Why do Americans not drive diesels?

http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130109-why-do-americans-not-buy-diesels

by bsg75 • 11 years ago

66 176 11 years ago

ams61108• 11 years ago

This piece really does not hit on the reason Diesel is not popular in the US. Back in the 1970s energy crisis, diesel cars drew some interest, and unfortunately General Motors obliged with some horrendous products. Smelly, smokey, slow, and highly trouble prone diesel engine that was essentially a gasoline 350 cubic inch V8 block with diesel heads slapped onto it. Used in Oldsmobiles, Chevys, and Cadillacs, it was a disaster and ruined the diesel concept for decades.

See http://www.autosavant.com/2009/08/11/the-cars-that-killed-gm... for some history.

api• 11 years ago

"What's good for GM is good for America" used to be a quote around Washington. What an awful company, and a cautionary tale about taking "public/private partnership" way too far. GM also ruined Los Angeles -- look up the transit system LA/OC used to have prior to GM's purchase of it and lobbying. LA would be a much nicer and more livable city had GM not had such influence.

GM really should have been allowed to die in 2008.

mdellabitta• 11 years ago

AFAIK, the reason why it wasn't was that it would ruin the supply chains of the other automakers.

csours2• 11 years ago

BIG DISCLAIMER: I WORK FOR GM! Disclaimer: What follow are my personal opinions!

Given the above, I do not think GM has always been right. GM has been part of many morally questionable practices. I think GM was on a terrible course from the mid 1970's to the early 2000's[0]. Those diesel engines in particular were incredibly shitty. My dad was one of those guys who loved the idea of diesel and who got the stares and the smirks.[1]

In the early 2000's they started to try to change. It is very difficult to change a large organization like GM.[2] I don't think today's GM is the same GM from 1920, 1939, 1970, or 1990. If it was, I wouldn't work here.

Many say it would have been worth it to let GM die. Under circumstances other than the 2008 economic downturn, it might have been.

Much of the severity of the 2008 crisis was largely (immediately) due to shock related to the collapse of Lehman Brothers [3] and the refusal of anyone to take over those assets at any price.

Very few people worked for Lehman Bros. A LOT of people work in the automotive ecosystem.

Before bailing out GM, the govt and GM DID look around for other financing/buyout options. No one wanted to take that on.

The saying "whats good for GM is good for the country" is largely outdated nowadays, but many people still think that way, and the collapse of GM would have been psychologically devastating, as well as financially devastating to many thousands of people.

[0] The infamous "ignition switch" design process started in 1997 (Valukas PDF page 35). The Valukas report is very interesting, I recommend it for everyone who is interested in system design. http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/NHTSA+Electronic+Reading+Ro... (bullet 4)

[1] My family has owned a 80's VW diesel rabbit, an 81 diesel Audi 5000 (20 years old at time of purchase), an 80's diesel Suburban (terrible engine), and various diesel work trucks.

[2] GM is not a single organization. It is more accurate to think of all the external organizations such as: UAW-GM, GM branded dealerships (which are not owned by GM), GM Suppliers (which also supply other companies). Then there are all the internal organizations: GM Truck Manufacturing, GM Car Manufacturing, Global Brands, etc, etc, etc.

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Recession http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/f...

From the above: In addition, the government’s inconsistent handling of major financial institutions during the crisis—the decision to rescue Bear Stearns and then to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, followed by its decision not to save Lehman Brothers and then to save AIG—increased uncertainty and panic in the market.

ptaipale10• 11 years ago

Whatever you think of GM today, I find this half-hour movie from Chevrolet-making in 1936 absolutely fascinating:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bT6txm4RpA

This was slightly before the great strikes in Flint, Michigan, and those working conditions are obviously both hazardous and extremely inconvenient. But it shows what an amazing enterprise a large car factory was already then, and the world has come far since those days.

cafard• 11 years ago

Charles Wilson, who was in Eisenhower's cabinet, said that he had assumed that what was good for America was good for GM and vice-versa. In the context it was less obnoxious than it now sounds--he meant that a strong economy benefited both.

tertius2• 11 years ago

Not having grown up in the U.S. I can say that diesel left this same impression for a very long time in the international markets. Only in the past 15 years or so has diesel been tamed for the consumer to not be as noisy and smelly.

masklinn• 11 years ago

That started much earlier in continental Europe, during the 80s for the biggest sedans and 90s for smaller cars, with the concurrent mainstreaming of catalytic converters (smell and soot), turbos and better diesel (lower knocking and thus less noise).

15 years ago was the mainstreaming of common rail direct injection and particulate filters (on passenger cars) which cemented that

m3talridl3y• 11 years ago

They why aren't they trying to market diesels to those of us who were born less than half a century ago..?

jfroma2• 11 years ago

I think history and culture play a big role in this.

Eg: in my country automatic cars are not popular and it not about the price, even in top segments cars people think that automatic cars are bad

blhack• 11 years ago

Americans really want to drive diesels. There is a huge demand for diesel volkswagens.

The supply just isn't there; maybe there is a lag between cost-unconscious new-car buyers [ordering new cars], and cost-conscious used-car buyers [buying what the new car buyers leave].

Source: I used to work in the automotive remarketing industry.

ams61108• 11 years ago

They can be good cars. For years I drove a 25 year old Mercedes 300D. It was cheap to buy, nice to drive and extremely reliable. Unfortunately rust finally got it.

Scramblejams3• 11 years ago

Might be a great car to drive but I've lost count of the times I've cursed a 300D in front of me for fouling the air I'm breathing. They're just awful to follow in traffic.

jcastro• 11 years ago

Loved our Volkswagen Sportwagen TDI.

One of the problems is that VW that they add premium options to the TDI marque. So you can't get a bare bones Jetta TDI without the highest trim level, fancy wheels, and other things that add to the cost. On top of that the gasoline ones are efficient enough where the price difference becomes a non-factor, even when taking the MPG into account.

They are damn fun to drive though, torquey without the compromises of a 4 cylinder gasoline engine. The used market on the sportwagens is great too, which is why we ultimately traded it in for a Tiguan since the demand for the wagens was high enough to make that a relatively easy financial decision.

Unfortunately VW doesn't do diesel Tiguans in the US, which is weird, you'd think the SUV market would be a no-brainer for TDI.

