×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CEO Confirms Chevy To Sell Diesel Cruze In US

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the yeah-but-I-want-a-diesel-subaru-outback dept.

Transportation 349

s122604 writes "For the first time in almost 30 years, a U.S. carmaker is planning to market a non-truck diesel vehicle in the U.S. — the Chevy Cruze. Estimated MPG for the automatic transmission version is in the mid 40s, which is better than the only other small diesel sedan sold in the U.S. (the Volkswagen Jetta), and slightly better than their gasoline powered 'Eco' model... I'd like to know what the MPG on the 6-speed manual version is."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

349 comments

DROVE MY CHECY TO THE LEVY !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856004)

But the levy was dry !!

Bye-bye !!

I like my Turbo Diesel (2)

gilesjuk (604902) | about 2 years ago | (#36856026)

There's other niceties with diesel, the engines last longer and run at a lower RPM. There's more torque, people buy horsepower but drive torque as the saying goes.

There's no ignition system to worry about, no plugs and so on.

The downside is the soot that comes out the back when accelerating hard.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#36856078)

The down side is price. It can cost almost twice as much for the engine in a TD as in an ordinary gasser, and the price of the vehicle comes up significantly in such a case. It has to do partly with economies of scale, which is why auto manufacturers used to simply buy diesels for their light trucks; Dodge using Cummins and Ford using International-Navistar. And indeed, they always have and still do buy the engines for their heavier trucks; Everyone buys from everyone, except IIRC only Ford still buys from International. I believe everyone else is using a Cat or a Cummins; so does Ford. Chevrolet, as the owner of Allison, is the only company which didn't have to do this back in the day. Unfortunately for them, Allison totally blew the 6.5, which was designed to be built on gasser production lines. This is not precisely the same thing as saying that it was modified from a gas engine, but it's the next best thing.

The good news for Chevy is that they no longer wear the "I can't build diesels" crown, that now goes to Ford. I just got the line from a euro mechanic who also owns a bunch of domestics, and who used to have a truck similar to mine but much older (with a 6.9 -- the 7.3 is a bored out 6.9, basically.) Ford has a coolant-filled EGR that frequently fails. Because the turbo is tucked into the valley to save space, the exhaust manifolds turn up instead of down. The result is that when the EGR fails (and it invariably does) the coolant empties into the cylinders. Very classy. The tendency away from Ford diesels worth buying actually began with the 7.3 powerstroke, which is the last machine worth buying from them, I believe it ended in 2000. In an effort to make the valve covers cheaper (I am not making this up) they put everything under the valve covers. As a result you have a valve cover gasket with wires and connectors integrated into it that frequently fails and costs a mint to replace.

Finally, it costs about four to eight times as much for the 'stroke HPOP as for my fuel pump, and I get the same mileage as a 'stroke, and with the aftermarket turbo I have the same power as an early 7.3 'stroke without modifications.

The best diesel I've ever messed with is the OM617.951 Mercedes engine, anemic by modern standards but I have all the power I need in my car. It's a work of art in a way that very few engines are, and it's matched by a truly excellent injection pump that can take a raft of abuse, unlike the DB-2 in my Ford... and which was also used by Chevy/Allison on the 6.2 and 6.5 lemons.

No soot with modern diesels (5, Informative)

Shivetya (243324) | about 2 years ago | (#36856418)

I have a 2010 Golf TDI, there is no soot, there is no smell either. Had a big doubter at work who spouted all those anti-diesel myths of days gone by come out with some others to see the car when I bought it. He even sat right behind the exhaust pipe when I started it and acknowledged all he could detect was hot air.

My commute is 26 miles to work, 27 on the way home; yeah its not the same, based on traffic patterns. I track my fuel usage on fueleconomy.gov and my average since June of 2010 has been 41.7. My commute has no interstate, there are some four lane areas but many more 45 and 35 mph two lane country roads past subdivisions and such.

My highest average over the commute in was 51.2, the lowest which only occurs on the way home was 37+. Acceleration is my mileage killer. If I catch every light green I can see some great numbers. Since I do not use an interstate or other limited access road I have alternatives and never get trapped in stop and go.

Another note, I pay the same as premium gasoline. However in two recent run ups in price Diesel stopped increasing in price and I actually saw regular gas cost more. Even when I pay $4 a gallon and regular is at $3.60 I do better than everything short of a Prius for efficiency. Most of the current 40+ crowd I see advertised are lucky to get above the low 30s consistently.

Only improvements I want to cars are regenerative braking and electric propulsion assist. I have two wheels that aren't powered. A small battery pack or something used only at launch would do wonders to overcome the losses I incur when accelerating from a stop. Plus I would not mind some of it back when I am stopping to aid that starting.

Re:No soot with modern diesels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856634)

...Had a big doubter at work who spouted all those anti-diesel myths of days gone by...

Keep in mind, that this is a Chev product. If you've seen any of their recent diesel pickups under acceleration, you'd realize the OP is probably correct - there will almost certainly be a cloud of pollution behind this thing from the stop light (note that this is not specific to Chev - Powerstrokes and Cummins are the same).

I had hoped Fiat would import some of that awesome European diesel technology in with the 500 (or even the gas engine that has eliminated the camshaft), but we're getting pretty standard fare so far. At least they kept the 500 an excellent small size.

Re:No soot with modern diesels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856692)

Too bad they don't make a hybrid diesel power plant with regenerative braking so you could get some of that power back when you were braking to boost acceleration again.

I bet that could get over 60mpg.

Plus during the end times you can run diesel engines off other fuels.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel (1)

krray (605395) | about 2 years ago | (#36856482)

> There's no ignition system to worry about, no plugs and so on.

What does this mean? There has to be some sort of ignition system [to worry about :-]. I wonder how well this car will start in -20F weather.

> The downside is the soot that comes out the back when accelerating hard.

