Why are there no diesel sports cars in USA?

Why is it that cars with diesel engines are so rare in USA/Canada, while in Europe they are common? Don't they have many advantages such as longer life, less maintenance, lower fuel costs?

I always thought diesels were only for trucks and were too slow for sports cars but I did some reading on it and it seems they are just as fast. For example, this car: http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=100&i=9847

it's because people are afraid of diesel. diesel's gotten a bad rep from past engines with their smoky, noisy, and slow characteristics. they've gotten alot better now and aren't nearly as loud, the fuel has alot less sulfur in it so it doesn't stink, and they can be incredibly fast, faster than a gasoline engine of the same displacement.

It's all about education, unless people start to see good diesels, they won't think they are good. one of the prolems is that diesels now are so much like gasoline cars that people don't really notice that they're driving a diesel (like with the vw golf, jetta, etc). that won't be the case when i get my 13sec 1/4 mile diesel ford truck (i plan on building one, first step, getting a truck).

because manufactures produce what comsumers want. there obviously isn't a great demand for diesal cars in the US now. only diesal i know about is one that VW makes. they are louder and more expensive also

there are many diesel trucks, all the american 1+ tonne trucks are available with diesel. and i wouldn't say there's no desire for them, it's just that people don't know they want them. they don't know they can have an engine of the same displacement as a corvette that will outrun one in a 1/4 mile or any other track, that can have better fuel economy, and that can last longer. these are all things that people want but they don't know they can get them from a diesel.

Yeah, people think they wouldn't like it, but they never try it. They hear the word diesel and think of a Mercedes from 1980.

Its frustrating to say the least, especially with the environment and economy the way it is.

In CA its the liberal dolphin-huggers. Don't get me wrong, I hug dolphins and I'm a liberal, but I'm educated and there's just no place for that here. :) They smell diesel fumes and assume they're bad. They see a 1975 Kenworth chugging smoke and say they're bad. They hate it when trucks are slow on the highway, so they make it their personal crusade to rid the US of any thing remotely diesel and so far they're the loudest voice. So, they're succeeding. In CA, the only passenger vehicle you can buy with a diesel is the VW, and they're trying to get rid of it by changing the emissions requirements.

my dad is a perfect example of that, his dad had a diesel back in the 60s or 70s and it was really slow, he thinks diesels are all slow because of that car. stupid french people.

Do you think diesel cars will ever be common in North America?

If Chevy was to make a diesel engine and put it in for example their Cobalt, if it was good it would get good reviews in the magazines, and if people test drove it and were impressed, I don't see why they wouldn't buy it.

I think people will read the good reviews that say its not stinky or rattley, and then say to themselves, "yeah, but its a stinky rattley diesel so I'll never buy it." Its the same as the V6, V8, or I4 preference. In the 80s, many people refused to buy little V6s. They wanted the power of the V8... regardless of the fact that many of the V6s made more power than the V8 in the 80s. They wanted more power, so they bought the engine with less power ??

The American public is so fleeced. We (as a whole) buy horsepower, but feel torque. We beg for more fuel efficiency, then buy 6500-lb SUVs that get 12 MPG. We complain about the smog, but then enact emissions laws that don't help smog at all. We won't buy diesels because they're noisy, smoky, and rattley, but most people who refuse to own one never drove one.

So, when we've completely depleted the world's fossil fuel supply and all of you can't buy gasoline because the last 500 gallons are owned by ExxonMobil and they're charging $6000 a gallon, I'll just fill up with biodiesel and keep on driving.

Many people here think of smoke and fumes when they think of diesels.

I don't know of many diesel-powered sports cars.

Diesel seems to be more expensive right now in the Pacific Northwest than gasoline (not sure about other parts of the U.S.).

I don't know of any stock diesel-powered car that run the 1/4 mile faster than a new Corvette C6. A C6 gets 18/28 mpg city/highway.

True, but that's not to say that they couldn't. Its just that demand hasn't dictated that manufacturers build one.