Fomite5• 11 years ago

I seriously considered the Golf TDI, and didn't mind the premium options, but I ended up not liking the high-torque of the turbo diesel on the front (both my wife and I could picture us slamming into the back of someone in DC traffic), and went with the GTI instead.

ajtaylor3• 11 years ago

Couldn't agree more about how much fun the TDI's are to drive! Simply a blast on tight, curvy roads.

Your note about the Tiguan makes me sad. I'm moving back to the US next week and was seriously thinking about getting a Tiguan (and hoping for a diesel). I'll add the Sportwagen TDI to my list.

Sealy2• 11 years ago

Can someone copy and paste the article. Its behind a location based IP wall:

"BBC Worldwide (International Site) We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."

Such a stupid policy to be honest. I live in the Uk and pay my licence fees too.....

mikelbring• 11 years ago

A week behind the wheel of the wholly agreeable Audi A6 TDI (pictured here) prompts us to revisit this story, which first appeared on BBC Autos in 2013.

In Europe, if a motorist wants to drive a small car that feels like a big one, there is a diesel for every occasion. A 1.6-litre turbodiesel delivers the torque surge of a much larger gasoline engine, yet with the fuel efficiency of a much smaller one. In the UK, diesel sales account for more than half of all cars sold, and even with a stat like that, Britain lags the rest of Europe, which has long preferred diesel to gas.

So why would more Americans not drive diesels? From the European perspective, it would suit the driving style of the States perfectly, with lots of relaxed muscle available at low rpms to cruise vast interstate networks that are the envy of the world. Better mileage means fewer fill-ups, and the on-paper improvements in fuel economy would, overnight, take the US fleet one massive step toward President Obama’s targeted 54.5 mpg national average by 2025. Simply stated, diesel should “work” in the US. “But what do Britons know about our market?” an American might opine. Quite a lot. In significant ways, the diesel market in the US is similar to that of the UK three decades ago.

In the UK of the 1980s, diesel drivers were outcasts. They were required to fill up around the back of the station, over by the truckers, to be looked upon by gasoline burners with a mixture of pity and smugness. And that presumed diesel drivers could even find somewhere to fill up, as not every filling station bothered to stock their fuel.

This sheer lack of availability led to great variability in pricing. As the only filling-station proprietor in 25 miles to stock diesel, Mr. Smith could subsequently charge more or less whatever he wanted. A survey of diesel prices in the US illustrates a similarly maddening snapshot of how scarcity can produce wide price fluctuations, with pump prices varying by up to 50 cents a gallon. But with more diesel purchasers, the laws of the marketplace would kick in, bringing prices into greater alignment. Given the need for low-sulphur refining, diesel would not necessarily become cheaper than premium in the US. It is pricier on the other side of the Pond, too, but although Europeans gripe about it, they still know the savings add up. Diesel generally returns 30% better mileage than gas, and in the dominion of $8 gallons, this is no small advantage.

Mind you, there are two distinct factors working in favour of Europeans’ wallets: fuel with a higher cetane rating, which makes it easier to control NOx emissions, and EU emissions standards that are generally comparable to the US’s Tier 2 standards in all areas apart from, yes, NOx. Even our EU 6 standards, due in 2015, do not quite match the States’ strict limits on smog- and acid rain-causing emissions.

Relative to a gasoline-burning engine, it is more difficult to control NOx in a diesel, which is why, to meet those comparatively stricter emissions limits, diesels in the US are required to use expensive, onboard after-treatment systems, which decrease the amount of particulate matter that leaves the tailpipe. Diesel engines are already more expensive to develop than gasoline units, given their turbos and complex injection systems. After-treatment systems make them even pricier. Here’s the thing: It’s worth it. Diesel used to be a dirty fuel and a dirty word, but recent technologies have addressed both problems, which is why the world outside the United States thinks of the choice between gasoline and diesel as a foregone conclusion. And even with the additional costs, passed on to the consumer, of emissions compliance equipment, the sensory pleasures of a diesel-powered vehicle are difficult to deny.

It is high time, America, to give diesels a better look.

bitdivision• 11 years ago

It's highly irritating. I proxied in and got this:

In Europe, if a motorist wants to drive a small car that feels like a big one, there is a diesel for every occasion.

A 1.6-litre turbodiesel delivers the torque surge of a much larger gasoline engine, yet with the fuel efficiency of a much smaller one. In the UK, diesel sales account for more than half of all cars sold, and even with a stat like that, Britain lags the rest of Europe, which has long preferred diesel to gas.

“But what do Britons know about our market?” an American might opine. Quite a lot. In significant ways, the diesel market in the US is similar to that of the UK three decades ago.

Given the need for low-sulphur refining, diesel would not necessarily become cheaper than premium in the US. It is pricier on the other side of the Pond, too, but although Europeans gripe about it, they still know the savings add up. Diesel generally returns 30% better mileage than gas, and in the dominion of $8 gallons, this is no small advantage.

Here’s the thing: It’s worth it. Diesel used to be a dirty fuel and a dirty word, but recent technologies have addressed both problems, which is why the world outside the United States thinks of the choice between gasoline and diesel as a foregone conclusion. And even with the additional costs, passed on to the consumer, of emissions compliance equipment, the sensory pleasures of a diesel-powered vehicle are difficult to deny.

It is high time, America, to give diesels a better look.

colefichter• 11 years ago

It does seem strange, doesn't it?

I've heard that it's because the BBC is forbidden from showing adverts to UK citizens, and since they have a little "promoted content" box at the bottom of the page they have to block it from you.

Something along the lines of if they show you adverts, they lose that TV license funding, which would be catastrophic.

I have no idea if that's true, but it passes the sniff test.

Sealy2• 11 years ago

I'd love to know the reason. Slightly off topic though admittedly.

jfoutz• 11 years ago

It's funny they use location to block the site rather than block the ad. They could use the space for links to other articles.

alrs• 11 years ago

BBC Worldwide is a propaganda service, much like RT, PRESS TV, Deutsche Welle, or Voice of America.

