PCH, you sound like the GM rep “there just wasn’t any demand for them”. BS!! I spent months trying to find a used diesel jetta (95 – 00). Everywhere I looked they had sold quickly. So the sellers raised prices (standard economics) way higher than book value.

Bottom line is that the suppliers will manipulate demand as much as possible. JD Power and any other industry expert simply try their best to predict the demand for certain vehicles. Most base their predictions on current trends.

I agree Hybrids are the future but also know that you can make a diesel hybrid just as easy as a gas hybrid. Then you will see some real nice fuel economy.

Europe never had petroleum subsidies like we have so their gas prices shot through the roof. If average gas prices were over $4.00 per gallon for the last few years and hybrids were not available then the US would be producing almost 50% diesel cars too.

Just like OPEC influences demand by lowering the price of crude after an oil shock (1970s). It keeps us fat americans happy and not thinking about better alternatives.

Demand for hybrids and diesels will rise as gas prices do.

I own my 1999 TDi Jetta and love it. I always get smiles from people who realize it gets 50 mpg. Prius owners have been getting average 55 mpg (less than the EPA original estimates and have been revised). And my Jetta can whip it on the line. Add biodiesel and I am cleaner than most cars except for NOx. I will deal with that next with an Absorber (Cerium-Oxide catalyst).

Diesel fuel simply has a bad name in the US. Dirty, slow, noisy. My TDi is none of those things. VW was doing good selling them when suddenly an emission restriction was passed that targeted diesels. So Benz and VW couldn’t sell any during 2007. Now we have to wait for a redesign. But now Honda is in the game too. So look for plug-in diesel hybrids soon. 80-100 mpg using the latest technology. Slap in some biodiesel and be fairly clean and good to go.

That isn’t my point at all. I’m relatively agnostic on the diesel/gas dichotomy.

Both gasoline and diesel have their advantages and disadvantages. We are, unfortunately, dependent upon both, and will need them both for the foreseeable future.

What I am doing here is getting beyond the hype. Diesel is not a clean fuel, the fuel economy differential is not 50% as compared to gasoline (20-30% is more accurate when you match things apples to apples), and biofuels are not going reduce oil consumption by any worthwhile amount.

You are free to like what you want, but don’t take it too far by misrepresenting the facts related to the product. I am not against biofuels, but if anyone believes that biofuels are going to reduce our oil consumption by any appreciable amount, then they are just kidding themselves.

If you really care about consumption-related issues, the most substantive way to reduce your consumption is to reduce your driving.

Can you name one (1) Det3 2007 offering that EPA rates above 30 mpg combined average?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008bymanuf.jsp?year=2007
Please tell us what you can find.

That is yet another common mythology among diesel proponents. Even with an aggressive biodiesel production program, petroleum usage in the US would remain virtually unchanged as a result.

A few statistics from the article link below:

-US sales of diesel fuel for highway uses (as of 2000) — 33.13 billion gallons/yr

-Amount of biodiesel that could be produced from US waste oil (assuming 50% net effective recycling rate): 170 million gallons/yr

-Amount of biodiesel that could be produced from the entire quantity of US surplus vegetable oil: 130 million gallons/yr

These results are not that impressive. You end up with 300 million gallons of fuel, which is equal to 0.9% of the amount of regular diesel used by on-road vehicles.

If you take it a step further, and create an even more aggressive scenario which calls for diverting every acre of spare crop land to soybean production which is itself diverted 100% to biodiesel production, then you end up with only an additional 300 million gallons.

Now keep in mind that under the scenario above, gasoline consumption has not been reduced at all. It also doesn’t account for all of the diesel used in other capacities, such as agriculture. On the whole, even using extremely optimistic assumptions, the effect of biodiesel production on total consumption would be virtually zero.

And if JD Power is correct in its prediction that annual light-vehicle diesel sales increase from 3% to 7.5% market share, then these percentages will go down further still, because diesel demand will have increased accordingly.

The level of petroleum consumption in the US is simply too great for biofuels to make much of a difference. There isn’t enough vegetable oil to put a dent in our current consumption. You could accomplish a lot more just by telecommuting one day per week.

http://www.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/BiodieselEd/publication/02.pdf

EJ and Kudo you both seem to like hybrids and that’s great. Are you aware that there are indications that PSA/Citroen/Peugeot will have 70 mpg(US) combined city/highway diesel hybrid, plug-in capable, BEFORE 2009. Oh, I forgot to mention it is electric drive (no drive train) and can operate in the EV mode for, if I remember correctly, about 20 miles.

