AutoblogGreen

Now if only Citroën would come to America . . . with fuel prices going up most of these models could find a home in America now. Just my 2¢ worth

Reply

HELL no I'm not jealous with that stinky slimey goo going for north of 5 bucks per gallon. They can keep every one of them.

Reply

The whole diesel argument is such a non issue . And I own a diesel truck.

Diesel fuel has more btu/gallon. So cars get better mileage.

The diesel engine is more efficient, which is good, but the latest high compression ratio engines that will employ turbocharging and direct injection are going to be pretty close.

Diesel fuel is a high carbon fuel. Its emissions on burning are much higher than that of a premixed charge engine.

If you ask me, we should skip the diesel option and move straight to gasoline or better yet, natural gas hybrids.

A plug in natural gas hybrid would be outstanding.

Reply

It could be interesting to see some aftermarket specialists at SEMA who could create a "Camaro D28" (D for Duramax)/Camaro Duramax or a Challenger with the V6 3.0L from Mercedes who had been used for the Chrysler 300C in Europe and recently the Jeep Grand Cherokee (the upcoming Cummins V6 4.2L might be a bit too big for the Challenger engine bay)

Some folks on Diesel Power magazine think of some ideas http://www.dieselpowermag.com/news/0803dp_diesel_transformation/page_2.html
http://blogs.dieselpowermag.com/6224641/diesel-news/musclecars-of-the-future-diesel-powered/index.html

Reply

VW's TSi (gasoline) comes nowhere close to the mpg of its TDi (diesel) engine in the same vehicle.

>the latest high compression ratio [gasoline] engines that will employ turbocharging and direct injection are going to be pretty close.

Reply

#5... post #3 was NOT talking about MPGs. It was talking about carbon emissions (and consumption).
If you look at CO2 emissions, the TSi is coming close to diesel.
This is because a gallon of diesel contains about 15% more carbon than gasoline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel
Europe is starting to regulate CO2, since for global warming, it's the amount of carbon burned that matters, not MPGs.

Reply

Looking at the list it looks as though it has been sorted by MPG. Shouldn't the list be inverted as the higher the MPG the better? how about a price column too? (I'm one of those mere mortals that do the MPG vs price thingy...)

Reply

Sorry, but "more efficient" in that paragraph does mean more miles per gallon (or kilometer)

And diesel is more efficient even if you adjust for the carbon content - the diesel cycle is more efficient than spark-cycle engines, at least among production engines.

Plus, turbocharged gasoline engines require premium fuel (cost approaches that of diesel)

Reply

Not really jealous especially with the price of deisel being 5 dollars a gallon and up

Reply

"Sorry, but "more efficient" in that paragraph does mean more miles per gallon (or kilometer"

More efficient means btus per mile. Yes diesels get more MPG, but their fuel is also denser and has more btus per pound.

The future turbocharged gas engines aren't going to need premium fuel because the opportunity for pre ignition will be overcome by directly injecting it into the combustion chamber.

Natural gas has an octane rating of about 120, depending on temperature, etc.

I could write tons about this. I suggest people do some research before they start touting diesel as the savior. FWIW, I drive a Cummins because I need to tow and haul things. I don't know if my next truck will be diesel. It depends on what the manufacturers do with the gas engine powertrains.

Reply

The co2 for a 1.6 tdci focus is 119g/co2/km the co2 for the 1.6 ti-vct petrol car is 157g/c02/km they are the figures the diesel is more efficent

Reply

There are some problems crawling out of the woodwork here in the UK (and elsewhere in Europe I imagine) with the current range of powerful diesels. To reduce the amount of vibration (and diesels are, by nature, vibration generators) cars are fitted with 'dual mass' flywheels. I understand that this means that the flywheel is in 2 parts, with some sort of vibration damping materiel between the two parts, bonded to each half of the flywheel.

What is happening is that heat from slipping the clutch is weakening the bonding and the flywheels are failing, resulting in very expensive repair bills that the manufacturers are putting down to fair wear and tear, rather than fixing under warranty or as a goodwill gesture.

This is particularly prevalent in smaller diesel cars that tend to be used a lot in city driving, where clutch use is greater, although Ford Mondeos and Jaguar X-Types seem very prone to this too.

Have a look at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2008/05/24/mrjon124.xml (Shakin' all over article) or do a search on that site for dual mass flywheel. Honest John is one of the best respected newspaper motoring journalists in the UK.

Rob

Reply

"plug in natural gas cars" will never be allowed in great numbers here in the US because there is no way the govt can collect the road tax if you can fill up at "home". i have gas wells and lots of "free" natural gas so i would love to see them

Reply

I'd love to drive a CNG vehicle as well, but here in the U.S. "fast-fill" CNG fuel stations are not readily available to the public in most states.

CNG over here has been for fleet and especially government vehicles - their refueling stations are rarely open to the public.

Home CNG compressors are only sold in a few states as well (and those are slow-fill)

It is unlikely CNG vehices will ever be available to the public in any meaningful quantity here in the U.S.

Reply

Anyone else not give a damn about CO2 emissions? They're not regulated in the US (yet), and I'm still not sold on the global warming argument. It's more efficient and torquier, so it's perfect for most average American drivers. They just don't know it yet. Having just a few of the cars on this list in the US could start to change that. Change the image of diesel by putting it in luxurious or sporty cars, and it becomes desirable. Make diesel desirable, and CAFE is a no-brainer.

Reply

I'm so tired of people posing these OLD TIRED arguments about diesel being more expensive. For one thing... torque rules - its just really fun to drive a hopped up torque monster. The obvious is that diesels get way better mileage. Right now in oregon RUG is 4.20 and diesel is 4.70 thats like 12% difference... however premium is 4.47 thats like a 7% difference. A diesel feels more like a performance car. I have had 2 diesel jettas and two 1.8t's. Horsepower-wise the modded 1.8t won. The modded tdi with over 300ftlbs was way more fun and got 40mpg.

Reply

"More efficient means btus per mile. Yes diesels get more MPG, but their fuel is also denser and has more btus per pound."

We all liquid fuels by volume, not weight.

So the metric remains distance per volumetric unit of fuel, not per unit of weight.

And I'll believe turbo engines don't require premium when a production version ships that uses low-octane gasoline.

Remember, "regular unleaded " here is usually lower octane than the lowest end Euro petrol.

Reply

Wonder what the BMW 120d would sell for over here.
Over twice the mpg of what I am driving now, that
might just get me to ante up for a new car.... and I never wanted a BMW before!

Reply