Diesel engines

As a recent immigrant from the UK I was supprised to find the lack of diesel engined vehicles in the USA. Most countries in Europe have a high % of diesel powered vehicles with better exhaust emisions than most gas engines. My last UK vehicle was a Ford Focus 1.8 turbo intercooled diesel that gave over 50 MPG. with plenty of power, capable of over 100 MPH and as quiet as any gas engine.
Has anyone wondered why USA manufacturers dont make a diesel engine option? I think the only diesel car here is VW. :banghead:

As a recent immigrant from the UK I was supprised to find the lack of diesel engined vehicles in the USA. Most countries in Europe have a high % of diesel powered vehicles with better exhaust emisions than most gas engines. My last UK vehicle was a Ford Focus 1.8 turbo intercooled diesel that gave over 50 MPG. with plenty of power, capable of over 100 MPH and as quiet as any gas engine.
Has anyone wondered why USA manufacturers dont make a diesel engine option? I think the only diesel car here is VW. :banghead:

It's party due to the US car makers producing some absolutely terrible diesel engines back in about the 1960's. The US public still remembers those and prejudges every diesel by that yardstick.

It's also partly due to the lawmakers having the same prejudice. With laws and regulations preventing diesels from being used in light vehicles in many states.

It's a shame really, the US public doesn't know what they're missing out on. The ones that do love diesel are forced to buy a dodge ram with a cummins or something of similar size.

Jeep took a step forward with their diesel. Hopefully it'll break the mold.

The US had a dark time with diesel. In the beginning, diesel meant slow, low power, smokey, and smelly. The reliability was also subpar at a time (the 60s) when we were so heavily into muscle cars and going fast. The 70s were a terrible time for pretty much everything automotive :) The 80s saw the return of the diesel as a low-power, high-torque work engine.

Most of the hate for diesel in the states comes from people who haven't experienced what it has to offer today. After 40 years of diesel not really being a viable resource for many people, they start assuming its still not something they could live with.

Over at another forum, there was an older guy who was moving from California to Oregon, making several trips to get all his car collection to the new home on a two-car trailer. We tried to convince him the diesel was the ONLY choice for him towing 12,000 lbs, but he ended up with a 6.0L gas Chevy because he wasn't sure about the extra maintenance cost of a diesel. It was quite clear that he didn't have an accurate set of data about today's diesel if he puckered up at the prospect of an extra $10 every oil change.

The other thing I encounter all the time is people still say that diesels are smokey and smelly... but most of the time you have to point out that the VW idling beside you is a diesel. The only diesels that are NOTICABLE are the old smokey ones, so they assume they're all still smokey. They just don't notice the ones without the typical diesel characteristics.

Then you have the EPA and the CARB; agencies with good intentions but completely fail in their mission to clean up the environment. They aren't scientists, they're a political agency who listen to lobbyists and make legislation. Who are the loudest lobbyists? Dolphin-hugging, hemp wearing, tree-lovers. I can say that because I am one, but I'm also a car crafter and scientist so I know the truth behind the political agenda. What happens is, some vegetarian gets offended by black smoke coming from a diesel pipe, becomes an activist and starts presenting "data" to these agencies and they take it under advisement. Since there aren't any of us (real car people) who show up for these hearings, the EPA starts the legislation to make diesels obsolete.

The city of L.A. kinda got their teeth kicked in recently. A few years ago when they went all CNG, the new EPA diesel requirements for 2008 came out and they were as clean as CNG in all parameters except particulates. L.A. spent billions retrofitting and purchasing CNG only to find out that they could have just waited a few years and not have to change their entire maintenance and fueling infrastructures.

The ironic part? The part you can see in diesel exhaust is relatively harmless. It falls to the ground and degrades pretty quickly. The parts of gasoline exhaust that are invisible are the ones that destroy your lungs and the atmosphere.

Diesel will come around, it will just take years for it to happen. Americans as a nation are incredibly steadfast in how they like the status quo. Change is something that happens, but its more like Molasses in January; slow and steady. Our economy is also set to complement the slow change. Although the majority would probably agree that finding and implimenting a viable alternative automotive fuel is a wise move, but unless it changes very gradually our economy will literally collapse. The stock market would go crazy and plummet to new 60-year lows. Major corporations would fall taking investors with them and it would be a horrific mess.

