Ford Hybrids Not Achieving EPA MPG Ratings: Report

[ZDan]

Diesels cost more money than gas engines, hybrids cost more money than non-hybrids, diesel + hybrid would be more expensive than diesel or gas-hybrid, and way more than a gasoline non-hybrid of similar size/performance. You'd get kick-ass mileage, but the price would be a problem.

[Justin.b]

What components of a diesel engine make them more expensive to manufacture?

Is it an economy of scale thing, where they're more expensive to produce because the manufacturers are producing fewer of them? Is there a component or a few components that are essentially different from their petrol counterparts and raise the price?

-Justin

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Justin.b

What components of a diesel engine make them more expensive to manufacture?

Is it an economy of scale thing, where they're more expensive to produce because the manufacturers are producing fewer of them? Is there a component or a few components that are essentially different from their petrol counterparts and raise the price?

-Justin

Injection system is quite different.

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Comparing fuel economy between different fuels using only volume(gallons) is tricky. Diesel has more energy content per gallon than Gasoline while Ethanol has less energy per gallon. Plus they don't cost the same.

I use this chart. Diesel #2 has 11% more energy (BTU British Thermal Units) per gallon than Gasoline while Ethanol has 41% less energy.

But we're not using only volume. We're using the volume of fuel per miles driven. Using those two factors, it's simple to compare different fuels. Energy content isn't even a factor and either is price. If I go 70 miles on one gallon of gasoline and I go 70 miles on one gallon of diesel, then that's a direct comparison that is completely relevant. If someone wants to make the argument that one fuel costs more than another or one fuel has more energy content than another, then that's a different argument. But to say that going 70 miles per gallon of fuel A is different than going 70 miles per gallon of fuel B is just ridiculous.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Justin.b

As long as we're all buying liquid fuels and the unit of measure is gallons, that's what we're gonna stick with.

Premium and regular gas don't cost the same either. But that's not a problem since nobody is talking about measuring fuel economy in miles per dollar, or, for that matter, in btus per gallon. Compensating for the potential energy of different fuels will only make sense if every engine converted its fuel to mechanical energy with a constant efficiency, which is not the case with internal combustion engines.

So, miles per gallon it is. And when we find a solid, gaseous or electric fuel source, we'll convert that sh*t to miles per gallon too.

-Justin

Premium and Regular also have the same energy content. There's been a movement in Europe to use Liters per 100 km which makes more sense as MPG reaches the point of diminishing returns. The difference between 40 MPG and 50 MPG is only 1/2 gallon more to go 100 miles, 2.5 gallons vs 2 gallons, respectively. Meanwhile the difference between 20-25MPG is 1 more gallon per 100 miles, 5 gallons vs 4 gallons respectively.

Originally Posted by White Shadow

But we're not using only volume. We're using the volume of fuel per miles driven. Using those two factors, it's simple to compare different fuels. Energy content isn't even a factor and either is price. If I go 70 miles on one gallon of gasoline and I go 70 miles on one gallon of diesel, then that's a direct comparison that is completely relevant. If someone wants to make the argument that one fuel costs more than another or one fuel has more energy content than another, then that's a different argument. But to say that going 70 miles per gallon of fuel A is different than going 70 miles per gallon of fuel B is just ridiculous.

We're not just using one liquid fuel anymore though and manufacturers are having to explain different levels of fuel economy using the shitty MPGGE (Miles Per Gallon of Gasoline Equivalent) which is ridiculous. Think about it, the Leaf gets 98 MPGe but it can't even go 98 miles! And it's not ridiculous to recognize that there is a significant difference between Gasoline and Diesel. Ignoring that fact is just being ignorant.

[blu_]

Originally Posted by Justin.b

The EPA test isn't real world.

Manufacturers are probably just tuning their cars to maximize mpg on the EPA test cycle.

-Justin

The EPA doesn't even test most vehicles. They don't have the budget to do it. They just take the manufactures estimates and use them.

For some of the crying about the media in this thread, its good to see manufacturers called on BS'ing these numbers. It's the only thing that is going to make the EPA go back and actually test the car to see if the OEM is cheating or not.

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

And it's not ridiculous to recognize that there is a significant difference between Gasoline and Diesel. Ignoring that fact is just being ignorant.

I don't care about diesel....it doesn't have any relevance in my life. And the quote below is an ignorant statement, because 70mpg is 70 mpg, it doesn't matter which fuels you're talking about. Sorry that you can't grasp that simple concept.

