
Why do Americans not drive diesels? - bsg75
http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130109-why-do-americans-not-buy-diesels
======
ams6110
This piece really does not hit on the reason Diesel is not popular in the US.
Back in the 1970s energy crisis, diesel cars drew some interest, and
unfortunately General Motors obliged with some horrendous products. Smelly,
smokey, slow, and highly trouble prone diesel engine that was essentially a
gasoline 350 cubic inch V8 block with diesel heads slapped onto it. Used in
Oldsmobiles, Chevys, and Cadillacs, it was a disaster and ruined the diesel
concept for decades.

See [http://www.autosavant.com/2009/08/11/the-cars-that-killed-
gm...](http://www.autosavant.com/2009/08/11/the-cars-that-killed-gm-the-
oldsmobile-diesel/) for some history.

~~~
api
"What's good for GM is good for America" used to be a quote around Washington.
What an awful company, and a cautionary tale about taking "public/private
partnership" way too far. GM also ruined Los Angeles -- look up the transit
system LA/OC used to have prior to GM's purchase of it and lobbying. LA would
be a much nicer and more livable city had GM not had such influence.

GM really should have been allowed to die in 2008.

~~~
mdellabitta
AFAIK, the reason why it wasn't was that it would ruin the supply chains of
the other automakers.

~~~
organsnyder
Not sure why you're being downvoted. That's a huge part of the reason: Due to
the nature of the auto industry, many suppliers only have a few customers;
take away a third of a company's business, and there's a good chance it will
fail.

The entire economy of Michigan (and many neighboring states) would have
collapsed. Over here in West Michigan, we have many companies—ranging from
mom-and-pop injection mold shops with 50 employees to large companies like
Gentex, Delphi, etc. Those companies were already struggling back in 2008; GM
going away would have meant the death of most of them.

I hate many of GM's historical business practices as much as anyone (there
used to be two streetcar lines within a quarter-mile of my home, dammit), but
the saving of GM was a critical component in preventing a catastrophic
depression, especially for Michigan—which was already suffering before the
Great Recession hit.

~~~
davidw
IIRC, even companies like Toyota who were not in trouble wanted to keep the
supply chain around and thus favored the bailout.

------
blhack
Americans really _want_ to drive diesels. There is a huge demand for diesel
volkswagens.

The supply just isn't there; maybe there is a lag between cost-unconscious
new-car buyers [ordering new cars], and cost-conscious used-car buyers [buying
what the new car buyers leave].

Source: I used to work in the automotive remarketing industry.

~~~
jcastro
Loved our Volkswagen Sportwagen TDI.

One of the problems is that VW that they add premium options to the TDI
marque. So you can't get a bare bones Jetta TDI without the highest trim
level, fancy wheels, and other things that add to the cost. On top of that the
gasoline ones are efficient enough where the price difference becomes a non-
factor, even when taking the MPG into account.

They are damn fun to drive though, torquey without the compromises of a 4
cylinder gasoline engine. The used market on the sportwagens is great too,
which is why we ultimately traded it in for a Tiguan since the demand for the
wagens was high enough to make that a relatively easy financial decision.

Unfortunately VW doesn't do diesel Tiguans in the US, which is weird, you'd
think the SUV market would be a no-brainer for TDI.

~~~
Fomite
I seriously considered the Golf TDI, and didn't mind the premium options, but
I ended up not liking the high-torque of the turbo diesel on the front (both
my wife and I could picture us slamming into the back of someone in DC
traffic), and went with the GTI instead.

~~~
huuu
Are you serious? Isn't the GTI still faster?

~~~
Fomite
The GTI is _faster_ but has less up-front torque. The issue was not hurtling
down the highway at high speed (both can do that perfectly ably), but the
feeling we both got that the combination of early torque and turbo lag just
begging for the car to surge forward unexpectedly and rear end someone.

The GTI gets rid of one of those problems, and is a spectacular car in its own
right.

------
rsp1984
Curiously in Germany Diesel is actually cheaper than regular gas at the gas
station. This is because it's taxed differently. So a Diesel car saves Germans
money two times (less fuel consumption and less price per tank) as compared to
a gas engine car, which is why they are extremely popular over here.

