Low cost with economy?

[Sickcall]

There was a recent article in the New York Times about the sale of a 45 state legal diesel in all 50 states for the year 2006 only. VW will be selling 750units of its 2006 Tourag into 2007 until they are all gone. The change to ULSD gave VW the opportunity to enter the 5 state market.

The Toureg has the CRD V10 twin turbo model which puts out 310 HP 553 ft-lbs of torque. The diesel gets an EPA 22 mpg on the hiway vs 19 mpg for the comparible gas V8. The diesel Toureg stickers at $59,690 and the gasses at $43,660, thats $16,030 more!

Why do these corporations have to engineer the milage down and the cost up? Why can't we just have the diesel Rabbit of the 80's back at 45-50 mpg? I don't beleive the goverment is forcing them to build and sell 500ft-lbs.

[Gordon Maney]

Isn't there a Rabbit sized car now that is diesel powered? I think it may be called a GTI, or some similar designation. Does it use the same diesel as the Passat? People I have talked to who have those and the Passats powered by VW diesels really seem to like them.

I was talking to a guy at the convenience store recently who had the sedan version; he had purchased it new, and it had a 5-speed manual transmission. He said he got 55 mpg on the highway.

I like the idea. My one concern about a low car, however, is my back. When I was a kid, I got in and out of anything just fine, including Triumph TR-2's and 3's. Recently I rode to lunch in a Saturn. I was low and hard for me to get into. My back was a problem for three days after that. I like tall things with big door openings and high seats. Would I qualify for a handicapped parking permit???? :-)

[MoparNorm]

Yes Gordon, there is and it gets better hiway mileage than a hybrid. Unfortunately it, as well as many other small diesel models, will not be offered in 2007, as most manufacturers are waiting for 50 state availability of the new ULSD and the 50 state diesels of tomorrow will be 2008 models.

Interestingly, VW is rumored to likely soon to join the D/C family and a new VW Van will be a re-badged 2008 Dodge Caravan.

Look for small fuel efficient Mercedes diesels in the 3.0 and 4.0 range to be offered next year in many Chrysler/Dodge models and for the new small 4.2 V-6 Cummins to be offered as well in 2008 Dodge and Jeep vehicles.
MN

[Sickcall]

I wish they were available here now Norm. I'm ready. Hybrids do not offer much improvement in freeway driving, they are designed for in town stop and go, so they will never compare. I'm like Gordon, I want to climb up into something. I figure the only real way to save is to just drive less.

[MoparNorm]

Hybrids are another farce put forth on the American public. High costs, high environmental impact when the batteries are used up and less mpg on the highway than many conventional models.
If the entire US fleet was changed over to diesel, we would see an overnight drop in fuel consumption of 35-40% with no change in driving habits or miles driven.
Add to that diesel mix, bio and P100 and we could cut out use of foriegn oil by nearly 100% (we import approx. 55% of our oil from overseas).
Simply by going diesel we would cut out completely our use of middle east oil and by adding bio and P-100 to the mix we would be energy independent and have cleaner skies. Contrary to popular ignorance, diesels burn cleaner than gasoline fuels, less hydrocarbons and ozone, with the exception of visible soot, and that is being removed by cats and the ULSD that is now the law of the land.
http://photos.imageevent.com/moparnorm/moparnormsnewram/websize/Dcp_0137.jpg

Moving 23,600 lbs at 16.5 mpg....= )
MN

[Don in Missouri]

More consumers should be aware of the consequences you point out, such as what happens to old batteries from an electric hybrid. Or what happens when all our soil erodes away in a rush to grow corn for ethanol. Will the wells used for irrigation dry up? Will all the nutrients running off the fields exacerbate hypoxia (the zone of death) in the Gulf of Mexico?

I think regenerative braking is a great concept to save energy, and I hope we will get better at perfecting ways to use it. Batteries are not the only way to store energy. Flywheels could be used to store energy as angular momentum. There is also potential to use compressed air to store energy. Instead of an electric motor kicking in to boost power of a small gas engine, you could release stored air pressure to supercharge an otherwise anemic engine. Or take Multiple Displacement technology a step further to turn off combustion cylinders and use them as air compression cylinders.