I always saw that as a PLUS. Usually don't accelerate _hard_, but when that idiot is riding you it's fun to "dust them" and with the torque ... buh-bye.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel (1)

cbeaudry (706335) | about 2 years ago | (#36856510)

We have diesel vechiles in Canada and it goes to -40F here. They all start fine.

In the 80's it was a problem but not with modern diesel engines.

No Ignition System (1)

SIGBUS (8236) | about 2 years ago | (#36856602)

Diesels don't rely on coils and spark plugs. The compression ratio is high enough that the air heats sufficiently during the compression stroke to make the fuel autoignite when it is injected into the cylinder at/near top dead center. On the other hand, that means the injector pumps (or single pump in a common-rail system) must develop extremely high pressure in order to actually inject the fuel.

For cold starting, there are glow plugs to help heat the air - they are basically heating elements.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel (1)

david.given (6740) | about 2 years ago | (#36856638)

What does this mean? There has to be some sort of ignition system

Nope!

Diesel engines ignite the fuel/air mixture by compressing it. As the mixture is squeezed, the temperature rises, and if you squeeze it enough, it goes bang. No external ignition systems such as spark plugs are needed.

Old-fashioned diesel engines did not, in fact, have any electrical system other than the starter motor --- once they were running, you could disconnect the battery and it would continue running fine. In fact, they were pretty hard to stop, and there had to be a special mechanism to shut off the fuel safely otherwise it would keep running indefinitely. One nasty hack I've seen was to power a boat off an old truck engine. All the cooling was stripped off it, a propeller attached directly to the drive shaft, and it was slung off the back of the boat. After being started in the shop, the boat was put in the water, with the engine entirely submerged (except for the air intake, of course). It was fine.

On the minus side, the extra compression means they're really hard to turn over; you can't start an old-fashioned diesel with a crank. It's just too hard. (Of course, you can't start a modern petrol engine for the same reason.)

Note that modern turbo diesels are totally different beasts and are computerised beyond all belief, and are largely indistinguishable from petrol engines to drive.

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | about 2 years ago | (#36856646)

Traditionally, Diesel engines have glow plugs for starting. That is, an electrically heated piece of metal on which the injected fuel ignites. Once the engine is warm, the compressed air from the compression stroke is hot enough that the injected fuel will auto-ignite.

I'm not sure if modern diesels still use glow plugs though. If an auto mechanic reads this, feel free to comment ;-)

Re:I like my Turbo Diesel (2)

vikisonline (1917814) | about 2 years ago | (#36856706)

Diesels work by compressing gas more. They have a much higher compression ratio than gasoline cars. Compressed gas heats up, and due to the high compression ratios in diesels, they do it to the point where the air in the cylinder gets so hot that it burns up on its own. So they use absolutely no source of ignition. How hot the air in the cylinder gets depends on ambient temperature. So in winter they could have a problem. Diesels have glow plugs to compensate for this. They are noting more than electric heating elements that get really hot inside the cylinder. They are only used for starting the engine, really only needed in cold weather. Once the engine is running they are not powered anymore. Consequently if you have a diesel that is hard to start in cold weather you probably have problems with the glow plugs (they are worn out and need replacing or the connection to them is loose). Diesels are also harder to start because of the higher compression rate, which makes it harder to turn over. So in the winter time a block heater can be used to heat up the oil to aid in turning it over. Now with all that I have a 1994 TDI golf. Here in Canada we get to -10C -15C easy in the winter but I rarely have problems. Just make sure you got a good battery, but I think that goes for any car in that weather.

Any USEFUL information? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#36856032)

Is there any USEFUL information on this car out there, like whose design the powerplant is, where it's being built, et cetera?

I love driving my 300SD, when I drive the Astro (our only gasser; my F250 is a turbo diesel also) it feels totally gutless until I stick my foot all the way in it because comparatively it has no low-end torque. Amazingly the 300SD has good pedal response up to about 90... that's amazing because it has 120 bhp and 170 rated foot-pounds, and an estimated top speed about 105.

Re:Any USEFUL information? (4, Informative)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | about 2 years ago | (#36856068)

Is there any USEFUL information on this car out there, like whose design the powerplant is, where it's being built, et cetera?/

It appears to be [wikipedia.org] a VM Motori / GM Daewoo powerplant.

Re:Any USEFUL information? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#36856108)

Ahh, good work. It looks like a very nice little package [maitlanddiesel.com.au] although I am concerned about the vac pump being mounted direct to the alternator, which seems a questionable decision. I actually think vacuum pumps are a bit daft, and my intention is to eliminate mine (on my pickup) just as soon as I can come up with a hydroboost brake system. There is very little controlled by vacuum on my truck; the fuel shutoff is electrical (vacuum on the mercedes) and all I actually have to worry about is the air con stuff (mode door, temp door.) Those are easily accessed so it should be relatively trivial to handle that with arduino+servo. Eliminating the vacuum system means eliminating vacuum leaks, not to mention eliminating the vacuum pump which is in an awkward location that prohibits easy access to the lift pump.

I can't understand why they would even bother to produce vacuum on a modern car; the majority now use electrically actuated cruise control (on a direct-injected diesel or indeed on anything with throttle by wire, cruise control is purely a matter of software) and also electrically-actuated environmental controls. My Mercedes uses vac for everything so I'm leaving it alone.

Re:Any USEFUL information? (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | about 2 years ago | (#36856144)

Does GM have any real-life experience with a diesel powerplant in passenger car that is positive?

This is what I think of when I think of GM and Diesel engines:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tOIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=GM+diesel+delta+88&source=bl&ots=-ibHbCl1Kr&sig=v_Z1TqGku7AweZHgtLbXnlkuUmg&hl=en&ei=i8wqTtAOyvXSAYjphIAL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=GM%20diesel%20delta%2088&f=false [google.com]

(Sorry for the long link).

To summarize, GM's diesel's from the 80's were a disaster.