That said, on an absolute level in Germany Diesel is still about 1.7x more
expensive than Diesel in the US and about 2x more expensive than gas in the
US.

~~~
_nedR
Same case currently in India, where petrol is heavily taxed and diesel is
subsidized (Ostensibly as a farmers subsidy to run irrigation pumps but also
because diesel prices are strongly tied to price of essential commodities).
Price per litre is about 1 usd for petrol and 80 cents for diesel. This might
change in the future as the current govt. seeks to end diesel subsidies.

Also, It should be noted that the Total Cost of Ownership benefits is not
clear cut. Diesel generally has higher Miles per gallon rating, and is cheaper
in some countries like India. But diesel engines are more expensive to make,
maintain (bills for routine service are higher) and do require a expensive
rebuild after a few hundred thousand kilometers (Newer diesel engines have got
much better in this regard).

On a side note, it is quite hard to find hard data on the true TCO of cars
that can help consumers make a decision.

------
lmm
Diesel is still a dirty fuel and has done a lot of health damage in Europe.
The US has lucked out of this one. See e.g.
[http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/the-great-car-con-
ch...](http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/the-great-car-con-
channel-4-dispatches)

~~~
pjlegato
>Diesel is still a dirty fuel and has done a lot of health damage in Europe.

Gasoline is also a dirty fuel that does a lot of health damage, but the
particles in the exhaust are much smaller and less visible, so people
mistakenly assume it's cleaner and better than visible Diesel smoke.

Gasoline is arguably worse, since the tiny invisible particulate matter in the
exhaust can stay airborne much longer than the larger, heavier particles in
Diesel exhaust.

------
irixusr
Diesel in the US is expensive (currently more than a dollar/gal). This is due
to tax differences between the fuels.

But the article makes a point that I find irksome:

"with lots of relaxed muscle available at low rpms"

Diesels can't rev high (harder to burn, heavier reciprocating parts). So
diesels are tuned for low rpm and they all have turbo chargers. By contrast
gasoline cars can rev high, so they are tuned for it. Most gasoline cars
aren't turbo charged and those that are, are given turbos for the high end.
Tune a gas engine right, give it a turbo as well, and it'll get all the
diesel's low end power.

I like diesels, but they are absolutely non sensical in the US.

\- The high price of diesel cancels the mpg advantage. \- The "torquey"
argument is total BS (see below _) - that 's why a car maker includes a
transmission. \- Nor is engine longevity true anymore ( or inherent to
diesels): an average driver's car body (or electronics, or accessories, or
rods, ect) will rot before the engine dies.

_While I'm at it, Power = torque * rpm. There is no such thing as a "torquey"
vs "powerful" engine. If you know one, you know the other. The "torque" vs.
"Power" discussion is a proxy for the Power (or torque) vs. rpm and how broad
it is. There is actually no reason to know the torque (unlike the curve
itself) of an engine __

 __Unless you 're designing the engine, when you actually have to know the
torsional stress on the materials.

~~~
avn2109
>> "I like diesels, but they are absolutely non sensical in the US."

Here's a counterpoint: In my hometown, by far the best-selling passenger
vehicles are the Dodge Ram diesels. And having driven a couple of them, they
do feel pretty sensical (and very satisfying).

Source: My friend owns a bunch of dealerships

~~~
irixusr
What do you mean by sensical or satisfying?

Your friend's diesel is turbo charged, unlike any gasoline powered light truck
in the US. And their displacements are, for the most part, larger. Tuned for
low end power, and you get the sensation of "easy" power because you don't
have to rev the engine. My old grand marquis had a "measly" 200 hp from a 4.6
l gasoline, less than my sister's 1.8 T VW. My 200 were always available, my
sister's golf had to scream.

So what? Don't get queasy about downshifting and making your engine scream, in
moderation. On a modern car, with our roads the way they are, the engine will
outlast the car.

Don't get me wrong. On a large pickup, and given the appropriate task, diesels
make sense in the USA. But not for most people.

