Diesel options N.A.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
24
Location
IL
I was talking about this topic at work the other day and nobody had a good answer as to why there aren't more diesel engine vehicles options available to consumers via cars and small pickups here in America.

Anybody have any thoughts as to why this is?
confused.gif
 
High cost & (undeserved) bad reputation of the GM 350 engines of the '70s & early '80s-although there have been quite a few in the pipeline (Colorado/Canyon, Cummins in the Nissan Titan, etc.). The cost & complexity of emission controls isn't helping either.
 
Because Americans are idiots and most of them thought (many still think) diesel is extremely dirty, loud, and expensive. Sucks to live in a country full of morons, doesn't it?


Originally Posted By: Nate1979
What I don't understand is why they cost more. Does it cost more to manufacture a diesel engine?


This is a reallllly easy one. Nobody wants diesels so they have much lower production than gasoline engines. That and also partly all the extra emissions [censored] they put on diesels.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
What I don't understand is why they cost more. Does it cost more to manufacture a diesel engine?


You generally need stronger components in the rest of the powertrain. Plus you need the EGR cooler, Diesel Particulate Filter, Diesel Cat, Selective Catalyst Reduction (urea injection), to start. Plus diesel injectors are a lot more expensive than gas injectors.
 
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
What I don't understand is why they cost more. Does it cost more to manufacture a diesel engine?


In many cases, yes. Looking at the current crop of diesel pickup engines, they are considerably more robust than their gas counterparts. The castings are considerably beefier, as are internal components. All that extra material costs money. Diesels also typically have a more substantial emissions system. Additionally, all that extra weight usually requires some additional capacity of the chassis.

Going into passenger car (and small truck diesel) world, those massive changes begin to dwindle. Yes, the components are more robust, but not to the extent of pickups. Considering many gasoline engines are now fitted with turbochargers, high pressure fuel pumps, and high pressure injectors, the differences have been shrinking, but emissions systems typically remain more involved on a diesel.

Where the real cost comes in with passenger cars and small pickups is economies of scale. It costs real dollars to obtain emission certification. It costs real dollars to create a supply chain to source a new engine, especially if that engine is not currently produced in the vehicle's manufacturing region. All that for what... 10,000 units a year? It's hard to even justify the added cost and complexity of diesel production in the US at those production numbers. Now factor in all the customer psychological reasons and not many want to play the diesel game.

VW has had the most success, but even in the case of the Jetta, diesel accounts for a single digit percentage of overall sales. Luxury manufacturers like MB, BMW, and Audi can absorb some of the cost because their profit margins are naturally higher, but their efforts haven't gained much traction in the market. In the world most people live in, the only diesel options are VW and Chevrolet (Cruze and Colorado).
 
And something like the new 2.8L Dmax for the Colorado is strikingly similar to the VM Motori 2.8L diesel, right down to the wet sleeved, cast iron block. It has a water cooled variable geometry turbo, common rail injection, DOHC. Makes sense that GM would take a good design and build upon it. GM owned 50% of VM Motori until they sold their stake in 2013. But they had already taken the 2.8L and put it into their own R&D stream. Pricey, but worth every penny. By building on the VM design, they saved a lot in R&D.

And like has been stated, the SCR, EGR, DPF goofy stuff really racks up the price. Any wonder why they cost more than a typical sized gasser?
 
I recently considered a Golf TDI, but chose a gas powered car instead. I didn't see much evidence that diesel was the clear-cut choice in this segment.

CO2 emissions (grams per mile):

1: Honda Civic HF ( 253 )
2. Ford Focus SFE 1.0 ( 255 )
3. Toyota Corolla LE Eco ( 257 )
4. Mazda 3 Sedan A6 ( 260 )
5. Chevrolet Cruze Eco 6M ( 266 )
6. Golf TDI 6M ( 286 )

Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions (grams per mile)

1. Toyota Corolla LE Eco ( 54 )
2. Ford Focus SFE 1.0 ( 56 )
3: Honda Civic HF ( 58 )
4. Mazda 3 Sedan A6 ( 60 )
5. Chevrolet Cruze Eco 6M ( 64 )
6. Golf TDI 6M ( 78 )

Annual Petroleum Consumption (Barrels)