Re:Any USEFUL information? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#36856182)

GM/Allison's 1980s diesels were a disaster because they were designed to be produced on gasser production lines. This defined the basic geometries of the engine and because of the equipment used resulted in an engine with insufficient securing of the cylinder head. This engine was not designed by Allison. Allison has since worked out their problems and the Duramax diesel is considered be most to be superior to the Powerstroke diesels now produced by Ford. The original 7.3 powerstroke was produced by International-Navistar (based loosely upon the 7.3 non-powerstroke which preceded it, which is just a bored-out 6.9 -- the two 7.3s share bore, stroke, angle, and indeed connecting rods) and so Ford can't take any credit for that, while Dodge has never built a diesel engine, instead electing to purchase them from Cummins. If the truck wrapped around the engine were worth a crap then I would never recommend anything else, as the inline Cummins is worlds ahead of the competition in many areas including durability. Check out a comparison of the various Diesel engine connecting rods sometime, you'll crap for a Cummins.

Anyway, the point of this comment is that the only one of the big three that can do diesels worth a shit today is GM. Chrysler buys them from Cummins or Mercedes (for the smaller vehicles where you can't cram a Cummins) and Ford has fallen directly on their arse with a coolant-filled EGR that fails and pukes coolant into the cylinders via the upturned exhaust manifolds. And of course, GM didn't design THIS engine either, as you can see from the sibling to your comment.

Re:Any USEFUL information? (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | about 2 years ago | (#36856346)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the half-assed design that Ford had inflicted on owners. I just wasn't aware of any mainstream GM passenger car sold in the united states that would make me buy a GM diesel car.

Not saying they can't do it, they simply haven't been interested. I'm still not convinced they're interested in doing a diesel engine right for a car.

I'd tread lightly on any of the domestics cars with a diesel, and GM has too much history with any new engine or technology to make me buy anything the first year from them.

Re:Any USEFUL information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856468)

Detroit Diesel was involved in the design of the 1980's GM truck diesels and they are excellent - the 6.2l / 6.5l TD. The military is still using them in their HMMWV's. The GM diesels from the 1980's with all the problems were designed by Oldsmobile and put in passenger cars - the 5.7l. This motor was the huge disaster that everybody vaguely remembers from GM in the 1980's.

Re:Any USEFUL information? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#36856632)

Yards are filled with crappy 6.2s and 6.5s, which disintegrate if not aggressively maintained, which is why the I-N 6.9/7.3 and the T444E 7.3, and both 12V and 24V Cummins are superior to them... they can survive abuse. (The 7.3 does need a cooling additive, which is annoying, but not insurmountable. I installed a filter in my cooling system and I run precharged filters.) One problem the 6.9/7.3 shares with the 6.2/6.5 is the shitty DB-2 injection pump, which even more annoyingly turns in different directions on each of these motors so you can't swap them. This pump uses a steel piston in an aluminum bore, which is beyond retarded. The fuel shutoff is also particularly prone to clogging. Unfortunately I have one of these lemons, too. It may be possible to run a DB-4 pump, but I don't have enough of the arcane knowledge or any of the equipment necessary. The one thing they did get right on the GM truck diesels is the glow plug system, which uses the AC60G constant duty glow plug. These plugs will also git into the 6.9/7.3 and some people are now experimenting with them as they are impossible to burn out, whereas the 6.9/7.3 is infamous for burning out glow plugs. If you use crappy cheap ones, they will swell in the head and then you are in for a world of hurt.

Re:Any USEFUL information? (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 2 years ago | (#36856412)

That is basically because their passenger car Diesel engines from the 80's were their gasoline engines from the 80's made to run on diesel.

Diesel MPG (1)

TomQ (20220) | about 2 years ago | (#36856034)

I've never understood the reluctance to purchase Diesel cars in th US - I have a perfectly ordinary Renault Clio diesel that gets 65 MPG. It positively sips fuel... I guess that's the advantage of small cars though.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about 2 years ago | (#36856064)

Well, currently the diesel price is close to a dollar more per gallon than regular gasoline. There are regular gas cars that get roughly the same mileage as this chevy claims to get so I doubt it will sell well.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

anagama (611277) | about 2 years ago | (#36856098)

Must depend on where you are. Here in the Pacific NW, diesel is only slightly more expensive than regular(~3.80), and equivalent to the price of super (~4.05).

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

Temkin (112574) | about 2 years ago | (#36856118)

Well, currently the diesel price is close to a dollar more per gallon than regular gasoline. There are regular gas cars that get roughly the same mileage as this chevy claims to get so I doubt it will sell well.

At the moment, diesel and regular unleaded is about the same in central Texas. Your state may have a different tax rate on diesel.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 2 years ago | (#36856142)

Where are you at?
Right now there is a $0.10 difference between it and regular. It's actually cheaper than premium.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about 2 years ago | (#36856154)

Just checked, 1.00 was exaggerating a bit (though it was close to that at some point in the last 6 months). It's roughly a 25-50 cent difference in New Jersey.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

arogier (1250960) | about 2 years ago | (#36856330)

If you are feeling brave in central Missouri/Southern Illinois biodiesel runs about a dollar less per gallon. I'm not going to make any promises on what it will do to your warranty. If any libertarian types want to martyr themselves agricultural fuel (with the red dye) is always an inexpensive option until you get caught. You bitcoin people know who you are. My money's on getting arrested before appreciable saving in fuel prices though.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#36856376)

Red dye diesel is high sulfur. These are high pressure injection engines, they are not going to like that. Any savings at the pump will be spent at the mechanic.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 2 years ago | (#36856406)

Just use any cheap oil to run it (no olive oil), no taxes involved, sometimes they even get farm subsidies, so other peoples' taxes make your fuel cheaper.;-)
Rudolph Diesel did it too, Diesel oil hadn't been invented yet.
Try any oil-mill where you live, they sell it bulk real cheap, if not, discounters usually have cheap oil too, you just have to get rid of all those plastic bottles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_oil_fuel [wikipedia.org]

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856092)

The reason is because America applies a small tax rate on gas or diesel, while european countries put a heavy tax on gasoline - but not so heavy on diesel.