------
sremani
I would love to drive a diesel, but the choice is limited to mostly VW. There
are no minivans in US market that run on Diesel and SUVs that run on diesel
are marked about 4k+ compared to their gasoline cousins. The other thing is
cost, Diesel costs more and if you factor the mileage/cost in most cases
gasoline comes ahead. The beauty of Diesel engines is ability to run on
Biodiesel, which is better than ethanol/gasoline flex-fuel engines which for
whatever reason are popular (in terms of availability). All in all Europeans
have tremendous choice with their Diesel vehicles, Americans do not. It is egg
and chicken problem. I think on top of it there is some Diesel pollution
related regulation, which is stringent in US than in Europe, preventing car
manufacturers simply moving around European Diesel models to US.

edit: mostly german manufacturers VW, MB are trying to bring diesel, where as
Japanese and American manufacturers are barely testing waters, actually FIAT-
Chrysler is the one testing waters.

~~~
MCRed
Car makers like Toyota, Mazda and the like all make diesel versions of the
same cars-- they sell them in the UK and Australia. They cannot import them to
the USA because of the "anti-smog" rules. IT's not chicken and egg-- the cars
are there, and produced for other markets.

It's pure regulation.

~~~
quasse
What is it that prevents Toyota and Mazda from selling those diesel cars when
most manufacturers are already selling pickups with large diesels?

~~~
ptaipale
Not sure, but there could be regulatory reasons. In the US there are these
funny quotas for having to have so and so many cars below certain fuel
consumption levels. And those quotas do not apply to pickup trucks, because
they are not cars.

This is rather silly, but it's the kind of thing that comes up when
environmentalists and industry lobbyists are unleashed among politicians.

~~~
wolfgke
> This is rather silly, but it's the kind of thing that comes up when
> environmentalists and industry lobbyists are unleashed among politicians.

Industry lobbyists - accepted. But why should environmentalists accept such
stupid, environmentally harmful laws?

~~~
ptaipale
It's not easy to see how the mechanisms actually work, but I suppose it
happens because those negotiations are more about power games than actual,
rational processes towards specific goals.

The relevant emission regulations are described in
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy)

"CAFE has separate standards for "passenger cars" and "light trucks", despite
the majority of "light trucks" actually being used as passenger cars. The
market share of "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in 2001
and remained in 50% numbers up to 2011."

Thus, the very legislation designed to reduce emissions has resulted in
Americans buying bigger and bigger vehicles. From Europe, the rationale for
this legislation is hard to understand.

------
joshuapants
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it would be feasible to move all or
most cars in the US to use diesel. Diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel are all
petroleum distillates that boil off at different temperatures. So each barrel
of oil contains so many units of gasoline, so many units of diesel, and so
many units of jet fuel/kerosene/mineral oil/whatever.

And I believe that you get much more gasoline out of a barrel of oil than you
get diesel, so moving many cars over to diesel would actually increase oil
consumption it seems.

~~~
ams6110
Used to be this way. Diesel used to be something of a waste product from
refinining gasoline. As a result it was both somewhat dirty and also cheaper
than gasoline.

Today, refining technology and hydrocracking allows a barrel of oil to be
refined almost completely into whatever end product the refiner wants. Diesel,
kerosene, jet fuel (which are all pretty much the same thing actually) or
gasoline. So now these refined products are priced more by their energy
content which is why the pricing has flipped and diesel now costs more per
gallon than gasoline (but can still be more economical overall).

~~~
e12e
There didn't use to be any "diesel fuel", Diesel designed his engine to work
on plant oils and other renewable (for some value of renewable that's better
than gasoline, but more at odds with food production). The oil industry
realized that they could _also_ produce something that could fuel diesel
engines, and they called it diesel fuel.

Modern diesel engines are very different -- but for eg. industrial and
military use, you'll still see some resilient engines that can burn pretty
much anything you throw at them, from butter to diesel fuel.

Shame he fell of a boat in the English channel and drowned.

~~~
cwyers
You can fuel a Humvee with JP-8, which is jet engine fuel. It's been a long
time, but I remember there being problems if you switched fuels -- if you had
been using regular truck diesel and switched to JP-8 you could have engine
problems because you'd still have some residual truck diesel mixing with the
JP-8.

