Chevy Cruze Diesel on the way....

[Lscman]

Originally Posted by jinstall

The Cruze was announced about 7 months ago.

Ford announced the 3.2 and 2.0 diesels 2 months ago.

Pretty much ANY car exported from the US has a diesel option. 99% of all Chrysler products, including Jeep, offer at least one if not 2 diesel engine options.

As for the hybrid folks, hybrids are a hazardous waste accident ready to happen, not to mention the eco footprint to develop them is far beyond eco-friendly. No emergancy services require special training for normal gasoline-diesel engine vehicles, hybrids on the other hand do.

Diesel has no special properties making it especially attractive for passenger car propulsion. It's just another option that USA consumers have little interest in pursuing. Diesels are finding their way into american econoboxes simply because GM and Ford are finally producing true world cars (common vehicular platforms to sell worldwide). I applaud that. If they export 50K diesel Cruze cars to Asia, this allows them to sell a few thousand here to people like you without creating financial losses. However make no mistake, this change in marketing strategy does not mean demand for domestic diesel passenger cars is growing sharply or this is some fix for eco problems. It only means domestics can now OFFER a very low quantity of diesel world cars cars here without losing money BECAUSE they are recouping the diesel car R&D costs thru export sales.

Ecologists and reputable, independent scientific organizations rate today's clean diesel, hybrid and gas cars of similar size about equal on the eco scale. This takes into account risk of chemical accidents, battery manufacturing, end-of-life retirement, emissions per mile and responsible recycling. I'll defer to experts in the field, thank you. Hybrid battery chemicals are offsetting pollutants you are more familiar with such as carbon particulate and poisonous combustive gasses. The fact that we're more familiar with diesels and cigarettes does not make them safer. All electric vehicles are a bit less clear since they may be powered by fossil, natural gas or nuclear depending upon the source of electric power.

A huge disparity in eco value is seen when comparing light weight econobox transportation to inefficient 5000lb luxoboat AWD SUV's with modest seating capacity, huge tires, tall roof line, poor coeficient of drag and massive V8 engine. If you want to pick something to be concerned about from an environmental standpoint, maybe a twin turbo V12 Mercedes sedan or 500HP SUV with seating capacity for 5 would qualify? These hogs use the fuel of 5 hybrids and pollutes about 5x more and despite leather seat covering, easily contain 3x more synthetic material.

[kam327]

Originally Posted by Lscman

Diesel has no special properties making it especially attractive for passenger car propulsion. It's just another option that USA consumers have little interest in pursuing. Diesels are finding their way into american econoboxes simply because GM and Ford are finally producing true world cars (common vehicular platforms to sell worldwide). I applaud that. If they export 50K diesel Cruze cars to Asia, this allows them to sell a few thousand here to people like you without creating financial losses. However make no mistake, this change in marketing strategy does not mean demand for domestic diesel passenger cars is growing sharply or this is some fix for eco problems...

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.

[jinstall]

Originally Posted by Lscman

A huge disparity in eco value is seen when comparing light weight econobox transportation to inefficient 5000lb luxoboat AWD SUV's with modest seating capacity, huge tires, tall roof line, poor coeficient of drag and massive V8 engine. If you want to pick something to be concerned about from an environmental standpoint, maybe a twin turbo V12 Mercedes sedan or 500HP SUV with seating capacity for 5 would qualify? These hogs use the fuel of 5 hybrids and pollutes about 5x more and despite leather seat covering, easily contain 3x more synthetic material.

Your still looking at a small portion of the picture and not the whole picture. You have to look at the complete manufacturing process of a hybrid compared to a normal IC engine. MPG is only part of the eco footprint, you have to look at the entire process. For $1000 I can run my Jeep off of used vegi oil, the same can be done with the Cruze and other diesels. Diesel will continue to be a more efficent IC engine than gasoline. It is also more friendly to tuning performance gains with slight electronic modifications. The EU has been proving this for years. This is why the Audi's have taking flak for years in motorsports. Clean diesels have been around for a while and will continue to increase. Owning a diesel is a long term commitment, and it does pay for itself when you own one. Mine has.

[Lscman]

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.

[Lscman]

Originally Posted by jinstall

Your still looking at a small portion of the picture and not the whole picture. You have to look at the complete manufacturing process of a hybrid compared to a normal IC engine. MPG is only part of the eco footprint, you have to look at the entire process. For $1000 I can run my Jeep off of used vegi oil, the same can be done with the Cruze and other diesels. Diesel will continue to be a more efficent IC engine than gasoline. It is also more friendly to tuning performance gains with slight electronic modifications. The EU has been proving this for years. This is why the Audi's have taking flak for years in motorsports. Clean diesels have been around for a while and will continue to increase. Owning a diesel is a long term commitment, and it does pay for itself when you own one. Mine has.