I've seen 6500-lb diesel trucks pull mid-11 second runs on less displacement than a C6 and still get 20/26 mpg. And they can tow 12,000 lbs :D

The bottom line is that diesel fuel contains more BTUs than gasoline, less of it gets absorbed by the coolant, and the higher compression is potentially capable of converting more of those stored BTUs into work. The fact that they don't is as much from stunted development in the market as it is from the heavy components the used to go into the engines themselves.

Some of the most incredible output comes from the larger industrial/agricultural diesels where the market sees its value. The technology that has trickled into the automotive market largely came from agricultural diesel advancements, but until the automotive market truly embraces diesel, it won't be profitable to bring it down from the tractors. I wish it were the other way around, but it doesn't seem to be going that way.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=481751 is a video of a pickup beating a corvette, i know it's far from stock but it's a diesel powered engine that can be daily driven, can tow its own trailer to the track, 1/4 mile, salt flats, etc. and can be used as any other pickup would be. i'd like to see a carvette do that.

I do not recall seeing this in other posts, but in Europe, and parts of south America, gasoline is much more expensive than diesel just because of taxes. It's been this way for years, hence the popularity of diesel cars.

It is intersting that dispite the fact that diesel cars are much cheaper to run, half of all cars sold in Europe are still gasoline-powered.

Personally, there are quite a few new diesel cars and trucks sold around here and they STILL STINK. Personally, unless diesels become as clean as gas cars, I have no interest in seeing more of them.

if you think diesel stinks wait untill you smell one running on waste vegetable oil, you'll be begging for petroleum diesel exhaust. in fact i think it is humorous to punish suv drivers with my fumes.

if you think diesel stinks wait untill you smell one running on waste vegetable oil, you'll be begging for petroleum diesel exhaust. in fact i think it is humorous to punish suv drivers with my fumes.
From what I've heard, waste vegetable diesel fumes smell like french fries.
But most bio-diesel (as its called) is a blend of vegetable and petroleum diesel so I don't think it smells much different.

i love diesels, my friend's brother built an E46 M3 as a sort-of race car and put in a 3.5 litre diesel, added turbo etc..

it didn't rev as high as some of the competition but it had so much torque that it could easily out accelerate them, what's more the regualtions said 350bhp was the maximum power, so they had 350bhp and about 600lb/ft of torque, so they matched the power an had more torque than the petrol/gas cars. and it returned 16 miles per gallon as opposed to the 11 that the others were doing, it's a good endurace car because it ha good econcomy etc, and it requires less maintenance.

i hope diesles do make an impact into north america, i live in London Uk an yea, there's loads of diesels here, all the owners of newer diesels i know love them.

if you want proof of just what diesels are capable of just look at commercial diesel trucks, now some people think that for a 12 litre engine 350bhp isnt much, but many engines in that category produce about 1500-2000lb/ft and more. and those engines haul over 60 tons.

i went to the truck racing recently here, the trucks used 12 litre straight six engines, producing over 1000bhp and over 4500lb/ft of torque and although the trucks weigh in at 5.5 tons, they're damn fast. and they can outrun most sports car in the 0-100 sprint.

Personally, unless diesels become as clean as gas cars, I have no interest in seeing more of them.

Define "clean." They burn cleaner with fewer emissions already. Some still put out more NOx, but almost all of them coming out now have intercooled EGR that keeps them cleaner than gas. Put it this way; the new Toyota 1.6T diesel that is being developed puts out fewer emissions than any of the hybrids on the road today.

as far as emissions go i believe that most people pay more attention to what they can see than what they can't; when the exhaust pipe of a vehicle is pouring black stuff everyone assumes that the engine is terrible for the environment. particulate emissions can be a problem, but fortunately the new diesels are addressing that problem. tuning the injection pump to a setting that is below the engine's smoke threshold is a good practice, but it severly limints the power output, in my opinion the turbo route is the way to go for power output and particulate control, though that does nothing for NOx emissions at least the exhaust looks cleaner. diesel engines carbon monoxide emissions are almost always lower than gasoline engines emissions.

for anyone concerned, i haven't had the fortune of obtaining any vegetable oil that makes the exhaust smell like french fries, at best it smells like chicken fat burning on the grill, but much more concentrated.

