 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / March 2008Where are the diesels?
Hi, After much media coverage that diesels were coming real soon now, the number of available diesels are not that many. My hunch on why this is happening is the price of diesel fuel. Where I am in New York, diesel fuel is priced above Regular Petrol grade by about 60 cents. So all the cost savings in better MPG may well be offset by the cost of fuel and the more expensive engine purchase price. Diesel for cars no longer have compeling economics. Best, Mike. hobbes <sacstinkytiger@yahoo.com> wrote in article <0b04d436-3a93-48b6-a562-0f42ae30d8a8@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>... > Where I am in New York, diesel > fuel is priced above Regular Petrol grade by about 60 cents. Petrol??? What part of New York are you in? > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Best, Mike. The latest Car and Driver (April) has an interesting column by CC. He runs through some of the advantages and disadvantages from an economic viewpoint, based on rising prices of Diesel fuel. One thing he did not discuss is biodiesel. I seem to have a vague recollection that some people claim it is easier to make biodiesel than biogasoline. Is this correct? How much of a problem is making biodiesel? >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > than biogasoline. Is this correct? How much of a problem is making > biodiesel? Depends on how tolerant your vehicle is, but basically you run used cooking oil from the fryer through a filter to strain out the solids and you have bio-diesel. I suppose you could avoid the filter by using new clean veggie oils. (but at that point I think the cost savings and then some is lost) Now how easy is it to make your veggie oil? I have no idea, but I believe it's fairly labor intensive without specialized machines. homemade biodiesel is and will be great until it reaches a saturation point of people doing it. At that point, used fry oil is going to start costing money. The resturants which enjoyed someone just taking it away for no cost will have people offering them money to take it once the demand for the used cooking oil goes up. >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > than biogasoline. Is this correct? How much of a problem is making > biodiesel? Well, the Mythbusters TV show poured straight left over french fry cooking oil into a Benz and it ran perfect on a test track oval. I think it got something like 2 mpg less than pump diesel. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com > One thing he did not discuss is biodiesel. I seem to have a vague > recollection that some people claim it is easier to make biodiesel > than biogasoline. Is this correct? How much of a problem is making > biodiesel? "Biodiesel" is basically just vegetable oil. So yeah, its a heck of a lot more practical than brewing ethanol to blend with gasoline, whch is the only thing so far that approaches "biogasoline." Its also much better on the energy balance, as ethanol takes as much (some say more, some say a little less) energy to make than you get back when you burn it. Methanol is working in Brazil where they're on the equator, have a tropical growth environment, year-round growing season, and can use sugar cane as the base stock for ethanol. Ethanol will never work at a positive energy balance in North America. Its just a load of subsidized feel-good BS. But biodiesel- THAT might work fairly well. > > One thing he did not discuss is biodiesel. I seem to have a vague > > recollection that some people claim it is easier to make biodiesel [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (some say more, some say a little less) energy to make than you get back > when you burn it. The people you have been talking to are idiots. It does take about as much energy to produce a bushel of corn as the energy recovered by producing ethanol from that bushel. But what is being overlooked is that the by-product of producing the ethanol is a high protein feed. That by-product is still worth 80% of the original value of the bushel of corn. Your same logic could be applied to oil. A barrel of oil costs $100 but you only get $90 worth of gasoline from that barrel. Therefore it isn't worth pumping the oil out of the ground. Of course the fallacy is that you have completely overlooked the other $450 worth of products produced from each barrel of oil. -jim > Methanol is working in Brazil where they're on the > equator, have a tropical growth environment, year-round growing season, > and can use sugar cane as the base stock for ethanol. Ethanol will never > work at a positive energy balance in North America. Its just a load of > subsidized feel-good BS. But biodiesel- THAT might work fairly well. