63 Miles Per Gallon?

[Lue C Fur]

I have one of the only diesel cars available in the United States-a 2006 VW Jetta TDI. I can easily get 45MPG on the freeway and the power and acceleration are the equal of a comparable gas-powered car. I run mine exclusively on locally produced biodiesel.

Unlike gasoline... which can only be refined from crude petroleum... biodiesel can be made from soybean oil, canola oil, hemp oil, algae, or waste cooking oil. Diesel fuel can also be refined from coal, as the Germans did during WW2.

If all cars in the USA were diesel, we could utilize our vast reserves of coal as well as growing fuel crops or algae on land otherwise unsuitable for agriculture, and be completely free from dependence on foreign oil.

Right on brother!!! Diesels rock!!! I have a 2010 VW Sportwagon 2.0 TDI that gets 42mpg. I was impressed when i saw that it had 140hp and 236lbs of torque and once i test drove it i was sold...plus the 650.00 tax credit was a bonus. I would love to get the BMW 3 series diesel...265hp and 425lbs of torque and it gets 34mpg and does 0-60 in 5.9 and the 1/4 mile in 14 secs...to bad its 45k plus.

I like your TDI since you can use the bio diesel and you can make your own with the kits they sell online...that would be awesome. My 2010 can only use a max of 5% bio because of the emision system. Maybe someday they will come out with a mod so i can use full bio.

 

[bbsam]

I have an 05 Chevy 2500HD with a Duramax and a Bully Dog programmer. I have no idea what mileage I get. I just like the sound and power of a diesel.

 

[grgrcr88]

Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust

This page last reviewed January 20, 2011

Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, composed of gaseous and solid material. The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as particulate matter or PM. In 1998, California identified diesel exhaust particulate matter (PM) as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems. Diesel engines also contribute to California's fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air quality problems. Those most vulnerable are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. Based on year 2006-2008 emissions in California, diesel PM contributes each year to approximately 2,000 premature deaths, with an uncertainty range of 1,500 to 2,400. In addition, diesel soot causes visibility reduction and is a potent global warmer. ARB has sponsored diesel health-related research.


For more information, please contact Dr. Linda Smith at (916) 327-8225.

So does an egg yolk, should California ban them as well. Perhaps every thing that can be deemed harmful to a person or animal should be banned? Am I the only person that thinks I can look out for myself, without the help of the government, my boss or anyone else telling me what to do with my own time?

 

[wkmac]

I have an 05 Chevy 2500HD with a Duramax and a Bully Dog programmer. I have no idea what mileage I get. I just like the sound and power of a diesel.

Duramax is a good engine package and coupled to a Bully Dog controller, you can make a lot of HP. I saw a similar rig in a 3500 series but instead of the Allison automatic, this guy went aftermarket and had a 6-speed manual installed as he was hauling some stout loads. When not pulling loads he was getting fantastic mileage highway and city because he controlled the rpm's as low as he could. I've got a 2500 4 wheel drive Suburban 7.4 liter gas engine with a 410 rear gear for towing and when I drive I watch the tach way more than the speedometer and on one trip with the 42 gal tank topped off, I got well over 900 mile range out of it which was quite a surprise to me. Watching the tach and rpm's was the key and 0 to 60 wasn't anywhere near light speed either.

I do think diesels offer a lot going forward and what interests me even more are diesel electrics. I saw where Freightliner is working on a diesel electric tractor using a train locomotive type setup and they already have a diesel electric hybrid in the field.

 

[av8torntn]

BTW: Do we dare discuss the taxation model as it pertains to roads as maybe the real gun in the room to why we don't have super mileage vehicles? The higher the mileage per gallon the less in tax revenues!

I think we would have been much better off if the government would have granted permits to companies to build and maintain an interstate system instead of our current system. The federal government has too much control with the federal highway money. They have used the money to bribe states to pass laws for everything from drinking age to speed limits. I know they used national defense as the excuse to do this in the beginning but we would be much better off today if the federal government would have reserved the right for national defense and granted the other rights to the states or private companies. In a way you are correct there is no incentive for them to reduce regulations to allow companies to bring more fuel efficient cars to the markets. I am not really convinced there would much of a market for cheap, fuel efficient cars anyhow but I sure would like the option. I did trade in my sports car recently for a v8 4wd SUV so I already know where I stand.