I happen to like a 4/5 door, 5 passenger (plus reasonable cargo) straight diesel for the moment … I only need 0-60 in 12 seconds so a relatively small (under 2 liter) TD common rail injection would probably do the job very adequately. One of the reasons I like diesel there is the opportunity to break almost completely from the petroleum industry using bio diesel.

If spark ignition (or any other) technology can break 2,200 Btu/mile (about 660 watts/mile) with a 600 (maybe 500?) mile range … I’ll take a look provided it is affordable (including fuel costs)!

The ultimate solution is a gas hybrid with plug-in option for the batteries. You can get 100 MPG that way, even with a modest battery. The little fuel you still need can be biofuel. That way no more petroleum is needed, neither gasoline nor diesel. That would be nice…

Please, drop this line of argument. It’s not a realistic proposal — the only person suggesting this is you. That’s about as realistic as would basing your personal financial planning on winning the lottery.

And again, even if you could import them, there is no reason to do so if they are going to go unsold. It would a bad idea to bring over a bunch of cars just to lose money on them.

The US market is the world’s largest auto market, and the major automakers go out of their way to target American tastes. If Americans wanted horse-drawn carriages, you can bet that you’d find them at your local Honda and Toyota dealer.

So if we liked the taste of diesel, we’d already have plenty of them to choose from, and our parking lots would be full of them. We just don’t want them, that’s all, and there’s no point in carrying fifty models of car that nobody is going to buy.

Above, I provided food for thought about the business climate in which the automakers have to operate. I realize that these facts are inconvenient, but these are ultimately going to determine whether or not your dream technology is going to gain a greater foothold in the US market.

Until someone figures out how to turn a puddle into an ocean, your diesel goals will not be fulfilled, full stop. The reason that the automakers of the world are not planning on a radical shift in US consumer behavior is because they have performed a more complex version of the exercise that I have conducted above, and see the same hurdles that I do.

So, you are saying you would object to my importing an EU diesel, is that correct?

As I have noted above, the waste of time and money comes from building products that nobody wants. You don’t see many diesels because the automakers would lose money hand-over-fist if they tried to force Americans to buy them.

Again, there is no conspiracy. The fact that even the companies that build diesels can’t sell many copies of them in the US tells you that it’s a technology that Americans have generally rejected, at least in standard passenger cars. It’s largely viewed as a commercial application, not a consumer one.

If Americans were taxed in such a way that gas was $1-2 per gallon higher than diesel, as is often the case is much of Western Europe, then it might be a different story. Europeans have taken to diesel largely because the much lower taxes on the fuel encourage them to choose it. It’s a financial choice, not a technological one.

Toyota allegedly spent about $1 billion developing the first Prius, an amount that is typical for a new model launch. Obviously, it has proven to be money well spent, as sales are good and the brand building benefits are even better.

It is not surprising to see Ford developing a diesel hybrid, as it has large European operations. But again, the technology isn’t the issue. The real issue is: Is there a market in the US large enough to be meaningful. The answer to that is clearly, “no.”

And when the Det3 realize that ALL vehicles do NOT NEED engines larger than 3 liters and 300 hp, the US consumer might have a chance!

Why waste TIME and MONEY “inventing”/developing unique engines for the US market? Why not finish the “clean up” of some of their best “cleaner” world market engines?

Of course IF there is a gasoline ICE technology breakthrough … please go for it … but the same is true for diesel.

VW didn’t invent the idea of turbo direct injection diesel engines in cars, that was done around 4-5 years earlier by now defunct Rover group – which then unfortunately failed to invest in it and bought quieter units from Peugeot. Yes, these were the same guys who didn’t invest in MGs and withdrew from the us.

There were probably others with Di engines in cars before then too.

“The group’s oil burning powerplant set a high-water mark in the diesel’s long development….While the diesel’s efficiency peaked in 1989…”

I would suggest the evidence is to the contrary.

The original TDi engine had 90hp from 1.9 litres, made 50 mpg. It was one of the earliest direct injection engines but it was essentially hampered by previous generation technology surrounding it. The MPG figure was better than the competition but the power was nothing special.