:rolleyes:
hoo boy, the messiah of the diesel is here :wink:

Sorry Curtis, :) :)

The popularity of the diesel in Europe is due to favourable fuel tax legislation in many European and South American nations.
For decades, European diesels have been slower, stinkier and more expensive to buy than gas engines, just like in the US. However, the cheaper fuel taxes has been the driving (pun!!) force behind it's widespread adoption in those nations.
I should note that in the UK, even with the cheaper diesel fuel, gas engines are still preferred by more than half of all drivers, simply because it is superior for car performance, purchase price and emissions.

As for diesel emissions; since I have lived in London, I can tell you that the air quality, like many big European cities is poor, dramatically lower than most American and Canadian cities, primarily due to the widespread use of diesel engines. In other words, the places stink; with harmful diesel fumes.

IMO the primary reason for the lack of diesels in the US is the fact that it takes many years of average use to recover the additional cost of the diesel engine option on you new car or truck through fuel savings. Gasoline is simply priced too close to diesel to justify it's use, unless one does some very serious hauling and driving.

Also, I have owned many diesels, including International 6.9's. Ford/Int'l 7.3', Cummins 855's and L-10's, Isuzu, Case and Deutz diesels. I am well aware of what they can do; I just do not believe it's good for the environment or our society if they are everywhere in their present form.

:rolleyes:
As for diesel emissions; since I have lived in London, I can tell you that the air quality, like many big European cities is poor, dramatically lower than most American and Canadian cities, primarily due to the widespread use of diesel engines. In other words, the places stink; with harmful diesel fumes.

I have heard Americans telling me that all of the pollution you see over LA is due to the trucks used in construction. Absolutely none of it is due to the 4 million or so miles driven by commuters every day in their cars.

London has always had a smog problem. We're talking centuries before the diesel engine was running. Home heating was the cause. Coal.

Its very difficult to differentiate between what actually causes the pollution. All you can really do is calculate the tonnage of emissions from each source and then guess how it actually reacts in the air. I was told that the largest culprit in L.A. was shipping. One unregulated ship's exhaust could easily out-pollute thousands of vehicles, so its plausible.

But saying that Europe's smog problem is from diesel is not really fair. One of the worst places for diesel-related air problems is where I grew up; Carlisle, PA. Its the largest east-coast trucking area and despite air quality being terrible, there is never ever a day with even a lick of smog. You can see for miles without a hint of smog, even at 90% humidity. In L.A. the smog is so thick you can't see downtown five blocks away when its 20% humidity.

Diesel has not been directly linked to smog. Its assumed, but not correlated. Diesel's big problem emission is NOx which is a greenhouse problem, but the particulates in diesel are heavy and fall to the ground. Smog's biggest contributors are the unburned HCs and that is one emission that diesels put out very little of. I don't have all the facts, but reading up on what the "real" engineers have discovered, diesel is not a smog-producing fuel on any real proportional scale.

The bottom line is, as of the latest diesel regulations, the average diesel (meaning the average emissions based on all old and new diesels on the road) will soon be much cleaner than the average gasoline car. Its scary, but true. The EPA is already penning new stuff for 2012 that will reportedly make diesel cleaner than CURRENT CNG cars. That was from a local news source that is only mildly reliable, but worth investigating.

Combine that with its overwhelming versatility on multiple biofuels with little to no refinement required and it sure does make a lot of sense to me. Many modern environmental groups are starting to back diesel instead of Ethanol, CNG, or gasoline.

:rolleyes:
hoo boy, the messiah of the diesel is here :wink:

Sorry Curtis, :) :)

I just do not believe it's good for the environment or our society if they are everywhere in their present form.

Don't apologize, I like it :)

I also agree with this second statement. Simply flooding the roads with Cummins won't be a good thing, but in 5 years I predict the tides will have turned.