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > The people you have been talking to are idiots. It does take about as much > energy to produce a bushel of corn as the energy recovered by producing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > have completely overlooked the other $450 worth of products produced from > each barrel of oil. If this were true we would not have all the livestock people grousing about the cost of feed. Milk now probably costs more than gasoline. There is considerable disagreement in the technical community about the efficiency of making fuel from corn. When you bring the added cost of effect on prices for food and other derived items, it is probably negative. I own a 1960s Mercedes Benz four cylinder diesel engine I bought for $350.00 from J.C.Whitney back in the 1970s.I was kind of thinking I could mount that diesel engine on a 1928 Chevrotet frame (with the front and rear axels and wire wheels and steering column and steering wheel on the frame when I bought it locally for $30.00) I have and build an old fashioned looking 1900s pie wagon or depot hack body on he frame. cuhulin > > The people you have been talking to are idiots. It does take about as much > > energy to produce a bushel of corn as the energy recovered by producing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If this were true we would not have all the livestock people grousing > about the cost of feed. That must mean the analysis that oil companies are losing money by bringing oil out of the ground must be true also since plenty of people are grousing about the cost of gasoline. How does somebody grousing make ethanol production inefficient? > Milk now probably costs more than gasoline. Well it should. 40 years ago milk cost 4 times as much as gasoline did. > There is considerable disagreement in the technical community about the > efficiency of making fuel from corn. which goes to show you that technical community knows squat about farming. > When you bring the added cost of > effect on prices for food and other derived items, it is probably negative. Negative for who? Why do you think farmers are the only people in the world not allowed to make a profit. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > The people you have been talking to are idiots. Well, now that you've piped up that's true.... "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message news:abidncln3- . Methanol is working in Brazil where they're on the > equator, have a tropical growth environment, year-round growing season, > and can use sugar cane as the base stock for ethanol. Ethanol will never > work at a positive energy balance in North America. Its just a load of > subsidized feel-good BS. But biodiesel- THAT might work fairly well. Note a type, Ethanol is working in Brasil, not methanol. And it really IS working. But they are not stupid enough to make it out of corn ;>) > "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message news:abidncln3- > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Note a type, Ethanol is working in Brasil, not methanol. And it really IS > working. But they are not stupid enough to make it out of corn ;>) And they have VERY few vehicles in Brazil as well. If you made the numbers of vehicles proportional to the US they would be using oil and not ethanol. They would have the same problem the US will have. Not enough land to produce the ethanol needed for all the vehicles.  SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York Life is not like a box of chocolates it's more like a jar of jalapenos- what you do today could burn your a.s tomorrow! >> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message news:abidncln3- >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > not ethanol. They would have the same problem the US will have. Not > enough land to produce the ethanol needed for all the vehicles. The real problem is government interference. In the USA the elected office holders voted for their ADM contributions by mandating ethanol while in Brazil (as I understand it) the government mandated flex fuel vehicles and let the market provide fuels accordingly. People fill up with whatever the best deal is. Brazil's solution is more workable because the market can adjust with the proportions of ethanol and gasoline. In the USA, the percentage of ethanol is mandated and E85 is often subsidized (as I recall) which causes all sorts of market havok as we are seeing at the moment. Too bad the US doesn't believe in the free market any more. "Steve W." <csr684NOT@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fqsbh1$6p5 > And they have VERY few vehicles in Brazil as well. If you made the numbers > of vehicles proportional to the US they would be using oil and not > ethanol. They would have the same problem the US will have. Not enough > land to produce the ethanol needed for all the vehicles. They have quite a few vehicles in Brasil, with a population in the order of the same as the USA They manufacture cars there. Given, the USA has more cars, to be sure. Brasil had a problem, when I lived there in the 70's, of having almost no oil production to speak of. Their production has increased, but they also now are moving to flexifuel cars capable of buring ethanol, gasoline, or compressed natural gas or propane. Their approach to becoming independent of fuel imports was multifaced, and has worked for them. Their ethanol comes mostly from sugar cane, not corn. Potatoes, mandioca, etc could be pressed into service if need be. > "Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message news:abidncln3- > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Note a type, Ethanol is working in Brasil, not methanol. And it really IS > working. But they are not stupid enough to make it out of corn ;>) I have heard that in Brazil there are cars using both. Of course, Brazil is a warmer climate, so pure methanol would work better there (methanol has cold starting problems). My understanding is that cars must have considerably modified fuel systems, but it is doable. I