Whatever technology evolves, I'm confident Diesel will be part of it. VW built a Diesel concept car that gets 317 mpg, and it's not a hybrid. Specifically, I believe BioDiesel will be a significant part. We can't grow enough soy beans to fuel our voracious appetite for fuel, but soy combined with the potential of algae, animal carcasses and other sources of oil can provide a domestic and somewhat renewable source of energy.

I say somewhat renewable, because our current rate of energy consumption is not sustainable by any combination of energy sources.

[truck4myboys]

I think "combination" is the right word. There is no one answer, but there are many. Bio-diesel suits me just fine - I use up to 50% in my PSD. Part of the problem, as touched upon above, is why do we need so much power? do I really need to tow 16,000 pounds up hill at 80 mph? Nope. But I can. If they offered a smaller diesel for my truck, I would've taken it. Even the international version that revs much lower and puts out less than 200 hp would've worked for me. The old rabbit was slow, but it got great mileage.

I'm glad to see smaller diesels starting to come back here, I think it will make a big difference in our energy use. Hopefully they won't price them so high that no one wants to buy one. I will have to hit 500,000 miles or more on this truck to make the diesel option pay off dollar wise.

[MoparNorm]

... I will have to hit 500,000 miles or more on this truck to make the diesel option pay off dollar wise.

Well, maybe in the PJD, but if you had a Cummins and do the math on fuel economy alone, depending upon the mileage that you drive, you'll see that breakeven point in about 3.5 years, based simply on cost per mile. If you ran a gasser in that rig, you'd be looking at 7-8 mpg.

I was at the Dodge Dealer this morning, reading their latest news publication and VW has a 2.0 liter diesel for their GTI that puts out 400 HP at 30+ mpg, that's some big punch in a small package! To detune it for the 2008 regs it will still develope 280 HP. The new 4.2 Cummins is going to see service in many new Dodge and Jeep vehicles, exciting times ahead!
MN

[truck4myboys]

Well, maybe in the PJD, but if you had a Cummins and do the math on fuel economy alone, depending upon the mileage that you drive, you'll see that breakeven point in about 3.5 years, based simply on cost per mile. If you ran a gasser in that rig, you'd be looking at 7-8 mpg.

I wish it were that easy. With 18 quarts of oil, additional oil and fuel filters, etc. service and other goodies are more expensive. It also depends on the cost of fuel, and for whatever reason right now diesel is between 30 and 40 cents per gallon more than unleaded (10 to 20 more than premium), at least around here. I get an average of 18-19 mpg on my 8,000 pound truck with a bunch of freeway at 80 plus and a bunch of 4 wheel drive use. A friend with the V-10 gets 10-12.

I was at the Dodge Dealer this morning, reading their latest news publication and VW has a 2.0 liter diesel for their GTI that puts out 400 HP at 30+ mpg, that's some big punch in a small package! To detune it for the 2008 regs it will still develope 280 HP. The new 4.2 Cummins is going to see service in many new Dodge and Jeep vehicles, exciting times ahead!
MN

I really am looking forward to the new diesels, that was my point from the start. Incidentally, I would be looking for a dramatic decrease in mileage from all of the truck diesels with the new regs this year.

[MoparNorm]

That ferd must be driving you into the poor house, the mileage looks real good, but the oil and filters seem to need excessive service? I have 52,000 on my Cummins, it's an average of $70 every 3-4,000 miles with no unscheduled replacement of filters needed yet.
Using your figures, that 8-9 mpg advantage over your bud equals 90 fewer tankfull in 57,000 miles! At an average of $82.50 for a 30 gallon fill up, that's a savings of $7,425 in 57,000 miles! That pays for the motor and a lot of filters...= )

One thing though about the new ULSD motors, the ULSD has a tad less power per stroke so the fuel economy is not going to be better in existing motors, we'll be running cleaner but not more efficiently.
MN

[p14175]

I really am looking forward to the new diesels, that was my point from the start. Incidentally, I would be looking for a dramatic decrease in mileage from all of the truck diesels with the new regs this year.

