Hybrids wane, diesels gain as buyers weigh real-world mpg

Looks like the HiLaker threw the grenade and ran. Left some good responses in the wake. One question I have. Diesel fuel prices seem to oscillate somewhat independently of gas prices. Why is that? Different refineries?, supply and demand differencies? , different lag time from well to wheels?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL_Prius_Driver @ Jul 24 2007, 03:01 PM) [snapback]484354[/snapback]</div>

Most likely supply and demand that is driven by refinery capacity.

I wonder if HiLaker fits the definition of a troll? Interesting discussion, though.

 

i dont think that would be the case. in europe, options abound for high mileage vehicles. i had a friend who was there last winter. i forget what he rented, but it was small, compact, diesel, and got about 70 miles per gallon.

heck, if we had that here, many here would have made a different choice as well

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL_Prius_Driver @ Jul 24 2007, 05:01 PM) [snapback]484354[/snapback]</div>

Look at it the other way. Diesel prices move much slower than gasoline prices because the demand is steady. Diesel demand is driven by over the road trucking which is steady, fuel oil use, which is seasonal, and jet fuel use, which is pretty steady. So as gasoline prices jump up and down and drivers drive more or less and refineries switch from one blend of gasoline to another, diesel prices stay steady. I've found that I pay about 10 to 15 cents less than regular in the summer and 10 to 15 cents more than premium in winter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Jul 19 2007, 11:07 AM) [snapback]481706[/snapback]</div>

Do you have a credible source for this? IIRC, the Mercedes E320 BlueTec was only Tier 2 Bin 5 compliant, which is FAR worse than SULEV II or PZEV. See my post at http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=478831.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jul 24 2007, 07:34 AM) [snapback]484114[/snapback]</div>

From http://www.clean-diesel.org/highway.html seems to imply it's pretty widely available and it looks like it's been required since 9/1/06 in CA.

Is it really true that it not using will destroy emissions systems in all vehicles that require ULSD? http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...1024/LATESTNEWS is an example that seems to imply no but it ends up producing very unsightly smoke.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Jul 24 2007, 03:26 PM) [snapback]484370[/snapback]</div>

HiLaker is almost certainly a troll. See his/her previous posts and discussions that some of us were involved in at http://priuschat.com/index.php?act=Search&...mp;hl=&st=0.

I saw that article elsewhere too... I guess a survey is one thing vs. reality.... Toyota's hybrid sales YTD are up 69% vs. the same point last year per http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....+2007,+01:33+PM. Prius sales in the US are up 93.7% YTD. http://hybridreview.blogspot.com/2007/07/h...-june-2007.html says that hybrid car sales are up 55.% YTD over the same period last year but he doesn't count any GM (mild) "hybrids".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cwerdna @ Jul 25 2007, 03:55 AM) [snapback]484582[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure what emission level the 2007 E320 BlueTec meets, the 2006 E320 CDI was T2B10. However, as I have stated, this is not due to particulate emissions it is due to NOx. I do know that it does not use Urea injection or AdBlue as MB calls it. CARB has been very slow to accept urea injection as a viable emission regulation device without controls to insure that the system cannot be run without the Urea. This not only means that MB would have a sensor to measure the fluid level to be sure that the Urea container is kept full but also a method to insure that the fluid is Urea of the correct concentration. CARB is concerned that owners will simply neglect to refill the Urea container since failing to do so would only hurt emissions and not performance or economy. With Urea injection, the E320 BlueTec would have no problems meeting CARB emission requirements for 2006 or the next level in 2008.

This thinking has also lead CARB to reject simple particulate filters as used on commercial trucks and passenger cars in Europe and instead insist on maintenance free systems. European systems use a simple particulate filter / trap that is change on a regular basis like you would change an air filter or an fuel filter. Once again, CARB is concerned that the owner will not replace the filter. So instead, the manufacturers have had to develop elaborate particulate filters that self clean by burning off the captured particulates at high temperature into smaller, more harmful particulates that CARB and the EPA do not measure. This also requires elaberate controls and sensors and reduces fuel economy since the engine cycles to a rich mode in order to burn off the particulates when it senses too much backpressure in the trap.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cwerdna @ Jul 25 2007, 03:55 AM) [snapback]484582[/snapback]</div>

While ULSD has been mandated in California since September of 2006, it is not been mandated in any other state. The law simply states that 60% of refined on-road diesel must be ULSD but retailer can choose which to carry. ULSD will not be mandated for the entire country until 2010 and due to a special deal with the EPA, Alaska will not have any ULSD until 2010. 60% of the refined diesel sounds like a lot but in my experience that does not mean it will be available. I have a diesel vehicle and in the time since ULSD has been mandated have only found it at a retail station twice and neither time was that in my area.

