Diesels ---- the cars of the immediate future

I should mention that the first European engine-size taxes were in response to the Ford Model T. They taxed engines larger than 2.8 litres (and, IIRC, still do). The Model T had a 2.9 litre engine.

The near future is still the target for hydrogen fuel cell tech. Even with reformed H2 sources like methane and methanol, the efficiency of a fuel cell is about 35% , a bit greater than present internal combustion engines.
Making H2 out of plants is goofy. The best source is methyl alcohol or methane derived from coal, (of which we are the middle east). The transition to H2 motors or engines is already in the production line. The cars are a bit small, but the Daimler Benz/Chrysler unit based on the SUV is already in the road test phase. Only problem is that theyve been trying to jack up the efficiency by using pure H2, thus requiring a bigass tank to hold the cold pressurized H2.Seems more like the Budweiser cooler truck. Higher efficiencies mean purer H2 sources, or plugging the car in every coupla hundred miles and cracking water. This is the Alkaline fuel cell which the space program used (remember Apollo 13?) pure O2 and H2 develop too much hheat on reaction, so does the Carbonate process . So either we plug em in and crack water or use the reformed methanol . Emissions will still be dumped out by the reformer CH4(OH) x2 =H2 + methyl ether. (Im not sure of the final product but I cant see any ignition unless they use a heat exchanger, which will be more weight.

Titanium alloys with carbon fiber "humpy systems" will be the norm for body types for these smaller fuel cell cars. Ti Is light and very very strong. Penske pioneered the Ti "tub" for Indy cars and thhe "humpy bumpers" are fairly new an very light. Ti metal frame cars are more survivable than most steel and plastic sheet metal. The outer skin of a car like this will just disintegrate leaving an inner frame like an Indy "tub". Ti has a "memory" and has very small crystals that absorb severe shock that will normally shitcan any sheetsteel body. Advanced "foam" energy absorbing systems are being tested by many car makers that want their hybrids and fuel cell cars to be as survivable as the aforementioned "Ford Subdivision"

I didn't realise european vehicle taxation policy was based on the Model T Ford. I had naively imagined it was all to do with ic emissions, diesel particulates, and engine efficiency, standard of tune, and volume.

I agree that if everyone else drives a big vehicle, then you are unsafe-r in a smaller vehicle. Still, feeling safe is not the same as being safe, and think that (and some statistics show) for that reason, driving in a SUV or big wagon can make some people drive insensitively.

The thread is: Diesels - the cars of the immediate future.

The hybrid has an albatros around its neck--the inevetable cost of battery replacement. I read that it may be three to four thousand. That sure cuts in to mileage claims. But they may start using diesels in hybrids.

The hydrogen engine faces an enormous investment of
of an infrastructure for refueling. Enormous!

60% of Europeans who are buying VWs are buying diesel VWs (the top seller)

The first H2 fuel cell car series will be on the market next year. Infrastructure is already there for fuel cell or even H2 burning. H2 is no more explosive than gasoline so the infrastructure for "fuel stations" is mostly in place with minor modification
H2 from methanol is easiest. H2 from methane is already there in MGPs (which is a technology that was in use a tleast for 100 years)
Coal mines are no big deal.
Actually H2 from water is thhe toughhest because it must be co-located with enouigh power to crack the water

The hardest part, besides finding ways to tax it, is to make sure enough catalyst for the reformers is available. (hint, invest in Platinum NOW)

My Peugeot 406 diesel brought 4 of us back from Liverpool yesterday at 85 mph, quietly and smoothly, in comfort, at 45 miles per gallon. I like this car.

My F-350 brought home myself, my wife...and 3200lbs of patio blocks (2 small pallets) today, to replace my totally-destroyed yard walkway, cruising easily at 65-70MPH & getting ~16-17MPG. With a trailer (which I do have), my Custom Cruiser could have done the same job.

You keep your roler skate car. I'll keep my truck.

Jarl, you haven't got it yet.

What's the point of having a truck capable of hauling a commercial payload, and use it mainly for commuting, with one or two people in it. That's what most people do, apologies if you're different.

(What destroyed the paving, was it the truck?)

Look at the international news this week, top subjects are fuel prices and global warming. Both relevant to ic engine overuse.

Billy, hope that was not too far off-topic.

McTag, not at all. Just any and all comments regarding the general energy problem and solutions.

What destroyed the walkway? 30+ years of New England winters is my guess. My friend's Bobcat will finish the job.

My truck sees HARD use--I would DESTROY a half-ton in a month. I haul 1500+lbs (over and above the tools I always carry) at least every couple of weeks.

visit the biodiesel site

http://www.biodiesel.org

Its a simple chemical production that returns an ester from fats, oils and methanol. There is a significant market in Eastern US and somewhat in New England

"Bigger is safer. There are no exceptions."

Well yes and no.
Consumer Reports, April, 2004

"The Consumer Reports Safety Asssessment consists of an accident-avoidance rating, a crash-protectiion rating, and an overall safety score that combines the two ratings on an equal basis."

"The ability of a vehicle to help you avoid an accident is as important as its ability to protect you in a crash."


Factors contributing to accident avoidance;
braking, handling, acceleration, driving position, seat comfort, etc.

Head on crash, would you rather be in a Civic or a Tahoe?

If you even have to think about this, there is something wrong.

Farmerman, have you discovered, finally, that som diesels do not have glow plugs. The fact that you talked to ""experts" is dismaying to say the least.
If people in the industry don'e know a simple thing like that, how is Joe blow supposed to understand.
The Cummins 6 does not have glow plugs. Period.

And, another thing - You said:

." You oughta hear the 6 cyl dodge Cummings. you can hear that mamma for miles. youll never sneak up on anybody with a dodge. AS far as the noise, Tell him to have an after market sound muffling for the . . . " etc.