I did a couple years ago that the market share for large cars was dropping but it looked at the time that SUV's and smaller cars were splitting the gains. I have no idea if this trend has continued but I do know that Americans do not always pick their vehicles based on fuel efficiency.

 

[bbsam]

I used to laugh when the "new" hybrids came out because to my technologically simple mind, trains have always been "hybrids" with diesel-electric. Back whe Harley-Davidson and Ford had dealings together, I was hoping to see a small Harley V-Twin-electric hybrid. That would have been both cool and drawn in the Harley crowd to small efficient vehicles that weren't motorcycles. Plus, what's easier to maintain and rebuild than an air-cooled HD V-Twin?

I'm surprised that the guy went with a manual conversion. That couldn't be cheap and a modified, very, very, capable built for power Allison can be had for about $4,000 installed. Looking forward to that mod once I start slipping the original tranny. It will happen.

 

[wkmac]

I used to laugh when the "new" hybrids came out because to my technologically simple mind, trains have always been "hybrids" with diesel-electric. Back whe Harley-Davidson and Ford had dealings together, I was hoping to see a small Harley V-Twin-electric hybrid. That would have been both cool and drawn in the Harley crowd to small efficient vehicles that weren't motorcycles. Plus, what's easier to maintain and rebuild than an air-cooled HD V-Twin?

I'm surprised that the guy went with a manual conversion. That couldn't be cheap and a modified, very, very, capable built for power Allison can be had for about $4,000 installed. Looking forward to that mod once I start slipping the original tranny. It will happen.

Like you, when I first heard it I too thought WTF but he owns an engineering company and he sat down and ran the numbers cost and design and in the conditions he was using the vehicle, the payback was a little less than 24 months between fuel and the fact that from mileage, the Allison was getting into that iffy range. Since the truck was a GMC duelie he also talked with GM and got guidance from them also. GM argued another Allison with custom ratios but he wanted those 2 extra gears for the RPM's and he even looked at the engine torque curve to make sure it all matched up.

I still find it hard to see costwise to convert to 6 speed as much as I like the idea itself but it only works if you factor in the full replacement cost of the Allison with everything else as I see it. Besides, I think he just wanted a project toy and from what I hear he's got the money for all the toys his heart could desire.

Love the Harley/electric idea. Around 2000' I ran into this guy driving an ugly 3 wheeler called "The Sparrow" and once he gave me the full rundown on it, I grew to like it but it's weak link like so many electrics was it's range of only 40 to 60 miles. The batteries instead of something special were normal deep cycle 12 volt which from a longterm maintenance standpoint was a better cost offset as normal electrics run off very expensive batteries. To bad the whole idea died in bankruptcy in the end. A small Harley engine to a generator might have saved the Sparrow to fly another day.

 

[wkmac]

I think we would have been much better off if the government would have granted permits to companies to build and maintain an interstate system instead of our current system. The federal government has too much control with the federal highway money. They have used the money to bribe states to pass laws for everything from drinking age to speed limits. I know they used national defense as the excuse to do this in the beginning but we would be much better off today if the federal government would have reserved the right for national defense and granted the other rights to the states or private companies. In a way you are correct there is no incentive for them to reduce regulations to allow companies to bring more fuel efficient cars to the markets. I am not really convinced there would much of a market for cheap, fuel efficient cars anyhow but I sure would like the option. I did trade in my sports car recently for a v8 4wd SUV so I already know where I stand.


I did a couple years ago that the market share for large cars was dropping but it looked at the time that SUV's and smaller cars were splitting the gains. I have no idea if this trend has continued but I do know that Americans do not always pick their vehicles based on fuel efficiency.

That idea does provide some food for thought and in the case of some companies, they could pool resources and build roads to their liking and then charge the general public to use excess capacity if such existed. The present model to be blunt is a type of socialist model if you will in that some taxpayers in "way out in the middle of nowhere" America are paying for roads and thus subsidizing local business profits and consumer prices while they themselves don't realize the same benefit. I use the term socialist not for any hyperbolic effect but in that we should realize what we call a free market, capitalist system in America has a socialist overlay and effect to it and we should admit this. There is something to be said for mutual benefit in society but are we using proper distribution proportions that turn out to deprive one at the benefit of another? How do we or even can we raise all ships at once?