------
trebor
From my research and back of the napkin estimates, the operation cost of a
diesel vehicle is the same as a gasoline vehicle (MPG gains are offset
completely by fuel price in my area). Assuming that the two engines cost the
same I think the TCO is higher for diesel due to increased maintenance costs.
But ultimately, the reason I purposefully chose not to buy is diesel is pretty
obvious: price. For example, if the operational expense is nearly the same and
TCO is likely higher, why would I spend $5.7k more for a Passat TDI when I
could get one for less?

~~~
wil421
Not to mention the higher maintenance costs associated with the Urea and the
turbo on the engine.

In my area the price of gas has gone down very much. Even the premium I use in
my car has decreased significantly. Diesel on the other hand has stayed the
same more or less. If these lower gas prices are here to stay then I dont find
it beneficial to buy a diesel engine.

Diesel Price + Price for Diesel Engine + Extra Maintenance > Gas powered car +
associated costs

~~~
TylerE
Urea isn't really a factor. Usage is something like a gallon per 1000 miles or
less, and it's just a couple dollars per gallon.

------
VLM
The article plays into the mythology of Americans not knowing about diesels
with lines like "It is high time, America, to give diesels a better look."

However, all of us drivers have far too much life experience with driving
behind/around giant bus and semi trucks that lay down a choking smokescreen.

Like it or not, diesels in America have a history of laying down choking
smokescreens. Lack of regulation, lack of inspection, who knows.

Possibly new diesels or car diesels aren't as toxic. If you want to sell
diesels to Americans you need to wait for them to forget about the last time
they were "gassed" because they were nearby a bus or truck exhaust.

The other problem, living in a northern climate where diesel gels in the
winter, its a huge hassle for the few diesel owners we actually have. And as
if starting a gasoline engine at -15F isn't enough of a struggle, consider the
poor diesel owner. They could sell well in Miami or New Orleans without the
fuel issues, but inevitably someones going to move up north and the trash
talking will commence. With extensive maintenance, expensive maintenance, they
can be almost as reliable in the cold as a gasoline engine... almost. Why not
save the extra maint money and buy a cheaper lighter higher powered gas
engine? I have no question that the net gain to the environment tilts on the
side of diesel in Louisiana, and it Might even net be cheaper. In the north...
I strongly suspect the net overall system environmental costs of gas are
significantly lower, as is the total system wide cost.

~~~
Angostura
> Possibly new diesels or car diesels aren't as toxic.

They aren't. That's the entire point of the article, hence "It is high time,
America, to give diesels a better look."

~~~
VLM
Ugh not getting it. The problem isn't the new ones being better, its that
until every last one of the old ones is melted down, it'll be a PR nightmare
trying to sell new diesels to people who were just choked in a school bus
smoke cloud yesterday or choked in a semi truck cloud this morning. It doesn't
mean anything to those customers that the new diesels aren't like that, or the
cloud generator was a 1990 model. All that matters is they can almost still
smell that stinking cloud.

One effective although expensive way to sell diesels in 2015 would be to buy
every pre-2005 or so diesel and melt it down into scrap metal. We can't afford
that, although over a very long period of time it'll eventually take place
naturally.

Another way would be to enforce emissions limits and emissions testing such
that nobody ever sees a 1995 diesel truck laying down a smoke cloud. We've
pretty much chosen not to do that, as a society.

------
agumonkey
I'm confused about the state of diesel engines. There were a few documentaries
about the health issues caused(Japan banned diesel entirely). Also the
politics putting these issues under the rug (France government massive
subventions would be a public shame if they generated illnesses). Meanwhile
reading Wikipedia, it says that modern diesel engines are heavily filtered and
not toxic.

~~~
dzhiurgis
Same here. IIRC France used to embrace diesel until recently, when they
realised particle pollution was difficult to prevent.

~~~
agumonkey
I google 'banned diesel' and found contradictory news articles spanning a
decade.

Tokyo did ban diesel long ago, but in 2012 there were discussion about
allowing them again. France is now trying to avoid them. Knowing about Japan I
thought it made sense (with a little big companies / lobby / plot feeling),
but now it seems a misguided attempt at being eco-friendly.

------
FD3SA
A little late for that. Tesla`s Model 3 is coming in 2017, and as great as
diesels are, it won`t hold a candle to the efficiency of a pure electric
drivetrain. Tesla`s supercharger network will be vast by then, so range won`t
be a problem either.

A place like Canada could use diesel, due to our brutal winters, but most of
the USA is basically tropical in comparison. Electrics just make sense there,
because of the weather and the automobile culture in general.

