
Why do Americans not drive diesels? - edoloughlin
http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130109-why-do-americans-not-buy-diesels
======
pinaceae
Interestingly though, Diesel popularity, at least in my peer group is going
down.

\- Modern Diesel engines are very complicated due to their turbos, hence are
more brittle and expensive to repair.

\- Price advantage of Diesel is practically not there anymore, but the Diesel
model is still more expensive.

\- Modern Gasoline engines have caught up with Diesels in terms of mpg.

No one bought a Diesel because it's a Diesel. People were buying it cause the
price at the pump was way lower and you could offset your initial higher costs
after 50-80k kms.

So, the US might just have skipped over Diesel. Happens in other tech as well,
see 3g networks, etc.

~~~
thedrbrian
Talking to a friend who works as an engineer designing modern diesels he said
he wouldn't own a car he helped design outside of the warranty if it was a
diesel.

~~~
dpcx
That sounds like a terrible statement. Similar to a bridge engineer who
wouldn't drive over a bridge he helped design.

Shows a serious lack of trust in their capabilities, and that of their team.

~~~
to3m
It's not really very controversial. If you need your car, and you can't afford
to buy a new engine if it breaks, as far as I can tell you'd be certainly well
advised not run a modern diesel car without a warranty. I don't know anybody
who's owned one who hasn't had various funny problems with it, requiring
regular trips to the garage followed by shrugging shoulders all round and a
succession of replacement of random electronic parts.

To meet the increasingly stringent emissions controls, and people's desire for
a car that is reasonably cheap and accelerates at a decent rate, the cars seem
to have become rather complicated, and reliability has been affected.

Common points of failure seem to be:

\- dual mass flywheel (presumably the regular swift ramping-up of torque
doesn't help)

\- turbo charger (obviously spins very quickly and unlike a petrol engine it
comes on from about 1500rpm so it's used a lot)

\- diesel injectors (high precision components operating under pressure)

\- diesel particulate filter (can clog and require expensive replacement if
car is not regularly driven hard)

\- random engine/ECU "thing" that nobody can figure out (who knows what the
root cause of this might be)

You might have better luck with a pre-common rail diesel car, but the fuel
economy is unlikely to be very good and the performance - at least by modern
standards - looks to be terrible.

~~~
fus
dual mass flywheel: irrelevant for the US market (think older torque converter
automatic; new ones have dual mass flywheel for gasoline engines too).

diesel injectors: direct gasoline injectors are very similar.

turbo: common in modern gasoline engines due to downsizing and direct
injection.

particulate filter: while I respect the following statement: "The cheapest,
fastest and most reliable components are those that aren’t there." (Gordon
Bell), thermal efficiency of a diesel cycle may make it worth.

ECU faults: those actually _help_ with solving problems before they are
serious. Please go to qualified workshops! Computers are no longer a dark
magic.

~~~
to3m
I haven't heard great things about modern smaller-capacity direct injection
turbocharged petrol engines either, though the economy figures always sound
excellent.

As for the problems I describe, I am merely relaying issues I have heard
people complain about! If people take their car to a non-franchised garage, or
do things themselves, ECU errors tend to get them going to the official garage
because only they have the appropriate equipment. But this always seems to be
a bit hit or miss, requiring multiple visits.

People's suggestions that diesel engines are extra-reliable seem to be
somewhat wide of the mark. Ye olde diesel engine of yore was simple, slow,
noisy, dirty, and would run forever; thanks to modern technology, that all
seems to have changed...

~~~
bradleyland
The data doesn't support many of your views. Specifically, the claim that
modern engines are somehow less reliable than the "good old days". I know
you're only reporting anecdotes from people you'd consider to have a good view
on the matter, but you have to keep in mind the biases involved with those
views. A mechanic sees nothing but broken cars all day long. Their views are
going to be skewed by their experience. Those views are not reflective of the
much greater population of vehicles that experience no problems at all.

