That's the production output mix for fuels in volume, it doesn't even
account for oleofins, for instance.
Diesel, being heavier than gasoline, requires more crude to obtain the
same volume. IOW, the yield of Diesel from crude is lower than of
Not so. It is approx 35 sec oil. A refinery can be designed and run to
provide varying percentages of this oil in relation to total output.
Should more diesel be required then the refinery can be tuned to
produce this more efficiently.
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
But then it depreciates more because most people don't like Diesel
cars. Among other reasons, because not every gas station sells them.
But this should change. Diesel engines work very well for twoing due
to their low-end torque and it may earn some market share in full-size
At least in theory. Ford is said to put a V6 Diesel in the F150,
which can only have V8 gas engines. Thus, a meager V6 doesn't bode
well for the future of Diesel for Ford...
GM has a heavy-duty, common-rail, multi-valve, turbo-charged 8.1 V8
with 500ft.lbs of torque and over 300HP, but it's so expensive that
it's only used to those who really, really need its characteristics.
As I said, thoughtlessly paying more for a Diesel and getting nothing
out of it...
So your point is that lemmings can't be wrong, right? :-)
That's my point.
Which was a tough engine for MB's commercial light trucks used in a
So now you make excuses for Diesel being a slow hog? :-)
European models sell very slowly. The highest selling European brand
is VW, but at about 5% of the market. Some Japanese cars sell very
well (Toyota, Honda, Nissan), mostly in the mid-size category
(large-car, D and E categories in Europe).
Almost none. I think that 1.6 is the smallest engine that any car
selling significantly has, and that's for the compact and sub-compact
categories. Mid-size cars have either a big I4 (2.4 to 2.5l) or more
typically a V6.
You may shun that it's not important to you, but that only explains
what I've been trying to tell you all along: Diesel engines are less
refined and have inferior performance to gas engines and performance
and comfort is more important to Americans than to Europeans.
Different priorities, different cars. But I still think that America
got a better deal than Europe... ;-)
For crying in a bucket, try to look beyond the California border...
1) Diesels have higher resale values in many cases, as I said earlier, in
particular smaller ones below about 2.5/2.4 l. A good example might be an
E-Class with such an engine. No, you wouldn't see it in the US, but it is
very desirable to a lot of people outside the US.
2) You don't need a diesel to get to 60 in more that 5 seconds. Not
every American drives around in a 5-litre car, even in Calif...
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
What starts in California spreads across the land and to Europe.
Diesels do NOT have higher resale here and in particular...
California. We even BANNED diesel back in 1998 or 1999 for one year
due to emissions. And, diesel will not making a comeback either. Our
public is pretty much fed up with oil burners. The miniscule TDI
sales here confirm that fact.
I believe I said 10-12 second 0-60 acceleration is minimally
acceptable. DAS... stop being deliberately obtuse. Are you
unfamiliar with any metropolitan California city? Additionally,
anytime you say "all" or "everyone" ... you sink your argument. Not
"all" or "everyone" drives on the right side of the road here either.
Of course such people are mostly drunks or evading police persuit.
DAS... AMERICA is different, starting with California. (interpret
that as you will. LOL).
Ok, then you won't mind me editing the passage. That Europe's highly
REGRESSIVE fuel taxes have such a profound effect on your vehicle
purchases is sad.
I'll never go hoarse telling you I don't care about diesel resale
value in socialist European countries. Whatever. Starting in
California, we have a particular sensitivity to exhaust emissions AND
a particularly foul memory of all diesel cars over the last 25 years.
Scroll up... your words "not every". Who do you think YOU are
to -dictate- what people need? Get over yourself. Go ahead and tell
us YOU don't need such acceleration.
DAS.... at the risk of seeming impertinent, what is your first
Not alll Carlifonia oil burners are diesel,for starts....
Check out Jay Leno's 1925 Doble E-18
Not all oil burners are slow either...E-18 went from 0-100 mph in 15 sec.
Not all California ideas spread from California either..Doble was a
Not all CARB ideas are better either E-18 passed all CARB test ,with lowest
levels recorded, with stock setup until
NOx was included.....but your average Californian would be talking about
them dirty steamplants
generating electricity.(They have higher standards than any car ever built
on emissions,but you would
never guess it by the political correct crowd.)
Arnold.... your exceptions do not disprove the rule, nor the
mainstream, nor do they take into consideration that CA will not have
nearly sulfur free diesel for at least another 2 years. California
drivers have had ENOUGH of diesel cars and the SCAQMD and CARB are
not about to revisit diesel for passenger cars to the degree that
Europe has embraced oil burners.
Hell ,if diesels are that bad for California.Maybe all the interstate
truckers and the
railroad needs to get together and stop all that air plluting at the
So,all the pain stricken Californians can live in peace with what is left.
I think the other 47 states could use the frieght traffic,even if California
There is a singular difference in commercial diesel trucks vs.
passenger cars. Diesel trucks are a fundamental part of every
economy. Diesel cars are not. The SCAQMD and CARB with the EPA's
blessing have been pushing diesel engine manufacturers to clean up
their engines and the Oil Companies to clean up their fuel.
You missed the fundamental of part of the economy that paying for the
commerical transportation and the state government as well.
That state govt. has been so far off the mark, that the smoke from the
side of California environmental issues.
May well override the damage from diesel cars.
So far ,valid reasons gets some of the most invalid answers.
Like the time CARB notices the god awful haze in the sky over LA.
Decides to do a electric car program...with no thought to, they(CARB)
chained the electric plants
on new constructions for longer.Than any reasonable person would have
thought possible. Without the extra load of
any electric cars.not parked at a golf course.Much less a number that would
have made a difference on the haze.
A.why they had rolling blackouts without any warning when utilities ,as far
away as the East Coast predicted it two decades ago.
(Still wondering why it wasn't sooner.But then the same can be said of the
N.E. as well.)
B.Why anyone talks about looking at the whole picture all the way to the
C.Why anyone would bad mouth batteries using the same stuff that was ban
The California recall ,sort of gave you a hint of that group you forgot.And
thier opinion of California solution choices.
Yes ,ther is a problem with diesel emission,but it will not be fixed in
My point is that the net outcome is seldom positive. IOW, the price
premium is rarely offset by any other gain in resale value or in fuel
Where, in Europe? Sure, a few. But a 2.0 engine can only be found in
compact cars in the US.
Which I don't deny either, but I also stated that it's not the case to
justify over 50% of the customers.
If you compare cars of the same overall exterior and interior
dimensions and engine size, the US gets definetely the best deal.
Bottom line: we get more of a car for less $$$. And I'm not even
talking about cost of living, take-home pay, etc...
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.