Wiith this difference on the tax rate of the diesel, it makes sense to buy a diesel car on Europe (a diesel engine is always more expensive than a otto engine). This article [popularmechanics.com] states that in Europe the payback time for a diesel car, in comparison to a similar gasoline car, is two years.

With this difference on demand, even the oil refineries on Europe are built to produce more diesel than the american refineries.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

maeka (518272) | about 2 years ago | (#36856560)

With this difference on demand, even the oil refineries on Europe are built to produce more diesel than the american refineries.

That's a little bit of cart before the horse.

America grew up on sweet light crudes, appropriate for producing gasoline over diesel while Europe grew up on heavier (but still not South America heavy) crudes which tipped the economic balance more towards diesel (and kerosene) production. Not to mention the early work done in eastern Europe was all kerosene-centric.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

swb (14022) | about 2 years ago | (#36856094)

I drove a diesel VM Rabbit in the early 80s. Upside? Great mileage, I think I got nearly 50 mpg on the highway -- a trip from Minneapolis to Madison, WI and halfway back before needing to refuel.

The downside of that car was near zero acceleration and it was impossible to start in the winter if it wasn't plugged in overnight (a real challenge when you live in an apartment or want to stay at a friends -- I used to carry a 100 ft extension cord).

GM released a series of diesel powered cars in the 1980s that used a bad 350 gas motor converted to diesel that had all kinds of problems, not to mention being way noisier and smellier than a gas engine.

I had a delivery job using a 6.2L GM diesel pickup, and that ran well but was not at all practical for typical urban use.

And then there is our fuel problem -- high sulfur diesel was our fuel standard until the last couple of years and this meant none of the high-tech, low-tolerance diesel engines Europe has had, we were stuck with truck diesels.

And then there's the other fuel problem -- fewer urban stations carry diesel, which means you kind of have to plan ahead.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856248)

My God, how can you rely on your diesel memories of a late 70's designed rabbit? I owned a '79 and it had amazing fuel efficiency, no pick up, and hard to start in extreme cold... That was then. Unlike you, I have driven vw diesels continuously since then. They are amazing, inexpensive to operate extremely fuel efficient, torguey, excellent pick up, dare I say quick, quiet and clean burning. I am so tired of hearing diesel opinions from people who have no practical experience with them since the 80's.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

JamesP (688957) | about 2 years ago | (#36856288)

Funny, I've seen (not new) European diesel cars using 'heating candles' (it's an electrical filament) powered by the battery to make it start in cold conditions.

Maybe this is from before they were put in use?!

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

maxume (22995) | about 2 years ago | (#36856666)

Probably called glow plugs more often in the U.S.

Minnesota gets cold enough (average temp in some parts in January is -15 C) that ensuring combustion might not be the only issue to deal with.

Re:Diesel MPG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856096)

are those US or imperial gallons, it must make quite a difference.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#36856102)

Diesels are generally pretty good, but using raw miles per gallon to compare diesel to non-diesel is slightly off, since they're gallons of different stuff. In particular, a gallon of diesel and a gallon of petrol aren't the same in terms of hydrocarbon content or CO2 emissions: diesel is more carbon-dense, releasing [epa.gov] 22.2 lbs of CO2 per gallon burned, versus 19.4 for petrol.

Admittedly, diesels generally have better fuel efficiency by more than that difference: for a diesel to come out ahead of a 35 mpg Civic, it needs to get over 40 mpg, which many do. However, this "mid 40s" on the Cruze doesn't sound like a huge win; that's comparable to high 30s for a gasoline car, which is only mildly better than a Civic, and worse than a hybrid. Now, 65 mpg, that's something.

Re:Diesel MPG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856212)

I've never understood the reluctance to purchase Diesel cars in th US - I have a perfectly ordinary Renault Clio diesel that gets 65 MPG. It positively sips fuel... I guess that's the advantage of small cars though.

It has very little to do with "reluctance" on the part of US car buyers, and everything to do with legislation, consider these points (there are probably more):
- Euro tax breaks on Diesel fuel, USA low tax on gasoline (as someone else noted, Diesel is more expensive than gasoline in USA at this time)
- Lack (until recently) of mandated low sulfur Diesel fuel in USA, required for modern high pressure fuel injection--this one has finally been fixed
- Lack of small cars in USA (safety/crash laws)
- Very stringent emissions laws in USA/California including particulates --
  * Diesel combustion generates particles/smoke and max power is above the "smoke limit"
  * Gasoline generates very few particles unless run very, very rich (above peak power), which is easy to avoid

Re:Diesel MPG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856300)

There are 2 reasons diesels don't sell in the US.

During the winter if there is a cold snap in the northeast I think they start using some of the diesel for heating oil. The price of diesel can be as much as double the price of gasoline for short periods of time. The rest of the time it's just more expensive enough to eat up any fuel savings.

Second, A lot of us still remember the last time GM pushed diesels on us and it was a complete fiasco. I know people who made a living converting Oldsmobiles with blown diesels to gasoline. They also were hard to start, and noisy and smokey when you could get them running.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 years ago | (#36856362)

I believe in the colder parts of the States they switch to #1 diesel in the winter months, because it will still flow at lower temperatures. The cost jump you're seeing could well be from that.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 2 years ago | (#36856436)

There was a demand for diesel cars in the US but in the 80's our domestic auto manufactures flubed it and produced some truly awful diesel engines. The vehicles that were imported (Mercedes, VW) were diesels were good continued to sell. The problem is that most people's experience with a diesel engine is the crap put out by us manufactures during the 80's which was garbage so naturally they think diesels suck. Those who experienced an import diesel have generally been pleased with them.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 2 years ago | (#36856456)

I think there are some tailpipe emissions laws that are hard/expensive to get around with diesel engines. Extra filters etc required to make the engine comply which add to the cost.

