Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The rise of diesel - the continuing story

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Dori A Schmetterling - 22 May 2005 23:22 GMT
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12389-1620585,00.html

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
           Who's laughing now? The day of the diesel is here
           Once noisy and smelly, diesels are now so refined their ride
rivals petrol cars and they can be far cheaper to run. No wonder sales are
soaring, writes Andrew Frankel of The Sunday Times

                       MARK BOURDILLON. Thanks to Shell, Nissan

           We used to buy diesel cars because they were cheap and didn't
cost much to run. The fact that they sounded like tractors and had smelly,
sooty exhausts was a standing joke and for a long time gave them a
reputation as difficult to budge as Lada's.
           For refinement and performance, petrol was king. Until about six
years ago, that is. A diesel revolution started then and it's still
happening.

           So while overall car sales are expected to slide in 2005,
forecasters are confident that diesel will continue to buck the trend.
Indeed, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders predicts 35% of the
2.4m cars bought in Britain this year will be diesel, rising to about 40% in
the next few years and settling just below the 1m mark. Six years ago, it
was 14%.

           Everybody is getting in on the act. You can already choose derv
versions of all the bestselling family cars, but now luxury manufacturers
are slapping diesel badges on the boots of their vehicles. Lexus will soon
launch its first diesel in the new IS200. Jaguar will follow with the first
diesel XJ this summer and Mercedes revealed a 4 litre bi-turbo SL sports car
concept at the Geneva motor show this year. If the SL goes into production
it would be as fast as a Porsche 911.

           The question is, why? Clearly, as fuel prices march relentlessly
towards £4 per gallon, the imperative to stretch every drop as far as it
will go becomes more important. Diesel costs the same or more than unleaded
yet offers big savings to the long-distance driver.

           Take Britain's bestseller, the Ford Focus, as a typical example.
In 1.6 litre form its petrol engine returns 42.2mpg on the combined cycle,
which may seem reasonable enough - until you start comparing it with the 1.6
litre diesel version, which will do 58.9mpg, and if you drive gently, 70mpg
should be possible. Oh, and the diesel has more power and gives stronger
performance too.

           However, this is but one of many reasons to explain the sudden
explosion of interest in diesel power. Another crucially significant factor
is that modern technologies, such as common rail and direct injection, have
transformed diesels, improving their refinement, response and power to a
point unthinkable even 10 years ago. BMW's most powerful 3 litre engine
offers 272bhp and is fired not by petrol but diesel. Moreover, fitted to the
535d, it will still return 35.7mpg, compared with the 29.7mpg of the less
powerful, slower, petrol-powered 530i.

           Diesels can also prove cheaper to maintain. Volkswagen reckons a
new Golf TDI PD will typically do 1,500 miles more than a 2.0 FSi petrol
before its service-due indicator flickers on. And when a major service is
due at about 40,000 miles, the diesel service is priced at £155.84 inclusive
of labour, compared with £206.99 for the petrol Golf.

           Then there are emissions. Diesels produce less carbon dioxide
than petrol engines and given that company car tax bills depend on such
things, we shouldn't be surprised that drivers in their thousands now opt to
fill from the black pump.

           Choose to run a new Audi A4 2 litre petrol and your tax bill
will be assessed on 24% of its price when new; opt instead for the 1.9 TDi
and you'll be assessed at 19%. To a high-rate taxpayer, that's an annual
saving of approximately £390, despite the fact that the diesel has a higher
list price.

           And it gets better the higher up the food chain you go. Try the
same experiment with S-class Mercedes and you'll discover that choosing an S
320CDi over an S 350 knocks the thick end of £2,000 off your tax bill. No
surprise, then, that the diesel S-class outsells all petrol variants of the
same model put together. What will open your eyes further is that the diesel
S-class is also nicer to drive.

           That's probably the biggest surprise waiting for those who join
the diesel revolution. Modern diesels are now so smooth and quiet they can
power luxury limousines that stand or fall on their refinement levels and
nobody on board would know what power source was feeding the engine. If they
did twig, it would probably be because diesels provide more low-down torque
than petrol engines, enabling diesels to produce a silken shove at engine
speeds that are often barely above idling for petrol cars.

           So diesels use less fuel, have better response, are cheaper to
run as a company car and will go further than any comparable petrol car on a
tank of fuel, reducing overall journey times by cutting the number of fuel
stops by up to a third. They attract lower levels of vehicle excise duty and
they can be just as refined as petrol cars. In the light of this, perhaps
the real question is why is anyone buying petrol cars?

