No Diesel Cars: Compact & Mid-Size Cars After 2010

Hello,

According to Spiegel magazine, as of today (January 28, 2004), it was like this.


"Die Ergebnisse der Studie zeigen, dass regelmäßige Bewegung einen positiven Einfluss auf die psychische Gesundheit hat. Insbesondere Frauen profitieren von sportlicher Betätigung, da sie weniger Stress und Angstzustände erleben. Darüber hinaus wurde festgestellt, dass Bewegung die Schlafqualität verbessert und das Selbstbewusstsein stärkt."

Zitat Ende:

AUTOMOBILES

Frugal stinker.

Europe's major car manufacturers are worried about losing their key advantage: stricter EU emission limits threaten the end of the diesel engine.

The engine sounds like a distant thunderstorm. Insulated with soundproofing that is only a few millimeters thick, a powerful engine with immense driving force rumbles beneath the hood of the VW Phaeton, a luxury car.
The ten-cylinder diesel engine in this high-performance flagship model produces 313 horsepower, but even with spirited driving, it consumes only about ten liters per 100 kilometers – roughly five liters less than gasoline engines in comparable luxury cars.



VW luxury sedan Phaeton: "Diesel engines will only survive in larger cars."
Currently, the most powerful diesel engine ever produced for passenger cars is the crowning achievement of a success story for a particular engine type, a story that the Volkswagen Group began over 20 years ago. With the first Golf GTD and later the even more powerful TDI models, Volkswagen and its subsidiary Audi transformed the once sluggish heating oil engine into a popular choice and inspired imitators. Diesel engines have now become a key asset for European automotive companies in the international technological race, and their market share has increased dramatically.
However, this ingenious technology faces an imminent end – specifically, in just six years, with the implementation of the Euro 5 emission standards. These standards are expected to set very low limits for nitrogen oxide emissions for both gasoline and diesel engines. Engineers fear that they will fail to meet this challenge.

The rise of diesel engines in Europe was less a result of good engineering and more a product of effective lobbying: diesel engines only gained popularity because EU legislation allowed them to emit significantly higher levels of pollutants.

In reality, the "fuel-efficient" engine is a dirty one. Most diesel vehicles currently offered have no exhaust gas treatment system. Their exhaust gases simply escape into the open air through an open pipe.

With official approval, they emit a multiple of the forest-damaging nitrogen oxides compared to gasoline engines with catalytic converters. In addition, diesel exhaust releases soot particles, which are considered carcinogenic, that do not occur during the combustion of gasoline.

The EU Commission, which sets the limits for pollutant emissions, has so far accepted this. Even the Euro 4 directive, which will come into effect next year, will allow diesel cars to emit three times more nitrogen oxides than gasoline cars, and will still be relatively lenient regarding particulate emissions. Many diesel vehicles already meet these limits without exhaust treatment systems such as catalytic converters or particulate filters.

However, the grace period will come to an end. With equal treatment for diesel and gasoline engines, and stricter particulate matter limits starting in 2010, these requirements will only be met with double exhaust aftertreatment: a catalytic converter for NOx reduction and a filter for soot control.

However, according to VW CEO Bernd Pischetsrieder, this would cause the cost of the diesel engine to rise to an unbearable level. The "ridiculous little filter" for particulate matter is less problematic. In contrast, the catalytic converter for reducing nitrogen oxides is "much more sensitive and significantly more expensive." Overall, the VW CEO estimates the cost of such a system to be around 2000 euros.

These kinds of arguments evoke the 1980s, when the automotive industry stubbornly resisted the introduction of catalytic converters for gasoline engines, which later proved to be relatively straightforward.