Originally Posted by serialk11r
Diesel fuel has higher energy per unit volume anyways, so 70mpg is not the same as 70mpg on gasoline.

[RaceR]

Im with white shadow here..

MPG is MPG.. If we are not talking in a context where economy, CO2, NOx, "energy density", etc are factors its really simple.You put a gallon of some liquid in a tank and you meassure how many miles you get... No need to make it harder than it is.

In EU we use l/km. But lately with the growing focus on CO2 per km that is a number that is more used on paper when looking at new cars.

EU target for the average new car is 85g CO2 per km in 2020.
In a diesel engine that would be 73.33 MPG
In a petrol engine that would be 64.19 MPG

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by SVTSHC

In America, Clean diesels are required to emit .07g per mile of NOx

The current standard in Europe is .29g per mile. That's just over four times as much, in 2014 they're reducing that figure to .13g per mile which is still twice as much.

Thanks! That + diesel prices (vs petrol) in US really explains why petrol is the preferred choice.

But when looking at US emissions on petrol engines I certainly don't consider them strict. People on this forum consider the FR-S to be fuel efficient. In EU its considered bad.

Its also important to not only measure EU based on overall "standards". Because in many cases its up to each country how they adjust taxes.. (several countries does not have extra taxes on cars) In Norway CO2 taxes on the GT86 is 12500 USD (which is only 1 out of 4 type of registration taxes on top of 25% VAT). In comparison, a car with 110g CO2 would get zero CO2 taxes. And a car with 90g CO2 would get -2800 USD in taxes (would still be a lot of registration taxes in total).
That is strict!

Having 35000 USD in taxes on a GT86 and only like 3600 on a VW UP!.
That is stict!

Many of the typical cars in the US have so high emission outputs that they would never sell here. But than again, our tax system in Norway is quite stupid.. But also quite effective to get emissions down..

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by White Shadow

Huh? Getting 70 miles out of a gallon of fuel is the same thing regardless of the energy content of the fuel. 70 miles is 70 miles and one gallon is one gallon. It doesn't matter which fuel you're talking about.

We're talking about technology and efficiency though. Diesel engine getting 70 mpg does not mean it's as efficient as gas engine getting 70mpg. That was the point. Not so hard to understand. Diesel you get more range, but gasoline you just use a bigger fuel tank. Gasoline is lighter anyways.

Originally Posted by Justin.b

What components of a diesel engine make them more expensive to manufacture?

Is it an economy of scale thing, where they're more expensive to produce because the manufacturers are producing fewer of them? Is there a component or a few components that are essentially different from their petrol counterparts and raise the price?

-Justin

So traditionally the components all have to be stronger to withstand the higher pressures and higher specific torque, and there's no option to use cheap port injection. By bringing compression ratio down manufacturers are making them cheaper to build, but emissions equipment is making up for any cost saving many times over, just ask any diesel pickup owner.

Originally Posted by RaceR

Thanks! That + diesel prices (vs petrol) in US really explains why petrol is the preferred choice.

But when looking at US emissions on petrol engines I certainly don't consider them strict. People on this forum consider the FR-S to be fuel efficient. In EU its considered bad.

Typical European opinion...emissions is not the same as fuel efficiency. Your cars are more fuel efficient, but they put more toxins/pollutants into the air. CO2 emissions is just a fancy word for fuel economy. The FRS puts out less toxic emissions per mile than most of the cars sold over there, even as it's burning more fuel.

150mg NOx/km is kind of a joke, sorry. Let's put that in perspective. If your car is emitting 150g CO2/km, 150mg NOx is 150ppm (in a gasoline engine). http://www.clubxb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44856
This guy's car is not in the best shape, he is emitting over 100ppm NOx, well below what the EU says a brand new car in 2012 is allowed to emit from the factory. The average tested NOx emissions for his car is just 16ppm, and smog tests are only required on 4 year and older vehicles so no car rolling into a test center is as clean as it was from the factory. Of course, the smog test is a bit different from the actual certification, where they run the engine under higher loads at times which increases emissions. This is clearly just to accomodate your giant diesel fleet, everyone else has stricter NOx standards, and the US has the strictest by far. We pay for that in the form of reduced fuel economy and power.

