![Gran Turismo 5 demo coming to PSN on Dec 17, GT Academy returns [w/VIDEO]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/12/370z-gt-academy_143x85.jpg)
Video in the Fastlane III: Bob's not big on the future of diesel in the U.S.
We just got word of the latest GM FastLane Blog podcast, and in it Bob Lutz doesn't appear to be too keen on diesels. While admitting that GM is working on diesel powerplants for use in passenger vehicles sold in the U.S., he tries to emphasize the fact that diesels aren't a cure-all. Lutz sees only a 12-15% benefit to diesels over gas engines in fuel mileage given the stricter emissions standards for diesels that are now in place. With the new Bin 5 Tier II standards (not to mention the even stricter standards set by the California Air Resources Board) on the horizon, he thinks a diesel-powered car will cost $2,000 to $2,800 more than a gas-powered one because of extra emissions hardware, and that's on top of the $1,000 to $2,000 premium for diesels to begin with.
His bottom line seems to be that diesels can be better than gas engines for mileage, but that the added cost to meet new emissions standards are making them less attractive. While we've been heartened to see the promise of more diesels coming to the States, it's true that they don't really answer all of the concerns about a diminishing crude supply, nor the environmental impact of automobiles. They may reduce our use of crude, but there are costs associated with them that make them a temporary step at best. Renewable energy sources are a better option ultimately, but for the time being, diesels can help us reduce our dependency. It might sound like sour grapes a bit coming from Bob's lips, but he has a point. Click play and watch his thoughts on this issue for yourself.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
TriShield 3:39PM (7/12/2007)
He's right, and diesel emissions are very dangerous and a large number of them in cities would only serve to exacerbate air quality problems.
http://blogs.drive.com.au/2007/06/the_truth_about_diesel.html
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=40556&vf=12&pg=1
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=4039
Reply
Mike G 11:39PM (7/12/2007)
Lutz is senile and should be consulted solely on the latest hairpiece technologies...
psarhjinian 3:39PM (7/12/2007)
Diesels get better mileage, but spew more emissions.
In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.
Reply
Amber 4:40PM (7/12/2007)
I dont buy his logic either. Leets take the 2.2 ecotec engine for example. In most cars it has a fuel economy of 25-32. Imagine puting in a 1.2 liter turbo diesel 4 cyl engine instead
the 1.2 would make about 100hp and 200 torque while the 2.2 ecotec makes 140hp and 140 torque. They should accelarate in the same manner yet the diesel should give 36-44 milage. and how can a 1.2 engine cost more than a 2.2 engine? It should be about the same. Not 2,800 more!
psarhjinian 5:11PM (7/12/2007)
The 1.2L vs 2.0L argument you present is somewhat oversimplified
First off, the cost of the engine doesn't scale with displacement, so a 1.2 and 2.0 could cost the same. Heck, a sufficiently complex or low-volume 1.2L could cost more than a large, simple, but high-volume engine. GM makes a lot of 2.0L Ecotecs now, so the cost to produce (and the amortization) is quite low due to the scale of manufacture.
Second, diesel engines require a more robust construction to handle the additional stresses on the engine caused by compression ignition.
Third, to get even reasonable power from a diesel, you need a turbocharger and an expensive injection system. Not cheap.
Fourth, diesel requires a more complex emissions control system. Again, these cost money.
Fifth, diesels in North America would need to go through government powertrain regualtion and certification, something that the 2.0L Ecotec has already gone through. NADM powertrain certification is expensive, which is why you see so much powertrain sharing, compared to the wealth of choices in Europe.
Amber 6:28PM (7/12/2007)
Yes and no. The Smart car has a 800cc 3 cylinder diesel that puts out a lot of power and meets all USA emmisions. If you fuse two of them you get a inline 6 cylinder Turbo Diesel that still meets all regulations. And now it becomes a 1.6 liter. Im sure a 1.2 can be made on the cheapo if there was a will.
psarhjinian 8:14PM (7/12/2007)
I've driven a CDi Smart. "A lot of power" is not how I would characterize a featherlight car that can barely manage 130km/h and takes 15+ seconds to reach 100km/h.
A Prius can waste a Smart,./
Peter 11:20PM (7/12/2007)
Amber:
A lot of power from a smart? It is just about the lightest car on the road. It actually takes 20 seconds to hit 60mph.
A 1.2 diesel doesn't get anywhere near 100HP. You are dreaming in technicolor. Remember what the 1.9L TDI it got about 90HP. VW's new 2.0L will make 140HP. So your 1.2L TD would make about 75HP.
Torque doesn't really affect acceleration, it is HP that does.
Didn't we explain this to you before.
Sabra 7:34AM (7/13/2007)
I keep wondering why he is still at GM. He is so out of touch.