Define "clean." They burn cleaner with fewer emissions already. Some still put out more NOx, but almost all of them coming out now have intercooled EGR that keeps them cleaner than gas. Put it this way; the new Toyota 1.6T diesel that is being developed puts out fewer emissions than any of the hybrids on the road today.
It's the soot and particulates.

Diesels simply do not meet pending ULEV standards because of them. There are devices that will enable diesels to meet such standards, such as urea traps, but they introduce other problems, they are not 'passive' and require periodic maitenance.
Such maitenance costs the owner time and money without affecting vehicle performance, so there is little incentive for the owners to do so unless there is some kind of frequent emissions enforcement.

Sure, I know, you may want to heap scorn on ULEV standards, but we all must breathe the air and we should do what we can to protect it and ourselves.

And yes, I have owned many diesel vehicles, both new (2003) and old. I know how much they have improved, but IMO it's not enough.

Finally, my nose says these engines, even the newest ones stink. Even driving several car lengths behind them, when the exhaust has been diluted many times over by the surrounding air; they still stink.
How good is it for the environment and the health of people if my inaccurate, 40 year-old nose can easily detect such pollution?

It's the soot and particulates.
Diesels simply do not meet pending ULEV standards because of them.

All respect intended, but whoa there buckaroo. :) The ULEV standards are biased toward all particulates, but soot (which is the main component of diesel exhaust) is heavy and relatively harmless. It falls to the ground, poses no environmental threat, and its the very thing that makes most folks think diesel is bad. Just because you can see diesel exhaust doesn't make it bad, and just because you can't see your gasoline exhaust doesn't make it harmless.

How good is it for the environment and the health of people if my inaccurate, 40 year-old nose can easily detect such pollution?

Just because it is easy to smell doesn't mean its bad for you. Skunk smells much more prolifically than diesel and its not bad for you. Plus, you have to consider all of the emissions in question... Diesels are on par with gasoline out the tailpipe, but factor in the cleaner refinement process, and the fact that diesel has a very low vapor pressure. You have to consider the amount of gasoline that evaporates from tanks in many cars and the vapors lost during refueling. Diesel is very slow at evaporating. So, in addition to many diesels being cleaner out the tailpipe, they're cleaner in almost every other aspect as well.

The ULEV standards are biased toward all particulates, but soot (which is the main component of diesel exhaust) is heavy and relatively harmless. It falls to the ground, poses no environmental threat, and its the very thing that makes most folks think diesel is bad. Just because you can see diesel exhaust doesn't make it bad, and just because you can't see your gasoline exhaust doesn't make it harmless.
.
Okay, I have to call you on this one. (Yes, I know the diesel argument is like a bee under my bonnet, :smile: but my experience with the 11 diesel powered vehicles I have owned over the years tells me its a serious issue.)

Nobody ever said gasoline exhaust is harmless, hence the need for the ULEV standards which the government wants to put in place.

However, the technology used to clean up gasoline exhaust combined with the nature of gasoline combustion is fundamentally cleaner than that of diesel engines.

I am not saying to ban diesels. Just clean them up!! The technology exists to do so, but it should be implimented. It must be implimented to meet ULEV standards.

These ULEV standards are designed to protect you, me and the environment. They are not arbitrary. They are based on extensive research to reduce harmful byproducts of combustion. Diesel engines should be included to meet these standards.

Why? Because diesel exhaust in particular is of concern due to the harmful nature of the soot and paricles involved.

"Relatively harmless" as you point out implies relative to what? They are relatively harmless in comparison to Charles Manson's loaded gun, maybe, :smile: but not harmless compared to the clean air that I prefer to breathe.

