Good point.

↓↑report

Before the Recession we had artifically inflated gas prices, which quickly corrected themselves, perhaps somewhat under par. But before those artifically inflated gasoline prices, diesel was always cheaper than gasoline, by 25-30 % at times. The prices seem to have leveled out, this summer we'll see diesel drop even more widening the gap and come winter time, as vacationers don't drive as much gasoline will drop and diesel will rise, as it has for the last 40 years, the gap may narrow but it's very doubtful that the price of diesel will exceed gasoline in the near term, even over the winter.

↓↑report

yea, if that always happened... i.e. this is what should happen...

↓↑report

ronEbear 10:28AM (5/14/2009):

> Alrighty then, now there should be little to no arguments left
> to discourage people from buying diesel cars.

And this is exactly one of the biggest fallacy car buyers commit.


> The most common complaint was that diesel was too expensive
> to justify its gains in fuel economy. Not so much anymore.

The key problem of diesels is their higher maintenance and repair costs as well as higher sticker price.


> Any number crunchers out there who want to work out
> the math pertaining to the cost of ownership of a new
> diesel with low diesel prices versus the cost of ownership
> of a new gasoline car?

You may recalculate new fuel costs on your own but these have no significant influence. Fueling is just one fifth of the total costs of having a car. Numbers are:


TOTAL costs of ownership - 5 years:

Honda Civic Hybrid:_________ $28,359 [2]
Toyota Prius II:____________ $29,669 [1]
VW Jetta 2.0 gas:___________ $30,451 [3]
VW Jetta 180HP gas turbo:___ $33,859 [5]
VW Jetta 1.9 TDI DIESEL:____ $34,305 [4]

Nissan Altima Hybrid:____$36,751 [3]
Honda Accord Hybrid:_____$36,148 [2]
Toyota Camry Hybrid:_____$37,972 [1]
VW Passat B6 TDI DIESEL: Totals: $41,219 [4]

Lexus RX400h: $53,322 [5]
ML320 BlueTEC: $65,949 [6]


FUEL costs:

Toyota Prius II Hybrid:______$5,285 [1]
Honda Civic Hybrid:__________$6,076 [2]
VW Jetta 1.9 TDI DIESEL:_____$8,742 [4]
VW Jetta 2.0 GLI gas:________$10,330 [3]
VW Jetta 180HP gas turbo:____$11,175 [5]

Toyota Camry Hybrid:_____$7,365 [1]
Nissan Altima Hybrid: ___$7,175 [3]
Honda Accord Hybrid:_____$8,717 [2]
VW Passat B6 TDI DIESEL: $11,625 [4]

Lexus RX400h: $9,829 [5]
ML320 BlueTEC: $15,439 [6]


REPAIRS:

Toyota Prius II:_____________$2,291 [1]
Honda Civic Hybrid:__________$2,365 [2]
VW Jetta 2.0 gas:____________$2,684 [3]
VW Jetta 180HP gas turbo:____$3,066 [5]
VW Jetta 1.9 TDI DIESEL:_____$3,540 [4]

Toyota Camry Hybrid:_____$1,353 [1]
Nissan Altima Hybrid:____$1,353 [3]
Honda Accord Hybrid:_____$2,074 [2]
VW Passat B6 TDI DIESEL:_$3,373 [4]

Lexus RX400h: $1,594 [5]
ML320 BlueTEC: $4,409 [6]


ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE:

Environmental performance: by driving a Toyota Prius II over 310.000 miles (battery lifespan [6][7]) instead of Volkswagen Jetta 1.9 TDI you save 2090 US gallons of crude oil and emit 27 TONS CO2 less.


By driving a Toyota Camry Hybrid over 310.000 miles (battery lifespan [12][13]) instead of a VW Passat TDI DIESEL you save ~1870 US gallons of crude oil and emit 23 TONS of CO2 less [14].

Environmental impact:
By driving a Lexus RX400h over 310.000 miles (estimated battery life) instead of the Mercedes ML 320 BlueTEC diesel you burn ~4426 gallons [8][9] of crude oil less and emit ~60 tons of CO2 less [8][9].