In the 90s the TDi engine got the high pressure PD fuel injection system, common rail and all sorts of emission control trickery. It went from 90hp to 110, 130 and eventually 150hp whilst economy remained largely unaffected. It also got quieter. A lot quieter after the electronic FI system replaced the old noisy mechanical fuel pump – the thing that makes all that clattering noise.

As a contrast PSA have had a 1.4 litre HDi engine which makes 90hp for 4-5 years, thats the same from 1/2 a litre less. They also have a 1.6 litre unit which generates 110hp. Even the Koreans (Kia) make a 1.5 litre unit which delivers 100hp/50+ MPG and is very smooth.

The new VW engines go even better. Want economy ? The new TDi PD 1.9 litre makes 105hp and close to 55-60 mpg. Power ? The 2.0 makes 140 as standard, or 170hp if you prefer, mid 40s MPG.

“With the diesel’s efficiency superiority down to 25 percent, a “clean” diesel emits only 13 percent less CO2 than yesterday’s gas engine. And that small gap is… wait… gone.”

Well only if we accept that high water mark again, and if Diesel technology will stand conveniently still and if Petrol continues to improve. Thats a lot of ifs.

“A CO2 output comparison with two other similar-output VW engines is telling. Their 170 horse 1.4-liter TSI produces 174g/kms of CO2. … And their 170hp 2.0-liter TDI diesel (not US compliant) produces 160g/km.”

This is telling me that the TDI 170 emits less CO2 from 2 litres than a 1.4 litre Petrol unit. I have no idea what the old boat anchor 2.5 is doing in the US golf, maybe VW have realised how little they need the US market.

“With diesel-like torque and direct injection, it’s the best of both worlds”

The 170 TDI makes 256 lb./ft of torque, the TSI makes 177 lb/ft. I know which one I would want to be overtaking in.

“A study by the consulting firm AT Kearny confirms the diesel’s demise.”

No it doesn’t – there is a difference between predicting and confirming something as you yourself go on to say:”

“It predicts that only 25 percent of Europeans will find diesels an attractive economic proposition by 2020.”

Fuel costs in Europe run 3-5 times higher than the US. Diesel may get replaced probably by whatever replaces petrol as well. Whether thats gas, electric, flux-convertor, who knows.

“Although Rudolf Diesel’s engine WAS intrinsically more efficient, it turns out that Otto’s engine is a lot more clever at learning new tricks.”

I’m pretty sure the truck industry may take some issue with that. However new tricks, old rules. Keith Duckworth (the “worth” in “Cosworth”) said “The power output of an engine [equals] the size of the bangs, times the number of bangs per minute that you can manage to get.”

Its a simple idea and one which neither engine can get round.

All the TSI does is to work with it. Forcing more air in to which more fuel can be added resulting in a bigger bang. Unfortunately other factors – 2-3x compression ratio in Diesels, much leaner mixture, longer stroke and more energy in the same volume of Diesel still create a mountain of development to enable Petrol engines to match it.

The TSI is a brilliant idea. Perhaps a revolutionary one in a road car although Lancia came up with the combination first in the 80s in their Delta S4 rally car.

But to suggest it heralds the end of Diesel I think is premature at best.

So why are the Europeans rushing to make Hybrids ? Well, thats for the same reason that the Japanese rushed to get Diesel engines into their European cars as quickly as possible in the 90s – you can argue against it or you can make money off the back of a market someone else has created.

Which would you choose ?

Its worth noting that most of their hybrids are, wait, Diesel…

Even Ford is lining up to make a Diesel hybrid.

Diesel has a negative image among the American public. A few ads won’t cut it — ask GM whether a few glossy ads are sufficient to turn their fortunes. They aren’t.

I think IF I were Ford and GM I would approach Congress to request a 3 year waiver of import restrictions and tariffs on diesels getting over 40 mpg(US) combined average.

OK, that is not going to happen, so drop that line of thinking. And even if it did, that would not fix the primary problem, which is the lack of demand.

I listed some statistics in the hope of giving you a sense of perspective. Let’s look at what some of those mean:

-It took Honda more than three decades to hit Accord sales that are at 1/12th of your target. And that’s marketing a desirable product that actually meets customer needs and that didn’t begin with an image problem.