The age of the fossil fuel personal car is entering its last decade.

~~~
ams6110
Nonsense. Modern diesel passenger cars can approach 1000 miles range on a tank
of fuel. Tesla is nowhere close to that and probably never will be.

And I'm talking about nice cars, too. Not tin cans.

[http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/bmw-320d-goes-
over-1-000-...](http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/bmw-320d-goes-
over-1-000-miles-on-one-tank-of-fuel/)

~~~
FD3SA
> Ford decided to drive from England to Munich and back to see how many miles
> he could squeeze out of a single tank. To extend the drive, Ford kept the
> windows up and the air conditioning turned off, but otherwise drove about
> 65-70 mph on the motorways and autobahns. By the time the tank ran dry, Ford
> had covered 1,013 miles and got to within 70 miles of Calais on the return
> route. That's an average of 57.4 mpg at 59.3 mph.

Since when do drivers optimize for max miles per tank of fuel? 57.4mpg is
extremely low compared to a Tesla's 97mpge [1]. Diesels are great, they just
won't make sense when the 35,000$ Model 3 comes out.

1\.
[http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2013_Tesla_Model_S.sh...](http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2013_Tesla_Model_S.shtml)

------
jonawesomegreen
I'm a Canadian, but this article equally applies to us. I've been waiting for
years now for Mazda or Subaru to bring one of their diesel cars to Canada. Now
and then you see articles like this [1] in the Canadian press celebrating that
we will soon have diesel cars in Canada, but it never seems to happen. I had
really high hopes when Mazda announced they were bringing the Skyactive-D to
Canada for the end of 2013, but there has been nothing but delays since [2].

I spend some time in Korea for work and always drive diesel rental cars and
modern diesels are great. I once almost filled one with gasoline because I
didn't even realize it was diesel until a Korean co-worker corrected me.

In the end its probably very good for my pocketbook as I've just kept driving
my 10 year old Mazda 3 and waiting for the diesels that never arrive.

[1] [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/auto-
shows/north-...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/auto-shows/north-
america/canadians-finally-have-more-diesel-vehicle-choices/article16364088/)

[2] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/01/09/mazda-
delays...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/01/09/mazda-delays-
diesel-again-as-it-cant-get-the-engine-right/)

------
ctrlrsf
Another factor is maintenance and service costs. They might be more reliable,
but if you do need some service or maintenance, you'll need to take it to the
dealer as there aren't as many experienced diesel car mechanics. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but this is one factor that has kept me away from diesel (apart
from availability of diesel at most pumps near me).

------
S_A_P
Because in the mid 1970s Oldsmobile decided to produce a 350cu in(5.7litre)
diesel based on the gasoline version of the engine. It failed spectacularly
since it was not rugged enough to withstand the pressures of compression
combustion. Plus GM had a crisis of quality at the time so it just sucked.
While you could get German diesels all the while it was too expensive to be
mainstream and most people's experience with diesel is that of heavy duty
trucks. These are noisy, produce huge amounts of soot and are sometimes(note
the word sometimes) driven by folks who must compensate for their manhood with
such niceties as Calvin pissing on a different brands logo, taking the engine
branding and making it a sexual double entendre, putting a giant 8" exhaust
pipe in the bed(or more than one) or the ever popular set of testicles hanging
from the bumper. So diesel suffers from an image problem here in the US.

~~~
ams6110
The smoke-belching pickups have been modified. They don't come that way from
the factory; diesel today is very clean.

There is a certain subculture of diesel pickup truck owners who alter the
engine management computer with aftermarket chips to make it inject a ton of
extra fuel, which doesn't burn properly and creates the black clouds of smoke.

~~~
S_A_P
I totally agree. However particularly in the southern US where I live, these
modified ridiculous diesels are a pretty vocal minority. To the point where
anecdotally, at least, people associate diesel to that. I'm a huge diesel
proponent, my next car will likely be an "oil burner"

------
Glyptodon
When I got my last car if I could have gotten the Euro-diesel version (which
supposedly gets > 50MPG vs. the American petrol version getting 30-something)
here in the states I would have. I don't have anything against diesel, I've
just never seen it offered on anything outside of a truck, let alone a budget
subcompact.

------
Scramblejams
I'm worried by the diesel we have, let alone a rush to further adoption. I
think medical research has a way to go before it educates us fully on what
inhaling all that <= PM2.5 is doing to us. The stuff has been found _inside_
our blood cells. Can't imagine anything good coming of that.