There is also the catch 22 problem of supply. The fuel depot around the corner closed down (is apparently being rebuilt...) a while back and while they had a diesel pump, it was always out of order whenever I wanted to fill up. If you know there isn't a place to get diesel fuel close by you might be less inclined to buy a diesel car.

My little C4 has done around 900km since I last filled up and is just today beeping at me telling me I should think about filling up again. And almost all of that 900km is city driving.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 2 years ago | (#36856506)

My reluctance to buy one is based on lack of options. I am looking for a 4 door sports sedan with a manual transmission and a diesel. Something akin to the Audi A6 or BMW 5 series. I saw a post lower that mentioned the A6, but the best I can find is that Audi announced they will be releasing an A6 TI in the next 24 to 30 months. This is the same thing they were saying 24 to 30 months ago. Another option would be a BMW 5 series, which also does not offer diesels in the U.S. Also, they would have to change their styling. BMWs have changed their styling to boring 90's era American styling. By comparison, today's American cars have more "European" styling than European cars. But there is precious little of interest in the way of American diesels either. You have your trucks, and your econoboxes. Zero fun family sized cars.

Re:Diesel MPG (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#36856522)

There isn't a reluctance. People have been demanding diesels for years.

Diesels have been limited by a combination of poorly constructed laws and lobbying by oil companies. Unlike Europe, the US measures a auto-manufacturer based on their "Fleet emissions" or the combination of emissions of all their cars combined. Trucks that haul cargo are measured differently so that's why you see big pickups that are diesels. At the same time, US diesel has for years contained high amounts of sulfur... something that is removed from European diesel by law. As a result the car manufactures strayed away from diesels in cars because the high sulfur content would damage modern equipment designed to lower diesel emissions and would in turn raise their fleet emissions and would prevent them from being able to "Spend" those emissions on much more profitable SUVs.

Oil companies lobbied heavily to keep this system in place... They certainly didn't want to spend extra money refining gas so car companies could build cars that used less of their product. But a few years ago, in a rare moment of sanity, our government finally required that sulfur be removed from diesel just as in Europe.

Hybrid Diesel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856042)

So they have mid 40s on a pure diesel engine. I wonder what you could get if you added a battery pack to that design?

Re:Hybrid Diesel (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 2 years ago | (#36856516)

So they have mid 40s on a pure diesel engine. I wonder what you could get if you added a battery pack to that design?

I've thought about this before too. Diesel engines are bigger and heavier, so there's a downside if you wanted to pack it full of batteries. Also I seem to remember that the Prius (and probably other hybrids) doesn't use a conventional 'otto cycle' petrol engine, rather an 'atkinson cycle' engine. The atkinson cycle engine is quite a bit more efficient and lighter but lower power. With all that in mind, the diesel seems like less of a good choice. Or maybe there is a different cycle of diesel engine available too that might better suit a hybrid?

Why is this on Slashdot? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#36856060)

Its not like diesel engines are some new technology or something.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot? (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | about 2 years ago | (#36856480)

Maybe Because they simply aren't sold in the US outside trucks? Even Chrysler which makes Diesel cars for Canada does not sell any in the US. I'd have to import one if I wanted to own a Diesel car here. Well outside the Jetta mentioned in the article. Diesel has been consider the unwanted stepchild in the US for ages while nearly half of all cars in Europe are diesel.

I've looked into diesel cars here, because they can be much more efficient, but buying one is a pain because they need to be imported and even then the requirements to be road rated in the US have meant reductions in fuel efficiency in the US anyways... Hence the mention that it barely gets better millage then the gas engine.

BMW 325d (1)

Colourspace (563895) | about 2 years ago | (#36856076)

50.4MPG, city and out of city, UK. America is really used to cheap gas isn't it?

Re:BMW 325d (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | about 2 years ago | (#36856110)

No--policy makers bought by both oil producers and car makers have set us up for this in order to maximize profits.

Re:BMW 325d (1)

doctor_subtilis (1266720) | about 2 years ago | (#36856396)

I'd say it goes deeper than just policy makers, oil companies and car manufacturers. I'd say it's deeply institutionally related to free market capitalism.

Re:BMW 325d (1)

cynyr (703126) | about 2 years ago | (#36856208)

$3.80/US GAL here, diesel is around $0.50 more i think. I would love to buy a diesel car, but none of my options here in the states include an all wheel drive car. by that i mean a car with 100% all wheel with at least a torque sensing variable center diff. Audi A3 is not "all wheel drive" it is "auto rear wheel when needed" I would like the ability to shift power towards a single wheel but that is hard to come by. Finding out which type of AWD is under a car is harder yet.

My 1999 Saturn SW2 5 speed slushbox gets 30MPG on my commute. that is US Gallons not Imperial Gallons. A new cruse(not the eco) is only like 35-38. so 13 years of development and i get less than 0.5 MPG per year. The 110 HP 90LBF power plant is "enough" for my commute, I can do 80-90 MPH with no problems if i needed to, but rarely get over 70 MPH as traffic sucks and the speed limits are 60 MPH.

your 50.4 mpg (uk) is the same as the VW diesels get here in the US when corrected for the different size gallons(42 mpg highway). There don't seem to be and VW diesels on the used market near me at all because a new Golf TDI manual runs round $26000-$28000. where as the same car with the gas engine runs around $4000 cheaper, or you could buy the GTI. We do not have a GTD here in the states, no no sporty diesel at all. As far as i know your 325D isn't here in the states either.

Re:BMW 325d (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#36856260)

Comparing a 99 SW2 and a 2011 cruse on only mileage is not fair. I am sure the newer one is safer, more comfortable, quieter and meets a whole host of other requirements your SW2 did not have too. Before comparing MPG at least compare curb weight. Your SW2 is under 2400lbs and the cruze is over 3100.