Don't apologize, I like it :)

I also agree with this second statement. Simply flooding the roads with Cummins won't be a good thing, but in 5 years I predict the tides will have turned.
haha
To clarify my point, (specifically directed at englishman's first post), the way Europe functions with diesels is not a good example at all of how things should be. They are simply too dirty and primarily exist due to imo a somewhat misguided economic benefit due to fuel taxes.
IMO it should not be held up as an example for North America as how to do things. The present environmental concerns are too great, especially, as you point out, in locations such as LA.

Is there a better way in the future? Of course there will be. However, traditionally, European countries have not addressed vehicle emissions standards nearly as well as the US................ and of course California standards lead the way for the rest of the US and Canada on how effective standards should be.

Thanks for your responses, smog on the UK (London) is now a thing of the past. Did you guys know that ALL London taxi's (black cabs) are diesel powered and there's hundreds possibly thousands of them! As for exhaust paticulates, all diesel powered vehicles now have a particulate trap installed in the exhaust system which has erradicated most if not all particulates. The main reason for people turning to diesel in the UK and Europe (France has the highest %) is the cost of fuel, with diesel engines getting better MPG it's the way to go. Also oil changes have been extended to once every 10 to 12 thousand miles, Ford recommended every 12500 miles for my Focus!! with most gas engines oil change is at 6000 miles. Diesel engines in europe have come a long way with the new common rail high pressure fuel system, pilot injection to minimize almost all diesel 'knock' and the particulate trap. Check out "Diesel Car Magazine" web site, it's a UK publication and is full of the latest UK and Europe info.

maybe one of you diesel guru's can help me out see link please.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=652453

there does not seem to be much traffic on the diesel forum since they moved Engineering/Technical to the main board.

The only pollution a diesel really makes is Nox and particulate. In 07 our detroit desiels are getting an updated EGR system which they have had since 04. Now they are putting in a Cat and Particulate Trap w/ regineration For the Particulate Trap. Pretty cool setup. A Doser valve sprays fuel into the Particulate Trap To burn the soot off of it. It looks like it works too. A looked into the tailpipe of an retrofitted fire truck and couldnt feel or see any soot inside it.

bump

Just so I don't get labeled as something like the Diesel-vangelist, I did read a story just yesterday in Diesel Power Magazine which stated that some microscopic soot molecules can be absorbed through the lungs and contribute to hardening arteries. It also reinforced that this was the first study to definitively link any harmful effects with diesel's particulate emissions. In the past, heresay and conjecture had suggested that its particulates caused cancer but no one was able to prove it.

There, impartial bad news about diesel from a staunch diesel lover :)

well that's a first.

btw how effective are the particulate filters that are on todays diesels?

they are pretty good.
ever see a diesel run without one.
looks like a volcanoe erupting from the exhaust pipes.
you usually only see them removed on Cummins ect. with a powerchip and big turbo, so the effect might be a little exagerated.

they are pretty good.
ever see a diesel run without one.
looks like a volcanoe erupting from the exhaust pipes.
you usually only see them removed on Cummins ect. with a powerchip and big turbo, so the effect might be a little exagerated.

I think you're confusing some things. Diesels don't currently have particulate filters. Any stock diesel produced within the last 10 or so years has very little exhaust visible at all. What you are probably seeing is a modified diesel with aftermarket injectors, not a new diesel with the particulate filter removed.

Stock or lightly modified diesels don't make smoke anymore, even without particulate filters. I mean absolutely NO offense by saying this greygoose, but this is an excellent example of how the lack of widespread accurate information keeps diesel disrespected. I don't direct that at you because we all hear things or assume things based on what we've learned. Its just an observation.

i know that you see cummins diesels with chips and bigger injectors spewing out smoke.
hmmm.
guess i have some learning to do.

i do like diesels tho. IMO they are the future of our dependance on oil.