-Mercedes sells 5,000 E-class diesels in the US each year. This is coming from the spiritual leader of the entire US diesel business, and they can’t even hit a tiny fraction of one percent of your goal. Ask yourself why that is, and whether anyone can possibly claim that a car that sells 5,000 units per year is “hot” when that equates to about ten days of Prius sales.

Speaking of the Prius, it is considered by those in the automotive business to be a wildly successful hit in the US. The buzz is so incredibly good that any automotive marketer would kill to have it. The Prius will have a banner year this year — sales in 2007 will about double 2006 sales — with Toyota reasonably projecting that US sales will hit 175,000 units this year.

Think about it. With Toyota firing on all cylinders and doing everything right, with market conditions lining up in a way that couldn’t have been better for this product, and without any negative image to overcome, it has nonetheless taken them eight years to hit 175,000 units, a figure that is a mere **four percent** of your target. They do everything right AND get incredibly lucky, and yet even they aren’t anywhere close to the target that you’ve set for a product that many Americans are inclined to avoid.

Your goal is just not going to happen. Nobody in the business believes it will happen, precisely because of the market realities that I have just outlined above. Nobody is expecting to take a technology that people dislike, and to completely transform their perceptions about it while disrupting their successful product mixes to do it. Accomplishing this feat would require them to hit sales records that are without precedent. Just grab a calculator and review the market data, and it’s clear that it comes nowhere close to supporting your aspirations.

Prime the pump and create initial demand by advertising it with “image” ads. Use targeted product placements in movies, ensure that the blogs are buzzing, target younger people and generally appeal to the Early Adopters. Ensure that the product is absolutely golden at launch, sell a bunch of them, coddle the initial owners and make them feel so special that they tell all their friends (the brag factor…as himpg stated) and let the early customers fuel the frenzy so people without diesels feel left out.

I’m no fan of GM, but they did their Saturn launch right. Saturn had a cult-like following. An aura of something special. Use that as a template. But, unlike GM, don’t drop the ball once you’ve got some momentum.

In short, it’s all about quality engineering and very clever marketing, followed by word-of-mouth from satisfied customers.

Ford has an excellent array of diesels from mini busses (similar to the Sprinter), Escapes, SUV, mid size sedans and station wagons, down to small cars. GM (Vauxhall/Opel) has a reasonable collection also. Chrysler seems to be in the weakest position in this arena.

As to market penetration, one has to assume that supply matches demand which it probably won’t. Like in 1975, with the introduction of the Honda Civic CVCC there was a 100% premium over POE demanded by many dealers.

That said … if sales start at about 100k units the first year with reasonable pricing (in the range of $20,000) and good delivered quality, then it is reasonable to expect annual volume doubling. At that rate, within seven (7) years approximetely 40% of new sales could be diesel. Keep in mind that there are many people out there (both civilian and military) that have already experienced the EU diesels in their travels and are frustrated by the diesel absence in the US market.

At this point the only competition in mpg are a few hybrids (only 2 at this time). However there will be diesel hybrids within the next 4 years … whether available in the US or not.

There are three (3) things that might change that rate of penetration: 1) gasoline vehicles getting 50 mpg (not likely); 2) A new breakthrough propulsion technology (not likely); 3) fuel prices over $5/gallon (very likely).

If I do “IT RIGHT”, customer “satisfaction” will establish a customer base that will sell the vehicles for me. In other words, the new satisfied owners will do the advertising for me because they will be saving between $1,200 and $3,500 in fuel cost for the average driver and IF their expectations are met … they will “brag”.

A TV Commercial:

Ugly dude in a Jetta diesel stops at a light next to a car full of hot babes. Babes suddenly want to have sex with ugly dude when they discover his engine is a diesel.

I think a good marketing test will be when Honda brings their Accord diesel to market in MY2009.

The problem with this discussion is that you are trying to center it around me, when my personal tastes and whims have nothing to do with the topic.

The issue at hand is how the American consumer would change his ways in order to make your diesel dreams be realized.

The size of the US new light vehicle market (this includes both cars and light-duty trucks) is roughly 16 million new vehicles sold each year. Of these, diesel has about 3% market share, or about 500,000 units, including pickup trucks.