           The answer is that buyers often have to pay a premium of about
£1,000 for a diesel-engined version of the equivalent petrol car. So while
the diesel will use less fuel, you have to work out how many thousands of
miles it will take to claw back your investment, bearing in mind also that
diesel costs slightly more per litre. The exception to this rule is at the
luxury end of the market where diesels are sometimes cheaper than their
petrol equivalents.

           Honda reckons you need to be clocking up 20,000 miles a year to
make buying its £18,600 Honda CR-V i-CTDi financially worthwhile compared
with the £17,200 petrol CR-V 2.0. The diesel CR-V costs more, says Honda,
"because the engine is more complicated and has more components". Unlike the
petrol CR-V, it also has a standard six-speed gearbox.

                       Some manufacturers still keep price differentials to
a minimum. The Skoda Octavia 1.6 FSI is £13,540, while the equivalent 1.9
TDI costs just £260 more and is capable of 13mpg extra. Not surprisingly,
sales are tipped 70-30 in favour of diesel.
                       However, in the case of smaller cars, which are
inherently economical to begin with, diesel is nothing like as popular and
80% of orders for the Skoda Fabia are for petrol models.

                       Life in diesel-land is not all sunshine and blue
skies, then. One dark cloud has appeared on the horizon in the form of the
chancellor's decision to reimpose the 3% benefit in kind company car tax
surcharge levied on all diesel cars not compliant with the latest Euro IV
emissions standard. This was waived for all cars that were Euro IV compliant
in advance of the deadline but as all diesel cars have to conform by the end
of the year, the chancellor has deemed the waiver an incentive that is no
longer necessary. Expect a stampede for 2005 diesels in the last few months
of the year.

                       Also, some pundits have predicted that prestige
brand diesels will suffer a fall in residual values as the market becomes
oversupplied by diesel stock. However, according to analysis by price
watchdogs at Glass's, the premiums being paid for used diesel cars over
petrol-engined equivalents are still on the increase.

                       Using the BMW 5-series as an example, Glass's says a
two-year-old 530d (diesel) automatic will by now have lost £6,905 from its
original £34,555 list price. Compare that with the £8,830 drop in value
suffered by a 530i (petrol) automatic of the same age, which cost £33,305
new.

                       So despite the best efforts of No 11, the expansion
in diesel's popularity appears set to continue. And one thing seems sure:
the days when people only bought diesels for their economy are gone for
good.

                       FIVE MODELS SETTING THE PACE AT THE BLACK PUMP

                       BESTSELLER
                       The Ford Focus TDCi - the ubiquitous family car -
has just been overhauled, providing a range of super-frugal diesels to
choose from

                       CHEAPEST
                       Fiat's cute Panda Multijet is a steal at just
£7,895. The new 1.3 turbo diesel is cheaper than both the Renault Clio and
                       Citroën C2

                       FASTEST
                       The BMW 535d will show any diesel doubters what a
performance saloon can do: 0-62mph in 6.5sec and lashings of mid-range
torque for overtaking too

                       MOST ECONOMICAL
                       There is hot competition for this title but if you
want sparkling mpg performance the Citroën C2 1.4 HDi will squeeze 68.9mpg
out of a gallon

                       MOST LUXURIOUS
                       Over and above the Range Rover 3.0 Td6 and Mercedes
S 320 CDI, the £61,970 Audi A8 4.0 TDI long wheelbase is the most expensive
diesel on the market
cp - 23 May 2005 08:04 GMT
Interesting article, too bad we don't have much choice with diesel on this side of the pond. They're pushing hybrids on us ignorants
here.

cp

> http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12389-1620585,00.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> rivals petrol cars and they can be far cheaper to run. No wonder sales are
> soaring, writes Andrew Frankel of The Sunday Times
trader4@optonline.net - 23 May 2005 13:03 GMT
"Interesting article, too bad we don't have much choice with diesel on
this side of the pond. They're pushing hybrids on us ignorants
here. "

I've always thought that a diesel was a better choice than a hybrid.
The main advantage of hybrids is that they do get maybe 25% or so
better mileage in the EPA tests.  However, I've seen news reports where
in the real world, that advantage is considerably less.  It has
something to do with how the EPA test is done and that it doesn't
accurately reflect how hybrids behave in the real world.  There were
some hybrid owners and consumer groups that were after the EPA to
change the testing method and I think the EPA was considering it.

The question for me comes down to for the actual extra MPG you can get
with a hybrid, is it worth the extra cost and risk?  By risk, I mean
these cars have some unique components like the motors, batteries, etc,
which are sole source and very expensive to replace.  We really don't
know too much about how long this stuff will last or what the repair
costs will turn out to be.  On the other hand,  diesel is a proven
technology that offers very long engine life and only gets better.  For
me, the hybrid just isn't worth it.
William P. N. Smith - 23 May 2005 14:19 GMT
>On the other hand,  diesel is a proven
>technology that offers very long engine life and only gets better.  For
>me, the hybrid just isn't worth it.