Thanks for your responses, smog on the UK (London) is now a thing of the past. Did you guys know that ALL London taxi's (black cabs) are diesel powered and there's hundreds possibly thousands of them!
Really?
Read this then.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-19487215-details/London+smog+alert/article.do;jsessionid=fLHnFx7LnKYCQ7Cm4jGcP2Jv6p2F 3wjxy21zp5r273JhrfThhZJY!-1412444213
BTW, every diesel vehicle that I've had the misfortune to cross paths with--stinks.
If they have little diesel engines, they are little stinkers.
If they have big diesel engines, they are big stinkers.
I have yet to encounter one of Curtis' mythical stinkless diesels.
In the U.S., diesels rattle and stink--period.
They are suitable for trucks hauling heavy loads--period.
Also, since the U.S. government doesn't tax the pants off of us like they do in England, we don't have to pay $7.00 US a gallon for gasoline. Therefore the rationale for actually wanting to buy a diesel car for the sake of fuel economy doesn't really exist here.
I think the U.S. consumer has got its priorities correct-- and will stay away from diesels until they are refined to the point where their obvious drawbacks are much less pronounced.

i know that you see cummins diesels with chips and bigger injectors spewing out smoke.
hmmm.
guess i have some learning to do.

i do like diesels tho. IMO they are the future of our dependance on oil.

Exactly, but it has nothing to do with whether or not they have particulate filters or not. Again, no offense intended, I was just making an example of how there are misconceptions a-plenty that come from very reliable resources.

Black Lotus, I'd venture a guess that you've idled beside many a diesel at a stoplight and didn't even notice that it WAS a diesel, hence my argument. People only notice the smokey, noisy diesels.

i know that you see cummins diesels with chips and bigger injectors spewing out smoke.
hmmm.
guess i have some learning to do.

i do like diesels tho. IMO they are the future of our dependance on oil.

If a diesel smokes then it's either been wound up to get more power than it should or it needs help.

I hope too many car companies don't expect the entire US public to behave like Black Lotus.

Well, can't make everyone happy. Anyone with half a brain though knows that compression ignition is the way to go for fuel economy and feasible domestic fuel production. And biodiesel doesn't stink! Imagine that.

But god forbid we get out of the middle east, stop giving terrorist regimes our money hand over fist, not suck the earth dry without a future plan.. i mean, they stink!

Weak argument. Gasoline pollutes more. There ya have it.

hey, heres another argument;
biodiesel (i've heard) smells pretty good.
if it came from french fry oil, then the exhaust would probably smell like french fries.

ooh, imagine the subconsious advertising.

you'd be sitting at a stoplight next to a car running on french fry oil, and all of a sudden, you have an insatiable craving for french fries.

let the gluttony begin.

hey, heres another argument;
biodiesel (i've heard) smells pretty good.
if it came from french fry oil, then the exhaust would probably smell like french fries.

ooh, imagine the subconsious advertising.

you'd be sitting at a stoplight next to a car running on french fry oil, and all of a sudden, you have an insatiable craving for french fries.

let the gluttony begin.

Biodiesel is a bit different from waste vegetable oil (WVO). Biodiesel doesn't smell quite like D1, but it doesnt smell like fryolator either.

I hope too many car companies don't expect the entire US public to behave like Black Lotus.
I think they already have.
That's why there aren't a lot of diesel cars on the road in the U.S.
Let's face it, if the car companies would come out with a diesel car that was ready for prime time, something that not just eccentrics would want to buy, it would sell well.
If it was in the right chassis with enough performance, and styled to my taste (both my cars are low, mid-engined beasties), maybe I'd want to buy it too.
Maybe next year.

I wonder what Colin Chapman would have to say about a VW V10 TDI engine in a Lotus Esprit?
I have a feeling he would like it.

id say that it would have a horrible rearward weight bias and would handle like shit.

Let's face it, if the car companies would come out with a diesel car that was ready for prime time, something that not just eccentrics would want to buy, it would sell well.

They have and they do.

Last year VW started selling new diesel Golfs here (NZ). They predicted that 10% of their golf sales that year would be diesel. It turned out to be 50% and would have been higher if they had more to sell.

Which part of 500Nm from a 3L engine are you opposed to?

I wonder what Colin Chapman would have to say about a VW V10 TDI engine in a Lotus Esprit?
I have a feeling he would like it.

The V6 TDI would be a better fit and balance.

Biodiesel is a bit different from waste vegetable oil (WVO). Biodiesel doesn't smell quite like D1, but it doesnt smell like fryolator either.

