History repeating itself (NAC)

[Brett Dikeman]

At 8:42 PM -0500 3/15/02, George Selby wrote:

>Nothing is wrong with diesel, but it does contain less energy per 
>gallon than gasoline (which I believe contains the most BTU/gal of 
>any presently readily available fuel source, and the stuff is 
>cheaper than bottled water.)

Doesn't matter.  The efficiency of the diesel engine means far more 
of the energy is used to actually make the vehicle -go- versus 
heating coolant(in a gasoline engine, energy used for propulsion is 
actually a minority percentage.)  Some early diesels actually had 
auxiliary heaters because the engine didn't heat the coolant enough. 
Price is not an issue given the radical difference in mileage. 
Diesel could skyrocket to 2x and it would still be more viable.


>A typical diesel engine option (on a Ford truck, say) cost over 
>$4000. The optional V-10 with comparable power and towing capability 
>costs only $500.

Um, there's a reason why almost every Ford truck you see in the 
200/300 series class is a diesel.  Do you know what kind of mileage 
the V-10s get?  The V10 is marketed for vehicles that will not be 
driven much, and where there is the perception that diesel fuel would 
be difficult to come by.

>  Most people would rather get power windows and A/C (and save $3000) 
>than pay extra to burn diesel.

You don't pay extra.  Almost anyone that buys that kind of truck 
-drives- that kind of truck every single day.  Not to mention, every 
trip to the gas station is wasted employee time(and fuel!)


>   A car example: the VW Jetta.  Here the diesel costs only $1295 
>extra (7.5% of the base vehicle of $17,400.) It gets much better 
>mileage 42/49 instead of 24/31, however it has only 90 HP instead of 
>122 HP (Less than 75%.)

...but a ton of torque.  Add a Upsolute chip like Dan did, and you've 
got one fast little number.  Trust me, I've been in it almost a dozen 
times.  It's not as fast as my 200q20v with the IA III+, but very few 
things on the road today are.  Also, did you ever notice how many 
little, "underpowered" cars there are in the world?

>Plus people don't like having to wait for the glow plugs to warm up 
>on cold mornings (or worse yet, having to plug in the engine 
>overnight,)

TDI owners report being able to start in the negative-degree F ranges 
with no problems. The TDI starts warming the glowplugs when you hit 
the remote for the door locks, which means you basically turn the key.

>   the cloud of black smoke

TDIs only do this if there's a mixture problem(for example, I think 
the TDI had a problem with its maf sensor.)

>, or the 'diesel clatter.'

TDI technology is much quieter.

>   Some of the above mentioned problems may have been addressed in 
>newer diesels, but I haven't seen any advertisement stating that, so 
>I guess they haven't fixed those problems.

They don't need to advertise...they've sold practically every one 
they've brought over, and they don't have enough in the US to satisfy 
demand if they -did- advertise, IMHO.


>Another problem is service.  At the present moment, most American 
>mechanics are familiar with gasoline engines.  Although they could 
>all get more familiar with diesels, they would have to be trained, 
>and that would drive up the price of repairs.

Typically the TDI is many, many times more reliable than the beloved 
1.8T.  Further, it uses technology almost any truck shop knows quite 
well.  Diesels are -incredibly- simple.


>   Another repair aspect:  fluid changes are more expensive in diesels

?!?!?  Diesels use the same oil as gasoline engines.  Maybe they hold 
more, but oil is $4/quart.  Big freaking deal.

>A Mcdonalds hamburger costs what it did in the late 80's, a computer 
>of comparable power is about 1/10th the price, but a comparable car 
>costs twice what it did back then, a lot of that is due to new 
>government regulations.)

Significant advancements were made in the technology field; 
competition, mass production, etc have made them much cheaper. 
Hamburgers are not durable goods, and cars do not cost 2x as much as 
they do.  My 200q20v new cost about 40-50k.  Guess what a 2.7tt A6 
costs these days.  Very comparable cars(well, the 200q20v is bigger 
than an A8, but the A6 closely resembles the same position in the 
Audi lineup; ie the 200q20v is to the A6 2.7tt what the V8 is to the 
A8.  Look at the cost of the V8q when new, versus the A8q today.)


>   If the demand is sufficient for a 'better' vehicle, someone will 
>step up to the plate, and put the present auto manufacturers out of 
>business, just like the car manufacturers put the buggy companies 
>(of horse and buggy fame) out of business.

As stated previously, current problems are regulatory, and it will 
stay that way, because oil companies like the fact that we're driving 
15mpg SUVs instead of 40-50mpg jettas.  Hence Mr. Lott's 
oil-industry-sponsored(and probably oil-industry-written) little 
publicity stunt with the SMART car poster in front of congress.

I don't suppose you've noticed that all of our nation's major 
transport systems(with the exception of airplanes) use diesel? 
Actually, I think really big ships are now using turbine powerplants, 
dunno what they burn in 'em though, guessing LNG?  Still, amlost 
every single train engine is diesel(and a few are electric; subway 
cars are, because it is clean, a must in tunnel systems obviously, 
and there are things like the accela train), and almost every 
decently-sized truck around is diesel.  Almost all construction 
equipment is diesel powered.  Etc. Etc. Etc.  Diesel has won every 
market except individual transportation.


>The hydrogen idea is a very poor one, in my opinion (a tiny amount 
>makes a pretty big boom, I remember from Chemistry.)
>   Just what we want is a bunch of vehicles containing a tank of 
>highly explosive gas

An extremely common misconception.  Hydrogen is by far the safest of 
all gaseous fuels.  Obviously you were not paying much attention in 
chemistry.  Guess what gasoline vapor, natural gas/propane do when 
they leak out of something?  Sink+pool slowly into basements, along 
the ground, etc.  What does hydrogen do?  Rises, like crazy. 
Further, it takes a LOT more hydrogen percentage-wise to actually 
pose an explosion danger versus LNG.

So, to summarize, you need to have a lot of it hanging around to get 
an explosion, and the stuff disperses like crazy(ie, it doesn't hang 
around.)

>  (you have seen the pictures of the Hindenberg explosion?)

Yes, but apparently, you have not; it wasn't an explosion, it was a 
fire.  The Hindenberg caught fire because the paint on it is very 
close to what is now used for solid rocket booster fuel, and was most 
likely ignited by lightning or static electricity discharge to the 
skin.  There was NO explosion, save when the fuel tanks for the 
engines went up, and it was pretty small.

   There was a whole lot of burning canvas, lots of black sooty smoke, 
and a TON of light.  Hydrogen burns very, very cleanly(no black 
smoke, just water left over) and is damn near invisible when doing 
so;  most light is in the UV range.  The hindenburg burned like a 
giant match head/bonfire...not like a big explosion.

It is theorized that the reason the official German report never 
actually named the real reason for the disaster out of embarrassment 
of painting a dirigible with rocket fuel.  If it had contained 
helium, it still would have caught fire.


Brett
-- 
----
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~brett/