Reply
Brian Dreggors 3:45PM (7/12/2007)
But GM will have Diesels in the next AURA and American CTS...
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070712/FREE/70712005/1024/LATESTNEWS
Reply
Jordan 3:49PM (7/12/2007)
Ofcourse GM doesn't want diesels to catch on. GM doesn't want anything that they dont want to do or cant do to catch on. Period. They dont want hybrids so they will make crappy ones to turn people off. They dont want diesels so they will not even field any competitive ones.
They do want one thing however, E85. E85 is not all its cracked up to be. It is less efficient and it also gives out less power than gasoline. also E85 is bad for the environment and farmers in America. People think it will help farmers but no it wont. It will help big Agri companies like Monsanto and ADM and it will help genetic companies make crappier and crappier corn to make it grow faster. And this junk corn will one day enter the same food chain. Ethanol also cant be transported as it absorbes water so now we have to make different pipelines just for this.
Unlike in brazil where ethanol comes from sugar canes and the canes are bought from small farmers growing it naturally, in America we will grow the corn based ethanol on huge 20,000 acre corporate farms with no benefit to the little guy.
The more things that change at GM such as awesome high quality cars and trucks they are making now the more things stay the same like their backwards thinking Chairmen.
However props to Wagoner at GM as I do sincerely find him a bright guy.
Reply
EnviroBob 5:12PM (7/12/2007)
Jordan,
What Lutz said was: customers will not spend more money for a diesel when- due to very stringent emissions requirements- it gets mileage that is not much greater than the (cheaper) gasoline engine. Consumers buy what is (or is perceived to be) cost-effective for them. Do you really think consumers will spend thousands of dollars to get a diesel so they can maybe get 3 MPG more?
I agree, corn is not the only source for ethanol and should not be. The farm lobby convinced Congress that it is, however. Then again, the farm lobby has also convinced Congress to subsidize farming to the point that 62% of all farm income is straight from taxpayers pockets. GM and Ford have been building 'flex fuel' vehicles for a decade, so it's not like they just started cranking 'em out once the energy bill was passed.
There is also no difference between 'genetically engineered' corn and 'organic', either. What 'genetically engineered' foods have allowed, however, is that more food can be grown in less space, meaning more people can eat and that we have more trees in the US now than 50 years ago because all of the fam land that is no longer needed, courtesy of 'genetically engineered' foods, are filled with trees and shrubs surrounding peoples homes.
Lutz isn't thinking backwards, he is thinking logically.
DuntheMun 3:44PM (7/19/2007)
@EnviroBob,
Have you tasted this genetically engineered food? Its tasteless and bland. While I do admire the idea behind this, I want an apple not only to look like an apple, but to taste like one too. And unfortunately thats not the case.
Amber 3:50PM (7/19/2007)
Not just Corn but a lot of genetically altered foods dont taste like they used to. This ethanol thing will be a sad story but one the public wont know until its too late.
TriShield 4:17PM (7/12/2007)
Pretty sweeping statements Jordan, considering GM has made excellent diesel engines in their trucks for many years. The new baby Duramax and the engine they're buying from the Italians look quite competitive. Not to mention the diesel engines they already offer in Europe and are considering for Saturn. I don't see how GM is at a disadvantage or would want these investments to fail, so I have trouble buying your logic.
Reply
psarhjinian 4:27PM (7/12/2007)
I think the point is that passenger diesels in North America would be expensive for GM to produce, hence they'll downplay their effectiveness.
They did the same thing with hybrids until they realized that they weren't winning mindshare. They don't do it with flexfuel because the cost is low and the US agribusiness lobby more than makes it worth GM's while.
GM has a hard time doing something (in terms of product) unless there's a very immediate financial benefit. They're getting better at this, but they still have problems throwing money at projects with long term chances but no short-term viability.
Jordan 4:27PM (7/12/2007)
I knew someone would jump right on the Duramax bandwagen!
The Duramax is a joint venture between GM and Isuzu. It actually find a home in a lot of places from Silverado to big delivery vans and top kick trucks. Its a fine engine.
But you do not know what the baby duramax will be and all the other diesels are offered in Europe. I am talking about North America.
Darrell 5:27PM (7/12/2007)
and this is why GM is dying and will soon be dead.
Reply
Paul C. 4:16PM (7/12/2007)
What a tool!
Reply
naggs 10:27PM (7/12/2007)
yeah! what kind of an asshole would respond to recomendations and criticism by explaining why it is not feesable? screw him with his facts and his chemistry and all the hooey! GM has nothing to gain by not providing north american consumers with efficient, clean and affordable vehicles that they can sell for a profit! I wonder how they sleep at night knowing that they are complying with all federal and state regulation.
seriously paul, your a moron