Originally Posted by kam327
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Diesel does contain about 10% more BTUs than gasoline per unit, and diesel engines have an energy conversion efficiency of around 30% compared to only 20% for gasoline. So diesel does have some real "eco" advantage. The trouble is the engines are more expensive to produce, forcing the car makers to charge more for them, and diesel fuel is more expensive. Once those two obstacles are overcome in North America, diesel may provide a lower cost of ownership to car owners. But it ain't nowhere near there yet.
TTAC said yesterday it would take 115 years for the Cruze diesel to pay itself back compared to a 1.4T equipped car.
Diesel fuel pricing has been largely based on BTU content for the last couple decades. You get about 10% more BTU for 10% more cost. The years of cheaper diesel are long OVER unless you're running off road fuels and cheating fellow taxpayers by failing to pay your fair share of road taxes. Your energy conversion efficiency argument is not supported by actual objective Cruze EPA comparison testing. Any real "advantage" (eco or otherwise) must take into account the particular powerplants being discussed. Efficiency varies by design. In the case of cruze, the diesel powerplant offers no significant advantage over gas versions. In light of the comparable fuel economy, performance and $3800 option cost premium, the cruze diesel version is a total loser. Since the car won't last 115 years, it can't be defended from a cost standpoint and tree hugging eco scientists are not placing diesel above hybrid or gas. Science-based eco indexes do not align with the diesel hype in this thread. Arguments for diesel engines in commercial trucks don't extend to cruze.