Time out, please. You have no idea what portion of the picture I'm looking at. You make bold, global statements about the superiority of diesel powerplants that have no merit beyond farm tractors and commercial rigs. Your argument is simply not supported by objective, empirical data (facts). Have you compared the EPA ratings for cruze gas vs diesel? Clearly not. A Chevy Cruze diesel is not a Jeep CRD SUV. The EPA tests are based upon actual control testing instead of generalities, hype, assumptions and guessing. EPA results are the best that consumers have to go by. Again, the Cruze diesel is not an F350 dualie tow vehicle or a commercial truck that sits idling for 12hrs in a truckstop every night. Cruze diesel is not a slam dunk choice from an eco, cost of ownership or overall efficiency standpoint and I assure you sales figures will bear this out.

Audi's recent success with racing diesel powerplants is the outcome of sanctioning body rules that served to aggressively encourage and promote alternative technologies. This is done by tipping scales to favor diesel power. The same rule books clip the wings of Ferrari, Corvette and Porsche to ensure parity. For example to keep things fair, the track-legal competition version of Viper typically produces 150 to 200HP LESS than a dealer showroom car. Race-legal GTS-R is limited to 450 to 500 hp while stock Viper produces 640HP. They are not penalizing Audi diesel race cars in this fashion or they would be too slow for pace car or parade lap duty lol. This is how Audi diesel magically passes a Porsche on a race track. Bizarre race rules allow a NASCAR Taurus (originally a $25K pedestrian sedan) to run quicker lap times on a speedway or road couse than a LeMans prepped Ferrari (originally a $250K sports car). This is why race results serve as useless testimony for the merits of diesel power in an econobox.

You really can't even quantify the benefit of owning a Jeep CRD or how long it takes to pay back because you would need to own a gas version and operate them under the exact same cycle and duty. You don't own a gas version, so your "pays for itself" conclusion is just a guess that does not hold water. I need to see calculations, not just declarations. Since it's a SUV with significant weight and frontal area, I imagine ithe diesel uses less fuel and offers a better torque curve. But hey, let's be honest because true cost of ownership must take into account the option cost. This is why hybrids offering double the city mileage struggle to break even with gas cars over the life of the vehicle. Again, the EPA does this sort of analysis for the consumer. I'll rely upon experts using scientifically-sound methods for objective comparisons, cost of ownership or payback.

To your last point, I'm not interested in hearing how driving your diesel car on cooking oils or off-road fuel (without paying your fair share of road taxes) is cheaper. No kidding, that's nothing more than theft of public services. Other taxpayers (both diesel and gas) who buy fuel at the pump are being forced to cover your share of road construction and repair. I own a gas car, but realize I can save money recycling cooking oil too. Cooking oil has value no matter what car you own. I can heat my house with it without stealing over 50 cents out of a fellow taxpayer's pocket for every gallon burned. I'd never consider a $3800 diesel option and $1000 cooking oil conversion kit for an econobox.

[OPsDad]

There is one thing that is obvious here: The tree huggers are making more problems than they fix. Get rid of this "eco" nonsense, I say, unless it's short for "economical" instead of "ecological".

[jinstall]

exactly.

[jinstall]

Originally Posted by Lscman

Time out, please. You have no idea what portion of the picture I'm looking at. You make bold, global statements about the superiority of diesel powerplants that have no merit beyond farm tractors and commercial rigs. Your argument is simply not supported by objective, empirical data (facts). Have you compared the EPA ratings for cruze gas vs diesel? Clearly not. A Chevy Cruze diesel is not a Jeep CRD SUV. The EPA tests are based upon actual control testing instead of generalities, hype, assumptions and guessing. EPA results are the best that consumers have to go by. Again, the Cruze diesel is not an F350 dualie tow vehicle or a commercial truck that sits idling for 12hrs in a truckstop every night. Cruze diesel is not a slam dunk choice from an eco, cost of ownership or overall efficiency standpoint and I assure you sales figures will bear this out.

Audi's recent success with racing diesel powerplants is the outcome of sanctioning body rules that served to aggressively encourage and promote alternative technologies. This is done by tipping scales to favor diesel power. The same rule books clip the wings of Ferrari, Corvette and Porsche to ensure parity. For example to keep things fair, the track-legal competition version of Viper typically produces 150 to 200HP LESS than a dealer showroom car. Race-legal GTS-R is limited to 450 to 500 hp while stock Viper produces 640HP. They are not penalizing Audi diesel race cars in this fashion or they would be too slow for pace car or parade lap duty lol. This is how Audi diesel magically passes a Porsche on a race track. Bizarre race rules allow a NASCAR Taurus (originally a $25K pedestrian sedan) to run quicker lap times on a speedway or road couse than a LeMans prepped Ferrari (originally a $250K sports car). This is why race results serve as useless testimony for the merits of diesel power in an econobox.