None of these are created for a home audience, they are to advance the interests of their host nations globally.

teh_klev2• 11 years ago

The BBC is a British State propaganda service full stop. Google around for "Scottish independence BBC bias".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajd4R-9BEIw

voyou• 11 years ago

BBC Worldwide is a commercial enterprise, set up to make money from BBC productions; the UK government may like the perception of the UK it creates abroad, but that's not its explicit purpose. The explicit propaganda arm of the BBC, the equivalent of Voice of America, is the BBC World Service, which until last year was directly funded by the UK Foreign Office.

teh_klev2• 11 years ago

archive.org is your friend:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140529122154/http://www.bbc.co...

S_A_P2• 11 years ago

Because in the mid 1970s Oldsmobile decided to produce a 350cu in(5.7litre) diesel based on the gasoline version of the engine. It failed spectacularly since it was not rugged enough to withstand the pressures of compression combustion. Plus GM had a crisis of quality at the time so it just sucked. While you could get German diesels all the while it was too expensive to be mainstream and most people's experience with diesel is that of heavy duty trucks. These are noisy, produce huge amounts of soot and are sometimes(note the word sometimes) driven by folks who must compensate for their manhood with such niceties as Calvin pissing on a different brands logo, taking the engine branding and making it a sexual double entendre, putting a giant 8" exhaust pipe in the bed(or more than one) or the ever popular set of testicles hanging from the bumper. So diesel suffers from an image problem here in the US.

ams61108• 11 years ago

The smoke-belching pickups have been modified. They don't come that way from the factory; diesel today is very clean.

There is a certain subculture of diesel pickup truck owners who alter the engine management computer with aftermarket chips to make it inject a ton of extra fuel, which doesn't burn properly and creates the black clouds of smoke.

S_A_P2• 11 years ago

I totally agree. However particularly in the southern US where I live, these modified ridiculous diesels are a pretty vocal minority. To the point where anecdotally, at least, people associate diesel to that. I'm a huge diesel proponent, my next car will likely be an "oil burner"

joshuapants2• 11 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it would be feasible to move all or most cars in the US to use diesel. Diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel are all petroleum distillates that boil off at different temperatures. So each barrel of oil contains so many units of gasoline, so many units of diesel, and so many units of jet fuel/kerosene/mineral oil/whatever.

And I believe that you get much more gasoline out of a barrel of oil than you get diesel, so moving many cars over to diesel would actually increase oil consumption it seems.

dperny• 11 years ago

Diesel isn't a fuel type, it's an engine type. What we call "diesel fuel" is really just fuel better suited for burning in a diesel engine than gasoline. We also have techniques for refining some hydrocarbon chains into different ones, which means we can focus production on one fuel type.

mnw21cam• 11 years ago

The engines are designed quite specifically for the type of fuel that will be burned in them. Although technically you could make a diesel engine that would burn normal petrol, it would not be advisable to put normal petrol in a diesel car, because the engine relies on the fact that diesel is a better lubricant than petrol. Also, various components (such as fuel filters, fuel pumps, etc) also depend on the fuel being of a certain type, and would be damaged or otherwise fail to work with the wrong fuel.

patfla• 11 years ago

Diesel is a different mix of longer carbon chains than gasoline and I'd think that makes it a different fuel type.

Havoc• 11 years ago

Nope...pretty sure its not a question of diesel OR petrol. I don't know the chemical details, but thats what I deduce by the pricing and availability of diesel everywhere else.

ams61108• 11 years ago

Used to be this way. Diesel used to be something of a waste product from refinining gasoline. As a result it was both somewhat dirty and also cheaper than gasoline.

Today, refining technology and hydrocracking allows a barrel of oil to be refined almost completely into whatever end product the refiner wants. Diesel, kerosene, jet fuel (which are all pretty much the same thing actually) or gasoline. So now these refined products are priced more by their energy content which is why the pricing has flipped and diesel now costs more per gallon than gasoline (but can still be more economical overall).

ptaipale10• 11 years ago

Diesel used to be something of a waste product from refinining gasoline

It depends, but anyway it's more certain that originally gasoline was a waste product from refining lamp oil (which is closer to diesel).

joshuapants2• 11 years ago

I see, thanks for correcting me!

e12e• 11 years ago

There didn't use to be any "diesel fuel", Diesel designed his engine to work on plant oils and other renewable (for some value of renewable that's better than gasoline, but more at odds with food production). The oil industry realized that they could also produce something that could fuel diesel engines, and they called it diesel fuel.

Modern diesel engines are very different -- but for eg. industrial and military use, you'll still see some resilient engines that can burn pretty much anything you throw at them, from butter to diesel fuel.

Shame he fell of a boat in the English channel and drowned.

maxerickson3• 11 years ago

The output mix won't have an enormous impact on the amount of energy extracted from a barrel.

US refineries operate crackers to increase the amount of gasoline in their output:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_catalytic_cracking

blacksmith_tb• 11 years ago

It might demand greater production, but the higher efficiencies of diesel engines would mean less of what was refined would be needed for transportation (admittedly not perfect). And we would have to find something to do with all that surplus gasoline... which makes biofuels look more appealing (I run B50 or B99 in my VW, depending on the season), or better yet, using solar power to synthesize diesel fuel.

ptaipale10• 11 years ago

Oil refineries are nowadays complex factories that convert crude oil into lots of different distilled products. When you process a barrel of crude oil, you're not restricted to some proportion of gasoline, some proportion of kerosene and diesel and whatever. You can basically turn it up to produce more gasoline, or more diesel fuel, or whatever. The losses aren't significantly different.

You can get more gasoline out of a barrel of oil, but you can also get more mileage out of a litre of diesel than litre of gasoline. Diesel has higher energy content.

What's more, diesel fuel can be made from biological materials as well. In fact, we have had people drive their diesel cars with discarded frying oil used in hamburger restaurants to make fries. You have to filter it, and you won't make the current EU emission standards, but for moving a vehicle, it works all right.

Whether it is feasible to move all or most cars in the US to use diesel is then another matter. Diesel engines are a bit noisier, for instance, so someone might object that.