[Justin.b]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

Premium and Regular also have the same energy content. There's been a movement in Europe to use Liters per 100 km which makes more sense as MPG reaches the point of diminishing returns. The difference between 40 MPG and 50 MPG is only 1/2 gallon more to go 100 miles, 2.5 gallons vs 2 gallons, respectively. Meanwhile the difference between 20-25MPG is 1 more gallon per 100 miles, 5 gallons vs 4 gallons respectively.

The European standard is still expressed in distance per volume. They just made the distance a constant. If you want to break out the calculator, you can easily convert between the two units.

What you're saying is that it's better to express my height in centimeters instead of feet because then my height will be a bigger number so I'll be taller.

-Justin

[Justin.b]

Originally Posted by RaceR

Thanks! That + diesel prices (vs petrol) in US really explains why petrol is the preferred choice.

But when looking at US emissions on petrol engines I certainly don't consider them strict. People on this forum consider the FR-S to be fuel efficient. In EU its considered bad.

Its also important to not only measure EU based on overall "standards". Because in many cases its up to each country how they adjust taxes.. (several countries does not have extra taxes on cars) In Norway CO2 taxes on the GT86 is 12500 USD (which is only 1 out of 4 type of registration taxes on top of 25% VAT). In comparison, a car with 110g CO2 would get zero CO2 taxes. And a car with 90g CO2 would get -2800 USD in taxes (would still be a lot of registration taxes in total).
That is strict!

Having 35000 USD in taxes on a GT86 and only like 3600 on a VW UP!.
That is stict!

Many of the typical cars in the US have so high emission outputs that they would never sell here. But than again, our tax system in Norway is quite stupid.. But also quite effective to get emissions down..

One of the big differences (and I would guess this varies by country) is taxes and other penalties based on engine displacement. There are no restrictions on that over here.

A teenager can get his license and drive off in a 5000 pound SUV with a 6.2l V8 the same day. Our licensing is also a joke - which makes that teen even a bit more scary.

The 86 doesn't get great gas mileage. It's just that it's acceptable mileage for the fun the car delivers. You can drive it like a complete idiot and still get 20mpg, which isn't terrible. A lot of sporty cars fall WAY short of their estimated mileage when you start giving them the boot.

-Justin

[RaceR]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

The FRS puts out less toxic emissions per mile than most of the cars sold over there, even as it's burning more fuel.

Thanks for clarifying some with your post..

Do you have some numbers for the part I quoted?
Besides NOx, what do you consider toxic emissions that is worth to make notice of. How would you rate the importance of them compared to CO2 and NOx?

The only number I have on new cars are CO2 and NOx. (181g per km and 16mg per km for GT86. I assume US numbers are basically the same)
I would consider CO2 to be bad and NOx is better than the average car when looking at GT86.
But then again.. NOx levels are really up and down here.. Mostly in the 10-40mg per km range as far as I have seen.
M135I with manual is rated at 13mg of NOx per km, which is low.
M135I with automatic is rated at 161mg of NOx. Which is insanely high!

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by RaceR

Thanks for clarifying some with your post..

Do you have some numbers for the part I quoted?
Besides NOx, what do you consider toxic emissions that is worth to make notice of. How would you rate the importance of them compared to CO2 and NOx?

I think you'd have to ask a toxicology specialist or something like that to get a well informed view on how bad NOx emissions are for public health and whatever. In the US the regulators seem to think NOx is the end of the world, whereas in Japan they don't care as much. I'm not convinced that losing 5-10% fuel economy is worth cutting NOx down this much, but maybe there are some health studies that suggest otherwise.

In my opinion NOx in the US is overemphasized because a pre-emissions-regulated diesel puts out far far more NOx than any gasoline engine, and semi trucks consume a huge proportion of our transportation fuel and surely spit out much many many times more NOx than all the gasoline cars combined, though these trucks don't drive in heavily populated areas as much as passenger cars do. Still, one semi truck rolling down the freeway probably is putting out the NOx that a hundred gasoline cars puts out, so how different is it if gasoline cars are allowed to use 20:1 AFR lean burn and emit 5 times more NOx? I see a lot of diesel trucks on the road.

NOx is the toughest toxic emission to take care of because you need a perfect stoichiometric mix to ensure the catalyst is not being "poisoned" by oxygen.

I am also not convinced that CO2 emissions in themselves are important, but I think that fuel efficiency is an important matter. The way cars are rated in the US for fuel efficiency is really stupid, I don't know how the EU system works so I can't comment on that. I also can't comment on the discrepancies in the example you gave.