Your autoweek article is interesting but I tend to believe Diesel Progress, a diesel trade magazine and say that yes, running LSD in a vehicle designed for ULSD will destroy the catylist meant to reduce NOx emissions. The Toureg TDI in the Autoweek article is a 2005 or 2006 and doesn't have the emission equipment to meet T2B5. It will be very important to use the correct fuel in 2008 diesels

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Jul 25 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]484767[/snapback]</div>

T2B1 = ZEV
T2B2 ~ PZEV CO slightly stricter for CARB
T2B3 ~ SULEV II CO slightly stricter for CARB
T2B4 ~ ULEV II NOx, CO stricter, others the same
T2B5 = LEV

I still don't know why CARB can't just use the EPA tier / bin system. What are they going to do for 2010 when the next round of emission standards come out. Super Super Duper Low Emission Vehicle SSDLEV? I already know what the EPA will do, Tier 3, then Tier 4, then Tier 5, etc. The EPA's is logical, the CARB standard is emotional labeling.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jul 25 2007, 12:04 PM) [snapback]484742[/snapback]</div>

I wonder, if we had to replace the pellets in the catalytic converters on our cars at regular intervals...how many of us would neglect to do so? Probably a significant number, especially as the car ages/falls out of warranty and we may not take as good care of it as when it was new.

I think there's something to be said for a maintenance free system.

Unless urea is widely available at gas stations, what would we do if the container became empty, and the car shut itself off? The only other choice is to allow the car to run without urea (as it is designed currently), which would seem to defeat the entire purpose.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Jul 25 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]484767[/snapback]</div>

NMOG+NOx - g/mi at 120,000 mi ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/labeling/0215.../pres021507.pdf )


ULEV = 0.125

Bin5 = 0.160

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jul 24 2007, 11:18 PM) [snapback]484491[/snapback]</div>

Thanks, One more followup question, what percentage of cars in Europe do you think are diesel?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 25 2007, 04:37 PM) [snapback]484995[/snapback]</div>

There have been lots of potential solutions proposed. Some of them are:

Having a large enough reservoir so that the urea only needs to be added at service intervals and can be done by the MB dealer.
Having a flashing light that warns when the urea tank is low and flashes brighter and more rapidly as the tank level decreases.
Combining this flashing light with an annoying chime / alarm that sounds when the tank is empty similar to chimes that sound when passengers do not have their seatbelts on.
Allowing the vehicle to only operate for a certain number of miles after urea tank is empty. This is to allow the driver x number of miles to get more urea of take it to be serviced.
Allowing only x number of startups after the urea tank is empty
Allowing the vehicle to operate but only at a reduced power level if the urea tank is empty.

BTW, urea injection is widely used in Europe and urea solution is available. This is not an issue. Even if you had to purchase it from MB, you are only using about a liter per 1000 miles.

To me this is very simple. Make it so the vehicle does not run without urea in the tank. It is no different than if you run out of fuel. If you don't maintain your car, you deserve to be stranded. The problem for MB is the requirement that a sensor determines that the tank is filled with urea and not some other fluid. It is not a simple as a level sensor.

I take issue with the particulate filters being maintenance free though. With this requirement, the EPA is reducing the fuel efficiency of the vehicles by 3 to 4% and increasing pollution. Instead of replacing a filter full of particulates and sending it contained to a landfill, it requires the manufacturers to burn these particles to make them smaller. The pollution is not decreased only the size of the particles. It all still ends up in the air.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL_Prius_Driver @ Jul 25 2007, 05:38 PM) [snapback]485036[/snapback]</div>

Currently I believe the new car purchase are about 50% diesel. The total fleet is a little less than this. It also varies from country to country. For example Sweden has a much lower diesel percentage but I believe France is almost 80%. A lot of this depends on tax structures for vehicles and fuel from country to country. Also, smaller cars are skewed toward gasoline and larger car toward diesel. For example, according to Mercedes website, 79% of their E-Class sales are diesel and from my visits to Europe I would believe it.