1. Ford Focus SFE 1.0 ( 9.4 )
1: Honda Civic HF ( 9.4 )
1. Toyota Corolla LE Eco ( 9.4 )
4. Mazda 3 Sedan A6 ( 9.7 )
5. Chevrolet Cruze Eco 6M ( 10.0)
6. Golf TDI 6M ( 10.6 )

EPA Combined Fuel Economy Rating (US MPG)

1. Golf TDI 6M ( 36 )
2. Toyota Corolla LE Eco ( 35 )
2. Ford Focus SFE 1.0 ( 35 )
2: Honda Civic HF ( 35 )
5. Mazda 3 Sedan A6 ( 34 )
6. Chevrolet Cruze Eco 6M ( 33 )

EPA City Fuel Economy Rating (US MPG)

1. Honda Civic HF ( 31 )
2. Ford Focus SFE 1.0 ( 30 )
2. Mazda 3 Sedan A6 ( 30 )
2. Toyota Corolla LE Eco ( 30 )
2. VW Golf TDI 6M ( 30 )
6. Chevrolet Cruze Eco 6M ( 28 )

EPA Highway Fuel Economy Rating (US MPG)

1. Golf TDI 6M ( 45 )
2. Chevrolet Cruze Eco 6M ( 42 )
2. Ford Focus SFE 1.0 ( 42 )
2. Toyota Corolla LE Eco ( 42 )
5: Honda Civic HF ( 41 )
6. Mazda 3 Sedan A6 ( 41 )

Base Price before shipping (USD $)

1. Mazda 3 Sedan A6 ( $17,995 )
2. Toyota Corolla LE Eco ( $18,965 )
3. Ford Focus SFE 1.0 ( $19,255 )
4: Honda Civic HF ( $20,040 )
5. Chevrolet Cruze Eco 6M ( $20,095 )
6. Golf TDI 6M ( $22,340 )

Curb Weight (Pounds)

1. Honda Civic HF ( 2,749 )
2. Toyota Corolla LE Eco ( 2,875 )
3. Ford Focus SFE 1.0 ( 2,912 )
4. Mazda 3 Sedan A6 ( 2,918)
5. Chevrolet Cruze Eco 6M ( 3,005)
6. Golf TDI 6M ( 3,080 )

Sources:
fueleconomy.gov
Ford.com
Honda.com
Toyota.com
Chevrolet.com
Mazdausa.com
vw.com


Using fuel prices today, I calculate I'd save $39.25* per year in fuel by buying the Golf TDI instead of the Focus 1.0 I bought. That's over 78 years to pay back the $3,080 price premium on the Golf diesel.

* Numbers I Used
- 12,000 miles per year
- EPA Combined fuel economy ratings (closest matches my driving): Golf 36 MPG, Focus 35 MPG
- Fuel Used per Year. Golf 333.3 gallons, Focus 342.9 gallons
- Fuel Price today: $2.66 for diesel vs. $2.70. ** Extremely RARE that diesel is cheaper than gasoline here. **
- Fuel costs per year. Golf $886.58. Focus $925.83 ($39.25 difference)
 
Last edited:
The Duramax option is gonna add $100 a month to the truck payment, but since Diesel fuel is 15% cheaper I'll break even ona 2015 3500.
Besides, trade-in value on gasoline burners is nuthin.
 
When people pay $2 for a bottle of water and $9 for a salad, the cost savings for owning a diesel car is not on the radar. I see many people buying a pack of cigarettes a few lottery tickets fountain drink and a candy bar along with $5 in gas. The trend is stopping at the gas station every day for cigs and candy and throw in a few bucks for gas...not the hypermiling diesel mentality of being frugal.

The diesel trucks that i see are attention getters for the most part, mufflers deleted and black smoke pouring as they hammer down the road getting their power strokin on.
 
My guess is the limited selection of diesel vehicles in North America comes down to supply and demand, with demand as the more significant factor.

I agree that a large percentage of drivers in North America are have ignorance and/or prejudice toward diesel vehicles.

Maybe if North American federal and/or local governments offered significant incentives for diesel vehicle buyers and diesel vehicle drivers by means of the tax systems, it would motivate the demand for diesel vehicles which in turn could increase the selection of diesel vehicles.
 
Originally Posted By: used_0il
The Duramax option is gonna add $100 a month to the truck payment, but since Diesel fuel is 15% cheaper I'll break even ona 2015 3500.
Besides, trade-in value on gasoline burners is nuthin.