That cannot have been written by anyone who has ridden in a cummins Dodge Ram. My son has one.
Outside, It's somewhat louder than the sound of a big V-8. Inside, it sounds like a V-8.

I should clarify... I meant auto diesels. I agree that diesel is a huge commercial force, and won't go away. You should take the time to read the CARB website's legal areas and see just how impossible it is for VW to sell their diesel in CA. Current legislation is in the works that would place the VW's diesel in the "gross polluter" category, even though it is at least five times cleaner than any of my five gas vehicles including a 1997 Tercel. Its a sad world when one of the cleanest vehicles on the road will be labeled offensively inadequate and removed from the CA roads.

Funny, I didn't realize you were from my old stompin' grounds. I grew up in Carlisle. I should clarify... I was speaking of road diesel in autos. CARB/EPA is far more interested in what we drive to work than what we use to supply the world with food There is significant legislation that is introduced at the rate of about three bills per year that is attempting to remove diesel from the road in its entirety. Read my last post for more...

Curtis

First of all, let's get back to the original claim. I was not saying that diesel emissions equaled one drop of oil, I was saying that the main component of diesel's "black" exhaust was a soot that falls to the ground. That soot that falls to the ground is the equivalent of one drop of oil per mile. If you go back to the original post that should be clear. If not, then its my fault for wording it incorrectly. This is the problem with the "quote" function of replies. Anyone can take a single sentence and pull what they want. The claim originates from an EPA study done in 1989. The amount of HC-formed soot from diesel exhaust equals one drop (gT) of oil per mile of driven road. Its no longer on the EPA website, but its available by contacting the EPA by phone and requesting the "1989 diesel vs. gas HC emissions study". Its something like $9.50 for them to print it out and send it to you. Good reading, and worth the money. Its about 30 pages, so its one of their smaller reports

There are several factors involved here and your post is very valid, but should be ammended. Europeans have several things in their favor on this topic; fewer kilometers per person per year, less population density, and on average per capita less than 60% of the emissions per year. Part of that is due to simple numbers. Fewer people drive in Europe, and (amazingly) there are many more diesels in Europe. The last number I heard was 43% diesel in Europe. Far more than in America. Our speed limits vary depending on the state. It was several years ago that the 55 was lifted and 65 is more common. Some states are 70, and two or three have stretches of interstate that are 75 mph. Driving habits are widely varied. If traffic permits, in Los Angeles many drivers choose 75-80, sometimes 90 since police are not very active on city highways. Outside of town I've been stopped for doing 80 in a 70 zone a couple times. In Pennsylvania where I grew up, the limit is 65. Often times, 70 means a ticket.

The answer is NOT hybrids. They waste fuel as heat and if people don't latch on to this idea, I'll tell you what will happen: Auto manufacturers will advertise the heck out of them, and people will buy them. At this point the Auto makers have won, the EPA and CARB will have no choice but to fall in line with lobbyists from the auto manufacturers and their legislators who have had their staff flunkie review a report (funded by the auto manufacturers) and the cause is lost. The roads will be filled with hybrids and overall emissions will decrease, but not as well as they would with other (wiser) options. Energy loses itself to heat every time it changes states. The auto manufacturers (after loosing billions to electric cars which failed) capitalized on the electric craze by offering hybrids. They waste 13% more energy than a plain old gas car, but they get 45 mpgs. The joke is completed by auto manufacturers working hard to make the public think that increased fuel economy equals fewer emissions, when in fact if often means the opposite.

Let's assume all things equal for this comparison. Take an engine that makes 100 hp, put it in a standard vehicle, and it will put about 80 hp to the street. The same engine in a hybrid car will put about 45-55 hp to the street. Why not build a 70 hp engine that gets better mileage, makes fewer emissions, and still puts 45-55 hp to the street? Why? Because Americans have fallen for the hype of Hybrids. A gallon of gasoline contains a fixed amount of energy. The focus should be on getting the greatest amount of that energy to the tires, not adding a complete energy phase change in the middle to waste it. A good example of this paradox is this. Place a hybrid vehicle and a VW diesel in NYC, tell them to drive to L.A., and the VW diesel will have beaten the hybrid by 18% in fuel consumption, 30% (on average) in fuel cost since diesel is cheaper and also the VW would be getting almost 25% better mileage, and along the way, the diesel would have made fewer CO emissions, the same HC emissions, and only slightly more NOx emissions. This doesn't even take into consideration the mountains, where the diesel would remain fully powerful and stable, while the hybrid would quickly drain its reserve and resort to its gas engine alone, leaving it far behind in speed, but also abnormally spiking its NOx emissions for this example. Hybrids are NOT the answer. They are a marketable band-aid fix for car manufacturers who have lost billions on electrics and alternatives that failed. I work in the industry; I can't say where for my job security but I have my nose rubbed in it every day. Mark my words right now. September of 2022 is my best guess; this will all come to a head and world economies will struggle from this very thing. I deal with it on a daily basis and its coming. We keep arguing about fuel economy and dependence on oil, but trust me. Sept, '22 we'll all see what I've been saying for years.

I thought we made this clear. My very best friend has a 2004 cummins in a Dodge 3/4 ton. IT HAS GLOW PLUGS. Period.



There is a grey area here. It was 2003 or thereabouts that Cummins re-designed their diesel. The older 5.9 is a rattle trap. I don't care how much you love it or how well it performs on the road, it sounded louder than an opera diva with a hammer in your left ear. The newer ones are soooo much quieter. Still not anywhere near the industry standard like the Duramax, but much better. You two could be speaking of different Cummins engines.