Re:BMW 325d (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856398)

Yes, we are. We give $4 billion a year to the oil industry while these multinational giants like Exxon Mobil rake in $40 billion in profits and pay no federal taxes. We topple democratically elected governments in oil-rich countries to install business friendly dictators. We topple those dictators after they're no longer friendly (to us) and install corrupt "democratically elected" officials that are business friendly. All of this feeds into the goal of keeping Amerika A-1 (with cheap gas). While it would be nice to blame one political party on the situation, they're both complicit, though one party believes that paying no federal taxes is too much tax, apparently.

Okay with our ultra-low sulfur diesel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856114)

I have a diesel Jeep Liberty and have to put in additive in the tank with every fill up because of it. Well, I don't have to, but it much better for the engine.

BMW 335d? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 2 years ago | (#36856116)

Anyone have experience with the BMW 335d?

I'm tempted, but really need 4wd where I work. (And I don't want a second car for the crummy weather.)

Re:BMW 335d? (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | about 2 years ago | (#36856160)

Great car, but for the price the expected payoff is well over 10 years. Useful if you need the extended range, but from an economy standpoint, it makes little sense.

Also keep in mind that diesel in the U.S. is more expensive than high-test.

$/watt vs $/gallon (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 2 years ago | (#36856316)

Also keep in mind that diesel in the U.S. is more expensive than high-test.

That varies but bear in mind that it is actually cheaper on a per-horsepower basis. Diesel has to be 15-20% more expensive to cost more for the same amount of horsepower. $/watt, diesel generally comes out ahead, even if it is slightly more per gallon at the pump.

Re:BMW 335d? (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 2 years ago | (#36856306)

Anyone have experience with the BMW 335d?

I've driven one. They are fantastic cars. Would be my very first choice in sedans if I were on the market today. Excellent power, good fuel economy, very nicely appointed, rather pricey. A good set of snow tires goes a LONG way to making up for the lack of 4WD. Bear in mind that 4WD only helps you when accelerating. It does nothing for you at constant speed or while braking.

Re:BMW 335d? (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about 2 years ago | (#36856568)

The BMW 520d gets 45 - more than the Prius.

I think the problem with diesels int he us s the new Urea requirements...

Re:BMW 335d? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856620)

The 335d is a FANTASTIC car, especially re-mapped. ;) Winter tyres/snow tyres on RWD will be better than a 4WD with ordinary (summer) tyres

Makes a whole lot more sense than... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856122)

Diesel power is old, tested, works well.

1) Diesel fuel will carry a vehicle further for a lot of reasons, but economically, it costs significantly more than standard unleaded in the United States.

2) They make a whole more sense than hybrids. Both from a complexity and lifetime cost standpoint.

3) GM's history with diesels in the United States has been wretched. I'd let someone else be a guinea pig first.

4) It makes a whole lot more sense than the politically motivated "Volt" (which is really a Cruze that makes no economic sense).

5) The cheapest car to own is the one you have now. Fix it, run it. I have in my "fleet", many cars. A Honda Accord with manual transmission (20 years old and 250K miles) is by far the most sensible. After 20 years, I had to fix two rust spots. The clutch is probably down to its last 10%. But even at that, fixing the clutch will cost a fraction of a new car.

6) The greenest car you can get is, again, the one you have right. Burning gas is the least important part of car ownership. The one you have now is built, it runs. Run it another 3 years. At the end of that time, run it another 3. Repeat, learn to turn a wrench and you'll have cheap transportation.

Re:Makes a whole lot more sense than... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#36856210)

On Number 5 that depends on where you live. If you drive it in the winter in WNY it will rust out.

Re:Makes a whole lot more sense than... (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 years ago | (#36856344)

#6: Well, no. Junk your 8 MPG Suburban grocery-getter and get an efficient sedan. You'll see a huge difference shortly.

Re:Makes a whole lot more sense than... (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | about 2 years ago | (#36856404)

$15,000 for a new car will pay for a lot of gas for the suburban.

I'm not defending the suburban, but you can't ignore the initial purchase price, particularly if the suburban is paid for. All you're buying is gas at that point.

Re:Makes a whole lot more sense than... (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 2 years ago | (#36856542)

$15,000 for a new car will pay for a lot of gas for the suburban.

I'm not defending the suburban, but you can't ignore the initial purchase price, particularly if the suburban is paid for. All you're buying is gas at that point.

'gas' isn't the only consumable that goes into a car. Tyres can be 2-5x the price on a big car compared to a little car. The service can be quite a bit more on a large car too (although a little turbo diesel can be surprisingly expensive to service, even if the service interval is 20000km).

What about a diesel Volt? (1)

swb (14022) | about 2 years ago | (#36856136)

Would that really make much difference in terms of fuel consumption?

Re:What about a diesel Volt? (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | about 2 years ago | (#36856604)

If you had a small diesel engine, that ran in a very low range of RPM's to power an electric motor, you would have the height of 1960's technology, the Diesel-Electric Locomotive. And it would be the best hybrid approach out there. SImple to run and maintain. There is a reason trains have been using them for decades now.

Reality Check Light (1)

bogidu (300637) | about 2 years ago | (#36856240)

Ok, so as I suspected, this concept throws alot of people and creates quite a bit of 'what-if' discussions.

As someone who has owned two diesel Jettas for the last 7 years and with few exceptions paid around 50 cents more per gallon . . . . . my range is about 700 miles per tank with both car (between 43-49 mpg). Most people I know that run gas cars fuel up every 350-400 miles. That coupled with decrease maintenance costs, and a straight-line highway commute of 50 miles each way everday makes them a great choice of transportation.

If you live in the city and don't use the cruise control much, commute in stop & go, etc, I highly recommend the other technology, hybrids. You'll find no one who bad mouths diesels more than someone who buys one because they see the 50mpg sticker then only drives 5 miles to work in stop and go and doesn't even let the engine get to operating temperature.

