Dear Umbra,
I have been wondering for years now -- with the hot trend toward hybrids and the new "clean" diesels hitting the market, why doesn't anyone talk about a diesel hybrid? Sounds like the best of both worlds to me. Just think: a hybrid running on biodiesel! Is this in the works?
Mike H.
Saranac Lake, N.Y.
Dearest Mike,
It does sound like the best of both worlds, if the only two worlds are diesels and hybrids. There may be another world, with enough public transit to obviate the need for using one's personal automobile. Actually, that's the world where diesel hybrids already exist. The Seattle area's Metro Transit bus fleet, for one, includes some diesel-hybrid buses that -- best of three worlds! -- ran on a blend of biodiesel and ultra-low sulfur diesel (until biodiesel ballooned to more than $6 a gallon). Mass transit is where it's at.
Move your bloomin' arse!
When it comes to personal cars, alas, the diesel and hybrid worlds are trying to collide, but missing. In March, Volkswagen showed off a new hybrid-electric turbo-diesel at a European car show (Geneva, doncha know) and, looking back at the archived press, everyone fawned over the numbers -- including miles per gallon in the high 60s. I read only archived press because VW apparently decided not to build the car after all, citing expense and saying they'll instead build a gasoline-hybrid version. Other rumored hybrid diesels, slated to appear circa 2010 if all goes well, include an Indian-made pickup truck, a Peugeot, a Mercedes concept car, and a Citroen concept car called the C-Cactus.
To back up for the general reader, a diesel hybrid entices the carbon-conscious driver because it combines two high-efficiency engines. Hybrids use a battery to capture energy generated from the combustion engine. Diesel fuel contains more energy than gasoline, and diesel engines are generally more energy efficient than gasoline engines. Cleaner-burning ultra-low sulfur diesel, meanwhile, will become mandatory in the U.S. in the next few years, and its use -- in combo with new-and-improved engine technologies and emissions controls -- will allow new diesels to spew fewer pollutants. Also coming to the U.S. in the next few years are new and efficient diesel vehicles by manufacturers other than VW and Mercedes (Honda, Honda, Honda hooray!). Still, not a single diesel model currently available in the U.S. made the annual Greenest Vehicles list from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Now, this researcher is not particularly interested in engines and has a little trouble following exactly why manufacturers are stuck in the diesel-hybrid "concept car" stage. I'm in the "We sent guys to the moon 40 years ago, so why can't we make cars with reasonably low emissions?" camp, which will not go far in specifically answering your question. Engaged commentators repeatedly mention two factors: expense and emissions standards. Emissions regulations in Europe and California, the largest car market in the U.S., are still difficult to meet with a diesel engine, and automakers apparently fear they won't make fat enough profits. But the technology does seem to be moving forward, so keep posted.
Particularly keep posted on whether diesel or diesel hybrids are any better than currently available fuel-efficient gasoline or gasoline-hybrid cars. Unless you live near a steady source of biodiesel (and can afford to buy it), they might not be. For those of us who have a biodiesel source, we'll need to check back in when the Honda diesels arrive in the U.S. market and see if my excitement is merited.
Fervently,
Umbra
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
For public transportation to survive, we all need to ... drive more?
Comments
View as Flat
inkedbuddha Posted 1:58 am
30 Jul 2008
http://dieselblog.net/2007/01/volvo-talking-about-a-diese ...
Permalink
2wheeler Posted 2:02 am
30 Jul 2008
My '01 Honda Insight gets mpg in the mid 60s and up. Hybrids only work well when you have excess energy to store/recover. The start-stop of the petroleum fired motor may not be conducive to diesel efficiency which requires a hot motor to fire via compression rather than a spark plug. It also may play havoc with the emissions from such a vehicle.
Perhaps a very small (0.5 liters?) diesel running more or less continuously generating electricity to power the drive system motor of a hybrid car (like the Volt would have) could be attractive.
I'm more interested in why a european diesel passenger car like VW/Audi's Lupo 1.3 TDI never made it to the US when it reportedly had mpg in the 70s and carried 4 passengers. I know, emissions and cost...
Bicycles are still my favorite transportation option for energy elegance and fun.
Permalink
rmainer Posted 3:08 am
30 Jul 2008
It makes sense if your vehicle is a city bus or trash truck, that is in use 8 or more hours per day and stopping and starting every few hundred feet.
Permalink
bkrell Posted 4:25 am
30 Jul 2008
But back to the why, yes, cost to the consumer is the main issue. Both, on the front end, with purchase, and in fuel savings during the car's life. Hybrid tech adds a premium to a car. Diesel also adds a premium. Put them together and, well, it gets pricey. Then, it's harder to get the same efficiencies out of a diesel engine as it is out of a gas one. Diesels are MUCH more efficient at idle than gas engines are. Therefore, fuel savings when a diesel hybrid idles aren't going to be as great.
There are other techical reasons and nuances as well. One big problem right now it makes less sense to produce a new diesel car for the US market is the cost of diesel itself. Unlike Europe, where diesel is much cheaper compared to gasoline, in the US we pay much more. To acheive a monitary savings verses a gasoline engine in today's US market, a diesel engine first has to overcome the, on average, 20% premium in price per gallon diesel currently carries on top of regular unleaded.
And then, there's the emissions. Diesels have more emissions issues to deal with, as mentioned in Umbra's article-namely NOx and particulates. Manufacturers like Daimler (Mercedes) have had to equip their newest diesels with exotic gear such as "urea tanks" to help neutralize emissions in the quest to meet stricter regulations. And that's just to be 45 state legal. More elegant solutions are on the way, but right now you need a high profit margin vehicle to make a conventional diesel worthwhile, let alone a hybrid.