don't think methanol use is nearly as wide as ethanol, but I have heard that there ARE vehicles using it. For that matter, it certainly isn't rocket science to convert a car to run on methanol. Has anyone done a study on energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions for use of methanol in US? Last time I bought methanol for my race car it was two bucks a gallon, but of course the car burns a lot more of it than if it were running on gasoline. > For that matter, it certainly isn't rocket science to convert a car to > run on methanol. Has anyone done a study on energy requirements and > greenhouse gas emissions for use of methanol in US? Last time I > bought methanol for my race car it was two bucks a gallon, but of > course the car burns a lot more of it than if it were running on > gasoline. That's a point people don't think about when discussing the low price of E85. Here it's usually about 50-60 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline, but you get what, about three blocks per gallon from it? SignatureIf only there was a Republican running for President of the United States. >> "Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message news:abidncln3- >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > don't think methanol use is nearly as wide as ethanol, but I have > heard that there ARE vehicles using it. I dont know that methanol is readily available for fuel in Brasil, but I would not doubt that it could be used in their flex fuel cars. Methanol is made, generally, from natural gas and that might be a poor choice in Brasil. Brasil uses a lot of natural gas from Bolivia and neighboring countries and it goes to home cooking,perhaps industry, etc but it would not, to me, make sense to convert it to methanol as a fuel when the cars there can already operate on the compressed natural gas.It would be more expensive, and you would lose part of the energy in the natural gas (methane, actually). Brasil has been developing these methods since I lived there in the 70's, and has made great strides. The materials problems encountered in dealing with alcoholic fuels were essentially solved long ago. Some areas of Brasil are not always so warm. I have seen ice in Sao Paulo, but for the most of the country you comment is true. > Methanol is made, generally, from natural gas and that might be a poor > choice > in Brasil. But it can also be made from wood (it is frequently referred to as "wood alcohol"). I had heard there were some folks making it from forest trimmings rather than just burning the wood scraps in bonfires. I thought there was a big deforestation process in Brazil, which is where I assumed they were making the methanol. Even in this country, it seems like it would be a lot cheaper to make alcohol from wood scraps than from corn. >> Methanol is made, generally, from natural gas and that might be a poor >> choice [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Even in this country, it seems like it would be a lot cheaper to make > alcohol from wood scraps than from corn. PetroBras, I believe, had some projects to make fuel out of quick growing trees like the eucalyptus and possibly even the gmelina trees. These were forestry projects. As far as I know, there are no significant wood distillation projects going on at present, but I could be wrong. The deforestation of the rain forest areas is a lot of slash and burn agriculture, etc. and certainly some logging. No doubt you have heard of Kudzu before.A few years ago, I read somewhere somebody was experimenting with converting Kudzu into fuel.That Kudzu grows in many places around here. cuhulin > No doubt you have heard of Kudzu before.A few years ago, I read > somewhere somebody was experimenting with converting Kudzu into > fuel.That Kudzu grows in many places around here. > cuhulin A lot of organic material can be converted into fuel. What we need is a sound, workable energy policy.. We need a direction. And we havent had that. >A lot of organic material can be converted into fuel. > >What we need is a sound, workable energy policy.. We need a direction. > >And we havent had that. Oh, we've had it. The problem is that it's in the direction of more profits for companies that lobby a lot, rather than in the direction of actually benefitting the country at large. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." I own a 1960s four cylinder Mercedes Benz diesel engine.I bought it from J.C.Whitney in the 1970s. cuhulin >I own a 1960s four cylinder Mercedes Benz diesel engine.I bought it from > J.C.Whitney in the 1970s. > cuhulin Do you have a boat that needs an anchor? Seriously, if I had that engine, I would couple it to a generator head in case we have another serious hurricane >>I own a 1960s four cylinder Mercedes Benz diesel engine.I bought it from >> J.C.Whitney in the 1970s. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Seriously, if I had that engine, I would couple it to a generator head in >case we have another serious hurricane If it's what I think it is, that's precisely what it's for. I believe we had a similar one on an aircraft start cart a few years ago. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." My old 1960s four cylinder Mercedes Benz diesel engine was originally used/installed in a MB car at the MB factory, I believe so.There are still some of those four cylinder diesel engine powered 1960s MB cars in use today, in some parts of the World.My older brother was in Germany in 1963, he said those old MB cars are tough, built like a Tank. cuhulin >> Methanol is made, generally, from natural gas and that might be a poor >> choice [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I thought there was a big deforestation process in Brazil, which is >where I assumed they were making the methanol. Destructive distillation of wood is very, very polluting and very inefficient. But it was traditionally how wood alcohol was made before the modern era of petroleum. In fact, the cheapest way to make both methanol AND ethanol today is by synthesis from natural gas. In Brazil, they mostly make ethanol from sugar cane, which is fairly efficient (still very polluting... burning sugar cane fields is not something you want to be around during harvest time). On the other hand, their deforestation issues have to do with slash and burn agriculture. Folks knock down trees, plant a crop for a couple seasons, then when the soil is depleted they go and knock down more trees for more land. Modern fertilizers or medieval crop rotation methods will prevent this, but there is really no perceived reason for farmers to do it when they think forest land is free and will never run out. >Even in this country, it seems like it would be a lot cheaper to make >alcohol from wood scraps than from corn. The REAL solution would be to have proper synthesis of ethanol or methanol from cellulose, more or less a higher tech version of destructive distillation. Folks are working on this and a pilot plant should be coming online soon. This will allow just about any kind of cellulose waste from old newspapers to switchgrass and wood scraps to be used to make fuel. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>> Methanol is made, generally, from natural gas and that might be a >>> poor choice [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > seasons, then when the soil is depleted they go and knock down more > trees for more land. I have to call BS here. they do NOT abandan the land after a couple of years. or any amount of time. Once it is farmable it is farmed from then on. It is only not farmed if it needs to be fallow for a time or the cost of production does not make it attractive that year. It cost a lot of money to bring the Jungle into production, slash and burn is not all that cheep. The cost of running a dozer is not a little cheep and you have to fertilize it right away. It won`t grow squat after being in jungle for years. KB Modern fertilizers or medieval crop rotation > methods will prevent this, but there is really no perceived reason for > farmers to do it when they think forest land is free and will never [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cellulose waste from old newspapers to switchgrass and wood scraps to > be used to make fuel. --scott SignatureTHUNDERSNAKE #9 Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others "Kevin" <kevyNOSPAM@netins.net> wrote in message > I have to call BS here. they do NOT abandan the land after a couple of > years. or any amount of time. Once it is farmable it is farmed from then [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have to fertilize it right away. It won`t grow squat after being in > jungle for years. KB I havent been to those areas in Brasil in a long time so maybe things have changed. The kind of agriculture we are talking about has traditionally been slash and burn, no dozers, no fertilizer. Winter burnoffs (June through August maybe) used to make it hard to fly into or over some of those places. The loss of visibility due to smoke could be pretty poor. Some of those soils are not really very fertile anyway, and have to lie fallow after minimal use. There have been some projects with mucuna beans to put nutrients, particularly nitrogen and organics, into the soils but I believe those projects are more to the south. Trying to use chemical fertilizers on those lands can be too expensive. One good thing about growing mandioca, it doesnt really need much in the way of fertilizer...Water, CO2, air, and sun will make a crop. And you can eat it or make ethanol out of it, as you wish. >> One thing he did not discuss is biodiesel. I seem to have a vague >> recollection that some people claim it is easier to make biodiesel [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > work at a positive energy balance in North America. Its just a load of > subsidized feel-good BS. But biodiesel- THAT might work fairly well. In Brazil, they are using ethanol not methanol. Brazil due to a lack of oil resources used its sugar cane as the primary source of ethanol. A friend has a VW Jetta diesel. He says he gets 42 mpg city, 46 mpg highway. Unlike the old diesel cars: it doesn't smoke, it doesn't smell, and its not noisy. I was impressed. I recall the 80s Mercedes with diesels. They smoked, they smelled bad, noisy, and the back of the car was black with diesel smoke residue. The diesel Jetta does none of that. Finding a station that sells diesel can be a challenge. >A friend has a VW Jetta diesel. He says he gets 42 mpg city, 46 mpg > highway. Unlike the old diesel cars: it doesn't smoke, it doesn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Finding a station that sells diesel can be a challenge. Indeed, the newer (European) diesels work very well and dont have that "pine knot burner". Reputation. I hope they find their way here