Diesel exhaust is dangerous, so says the California Air Resources Board.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/dieseltac.htm

Fact Sheet
October 1998
The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification Process:
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines

The Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) is the state agency responsible for protecting the public’s health from
exposure to toxic air contaminants. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are those air pollutants that may cause or contribute
to an increase in death or serious illness or may pose a present or future hazard to human health.

Current Status of the Identification of Toxic Air Contaminants
from Diesel-fueled Engines

On July 30, 1998, the Board heard the ARB staff proposal to consider the
listing of diesel exhaust as a TAC. At the hearing, the Board received testimony that the listing of whole “diesel exhaust” was too general and included many
harmless substances, such as water vapor and nitrogen. In response to these comments, staff determined that the listing could be clarified to focus on the pollutants that are the most likely contributors to adverse health impacts. These
are the particulate and organic vapor phase emissions.

• Emissions from diesel-fueled engines come from internal combustion engines burning diesel fuel and are
made up of a complex mixture of thousands of gases, vapors, and fine particles.

Why are emissions from diesel-fueled engines of concern to the public?

• Emissions from diesel-fueled engines are mainly composed of particulate matter and gases, which contain
potential cancer-causing substances such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, nickel, and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons.

• Emissions from diesel-fueled engines currently include over 40 substances that are listed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and by the ARB as TACs.

• Particulate matter (PM) from diesel-fueled engine emissions is small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs.

• Approximately 27,000 tons of PM10 from diesel-fueled engines are emitted into California’s air each year.


What are some of the health effects of exposure to emissions from diesel-fueled engines?

• Research studies show that emissions from diesel-fueled engines may cause cancer in animals and humans.

• Studies show that workers exposed to higher levels of emissions from diesel-fueled engines are more likely to
develop lung cancer.

• In 1990, the State of California, under Proposition 65, identified diesel exhaust as a chemical known to cause
cancer. The Proposition 65 program is operated and enforced separately from the AB 1807 program.

• The International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that diesel engine exhaust probably causes
cancer in humans.

• The U.S. EPA has proposed classifying diesel exhaust as a probable human carcinogen.

• There is also a link between emissions from diesel-fueled engines and non-cancer damage to the lung.

For more information on TAC emissions from diesel-fueled engines, call the ARB Public Information Office
at (916) 322-2990 or check ARB’s web site at http://www.arb.ca.gov.
California Air Resources Board 2020 L Street, P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812


Just because it is easy to smell doesn't mean its bad for you. Skunk smells much more prolifically than diesel and its not bad for you. Plus, you have to consider all of the emissions in question... Diesels are on par with gasoline out the tailpipe, but factor in the cleaner refinement process, and the fact that diesel has a very low vapor pressure. You have to consider the amount of gasoline that evaporates from tanks in many cars and the vapors lost during refueling. Diesel is very slow at evaporating. So, in addition to many diesels being cleaner out the tailpipe, they're cleaner in almost every other aspect as well.

Diesel fuel does have some advantages. As you say it evaporates more slowly, and it is safer in a crash due to its low flash point.

I know diesels are much cleaner than they used to be. That's great. :smile: However, they can be made cleaner than they are now, and there is ample evidence to say this is a good idea. This is one example of how our society can make progress to become better for the people who have to live in it.

Finally, sure, skunks stink and are not harmful. But skunk odour is not the byproduct of combustion. It's the combustion process that produces harmful compounds, whether its cigarette smoke or diesel exhaust.

Plus skunk smell sticks with you a long time :)

You are entirely correct. My argument was speaking primarily of the new diesel standards, but that only accounts for maybe 2% of the diesels on the road. You are right: at the time of that 1998 EPA release diesels were somewhat unregulated and a "free ride" out of the smog debacle.

I agree that diesels need to clean up, but I think the new technologies coming out along with the new standards mean that we're currently there... its just that those new technologies have yet to trickle on to the street.

