| Author | Message | ||
     Redbuelljunkie |
I'm amazed by my '07 Grand Cherokee CRD with the 3.0 Mercedes Turbodiesel V-6. It has all of the comfort, convenience and style of a Grand Cherokee, yet the lowest mileage I've ever recorded was 19.1 mpg- and that was with a fully loaded interior and pulling two motorcycles on a full-size steel car trailer. That's better than the EPA city rating for the smallest gas engine available in the GC. The bad news is that the GC diesel option died with the Daimler-Chrysler split. The good news is that it's same engine used in the Sprinter, so parts and service are not a problem. It's a gem of an engine (unlike the 2.8 Motori diesel found in the Liberty), and I cannot give enough praise to this SUV. If you do some searching, you might still be able to find a GC CRD sitting on a dealer's lot somewhere (I did), and if you do- BUY IT! The GC CRD is one hell of a vehicle. | ||
| Froggy |
Starting in 2007 Diesel engines have to run just as clean as gasoline engines in several areas.
Everyone has figured it out. Its just expensive, heavy, and down on power/mpg vs the older units. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
That, apparently, is the point. There's not enough demand for gas here, so if demand for diesel in the US rises, the price of gas here will drop due to a glut on the market, as diesel production will have to be maintained. That's not even taking account of the knock on effect of diesel prices going up here. I'm no expert, but simple maths tells me that the more fuel efficient you are, the less money the oil companies make. If it keeps on like this I'll have to convert the bike to run on methane, then eat lots of beans & stick a tube up my a...... | ||
| Hughlysses |
Mr_grumpy- I read some discussion a while back that said crude is refined differently in the U.S. and Europe because of Europe's higher diesel usage. The claim is that the U.S.'s refining process maximizes the gasoline that's extracted from a gallon of crude while Europe's maximizes the diesel. A side-effect of this difference is that U.S. diesel is "naturally" high sulfur. When the low sulfur regulations were passed we had to add additional steps to the diesel refining process to remove the sulfur, increasing the cost of the fuel. The European process "naturally" produces low sulfur diesel so they don't have a problem. I haven't been able to confirm this story, but it sounds plausible. | ||
| Elsinore74 |
Had an '82 Isuzu 2.2 liter (non-turbo) diesel from 1986 - 2000. It wasn't the daily driver all those years, but had over 250K on the clock when I gave it to a friend to use as a work truck. Old-tech (mechanical fuel pump), sort of like running an old Harley with a magneto, except the battery was needed to start, then to keep fuel shutoff solenoid open. Could pull a lot more trailer than safely manageable due to the torque; was almost in 3rd gear just getting across an intersection. Consistently averaged 36-38 mpg highway when not towing (2wd longbed), probably turned in the low 30's in the quarter mile... Thanks for indulging my "Back in the Day," urge.  Seriously, though, I'd get in line to buy a modern mid-sized diesel pickup. I'd welcome the added complexity in exchange for a little more rpm range and horsepower. Kind of fond of air bags and other safety improvements, too. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I read that too. I've also read it's due to the different sources of crude. Trouble is all those "experts" sound so plausible, but that's what those people get paid for I suppose. Sure makes it hard to sort the wheat from the chaff though. | ||
| Rfischer |
It's not a refining process difference. It is simply a choice whether to refine gasoline or diesel distillates from a given quantity of crude. The now-mandated by the EPA low-sulfur diesel requires extra steps to remove the natural sulfur found in crude oil from that employed in refining the "old-style" diesel. There IS a difference in crude oils though. Light, sweet crude such as that from the Texas midlands is lower in sulfur than crude extracted from tar sands or shale. And it requires special refinery processes to deal with the high-sulfur crude from those sources. It is my understanding there are only 2 refineries in the U.S. currently capable of handling the high sulfur crude. That limits the amount of oil from Athabasca we can import from our Canadian pals. It is almost impossible to build new refineries these days so our energy source options are not what they might be. A pity. | ||
| Hootowl |
Another factor that affects fuel in US vs. EU is that the crackers in EU are set up to run on naptha, and in the US we're set up to crack natural gas. So in EU, naptha is diverted to the chemicals industry, whereas there is not that pressure on supply in the US. I probably didn't make any sense there, but I don't know how else to explain it. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