Would the decrease in fuel mileage be coming from the ULSD or the fact that there is a horsepower/torque war going on the big 3? Or maybe a combination of both? Isn't the cetane rating for the ULSD the same as it was before? I haven't been keeping up.

I haven't noticed any detrimental effects from the low sulfur diesel, but my 2nd gen has suffered a fuel mileage decrease --- 38" tires will do that. I went from 19.75 mpg to a lousy 18.2 mpg.

[MoparNorm]

Everything that I have read so far indicates that ratings are marginally lower because of the ULSD. I haven't noticed much of a change and we've been running it here since late summer, but trucker friends of mine say thay have higher fuel costs now in their older rigs, with the new formula.
MN

[truck4myboys]

It'll be all of the new emissions requirements that include ULSD. Ford is coming out with the new 6.4 PSD with sequential turbos and Cummins is introducing another too, I'm not positive but I think it will be 6.6 litres. I'm guessing Norm will have the info on that.

I was exaggerating on my 500,000 mile quote above, but it will take quite some time to make up the difference. The cost of diesel being 15-20% more makes up some of the difference as well.

And I'm not brand loyal, I probably would be driving a Cummins now if I thought Dodge made a decent truck to go around it. For me, the single biggest factor is being able to have a true crew cab and an 8 foot bed. Dodge hasn't made that for a while.

[MoparNorm]

Heh heh...6.7 is what it is, bumping the HP and torque game way up.
While the Mega Cab isn't offered with an 8' bed, I'd be curious as to the diminsions and cubic foot difference between the ford and Dodge standard Crew, they can't be that far off???
http://photos.imageevent.com/moparnorm/moparnormsnewram/websize/Dcp_0164.jpg

The Dodge looks smaller because the windshield rake is steeper than the ford, but there is plenty of room inside. I was looking at the newer standard crews just yesterday and the doors appear larger, in fact it's the same size as the Mega Cab, except for the Mega's cab added space behind the rear door, I was surprised.
MN

[MoparNorm]

...And I'm not brand loyal, I probably would be driving a Cummins now if I thought Dodge made a decent truck to go around it...

I wasn't either...until my previous truck, a ferd power joke fell apart around me...and I remembered that my Dad had many decades of good luck with Dodge. I'll spare everyone who has heard the story before, the hideous details, but three motors, two transmissions and every other part at least once was not acceptable for ferd to ever again see my money. I can accept an AMC falling apart, but not my work truck....= )
MN

[truck4myboys]

While the Mega Cab isn't offered with an 8' bed, I'd be curious as to the diminsions and cubic foot difference between the ford and Dodge standard Crew, they can't be that far off???


I had to look it up for kicks. They are really close except for rear legroom, which the Quad Cab has 36.4" and the Ford Crew has 42.5". 6 inches of extra leg room is a big deal. I didn't go by measurements though, I went by feel. And sitting in the rear of both, the Fjord just felt bigger. Now that I have 10 month old twins, I'm really glad for the room, it's much easier to get the carseats in the back of this thing!

[MoparNorm]

Thanks, I was curious. The ford does look bigger I just wondered by how much, since there are style "tricks" envolved such as different door post thickness, seat angle and windshield angle. By the time those boys get bigger there should be a Mega Cab 8' bed with that 6.7 Cummins, it's the first cab with reclining rear seats, it's like an SUV with a bed....= )
MN

[Don in Missouri]

I just read some fact sheets on BioDiesel. Even low percentage mixes of BioDiesel increase lubricity. That's a nice benefit when the ultra low sulfur Diesel has less lubricity than the Diesel you bought at the pump last year.

[Dodgezilla]

Im in canada soo im about kms.
my uncle has the tdi jetta.
he gets over 1000kms per tank. Two years ago he payed like 30 bucks to fill up aha

[Sodbust]

Hello all

I am sick and tired, of tv adds for 300 hp, 224hp and 250hp in a 2400 lb car.. What gives,, makes me think they feel we are using $1.35 gas again!

There is no way,, some 2L 4 valve non turbo gas engine is going to hammer out 250 hp for very long,, if it does at all. I think they might take one of the little buggers and wind it up to about 10,000 rpm and dump the clutch and see where the dyno peaks out at before the crank brakes or it stalls out. How dumb do they think the public is anyway?