But the everyday driveability of a car with diesel engine, particularly a modern one with turbo, is nice. Lots of torque on low rpm's so it's easy to drive.

sremani• 11 years ago

I would love to drive a diesel, but the choice is limited to mostly VW. There are no minivans in US market that run on Diesel and SUVs that run on diesel are marked about 4k+ compared to their gasoline cousins. The other thing is cost, Diesel costs more and if you factor the mileage/cost in most cases gasoline comes ahead. The beauty of Diesel engines is ability to run on Biodiesel, which is better than ethanol/gasoline flex-fuel engines which for whatever reason are popular (in terms of availability). All in all Europeans have tremendous choice with their Diesel vehicles, Americans do not. It is egg and chicken problem. I think on top of it there is some Diesel pollution related regulation, which is stringent in US than in Europe, preventing car manufacturers simply moving around European Diesel models to US.

edit: mostly german manufacturers VW, MB are trying to bring diesel, where as Japanese and American manufacturers are barely testing waters, actually FIAT-Chrysler is the one testing waters.

MCRed5• 11 years ago

Car makers like Toyota, Mazda and the like all make diesel versions of the same cars-- they sell them in the UK and Australia. They cannot import them to the USA because of the "anti-smog" rules. IT's not chicken and egg-- the cars are there, and produced for other markets.

It's pure regulation.

quasse• 11 years ago

What is it that prevents Toyota and Mazda from selling those diesel cars when most manufacturers are already selling pickups with large diesels?

jhayward• 11 years ago

Chrysler is starting to bring in some passenger diesels particularly the Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Dodge Ram 1500 ecodiesel.

Diesels are more expensive though, perhaps inherently so. The cost of the high-pressure injector system and turbocharger required raise the engine and maintenance costs considerably.

Modern pollution controls (a good thing) have reduced the MPG advantage enough that the fuel cost differential with gasoline is no longer an advantage. It may be that will improve as the industry gains a decade more experience in diesel pollution controls.

bluedino3• 11 years ago

Dodge sells diesel Sprinter vans in the US

MCRed5• 11 years ago

I purchased a new car in 2014. Having a familiarity with Diesel engines, I wanted to buy a Diesel. Even better- one of the cars I was keen about was available in Diesel form.... but in the UK only. The american version seemed to get about half the gas milage!

The reason we can't get Diesels is the environmentalist "anti-smog" campaigns of the 70s and 80s, produced emissions standards that prevent Mazda from just importing that car they sell freely in the UK.

Mazda is has been trying to get their Mazda3 Diesel version imported to the USA for a couple years. It's becoming a bit of a joke because they keep thinking they are going to be able to do it and then not being able to get the permits.

Environmentalists really hated diesels in the 70s and the 80s because "smog" and the particulate matter that diesels produce was the big scary thing.

Now gas milage is the big desire but the emissions standards make that nearly impossible.

When I was a kid I had a Toyota Tercel station wagon. That car got 40MPG Highway! And it wasn't an econobox- it was 4WD and a big old station wagon (well big for japanese standards.) Meanwhile, I just bought a 2014 RAV4--- 30 years newer with 30 years more advanced technology-- it's about the same size and weight, also with a 4 cylinder engine but much more efficient computer controlled shifting and the like-- yet it only gets 20mpg highway.

MPG and emissions are a tradeoff-- and the regulatory demands of environmentalists don't seem to take this into account.

cratermoon• 11 years ago

To be fair to the car makers, diesel fuel in the US is allowed to have a much greater level of sulfur than in other countries, so the typical level of emissions for the same vehicle in the US is worse than in other countries.

If the EPA were to mandate lower sulfur levels (not likely in this century) then our diesel cars would be better.

MCRed5• 11 years ago

Or simply create another grade of Diesel- similar to what's sold in Europe and the UK. Then let the market decide. The cars can be sold specifically to use this type of Diesel (that they already use in Europe)

If it makes sense the new fuel will replace the old one that the big trucks use now, or if not then both will be sold.

ams61108• 11 years ago

They have. For the last 5 years or so ULSD (ultra low sulfur diesel) has been mandatory for all new "highway" diesel engines, is required for the urea-catalytic emissions controls ("Blutec") on modern diesels, and it's what you will find at fuel stations, unless you specifically seek out off-road diesel.

Europe's standard may still be higher, but it has improved here also.

zzalpha2• 11 years ago

This is incorrect. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel#United_...

As of September 2007, most on-highway diesel fuel sold at retail locations in the United States is ULSD.

zzalpha2• 11 years ago

Environmentalists really hated diesels in the 70s and the 80s because "smog" and the particulate matter that diesels produce was the big scary thing.

Yes, because during the 70s and 80s smog was a really scary thing. You know the problems China has today? Well, now you understand the direction California was headed in the 70s.

Of course, it's pretty easy to look back, now, and deride the politicians of the day, but you also aren't experiencing lung cancer and birth defects because they headed off the issue by enacting laws that have protected you for the last 30 years.

Now gas milage is the big desire but the emissions standards make that nearly impossible.

That's BS. TDI diesels (edit: burning ULSD) are, today, every bit as clean as gasoline cars and significantly more fuel efficient, while operating in a wide range of climates.

MCRed5• 11 years ago

80s Tercel got 40MPG 2014 Rav4 gets 20MPG Same gasoline, both 4 cylinder. The RAV4 is much more advanced.

It's emissions that have killed gas milage.

tertius2• 11 years ago

In the U.S. the major benefit to Diesel is torque.

You should try comparing diesel and gas models as equally equipped as possible and see what the cost per mile is.

I just bought a 2.5L Subaru Outback, if we had the 2.0L diesel version I would save about $500 over 100,000 miles.

That's not great in my book. Would I buy a diesel Tacoma if one was available? Yes. So I'm a diesel fanboy, but the economics are closer than we think.

Aloisius2• 11 years ago

That's BS. TDI diesels (edit: burning ULSD) are, today, every bit as clean as gasoline cars and significantly more fuel efficient, while operating in a wide range of climates.

That is simply untrue. Even modern diesel engines today produce a ton of extremely fine particulates (PM0.1 or <= 100nm) which are exceptionally carcinogenic.

PM0.1 will happily lodge deeply into your lungs, pass through cell membranes, and lodge into your organs and brain. They've been shown to trigger heart attacks, cause asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, birth defects and more.

Then there is the huge amount of NOx produced by diesel which causes smog and ground level ozone. Neither is particularly good to breathe. There is a reason why many cities in Europe like Paris are in the process of or thinking about banning diesel cars from their roads.

This does not happen with petrol.