You really can't even quantify the benefit of owning a Jeep CRD or how long it takes to pay back because you would need to own a gas version and operate them under the exact same cycle and duty. You don't own a gas version, so your "pays for itself" conclusion is just a guess that does not hold water. I need to see calculations, not just declarations. Since it's a SUV with significant weight and frontal area, I imagine ithe diesel uses less fuel and offers a better torque curve. But hey, let's be honest because true cost of ownership must take into account the option cost. This is why hybrids offering double the city mileage struggle to break even with gas cars over the life of the vehicle. Again, the EPA does this sort of analysis for the consumer. I'll rely upon experts using scientifically-sound methods for objective comparisons, cost of ownership or payback.

To your last point, I'm not interested in hearing how driving your diesel car on cooking oils or off-road fuel (without paying your fair share of road taxes) is cheaper. No kidding, that's nothing more than theft of public services. Other taxpayers (both diesel and gas) who buy fuel at the pump are being forced to cover your share of road construction and repair. I own a gas car, but realize I can save money recycling cooking oil too. Cooking oil has value no matter what car you own. I can heat my house with it without stealing over 50 cents out of a fellow taxpayer's pocket for every gallon burned. I'd never consider a $3800 diesel option and $1000 cooking oil conversion kit for an econobox.

LOL you make me laugh. Who said anything about illigel fuels? Who said anything about stealing? LOL I have 2 security clearances, there is not enough money in the world to make me steal anything and cause me to loose them.

60% of all cars sold in the EU were diesel, they make up a MAJORITY of sales. The EU does not use gasoline/Benzine engines in commercial vehicles. I can out tow a 3.7 gasser anyday and my MPG, City, Highway and Towing, is way better than the 3.7 gasser. I just did a GVW 10280lbs tow from DC to El Paso, 2300 miles and averages 18mpg. You might get 11mpg in the 3.7 IF it could tow that much. When I was in Germany and traveling at autobahn speeds, 100-110mph I averaged 19mpg, no other SUV at the time available in the US, got that kind of MPG. Mind you I was also paying $8-9 a gallon then as well, so yes it saved me money over a gasser. I have driven all kinds of small engine diesels and they amaze me how the MPG/L pkm are so much better than gas engines. They also allow for TOWING at normal to BETTER than the gas versions, to include HYBRIDS. You have to look at the WHOLE picture, not just numbers.

Bio-diesel in MY JEEP actually makes it run better and quieter and causes no damage to the engine, injection system or emmissions.

Diesel, every one in the fleet has been good so far, minus the buses.

E85 in all my work vehicles, sedans-trucks causes detonation issues, poor MPG and emmissions failures.

Hybrids, well they do not make anything for work trucks and the sedans spend more time in the shop than on the road, except for one.

Hydrogen, well it is hit an miss for a around the base vehicle.

Electric, the first fleet ones have showed up after they were all removed due to faults in the charging systems the first week they arrived.

This has been since 2005, in the US and Europe.

Small displacement, forced induction engines are the trend now and will continue until and more solid alternative can be found. But then again, diesel's have been doing this since 1897 thanks to Rudolf Diesel.

Hybrids have been around for more than 100 years, and look how far we have gotten with it.

Hybrid use is like using a garden hose on a house fire, it works but is not getting the job done.

This thread kinda makes my day.

[Lscman]

Originally Posted by jinstall

LOL you make me laugh. Who said anything about illigel fuels? Who said anything about stealing? LOL I have 2 security clearances, there is not enough money in the world to make me steal anything and cause me to loose them....This thread kinda makes my day.

Thanks, my post was intended to solicit thought and reflection. Mission accomplished!

Please read my post closer though. I never said tax evasion through the use of cooking oil was illegal. It might be best described as legal theft or tax evasion. I never used the words illegal or steal. If you want to drive our public roads and have everyone else cover your share of the cost (tax burden), go ahead. But don't tell me that paying no tax is cheaper, duh, of course. The road usage tax burden to the consumer is over 50 cents per gallon in the form of Gasoline and Diesel taxes at the pump. If you're using the roads in a motorized vehicle you should be paying the road use taxes to cover them. Running cooking oil is theft of public services because road taxes are bypasses, but as of today, there's little law against this activity. It is always cheaper to avoid taxes, but that really isn't in the spirit of this thread comparing operating costs. Cooking oil is really no different than off-road fuel or heating oil from a tax evasion standpoint because taxes are bypassed in the same way. Mitt Romney is the master of tax evasion and makes no apologies, so why should you? Please feel free to laugh at folks who pay their fair share of taxes or pretend that using the public highway system without paying taxes to cover this work is fair or appropriate.

PS: The alcohol in E85 raises the effective motor and research octane of gasoline. It sure as heck does not lower it. If your work vehicles running E85 are detonating then their fuel delivery systems are defective causing an excessive lean condition. My Dodge minivan and Ford Taurus both love E85. The E85 program is a make-work program to benefit farmers. It does little or nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oils.

[whynotthinkwhynot]

I still say hybrids would be better as diesel electric instead of gas electric. Especially the Volt with it's series/parallel configuration. That was what the PNGV cars were- without the battery tech we have now. It's simple: TDI engine drives generator, generator powers electric motor. It would have to translate to about 120 mpge before it would be worth it though.