The reality is that cars have never been more reliable:

[http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/02/when-it-comes-to-new-
vehicl...](http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/02/when-it-comes-to-new-vehicles-
todays-models-are-cheaper-and-more-reliable-than-ever-before/)

> “The long-term dependability of three-year-old models has improved year-
> over-year, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2013 U.S. Vehicle
> Dependability Study.

> “In 2013, overall vehicle dependability averages 126 PP100–a five percent
> improvement from the 2012 average of 132 PP100–and is the lowest problem
> count since the inception of the study in 1989.”

Simplicity makes engines easier to work on for the layman, but it doesn't
necessarily make them more reliable.

I'm a total gear head. My love affair with cars started really early. At 3, I
figured out how to use a screw driver by taking the tail lights off my dad's
VW Beetle. At age 7, I helped my dad tear a VW Beetle's 4-cylinder boxer
engine down to the case halves, then put it back together. I was infatuated
with the process and the understanding that came with every part we removed
and reassembled.

I often wonder whether my father and I could have accomplished the same with
(just an example) the new Ford Ecoboost 1.0L 3-cylinder, but I recognize that
giving up that simplicity has resulted in an overall improvement in
reliability and quality for the vast majority of drivers.

------
quarterto

      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.
    

Wait, what?

~~~
mjn
It's part of an odd compromise with the private-sector media companies and
government reached a few years ago. Within the UK, the BBC is only allowed to
show content that is wholly funded by the license fee, and cannot solicit
advertising or other external funding for the content. This was insisted on by
the private-sector media companies, who don't want the BBC competing with them
in the commercial portion of the market.

Separately, the BBC overseas service is required to solicit external funding
for its content, and _not_ to cross-subsidize it with the license fee. This
was insisted on by the government, which did not want license-fee revenues
subsidizing international content, but still did want international content to
exist as part of the UK's global cultural export/image. But due to the
previous agreement this content then can't be shown in the UK, because it's
commercially-funded content.

~~~
sentenza
Funny enough, as a continental European, I am not allowed to pay for streaming
access to the great programs (programmes?) produced by the BBC.

Ridiculousness of the same sort is happening with the publicly financed
broadcasts over here in Germany. Somehow, almost every EU country manages to
completely mess up the transition of its publicly financed broadcasts into the
internet age, always because of some nonsense regarding the private
competition. I hope the EU gets going with the single market for audiovisual
content, fixing this once and for all.

------
rdl
I'd drive a diesel if the US didn't have crazy NOx standards; the urea system,
etc. is needless complexity. One of my favorite vehicles I've owned was a
diesel Toyota Hilux; also loved the Land Cruiser LM78 I borrowed.

The main thing I want is the ability to store 500-1000 gallons of fuel and
know it will be viable for a couple years. You can do that with diesel, you
can't really do that with gasoline. Being able to share fuel between a
generator and a car (and ideally eventually a motorcycle/gator and a plane)
would be even better.

------
ajtaylor
Based on my experience driving a late model VW Golf TDi, it is only a matter
of time before rising fuel costs push both manufacturers and consumers towards
diesels. They are more efficient and all the problems diesels of the 70's have
ben resolved. Plus, they are fun to drive!

~~~
joezydeco
The problems of 1970s-era American diesels may have been resolved, but
Americans have long memories when it comes to cars. A car is a major purchase
and when you're burned by a certain manufacturer or model, you don't quickly
forget it.

It's also one of the reasons American manufacturers like GM and Ford have
lower perceptions of build quality even though these companies are now passing
the Japanese manufacturers in quality surveys.

~~~
grumps
can you site the quality survey?

~~~
joezydeco
Starting point:

[http://money.msn.com/now/blog--gms-surprising-drive-to-
autom...](http://money.msn.com/now/blog--gms-surprising-drive-to-automotive-
quality-leader)

~~~
grumps
Thx for the follow up.

