The US according to Lutz: ethanol, yes, diesels, not so much
In the fuel economy and future tech debate, the hybrid vs. diesel vs. hydrogen fuel cells vs. smaller cars and smaller engines always provokes a fair bit of discussion among Autoblog commentators. At this point, no one yet knows what's going to win since nobody knows how the volatile mix of products, timelines, prices, regulations, legislation, state standards, and gas prices will ultimately pan out. Bob Lutz's prediction is that diesels, at least as far as the US is concerned, won't be much of a factor.
His reasoning is simple: "I think customers are going to say, 'Wait a minute. At equal fuel prices I'm paying $4,000 more for this." Unlike many countries in Europe, the US offers no incentive for people to buy diesels. In the States the price of a diesel vehicle is often more than $1,000 higher than that of a gasoline-engined car, and diesel fuel is just as expensive as gas (throughout California and other states, it's slightly more expensive than premium unleaded). In that case, Lutz's opinion is that just about all the customer will glean from an oilburner is a higher car payment.
Lutz sees diesel uptake in the US hovering at about eight-percent. The technology he sees as winning the day: ethanol. It's clean, it's easy to integrate into the refueling infrastructure, and it "doesn't require a change in consumer behavior." (Except for the people in emerging markets who've seen the price of corn skyrocket.) For another take on the fuel economy battle, according to Kelly Blue Book, 40-percent of US new car shoppers think hybrids are the future, with just 17-percent citing flex-fuel.
[Source: The Car Connection]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
zamafir 7:41PM (1/28/2008)
Bwaa haahaaaaa. What a crack pot, had I not given up on this out of touch fool before, now is the time. I guess I should burn those TDIs I own and replace them with E85 powered cars when the new Jettas hit at the end of the year providing 55mpg on the highway. News flash, consumers are already purchasing more expesnive iterations of Toyota and Lexus products for increase fuel economy, and if sales of previous TDIs are any indication (no issues selling every one VW was permitted to import), the diesels won't have an issue either.
I have no problem paying $4000 or $6000 more for an A4 or A5 V6 TDI with 40+MPG and a naught to sixty under 6 seconds, that is why the majority of luxury cars in europe are diesel. I don't see americans being averse to the choice the moment they finally hit show rooms later this year.
Reply
11800506 7:56PM (1/28/2008)
I agree. Bob Lutz doesn't seem to remember that Diesel engines get better fuel economy than gas and ethanol engines which as far as I know are equal or even worse than gasoline. Flex fuel simply is not the future for our fueling needs simply because it doesn't contain a lot of energy for its volume and because it still pollutes the environment.
11800506 7:58PM (1/28/2008)
I meant that ethanol's fuel economy is equal or even worse than gas.
why not the LS2/LS7? 9:15PM (1/28/2008)
Which TDI is this that does 0-60 in under 6 seconds and makes 45mpg?
I agree the mpg on ethanol sucks. But I think Lutz makes a lot of sense, because Diesel just isn't available to everyone at current emissions levels. Since they emit far more trace emissions than mandated fleet average, it is impossible for car companies to make Diesel their mainstream offerings in the 14 CARB states.
Go ahead and laugh at CARB if you will, but as a carmaker, GM has to pay attention to it, not scoff at it.
zamafir 9:24PM (1/28/2008)
thanks for asking, your right to be curious damn euro exon numbers. A5 gets 39 highway and sees 36 combined in us figures. Thanks for keeping me str8. I think I was still in a euphoric state over the new jetta tsi figures.
Andy 9:31PM (1/28/2008)
Ethanol is NOT a feasible solution. You can't grow enough to make a
dent in the fuel need, unless you're just trying to drive up the
price of grain.
And to the genius who asked why Honda and Toyota don't have diesels
here, they will soon enough. Will GM miss the boat again, thanks to
folks like blowhard Bob?
Retire, already.
why not the LS2/LS7? 9:39PM (1/28/2008)
Andy:
Give ethanol time. Corn ethanol doesn't seem to make sense, but we're just getting started on this stuff. There was a time that running this many cars on oil wouldn't make sense until new techniques of turning light distillates into gas through isomerization and reformulation were developed. There may be breakthroughs that make ethanol viable in the future, and having lots of cars around that are capable of running on ethanol (or blends) will encourage companies to develop these breakthroughs.