Of late I've been reading a book from 1927' entitled "The Transportation Age" by Dr. Ralph Borsodi, a noted agranian theorist who discusses the changes in marketing and product distribution has a cost factor on said products that over time only go up while the cost basis of the product itself from raw material and production actually go down. As UPSers, this is not a friendly book at all and one might say I'm reading the Codex Gigas from a UPS/FedEx POV but I find the book fascinating from my vantage of looking back while considering Borsodi's points of looking forward and projecting an outcome of what will happen. All in the mix is transportation and much of it's costs being socialized onto the taxpayer. How much would WorldPort cost if the good people of Louisville decided an airport should be built exclusively by free market actions? How much does that NDA shipping rate cost now? I warned you it would sting a bit and I've yelled ouch numerous times while reading it. Wanna see a socialist? Got a mirror? Kirkpatrick Sale in his work "Human Scale" makes a good case that socialization of private business costs across the board on an annual basis exceeds the total of all corp. profits in America. Now that's a big number!

Your idea might indeed not cure but could vastly limit this socialization of costs being placed on taxpayers. Someone I know from corp. several years ago drafted a white paper on why UPS should buy a railroad and obviously that didn't happen and for the record I know of no plan to buy or not to buy a railroad so there you go but this person and I did discuss this idea and how it works and the various benefits. I learned a lot not only about transportation networks but also the other means by which railroads make money. Those Cho-Choo's going up and down the tracks are really small potatoes in the revenue stream and company owned roadways could just as easily provide the same income footprint. It's all there if you just "look at the tracks!"

 

[soberups]

What effect, if any, would going exclusively diesel have on our air quality?

It depends upon how you measure air quality.

A vehicle that travels 60 miles on one gallon of fuel will emit less total pollution per mile driven than a vehicle that only travels 15 miles on a gallon of fuel.

Diesels do emit more soot and particulates than gasoline engines, but the new clean diesel technology employs catalytic converters with DPF's (diesel particulate filters) to solve this problem.

The downside to this technology is that the DPF's will clog up, and the soot must be periodically "burned off" thru a process whereby the computer senses a clogged filter and injects raw diesel fuel into the exhaust stream in order to heat the filter up to the required temperature. This creates compatibility issues with biodiesel, which has a much higher flash point than petroleum diesel. My 2006 TDI was made in the last year before DPF's were required, so it is the last of the truly "biodiesel compatible" cars.

My car is a net zero emitter of greenhouse gasses, however. Since biodiesel is not made from fossil fuels, the carbon I emit into the atmosphere is carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere by the plants (canola or rapeseed) that grew the source crop to begin with.

 

[wkmac]

It depends upon how you measure air quality.

A vehicle that travels 60 miles on one gallon of fuel will emit less total pollution per mile driven than a vehicle that only travels 15 miles on a gallon of fuel.

Diesels do emit more soot and particulates than gasoline engines, but the new clean diesel technology employs catalytic converters with DPF's (diesel particulate filters) to solve this problem.

The downside to this technology is that the DPF's will clog up, and the soot must be periodically "burned off" thru a process whereby the computer senses a clogged filter and injects raw diesel fuel into the exhaust stream in order to heat the filter up to the required temperature. This creates compatibility issues with biodiesel, which has a much higher flash point than petroleum diesel. My 2006 TDI was made in the last year before DPF's were required, so it is the last of the truly "biodiesel compatible" cars.

My car is a net zero emitter of greenhouse gasses, however. Since biodiesel is not made from fossil fuels, the carbon I emit into the atmosphere is carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere by the plants (canola or rapeseed) that grew the source crop to begin with.

I was wondering if someone would make that point and it's a good one.

As to the biodiesel compatibility of the new models verses the old, I've heard it claimed that the gov't via industry lobbyists, the oil industry and the automakers were in the bag with one another to make models that would push biodiesel, thus homemade fuel out of the way and protect the current monopoly. Is it true? Who knows but in the history of things, it'd not surprise me at all if it were!

