Diesel engines why not more available in smaller vehicles ?

[Lessmore]

Diesel engines are popular in domestic 3/4 and 1 ton pick up trucks. They are becoming popular in North America and are offered in more lighter duty pickup trucks than before ...the Ram 1500, Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon, 2019 Ford F 150....and the 2019 Chevy/GMC 1500 series pickup trucks.

Mileage improvement, towing etc. are some of the benefits.

In Europe a good chunk of the sedans, SUV's/CUV's are offered with optional diesel engines and consumers buy them in significant numbers.

Why are diesel engines not optionally available in the bulk of sedans/SUV's/CUV's sold in North America ? I would think there would be a ready market for these diesel powered vehicles here.

[Copperhead]

Just breaks your heart too, doesn’t it? 🙂

[ShinerBock]

Back on the topic of diesels in smaller vehicles. The warranty on my 328d is finally up and I decided to celebrate with remap tune and a new downpipe. Should bring the 2.0L diesel to about 220hp/370lb-ft at the wheels(roughly 250hp/425lb-ft at the crank), but I will do a few dyno runs to make sure. That is a **** ton of torque in a compact car that weighs less than 3,500 lbs.

Oh darn, I guess I won't be legal in California anymore. Good thing I never plan on going there.

[John___Angela]

Copperhead wrote:

John & Angela wrote:

I have always wondered about the E85 thing for some of those same reasons. Like I say, I’m not an expert on this kind of things. It just goes against the grain to grow fuel on land that could feed people. And it is heaviliy subsidized. But again, there is probably more to the story than I see.


John.

I realize, on the surface in regards to those who have never really done the research, that it seems that food for humans is being jeopardized by taking corn and making motor fuel from it, but that perception is simply due to ignorance, which is usually not the fault of that person.

Of the entire U.S. corn production per year, only 20% of it is used for human consumption. Of the 80% that is left, about 40% of it is used for ethanol production. And of each bushel of corn that is used for ethanol production, 17-18 lb of food products, primarily for livestock, is still gleaned from the process. Mater of fact, that residual feed from ethanol production is more highly digestible by livestock and poultry than straight corn is, and it has a substantially higher protein percentage than base corn.

And there are many other byproducts of ethanol production. Various high quality polymer plastics are produced, and even insulators for common spark plugs are dependent on products produced from ethanol production.

And if food was an issue, then corn prices would be much higher. Compared to 1996 corn prices, if adjusted for inflation to today, corn prices would be roughly $4.50 a bushel. Instead, corn prices are in the $3.80 range. That reflects that there is more than enough corn to go around and the food supply has a more than an ample supply.

And corn prices are not subsidized, as there has not been any corn price supports paid out this century, and there has been no ethanol producer subsidies since 2011, when they were discontinued at the behest of the ethanol producers themselves. Ethanol is traded on the commodity exchanges just like any other fuel.

Granted, there has been some subsidies still for ethanol blender pump installation, but that is for retailers. Ethanol producers do not sell at the retail level. Also, there are government supported crop insurance programs, but those are not just for corn but for all crop producers, including the lettuce you eat in your salad. And it probably would be more efficient to use sugar cane and sugar beets as the major source products for ethanol production. But Government is the main road block to that idea.

As a side note: some argue that it wastes more water to produce ethanol. Well, it takes almost the same amount of water to produce petroleum fuels as it does ethanol.

All of this information is readily available.

I appreciate the time you took to type out this very informative post. There is always more to the story from what we see in the headlines. Thank you.

John.

[RinconVTR]

chrispitude wrote:
I really, really hope Ford puts a small diesel in the Expedition EL. What a great little family/TT hauler that would be...

And kill its decent payload rating with the heavier, super LOW HP baby diesel? Great idea...

[Copperhead]

John & Angela wrote:

I have always wondered about the E85 thing for some of those same reasons. Like I say, I’m not an expert on this kind of things. It just goes against the grain to grow fuel on land that could feed people. And it is heaviliy subsidized. But again, there is probably more to the story than I see.


John.

I realize, on the surface in regards to those who have never really done the research, that it seems that food for humans is being jeopardized by taking corn and making motor fuel from it, but that perception is simply due to ignorance, which is usually not the fault of that person.