Just my 2.

Re:Reality Check Light (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#36856338)

If only I could find one at a reasonable price. The only used VW golf TDI within 150 miles is at 90k miles and they want $10,000 for it. The mileage does not worry me, but it being a 2002 does. The dealer wants $30k for a new one. That is BMW money not VW money. As someone who buys cars in cash, it is also too expensive for me.Sticker seems to be around $24,000 which is still way too much for such a small car that is going to rust. This is compared to the FIAT 500 for 15k.

I would pay huge amounts if someone made the following car, aluminum chassis and Turbo Diesel.

Re:Reality Check Light (1)

bogidu (300637) | about 2 years ago | (#36856534)

I own a 1999 and a 2000. You are absolutely right to worry about the age. Not for the mechanical aspects, just every other part of the car. In VW's ANYTHING made of plastic will break, that includes ALL of the interior parts (I have a dangling door panel), the TRANSMISSION LINKAGE, glove boxe doors, console, cupholders, etc. ALL of that crap starts breaking in short order. Hence why I'd REALLY like some competition in the market place.

Hi, it's 2011 (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 2 years ago | (#36856320)

I'd like to know what the MPG on the 6-speed manual version is."

Probably no better. This isn't 1981. Today's 6 and 7 speed automatic transmissions are efficient. They usually equal, and occasionally beat the manuals in some cases. Check out the current mustang for example, the auto and manual get the same mileage in city, and the auto gets 2mpg more than the manual on the hwy. On the V8 version, the manual pulls ahead slightly on the hwy, but the automatic beats it in the city. on the new premium model Boss 302, the automatic beats the manual on both city and hwy by several mpg.

So, really, manuals are just "for fun" now. for people who "want to feel like they're really driving the car". Basically, for people who learned on a manual and have a superiority complex about it.

source: http://mustangs.about.com/od/fuelmileagestatistics/a/2012-Ford-Mustang-Epa-Gas-Mileage-Estimates.htm [about.com]

Re:Hi, it's 2011 (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#36856420)

Not at all. A manual in a car without 200+ horsepower is a big advantage. Not everyone wants to get 12 mpg just so they can avoid learning to drive a car. An automatic can't know a steep grade is coming soon and to shift down early, by the time it shifts it is already too late. Sure you never notice in your mustang, but those of us with normal cars sure do. An automatic also can't shift down and coast in gear to slow as you come to a red light. Instead it lets you coast without engine breaking and you get to use the brakes for no good reason.

Re:Hi, it's 2011 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856648)

Mine shifts down quite happily when coasting to a stop. At most it needs a feather on the brake - anything else is poor technique.

Re:Hi, it's 2011 (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | about 2 years ago | (#36856426)

Manual transmissions save money on the initial purchase price and long term maintenance. In many

I would recommend a manual for anyone who intends to keep a car longer than 5 years or drives lots of miles.

A big reason people get rid of their car just after the century mark is the automatic transmission fails, and the replacement price is upwards of $2-6K depending on the brand. At that point, people opt to buy a new car. Manual transmissions are bulletproof and will last as long as the engine in the car.

Re:Hi, it's 2011 (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#36856508)

Any idea why automatics are built the way they are? It seems like a computer controlled manual should be build-able. Have the same transmission, just shift it via pneumatics or electronics.

Re:Hi, it's 2011 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856566)

I had a Honda Civic DX hatchback (4-speed) and was able to achieve 53 mpg. It's EPA rating was 40mpg [msn.com]. It was routine to get 45-50 mpg and I usually drove 75mph on the interstate.

My 1996 Geo Prizm is rated for 27mpg [fueleconomy.gov], but typically gets 33 and has gotten 40.5.

My 2001 Toyota Prius gets 40mpg at 80+ mph and 60-ish mpg when going 48 mph.
It's rated for 41 mpg [fueleconomy.gov].
5500 mile cross country trip with 85mph interstate speeds - 45 mpg.

The ratings are wrong.
Your mileage will vary by 25-50% from the test numbers.
Not all drivetrains are equivalent, some will surge and waste fuel like the GMC Acadia. [edmunds.com] It's rated for 23 mpg [fueleconomy.gov] and some people are only getting 13. (76% error)

Manual transmissions are best since you can see the road ahead and shift accordingly.
Being in top gear with the engine idling while going downhill is an excellent way to conserve fuel.
It also allows you to downshift just before going up a hill without having to step on the gas.

I bet a fuel-conscious driver in that mustang you linked could get 30-35 mpg.

Re:Hi, it's 2011 (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 2 years ago | (#36856598)

I'd like to know what the MPG on the 6-speed manual version is."

Probably no better. This isn't 1981. Today's 6 and 7 speed automatic transmissions are efficient. They usually equal, and occasionally beat the manuals in some cases.

I get the best of both worlds. 6 speed manual transmission with no clutch pedal and automatic gear changes, so in theory I get the efficiency of a manual and the ease of an automatic. Unfortunately, because it's still internally a manual transmission and the robot still has to do the clutch and gear shift etc, the gear changes are a little slow (or a little rough, in sport mode), and because of the 'expense' of a gearchange, the car is sometimes reluctant to change gears when it maybe should. I have little paddles at my fingertips for changing up and down though if I think i know better than the car. I like driving it :)

Re:Hi, it's 2011 (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#36856676)

Eww. I hate having to have my shift approved by the committee. Which is what it feels like in a paddle shift car. You do know better than the car. It has no idea that a hill is coming up, or that you just hit the apex of the hill, or that you need to stay in lower gear going down a steep grade to avoid boiling the brakes.

Will it sell? (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 years ago | (#36856328)

Diesels are more expensive, in part because they require a turbocharger to get decent performance.

Diesel fuel in the States is also tens of cents more expensive per gallon.

Therefore I don't see an economic argument for this thing gaining acceptance.