soon. Diesel is easy to find here in Texas. Not cheap, but available. The biodiesel situation is not clearly defined. You can burn waste vegetable oil in many diesels after it has been cleaned up a bit. I have some long term concerns about continued availability of food oil wastes, and about the use of them in auto systems. You can also run into a nasty situation with the tax authorities if you dont pay tax on this "fuel". You can make better fuels by converting the fattyacid triglycerides into methyl esters, ethyl esters, or other. That conversion is relatively easy, chemically, but you will lose 15-20% of the volume of oil when the glycerol precipitates out of solution. And then, what do you do with it? > A friend has a VW Jetta diesel. He says he gets 42 mpg city, 46 mpg > highway. Unlike the old diesel cars: it doesn't smoke, it doesn't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > noisy, and the back of the car was black with diesel smoke residue. The > diesel Jetta does none of that. Most of that difference is due to the new low-sulfur diesel that was phased in last year, not due to the engine. Jetta TDIs smelled and smoked just like any other diesel year-before-last when all the diesel was still high-sulfur. Of course the change is part of the reason that diesel is so much more expensive than gasoline right now, too. >> A friend has a VW Jetta diesel. He says he gets 42 mpg city, 46 mpg >> highway. Unlike the old diesel cars: it doesn't smoke, it doesn't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > was still high-sulfur. Of course the change is part of the reason that > diesel is so much more expensive than gasoline right now, too. Wonder if the low sulfur rules are the same in Europe? Could be reason that nearly half their cars are diesel but ours are not. > Wonder if the low sulfur rules are the same in Europe? Could be reason > that nearly half their cars are diesel but ours are not. The US is way behind on low-sulfur diesel fuels. >> Wonder if the low sulfur rules are the same in Europe? Could be reason >> that nearly half their cars are diesel but ours are not. > > The US is way behind on low-sulfur diesel fuels. Er... The US is way behind the times on low-sulfur diesel fuel. Europe had it considerably earlier. "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Er... > > The US is way behind the times on low-sulfur diesel fuel. Europe had it > considerably earlier. I couldnt quote specifications, but have no doubt that this is true. In fact, the USA is behind in many areas compared with other parts of the world. We have achieved 20/20 tunnelvision ;>) > "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> Er... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > In fact, the USA is behind in many areas compared with other parts of the > world. We have achieved 20/20 tunnelvision ;>) Looks like EC is ahead of US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low_sulfur_diesel I was curious about cost comparisons. Is diesel more expensive than gas in EC as in US? "Frank" <frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet> wrote in message > I was curious about cost comparisons. Is diesel more expensive than gas > in EC as in US? In Norway, where I have lived and can speak with a little bit of authority, diesel is cheaper than gasoline. Maybe 10% cheaper.. BUT gasoline there may run near to US$8 per US gallon. Obviously the tax is quite high. With prices that high, you have to have cars that are economical, and the diesels are, at present, the way to go. I expect hydrogen fuel to be commercially available there on a pilot or commercial basis long before it would be possible in the USA. > "Frank" <frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet> wrote in message >> I was curious about cost comparisons. Is diesel more expensive than gas [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > commercial > basis long before it would be possible in the USA. In the UK where I live, fuel prices are horrendous: unleaded petrol (gasoline) is around £1.08/litre ($7.80/US gallon) and diesel is about £1.14/litre ($8.20/US gallon). Both these prices are for low-sulphur fuels which were introduced a couple of year ago. Consequently, as HLS describes for Norway, there is a great incentive for cars to be as economical as possible - and using a diesel engine is one way of doing this. My 1993 1.8 petrol VW Golf averaged about 35 mpg (UK gallon) and my 1999 2.0 diesel Peugeot 306 averages about 50 mpg. I can remember 30 years ago diesel fuel used to be considerably cheaper than (leaded) petrol - typically half the price. Then as prices went up and also as diesel-engined cars became more common, the price of diesel went up much more than petrol did, to the point where it was typically a couple of pence/litre cheaper than petrol. But in the last few years, the situation has reversed and diesel is now more expensive (£1.14 versus £1.08 typically). The gap widened a lot when prices rose dramatically in the middle of last year due to the rise in the cost of crude oil. My Peugeot is still a lot cheaper to run than my Golf was, but the difference is less than it was. The other big benefit is that diesel-engined cars (in my opinion) are a lot easier to drive: much greater torque at low engine speed which results in not having to change down so far to negotiate roundabouts (rotaries, traffic circles). And diesel engines run