Of the entire U.S. corn production per year, only 20% of it is used for human consumption. Of the 80% that is left, about 40% of it is used for ethanol production. And of each bushel of corn that is used for ethanol production, 17-18 lb of food products, primarily for livestock, is still gleaned from the process. Mater of fact, that residual feed from ethanol production is more highly digestible by livestock and poultry than straight corn is, and it has a substantially higher protein percentage than base corn.

And there are many other byproducts of ethanol production. Various high quality polymer plastics are produced, and even insulators for common spark plugs are dependent on products produced from ethanol production.

And if food was an issue, then corn prices would be much higher. Compared to 1996 corn prices, if adjusted for inflation to today, corn prices would be roughly $4.50 a bushel. Instead, corn prices are in the $3.80 range. That reflects that there is more than enough corn to go around and the food supply has a more than an ample supply.

And corn prices are not subsidized, as there has not been any corn price supports paid out this century, and there has been no ethanol producer subsidies since 2011, when they were discontinued at the behest of the ethanol producers themselves. Ethanol is traded on the commodity exchanges just like any other fuel.

Granted, there has been some subsidies still for ethanol blender pump installation, but that is for retailers. Ethanol producers do not sell at the retail level. Also, there are government supported crop insurance programs, but those are not just for corn but for all crop producers, including the lettuce you eat in your salad. And it probably would be more efficient to use sugar cane and sugar beets as the major source products for ethanol production. But Government is the main road block to that idea.

As a side note: some argue that it wastes more water to produce ethanol. Well, it takes almost the same amount of water to produce petroleum fuels as it does ethanol.

All of this information is readily available.

[chrispitude]

I really, really hope Ford puts a small diesel in the Expedition EL. What a great little family/TT hauler that would be...

[Jarlaxle]

FishOnOne wrote:
The EPA has become a business and business has become too good.

In addition I recently read that Mercedes Benz has announced they're pulling the plug on providing diesel car to North America.

Also several major European city's announced plans to phase diesel out and switch to gasoline.

The EPA is a trillion-dollar self-licking ice cream cone. It exists to exist, like all bureaucracies.

[John___Angela]

Bedlam wrote:
I have relatives in southern section of Portugal. I have not been there yet.

Its the only central southern European country we have not visited. Should be interesting. I am reasonably fluent in Spanish French and German but am limited to hello, goodbye, please and thank you in Portuguese. . According to our Spanish friends many people in Portugal are reasonably comfortable in English and French due to a 1000 years of trading etc and of course many can get along in Spanish. We are not too worried. We are there for about 3 weeks and a bit. There are also a lot of British Snowbirds in at least one of the areas we are visiting. We will probably do a little scouting for snowbird destinations as once we retire we'll be switching our snowbird destination to Europe. More than likely though southern Spain. Our favorite part of Europe. 5 years away though. Should be an adventurer.

[Bedlam]

I have relatives in southern section of Portugal. I have not been there yet.

[John___Angela]

Bedlam wrote:
I only found northern Italy did not have a smell. It was not always exhaust you were smelling there - The sewers had powerful odor.

Yah we noticed that too. Too touristy for a long stay but the little towns not too far away have lots of good eats at half the price. Headed back in 2021 but mostly southern Italy and Greece.

Headed to Portugal tomorrow. Should be in downtown Lisbon by Friday afternoon and stuffed full of fish by Friday night. 🙂

[Bedlam]

I only found northern Italy did not have a smell. It was not always exhaust you were smelling there - The sewers had powerful odor.

[John___Angela]

Another city shutting down diesel in their core. There are a ton of tour busses in that area but I suspect they could use BEV busses or hydrogen or whatever. Rome is a fun and crazy town but it is one of the stinkier smoggy cities we visit in Europe. We haven’t been there since 2014 but yah, it could use a little attention. Crazy freakin drivers. Fun town though. Incredible history experience.

https://electrek.co/2018/02/28/rome-bans-diesel-cars-2024/

[FishOnOne]

The EPA has become a business and business has become too good.

In addition I recently read that Mercedes Benz has announced they're pulling the plug on providing diesel car to North America.

Also several major European city's announced plans to phase diesel out and switch to gasoline.

[John___Angela]

ShinerBock wrote:

John & Angela wrote:

I get the DPF thing. I know our 2003 Cummins is stinkier than the new pushers.