isuzu honda toyota ford and chevy all make great small around 3.0L V-6 turbo diesels just the kind of motor that is being spoken of here. toyota=hilux honda=cant recall ford=ranger chevy=canyon isuzu=d-max saw them all by the drove when i was in thailand earlier this year. awesome trucks huge utility for the common person great mileage non visible emissions quiet safe(crash bars abs traction control airbags auto retract seat belts etc) reliable affordable and durable those last three things are why you don't and likely wont see them here the | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Rfischer, thanks for the enlightenment, that explains quite a lot. Hootowl, I can't say I understand it all but I get the gist. I think one of the problems is that, historically, diesel has been viewed as a fuel for big trucks & gas for cars. Also there's that all American attitude problem, "We don't need any damn foreigners telling us how to do stuff." kinda thing. But it's starting to change, nobody expects a nation the size of yours to change overnight. However the evidence is there, more people seem to be asking "Why don't we do things like they do." more people seem to be questioning following the herd through blind patriotism. It's no bad thing, you've every right to be proud of your nation, but that doesn't mean you have to be proud of the people who got you up the creek without a paddle. Back to diesel engines though, the current range of common rail offerings have more or less 30% power reserve just from remapping the ECU. This company http://www.angeltuning.co.uk/ did a FIAT 1.9 for me a few years back, pulled it out from 115hp to 155 & the torque was stunning, ended up having to replace the clutch, flywheel & eventually gearbox too. Diesel tuning is big business here as you can imagine, & there's any amount of plug in black boxes, & tuned air intake & exhaust systems etc. Don't forget either the Le Mans 24 hr has been won by diesels the last few years. I love oilers, time to go get stinky.  | ||
| Hootowl |
There are plenty of Diesel fans in the US, and I count myself among them. I have a 2006 Jetta TDI. I don't understand why no one makes a diesel-electric car in the US. Wheels electrically driven, engine turns a generator. Like the new Volt, but Diesel. The engine could be 1 liter or less, tuned to a specific RPM...very efficient. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Hootowl- I also have a 2006 Jetta TDI. Check out this thread on a diesel hybrid conversion at the TDI Club forum: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=253045 | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Interestingly, the new VW diesels coming out here are common-rail rather than pump-injectors, more reliable apparently. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Our 2006 VW's have pump injectors ("Pumpe-Düse"); this setup was evidently only used from 2004-2006. The downside for us is evidently the cam lobes are highly stressed due to the pump arrangement, requiring use of VW certified oil which is pretty much available ONLY from VW dealers in the U.S. VW didn't sell any diesels here in 2007. The 2008-up TDIs are common rail. | ||
| Hootowl |
With the old pump system, fuel pressure was only available for part of the crank rotation, as they were driven off the cam. The new TDI engines do multiple fuel events per combustion event, and needed fuel pressure for a greater amount of crank rotation. Common rail provides that. It is also potentially cheaper. A pump/injector unit for my car is something like $1200.00. There are four of them. Ouch. | ||
| Hootowl |
While there was no 2007 TDI model available, they did manufacture more 2006 models in 2007 and offer them for sale. Several oil manufacturers meet the VW spec now. My dealer uses a grade of Castrol they get in bulk, and they sell another brand by the bottle. Valvoline I think. I have one in my trunk, though I've never had to use it. | ||
| Froggy |
Hootowl, the Volt platform was designed to be easily adaptable for Diesel, Hydrogen, and pretty much anything else you could want. I believe the Opel version of the Volt was shown as a diesel burner. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Hootowl- Mine is one of the 2007-built 2006 model year TDI's. | ||
| Rfischer |