DER SPIEGEL
Percentage of diesel-powered passenger cars in new registrations.
Toyota, of all companies, is now a leader in diesel technology. Japan's largest automaker, highly profitable and wealthy, can afford to invest in environmental technologies. The pioneer of hybrid technology is now also taking the lead in diesel technology. Toyota now offers catalytic converters and particulate filters as optional extras on its Avensis mid-size sedan - at an additional cost of 800 euros.
Even this relatively small increase, although significantly lower than predicted by the VW CEO, shows that the future is very uncertain for diesel vehicles. Manufacturers are already making less profit on diesel cars than on vehicles with gasoline engines. Diesel cars are considerably more expensive to produce, but can only be offered at a price slightly above that of gasoline cars, otherwise they would have no chance in the market.

Furthermore, the previous fuel efficiency advantage will diminish. According to realistic estimates, diesel engines with particulate filters and catalytic converters consume approximately six to eight percent more fuel. Gasoline engines, on the other hand, are expected to become significantly more fuel-efficient again towards the end of the decade. Developers are currently hoping for considerable fuel consumption reductions through further refinements in valve control. In addition, the potential of gasoline direct injection has not yet been fully exploited.

In addition, the combustion of gasoline results in approximately twelve percent less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide being emitted. Regarding the impact on the climate, engine developers estimate that diesel and gasoline engines could become equally impactful in a few years.

It is therefore expected that diesel engines, which have been heavily promoted for a long time, will soon play only a minor role in mass motorization.

"The diesel engine will not be phased out," predicts VW CEO Pischetsrieder. "However, it will only survive in larger vehicles." In the price range of high-end sedans and SUVs, the additional cost for exhaust gas treatment can be absorbed.

However, the Golf TDI is likely to no longer be produced in 2010.

CHRISTIAN WÜST

"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog."

Best regards,
Christian.

It's strange that the CO2 emissions are never mentioned in articles like these, especially considering that the catalytic converter was introduced in gasoline engines to reduce emissions. Does a diesel engine produce significantly less CO2 than a gasoline engine, or not?

Hello,

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/automobil/artikel/724/11713/

Well, let's see. In any case, the government will do everything it can to ensure that new cars are sold . It's supposed to boost the economy (if there's no other solution ).

Utterly nonsensical and technically flawed. It's not even worth bothering to refute the individual points.

Hello everyone,

I also read the article on Spiegel Online this morning... and then I thought for a long time about whether to post it here, write an email to the editors, or just leave it alone. Ultimately, laziness won, but basically, you really should write to them, because there's so much nonsense in those lines that it simply can't go unaddressed.

Okay, please provide the German text you want me to translate. I will provide the English translation without any explanations.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,283740,00.html

Even though I completely agree with Christian, here are just a few thoughts:

Quote:

Most diesel vehicles currently offered for sale do not have any exhaust gas treatment systems in their exhaust pipes.

AGR? Cat?

Does the author know what a modern diesel engine looks like and how it works?

Quote:

Furthermore, the combustion of gasoline results in approximately twelve percent less emission of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

I have no idea if that's true, but even if it is: Ultimately, with 30% less consumption, you end up with less.

"And so on... maybe someone should really write to them and give the author the link to this forum."

I'm afraid he wouldn't be able to handle the application process.

Best regards,

Jan.

LOL...

I haven't laughed this much in a long time...

btw Jan: Logically, burning gasoline produces less CO2. If you burn the same volume of diesel and gasoline...
keyword: calorific value / energy content
When calculating the specific consumption, gasoline and diesel are not that different.

The authors should really install an exhaust gas analyzer in their oil heating system... it's making a lot of noise.

The rest hardly needs any comment.

It's true that direct injection engines will become more common. However, GDI engines are also considerably more expensive than their conventional counterparts.

It is also true that exhaust aftertreatment is easier to implement in gasoline engines.
However, both will inevitably involve NOx storage catalysts. Ironically, all this exhaust gas treatment actually produces more exhaust.

It's just like with smartphones. The main thing is to talk badly about them...
A Euro 4 diesel engine releases more particulate matter into the air from tire and brake wear than from exhaust emissions, and people don't even notice.