I agree,, where is the diesel Rabbit?? There are 1/2 doz still hammering around my area with 250,000 miles or more on them. The doors hardly shut due to total frame and body brake down,, but they still hammer out 45 to 50 mpg.

I know the MB company is selling a little car called the Smart car. Some tree hugger company in Calf got some over here to pass the EPA and crash tests BS,, but they just can not seem to get them in large numbers. From what I hear,, they have a gas engine, or a diesel. The gas gets around 60mpg and the diesel around 70mpg.. I kept hoping that with MB owning MoPar, that they would show up here, but no luck.. Now that MB dropped MoPar, I do not think it will ever make it over here in numbers.

Anyone else been following this?

Sodbust

[JimmieD]

Someone else probably has better info but as I recall the method of estimating mileage etc. is scheduled to be changed, to give a more accurate picture. I think Mopar Norm mentioned it. While these small cars can rack up some good numbers on a dyno, that's only peak power figures. It doesn't say anything about the power band as in what an engine has from idle to redline, just peak power.

I'm not sure on long term reliability, but there have been some serious improvements in metallurgy and mfg techniques of late. We'll see if they're on the road or in the wreckers at 250K miles?!!!

I saw a cool little Dodge truck for the first time a few days ago. It was a Dodge Ram 50 with a Turbo Diesel, all built by Mitsubishi. The owner explained that Mitsubishi only built 2 diesel engines, this being one of them, and that parts were brutally expensive and hard to find, with much of it NLA [No Longer Available]. Too bad, it was a slick little truck.

[MoparNorm]

Interestingly enough, those little buzz bombs do turn out high horsepower and get about 20-24 mpg. But Sodbust is right, they are real pipey at about 6,500 rpm. The reason is two-fold, 1) they get to claim kudos in the horsepower race and 2) they NEED the high rpms to completely burn their fuel and meet emission requirements.
Sadly these motors are worthless for Jeeps, trucks and things that need to work at 1,000 rpm with a load or towing. The good news is, in spite of the environmental wackos attempts to ban diesel in CA and 4 other states, Detroit is finally getting it's diesel act together. Cummins in building a new plant to build small V-6 and V-8 motors for Dodge and Jeep. GM is offering small V-8 diesels in it's light duty trucks next year and Ford is building in-house diesels for it's next generation vehicles (so-long Navistar).

[Sodbust]

Hello,

Yes I see this fact.. But how may "good" v-8 and v-6 diesel engines, have been made and dropped after a few years. I had a Cummins 555 v8 in a tractor.. It sucked.. and after 3800 hours,, it blew up.

I was told by an old semi wrench,, that v8s and v6 diesels have funny harmonics going on that eat at the engine from the inside out.

sodbust

[MoparNorm]

No Cummins goes into production with less than one million test miles on it, so I'm sure that they have it worked out.
These are modern, quiet, clean CRD motors meeting 2010 emission standards. From 5 feet away you can't tell that they are diesels, but the toque and HP numbers are what you'd expect from a diesel and with 35-40% better fuel economy than comparable gasoline motors. These engines are for the long term, with major money being expended in the technology manufacturing facilities and a long term commitment from Chrysler.
Clean small diesels are the motor of the future.
E85 and hybrids (except for diesel hybrids) are a dead end, consuming more energy than they produce and E85 based upon corn is already disrupting the food supply.

http://photos.imageevent.com/moparnorm/jeeps/large/engine_650.jpg

[Sodbust]

MoparNorm

We have several stils in our farming area. And we have 1/2 doz feed lots also.(200 to 200,000 head) The cattle men love the stils byproduct as it has been cooked so to speak, and the cattle do much better with it as far as lbs/day/gain.

Every bushel of corn/ milo/ we grown in this area is for livestock. They are just now getting the grain cooked and not raw. With the 10% loss of starch to make fuel is made back up with the feeding ratio of weight of gain. So not 1 extra bushel of grain is needed to feed the livestock and we end up with 2.3 gallons of fuel a bushel.

