Diesel cars in America

[Ferrer]

I disagree that it is the regulations that are keeping diesel cars out of North America's sales charts. Regulations may affect the number of offerings in American soil, but even then I doubt diesel cars present much of a business case themselves in America, at least to the average customer.

With low fuel prices and driving conditions that tend to minimise the diesel's main advantage (fuel consumption) there's little point in buying something that noisy and harsh, compared to what they are used to.

I have to insist, though, in my failure to understand why diesels are so appealing to american car enthusiasts. We have them because we have to have them. I don't buy a Leon FR TDi because uh... it has lots of torque. I buy because I cannot afford the petrol and the performance of a nice turbo four, V6 or (nevermind) V8. If I had your fuel prices, you can keep all the Peugeot RCZ HDIs to yourselves. I'll gladly take the Mustang Boss 302s in exchange, I promise.

[Lagonda]

I disagree that it is the regulations that are keeping diesel cars out of North America's sales charts. Regulations may affect the number of offerings in American soil, but even then I doubt diesel cars present much of a business case themselves in America, at least to the average customer.

With low fuel prices and driving conditions that tend to minimise the diesel's main advantage (fuel consumption) there's little point in buying something that noisy and harsh, compared to what they are used to.

I have to insist, though, in my failure to understand why diesels are so appealing to american car enthusiasts. We have them because we have to have them. I don't buy a Leon FR TDi because uh... it has lots of torque. I buy because I cannot afford the petrol and the performance of a nice turbo four, V6 or (nevermind) V8. If I had your fuel prices, you can keep all the Peugeot RCZ HDIs to yourselves. I'll gladly take the Mustang Boss 302s in exchange, I promise.

I think that torque is indeed the number one reason. V8 torque and 4 cylinder costs.

When comparing a powerful V8 petrol engine with an equally powerful diesel engine the choice is quickly made (petrol) IF the fuel cost is low enough. The diesel will always use less for roughly the same performance. Sure the diesel doesn't sound as nice, isn't as smooth and so on. But those are mostly emotional aspects of petrol vs. diesel.

When you have to choose between a small basic 4 cyl petrol engine or a small diesel engine, like the average person does, the diesel wins hands down because of the torque and added fuel economy. Not everyone in the US can afford big and powerful V8s..
Smoothness, good noise etc are mostly irrelevant for most people when economics come into play. Money > emotions for most.

While fuel prices in the US may seem ridiculously low to us they may not be to them and the low prices are mostly offset by the horrible gas mileage achieved by the average car sold in the US.
What I mean is: cheap (low fuel prices) can be even cheaper (low prices AND good fuel economy). It's not because fuel is cheap that you have to go and waste it with an engine that's half as efficient as the fuel sipping diesel alternative.

It mostly comes down to this: are you willing to pay the extra price for that smooth powercurve and that sweet V8 rumble? For you it may be worth it, for me it may be worth it, but I don't think that it's worth it for most people. Even enthusiasts. In that case diesel is the superior option.

What's slowing down diesel adoption in the US is mediocre diesel serving infrastructure, high diesel price (compared to petrol) and diesel, still, having an image problem.
I have a hard time believing that US emissions regulation is that much harder to meet than EU regulations.

Sorry if my reasoning is weird or strangely formulated, I had exactly 5 minutes of sleep last night.

[Ferrer]

But that's precisely my point, if you take the economic factor from the diesel equation, diesels lose (one of) their main point. And in North America you can do that. Not only terms of difference compared to petrol (where they even have an advantage in fuel pump prices) but also in terms of percentage against the total expense of an average citizen.

What I mean is, if filling up my car costs $20 then I'll probably prefer to have something that's better to my senses even if it uses more fuel in process. But if filling up my tank costs 200€, then I do not care about the engine rattling the car so much the doors will actually fall off, every diminute saving will be welcomed.