SamReidHughes• 11 years ago

This so-called "smog" is a real thing and it's the number one pollution problem in California. It's not environmentalists that have a problem with smog. It's most people that live in California.

chadgeidel4• 11 years ago

UK/US mileage numbers are different because US gallons (3.8 liters) are smaller than Imperial gallons (4.5 liters). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon

If you are looking at liters per 100KM then they should be equivalent.

morganvachon4• 11 years ago

What kills me is the Honda I had back in the late 90s (a 1991 CRX HF) that got nearly 50mpg. Why can't they do that kind of fuel efficiency nowadays? Even the "Smart" Fortwo doesn't come close[1], and it's much smaller and lighter. I don't understand how we've gone backwards in fuel efficiency when we've made so many advances in other areas of automotive innovation.

[1] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=7474&id...

And yes, comparing a 25 year old Honda to a one year old Kei car is a bit apples and oranges, so here's the CRX HF's spiritual successor, which surprisingly gets about the same MPG as the diminutive "Smart" car despite being a hybrid:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=7474&id...

korethr• 11 years ago

Because that little Honda CRX was a tiny little thing that only required a small motor to be drivable. Compare size and all the creature comforts and nifty automatic systems in modern cars. Despite advancements in materials technology, all that stuff still comes with a weight cost, and that weight cost can swamp the efficiency gains of modern engines.

swamp40• 11 years ago

It was my understanding that California's CARB emissions standards were specifically written to keep foreign diesel vehicles off CA roads.

Aloisius2• 11 years ago

They were specifically written because LA was an unlivable smoggy hell. Diesel particulates and ground level ozone was killing people and causing everything from asthma to cancer.

I was regularly told to stay indoors growing up in LA. You still get a couple dozen smog days a year, but only a couple extreme days. That is way down from the 150-200 days of extreme smog a year that forced me indoors as a kid.

ajtaylor3• 11 years ago

As a soon-to-be resident of LA I'm very glad to hear that the smog situation is much improved.

cubano2• 11 years ago

Probably, like so many other things in our culture, because the multi-national corps. ran the numbers and came to the conclusion that the profit margin would be higher for gasoline, and then did whatever needed to persuade consumers to steer away from this technology.

What else could explain how GM produced those engines?

Although I try to steer clear from hardcore conspiracy theories, sometimes it really is that simple.

ptaipale10• 11 years ago

I think a perfect explanation is that GM was incompetent and complacent.

cubano2• 11 years ago

Right...ok that's a valid corollary to Occam's razor and I respect that POV.

It just odd, to me at least, that with such a logical and profitable path laid before them, as the article reminds, that GM could be that incompetent when it came to diesel.

You really think there was absolutely no bean-counting influences when it came to the development of diesel at GM?

bluedino3• 11 years ago

It was the late 70's/early 80's and everything the big three made at the time was garbage. They still managed to sell over a quarter million of them in 1981, though. Nearly as many As Honda sold Civics last year.

FD3SA2• 11 years ago

A little late for that. Tesla`s Model 3 is coming in 2017, and as great as diesels are, it won`t hold a candle to the efficiency of a pure electric drivetrain. Tesla`s supercharger network will be vast by then, so range won`t be a problem either.

A place like Canada could use diesel, due to our brutal winters, but most of the USA is basically tropical in comparison. Electrics just make sense there, because of the weather and the automobile culture in general.

The age of the fossil fuel personal car is entering its last decade.

MCRed5• 11 years ago

From a performance perspective you're right, but it will be quite awhile before Tesla's making cars that are cost-competitive with the currently manufactured Diesels.

ams61108• 11 years ago

Nonsense. Modern diesel passenger cars can approach 1000 miles range on a tank of fuel. Tesla is nowhere close to that and probably never will be.

And I'm talking about nice cars, too. Not tin cans.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/bmw-320d-goes-over-1-000-...

ptaipale10• 11 years ago

Right. Remember that saying about underestimating the bandwidth of a station wagon loaded with magnetic tape?

Same applies to vehicle fuels. Do not underestimate the energy density of a conventional liquid container filled with hydrocarbons.

FD3SA2• 11 years ago

Ford decided to drive from England to Munich and back to see how many miles he could squeeze out of a single tank. To extend the drive, Ford kept the windows up and the air conditioning turned off, but otherwise drove about 65-70 mph on the motorways and autobahns. By the time the tank ran dry, Ford had covered 1,013 miles and got to within 70 miles of Calais on the return route. That's an average of 57.4 mpg at 59.3 mph.

Since when do drivers optimize for max miles per tank of fuel? 57.4mpg is extremely low compared to a Tesla's 97mpge [1]. Diesels are great, they just won't make sense when the 35,000$ Model 3 comes out.

1. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2013_Tesla_Model_S.sh...

_nedR2• 11 years ago

>The age of the fossil fuel personal car is entering its last decade.

I wouldn't be so confident. Right now, Tesla addresses a small portion of the expensive sports sedans segment in a few lucky parts of the world. Even then, Tesla cannot make enough cars to fulfill demand. The grid as it is, cannot handle a sudden and drastic increase in demand for electricity and the additional infrastructure needed will be neither cheap nor easily obtained.

I do think the internal combustion engine (w.r.t. to cars) will be relegated to history, but I won't think the transformation will be quick or easy.

hvidgaard2• 11 years ago

range won`t be a problem

If you don't mind having half an hour break every 200 miles, and only drive 60mph. Day to day it wouldn't bother me at all, but for long drives gas is far superiour.

mikeash• 11 years ago

You won't need to drive 60MPH. Model S owners don't do that now, and the 3 won't change that.

A reasonably short break every two or three hours is something you should be doing regardless of your car's range.

I have yet to have the pleasure in mine, but other Model S owners report that long trips are much more enjoyable than in gas cars, because the quiet, smooth ride reduces fatigue, and the breaks are spaced where you'd want them anyway. The only problem right now is that the charging network isn't fully developed. A common complaint goes something like, "I really wish I could take my Model S for this long trip, but there's a gap in such-and-such place, so we have to take an ICE car instead." I don't think I've seen one person say that they made a trip on electricity but wish they had had a gas car instead.

Scramblejams3• 11 years ago

I'm worried by the diesel we have, let alone a rush to further adoption. I think medical research has a way to go before it educates us fully on what inhaling all that <= PM2.5 is doing to us. The stuff has been found inside our blood cells. Can't imagine anything good coming of that.