ACCELERATION 0-60:

VW Jetta 1.8 Turbo gas: ____7.7 sec (180HP)[10]
VW Jetta 2.0 gas____________~10.5 sec
Toyota Prius II:____________10.9 sec [12]
Honda Civic Hybrid:_________12.4 sec [12]
Vw Jetta 1.9 TDI____________14.9 sec (90 HP) [11] (2009 Jetta TDI does 9 seconds)

Nissan Altima Hybrid:____ 7.6 sec [5]
Toyota Camry Hybrid:_____ 8.4 sec [5]
Honda Accord Hybrid:____ ~8.0 sec [6]
VW Passat B6 TDI DIESEL:_ 10.4 [7]

Lexus RX400h: 7.2 sec [7]
ML320 BlueTEC: 8.5 sec [7]


EPA AIR POLLUTION SCORE

Toyota Prius II:____________8 out of 10
Honda Civic Hybrid:_________6 out of 10
VW Jetta 2.0 gas:___________6 out of 10
VW Jetta 1.9 TDI DIESEL:____1 out of 10*
VW Jetta 180HP gas turbo:___not available

Toyota Camry Hybrid:_____ 8 out of 10 [8]
Honda Accord Hybrid:______6 out of 10 [9]
VW Passat TDI DIESEL:_____1 out of 10* [10]
Nissan Altima Hybrid:____ not available

* diesels with added particulate filters and NOx traps/AdBlue injection are likely to get 6 out of 10, exactly as 2009 VW Jetta TDI Clean (?) Diesel got 6 out of 10 [11].


Sources:
Comments under these articles (contain links to sources)
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/04/vw-launches-tdi-truth-and-dare-with-coffee-filter-test/
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/05/mercedes-rich-celebs-love-bluetec-diesels-europeans-will-too/

↓↑report

>EPA AIR POLLUTION SCORE<

Again, the EPA's "Green Vehicle Score" doesn't necessarily correspond to the true environmental impact of a particular vehicle. This metric is virtually worthless for comparing gasoline and diesel vehicles. It does NOT include evaporative emissions ("This score reflects vehicle tailpipe emissions that contribute to local and regional air pollution, creating problems such as smog, haze, and health issues." - http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Aboutratings.do ). Diesels have virtually no evaporative emissions because of the very low volatility of diesel fuel.

Furthermore, these "scores" are based on the Bin to which the vehicle is certified. These "Bins" are emission LIMITS which don't take into account by how large of a margin these limits are met, i.e., they give no credit for meeting the limits by an extensive margin. The 2009 Jetta TDI is near or below SULEV/Bin 2 limits for all criteria emissions except NOx (which is what throws in into Bin 5).

↓↑report

wxman, you very easily forget what you posted yourself not that long time ago, especially if it testifies against the point you're trying to make.

Don't worry though, I'll remind you.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/02/09/in-the-autobloggreen-garage-2009-volkswagen-jetta-tdi/

==========================
wxman:

Here's a comparison on the CARB-certified regulated emissions for the 2009 Jetta TDI and the 2009 Prius...

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2009/volkswagen_pc_a0070279_2d0_u2_diesel.pdf (ULEV II Jetta TDI)

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2009/toyota_pc_a0140628_1d5_pz_hevge.pdf (AT-PZEV II Toyota Prius)

(Grams/mile)
Emission.................VW Jetta TDI...........Toyota Prius

NMHC/NMOG..............0.014.........................0.009
CO................................0.5.............................0.1
CO @ 20*F..................----.............................1.5
NOx.............................0.04............................0.01
Highway NOx...............0.03............................0.01
PM...............................0.001..........................----
HCHO..........................----...............................----
US06 HC+NOx............0.13............................0.03
US06 CO.....................0.02.............................0.0
SC03 HC+NOx............0.12............................0.04
SC03 CO.....................0.02.............................0.1
VEH. EVAP..................----............................0.013
==========================

Sorry mate, it SEVEN TO ONE for the Prius in comparable emissions. And Prius needs neither particulate filters nor NOx traps that can go wrong at some time.

Your behavior is genuinely typical to most brainwashed diesel fanboys. You cherry pick a single item (pollutant in this case) which makes diesels look good and then try to make the point by skewing/failing to provide the full picture.

Then, finally, you suggest you know better than EPA. Yes, surely. Only Jetta TDI Dirty Diesel loses 1:7 in pollution match with the simple Prius.


Another guy here is doing the same. He claims he's gonna calculate entire costs of ownership and fails to include maintenance and repairs.

That's just pathetic.

↓↑report

@downtoearth

good data you are spewing there. But i would like to point out that if the cost of owning a car really matters to you, dont buy a new car. My true cost to own with my used WRX is likely lower than that new civic hybrid, considering the initial price was over 7k less.