Right now the diesel fuel price advantage is good. Folks have such short memories. Let's back up a few years, when diesel busted the $5 mark and much higher than gasoline. Hopefully we never have a repeat performance, but usually history repeats itself.

Trade in is such a misapplied concept. Sure, a diesel will have a better resale value, but unless the resale value has a larger money spread than the original spread in initial cost to begin with, it is nothing. And it is all dependent on the market for the used vehicle. The market for pre-emission diesels is much more pronounced than the emission laden stuff.

There is a lot of truth to the idea, krismoriah, that a lot of pickup buyers will get a diesel more to make a fashion statement than actually needing one. And of course, most of them have no idea how to properly operate a diesel.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
And of course, most of them have no idea how to properly operate a diesel.


I love it when the first time diesel owners come in having meltdowns when it comes time for their first paying oil change, air filter or fuel filter replacement.

I heard a dude screaming at our cashier that there was no way his truck needed 14 quarts of oil on his 6.7, and he didn't want exhaust fluid as he didn't pick that option. I had the hardest time not breaking down laughing while I was refilling my water. Another customer that has a fleet of diesels started making fun of the guy which didn't help any.

One of he local city fleets instructs their drivers to shut their vehicles off whenever they go into DPF regen. Their trucks get towed in weekly for no-starts and we end up draining 20+ quarts out of a 15qt sump because of all the fuel in there.
 
Modern emissions in the US have made diesels very expensive to own and costly to fix.

Also one has to remember that fuel is simply down right cheap in this country and incomes are high, people are not concerned with getting the last mile out of every gallon of fuel.

Interestingly a number of European cities and countries are rethinking their push of diesels, most notably the UK and France.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
What I don't understand is why they cost more. Does it cost more to manufacture a diesel engine?


For MB no if you check out prices for E-class or GL class vehicles. Its the "entry" model engine....

I don't buy it really costs the car maker much more to build except for economies of scale. They sell a puny amount of diesel engines sold vs gas so development and manufacture cost per each is higher which they pass onto consumer if they are willing/stupid(diesel pickups) or lacking competition in segments(VW).
 
It definitely costs a lot more. Look up the price of a set of injectors for a Cummins 6.7 vs. a Hemi.

I chose diesel because I knew once my deletes were in place, I'd make double the fuel economy of the gas model, and triple the torque. All without opening the engine.

To make a Hemi match the performance of my engine is an unspeakable amount of money. To make it match the fuel economy and reliability at the same time is impossible.

Since it's literally impossible to get the same results from a gasser, the cost is easily justified.
 
Anticipating when, or if, they ever offer one of the new E85 motors as an option. The Ricardo 3.2L V6 E85 EBDI motor puts out same numbers as the Duramax 6.6L diesel... HP, Torque, and fuel economy. Cummins 2.8L inline 4 E85 motor puts out similar HP and torque as the 5.7L Hemi and gets better mpg to boot. That one is going in some commercial vans. Nice thing is, neither of these motors requires anything more, regarding emissions junk, than their gasser counterparts.

And delivering diesel like performance, along with diesel fuel economy, and doing so on fuel that is under $2 seems like not a bad deal. Maybe the CAFE stuff will motivate the OEM's to get in gear on this stuff. Ricardo claims their 3.2L EBDI E85 motor (at projected production costs) is about 1/3 the cost of putting a Dmax 6.6L into a pickup.
 
^^^I also am excited about that Ricardo engine that GM has been developing.

My only worry is that very small displacement engines running lots of boost seem to have a bit shorter fuse than larger displacement N/A engines.

You go first!
 
Diesel has sort of jumped the shark since the DPFs came out. It just increases the cost and maintenance headaches too much for my stomach.

Regarding the Ricardo engine,

The availability of E85 is too limited for me to consider one. There's only one vendor of E85 here in my metro area of 1.9 million, the HEB grocery store chain.

I *would* be interested in an engine optimized for E85 if I could reasonably drive cross country with it. A recent example would be Austin to Lexington, KY round trip, a trip we'll probably do again in the near future sometime.

The problem with current flex-fuel vehicles is that they're optimized for gasoline...if they want to do E85 it would be better to have E85 only engines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top