I'm skeptical that any filtration system is going to solve that problem. All of the practical systems I've read about either allow a substantial amount of small particulates through, or require some kind of regular maintenance which will screw the rest of us when it's not done.

If we were serious about all of this we (in the US) would convert our heavy duty truck fleet to natural gas. I read one study stating that this would reduce our oil usage by 20%, which would be a strategic accomplishment. The air quality improvement would be a welcome byproduct.

jonawesomegreen• 11 years ago

I'm a Canadian, but this article equally applies to us. I've been waiting for years now for Mazda or Subaru to bring one of their diesel cars to Canada. Now and then you see articles like this [1] in the Canadian press celebrating that we will soon have diesel cars in Canada, but it never seems to happen. I had really high hopes when Mazda announced they were bringing the Skyactive-D to Canada for the end of 2013, but there has been nothing but delays since [2].

I spend some time in Korea for work and always drive diesel rental cars and modern diesels are great. I once almost filled one with gasoline because I didn't even realize it was diesel until a Korean co-worker corrected me.

In the end its probably very good for my pocketbook as I've just kept driving my 10 year old Mazda 3 and waiting for the diesels that never arrive.

[1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/auto-shows/north-...

[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/01/09/mazda-delays...

Glyptodon• 11 years ago

When I got my last car if I could have gotten the Euro-diesel version (which supposedly gets > 50MPG vs. the American petrol version getting 30-something) here in the states I would have. I don't have anything against diesel, I've just never seen it offered on anything outside of a truck, let alone a budget subcompact.

mvidal01• 11 years ago

I'd love to get one of the Subaru Diesels that are sold overseas.

ams61108• 11 years ago

They won't import their very cool Boxer Diesels because they don't meet California's (and a few other states that follow CARB) draconian emissions requirements. CARB is hostile to diesel. Yes there are 45+ other states they could sell them in but California is the biggest car market and if they can't sell there they won't bother.

rsp1984• 11 years ago

Curiously in Germany Diesel is actually cheaper than regular gas at the gas station. This is because it's taxed differently. So a Diesel car saves Germans money two times (less fuel consumption and less price per tank) as compared to a gas engine car, which is why they are extremely popular over here.

That said, on an absolute level in Germany Diesel is still about 1.7x more expensive than Diesel in the US and about 2x more expensive than gas in the US.

_nedR2• 11 years ago

Same case currently in India, where petrol is heavily taxed and diesel is subsidized (Ostensibly as a farmers subsidy to run irrigation pumps but also because diesel prices are strongly tied to price of essential commodities). Price per litre is about 1 usd for petrol and 80 cents for diesel. This might change in the future as the current govt. seeks to end diesel subsidies.

Also, It should be noted that the Total Cost of Ownership benefits is not clear cut. Diesel generally has higher Miles per gallon rating, and is cheaper in some countries like India. But diesel engines are more expensive to make, maintain (bills for routine service are higher) and do require a expensive rebuild after a few hundred thousand kilometers (Newer diesel engines have got much better in this regard).

On a side note, it is quite hard to find hard data on the true TCO of cars that can help consumers make a decision.

eip• 11 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5YfYWTKSXY

bluedino3• 11 years ago

Even with their great low end torque, diesels do not have the raw acceleration that gas cars do. For American roads and driving styles, horsepower rules.

hvidgaard2• 11 years ago

How many americans let their car go past 4k rpm regularly? Those are the only people that wouldn't benefit from a diesels power curve. Though modern gasoline engines with a turbo is pretty close to the same experience.

cheshire137• 11 years ago

Diesel is more expensive than gas.

brianpan• 11 years ago

Not everywhere and not all the time, especially not considering a 30% better mpg, as the article mentions.

dubyah• 11 years ago

Conversely, I thought this was an interesting paper regarding reasons behind the scale of diesel adoption in Europe. https://www3.nd.edu/~jthurk/Papers/MMT.pdf

agumonkey2• 11 years ago

I'm confused about the state of diesel engines. There were a few documentaries about the health issues caused(Japan banned diesel entirely). Also the politics putting these issues under the rug (France government massive subventions would be a public shame if they generated illnesses). Meanwhile reading Wikipedia, it says that modern diesel engines are heavily filtered and not toxic.

dzhiurgis• 11 years ago

Same here. IIRC France used to embrace diesel until recently, when they realised particle pollution was difficult to prevent.

agumonkey2• 11 years ago

I google 'banned diesel' and found contradictory news articles spanning a decade.

Tokyo did ban diesel long ago, but in 2012 there were discussion about allowing them again. France is now trying to avoid them. Knowing about Japan I thought it made sense (with a little big companies / lobby / plot feeling), but now it seems a misguided attempt at being eco-friendly.

lmm• 11 years ago

Diesel is still a dirty fuel and has done a lot of health damage in Europe. The US has lucked out of this one. See e.g. http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/the-great-car-con-ch...

pjlegato2• 11 years ago

Diesel is still a dirty fuel and has done a lot of health damage in Europe.

Gasoline is also a dirty fuel that does a lot of health damage, but the particles in the exhaust are much smaller and less visible, so people mistakenly assume it's cleaner and better than visible Diesel smoke.

Gasoline is arguably worse, since the tiny invisible particulate matter in the exhaust can stay airborne much longer than the larger, heavier particles in Diesel exhaust.

happyscrappy4• 11 years ago

Europe is making a U-turn on diesel cars because of the health consequences. They may be more efficient but they are the the reason EU cities have dirtier air than American cities.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30381223

dmritard96• 11 years ago

It is an interesting question but at this point, I hope we skip this iteration and just move into electric (obviously barring large trucks were electric is a little less feasabily at the moment).

happyscrappy4• 11 years ago

Indeed. Diesels are much worse for air pollution.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30381223

cpursley2• 11 years ago

Actually, not really. Large trucks could work like trains have for the past several decades: diesel generators produce electricity, which powers electric engines what propel the train.

jfroma2• 11 years ago

I wonder why CNG[1] is not that popular in other countries. It is very cheap, it can be installed on any car (gas and even diesels) and AFAIK it produces less pollution.