By the way, Saab once conducted a great experiment. They measured the emissions of a lawnmower during an average lawn mowing session. Then, they got into a brand new car... after over 6000 km, the emissions were equal... and that was in the 90s .

In five years, oil heating systems will likely become the scapegoat.

anecdote:
My uncle had to install a dust extraction system in his limestone quarry, near the crusher and screening plant, due to emissions regulations. The quarry is located in a wooded area. When the silo is full, forestry companies, among others, collect the limestone dust and spread it in the forest.

CU Gremlin.

'You know, a lawnmower or a scooter today produces the same amount of exhaust as 40 cars...'

Hello!

In this context, the following might also be very interesting:

http://www.all4engineers.com/preview.php?alloc=33&lng=de&id=53

Here's the translation:

"It is possible to reduce exhaust emissions by using designer biofuels derived from biomass."

Quote:

Today, a lawnmower or a scooter produces the same amount of exhaust as 40 cars...

Sure, well, that's definitely the case when lawnmowers and scooters have four-stroke engines ...

I cannot accept the claim about exhaust fumes being 40 times higher. Because 'exhaust fumes' refers to the total amount of gases escaping from the exhaust, and a scooter or lawnmower would have to work incredibly hard to match the exhaust output of 40 cars!
It likely refers to the gases that are declared as 'toxic,' although the absolute main component of the exhaust gas, CO2, is not included in that category. After all, each of us breathes in this substance with a 4% concentration, and for plants around the world, it is even the limiting factor for growth!

Gremlin wrote:

btw jan: logically, less CO2 is produced when gasoline is burned compared to diesel. This is because, when burning the same volume of diesel and gasoline... keyword: calorific value / energy content When calculating the specific consumption, gasoline and diesel are not that different from each other

.
Hi Ralf,

and how do you then comment on/explain the difference in CO2 emissions?
Example Polo with 100 horsepower:
Gasoline: 158 grams per kilometer.
TDI = 132 g/km.

The FSI engine comes close to the TDI in terms of emissions, with 139 g/km.
This 1.4-liter "toy engine" only produces 86 horsepower and also has less weight to pull: 1032 kg instead of 1115 kg (TDI).

Even "my" future 130 hp TDI with a curb weight of 1155 kg only emits 136 grams of CO2 per kilometer.
And how the temperament of an 86 HP FSI engine will stand out, despite its weight advantage of approximately 10%, is something the discerning reader can easily imagine.

@Ulf:

>And the reader can easily imagine how the temperament of an 86 horsepower FSI engine will stand out, despite its weight advantage of approximately 10%.

I had the chance to test drive the 110 HP FSI engine in the (lightweight) Audi A2 when my own car was being serviced.
I can only say "speechless" ... This thing simply doesn't deliver. I would definitely prefer the 100 HP TDI over this any day. And the small FSI in the Polo has 200 ccm less .

and how do you then comment on/explain the difference in CO2 emissions?
Example Polo with 100 horsepower:
Gasoline: 158 grams per kilometer.
TDI = 132 g/km.

The FSI engine comes close to the TDI in terms of emissions, with 139 g/km.


I actually meant direct injection engines. When you consider energy consumption, gasoline and diesel engines are quite similar.

Our diesel engines are primarily considered 'fuel-efficient' only because we measure fuel consumption by volume, and diesel contains more energy per volume .

There was an interesting article about that in MTZ once... I think it's somewhere on my hard drive... grumble...

CU Gremlin.

Hi,

The statement about the nearly equal fuel consumption is only true for the gasoline engine within a narrow power/RPM range.

Outside of this specific model, the fuel consumption of all gasoline-powered vehicles increases significantly.

'Direct injection engines switch to a less efficient mode at higher power outputs and then consume about 10-15% more fuel than regular gasoline engines. This means that they consume a lot of fuel on the highway, especially at speeds above 140 km/h. (A colleague of mine bought one because he drives 90 km on the highway every day at speeds exceeding 160 km/h to get to work, and he'll soon be furious).'