On the third tentacle petrol, diesel, and hybrid cars still use a
non-renewable(*) resource that's only going to continue to rise in
cost.  We need to push those technologies as far as they will go, add
new complementary technologies (ceramic diesel hybrids with lithium
batteries, anyone?), and gradually wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

(*) Yeah, I know about veggie-oil diesels, and ethanol, and hydrogen,
and electric propulsion and all those fringe technologies.  None of
them is ready today to take over from fossil fuels, and each has
positive and negative points.  We need to work all of the above and
keep an open mind about other options (conservation, public transport,
other bizarre concepts) so our grandchildren don't have to deal with
it in crisis mode.

Diesels have a bad rep in the US (except with their fans, myself
included), and I'm very disappointed that my E320 wagon isn't a diesel
with twice the milage of the gasoline engine.  If MB gets their act
together my next car will be a diesel, if they don't it'll be some
Japanese hybrid at 3X the milage...
cp - 23 May 2005 21:14 GMT
> Diesels have a bad rep in the US (except with their fans, myself
> included), and I'm very disappointed that my E320 wagon isn't a diesel
> with twice the milage of the gasoline engine.  If MB gets their act
> together my next car will be a diesel, if they don't it'll be some
> Japanese hybrid at 3X the milage...

Too bad we don't have the same choice as they do in Europe. Wouldn't mind a 60mpg car. Maybe when gas prices really cut into
people's pockets here we'll get more informed about alternatives and forget about hybrids and demand the diesels they have in
Europe. Though if I were to buy a new car now and were only concernced about money I'd buy a Chrysler Sebring or Chevy Malibu,
they're selling them here for 13K CAD. Insane. Even if the transmission goes two years down the road it would still be much cheaper
than buying some diesel. The ROI on new diesels here takes a bit too long.

cp
charles blassberg - 25 May 2005 10:45 GMT
> If MB gets their act together my next car will be a diesel,

suggest you consider a C320CDI, 221 BHP, 510Nm, 7 speed Auto
or a SLK320CDI Triturbo 0-60 in 5.3 seconds

Benz do modern diesels
greek_philosophizer - 25 May 2005 15:23 GMT
Triturbo just sounds cool.

.
William P. N. Smith - 25 May 2005 15:51 GMT
>> If MB gets their act together my next car will be a diesel,

>suggest you consider a C320CDI, 221 BHP, 510Nm, 7 speed Auto
>or a SLK320CDI Triturbo 0-60 in 5.3 seconds

I'm more of a station wagon kinda guy, not looking for the high end of
performance, more looking for milage and range.  My E320 4Matic wagon
has plenty of power, but 22-ish MPG is embarassing.

>Benz do modern diesels

Yes, I know, but I want to buy one in the States, and AFAIK they are
coming "eventually, maybe".
cp - 26 May 2005 04:15 GMT
> I'm more of a station wagon kinda guy, not looking for the high end of
> performance, more looking for milage and range.  My E320 4Matic wagon
> has plenty of power, but 22-ish MPG is embarassing.

22-ish MPG for that tank (I mean the car) is excellent.

cp
William P. N. Smith - 26 May 2005 15:47 GMT
>> My E320 4Matic wagon
>> has plenty of power, but 22-ish MPG is embarassing.

>22-ish MPG for that tank (I mean the car) is excellent.

Yeah, well I can get 28 on the highway if I drive 55, but that's hard
to do.  8*)  Strangely, the C-class wagon I got as a loaner got the
exact same milage!

My point is that in the US we consider that "good for that car", but a
modern diesel ought to get at least twice that, but I can't buy one!
cp - 27 May 2005 00:39 GMT
> Yeah, well I can get 28 on the highway if I drive 55, but that's hard
> to do.  8*)  Strangely, the C-class wagon I got as a loaner got the
> exact same milage!

55mph in a 3.2? Good luck :-)

> My point is that in the US we consider that "good for that car", but a
> modern diesel ought to get at least twice that, but I can't buy one!