"CNG may be found above oil deposits, or may be collected from landfills or wastewater treatment plants where it is known as biogas[2]."

In Argentina most gas stations have Petrol and Diesel and I'd say ~60% of them have also CNG. It is very easy to find a CNG station on cities, but harder on rural areas.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas

TheLoneWolfling• 11 years ago

CNG has a low power density.

cwyers2• 11 years ago

The military uses a lot of CNG-converted vehicles when civilian vehicles are needed (all the things you think of as a military vehicle is diesel, but there's a lot of little sedans and big vans for people who need to drive off-base for work). The government can get away with this because military bases are pretty much self-contained and you can put as many CNG fueling stations in as you want to. As I recall, though, the range between fill-ups is terrible compared to gasoline and once you got off base there was pretty much nowhere to fuel the things.

bmj• 11 years ago

There are a few CNG filling stations around my town (in the US). I believe a few organizations use CNG in some of their vehicles (a cab company and VA shuttles come to mind), but I rarely see vehicles filling at those stations.

growupkids• 11 years ago

Simple, diesel costs more per gallon, it's not as widely sold compared to gasoline (not every station may have it), and there are less car models availavle with diesel as an option. Therefore, even if you just look at it statistically there will be less diesel cars on the road in the USA.

mkesper• 11 years ago

Diesel has more power/volume. In Europe, it also costs less.

VLM2• 11 years ago

The article plays into the mythology of Americans not knowing about diesels with lines like "It is high time, America, to give diesels a better look."

However, all of us drivers have far too much life experience with driving behind/around giant bus and semi trucks that lay down a choking smokescreen.

Like it or not, diesels in America have a history of laying down choking smokescreens. Lack of regulation, lack of inspection, who knows.

Possibly new diesels or car diesels aren't as toxic. If you want to sell diesels to Americans you need to wait for them to forget about the last time they were "gassed" because they were nearby a bus or truck exhaust.

The other problem, living in a northern climate where diesel gels in the winter, its a huge hassle for the few diesel owners we actually have. And as if starting a gasoline engine at -15F isn't enough of a struggle, consider the poor diesel owner. They could sell well in Miami or New Orleans without the fuel issues, but inevitably someones going to move up north and the trash talking will commence. With extensive maintenance, expensive maintenance, they can be almost as reliable in the cold as a gasoline engine... almost. Why not save the extra maint money and buy a cheaper lighter higher powered gas engine? I have no question that the net gain to the environment tilts on the side of diesel in Louisiana, and it Might even net be cheaper. In the north... I strongly suspect the net overall system environmental costs of gas are significantly lower, as is the total system wide cost.

marktangotango• 11 years ago

Good points. I think a lot of people in northern climates are familiar with block warmers and the notion of plugging you car in over night. In the 90's I drove a Chevy Love diesel mini truck (I think it was a rebranded VW pickup, not sure on that point Edit correction, it was an Isuzu), it rarely had trouble starting in the winter, if you used the glow plug button.

Now that gas prices have dropped in the US, I think alternatives to gasoline have simply become less attractive. When gas was near $4 a gallon a lot of people where disparate for alternative. Now that it's around $2 a gallon, not so much.

fulafel• 11 years ago

Diesel is much used and works fine in seriously cold parts of Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland. There are special types of diesel that stations start serving when winter is coming (down to -45C without needing fuel preheater in car).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_diesel_fuel

Angostura• 11 years ago

Possibly new diesels or car diesels aren't as toxic.

They aren't. That's the entire point of the article, hence "It is high time, America, to give diesels a better look."

VLM2• 11 years ago

Ugh not getting it. The problem isn't the new ones being better, its that until every last one of the old ones is melted down, it'll be a PR nightmare trying to sell new diesels to people who were just choked in a school bus smoke cloud yesterday or choked in a semi truck cloud this morning. It doesn't mean anything to those customers that the new diesels aren't like that, or the cloud generator was a 1990 model. All that matters is they can almost still smell that stinking cloud.

One effective although expensive way to sell diesels in 2015 would be to buy every pre-2005 or so diesel and melt it down into scrap metal. We can't afford that, although over a very long period of time it'll eventually take place naturally.

Another way would be to enforce emissions limits and emissions testing such that nobody ever sees a 1995 diesel truck laying down a smoke cloud. We've pretty much chosen not to do that, as a society.

mfringel• 11 years ago

VW TDI owner and Boston resident, here.

Typically, gas stations which sell Diesel fuel put in anti-gelling additives that vary with the time of year. In the 12 years I've owned my car, I've never had a problem with gelling fuel, even when it got down to -5° F.

That being said, I'd have to lean on the glow plugs for 20-30 seconds at those temperatures, in order to get the engine block warm enough to turn over.

douche• 11 years ago

Diesel pickup trucks are quite popular, particularly for people working in professions where they are already running diesel-powered heavy equipment (Of course, it's not technically legal, but the off-road diesel that bulldozers and such run on is the same as the on-road you buy at the pump, just with a different color dye and about a dollar less taxes per gallon...).

happyscrappy4• 11 years ago

I hate the jerks that drive on the roads with high sulfur offroad diesel. I wonder how much the fine is, it should be very high.

jheriko• 11 years ago

can't read this in the UK. wtf?

Graham24• 11 years ago

Curiously is says that we cannot read this in the UK:

"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."

Aoyagi2• 11 years ago

Like in most "pro-diesel" pieces, the author doesn't consider maintenance costs, fuel quality and the sound (especially with TDI engines). Oh well.

pico303• 11 years ago

You need to take a look at the TDI. You're talking about American diesel. German diesel is quiet, reliable, and cheap to maintain.

Aoyagi2• 11 years ago

No, I know very well what I'm talking about. I see (and hear) those cars every time I go out to the street. Old, new, large, small.

ctrlrsf• 11 years ago

Another factor is maintenance and service costs. They might be more reliable, but if you do need some service or maintenance, you'll need to take it to the dealer as there aren't as many experienced diesel car mechanics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is one factor that has kept me away from diesel (apart from availability of diesel at most pumps near me).

digitalneal• 11 years ago

After spending a lot of time in London, I am glad Americans don't embrace diesel like they do in Europe. The place just reeks of diesel and 2 strokes.

Someone1234• 11 years ago

With all due respect have you spent any time in dense American cities? They aren't exactly smog free...