I'm skeptical that any filtration system is going to solve that problem. All
of the practical systems I've read about either allow a substantial amount of
small particulates through, or require some kind of regular maintenance which
will screw the rest of us when it's not done.

If we were serious about all of this we (in the US) would convert our heavy
duty truck fleet to natural gas. I read one study stating that this would
reduce our oil usage by 20%, which would be a strategic accomplishment. The
air quality improvement would be a welcome byproduct.

------
jfroma
I wonder why CNG[1] is not that popular in other countries. It is very cheap,
it can be installed on any car (gas and even diesels) and AFAIK it produces
less pollution.

"CNG may be found above oil deposits, or may be collected from landfills or
wastewater treatment plants where it is known as biogas[2]."

In Argentina most gas stations have Petrol and Diesel and I'd say ~60% of them
have also CNG. It is very easy to find a CNG station on cities, but harder on
rural areas.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas)

[2]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas)

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
CNG has a low power density.

~~~
cwyers
The military uses a lot of CNG-converted vehicles when civilian vehicles are
needed (all the things you think of as a military vehicle is diesel, but
there's a lot of little sedans and big vans for people who need to drive off-
base for work). The government can get away with this because military bases
are pretty much self-contained and you can put as many CNG fueling stations in
as you want to. As I recall, though, the range between fill-ups is terrible
compared to gasoline and once you got off base there was pretty much nowhere
to fuel the things.

------
alkonaut
Diesels haven't really been worth using until the last 10 or even 5 years.
Modern diesels do 4L/100km (~60mpg) and have 300Nm torque. A gasoline engine
of the same class has half the torque and twice the consumption. The cost of
fuel is usually also the same in countries that drive diesels.

So it's understandable why a country didn't have diesels 10 years ago, they
just weren't very good. With the health issues surrounding partcle emissions
and so on I don't blame the US for not changing their diesel regulation and
import tradition in a hurry. There are lots of other crazy regulation (and
cultural!) things to be changed first, such as the whole pickup truck madness.

------
JimmaDaRustla
I drove a 2000 Jetta TDI for a short time about 12 years ago. The fuel economy
was way better than gasoline (something like 40% more?), and the price of
diesel was cheaper (15%?)

Now the price of diesel is always more than gasoline (12% today). When I
bought my new car, I had priced out a TDI Jetta, which only came in higher end
trims. The amount of money I would save wouldn't break even with the
additional cost of the car (over a gasonline model) until about 300k km of
fuel savings, which is longer than the average lifespan of a car (diesels
probably live longer though). Sure I would have a nicer car, but it was out of
my price range and I would be stuck with an under powered engine.

------
Aoyagi
Like in most "pro-diesel" pieces, the author doesn't consider maintenance
costs, fuel quality and the sound (especially with TDI engines). Oh well.

~~~
pico303
You need to take a look at the TDI. You're talking about American diesel.
German diesel is quiet, reliable, and cheap to maintain.

~~~
Aoyagi
No, I know very well what I'm talking about. I see (and hear) those cars every
time I go out to the street. Old, new, large, small.

------
digitalneal
After spending a lot of time in London, I am glad Americans don't embrace
diesel like they do in Europe. The place just reeks of diesel and 2 strokes.

~~~
Someone1234
With all due respect have you spent any time in dense American cities? They
aren't exactly smog free...

Or is your complaint that you prefer the smog from gas over the smog from
diesel?

Regardless there are a lot of great arguments against diesel in this thread
(e.g. increased cost Vs. MpG, maintence cost + additional car cost Vs. gas,
and so on), this argument ("the smog!") doesn't really feel like one of them.

I've spent a lot of time in London AND American cities, and neither are
pleasant. I count the days until most cars are electric and we can breath
again. Even hybrids seem like a marked improvement over gas or diesel (in
particular during traffic jams).

~~~
happyscrappy
Europe is trying to move away from diesel because it is making their air
pollution worse than the US.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-30381223](http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30381223)

------
swamp40
It was my understanding that California's CARB emissions standards were
specifically written to keep foreign diesel vehicles off CA roads.

~~~
Aloisius
They were specifically written because LA was an unlivable smoggy hell. Diesel
particulates and ground level ozone was killing people and causing everything
from asthma to cancer.