Felt I should add some air to the tires around here!..

Sodbust

[MoparNorm]

The concerns are due to speculation by investors which is driving up the price of corn. Already beef and dairy prices are going up because the cost of the corn based feed is going up. There have been "Tortilla Riots" in South America and Mexico as the price of corn rises there.

Making Ethanol from a food product is never a good idea on a mass production basis. There are many, many other crops that can be used, but in the final analysis, it takes more energy to produce ethanol than ethanol produces, it is a net energy loser. Ethanol cost three times more than Methanol (current prices are $3.85 vs. $1.05 per gallon). A gallon of ethanol produces less energy than gasoline. The only advantage to ethanol, at the moment, is that it sparks the debate about how to wean us off of imported oil.

It is estimated that to replace our consumption of oil with ethanol, we would need every available acre of farmland that is currently in production, just to grow corn.

My personal bet is on diesel and bio-diesel powered vehicles, that will have the least amount of impact on how and what we drive and yield fuel economy improvements, over gasoline, from 25% to 100%, depending upon the size of the vehicle.

Detroit, with pressure from Washington, seems to be **** bent on pushing us into E85 using food based ethanol, I think it is a serious mistake.

[Altered_Auto]

I think it is a serious mistake.

Of course it is a serious mistake! No other country has ever given up a food source for transpotration. Also if the enviromentalists knew the effects farming that much corn had on the enviroment (run off, fertilizer, etc.) they would have a cow. Well maybe not a cow but some kind of soy product.

[MoparNorm]

Making Ethanol from a food product is never a good idea on a mass production basis.

I'm not against using non-food products or marginal food by-products on a large scale or even foods such as soy, beets, etc. on a smaller scale, such as Sodbust is doing. There are millions of undeveloped acres in the American west that could sustain certain crops without taking every drop of available water to do so.
However I see the potential for a huge "Big E" complex devouring everything in sight, and the only goal is to keep the inefficient gasoline engine alive another 50 years, at the expense of the American consumer.
If every vehicle in the United States was magically turned into a diesel powered vehicle overnight, we'd be instantly free from foreign oil. The amount we would save from improved fuel economy equals the amount we import now.

[Altered_Auto]

Not to mention the fact that there are countless sreas that we know have oil supply (Gulf of Mexico) but are not being drilled. The fact is that nothing will change untill gas becomes so expensive that nobody is willing to buy it. The problem lies in the fact that our nation is based on petroleum and changing it over would be a huge undertaking and cost an ungodly ammount of money. It would be nice if they gave up on ethanol (which I believe they should) and start looking into diesel but the fact is that they have already spent so much money on it they can't admit it was a mistake.

[Sodbust]

Gentlemen

All I know is what I see. Yes,, making just fuel out of corn is a lost effort. The costs of fertilizer/ labor/ ect will not support just making fuel. But 95% of this corn and milo is going to livestock feed anyway. It was yesterday/it is today / and will be 4 years from now. Just as well cook it and make the fuel we can use and we still have the same amount of feed left over for the livestock feed.

As for the costs of food going up,, let me just point this fact out. I started to farm in 1972.. New tractors were $18,000,, new combines were $20,000,, and land out here was $100 acre. Fertilizer was selling for a whopping $50 ton.

I farmed for 30 years seeing the same value for the grain when I sold it as when I started, the same my grandfather saw in 1950. And his father saw in 1920. $1.20 Corn, $2,00 wheat,, and $1.00 milo.. The pressure to raise more each year to cover the added costs of inflation hit its peek several years ago. We were banging our heads on the top of the game. Since plants are just nothing but solor collectors, we have hit a limit of yeild gains.

Now (2007) a basic tractor is $150,000,, a new combine I got last fall was $285,000, without the $25,000 header,, and land is up to $1200 an acre. Fertilizer topped out this spring at $550 a ton.

What you are seeing is not so much the cost of E85,, but overall inflation!!!! We as farmers have to get more for our grain plain and simple. Try importing all the food for this country and talk about higher costs! Shipping grain from around the world alone would cost consumers what US farmers are now getting today for a fair value for our products. Allot of the added costs of food the last few years is the shipping of our grain to you, and shipping fertilizer,, fuel, parts, tractors to us. Cut our fuel nations supplies 5%,, and it would go up again 4 fold overnight. Thank the starts for the dribble of E85 we now have.