------
corin_
Cache for UK readers:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20130514033523/http://www.bbc.com...](http://web.archive.org/web/20130514033523/http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130109-why-
do-americans-not-buy-diesels)

~~~
notahacker
UK readers see this: _" 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."_

It's not a paywall, or an interstitial-ad-wall or a great firewall of China.
It's just designed to save UK viewers from the _horror_ of seeing an article
with a BBC logo on the top and ads down the side. _Stupid_ wall seems like a
good term for it.

~~~
ronaldx
Not exactly - the BBC often serves the same content without displaying ads in
the UK.

I'm not clear what's going on in this case, but it's more likely that this is
out of its public remit - as a funded public service, they're not to compete
with commercial companies in sensitive industries/they're not allowed to use
public money on content irrelevant to their remit and so BBC Worldwide has to
be somewhat carefully separated.

e.g.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4058031.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4058031.stm)

This may be down to Rupert Murdoch's lobbying pressure.

------
nawitus
One reason is taxes. >The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4
cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. - Wikipedia

In most(?) European countries diesel fuel has a lower tax.

------
krapp
The question isn't why do Americans not drive diesels, but why aren't they
sold here (apart from trucks)? We can't drive cars no one is selling.

From what i've been told, it's partly because they're too efficient and might
bring the cost of fuel down too much. No idea if that's accurate.

~~~
dbecker
No one wants to sell cars that consumers won't buy.

There are a few diesel car models available in US (e.g. the VW Passat TDI and
Jetta TDI). But Americans don't buy enough of them to cause more manufacturers
to sell diesel models.

~~~
krapp
Consumers might buy them if they were advertised as 'green' cars that were
cheaper than hybrids and more reliable than electrics (you just need to
remember which pump to use) Though it does seem like a bit of a chicken or egg
situation.

------
VLM
What is diesel? Chemically its nothing at all. You can slap a label with
"diesel" written on seemingly anything that burns. Gasoline is somewhat better
defined.

You can read an interesting wiki article about ultra low sulfur diesel and the
transition issues etc.

The short version is there is no "diesel atom or molecule" its a mixture of
vaguely burnable substances. Some of which are compatible with some or another
engines but not all. For example ULSD diesel is more or less incompatible with
certain fuel pump seals sold up to less than 4 years ago.

Its hard to stomach buying something you may need to scrap or repair/replace
in such a short term.

This is the era of indecisiveness for diesel. Gasoline had a similar one
decades ago during the leaded to unleaded transition... that would have been
the ideal time to roll diesel into the market.

Another problem is ignoring progress. "Those 1970's diesels really sucked
compared to 1970s gas engines". "Oh thats OK 2010 diesels are better than
1970s diesels." "Sorry dude I'm comparing a 2010 diesel with a 2010 gas
engine, not a 1970 gas engine." "Oh... in that case I guess a gas engine is
better".

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>You can read an interesting wiki article about ultra low sulfur diesel and
the transition issues etc.

Yes, a disaster. I have 4 vehicles with diesel engines. I've replaced[1] all
of my seals and O-rings with Viton. Let those SOB's change the fuel again. I
don't care. Nothing fucks with Viton.

>Its hard to stomach buying something you may need to scrap or repair/replace
in such a short term.

They have rarely made changes to diesel fuel formulation, and only the ULSD
change was catastrophic. Gasoline is reformulated seasonally, with varying
amounts of alcohol. This has caused problems as well, but fewer people seem to
notice or care.

>Another problem is ignoring progress. "Those 1970's diesels really sucked
compared to 1970s gas engines". "Oh thats OK 2010 diesels are better than
1970s diesels." "Sorry dude I'm comparing a 2010 diesel with a 2010 gas
engine, not a 1970 gas engine." "Oh... in that case I guess a gas engine is
better".

Gasoline engines are far better than they used to be, no doubt about it, but
so are diesels. I still prefer diesels, but for most people it's moot anyway.
They either don't need a huge pickup truck, or there is no diesel available
for purchase in their market segment.

[1] Still replacing and fixing leaks years later.

