Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / June 2005
The rise of diesel - the continuing story
|
|
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.
|
|
|