BTW: Stuff like this is where a Wikileaks is really needed and I'd love to see the insider documents go public and blow this sky high!

 

[soberups]

Why not eliminate the tax at the pump completely and pay per mile driven?

This would create some serious privacy issues involving the GPS units that would need to be attached to cars. You would also have people disconnecting their odometers to evade the tax. And, since fuel taxes are generally earmarked for road maintainence, such a policy would be unfair to the owners of high-efficiency cars which are generally smaller and lighter and less damaging to the roads.

My personal opinion is that, instead of the federal governement trying to mandate fuel-efficiency standards, we should simply institute a $2 per gallon "deficit reduction tax" that would be levied on fossil fuels...and then let the free market decide the issue of fuel efficiency.

This would create a huge demand for fuel efficient vehicles, as well as electric or biofuel-compatible vehicles. It would also help to wean us off of our addiction to cheap foreign oil.

I freely admit to owning a gas hog; I have a 1976 Chevy 3/4 ton 4x4 truck parked behind my house. It gets about 8 MPG on a good day. But I drive it only when I need to. Last year, I drove it about 400 miles. There is absolutely no justification in this day and age for a person choosing to commute to work by themselves every day in a vehicle that gets 8 or 10 or 12 MPG. If they really want to it should be their right to do so, but they might make better choices if they had to pay $300 a week to fill the damn thing up.

 

[soberups]

I was wondering if someone would make that point and it's a good one.

As to the biodiesel compatibility of the new models verses the old, I've heard it claimed that the gov't via industry lobbyists, the oil industry and the automakers were in the bag with one another to make models that would push biodiesel, thus homemade fuel out of the way and protect the current monopoly. Is it true? Who knows but in the history of things, it'd not surprise me at all if it were!

BTW: Stuff like this is where a Wikileaks is really needed and I'd love to see the insider documents go public and blow this sky high!

I have no proof, but I believe this to be absolutely true.

Biodiesel has been widely used in Europe for years. But the current emission regulations for diesel vehicles in the United States are oh-so conveniently set up to make biodiesel usage difficult if not impossible...which pretty much gives the oil companies a monopoly on production of the fuel that we use.

If biodiesel-compatible vehicles were widely available in the United States, almost anybody could start up a small business producing biodiesel from a variety of sources. You can make it from soybean oil or canola or rapeseed oil. You can make it from hemp oil (which is far more efficient in terms of water for irrigation and diversion of arable land from food production). You can make it from algae. You can make it from rendered animal fats and waste byproducts of slaughterhouses. You can make it from used grease or cooking oil. You can make it from just about any sort of biomass that would otherwise go to waste. Widepread use and availability of such alternate energy sources would not sit well with the large oil companies who currently control our fuel supply.

Diesel fuel can also be distilled from coal. The Germans did this on a wide scale during WW2 when they no longer had access to crude oil supplied from Romania. While coal-sourced diesel is not true "biodiesel", it is a resource that we have vast quantities of and it would be one more step in helping to wean us off of imported oil.

 

[wkmac]

This would create some serious privacy issues involving the GPS units that would need to be attached to cars. You would also have people disconnecting their odometers to evade the tax. And, since fuel taxes are generally earmarked for road maintainence, such a policy would be unfair to the owners of high-efficiency cars which are generally smaller and lighter and less damaging to the roads.

My personal opinion is that, instead of the federal governement trying to mandate fuel-efficiency standards, we should simply institute a $2 per gallon "deficit reduction tax" that would be levied on fossil fuels...and then let the free market decide the issue of fuel efficiency.

This would create a huge demand for fuel efficient vehicles, as well as electric or biofuel-compatible vehicles. It would also help to wean us off of our addiction to cheap foreign oil.

I freely admit to owning a gas hog; I have a 1976 Chevy 3/4 ton 4x4 truck parked behind my house. It gets about 8 MPG on a good day. But I drive it only when I need to. Last year, I drove it about 400 miles. There is absolutely no justification in this day and age for a person choosing to commute to work by themselves every day in a vehicle that gets 8 or 10 or 12 MPG. If they really want to it should be their right to do so, but they might make better choices if they had to pay $300 a week to fill the damn thing up.

