The rise and rise of diesel

VW and GM diesels have 30,000 mile potential service intervals while their petrol engines have a 20,000 interval. Also Mercedes and BMW diesels have longer service intervals than petrol equivilents in practice.

more complex technology

In some areas. Petrol engines are less reliable though.

higher insurance

Not a problem elsewhere. I wonder why German insurance companies load the premium?

sometimes higher car prices...

Sometimes. Not always and it differs from one market to another I suppose.

This is all political. They do not want to lose tax income because of the increased economy. The engines are priced according to what the manufacturer can get away with and to match demand with supply.

I could barely live with the C Class four cylinder diesel. It just does not pull from low revs. No such problems with the five and six cylinder ones I have tried.

Huw

It has nothing to do with the diesel engine directly: In Germany every car - which means every single engine variant - is categorized individually by adding all insurance payments nationwide within the last calculation period (one year).

And as diesel engined cars tend to drive more kms a year = tend to have more accidents than the gasoline variants it is very likely these cars cause higher costs to the insurance companies which then leads to higher insurance premiums.

The insurance premiums are adjusted every year at the beginning of October.

There is three different catgegories for each car: Haftpflicht - pays damage done to others; compulsory Teilkasko - pays for own car in case of e.g. theft; voluntary Vollkasko - pays for damage on own car when accident is own fault; voluntary

All categories can be seen online at

Juergen

At least here in Germany they are - only difference is that with heating oil a red dye is added for easy differentiating.

No German farmer abuses cheap agricultural diesel, it is just coincidence German farmers drive diesel cars since WWII...

Just read today that in Germany ncirca 50 per cent of all households are heated by natural gas, but _if_ I see it right most detached and semi-detached houses are still heated by oil.

Here in Germany it is 92 cent per litre diesel and 112 cent per litre regular, super is 114.

Read in the current issue of German car mag AUTO BILD that in the US sales of gas guzzling SUVs fall: Ford Expedition minus 34 per cent, Lincoln Aviator minus 39 per cent, Nissan Pathfinder minus 28 per cent, Chevy Suburban minus 21 per cent in April (dunno compared to which other point in time - March?). Also stated is that GM gives a rebate of 4.000 USD for SUVs like the Trailblazer. But on the same hand Ford develops a new V8 gas engine named _Hurrican_ with 6,2 litre displacement as rival for the Chrysler 5,7-Hemi...

Lets face it: ALL American governments since the first so-called oil crisis is 1971 failed to reduce dependancy on oil - a shame in such a big country like the US where is so much alternative energies like wind, water and sun available; and NO, I am NOT one of these green folks who hate cars, but I can clearly see the US - and the world - would be off much better if the US governments would not have slept in terms of oil since 1971.

And the next danger is from China where motorization explodes = need for oil explodes...

...this means we all have to face the time of cheap oil is over forever.

See above: All US governments slept since 1971. Next thing to watch is China (see above, too).

Juergen (from Germany)

There are some twenty insurance groups in the UK and all cars fall into one of these, some with extra restrictions imposed, such as 'known drivers only' or with a minimum driver age applied.

With the rising popularity of diesels in the UK, I do not believe that diesel cars tend to accululate mileage faster than petrol cars any longer. Maybe some, and there may be a small insurance premium, but nothing significant to the running cost of the car that I have noticed. Mind you, I do tend to run cars with high insurance ratings anyway.

'Third party' cover in the UK. Also compulsory.

'Third party, fire and theft'.

'Comprehensive', which is highly recommended for any car with a substantial value.

Thanks.

Huw

that just isn't correct, as an example fleetwide fuel economy is over

200 % better than 30 years ago. Cars in the us averaged 9 mpg then now it is almost 20 mpg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.

Yes - but trucks and SUVs are not part of that calculation, they are excluded from it as they are not defined as passenger cars and so do not count. Include them - most are driven privately by people instead of saloons - and the picture is much worse than you state (sorry, I do have no figures at hand - someone else maybe?).

Juergen

They may have failed, but it wasn't for lack of trying.

First, there's the CAFE standard (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). All vehicles sold by a carmaker must meet a certain fuel economy figure when averaged together. Our low gas prices certainly don't encourage it, so the economy of American cars is mostly due to the legislation. Unfortunately, SUVs fell through the "truck" loophole, plus CAFE was rolled back a couple of times. There are plenty of green-minded people in the US, but corporate interests usually win in Congress.

Second, there has been much investment in wind and solar power, with huge tax breaks, etc. It's only now that these technologies are starting to be able to compete with traditional forms of energy, after 30 years of propping them up with tax dollars.

Another problem is, there isn't enough of this to go around for our population, especially considering the resources aren't necessarily where the people are. We only have so many rivers, and so many areas where wind power is feasible. I'd like to point out that Europe, especially northern Europe, is both wetter and windier than the western US, and distances between these resources and cities not that great.

There's nothing wrong with being green. Cars are wonderful -- in moderation. Being effectively green is about knowing when enough is enough.

The US Green Party is interesting -- primarily devoted to land use issues and sprawl. This is really the problem -- that we're too reliant on individual motor transportation -- or that cheap motor transportation has subsidized poor land use. Europe has always had a tradition of village life, and economic constraints that encouraged it. The US is rediscovering it, hopefully not too slowly.

As I said, no one's sleeping. There's a constant battle going on, but corporate interests usually win. Some say the only reason the US government isn't considered corrupt is that the corruption is actually legal!

Very true.