Or is your complaint that you prefer the smog from gas over the smog from diesel?

Regardless there are a lot of great arguments against diesel in this thread (e.g. increased cost Vs. MpG, maintence cost + additional car cost Vs. gas, and so on), this argument ("the smog!") doesn't really feel like one of them.

I've spent a lot of time in London AND American cities, and neither are pleasant. I count the days until most cars are electric and we can breath again. Even hybrids seem like a marked improvement over gas or diesel (in particular during traffic jams).

happyscrappy4• 11 years ago

Europe is trying to move away from diesel because it is making their air pollution worse than the US.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30381223

trebor• 11 years ago

From my research and back of the napkin estimates, the operation cost of a diesel vehicle is the same as a gasoline vehicle (MPG gains are offset completely by fuel price in my area). Assuming that the two engines cost the same I think the TCO is higher for diesel due to increased maintenance costs. But ultimately, the reason I purposefully chose not to buy is diesel is pretty obvious: price. For example, if the operational expense is nearly the same and TCO is likely higher, why would I spend $5.7k more for a Passat TDI when I could get one for less?

wil421• 11 years ago

Not to mention the higher maintenance costs associated with the Urea and the turbo on the engine.

In my area the price of gas has gone down very much. Even the premium I use in my car has decreased significantly. Diesel on the other hand has stayed the same more or less. If these lower gas prices are here to stay then I dont find it beneficial to buy a diesel engine.

Diesel Price + Price for Diesel Engine + Extra Maintenance > Gas powered car + associated costs

TylerE3• 11 years ago

Urea isn't really a factor. Usage is something like a gallon per 1000 miles or less, and it's just a couple dollars per gallon.

pjlegato2• 11 years ago

TCO is higher for diesel due to increased maintenance costs

Diesel engines are mechanically much simpler than gasoline engines - they have fewer moving parts, so fewer places where things can break, and less complex repairs when things do break. This would suggest a lower TCO for diesels, all else the same.

Mikeb85• 11 years ago

Diesel stores more energy, but you also get more gasoline out of a barrel of oil.

Gasoline is more efficient in terms of miles you can drive per barrel of crude. It also burns cleaner of course, and with the newer gasoline engines, the gap between gas and diesel in terms of MPG isn't that great.

irixusr2• 11 years ago

Diesel in the US is expensive (currently more than a dollar/gal). This is due to tax differences between the fuels.

But the article makes a point that I find irksome:

"with lots of relaxed muscle available at low rpms"

Diesels can't rev high (harder to burn, heavier reciprocating parts). So diesels are tuned for low rpm and they all have turbo chargers. By contrast gasoline cars can rev high, so they are tuned for it. Most gasoline cars aren't turbo charged and those that are, are given turbos for the high end. Tune a gas engine right, give it a turbo as well, and it'll get all the diesel's low end power.

I like diesels, but they are absolutely non sensical in the US.

- The high price of diesel cancels the mpg advantage. - The "torquey" argument is total BS (see below) - that's why a car maker includes a transmission. - Nor is engine longevity true anymore ( or inherent to diesels): an average driver's car body (or electronics, or accessories, or rods, ect) will rot before the engine dies.

While I'm at it, Power = torque * rpm. There is no such thing as a "torquey" vs "powerful" engine. If you know one, you know the other. The "torque" vs. "Power" discussion is a proxy for the Power (or torque) vs. rpm and how broad it is. There is actually no reason to know the torque (unlike the curve itself) of an engine

Unless you're designing the engine, when you actually have to know the torsional stress on the materials.

avn2109• 11 years ago

> "I like diesels, but they are absolutely non sensical in the US."

Here's a counterpoint: In my hometown, by far the best-selling passenger vehicles are the Dodge Ram diesels. And having driven a couple of them, they do feel pretty sensical (and very satisfying).

Source: My friend owns a bunch of dealerships

irixusr2• 11 years ago

What do you mean by sensical or satisfying?

Your friend's diesel is turbo charged, unlike any gasoline powered light truck in the US. And their displacements are, for the most part, larger. Tuned for low end power, and you get the sensation of "easy" power because you don't have to rev the engine. My old grand marquis had a "measly" 200 hp from a 4.6 l gasoline, less than my sister's 1.8 T VW. My 200 were always available, my sister's golf had to scream.

So what? Don't get queasy about downshifting and making your engine scream, in moderation. On a modern car, with our roads the way they are, the engine will outlast the car.

Don't get me wrong. On a large pickup, and given the appropriate task, diesels make sense in the USA. But not for most people.

JimmaDaRustla• 11 years ago

I drove a 2000 Jetta TDI for a short time about 12 years ago. The fuel economy was way better than gasoline (something like 40% more?), and the price of diesel was cheaper (15%?)

Now the price of diesel is always more than gasoline (12% today). When I bought my new car, I had priced out a TDI Jetta, which only came in higher end trims. The amount of money I would save wouldn't break even with the additional cost of the car (over a gasonline model) until about 300k km of fuel savings, which is longer than the average lifespan of a car (diesels probably live longer though). Sure I would have a nicer car, but it was out of my price range and I would be stuck with an under powered engine.

alkonaut• 11 years ago

Diesels haven't really been worth using until the last 10 or even 5 years. Modern diesels do 4L/100km (~60mpg) and have 300Nm torque. A gasoline engine of the same class has half the torque and twice the consumption. The cost of fuel is usually also the same in countries that drive diesels.

So it's understandable why a country didn't have diesels 10 years ago, they just weren't very good. With the health issues surrounding partcle emissions and so on I don't blame the US for not changing their diesel regulation and import tradition in a hurry. There are lots of other crazy regulation (and cultural!) things to be changed first, such as the whole pickup truck madness.

jamisteven• 11 years ago

Cost is more if your purchasing new, but used is a great choice financially. I bought my 2011 TDI Gold 6spd for 13k with 68k miles, it gets like 51mpg highway and 38 mixed. I fill it up once every two and a half weeks.

jpadkins• 11 years ago

145 comments and no one has mentioned the obvious: refining diesel will increase the transport cost of goods and materials. This will add cost to the US trucking industry, which has a big lobby. And they have a valid case that increasing transport costs will hurt the economy.

Why do Americans not drive diesels?

Related Stories