Agreed and thus why in my response to Tourist I said the following:

Now the problem becomes where and how the data for miles driven is collected and that opens up a whole other can of worms. This ain't easy by any stretch so let's not kid ourselves.

The GPS and privacy issue being one part of that can of worms. The telematics devices in the package cars that so many drivers are concerned with are not just found in package car but all cars after a certain date of manufacture. The only question left is if and how anyone wants to access that data and is that data obtained in real time or at a later date and by who and how? As I said, can of worms and not easy.

AV also made some good points about the money, who controls and in what manner it's distributed. You mentioned the small car user and it's impact on roads and some claim those high mileage cars aren't paying their fair share but I wonder at some point if the very opposite is true. Same thing said of more rural states who have less traffic and even less heavy weight traffic, are they overpaying into States who have both heavy traffic in both volume and weight?

Not totally on the subject but since we are discussing cars, philosopher and noted critic of institutionalism Ivan Illich once did a study of cars in society as a whole and he took all things that go into a car and gave it a time value. Like how much time total in going to and from work and then the work on the job goes into purchasing and maintaining a car. Lost time from accidents and then the labor to pay for those costs. All these elements, all the known factors he could think of went into his formula so as to arrive at an average speed that we travel in our cars. The total?

3.7 miles per hour.

Makes one ask the question, just what in the "friend" are we doing with our lives?

 

[soberups]

. All these elements, all the known factors he could think of went into his formula so as to arrive at an average speed that we travel in our cars. The total?

3.7 miles per hour.

Makes one ask the question, just what in the "friend" are we doing with our lives?

Unfortunately, what we have been doing is borrowing billions of dollars from China so that we can sustain a military presence in the Middle East in order to ensure continued access to the cheap oil that we buy (using even more money borrowed from China)....which allows us to temporarily continue our lifestyle of single people plopping their fat butts into 12 MPG SUV's (purchased with money borrowed from China) and driving to Wal-Mart where they pull out credit cards (using money borowed from China) and buy a bunch of cheap plastic crap that was manufactured in China by people who make $5 a day working for other people who take all of the money they make from the sale of said crap and loan it back to us so that the cycle can be continued.

 

[wkmac]

Unfortunately, what we have been doing is borrowing billions of dollars from China so that we can sustain a military presence in the Middle East in order to ensure continued access to the cheap oil that we buy (using even more money borrowed from China)....which allows us to temporarily continue our lifestyle of single people plopping their fat butts into 12 MPG SUV's (purchased with money borrowed from China) and driving to Wal-Mart where they pull out credit cards (using money borowed from China) and buy a bunch of cheap plastic crap that was manufactured in China by people who make $5 a day working for other people who take all of the money they make from the sale of said crap and loan it back to us so that the cycle can be continued.

No disagreement from me!

 

[klein]

I followed this thread just a little bit (being on vacation and all), but seen usage by miles a few times mentioned... (GPS and all that crap).

People , wake up, it's already taxed on milage !
The more you drive, the more fuel you need ! (the more you pay at the gas pump) !! And taxes !!

Tax and fuel reduction for those that drive fuel effecient cars. Pretty simple system, that works pretty well.
See if some people still want to drive a hummer at $10 a gallon. Can't wait !

 

[Babagounj]

not so.
we have two different grades of diesel fuel; one for road use and the other for off-road.
The off road diesel is cheaper; used mostly by off road vehicles , farm equipment , and boats. Why is it cheaper = less taxes.

 

[govols019]

There is absolutely no justification in this day and age for a person choosing to commute to work by themselves every day in a vehicle that gets 8 or 10 or 12 MPG.

I would be that person. Buying fuel for my '06 GMC 2500, which I use to tow my boat and camper, is cheaper than buying another vehicle just to drive the 14 mile round trip to work everyday.

 

[bbsam]

If everybody drove fuel efficient vehicles, wouldn't they have to raise the taxes? I mean they have to get the revenue from somewhere.

 

[moreluck]

apparently, "there's just no justification for me". AND if we all hop on a train, what kind of gas taxes will come in? The train would never, never be paid off because, like Borat's healthcare, you can't force people to ride it. Right now I see Amtrak & Metrolink go by operating almost empty....probably making $$$ hand over fist just like the Post Office.