This also brings on the table the fact that America does not do small, highly stressed engines, which also tends to negate the low down torque reputation diesel engines have against traditional petrols (that GM is introducing this week the Spark powered by a 1.2 litre engine to the US can only be seen as an irony). Even if they are not what they used to be (big V8s and such) the Aveo in America has a 1.8 litre engine as standard. No matter ho much low down torque the little 1250cc Fiat diesel has I doubt it can much the much bigger petrol engine.

So, I still fail to see how the average American motorist will embrace diesels, regardless of choice or regulations.

[Lagonda]

But that's precisely my point, if you take the economic factor from the diesel equation, diesels lose (one of) their main point. And in North America you can do that. Not only terms of difference compared to petrol (where they even have an advantage in fuel pump prices) but also in terms of percentage against the total expense of an average citizen.

What I mean is, if filling up my car costs $20 then I'll probably prefer to have something that's better to my senses even if it uses more fuel in process. But if filling up my tank costs 200€, then I do not care about the engine rattling the car so much the doors will actually fall off, every diminute saving will be welcomed.

This also brings on the table the fact that America does not do small, highly stressed engines, which also tends to negate the low down torque reputation diesel engines have against traditional petrols (that GM is introducing this week the Spark powered by a 1.2 litre engine to the US can only be seen as an irony). Even if they are not what they used to be (big V8s and such) the Aveo in America has a 1.8 litre engine as standard. No matter ho much low down torque the little 1250cc Fiat diesel has I doubt it can much the much bigger petrol engine.

So, I still fail to see how the average American motorist will embrace diesels, regardless of choice or regulations.

Yes but your €20 brings you much further with a diesel. Less filling up = lower total cost.
Whether fuel is 10cents/litre or 10euro per litre doesn't really change the fact that a (comparable to the petrol engine) diesel gets you much further for the same amount. And it does so having more torque as well (excluding turbo'ed petrols etc.). So it's easier and less stressful to drive.

What you're arguing is the emotions part. You'd prefer driving the petrol because of emotional reasons (sound, feel, smoothness and so on), but that doesn't make the petrol cheaper to run. I understand your point of view and agree with it but economically it doesn't make sense.

€20 petrol = 500km range
€20 diesel = 750km range
Which one is cheaper? Not more fun to drive, just cheaper.

With small engines I meant something like the average 2litre petrol vs 2litre diesel. I was trying to compare engines of roughly the same size. I wasn't really trying to compare bigger engined petrol vs smaller engined diesel. In that case the petrol will probably win yes.

[Ferrer]

I agree, altough bearing in mind the North American conditions are the ones that are more favourable to petrol v diesel (much more than European ones, at least). However:

Whether fuel is 10cents/litre or 10euro per litre doesn't really change...

I disagree. It changes everything. Because it makes the economic argument less relevant and therefore makes the other "subjective" conditions raise up in the consumer's minds.

Also there's little point in comparing similarly sized engines if that's not what's available in the market. Take Toyota for instance. The EDM Avensis is available with 2 litre diesel, and 1.6 and 1.8 litre petrols. However the USDM Camry has a 2.5 litre four cylinder and a 3.5 litre V6, therefore not being able to compare 2 litre v 2 litre as you say.

[pimento]

I have to insist, though, in my failure to understand why diesels are so appealing to american car enthusiasts. We have them because we have to have them. I don't buy a Leon FR TDi because uh... it has lots of torque. I buy because I cannot afford the petrol and the performance of a nice turbo four, V6 or (nevermind) V8. If I had your fuel prices, you can keep all the Peugeot RCZ HDIs to yourselves. I'll gladly take the Mustang Boss 302s in exchange, I promise.

The grass is greener..

[henk4]

Take Toyota for instance. The EDM Avensis is available with 2 litre diesel, and 1.6 and 1.8 litre petrols. However the USDM Camry has a 2.5 litre four cylinder and a 3.5 litre V6, therefore not being able to compare 2 litre v 2 litre as you say.

Toyota has long ago withdrawn the Camry from the European market, because they were not willing to supply a diesel version. Petrol Camry's didn't sell....