I wish I could buy one too, now that I've got a wife, a kid and a mortgage, I won't be buying anything new for a while. Though at
22mpg it's not really worth it financially to buy anything new just to save a couple of bucks on fuel, unless you drive a taxi.
Though I wouldn't mind a nice new benz diesel just for the heck of it. They're a bit quiet though, I'd have to amplify the diesel
sound :-)

cp
Vlad - 27 May 2005 15:16 GMT
>> Yeah, well I can get 28 on the highway if I drive 55, but that's hard
>> to do.  8*)  Strangely, the C-class wagon I got as a loaner got the
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>cp

Why has diesel been so popular in Europe and not in North America ?
And now that diesel seems to be a viable alternative, why isn't GM and
Ford not producing them? They probably have a token development
program finance by the government looking for an "American solution".
A solution that favors the big corporations today with complete
disregard for the future of the country.
From what I have been reading, I conclude that
a) Diesel can be produced from a large variety of sources.
b) Should be less expensive to produce.
c) The latest engines give about 25% better gas mileage then gasoline
engines
d) Less pollution.

Diesel engines are today, more expensive but if produced at the same
rate the price will came down.

What are the negatives of diesel ?

Some one is going to publish a book called "The politics of diesel"

Vlad
Dori A Schmetterling - 27 May 2005 16:25 GMT
Modern diesel engines require low-sulfur fuel, which is not (yet) available
nationwide in the USA.

When it is (2006? 7?) things may change significantly.

Furthermore, there are the economics of diesel cars and the price of the
fuel, tax rates on diesel cars and the fuel...

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]

> Why has diesel been so popular in Europe and not in North America ?
[...]
Vlad - 05 Jun 2005 14:40 GMT
>Modern diesel engines require low-sulfur fuel, which is not (yet) available
>nationwide in the USA.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>DAS

And that has nothing to do with politics ???

Vlad

>For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
>---
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> Why has diesel been so popular in Europe and not in North America ?
>[...]
Dori A Schmetterling - 10 Jun 2005 09:55 GMT
Who said it doesn't?

Sorry it took a while - I have been travelling out of the country; no access
to newsgroups on local internet connections, and I wouldn't make an
expensive dial-up connection back to the UK just for this ...:-)

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]

> And that has nothing to do with politics ???
>
> Vlad
[...]
William P. N. Smith - 27 May 2005 22:30 GMT
>Why has diesel been so popular in Europe and not in North America ?

Because fuel costs are significantly higher (~2X) in europe, and
efficiency counts for something.  Maybe when US fuel prices rise a bit
we'll follow suit.
cp - 23 May 2005 21:08 GMT
Agreed, you took the words out of my mouth :)

I was considering a hybrid and slapped myself until I smartened up :)

I hear that after 8 years the battery has to be replaced in a hybrid, costing 8K-10K, it makes absolutely no financial sense to
drive a hybrid unless you're a taxi driver. Even then the car will only last around 250K miles.

cp
> "Interesting article, too bad we don't have much choice with diesel on
> this side of the pond. They're pushing hybrids on us ignorants
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> technology that offers very long engine life and only gets better.  For
> me, the hybrid just isn't worth it.
John Mauel - 23 May 2005 23:09 GMT
> Agreed, you took the words out of my mouth :)
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> cp

There was an article a few months ago in the Canadian motor club magazine
trumpeting the virtues of the Toyota Prius hybrid. There are several being
used in Victoria, British Columbia, and the savings in fuel over a year
added up to CDN$500 compared with a 'standard' taxi (Ford Crown Vic?? they
didn't say).  Think about it.  In conditions absolutely ideal for the hybrid
technology, 24hrs a day of stop and go city traffic, the saving over a year
was $500 (=600 litres of fuel give or take).  How many litres worth of
petroleum did it take to refine the several pounds of Cobalt in the
battery?. How many non-hybrid cars did Toyota have to sell to make up the
couple thousand dollars of loss per Prius? Between 1/2 and 3/4 of the
life-cycle energy cost of an automobile are used up in it's manufacture.
How long does a Prius last? As long as a Crown Vic or Lincoln Town Car?

I don't know, I'm just askin'.

John M., Sceptic
'94 E320
cp - 24 May 2005 00:03 GMT
>> I hear that after 8 years the battery has to be replaced in a hybrid, costing 8K-10K, it makes absolutely no financial sense to
>> drive a hybrid unless you're a taxi driver. Even then the car will only last around 250K miles.

Did I say 250K miles? I meant kilometers. Actually the article mentioned that the hybrid taxi did 300,000km, NOTHING to write home
about, nothing compared to the benz diesel taxis.

> There was an article a few months ago in the Canadian motor club magazine trumpeting the virtues of the Toyota Prius hybrid. There
> are several being used in Victoria, British Columbia, and the savings in fuel over a year added up to CDN$500 compared with a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> sell to make up the couple thousand dollars of loss per Prius? Between 1/2 and 3/4 of the life-cycle energy cost of an automobile
> are used up in it's manufacture. How long does a Prius last? As long as a Crown Vic or Lincoln Town Car?