One of the primary drivers of diesel popularity in Europe has been the price of the fuel which is heavily government[s] subsidized. That is the result of the political clout of the truck-drivers' unions and lobbying pressure from transportation industry groups. In the U.S. no such subsidies are given and in the result diesel fuel costs as much as, or more than, gasoline. Presently, here in CNY, diesel is the same price as premium grade gas. And, of course, with the significant price premium a diesel engine option carries, an operating cost advantage is critical to consumer popularity. Consequently, there is not the same economic incentive to buy and run a diesel-powered car as elsewhere in the world. It is not a matter of prejudice on the part of U.S. consumers, rather a straightforward cost-effectiveness calculation. And, the traditional diesel durability advantage has been severely eroded by technological advances in gasoline motors. It is no longer unusual for a gas motor to live 200,000 miles without major mechanical failure. That same technological advance has significantly improved fuel economy of them as well. Bottom line: I don't see diesels taking significant market share from gas-powered vehicles here unless and until the state and federal governments offer tax incentives on the price of the fuel. Presently, taxes roughly double the retail price of automotive fuels. I am not optimistic this will happen as the Obama-Rama crowd is trying its best to kill carbon-based energy use and the states cannot afford to give up tax revenue. Really, neither can the Feds as the Federal Highways Fund is also short of money to maintain the interstate highway system which is crumbling in many parts of the country. All IMHO, of course... | ||
| Froggy |
Also coming soon in some GM cars is a thing called HCCI, it allows a gasoline engine to burn gasoline under compression like a diesel, and getting more diesel like fuel economy numbers. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Also coming soon in some GM cars is a thing called HCCI, it allows a gasoline engine to burn gasoline under compression like a diesel, and getting more diesel like fuel economy numbers. Not me- I ain't drivin' no car with a homo engine in it! | ||
| Elsinore74 |
So this HCCI business is kind of like controlled run-on? Usually couldn't get more than a foot or two out of the old Ford after putting it in gear and letting the clutch out... | ||
| Froggy |
From what I understand about it based on the prototypes built, it uses the standard direct injection engines and switches in and out of HCCI depending on the situation. The prototype cars make a loud noise similar to pinging, and you could tell when it was in HCCI or not without looking at the computer. Again, those were prototypes, haven't heard much about it recently. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Sounds like what GM tried to do back in the 80s & failed dismally at, converting an existing motor. The Olds 350 diesel, anyone remember that? I had one in a Delta 88 Royale, what an absolute POS. Another grenade waiting to go off. | ||
| Aesquire |
Diesels aren't as popular here for 3 reasons. 1. European fuel subsidies don't exist here, and the U.S. refiners produce more gas than Diesel. 2. there is still prejudice about smelly, dirty diesels, even though the new engines are very clean. 3. Pollution laws are not really sane, here. I've heard the greenies complain about diesel cars because people will drive more..... really some people hate others to have fun. They are just nuts. When I ordered my Jetta in Feb.'08, the gas crunch was still on the horizon. When it arrived, in March'09, diesel cost so much more than gas that getting 50% better mileage ( 30 in gas miniwagon vs. 40 in Sportwagen ) was not a rational choice. Now, it is. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Sounds like what GM tried to do back in the 80s & failed dismally at, converting an existing motor. The Olds 350 diesel, anyone remember that? I had one in a Delta 88 Royale, what an absolute POS. Another grenade waiting to go off. I've always heard that too, but I've been reading recently that by the end of production, these were actually very good engines. There was evidently a 4.3L V-6 version too. I've just about convinced myself I need to find a late model extended cab Ranger and drop a (relatively) low mileage Mercedes OM617 5-cylinder turbo diesel in it. This is supposedly demonstrably the most reliable auto engine ever produced, and numerous examples have run over 500,000 (!!!) miles. | ||
| Cyclonemick |
I can say with great certainy that in 2010 and 2011 you will see a very wonderful powerful diesel motor in a light truck suv platform that has good fuel economy! I know because they are building one where I work! | ||
| Hughlysses |
Mickey- where do I sign up to get one? | ||
| Fast1075 |
I saw plenty of those GM conversion diesels...mosty lying in their own juices in the recycle yard....you couldn't keep head gaskets in them and the injection pumps were junk...the compression ratios were so low they barely qualified as diesels... If I got a diesel, it would have to be fueled on vegetable oil...the stench of hot diesel makes me hurl. | ||
| Froggy |
What does a engine designed 30 years ago using shoddy suppliers for parts have anything to do with a engine being designed today? |