I make biodiesel from fryer oil, and it certainly smells like french fries :)

Diesel has not been directly linked to smog. Its assumed, but not correlated. Diesel's big problem emission is NOx which is a greenhouse problem, but the particulates in diesel are heavy and fall to the ground. Smog's biggest contributors are the unburned HCs and that is one emission that diesels put out very little of. I don't have all the facts, but reading up on what the "real" engineers have discovered, diesel is not a smog-producing fuel on any real proportional scale.

NOx isn't really a greenhouse problem, it's more of a local environment problem. The amounts of NOx emissions in comparison to CO2 are extremly small, so the reduction in CO2 offered by a diesel by far outweigh the NOx.

NOx is related to the formation of low level ozone and acid rain. Exposure to low levels of NOx is considered to have a low effect to the health of humans. To form smog NOx needs to be combined with other factors such as VOC and aldehydes. VOC or volatile organic compounds can be anyting from vaporised gasoline which has escaped from the gas tank to natural gas leaks. There are also natural sources of VOC's, for example trees cause them. Aldehydes are mainly produced by engines running on alcohol.

Diesel engines produce both small and large particles, the larger ones are more or less harmless. It's these larger ones which can bee seen as black smoke if a diesel engine is running rich.

A modern diesel fitted with a combined NOx trap and particulate filter will be very clean, at least comparable to a modern gasoline engine. It will also consume quite a lot less fuel and therefore reduce CO2 emissions. A diesel car (with NOx trap/particle filter) would in most cases be a better choice than a hybrid car (current hybrids are poor from an environmental standpoint).

hey, heres another argument;
biodiesel (i've heard) smells pretty good.
if it came from french fry oil, then the exhaust would probably smell like french fries.

ooh, imagine the subconsious advertising.

you'd be sitting at a stoplight next to a car running on french fry oil, and all of a sudden, you have an insatiable craving for french fries.

let the gluttony begin.

Current biodiesels such as fatty methyl esters increase NOx emissions quite a lot so these should only be used in a blend with ordinary diesel (there are a few other reasons for this). Usually a 5% blend is a good idea, this can also be handled by most fuel systems without modification.

Diesel made from natural gas is very clean though, but since it's a fossil fuel there will still be CO2 emission. But in the future the Fischer-Tropsch process used to convert natural gas into diesel may be used to convert bio based syntesis gas into a synthetic diesel that will have the emissions of natural gas diesel and no net CO2 emission.

Current biodiesel have net CO2 emissions, but compared to diesel they are about 50% lower. But this is at the expense of NOx and costs.

NOx formation is linked to the highest temperature found in the cycle. Higher temps = more NOx.

Compound turbocharging seems to be a good way around that. Insane boost pressures to reduce the peak temperatures and lower exhaust temp. It's also a good way to guarantee a clean exhaust.

And for aftermarket tuners, it opens the door for massive power increases.

NOx formation is linked to the highest temperature found in the cycle. Higher temps = more NOx.

Compound turbocharging seems to be a good way around that. Insane boost pressures to reduce the peak temperatures and lower exhaust temp. It's also a good way to guarantee a clean exhaust.

And for aftermarket tuners, it opens the door for massive power increases.

In a diesel combustion chamber there tend to be "lean zones" and "rich zones" and during high temperatures NOx form in the lean zones while particles form in the rich zones. So an even mixture of fuel is very important for exhaust emissions. The small HC emissions a diesel gives are mostly caused by small amount of unburned hydrocarbons at the fuel injector nozzle.

Unfortunatly it's quite difficult to control the combustion of a HCCI engine, otherwise such an engine could have given the efficiency of a diesel without their emission problems.

In a diesel combustion chamber there tend to be "lean zones" and "rich zones" and during high temperatures NOx form in the lean zones while particles form in the rich zones. So an even mixture of fuel is very important for exhaust emissions. The small HC emissions a diesel gives are mostly caused by small amount of unburned hydrocarbons at the fuel injector nozzle.

We can rest assured that that is currently the focus of a lot of research by every diesel maker worldwide. Aside from emissions, getting proper fuel distribution and burn is the way to maximise power and efficiency.