I was regularly told to stay indoors growing up in LA. You still get a couple
dozen smog days a year, but only a couple extreme days. That is _way_ down
from the 150-200 days of extreme smog a year that forced me indoors as a kid.

~~~
ajtaylor
As a soon-to-be resident of LA I'm very glad to hear that the smog situation
is much improved.

------
growupkids
Simple, diesel costs more per gallon, it's not as widely sold compared to
gasoline (not every station may have it), and there are less car models
availavle with diesel as an option. Therefore, even if you just look at it
statistically there will be less diesel cars on the road in the USA.

~~~
mkesper
Diesel has more power/volume. In Europe, it also costs less.

------
Mikeb85
Diesel stores more energy, but you also get more gasoline out of a barrel of
oil.

Gasoline is more efficient in terms of miles you can drive per barrel of
crude. It also burns cleaner of course, and with the newer gasoline engines,
the gap between gas and diesel in terms of MPG isn't that great.

------
jpadkins
145 comments and no one has mentioned the obvious: refining diesel will
increase the transport cost of goods and materials. This will add cost to the
US trucking industry, which has a big lobby. And they have a valid case that
increasing transport costs will hurt the economy.

------
dubyah
Conversely, I thought this was an interesting paper regarding reasons behind
the scale of diesel adoption in Europe.
[https://www3.nd.edu/~jthurk/Papers/MMT.pdf](https://www3.nd.edu/~jthurk/Papers/MMT.pdf)

------
jamisteven
Cost is more if your purchasing new, but used is a great choice financially. I
bought my 2011 TDI Gold 6spd for 13k with 68k miles, it gets like 51mpg
highway and 38 mixed. I fill it up once every two and a half weeks.

------
dmritard96
It is an interesting question but at this point, I hope we skip this iteration
and just move into electric (obviously barring large trucks were electric is a
little less feasabily at the moment).

~~~
cpursley
Actually, not really. Large trucks could work like trains have for the past
several decades: diesel generators produce electricity, which powers electric
engines what propel the train.

------
eip
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5YfYWTKSXY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5YfYWTKSXY)

------
douche
Diesel pickup trucks are quite popular, particularly for people working in
professions where they are already running diesel-powered heavy equipment (Of
course, it's not technically legal, but the off-road diesel that bulldozers
and such run on is the same as the on-road you buy at the pump, just with a
different color dye and about a dollar less taxes per gallon...).

~~~
happyscrappy
I hate the jerks that drive on the roads with high sulfur offroad diesel. I
wonder how much the fine is, it should be very high.

------
jheriko
can't read this in the UK. wtf?

~~~
Graham24
Curiously is says that we cannot read this in the UK:

"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our
international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run
commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the
profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new
BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital
activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."

------
mvidal01
I'd love to get one of the Subaru Diesels that are sold overseas.

~~~
ams6110
They won't import their very cool Boxer Diesels because they don't meet
California's (and a few other states that follow CARB) draconian emissions
requirements. CARB is hostile to diesel. Yes there are 45+ other states they
could sell them in but California is the biggest car market and if they can't
sell there they won't bother.

------
bluedino
Even with their great low end torque, diesels do not have the raw acceleration
that gas cars do. For American roads and driving styles, horsepower rules.

~~~
hvidgaard
How many americans let their car go past 4k rpm regularly? Those are the only
people that wouldn't benefit from a diesels power curve. Though modern
gasoline engines with a turbo is pretty close to the same experience.

------
cheshire137
Diesel is more expensive than gas.

~~~
brianpan
Not everywhere and not all the time, especially not considering a 30% better
mpg, as the article mentions.

------
Sealy
Can someone copy and paste the article. Its behind a location based IP wall:

"BBC Worldwide (International Site) We're sorry but this site is not
accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not
funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC
programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more
about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities at www.bbcworldwide.com."

Such a stupid policy to be honest. I live in the Uk and pay my licence fees
too.....

~~~
alrs
BBC Worldwide is a propaganda service, much like RT, PRESS TV, Deutsche Welle,
or Voice of America.

None of these are created for a home audience, they are to advance the
interests of their host nations globally.