Oil exporting countries will keep the taps open enough to maximize profits -- if they allow oil to get too expensive, demand drops and so does their income. So in a laissez-faire situation, we would probably have cheap oil until it's close to running out, then a rapid increase in price (as well as war and turmoil). As long as the current despots have their palaces and Bentleys in every color, while their people starve, why should they care about future generations? They'll take what they can in their own lifetimes.

How can we tell them what to do, unless we set an example ourselves? If you think the US has polluted the world, you ain't seen nothin' yet...

Matt O.

all true, but today's trucks and suvs get double the mpg than the huge cars of the 70's excepting one or two models which make up a minute amount of vehicles

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.

the world's worst polluters are the europeans and then the asians, trying to blame the US for the world's pollution problems is an easy way to avoid their own problems

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.

This is true that SUV's and light trucks do not count, but it is also true that even including them mileage figures have improved greatly over the years. US cars, trucks and SUVs are far more efficient with fuel than they were 30 year ago. Hell, thirty years ago they were probably wasting gas out the emissions, like a 2-stroke.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, don't make me laugh! Unlike the USA, Europe isn't "buying" other lesser-developed countries CO2 emissions allowances from them, because unlike the USA, we can actually get pretty close to the required levels within the alloted timescales. Where's your argument now? Face it, the USA is one of the world's most heavily polluting countries, not always immediately apparent until you look deeper into it. They were, after all, one of a very small number who refused to sign up to (I think) the Rio Summit agreement on CO2 emissions, as they knew that they couldn't (or didn't want to!) meet the reduction targets. Environmental legislation in the UK is now at such a level that you cannot start a commercial process of any kind until it has been approved by the EA (Environment Agency), and any possible effects of any emissions that that process may create have been evaluated. There are various lists of prescribed processes, and a list (I think it's referred to as the "red list") of processes that you just won't be allowed to do at all. I can't speak for the Asians, I haven't looked into it that far, but I doubt if their total emissions comes anywhere close to the USA's totals. Badger.

Put together, the "europeans" and the "asians" account for probably more than 2.5 billion people. Together, they might pollute more than the 300 million Americans. But the 300 million Americans do somehow manage to account for more pollution than any other single country. That's the only point. When most Chinese are rich enough to own a 5liter engined SUV then China will rule the pollution playground. But that's not the case yet.

Given that, not all blame is to fall on the U.S. Most Europeans drive cars (albeit smaller and more economical) and use fossil fuels. Who are we kidding? I guess it's the willingness to do something about it that counts....

Actually I think that CO2 emissions are inappropriate to restrict, as this gas makes up a significant fraction of the atmosphere.

Developing countries, China included, spew out a lot of real junk from their factories and consider the criticisms from the developed countries a luxury they cannot afford. After all, think of the pollution following the industrial revolution. More recently look at the toxins emitted in the former communist countries. E.g. large tracts of Poland are badly polluted.

As regards alternative energy sources (see also Matt O'Toole's comments), it's not that simple. Already we are seeing a backlash in the UK against large, ugly windmill farms. Let's go nuclear.... ;-)

DAS

you're a very small minded person if you think emissions are the only problem

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included, reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.

127.0.0.1 haute in die Tasten:

The funny thing about those politically biased posings is that the guys who abuse a car forum for their political struggles never manage to avoid excessive quoting. Seems to be beyond their intellectual capabilities;-)

Go and vote for a proper president, and the world will love America again.

Frank

This is true per capita, but that's only because they can't all afford cars and big homes with HVAC systems and modern appliances. But those who can afford them use two-stroke motor scooters, and cars with no emissions controls. Electric power comes from coal-fired power plants, again with no emissions controls, nor are there any controls on industrial processes. Because of rampant corruption, any controls that do exist are circumvented or ignored. The air in cities like Beijing and Bangkok is filthy, certainly worse than any American city.

Matt O.

We have backlash against wind farms here too, but nothing like the backlash against nuclear anything. No one dares to build a new nuclear plant in the US.

I'm all for nuclear power except for two things. One, no one knows the true cost, because the nuclear industry is so enmeshed with secret defense programs. Two, it continues the unhealthy trend toward larger and fewer power plants, and a grid that's too insecure and failure prone.

I say we upgrade the power grid to allow distributed power generation -- small plants everywhere, and meters able to run backward. This would allow homeowners and businesses with solar systems, micro-hydro, natural gas fuel cells and microturbines, clean hybrid cars, etc., to sell power back to the grid. Distributed generation makes for a more robust and fail-safe grid, and eliminates transmission losses (10-15%) and costs. Technology improvements could be more rapid because they could happen incrementally, rather than with construction of multi-billion-dollar plants every few decades.

Matt O.

That poster didn't limit their comment to auto emissions, they said "polluters". So that covers a lot more concerns that auto emissions only.

And in many ways he was correct. The worst polluting countries in this world are not the most developed and efficient, but rather the least efficient. And the US is not at the top of that list. Another thing to consider is that recent investigation has shown that ethnic Chinese, regardless of where they live or move to, inevitably develop into the hightest contributory group. So he was right in some ways on that point as well.

On the other hand, one could claim that the most consumptive populations are effectively exporting their pollution by buying goods from less industrially developed (meaning worst polluters) countries. In this case the bottom line says that if the consuming country didn't create the demand, the polluting country would not create the supply. Under this scenario one could claim the US was the worlds's greatest polluter, even though the generation of that poolution didn't occur on US soil or by US workers.

Frank, it is asinine to believe being loved by the rest of the world (particularly France or Germany) is high on the average American's agenda. At the most, a US president can serve for 8 years. That's rather short term in the scheme of things global. So if you dislike me or my country, because of who the President is, then you're an idiot.

And it is your assumption of moral superiority that disallows the prospect of you ever recognizing that.