Saving fuel matters when you are paying $6 to $7 per gallon!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 25 2007, 05:37 PM) [snapback]484995[/snapback]</div>

Easy answer, over 90% where I live. In the 70s all the car repair shops had a booming business (in the South) of pulling off the Catalytic Converters and EGR to get their GM and Fords back to full performance. Saving money by not putting in something that cost money and takes time is a no brainer for most. This is the very good reason that CARB insists on a maintenance free system. Note that there are no complaints against CARB making the hybrid battery warranty 150,000m, 10 years. (CARB bashing is selective.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL_Prius_Driver @ Jul 25 2007, 05:52 PM) [snapback]485043[/snapback]</div>

Which is why every state should have yearly vehicle inspections complete with emissions testing. My point is that CARB has been resistant to lots over very reasonable ways to make sure the system stays in compliance. How do you know that someone won't just cut the whole emission system out and replace it with a performance exhaust like is very common today with gasoline and diesel vehicles? You don't know without yearly emissions testing. Even then I knew a people that would save the stock components and reinstall them to pass inspection and then reinstall the performance parts. Most people won't go through that trouble though since they would have to pay someone to "prep" the car for inspection every year.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jul 25 2007, 07:59 PM) [snapback]485099[/snapback]</div>

jhinton -- Actually, the post timing was bad. I was responding to Pinto Girl, posted just after your post came out, and looked like I was being critical of your points. Nope, that was not the focus of my post. The focus WAS that some mechanism would be required, which you were making. Thanks for this and previous answers. The old saying "Put brain into gear before engaging mouth." might have a forum counterpart for posting....at least for me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 25 2007, 05:37 PM) [snapback]484995[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL_Prius_Driver @ Jul 25 2007, 03:52 PM) [snapback]485043[/snapback]</div>

Very very very selective (on CARB bashing). The CARB-mandated 10 year/150,000 mile warranty on the emissions components (for retail deliveries in California) covers most of the very expensive bits on the Prius. The utility of an extended warranty in California is debatable given the 10 year/150,000 mile emissions control warranty.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL_Prius_Driver @ Jul 25 2007, 08:32 PM) [snapback]485151[/snapback]</div>

I was replying to both of your comments. Even if you were being critical of my post, this is just a message board, I don't take it personally. I am well aware of what you were talking about though, or the "test pipes" you can still get at your local auto parts store to "test" if your catalytic converter is bad. Of course no one would ever just replace the catalytic converter with the test pipe, it says not to on the pipe. All those performance "fart can" exhaust systems are manufactured for closed-course use only too, yah right.

 

I would disagree a bit on that. I know a lot a people that still think that it is more fuel efficient to drive with the windows down than to use the A/C. I also know people that just like to ride with the windows down and dislike the dry air they get when using A/C. Yes, some people just don't fix the A/C when it goes but I would say a lot of people with their windows down don't fall into that category. You may even see me driving my Prius around town with the windows down if I'm only going on a short trip. I see no reason to run the A/C at full blast to cool the cabin only to arrive at my destination 2 minutes later.

I do see a problem with the BlueTec and similar maintenance free systems in the future. They are very complicated and there is a lot to go wrong with them. CARB has insisted the manufacturers replace a very simple, easy to maintain system that has been proven to work for years, with a new untested system. So me this a step backwards if clean air is your goal. You will just have lots of people driving around with malfunctioning emission systems and a check engine light on. Once people go to the dealer and spend a couple hundred dollars to have the system troubleshooted and fixed, only to find out it is "just for emissions purposes" a lot will stop going back in to have it fixed. Since a lot of states don't have emission testing or yearly inspections these people will never be forced to fix their cars.

 

I read a lot of milage claims on the Internet that just don't seem to jive with real world numbers. I just laugh anymore and say "good for you if that is what you get, because I don't get anywhere near that."A diesel car in Europe that gets 70mpg! Don't cars over there have names? Why is this car not widely distributed around the world? I don't see me driving a TDI Jetta and getting 45mpg in my urban and city driving here in Pa., I would say 35mpg would be more realistic and this is backed up by folks I have met that have them. I have not seen any proof that diesels have shaken the problems resulting from short trips, 3 dealers in my area all told me the same thing "if you drive short distances, then you will have trouble with a TDI". How about those messy diesel pumps at the fuel stations and diesel stains all over the roads? Diesel prices here, are around equal to unleaded in the summer, but way higher than super unleaded in the winter, so much for saving money.