~~~
voyou
BBC Worldwide is a commercial enterprise, set up to make money from BBC
productions; the UK government may like the perception of the UK it creates
abroad, but that's not its explicit purpose. The explicit propaganda arm of
the BBC, the equivalent of Voice of America, is the BBC World Service, which
until last year was directly funded by the UK Foreign Office.

------
happyscrappy
Europe is making a U-turn on diesel cars because of the health consequences.
They may be more efficient but they are the the reason EU cities have dirtier
air than American cities.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-30381223](http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30381223)

------
cubano
Probably, like so many other things in our culture, because the multi-national
corps. ran the numbers and came to the conclusion that the profit margin would
be higher for gasoline, and then did whatever needed to persuade consumers to
steer away from this technology.

What else could explain how GM produced those engines?

Although I try to steer clear from hardcore conspiracy theories, sometimes it
really is that simple.

~~~
ptaipale
I think a perfect explanation is that GM was incompetent and complacent.

~~~
cubano
Right...ok that's a valid corollary to Occam's razor and I respect that POV.

It just odd, to me at least, that with such a logical and profitable path laid
before them, as the article reminds, that GM could be _that_ incompetent when
it came to diesel.

You really think there was absolutely no bean-counting influences when it came
to the development of diesel at GM?

~~~
ptaipale
Bean-counting may well have been a contributor to that incompetence.

Incompetence is not restricted to GM, of course. American cars in general have
a pretty bad quality reputation in Europe.

------
MCRed
I purchased a new car in 2014. Having a familiarity with Diesel engines, I
wanted to buy a Diesel. Even better- one of the cars I was keen about was
available in Diesel form.... but in the UK only. The american version seemed
to get about half the gas milage!

The reason we can't get Diesels is the environmentalist "anti-smog" campaigns
of the 70s and 80s, produced emissions standards that prevent Mazda from just
importing that car they sell freely in the UK.

Mazda is has been trying to get their Mazda3 Diesel version imported to the
USA for a couple years. It's becoming a bit of a joke because they keep
thinking they are going to be able to do it and then not being able to get the
permits.

Environmentalists really hated diesels in the 70s and the 80s because "smog"
and the particulate matter that diesels produce was the big scary thing.

Now gas milage is the big desire but the emissions standards make that nearly
impossible.

When I was a kid I had a Toyota Tercel station wagon. That car got 40MPG
Highway! And it wasn't an econobox- it was 4WD and a big old station wagon
(well big for japanese standards.) Meanwhile, I just bought a 2014 RAV4--- 30
years newer with 30 years more advanced technology-- it's about the same size
and weight, also with a 4 cylinder engine but much more efficient computer
controlled shifting and the like-- yet it only gets 20mpg highway.

MPG and emissions are a tradeoff-- and the regulatory demands of
environmentalists don't seem to take this into account.

~~~
zzalpha
_Environmentalists really hated diesels in the 70s and the 80s because "smog"
and the particulate matter that diesels produce was the big scary thing._

Yes, because during the 70s and 80s smog was a really scary thing. You know
the problems China has today? Well, now you understand the direction
California was headed in the 70s.

Of course, it's pretty easy to look back, now, and deride the politicians of
the day, but you also aren't experiencing lung cancer and birth defects
because they headed off the issue by enacting laws that have protected you for
the last 30 years.

 _Now gas milage is the big desire but the emissions standards make that
nearly impossible._

That's BS. TDI diesels (edit: burning ULSD) are, today, every bit as clean as
gasoline cars _and_ significantly more fuel efficient, while operating in a
wide range of climates.

~~~
MCRed
80s Tercel got 40MPG 2014 Rav4 gets 20MPG Same gasoline, both 4 cylinder. The
RAV4 is much more advanced.

It's emissions that have killed gas milage.

~~~
ptaipale
The 80s Tercel weighed something like 900 kg, while an RAV4 weighs 1150 kg.
This also has an impact.

And the RAV4 has many more goodies that eat electricity - and did the Tercel
even have aircon? Yes, the catalyser burns some fuel, but it is not the only
thing there.

The biggest thing probably is that the RAV4 is much more powerful, and in the
measurement cycle, the more power there is in the engine, the more of it is
used, so the nominal consumption goes up. And to some extent this happens in
real life as well. Modern cars are quite overpowered for the actual purposes
of transport. Power is nice, because you can feel it when you kick the gas
pedal. But that does eat fuel.