Based upon these numbers, in order to increase market share in 10% increments,you would need to increase sales by roughly 1.6 million diesels each year; 1% increments would equate to about 160,000 vehicles.

Now, let’s pretend that it is your job to develop a plan to change this. You need to turn the 3% market share figure into the 30% that you predicted above. This would require increasing sales by about 4.3 million units per year.

The question becomes: How exactly are you going to achieve this? Let’s digest what 4.3 million units looks like on the automotive horizon –

-This is approximately 10 times higher than VW and Mercedes combined total annual US sales, including both gas and diesel cars

-This is about 10 times higher than total US sales of the Toyota Camry

-This is about 12 times higher than total US sales of the Honda Accord

-This is about 16 times higher than total US sales of the Toyota Corolla

For comparison’s sake, here are real-world sales figures: VW sold 29,000 diesels in the US during 2005, while Mercedes sold about 5,000 E320 CDi’s during the same period. These are the leaders in the business, yet even they can’t sell very many. That’s 34,000 cars. You need 4.3 million. Where exactly are they going to come from?

This segues to the critical queston: Who is going to buy them? You now have to convince 4.3 million car buyers to change their minds. How do you intend to do this, and what indications are in the current market that hint that such a change is possible, when the market leaders already can’t even come close?

These are not rhetorical questions. I’d like to see a realistic plan of how achieving this would be even remotely possible.

When J.D. Power predicts that diesel share will increase from 3% to 7.5% through 2012, they have good reason for being far less upbeat than you are. They have crunched the numbers and figured out that 4.3 million units in the US car market is a very steep hill to climb, for anyone.

These lofty projections of diesel success look about as likely as a housefly swallowing an alligator. Hitting high targets would require a massive change in consumer tastes, plus dramatic shifts in the product mixes of virtually every automaker doing business in the US. Nobody in the industry sees this being even remotely possible, including companies such as Bosch that have a vested interest in supporting diesel expansion.

As for your comments about 100 years of experience with diesels in the USA … with the exception of a few years in the 70s and 80s the “domestic” diesel experience has been limited to “truck” engines with the exception of MB and VW plus a few others.

There have been significant changes in diesel technology world wide since 2000. Fot example can you name one “domestic” production diesel that “Red lines” above 5,000 RPM? How about 4,000 RPM? 3,500 RPM?

And I’ll believe 80 mpg when I see it. Downhill at 10 mph with a stiff tailwind doesn’t count.

The appeal of the hybrid to its initial customer base was not its fuel economy, but the whiz-bang technology that it deployed and “green” aspects of the product. The fact that it was new technology that was distinctly different from the conventional car made it much more interesting to the early buyers.

That, and it’s the electric motor. Hybrid buyers are not attracted to the gas motor, but to the electric one. You make the mistake typical of those who don’t understand its success — you are viewing it as a gas powered car with a big battery, whereas the hybrid buyer views it as an electric car without the range limitations of a conventional electric.

That, and unlike diesels, which will evolve slowly at best, hybrids will be improving significantly, with the next generation expected to be vastly more efficient than the current one. These changes will move hybrid fuel economy from being on par with diesels to being substantially better. The next generation of the Prius is slated to get 80 mpg (US), a level far better than any comparable diesel could ever hope to get. The segment of the market attracted primarily by fuel economy will be going hybrid, not diesel.

please explain how the American consumers “CHOSE” not to buy a small turbo diesel (under 2.2 liter) in the last 3 years.

It’s not just three years, it’s the last century. Diesels have never been popular with American consumers, not ever.

You keep pretending that there is a conspiracy that doesn’t exist. If companies thought that they could sell diesels in large volumes, they’d be building them — why would they pass up on such easy money?

You don’t see diesels for the same reasons that you don’t find many stables and buggy whips being sold in your area — people don’t want them. You don’t make a profit if you build stuff that people don’t buy, so they don’t build them in large numbers.

If there was such demand, companies would be lined up around the block trying to fill it. For you to be correct, you’d have to honestly believe that all of the automakers are idiots, and that you possess unique insights that is not had by any automaker operating in the US today.

Even the Mother of All Diesel Builders, Daimler, is not betting big on US sales. Do you really believe that you are more knowledgeable about market demand for diesels than they are? 

So what was the choice for the consumer to make?