That EPA publication just earned this thread an addition to the sticky :)

Thank you for not pointing out that I'm a selfish bastard.

I obviously like driving diesels, I just hate being behind them. :smile:

As you say, the technology exists to make them even cleaner. They will need to be cleaner to meet the new, tighter ULEV standards, that are pending (next year, I think)

I hope this is achieved because I would really like a clean running diesel SUV :smile:

Maybe we can lobby congress to enact the "diesel air freshener law." Every diesel equipped vehicle must have a permanent air freshener installed in the exhaust. We'll call it the "MagicRat law." Just think of the aftermarket applications. We could market coconut, tea rose, and fresia to start with, then branch out with citrus, chocolate, and ylang-ylang for our sophomore year. :D

:lol2:
And there is my new sig...............

do diesels have catalytic converters? wouldn't they help remove some of the NOx emmissions? that way couldn't they turn up the boost to get a cleaner burn with no CO or soot and have lowered NOx emmissions.

I'd get skunk air "freshener"

Yes they have catalysts. The higher pressures though would increase NOx. Intercooled EGR is helping that problem. There are also scrubbers that capture soot that are anywhere from useless to highly effective, but they require maintenance and are only as good as the owner keeps up with.

actually i found the answer to my ? on that arb website. http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/idrac/presentations/TJohnsonCARBRetrofit11-00/index.htm?PF=Y it shows some filters and its effect on performance and fuel economy. fuel economy remains untouched while soot was reduced by 99%, other harmful emmisions were reduced by 68% overall.

actually i found the answer to my ? on that arb website. http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/idrac/presentations/TJohnsonCARBRetrofit11-00/index.htm?PF=Y it shows some filters and its effect on performance and fuel economy. fuel economy remains untouched while soot was reduced by 99%, other harmful emmisions were reduced by 68% overall.
Some of the most effective catalysts use urea or ammonia in their function, but they are only just being used on some Eurpoean diesels and are very rare right now in N. America.

This shows some of the latest technologies and devices used, mostly, it seems, in some overseas markets:

http://www.cdti.com/emissions_solutions.html

My hissy-fit posts shown above rant on about why such devices should be manditory here. Progress is being made, though:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/verdev.htm

audi is going to Le Mans in '06 with a 5.5 litre V12 diesel based on the outgoing R8, the new one is the R10. i'll type in specs tomorrow.

my dad is a perfect example of that, his dad had a diesel back in the 60s or 70s and it was really slow, he thinks diesels are all slow because of that car. stupid french people.

Well, LOL! Actually, it was the French that came up with the fancy converters that burn up diesel soot (Peugeot, I think). Now Mercedes has added this urea chemical to the diesel exhaust stream to clean things up even more (BlueTec). The end result is that Euro diesel cars are now far cleaner than gasoline cars.

The terms "Diesel" and "Performance" DO go together, as Audi has proven to everyone's astonishment on the race tracks in Europe. It was the addition of Turbos that really put diesels on the map. I can personally vouch for the performance of one TDI car - the VW Golf TDI. I have cruised these rented cars down the Autobahns all day at over 100 mph (160kph) and still averaged 43 mpg. This is important where gas costs between 6-8 dollars per gallon, and until fairly recently, diesel cost about 20% less than 87 octane. As of August 31 this year, diesel and 87 octane in Vienna (Austria) were the same price - 1.25 euros per liter (3.8 liters per gallon).

So, IMHO, what's keeping diesels off American roads is due not only to the old misperceptions, but also to the premium cost for the diesel engine and the ridiculous price of fuel here. But please do the math and you'll still save about 5-10% on your fuel expenses with a VW Golf TDI despite the diesel cost preminum of 50-70 cents per gallon. Figure about 45-50 mpg for a sanely driven Golf and don't forget the conversion from Euros to the Dollar.
:tongue:

This thread is older than dirt :)

closed