more slowly: on a motorway, my Peugeot runs a lot quieter at 2,500 rpm than the 1.8 petrol version which I borrowed when my car was being serviced which screamed away at nearly 4000 rpm. And the petrol engine ran out of puff at about 60: its 50-70 acceleration was very poor compared with that of the diesel - and 50-70 is what counts when you come up behind a slow lorry and have to accelerate to overtake it. >> "Frank" <frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet> wrote in message >>> I was curious about cost comparisons. Is diesel more expensive than gas [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > diesel - and 50-70 is what counts when you come up behind a slow lorry and > have to accelerate to overtake it. Taxes, supply and demand make it confusing. In US maybe one out of ten pumps at gas stations have diesel and it costs maybe 10-20% more than gasoline. Home heating oil also costs more but tax situation is different. If governments would just step back and let free market forces take control, I'm sure we would all adjust to more expensive fuels by going diesel in US. "Frank" <frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet> wrote in message > Taxes, supply and demand make it confusing. In US maybe one out of ten > pumps at gas stations have diesel and it costs maybe 10-20% more than > gasoline. Home heating oil also costs more but tax situation is > different. If governments would just step back and let free market > forces take control, I'm sure we would all adjust to more expensive > fuels by going diesel in US. I am sure that the emissions challenge is one of the reasons that we havent gone more toward the smaller diesels. Red tape in this country can be insurmountable. > "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> Er... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > In fact, the USA is behind in many areas compared with other parts of the > world. We have achieved 20/20 tunnelvision ;>) The US was behind on ULSD (probably thanks to the Teamsters union), however we are not and have never been behind on most environmental issues, at least on a per-capita basis. Fer cripes' sake, Europe still had LEADED gasoline all through the 80s and somewhere into the 90s. I have European friends who could not imagine that the US went unleaded in 1975 (yes, sales of leaded fuel continued a little longer- until the mid 80s- but catalysts appeared in '75 with the requirement of unleaded fuel) >> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> Er... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >1975 (yes, sales of leaded fuel continued a little longer- until the mid >80s- but catalysts appeared in '75 with the requirement of unleaded fuel) Emissions wise the US was way ahead. Even the leaded had less and less lead until it was just phased out. However there are other ways the US lags, head lamp regs for instance. The US also lagged badly on tires back in the 70s... there all sorts of things here and there and that's what I thought he was getting at. > Emissions wise the US was way ahead. Even the leaded had less and less > lead until it was just phased out. > > However there are other ways the US lags, head lamp regs for instance. No kidding on the headlamp issue. The US should just ditch the entire DOT regulation set and adopt the ECE headlamp regulations (right-side drive version, obviously) wholesale. epa declared today in the detroit news that diesel fumes and particulate kills 21000 people a year and leaded gas is still available in my area have to pump into a container not a car > > "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> Er... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 1975 (yes, sales of leaded fuel continued a little longer- until the mid > 80s- but catalysts appeared in '75 with the requirement of unleaded fuel) Look in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazines, a few monhs ago..Vsit your local area libraries.About new European diesel engines. www.popsci.com www.popularmechanics.com cuhulin > epa declared today in the detroit news that diesel fumes and particulate kills > 21000 people a year and leaded gas is still available in my area have to pump > into a container not a car Avgas doesn't count. Its still leaded worldwide. I dont ever drive at night time anymore.For all I dont know, it could be I might have a head light or a tail light out.I might check those lights out someday.I do know, Florida will pull you over at night time if you have only one single light out. cuhulin >> epa declared today in the detroit news that diesel fumes and particulate kills >> 21000 people a year and leaded gas is still available in my area have to pump >> into a container not a car > >Avgas doesn't count. Its still leaded worldwide. Yes, but modern 100LL has a lot less lead in it than old red avgas. Same for marine gasoline, which is still leaded, but not quite so much. I was able to buy leaded auto gasoline here in rural Virginia as late as 1990, but when gas prices went up during the first gulf war the few folks carrying it decided to stop. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>> A friend has a VW Jetta diesel. He says he gets 42 mpg city, 46 mpg >>> highway. Unlike the old diesel cars: it doesn't smoke, it doesn't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Wonder if the low sulfur rules are the same in Europe? Could be reason > that nearly half their cars are diesel but ours are not. Europe has indeed had low-sulfur diesel (and stupid-high gas prices) for much longer than most of North America. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Best, Mike. In the USA diesel automobiles have really never had a legal cost advantage over comparable gasoline powered models. Initial cost of a diesel is higher, maintenance costs are a bit higher, fuel is priced well above regular and usually above premium gasoline, etc. On Mar 7, 7:43 am, hobbes <sacstinkyti...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Best, Mike. In the USA diesel automobiles have really never had a legal cost advantage over comparable gasoline powered models. Initial cost of a diesel is higher, maintenance costs are a bit higher, fuel is priced well above regular and usually above premium gasoline, etc. The USA is a bit of a special situation.. Diesel is higher here than gasoline but it isnt that way all over the world... I dont know that maintenance of a diesel is substantially higher than that of a gasoline engine. It is not in the European small diesels I have had experience with. And the cost of building a diesel is not substantially more expensive either, I would guess, if diesel autos are built in quantity. Yes, there are differences, but I dont believe them to be substantial differences. > On Mar 7, 7:43 am, hobbes <sacstinkyti...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The USA is a bit of a special situation.. Well, the original poster was asking about diesels in New York... And in the U.S. diesel doesn't receive the relative subsidy that it does elsewhere. > Diesel is higher here than gasoline but it isnt that way all over the > world... If the taxation was the same then the prices would converge. > I dont know that maintenance of a diesel is substantially higher than that > of a gasoline engine. It is not in the European small diesels I have had > experience with. Actually I said a bit higher. Diesels typically take more oil on a change, require bigger filters, have a fancy fuel filter, require glow plug replacement, etc. Gasoline cars have other costs. > And the cost of building a diesel is not substantially more expensive > either, > I would guess, if diesel autos are built in quantity. Yes, there are > differences, > but I dont believe them to be substantial differences. Some car manufacturers produce diesels in large quantity so I would think that the economies of scale would have been realized by now. "John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote in message news:e57cbdd9-d84b-4a44-baf9- > Diesel is higher here than gasoline but it isnt that way all over the > world... >>If the taxation was the same then the prices would converge. >>>It should be that way. We already pay about $8.00 per gallon for gasoline in Europe, and diesel is a little less. A lot of that is tax, to be sure. Right now, gasoline is priced on the markets (not at the stations) at about $2.60, last time I looked. There is no reason for diesel to cost substantially more than that, and taxation is probably part of the answer. Market targeting of critical industrial needs may be another. >>Some car manufacturers produce diesels in large quantity so I would think that the economies of scale would have been realized by now. >>>I think economies of scale are being realized internationally, but not >>>here. We have very little penetration into the auto diesel world. That might change if fuel prices increase substantially. Back in the 1950s when Mecedes Benz cars (gas and diesels) were first being imported into America, some people who bought the diesel engine versions got the idea of using some of their home heating fuel/oil in their cars, some farmers started using some of their tractor/farm machinery diesel fuel in their diesel engine cars.Then, fed (Crooked) govt mandated that those companies who made and sold all diesel fuel and home heating fuel oil in America have to add red dye to those fuels. On the web, Diesel Fuel Trees in Brazil cuhulin > "John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message news:e57cbdd9-d84b-4a44-baf9- > > Diesel is higher here than gasoline but it isnt that way all over the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > change > if fuel prices increase substantially. But the margin of improved fuel is just not that compelling. I can find a Toyota or Honda standard fuel car that will get in the high 30's mpg on substantially cheaper fuel and have more room than the oft- mentioned VW diesel. When the pollution from even the updated diesel motor is also added in I just do not see the attraction for buyers in the USA. But the margin of improved fuel is just not that compelling. I can find a Toyota or Honda standard fuel car that will get in the high 30's mpg on substantially cheaper fuel and have more room than the oft- mentioned VW diesel. When the pollution from even the updated diesel motor is also added in I just do not see the attraction for buyers in the USA. It has been cited that the average fuel mileage in Europe, because of the higher efficiency diesels, is something like 42 miles per gallon, and that if we in America averaged this sort of economy, we could essentially be free of foreign oil imports. That would be a good goal, I think. It is not all about our personal driving whims...I think it is becoming far more serious than that. The use of American biodiesel