Dave 9:41PM (1/28/2008)
Look at the price of heating oil and you will see the downside of diesel. There is no surplus supply of diesel.
The more diesel cars there are on the road, the more expensive diesel fuel will get. The market will take away the economic advantage of diesel cars.
psarhjinian 9:58PM (1/28/2008)
Ok, some clarifications:
A V6 TDI A4 is not going to get 40+ mpg when you're running six-second 0-60 times. You'll get much worse. This is like the Corvette people like to mention how they _can_ get 30mpg--yes, you can, but you get those numbers while driving like a granny. The A4 TDI will get 40mpg under ligh loads (is, highway cruise). Punch it, and it'll drink fuel quite heavily.
Ethanol makes sense in North America for two very stupid reasons:
* It gets a incredibly porkbarrelish exemption from CAFE. Just like light trucks, ethanol vehicles are somehow, magically, allowed to adhere to a significantly lower CAFE standard than their gasoline (or even hybrid) counterparts.
* Ethanol-powered cars are cheap to make. All you need do is take an existing gas engine and make minor modifications and--BAM!--you meet CAFE. No expensive hybrid drivetrains or transplanted diesels that need expensive certification and/or emissions control.
Why is this is case? Because the automakers, corn industry and agribusiness spent a lot of money for this exemption and they want some ROI. And while no politician is going to enact something that would ostensibly harm the American Farmer, the CAFE exemption has everything to do with shareholder value and GM and Monsanto, not the health of Farmer Bob's tiny plot of cornstalks in rural Kansas.
It's actually doubly important for light trucks and big cars (which--shockingly--make up the bulk of the American automaker's production) because it's about the only way they'll make CAFE without spending wads of cash and/or significantly altering their product line and/or having to offer consumers far less "car" then they've been buying over the last two years.
Bob Lutz et al do not want to sell you econoboxes with razor-thin margins. Nor does Monsanto or ADM want you driving biopropane or biodiesel cars made from organic waste. They'd much rather you buy trucks, which make them quite a lot of money per unit sold, and run them on corn ethanol grown from RoundUp-Ready strains. The only way they'll do this is by somehow slipping trucks past CAFE. Between the light truck and ethanol exemptions, this is exactly what they've done, and what they hope to do in the future. That they've been skewing their product matrix (and marketing) to favour light trucks--sorry, "crossovers"--instead of cars is completely understandable.
Now, I don't like diesel much. I think it's overrated (people never think in terms of mass of fuel or gross energy to produce, which evens the playfield somewhat) and has real emissions trouble. But I'm also a real greenie, and it's by far a better option than non-biowaste ethanol, which actually makes things _worse_, not better.
Russell 10:05PM (1/28/2008)
@Andy
Tell that to Brazilians, they've had ethanol for over a decade.
Steve 11:02PM (1/28/2008)
I was in England last week and my rental was an Audi A4 with a 2.0 liter diesel and a CVT. While it didn't do 0-60 in 6 seconds, it was a strong performer and I would hazard that the performance was on par with the 2.0 turbo gas engine, especially in low speed torque. It was great on the freeway as well, very quiet and ready to pass when needed. The only time I really noticed it was a diesel was when I stood outside of the car as it was running. From the inside it felt and sounded like a 4-cylinder gas motor, albeit with a lower redline.
The Audi UK web site shows the 2.0 TDI engine rated at 51.4 mpg (combined city/hwy) and the 1.8 turbo gas engine (TFSI) at 39.8 mpg. Of course, this is in Imperial gallons, so figure about 44 mpg for the diesel and 34 for the gas engine in US gallons (I still find the mileage figures too high, especially for the gas engine... that seems absurdly high).
In any case, this is a 29% improvement in fuel economy using Audi's figures. That's certainly on par with the improvements seen by using hybrid-electric powertrains and certainly better than the weak partial hybrids used by GM.
All this for a car that doesn't need the complexity of a hybrid drive, the extra batteries, the long-term battery replacement costs, and requires no sacrifice in terms of performance or special fueling stations like ethanol or especially hydrogen.