Re:Will it sell? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#36856460)

The gained mileage is more than making up for the cost of fuel. As to your first point, diesels last a lot longer than gas cars, in the USA that won't matter as people love to be in debt for cars.

Re:Will it sell? (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | about 2 years ago | (#36856464)

The range is a big reason for choosing a diesel.

Also, the torque on a diesel makes it well suited for many applications.

Re:Will it sell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856526)

Funny, but the 1982 VW diesel Rabbits were getting 50MPG

VW has 100+MPG diesel vehicles in South America.
It's about time to up the bar. The cost on vehicles and fossil fuels needs to go down.

Re:Will it sell? (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | about 2 years ago | (#36856544)

A non-turbo diesel engine and a diesel engine are nearly identical, the process that is used to make a engine a 'diesel' engine needs very little work to be turbocharged. This is why often diesel engines only come 'turbocharged' and one reason I've heard it said that turbocharging a diesel is 'free'. So I don't think you quite understand how a diesel works or why turbocharged diesels are so common. While I'm not an expert by any means, I have in fact read up on the subject I suggest you do to.

On the other hand turbocharging a gasoline engine takes considerably more work and is done far more rarely. It is also expensive in gasoline engines to turbocharge them.

Re:Will it sell? (1)

nblender (741424) | about 2 years ago | (#36856612)

I drive a diesel land cruiser up here in canada, eh? It's not all fancy and electronic... Mechanical injectors and a mechanical denso injection pump.. Diesel here in Canada typically hovers around the price of gasoline... Sometimes higher, sometimes lower... The price of diesel fluctuates after gasoline does; perhaps because there's lower turnover on the diesel pumps.

One advantage to diesel that is a disadvantage with gasoline is that diesel can live in a gerry can or tank for months and not go 'bad' whereas gasoline has a shelf life of about a month... If you don't drive your vehicle frequently, you need to add fuel stabilizer to the tank. This is why people have trouble with gas powered 'toys' and 'tools' (chain saws, outboard motors, lawn mowers, RVs)... They don't get used regularly enough and the fuel sits around...

I can also fuel up at the grocery store, if I want to pay extra for canola oil... Or if my wife is deep-frying tempura or something, I can pour the fat through a coffee filter straight into my tank and my truck actually likes it...

The new diesels are so sensored up the wazoo that I'm not sure this sort of thing is advisable...

Another problem with diesel is that in extreme cold temperatures, it gels. Here in Canada, starting about september, my mileage drops about 2mpg(US) because the producers have switched to 'winter diesel'... About May, my mileage returns.

Re:Will it sell? (1)

bogidu (300637) | about 2 years ago | (#36856614)

Economic argument?

15Gal x 3.45 = $51.75 = 480 miles driven @ 32mpg
15Gal x 3.85 = $57.75 = 700 miles driven @ 46mpg

For an extra $6 per tankful I get an extra 220 miles. Where do these numbers come from? My comparison of my 2000 Jetta TDI vs. my neighbors 2007 Chevy HHR (a pretty typical gas powered car).

I'd go on about not having to change the oil about every 12,000 miles but I have to admit that gas engines has REALLY improved in this area, the old every 3000 mile rule doesn't really exist anymore.

The only maintenance I have to do to the Jetta TDI is change the oil and replace the timing belt every 100,000 miles. If a person plans on keeping their vehicles until they're no longer viable as transportation, they will save you TONS of cash in the long run.

Re:Will it sell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856650)

Diesel fuel has to be 30% more expensive than gasoline to be at price parity for energy content [wikipedia.org]. That means that if unleaded is $4.00/gallon, Diesel needs to be $5.20/gallon to cost the same for the energy content. Diesel will have a higher apparent price, but you get more bang for your buck. All that matters is BTUs/dollar and whether using the fuel will destroy your engine. Ethanol is corrosive and will cause problems, especially with liners in fuel tanks.

It is a question of tax models (1)

jeskata (1976438) | about 2 years ago | (#36856502)

In Finland (and many other European countries) we have an annual diesel tax (around 500e on a mid sized car, weight dependent). On the other hand, diesel costs (yesterday average) 1.379e/l and 95 octane gasoline 1.586e/l. So with the same mid sized car you have to drive around 10 000 km per year to break even.

Re:It is a question of tax models (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#36856520)

In the USA people drive about 12000 miles per year, which is about 20000 km.

Re:It is a question of tax models (1)

jeskata (1976438) | about 2 years ago | (#36856546)

Silliest thing is, atleast in Finland they collect this tax on electric vehicles too (not hybrids though). I stick to gasoline since I drive around 8000 km per year.

OMG Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856528)

Burning diesel produces more CO2 than burning gasoline because the diesel molecule has relatively more carbons and fewer hydrogens than the gasoline molecule.

If you believe that CO2 controls the climate, you will believe that diesel is an evil fuel and natural gas is less evil in terms of global warming. Think of the children.

Re:OMG Global Warming (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#36856574)

You are comparing the wrong thing. You should compare Co2 released per mile of travel as opposed to per gallon of fuel.

Chevy Cruize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36856642)

Isn't chevrolet owned by GM? Then, it could be the same 'Holden' Cruize that we get in Australia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Cruze#Holden_Cruze

Tragically, it will fail (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#36856694)

Three things will almost guarantee it to fail:
  • Many US consumers still think of the 70s/80s diesel monstrosities that the big three were making
  • GM won't market it worth a damn - see the Jeep Liberty Diesel as a good example of a good product that wasn't marketed for shit
  • Dealers won't carry it because they don't want to confuse their customers

Which is too bad, because it could be a great vehicle for a lot of people who want better fuel economy with excellent reliability and tremendous range.

Diesel Ford Focus (1)

Y-Crate (540566) | about 2 years ago | (#36856698)

Whatever happened to Ford's plans to sell a diesel Focus in the U.S. by 2006 or so? I remember that it was a Big Thing for a while, then just... never materialized.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...