even something as seemingly fuel efficient as the Smart Car is
crippled for the US. The US version gets a combined 36 mpg, while in
Europe you can get a Diesel version that gets a combined 71 mpg.

Diesel fuel is more expensive than gas in the US -- usually even more
expensive than premium, by often up to 70 cents a gallon. Depends on
the time of year.

Currently true, but as someone who has driven Diesels for years, I can
report that this is a recent phenomemon. In the past it typically cost
somwhere near mid grade, or at times less than regular. The Federal
government and most states charge more tax per gallon for Diesel,
which makes no sense from a business standpoint as most goods are
trasported by Diesel trucks and trains. In Europe, Diesel is
significantly less expensive than regular gas.

Except in the UK where the UK tax (May 2008) was £0.55 per litre for diesel
(any amount of sulphur) and £0.52 for unleaded petrol - both plus VAT at
17.5% on the total including the tax (source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbon_oil_duty).

The diesel I bought today was £1.219 per litre (at a supermarket), so it
cost me £60.95 for 50 litres (rough conversion for merkians is $112.20 for
13.20 US gallons or $8.50 per US gallon)

Post by unknown
Also, low-sulfur fuel was just required last year;

Post by Lloyd
no diesel could meet the then-current Calif. standard and the now-
current national standard with the old high-sulfur diesel. Plus, the
US has particulate and NOx standards that are much more rigorous than
Europe does, and diesels make more of those two.

True, but Diesels produce far less hydrocarbons, almost no carbon
monoxide, and have far lower CO2 emissions which contribute to global
warming.

But diesel does produce particulates which has all sorts of health side
effects (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_matter). I
drive a diesel despite this :-(.

Post by unknown

Post by Lloyd
But Mercedes has a diesel, VW is introducing one, BMW is introducing
one. Honda promises one very soon.

Post by unknown
It wasn't always this way. In 1987 you could buy a Honda Civic that
got an EPA combined rating of 54 mpg.

The EPA has changed its way of computing mpg several times. You can't
compare one 20 years ago with one now.

The EPA has changed their methodology once. They have since published
"new" MPG figures for older cars going back to 1985. Even using these
questionable updated figures (no new testing was done) The 1987 Honda
Civic HF still gets the exact same overall figure as the 2009 Pius,
and significantly better highway mileage than any car sold in the US
today.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSideBySidePopUp.jsp?column=1&id=2911
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year=2009&make=Toyota&model=Prius&hiddenField=Findacar
My theory is that the steady slip in mileage figures over the last two
decades was getting too embarrasing for the EPA, so they needed to
rewrite history a bit.
TFN.

<snipped>

Richard
For caravanning tips and information visit
http://www.caravanningnow.co.uk

[PerfectReign]

Post by unknown
It wasn't always this way. In 1987 you could buy a Honda Civic that
got an EPA combined rating of 54 mpg.

The EPA has changed its way of computing mpg several times.  You can't
compare one 20 years ago with one now.

I've read about that several times.

Actually the '87 Civic did get way better mileage than a '08 Civic. Current
EPA estimates show the mid-80's Civic got about 45 MPG.

It weighed almost a thousand pounds less, since it had no structural
ridgitity, no airbags, less support for seats, and a lighter engine.

One Honda engineer remarked that it would get great mileage, but he wouldn't
want to have been in an accident while driving one.

[JD]

Post by PerfectReign

Post by Lloyd

Post by unknown
It wasn't always this way. In 1987 you could buy a Honda Civic that
got an EPA combined rating of 54 mpg.

The EPA has changed its way of computing mpg several times. You can't
compare one 20 years ago with one now.

I've read about that several times.
Actually the '87 Civic did get way better mileage than a '08 Civic. Current
EPA estimates show the mid-80's Civic got about 45 MPG.
It weighed almost a thousand pounds less, since it had no structural
ridgitity, no airbags, less support for seats, and a lighter engine.
One Honda engineer remarked that it would get great mileage, but he wouldn't
want to have been in an accident while driving one.

Maybe that's part of the problem. We drive our armored cars like idiots
thinking that we'll survive. I drive my old Merc the same way I ride my
motorcycle; like I don't want to get in an accident.