As I understand things, VW will begin selling TDI engines in California again, so they must have solved the emissions issues, in no part due to the U.S. finally requiring low sulfer diesel fuel. According to the VW rep at the San Jose Auto show with whom I spoke, the TDI will add about $1,000 to the cost of an equivalent Jetta. Still less than the premium for a hybrid powertrain.
david 12:24AM (1/29/2008)
@Russell
Look up the facts about how Brazil is making their ethanol.
Sugar cane to ethanol = very easy
Corn to ethanol = a bit more difficult, but you're also using a food source. Like your price of milk these days? Thank ethanol.
Cellulosic ethanol is the only way that it'll have a chance. You simply cannot make ethanol from corn or any other food source whether it be for humans or livestock.
why not the LS2/LS7? 1:12AM (1/29/2008)
A4 2.0 TDI 0-62 is about 9 seconds. Would you like to revise your answer about how it performs similarly to the 2.0T gas version?
psarhjinian 1:24AM (1/29/2008)
@Steve
No, you're right, it doesn't need a hybrid drivetrain. It's a magic pixie car that's perfectly simple to operate. Except for, oh, the 27,000psi fuel injectors, or the turbocharger, the strengthened block and the emissions-control equipment.
Toyota's hybrid cars have been some of the most reliable on the road, the batteries are recyclable and the warranty is quite long. They haven't done any battery-pack warranty replacements at all. Audi has, until recently, not done nearly as well.
Hybrid or not, buying a VW or Audi because you want a more reliable car isn't a well-thought-out proposition.
zamafir 1:30AM (1/29/2008)
Alright double checked my figures again.
2009 Audi A4 3.0 TDI (not in relation to the 2.0T comment but to my original):
240hp
6.1 second 0-60
52 IMP MPG (43.5 US MPG)
2009 Audi A5 3.0 TDI :
240hp
5.9 second 0-60
49.6 IMG MPG (41.3 US MPG)
Both are highway MPG, Both are off audi's site.
psarhjinian 2:05AM (1/29/2008)
Just for the record, the 2008 A4 3.0 CDI gets more like 40imp gal/mile (33mpg US, or about 7.0L/100km) combined, according to Parkers and Audi's own brochure (audi.co.uk), which is pretty good for a sub-six-second car.
Actual figures are 29.4 city, 52.3 highway (imperial). That highway figure is good, but the city figure isn't a whole lot better than a North American V6 Accord (26/42 imperial). Given that diesel fuel is actually heavier and takes more gas, this isn't nearly as decisive an advantage as one might expect. Comparing to the Accord isn't exactly fair (it's a lighter, front drive car, despite it's being much larger), but it's illustrative of how disingenuous the numbers that people give for diesel are.
zamafir 2:35AM (1/29/2008)
"but it's illustrative of how disingenuous the numbers that people give for diesel are."
I'm curious what's so disingenuous.
Honda Accord V6:
FWD
0-60 in 7.1 (edmunds)
26/41 IMP
Audi A4 3.0 TDI:
AWD (+)
0-60 in 6.1 (audi)
29/52
What's so disingenuous? Given the comparison you've brought the Audi provides better traction (track or poor weather), better performance, and better MPG, what's so vague? Sure diesel costs more, sure Audi's are more expensive then Hondas. Neither points I've ever brought up or refuted. My point is that there is a reason diesels outsell petrol powered cars in the european luxury market, and that reason quite simply is you get a better car all around, better mileage, better acceleration, etc. No one in europe I've talked to with diesel audis or bmws have argued it was based on the cost of fuel, all have argued their choice was based on performance and getting better range out of their cars (not needing to fill up as much). All you've done is serve to underline my initial point.
Daniel 3:29PM (1/29/2008)
Lutz and the other Bozos running the U. S. auto companies don't want us to have diesels because they simply last about 3 to 4 times longer than gas burners. Period.
MachinaDC5 7:41PM (1/28/2008)
Awesome choice of picture.
Reply
D. 9:19PM (1/28/2008)
...I was thinking about the same. For some reason, the moment I saw the picture I thought "not even now they don't get it". And I thought that GM still stands a chance! How disappointing.
Also newsflash for Lutz - here's one more customer who says he wants diesel.