Right now what seems to be the best true cost to own option is a used xB or Fit. I can get a used 08 xB with about 10k miles for $14000-$15000. It will have the same maint cost as a civic hybrid, more practical, and $10k less. Used is always always the way to go

↓↑report

>wxman, you very easily forget what you posted yourself not that long time ago, especially if it testifies against the point you're trying to make.<

That’s not the point I’m trying to make, or at least not entirely. I’m referring to not only evaporative VOC emissions from the vehicle itself, but also the indirect evaporative emissions from the gasoline supply chain.

Based on EPA data from the Federal Register, January 10, 2008, page 1930, approximately 475,000 *TONS* of VOCs are emitted annually in the U.S. from the distribution of gasoline. This does not include "spillage" during refueling (§ 63.11112 (a)). So the type of vehicle using the gasoline is irrelevant; anything that uses gasoline contributes to these VOC emissions.

Based on data from EIA, the U.S. uses approximately 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year. 475,000 tons/year x 2000 lb/ton = 950,000,000 lb/year ÷ 140,000,000,000 gal/year = 0.0068 lb/gal x 453.6 grams/lb = ~3 grams/gallon. So for every gallons of gasoline used, 3 grams of VOCs are produced indirectly in the gasoline supply chain. The Rule published in the Federal Register is designed to reduce VOC emissions from this source category (along with reductions in air toxics such as benzene – the primary purpose of the Rule), but it will still result in approximately 2.5 grams VOC/gallon of gasoline.

Based on EPA’s AP-42 (Table 7.1-2 on page 7.1-63), diesel fuel is no more than 0.44% as volatile as gasoline (using the lowest reid vapor pressure of gasoline; it could be as low as 0.2% as volatile @ the highest reid vapor pressure of gasoline listed in Table 7.1-2) on a mass-equivalent basis @ 80 degrees F (i.e., for every pound of diesel fuel that evaporates, at least 226.7 pounds of gasoline would evaporate under the same ambient conditions). The amount of VOCs from diesel fuel is trivial compared to gasoline.

>Then, finally, you suggest you know better than EPA.<

I don’t have to suggest anything. EPA says it for me. EPA has acknowledged the “NOx disbenefit” in several of its Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) documents which deal with ground-level ozone (the primary constituent of “smog”) – e.g., EPA “Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Highway Heavy-Duty Engines”; U.S. EPA,” Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria (First External Review Draft)”; EPA “Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines”; EPA “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder”; EPA, “FINAL OZONE NAAQS REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS”.

NOx can either create or destroy ozone depending on ambient conditions. The “NOx disbenefit” occurs when ambient ozone levels actually increase as ambient NOx levels decrease (i.e., conditions where NOx destroys ozone – lowering ambient NOX levels lowers the ozone destruction properties of NOx). This occurs in “VOC-limited” areas which is what virtually all metropolitan areas are. Since nearly all of the non-attainment with the ozone NAAQS occurs in metropolitan areas and thus nearly all of the exposures to unacceptably high ozone levels occurs there, the regulatory decision to cut NOx emissions relatively more than NMOG/NMHC emissions in the Tier 2 regs is clearly not ideal from an air quality perspective.

Lower NOx emissions do not offset higher HC emissions, at least not in the areas these emission regs are designed to help.

↓↑report

TX CHL Instructor 10:32AM (5/14/2009)

> eh, happens from time to time. If all the automakers suddenly
> introduced diesels to take advantage of the dip in price, that
> advantage would disappear.

Exactly this happened in Europe.


> I think a diesel-electric hybrid is the way to go for the near term.
> A diesel generator running at constant speed and load can be
> made to be VERY efficient, and it only has to be big enough for
> the average usage.

1. I will not run at constant load (however, amplitudes will be smaller than in an ordinary setup).

2. All efficiency gains will be wiped out (if not overwhelmed) by inefficiency of generator - electric motor transformation of energy. Manual transmission pathway gets about 90-95% of efficiency. The one you described: ~70%.

↓↑report

Well that was nice when the old smoke belching diesels existed, for people who don't care about about dumping out heart disease and cancer causing pollutants in large amounts. I hate it when one of these drive by when I am out walking. I simply wouldn't drive one of these because the pollution they emit is truly offensive.

I pity anyone who thinks he is going to save money driving the new 2009+ Clean diesel 400000kms.

Those timing belt changes are closer to $1000 each at dealers in Canada. Reports are already rolling in of failed turbos and clogged particle filters.

↓↑report