[culver]

The great torque of the diesel is off set by lower HP and really, gearing. Torque at the motor doesn't mater to me like torque at the wheels. Also, having sampled my brother's 2009 Jetta diesel and my father's 2008 Passat 2.0T mileage (and perhaps resale) are the only advantages I see to the diesel. The Jetta diesel is hardly a crude engine. It's just not as good as the 2.0 or even the 2.4L in my mother's Accord. For driving character I would be just as happy with the VW 2.5L I5 offered in the US Jettas. It's just that at the end of the day the diesel isn't better than the good gas I4s, expect in mileage. Currently that mileage comes with a penalty. Gas is 3.25/gallon here. Diesel is 3.80 or so. Thus some of the better mileage is offset by higher fuel costs. It's just not the screaming good deal in the US.

[Ferrer]

Toyota has long ago withdrawn the Camry from the European market, because they were not willing to supply a diesel version. Petrol Camry's didn't sell....

I picked the Avensis and Camry precisely to highlight the difference between different markets. We can pick lots of other examples, if you want (i40/Sonata, Mondeo/Fusion, Insignia/Malibu,...).

[henk4]

I picked the Avensis and Camry precisely to highlight the difference between different markets. We can pick lots of other examples, if you want (i40/Sonata, Mondeo/Fusion, Insignia/Malibu,...).

avensis and camry are what the BMW 3 series is to the 5-series, so not in the same class.

[Ferrer]

avensis and camry are what the BMW 3 series is to the 5-series, so not in the same class.

Are they? Isn't the Camry the car that sits between the Corolla and the Avalon (that's the bigger one isn't it?)?

[henk4]

Avensis is what used to be the Carina, the Camry has always been a range up.

[MRR]

I disagree that it is the regulations that are keeping diesel cars out of North America's sales charts...there's little point in buying something that noisy and harsh, compared to what they are used to.

Then why are most of our SUVs and light trucks still gasoline powered when diesel actually provides a better performing engine for their purposes (better towing, crawling, torque and fuel efficiency)? Having driven a couple of 3/4 ton diesels their performance both in speed, power, and fuel efficiency far exceeds the gasoline engine equivalents (Dodge Ram with a Cummins diesel, and an F250 with a Powerstroke).

By all accounts particularly in the 1/2 ton truck market (F150, Chevy Silverado, Dodge Ram, Toyota Tacoma, etc) many truck owners have actually demanded a light duty diesel for many years. Like I said before there was supposed to be an explosion in the availability of diesels for smaller trucks and SUVs in the US starting in 2008 which all got shelved as the economy went south (as the diesels would provide lower margins than the gas V6s or V8s due to their expensive after-treatment systems).

As much as a love my 330ci the newer 330d in Europe produces the same horsepower, way more torque, and provides fuel efficiency that could cover the extra cost of buying the diesel within a few years. As a car enthusiast I am likely way more knowledgeable than the average US auto consumer who still envisions the awful Chevy 350 diesels in the 1980s so maybe the black smoke belching, rattle can image still needs to be addressed.

[Dino Scuderia]

I stated before that here at work we tried both Chevy and Ford diesel pickup trucks (Cummins and Powerstroke) and have gone back to petrol V8's which are more reliable and less costly. Fuel economy isn't that bad either these days.

[Ferrer]

As much as a love my 330ci the newer 330d in Europe produces the same horsepower, way more torque, and provides fuel efficiency that could cover the extra cost of buying the diesel within a few years. As a car enthusiast I am likely way more knowledgeable than the average US auto consumer who still envisions the awful Chevy 350 diesels in the 1980s so maybe the black smoke belching, rattle can image still needs to be addressed.

Post #68 of this thread links to an old thread where we discussed the break even point of diesels. It was quite high even with European fuel prices, and it'll be even higher with US prices in mind.

But anyway, why would you want a 330d over a 330i regardless of fuel consumption?