JD

[RF]

Post by JD

Post by PerfectReign

Post by Lloyd

Post by unknown
It wasn't always this way. In 1987 you could buy a Honda Civic that
got an EPA combined rating of 54 mpg.

The EPA has changed its way of computing mpg several times. You can't
compare one 20 years ago with one now.

I've read about that several times.
Actually the '87 Civic did get way better mileage than a '08 Civic. Current
EPA estimates show the mid-80's Civic got about 45 MPG.
It weighed almost a thousand pounds less, since it had no structural
ridgitity, no airbags, less support for seats, and a lighter engine.
One Honda engineer remarked that it would get great mileage, but he wouldn't
want to have been in an accident while driving one.

Maybe that's part of the problem. We drive our armored cars like idiots
thinking that we'll survive. I drive my old Merc the same way I ride my
motorcycle; like I don't want to get in an accident.
JD

I think the time is long overdue for replacing the
very heavy steel rust-pots and replacing them with
the latest in fiber reinforced plastic - like
airplanes. That should greatly increase the fuel
efficiency and safety.

RF

[jdoe]

Post by RF
I think the time is long overdue for replacing the
very heavy steel rust-pots and replacing them with
the latest in fiber reinforced plastic - like
airplanes. That should greatly increase the fuel
efficiency and safety.

which airplanes are you referring to?
__________________________________________
Never argue with an idiot.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[RF]

Post by jdoe

Post by RF
I think the time is long overdue for replacing the
very heavy steel rust-pots and replacing them with
the latest in fiber reinforced plastic - like
airplanes. That should greatly increase the fuel
efficiency and safety.

which airplanes are you referring to?

Shhh!! They are a secret at present. Visit the
next flying saucer you see
and you'll know what I am talking about ;-)

[unknown]

Post by RF

Post by JD

Post by PerfectReign

Post by Lloyd

Post by unknown
It wasn't always this way. In 1987 you could buy a Honda Civic that
got an EPA combined rating of 54 mpg.

The EPA has changed its way of computing mpg several times. You can't
compare one 20 years ago with one now.

I've read about that several times.
Actually the '87 Civic did get way better mileage than a '08 Civic. Current
EPA estimates show the mid-80's Civic got about 45 MPG.
It weighed almost a thousand pounds less, since it had no structural
ridgitity, no airbags, less support for seats, and a lighter engine.
One Honda engineer remarked that it would get great mileage, but he wouldn't
want to have been in an accident while driving one.

Maybe that's part of the problem. We drive our armored cars like idiots
thinking that we'll survive. I drive my old Merc the same way I ride my
motorcycle; like I don't want to get in an accident.
JD

I think the time is long overdue for replacing the
very heavy steel rust-pots and replacing them with
the latest in fiber reinforced plastic - like
airplanes. That should greatly increase the fuel
efficiency and safety.
RF

We are obsessed by security. The exaggerated number of stop signs. The
heavy bumpers etc. etc.
We have to agree that life is a temporary state and it is not that
important. After all is only important for the ones that survive.

Please don't kill me, I am looking after a handicapped son and he
needs me

[heav]

This is a guess, but I think diesel has 20% more energy per unit
volume that gasoline, so 20% more carbon. A 60 mpg diesel puts the
same amount of carbon in the air as a 50 mpg gasoline car.

I think about this because I have a gas car that gets 33 mpg, and my
300 TDT, with its newly remanufactured engine, gets 33 mpg also. It's
a lot more comfortable and restful to ride in the Benz all day than it
is to ride in the Corolla. Moneywise they cost roughly the same, but
the Benz has the larger carbon footprint.

[JD]

You're comparing apples and oranges. A gas version of your MB would be
doing well to get 24 mpg while a hypothetical diesel Corolla may well
exceed 50 mpg.

Post by heav
This is a guess, but I think diesel has 20% more energy per unit
volume that gasoline, so 20% more carbon. A 60 mpg diesel puts the
same amount of carbon in the air as a 50 mpg gasoline car.
I think about this because I have a gas car that gets 33 mpg, and my
300 TDT, with its newly remanufactured engine, gets 33 mpg also. It's
a lot more comfortable and restful to ride in the Benz all day than it
is to ride in the Corolla. Moneywise they cost roughly the same, but
the Benz has the larger carbon footprint.