and ethanol are, as much as anything, ways to offset the foreign oil importations, which really DO hold us hostage. The ethanol program using corn as the source is, IMO, a pork laden boondoggle but that does not mean that the concept is bad. It can be made to work, in the greater scheme of things, as can the biodiesel. But the government and ADM cant solve it in the way they have started out. The emissions problems can, to some extent, be solved satisfactorily. The only real intrinsic emission, AFAIK, that is peculiarly related to the diesel is NOx. Carbon, particulates, etc can be dealt with. Mercedes has cobbled up a system to reduce NOx on their rather high performance diesels, but it is a PITA. I have extreme faith that NOx emissions can be brought into reasonably acceptable limits, on more mundate motors, without too much trouble. Buyers may not be able, in the foreseeable future, to base their buying decisions on the traditional factors of size, power, chrome, etc. I feel that we may be forced to become a lot more responsible and economy minded than we have been. Head on over to your local area libraries.Popular Mechanics, or Popular Science magazines, a few years ago,about new improved European diesel car engines. No body knows to this day yet what happened to Rudolph Diesel, when he disappeared off of that Ship between New York and Europe. cuhulin >Head on over to your local area libraries.Popular Mechanics, or Popular >Science magazines, a few years ago,about new improved European diesel >car engines. They are indeed improved, but the fuel is even more improved. You can pick up a 1970s Mercedes for very cheap today, and they run very cleanly on modern fuel. Much better than they did in the seventies. They still aren't very responsive to the throttle, though, and that is something that the more modern designs have fixed. There's plenty of power in the old designs, it can just take a while to get it after you hit the mushroom. But they are fun cars, and very overbuilt. >No body knows to this day yet what happened to Rudolph Diesel, when he >disappeared off of that Ship between New York and Europe. I saw him just the other day, having tea with Huey Long. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message >>No body knows to this day yet what happened to Rudolph Diesel, when he >>disappeared off of that Ship between New York and Europe. > > I saw him just the other day, having tea with Huey Long. > --scott Elvis had been there, but had gone to p** > They are indeed improved, but the fuel is even more improved. You can > pick up a 1970s Mercedes for very cheap today, and they run very cleanly > on modern fuel. Much better than they did in the seventies. But probably still not quite as clean as, say, a modern Cummins/Dodge Ram 3500 ;-) > They still aren't very responsive to the throttle, though, and that is > something that the more modern designs have fixed. Once again, I cite the Cummins/Dodge Ram. Unbelievably responsive for a vehicle that heavy- and I know of no gasoline truck that is any quicker either, especially when loaded. > On Mar 7, 7:43 am, hobbes <sacstinkyti...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Hi, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> happening is the price of diesel fuel. Where I am in New York, diesel >> fuel is priced above Regular Petrol grade by about 60 cents. New York and California have emissions standards in place that make just about every current diesel engine illegal to sell. Add in the extra taxes on diesel and the long standing perceptions (caused by big trucks, buses and just about every diesel vehicle) of being smelly, dirty and noisy, and it becomes real easy to see why they don't sell well in the U.S. Then you can add in that many cost more to service, and actually require service (how many people do you hear ask, GEE I have to check the oil?, or Do I have to change the oil in less than 10,000 miles?) to remain operational. Oh and FYI the illustrious dimwitted Democrat in the governors mansion has decided that not only will he raise the thruway tolls, he also want to RAISE the gas taxes and add extra tax on diesel and alternative fuels. If he gets what he wants you can add another 5% in taxes. Gee what a shock a tax&spend liberal who wants to tax&spend! Even when he said in his campaign that he was different and so many STUPID IDIOTS believed him. Do you think gas prices are too high? I do. The governor doesn't. Just when you thought your budget couldn't take another hit, Governor Spitzer has proposed *_raising gasoline taxes in his budget_*. He wants to _eliminate the cap on gasoline sales taxes_ we won in 2006 and put an adjustable tax on gasoline, tied to national gas prices, that will raise the tax by up to 5 percent per year. That's going to raise the price at the pump! Maybe he's not worrying about gas prices in Manhattan or in his state-supplied car, but the people I represent are plenty concerned about rising gas prices. In our area, we depend on our cars and trucks to get to work, school, the store and church. Along with his proposed 300 percent hike in car insurance fees (from $5 to $20 per car) the governor is hurting upstate motorists. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York Life is not like a box of chocolates it's more like a jar of jalapenos- what you do today could burn your a.s tomorrow! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.