This all just happened and fell into place around the same time with all the new E85 fuel plants, as for the higher grain values.. The last several years we have a younger and allot smarter farmers, inflation, fuel, shipping, cost of seed ect. The bubble broke..

Allot of the older farmers that just kept there eyes at the ground and worked from day to day, hoping tomorrow would get better are out of farming, or died. We lost 10 to 15 farmers a week over the last 5 years in our area alone. And this is not a populated area.. WE only have 1 working stop light in 300 sq miles. What you now have running the farms is the younger blood that went to school and know there cost of production, or farmers like myself that had a clue what was going on and held on. Just 10 years ago,, you could ask 20 farmers what a bushel of wheat cost to grow,, and 19 of them did not even have a clue. Now they all know and are not going to just sell the crop to gain some cash flow like just a few years ago. They know to the $0..0001 what a bushel of wheat costs there farm to grow. They are not just going to give it away like there fathers did.

I have to invest $250,000 a year imputs to grow crops on my farm. I have to have $700,000 worth of rolling stock to get that job done. My upkeep and repairs run right at $150,000 a year. I am tired bustin my *** off 7 days a week, for nothing. I love the life style or I would have left years ago. Even with what city folks think as a major rip off,, Gov Payments to keep us going out here,, I would like to make enough to have to pay income tax once in awhile! Its a sinking feeling to sell $500,000 worth of grain, and have to take out another farm note for float the farm another year.

The overall fact is, E85 has been a blessing, and a wake up call to this country. It has given hope again to this country's farmers that we are worth something, and we do have something of value to sell for food, and make fuel.

My efforts with sunflower fuel is a small dent. But I can grow fuel for my farm, for the same acres of grain I needed for my livestock. They just now eat sunflower meal at 32% protein and not corn at 10% protein. So it takes alot less.. They are happy, I'm happy and my diesel engines are happy.

Now the fact of diesels and there role in our energy needs. Yes, diesels have the gift of burning anything you can cook a do-nut in. They do it very well. Heat, pressure, and compression, and long life... The vacuum of demand right now of needs for good veg cooking oil is zapping the oil supply we could have been making diesel fuel out of today. Every day you hear of another large cookie plant, or do-nut chain switching from lard,, (animal fat) to veg oil for heath reasons. With in the next few years there will be a huge shift of planted acres from corn, milo to oil seeds to meet this cooking oil demand, ( and market value) Right now,, corn at $3.20 a 60 lb bushel, and sunflowers at $10.80 for 60 lbs of raw seeds. The market is calling, " we need oil!!" So for a good hunk of beef on the grill,, we will be lucky to have the E85 plants up and running, or yet more acres would be taken away from livestock/fuel and growing more oil seeds. just a point..

Sodbust

[MoparNorm]

I'm not arguing against the points you are making about the farm economy, my family have been ranchers and farmers for over 140 years. The farmer has always gotten the short end of the stick, with most of the earned income from the cost of our foods going to the middlemen distribution and retailing chain, not to the farmer.
The speculators have driven the price of corn up at the commodities market by over 100%, just this year. That money isn't going to the farmers, it's going to the traders.
My point is this, with a burgeoning diesel market share, the law of supply and demand will drive down the cost of petroleum. If we can get 30% more use out of the same amount of fuel and lessen our dependency on oil, then market pressures will lessen on the price.
In the meantime thousands of folks doing just what you are doing will promote the expanded use of diesel.

Yes, Americans have been spoiled by cheap food prices and subsidies, government intervention has totally screwed up the free market system in agriculture. Farm prices and the farm economy are a whole 'nother ball of wax that would take more space than we have here to discuss...= )

[Sodbust]

MoparNorm,,

Well yes the market boys are turning some cash, but I have seen our local grain market double in the last year. About time!

Its all supply and demand. America, got to love it.. Now let me see,, if I stop making sf fuel and start pressing and selling to Crisco,, MMMMmm?

Sodbust