People need to live in cities. Otherwise they have to commute which brings the problem full circle.

Interesting info on the size of the particles. Didn’t know that. Kinda comes down to lesser of two evils I suppose.

But I think leaving it up to the manufacturers is not an option. They just won’t do anything. It is governments role to regulate this kind of thing. Now we just need to find good politicians. :).

Cheers.

John.

People don't need to live in the city. If health was an issue for someone then they can take measures to either commute or live in a less populated area. Most don't want to do that because they are not willing to sacrifice the conveniences of city living or their city job. In those regards, the conveniences trumps everything else and it is just easier to make other people change then change yourself for things you want. I commute 40+ miles one way and I gladly spend that extra money and time to live away from the city.

Also, manufacturers only do as their customers demand with their money. If the customers demand lower emissions then believe me, the manufacturers will change to meet that demand. So this is not solely the fault of the manufacturers when they are mostly giving people what they want.

Some regulation can be good, but most of the time the politician doesn't know that he doesn't know enough and just makes matters worse by caving in to enviro groups that don't know enough about engines either. Most of the time they just focus on meeting some "feel good" number to keep the enviro groups happy and do not even look at the cause and effect of meeting that number or whether it will make matters worse or not.

Case in point is whether going from 2.5 g/bhp-hr 2004 NOx standard to the .2g/bhp-hr 2010 NOx standard worth the 15-30% drop in fuel for every diesel on the road(which consumes ore fuel requiring more to be pumped from the ground), the creation of the DEF industry along with its factories, the fleets created transport DEF to pumps & warehouses, and the landfill pollution of all of these 2.5 gallon jugs. Would going to maybe a 1.5 g/bhp-hr be better since it would eliminate DEF and the pollution from its industry? Don't know, but it would be worth to find out. Instead these politicians just worried about hitting a number back in 2006 when they created the 2010 standard not knowing that meeting that number would crate a whole new DEF industry and more pollution along with decreased fuel mileage.

I have always wondered about the E85 thing for some of those same reasons. Like I say, I’m not an expert on this kind of things. It just goes against the grain to grow fuel on land that could feed people. And it is heaviliy subsidized. But again, there is probably more to the story than I see.


John.

[ShinerBock]

John & Angela wrote:

I get the DPF thing. I know our 2003 Cummins is stinkier than the new pushers.

People need to live in cities. Otherwise they have to commute which brings the problem full circle.

Interesting info on the size of the particles. Didn’t know that. Kinda comes down to lesser of two evils I suppose.

But I think leaving it up to the manufacturers is not an option. They just won’t do anything. It is governments role to regulate this kind of thing. Now we just need to find good politicians. :).

Cheers.

John.

People don't need to live in the city. If health was an issue for someone then they can take measures to either commute or live in a less populated area. Most don't want to do that because they are not willing to sacrifice the conveniences of city living or their city job. In those regards, the conveniences trumps everything else and it is just easier to make other people change then change yourself for things you want. I commute 40+ miles one way and I gladly spend that extra money and time to live away from the city.

Also, manufacturers only do as their customers demand with their money. If the customers demand lower emissions then believe me, the manufacturers will change to meet that demand. So this is not solely the fault of the manufacturers when they are mostly giving people what they want.

Some regulation can be good, but most of the time the politician doesn't know that he doesn't know enough and just makes matters worse by caving in to enviro groups that don't know enough about engines either. Most of the time they just focus on meeting some "feel good" number to keep the enviro groups happy and do not even look at the cause and effect of meeting that number or whether it will make matters worse or not.

Case in point is whether going from 2.5 g/bhp-hr 2004 NOx standard to the .2g/bhp-hr 2010 NOx standard worth the 15-30% drop in fuel for every diesel on the road(which consumes ore fuel requiring more to be pumped from the ground), the creation of the DEF industry along with its factories, the fleets created transport DEF to pumps & warehouses, and the landfill pollution of all of these 2.5 gallon jugs. Would going to maybe a 1.5 g/bhp-hr be better since it would eliminate DEF and the pollution from its industry? Don't know, but it would be worth to find out. Instead these politicians just worried about hitting a number back in 2006 when they created the 2010 standard not knowing that meeting that number would crate a whole new DEF industry and more pollution along with decreased fuel mileage.