Diesel sucks.

spitfirebill wrote: So why does diesel fuel cost more that gasoline now. Taxes? The cost to remove sulfur? Plain old BS?

supply and demand- US refiners send diesel to Europe, their refiners send gas back. Europe wants more diesel than the US.

alfadriver wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: So why does diesel fuel cost more that gasoline now. Taxes? The cost to remove sulfur? Plain old BS?

supply and demand- US refiners send diesel to Europe, their refiners send gas back. Europe wants more diesel than the US.

I also read somewhere that US refiners were set up to get more gas out of a barrel than diesel. 22 gallons of gas vs 7 gallons of diesel. I might be off in the numbers some, that was a while ago.

Edit: Here you go. It boils down to more gas per barrel then diesel.

http://www.gasbuddy.com/Crude_Products.aspx

I thought it was also taxes because tractor-trailers are rolling piggy banks.

with nothing more than my cynical feelings about government in general … I also thought it was mostly taxes …

since they could stick it to the truckers pretty much with impunity … the cost is just passed along …

but now with more and more cars on diesel, it's starting to berkeley those of us that can't pass it on

bastomatic wrote: In the Detroit area, the higher cost of diesel would seem to offset the fuel savings entirely, let alone the much higher purchase price over a gasoline engined vehicle, so you aren't really saving money.

It depends on the vehicle, but its almost always a win with diesel and fuel cost. Right now in Pittsburgh PA, cheap gas is about $3.30/gal and diesel is about $3.90. That means diesel comes at a 20% premium cost, but I can't think of a car that doesn't provide at least a 20% increase in mpg when equipped with a diesel. Sometimes, the difference can be nearly 100% increase or more, like when comparing a Dodge V10 with the Cummins. My gas E350 got 10mpg with a 5.4L, and that is downhill with a tailwind. My 7.3L Powerstroke E350 got 19-22mpg with the same transmission and rear axle ratios.

Some are well known for their high mileage durability, others not, so no real advantage there.

I disagree. There is a lot of conjecture and rumor about the terrible 6.0L powerstroke and its oil cooler and EGR cooler failures, but they often times fail long after a gasoline engine would have needed a complete overhaul. Not to mention, many people forget resale value. You can buy a diesel with 150k on it, drive it until 300k, and if you're careful you can sell it for about the same as you bought it. I've done it three times. But, try selling any 300k gas truck for more than $2000.

As a former fleet maintenance manager for a utility company, diesel BY FAR keeps way more money in your pocket start to finish than gas. Of course, that is in fleet use, but we could easily sell a 7.3L F450 for 6-10 times more than a gas F450 with the same miles. Not kidding.

The fuel is much worse for smog emissions, and heavier in carcinogens. The urea fluid is expensive too, if I remember correctly. Is that stuff in all the newer generation diesels?

Strongly disagree. As of 2008, the EPA requires diesels to conform to the same smog emissions as gasoline within their own segment; hence the addition of DPFs and urea. Keep in mind, however, there are several new-generation diesels who are meeting these requirements without DPFs. Diesels also have much lower HC emissions. The big "dirty" part about diesels was their NOx emissions which have been solved.

The other dirty part about diesel is public perception. I get so tired of people complaining about that dirty, nasty, smelly diesel soot. First of all, there are millions of diesel vehicles out there that people don't even notice are diesel. How many Beetles and Jettas go by and you wouldn't even know its a diesel if it weren't for the TDI badge. The only ones people bitch about are the old, dirty ones. They cough and wheeze at the smoke and think that because they can see it, it must be bad.

The largest component of the black smoke is soot. Its heavy, its a large molecule, and it mostly just sinks to the ground and isn't really any worse for the environment than the little flecks of rubber that wear off our tires.

Just because you can see diesel smoke doesn't make it bad. Just because you can't see gasoline exhaust doesn't make it better.

Is it just me, or are manufacturers using the higher mpgs of diesels now as a way to simply meet CAFE standards?

Diesel lovers view this as the other way around. We see:

a) much more efficient BSFC
b) often times double the torque
c) dirt-simple modifications for more power
d) we see the "haters" holding back the wonderfulness that is diesel because of arcane and misinformed thoughts.

One argument I can't dispute is MOAR TORQUES.

I remember watching a 12v cummins put 2131 lb-ft to the wheels on a dyno day. Then the guy hitched up his trailer and towed 12,000 lbs home and got 16 mpg while doing it. And the best part? Not a single electronic control. It was a mechanical P7100 pump.

Ummm, this was a thing?

http://boston.craigslist.org/bmw/cto/4183023224.html

And this?

http://boston.craigslist.org/nos/cto/4170412010.html

ebonyandivory wrote: Ummm, this was a thing? http://boston.craigslist.org/bmw/cto/4183023224.html And this? http://boston.craigslist.org/nos/cto/4170412010.html

Unless you like odd strains of terrible incurable vernal diseases I don't think this is the droid you are looking for