Bei allen modernen Benzinern muß der nunmehr direkt am Auslass des Zylinders untergebrachte 1.Kat bei höherer Leistung gekühlt werden, und zwar mit Kraftstoffüberschuss - Ihr lest richtig, die überfetten das Gemisch ! Von wegen Magermix. Das geht weil dieser Leistungsbereich bei der Typprüfung nicht abgefragt wird. ( Sog. Zykl(User ID!)

In this area, modern gasoline engines consume up to 20% more fuel than necessary, all thanks to emission control systems! (Was there not something about CO2?)

At low power levels, gasoline engines with throttle valves experience pumping losses because the engine draws in air with reduced (throttled) pressure, but then expels it against the external pressure. This essentially causes the engine to operate continuously as a compressor.

In other words: The diesel engine is very fuel-efficient across its entire power range, while gasoline engines, even those with direct injection, have a very narrow fuel consumption optimum.

That's also the reason why I can drive a TDI with a fuel consumption of 1.5 liters per 100 kilometers through a 30 km/h zone, while a gasoline engine would consume around 6-8 liters.

Is that something that can be traced back?
The gasoline engine already consumes 2-3 liters per hour when idling, compared to the TDI's 0.6 liters per hour.
Okay, so that's 2 liters per hour more. At a speed of 30 km/h, that's roughly 3 hours for 100 km. So, 3 times 2 liters equals 6 liters more, which corresponds to what I've read on the onboard computers.

Direct injection engines switch to a homogeneous combustion mode at higher power levels and then consume about 10-15% more fuel than normal gasoline engines; in other words, they consume a lot of fuel on the highway at speeds above 140 km/h. (Someone like a colleague of mine who buys one because they drive 90 km on the highway every day at speeds exceeding 160 km/h to work will soon bite the table leg out of frustration.)
'So, my ALH engine also consumes a lot of fuel when I drive at that speed. The fuel consumption reading then shows a '7' before the decimal point...'
'And why does an FSI engine consume more fuel in homogeneous mode than a regular fuel-injected engine, which always runs in homogeneous mode? Our experience is that FSI engines consume just as much fuel as non-FSI engines when driven hard.'


In this area, modern gasoline engines consume up to 20% more fuel than necessary; long live exhaust gas treatment! (Wasn't there something about CO2?)
It's the same with particulate filters and NOx catalysts, as I mentioned earlier.


With low power output, in a gasoline engine with a throttle, the pumping losses become significant because the engine draws in air with low (throttled) pressure, but then pushes against the external pressure. This causes it to constantly operate like a compressor!
That's why we're looking at direct injectors. They keep the throttle valve open over a wide range and, like a diesel engine, control the power output through stratified charge combustion, but only by adjusting the amount of fuel injected.


That's also the reason why I can drive a TDI with a fuel consumption of 1.5 liters per 100 kilometers through a 30 km/h zone, while a gasoline car would consume around 6-8 liters.

Is that something that can be traced back?
The gasoline engine already consumes 2-3 liters per hour when idling, compared to the TDI's 0.6 liters per hour.
Okay, so that's 2 liters per hour more. At a speed of 30 km/h, that's roughly 3 hours for 100 km. So, 3 times 2 liters equals 6 liters more, which corresponds to what I've read on the onboard computers.

I read something different about the 1.8T. In standstill conditions, with the A/C on, it's 0.9 liters per hour. My ALH engine also needs that much... without the A/C, both engines go down to 0.7 liters per hour. What kind of engine do you have that needs 2-3 liters per hour when idling?

I'd like to clarify one thing: we should only consider direct injection systems here. Indirect injection (IDI) won't be viable in gasoline engines. Interestingly, the next generation of engine control units, the ME(D)-7, will be used for both gasoline and diesel engines, as they are both common-rail systems.

CU Gremlin.