So it's not just a case of slap a hybrid on that diesel sucker and go. Market and regulatory realities make diesel hybrids a challenging proposition.
Permalink
sje333 Posted 5:27 am
30 Jul 2008
Stick to gasoline-electric hybrids for the next couple of years, and then you can make the jump to green-fueled vehicle: a battery-electric car, recharged from the solar panels in your back yard!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:38 am
30 Jul 2008
I notice that Grist has studiously avoided mentioning that Honda FCX Clarity hydrogen only vehicles went on sale (lease only) this week in California and the first one was delivered.
Permalink
bailsout Posted 10:41 am
30 Jul 2008
Permalink
Wrightsfd Posted 11:27 am
30 Jul 2008
Diesels have been the vehicle of choice in Europe for years (70% of cars sold in France, 55% in the UK, 60% in Italy) because they get better economy and the cost of diesel is taxed less than gasoline. Diesels are better for people like 'bkrell' who live in rural areas and warm the engines up to full temperature and drive longer distances. Diesels are not as good for short trips because, similar to a gasoline car, the pollution controls only work fully when at full operating temperature. This makes them IDEAL partners with a hybrid powertrain that can take care of the in-town S&G driving.
Apparently 'sje333' did not read Grist today or she would know that you can't always believe what the EPA tells us. '2wheeler' and others often forget that not everyone can fit clients, sales materials, and golf clubs in an Insight or on the bus so as long as there is America there will be some sort of personal transportation.
Back to the Diesel/hybrid idea: Diesels usually add a $2000 premium to the cost of a vehicle and about 400 pounds of weight due to the iron block and heads (not aluminum like most modern gasoline fueled vehicles) and hybrid technology adds $2000 to $12,000 in expense and 600 pounds. So now you have got yourself a 4000 pound Civic that struggles to get out of it's own way and gets marginally better mileage due to the weight gain. In the late 1980s Honda made the Civic HF that got MPG in the 50s on only a gas engine, not diesel or hybrid or anything fancy. How did they do it? Weight. No radio, no A/C, no right side mirror, no airbags, minimal sound insulation, no floormats, nothing unnecessary.
If you are serious about wanting a more fuel efficient car go out to your garage, toss your spare tire, rip out your airbags and crumple zones, DVD navigation, fold down cup holders, etc, etc, etc.
Permalink
bkrell Posted 12:37 pm
30 Jul 2008
Back to the issue, though, pointed out by Kevin, yes, in an ideal world where diesel was the same price as gasoline, longer distance rural commuters would be better served by diesels. However, at the current 20% premium (at least in my part of the country) people are getting out a diesels faster than you can say $5 per gallon. So in all actuality, regardless of the stop-and-go benefit of a gas hybid like the Prius or Insight, they are still, due to their overall efficincy, better options for a highway commute verses the diesels out there. Any diesel would have to get an EPA 54 mpg highway to just break even with a Prius with the current gas/diesel price structure in place.
But yes, weight is a major problem in today's cars, but it's not all nav systems and extra cup holders, it's safety gear like air bags and steel reinforcements. If you don't mind not having the latest safety gear, you may as well buy a new small displacement motorcycle rather than scouring eBay for a 20 year old Civic CRX HF. Regarding a modern Civic, it's current weight ranges from 2,586 lbs for a manual trans DX to 2,769 lbs for an automatic EX. Granted, at 1,713 lbs, the 1985-1987 CRX HF was tiny.
Permalink
mtvyfan Posted 12:53 am
31 Jul 2008
The only unfortunate thing is that the automakers probably won't do it, because they couldn't charge the amount the do for Prius' and the motor replacement will make them last longer, so they can't screw you for another car in 5 years.
I like how Chris Rock put it i his comedy show, "Bigger and Blacker". "Cadillac can make a car that can last for fifty years... and you know they can do it! But they ain't gonna do something that f*king dumb! They got metal on the space shuttle that can go around the moon and withstand temperatures up to 20,000 degrees. You mean to tell me you don't think they can make an El Dorado where the f*king bumper don't fall off?"
Nuff said
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:22 am
31 Jul 2008
Permalink
goneSouthtexas Posted 4:37 pm
31 Jul 2008
Best descision I ever made about running vechiles the cheapest possible way and stay afloat in the farming business. Total vehicles owned : 4 total over ten years! (Also run RED DIESEL) (NO ROAD TAXES) DON'T TELL THE IRS! THEY MIGHT GET MAD!
HAVE A NICE DAY!
Permalink
perk Posted 3:38 am
01 Aug 2008
Interestingly, many older vehicles of the same weight as today's, had much better mileage (even when using the same measuring standards) due to the lack of emission control devices. Which, with the possible exception of the catalytic converter, use quite a bit of energy to "reduce emissions" We still are reducing the PPM of particulates, without really reducing the total quantity emitted.
We have to be careful to look at the whole system and not focus just on parts per million or mileage without looking at the refinery and total emissions of the system.
Case in point, Ethanol. The portion of ethanol in our fuel reduces mileage per gallon by up to 20%, so and 80/20 blend on a 30 MPG car will mileage to 28.8 MPG.
Permalink
Chloe501 Posted 8:33 am
01 Aug 2008
Permalink
cmalberg Posted 1:58 am
07 Aug 2008
Permalink
Mountain Gnome Posted 7:23 am
08 Sep 2008
Permalink