------
damncurious
Oil is cheap, so no need for diesels for now. But, beware folks, if oil gets
more expensive we will probably see more diesels out there. Have a look at
Turkey for example. In Turkey oil prices have gone so high during the last
decade that people are now forced to use diesels, and as a result diesel car
prices are also getting higher with this higher demand.

------
farinasa
I have been wondering this myself. Diesel burns cleans, can be made from
vegetables and the engines can also be used with methane. Not to mention the
engines are fundamentally more efficient than gasoline. Not only just as a
system, but our current use case of low idles and sitting in traffic, a diesel
wipes the floor with gasoline. You can get a diesel in the us, but unless you
get the vw, you're stuck with a 4 litre truck. I think another important
question is why aren't we converting gasoline cars to run on methane? The
conversion is less than 1000$ and can be done by anyone. Its a tank some hoses
and a regulator and would bring prices down to about 2$ a gallon.

~~~
DanBC
> Diesel burns clean

Diesel particulate matter from diesel vehicles is a significant source of harm
from air pollution. DPM kills many people each year. Possibly 29,000 people
each year in the UK die early because of air pollution.

([http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/19/uk-air-
pol...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/19/uk-air-pollution-
health-crisis))

~~~
farinasa
There are many effective means of particulate filtration available.

------
greenyoda
One problem that would hinder the adoption of diesel cars in the U.S. is the
availability of diesel fuel. Not all filling stations carry it, since in the
U.S. it's predominantly used by trucks and buses. If you live in an area that
doesn't have a lot of truck traffic (such as a suburb), you might have to go
far out of your way to fill up your diesel car.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Better availability in rural areas. I've lived in cities and small rural towns
(though never the suburbs), I've never had trouble finding fuel.

------
maerF0x0
I personally believe that diesels have helped bring some great technologies to
gasoline engines:

\- Making turbo charging more popular \- Direct injection And I think one day
we'll do away with spark plugs and have compression based ignition in gasoline
engines. Combine that with hybrid technologies and we could have some pretty
dang efficient vehicles.

less efficient than a bicycle though :P

------
grumps
I'm an ex car nut, and I've always been fascinated by the diesel engine. I
have yet to own one but I keep threatening to get one for myself. Primarily
looking at that old MB 240D which is a tank. :-D In my unofficial surveys of
people diesel is always thought of as dirty and harder to find at the pump.

The reason I don't actually own a diesel is the lack of options here in the
US. Ive got to choose a truck, VW (depending on the year) and a MB. I haven't
gone as far as looking into importing one purely for the repair aspect. If I
actually ever move from my tiny city apartments I've considered the truck
option and then converting it to run on SVO but it will probably never happen.

I have yet to figure out why we don't have diesel electric vehicles.

------
tvladeck
Worth mentioning that a single barrel of oil has a relatively fixed amount of
each fuel type (i.e., gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc). So when tax policy in
one place favors one portion of the barrel, the "extra" other fuels have to go
/somewhere/. That tax policy in Europe favors diesel it makes it relatively
cheaper to buy gasoline in the States (and vice versa). Economies of scale
within distribution and manufacturing networks seem to favor one dominant fuel
at a time for passenger vehicles.

------
kombine
America is actually on the way to electric cars, bypassing the unnecessary
stage of diesels, hybrids and whatnot. The diesel might not even happen,
provided that Tesla does well.

------
Terretta
Depends on the market segment. I love my 2005 diesel work truck, and get asked
several times a week by drivers of gasoline trucks whether I'll sell it.

Used, it commands a significant premium over the used gasoline trucks. In the
work truck market at least, it seems many buyers of new gas powered trucks
come to regret that purchase and look for a diesel instead.

------
VeejayRampay
Diesel is considered as a carcinogen anyway due to the emission of
nanoparticules. Good on them.

See [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/health/diesel-fumes-
cause-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/health/diesel-fumes-cause-lung-
cancer-who-says.html?_r=0) for example.