$500?? You sure it said that? Perhaps the regulars were propane, which is cheap... either way, hybrids are just a marketing scam to
cash in on a trend. They should concentrate fuel cells or on that bacteria that is made up of 50% and can be used in diesel engines.

cp
John Mauel - 24 May 2005 03:15 GMT
>> Agreed, you took the words out of my mouth :)
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> used in Victoria, British Columbia, and the savings in fuel over a year
> added up to CDN$500 compared with a 'standard' taxi (Ford Crown Vic?? they

Here is the article:

http://www.ama.ab.ca/cgi-ebs/corporate_comm/westworld/westworld_articles.jsp?art
icle=feb05ww_hottopics&link=cs_main


or

http://tinyurl.com/8gxfh

The taxi driver says he got 330k kms on his taxi.  Toyota shipped it back to
Japan for evaluation.

John M.
replying to his own post
cp - 24 May 2005 06:39 GMT
Now I remember this. I would have thought that the saving would be much more than $500/annum. And 100K per year in Victoria is
surprising for that pleasant little burg :-)  I wonder how many of those taxi will make 700,000-900,000km with no overhauls like the
around 10 benz taxi drivers I've spoken to. They claimed NOT to have done any overhauls on either the engine or transmission.

cp

>> There was an article a few months ago in the Canadian motor club magazine trumpeting the virtues of the Toyota Prius hybrid.
>> There are several being used in Victoria, British Columbia, and the savings in fuel over a year added up to CDN$500 compared with
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> John M.
> replying to his own post
cp - 24 May 2005 06:51 GMT
Yet another article

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0519/p14s01-sten.html?s=u

cp
trader4@optonline.net - 24 May 2005 13:40 GMT
"There was an article a few months ago in the Canadian motor club
magazine
trumpeting the virtues of the Toyota Prius hybrid. There are several
being
used in Victoria, British Columbia, and the savings in fuel over a year

added up to CDN$500 compared with a 'standard' taxi (Ford Crown Vic??
they
didn't say).  Think about it.  In conditions absolutely ideal for the
hybrid
technology, 24hrs a day of stop and go city traffic, the saving over a
year
was $500 (=600 litres of fuel give or take).  How many litres worth of
petroleum did it take to refine the several pounds of Cobalt in the
battery?. How many non-hybrid cars did Toyota have to sell to make up
the
couple thousand dollars of loss per Prius? Between 1/2 and 3/4 of the
life-cycle energy cost of an automobile are used up in it's
manufacture.
How long does a Prius last? As long as a Crown Vic or Lincoln Town Car?

I don't know, I'm just askin'.
John M., Sceptic
'94 E320 "

This article is full of half-truths and distortions.  For example, they
acknowledge that the test drivers changed their driving habits in terms
of acceleration and braking because they were driving a hybrid.  Well,
if you take any car and accelerate/brake intelligently, that alone will
improve fuel economy.  Then they say that fuel savings were $500 per
year for a taxi compared to the taxi fleet average.  That isn't very
impressive and could be very misleading.  For one thing, taxis rack up
a hell of a lot of miles compared to the typical car.  Second, what
were the taxi fleet's other cars?  If you're comparing a small hybrid
to more roomy, heavier taxis, then a good deal of the $500 savings has
nothing to do with the hybrid technology.

Later in the article they say the hybrid is rated at $500 less in
annual fuel consumption tests compared to average.  But, again, what is
average based on?  It likely also includes a lot of bigger, heavier
passenger cars, so again the savings are only partly due to hybrid
technology.  And they point out that this is based on lab tests, not
actual usage.  They also say the drivers doing actual road tests for
the report got 43MPG highway, 40 city which is pretty close to that of
a diesel like the VW Jetta.

Most interesting of all is how they completely ignore discussing any
maintenance issues.  And they proceed to claim that hybrids are not
just for early adopters.  They cite the taxi company doing tests and
considering using them in their fleet.   The operative word here is
"considering."  That actually sounds exactly like the early adopter
phase to me.   What would be a good and fair comparison would be to
look at fuel savings and maintenance cost of hybrids against cars with
similar weight, passenger room and performance.
Andrew - 24 May 2005 16:50 GMT
> By risk, I mean
> these cars have some unique components like the motors, batteries, etc,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> technology that offers very long engine life and only gets better.  For
> me, the hybrid just isn't worth it.

I've been told that the battery packs can cost 5K.  Plus, you can
guarantee that the government is going to start mandating a "disposal
fee", just like they do on tires.

No thanks, I'll take a diesel over any other current engine.
 
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.