Who cares about looks! Is there a diesel option??

[Pskhaat]

Simple: US Cruiser/LX buyers do not want diesel motors. Period. Cruisers buyers are not Tundra load haulers!

Shotts, late to the convo over here on 'mud, but you know I disagree. Even my snobby, outside-means-$300-golf, metrosexual neighbors have even without prompting asked me if I knew if Toyota had a diesel car (meaning SUV to them). These are Benz- and BWM-driving ironed-shorts atypicals.

You know the rest of my story...

 

[tntoyota]

Shotts, late to the convo over here on 'mud, but you know I disagree. Even my snobby, outside-means-$300-golf, metrosexual neighbors have even without prompting asked me if I knew if Toyota had a diesel car (meaning SUV to them). These are Benz- and BWM-driving ironed-shorts atypicals.

You know the rest of my story...

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you dont live in NA?


Diesel cars???


Sonoran Desert??


He's talking about North america diesels dont fly over here unless there in the next Sheryl Crow song, being made fun of on SNL, or its no longer considered "passay", and starbucks has introduced a flavor named after it..........



GM got us, we get what we want, and this is what we got.

Playing catchup!

 

[Pskhaat]

you dont live in NA?

Though I grant you it doesn't look like it used to but Phoenix still qualifies.

He's talking about North america diesels dont fly over here

They do here as they do in the mountain states and PNW. Neighbor just bought a brand-new diesel Mercedes, since I've got a garage full of Toys I've often been asked about the diesel option.

My point is it's a new buying generation and knowledge of GM failures is sparse.

 

[cruiser_guy]

Diesel cars???

Toyota has had diesel cars for years, just not in North America yet!

 

[bulldog-yota]

I disagree on the diesels having worse emissions and more expensive methods of controlling them. In fact everywhere in the world except the US (special emphasis on California) recognises this.
Petrols have catalytic converters to meet emissions, diesels have particle filters. Both have EGR systems (either internal via valve control or external). The cost and complexity is comparable.

The major US cities already have massive problems from vehicle pollution. Modern diesels will reduce this. But we have US automakers lobbying power and we have law makers (and citizens) who are prejudiced against diesel.

I also disagree on modern engines not lasting as long as old ones.

Not sure where you get your info, but while diesels might produce less CO2 they produce siginificantly more NOx and soot. This is the reason why the state of the art 2007 VW Touareg V10TDI still has a wrose emission classification that the long in the tooth 2007 LC100 V8. CHeck fueleconomy.gov . Diesels for passenger vehicles were disallowed because they couldn't meet the pollution regulations, as simple as that. However they will be back as new technology will enable this.

It can be cleaned up with new technology, which includes a particle trap , uthera(sp?) disposal unit and now catalytic converters on diesels as well. Significantly more complex that a gas engine, Also keep in mind that the commonrail injection system required to keep it running clean. A modern diesel clean and efficient diesel engine is an engineering marvel, requiring a lot more technology than a gas counterpart (also a lot more cost to produce).

The internals of modern diesel engines had to be made much lighter than their older counter parts. Thus robustness is lost in some form or another. Don't expect to take a modern diesel engine adn subject it to the abuse of an older diesel engine and it to last as long. Any engine will last a lifetime if properly maintained and operated, but I don't belive that was the point of the old dieselheads here. Modern synthetic oils has made it possible for modern engines to last much longer than older engines.

This is the ONLY time I have ever noticed a benefit of gas vs. diesel in nearly 20 years of owning my BJ60. In my case all that was needed was patience to let the diesel chug through. So what if I wasn't the first one across the dunes. The benefits in the other day to day areas FAR outweigh that minor inconvenience.

My point was that the diesels were stuck in the dunes, on dunes you don't get there last. You either make it or you don't. Momentum and speed are required on soft sand climbs. Not relevant for some, but relevant to others.

I'm not sayign one technology is worse or better than another, what I am saying is don't expect the marvels of modern passenger diesel engines without the associated headaches of all that modern engineering. It is not the simple engineering that a lot has come to love, it now has much more equipment and electronics that the fancy V8 in the LC100. WIthout that it will simply never meet US emissions regulations.

 

[Dougal]

Not sure where you get your info, but while diesels might produce less CO2 they produce siginificantly more NOx and soot. This is the reason why the state of the art 2007 VW Touareg V10TDI still has a wrose emission classification that the long in the tooth 2007 LC100 V8. CHeck fueleconomy.gov . Diesels for passenger vehicles were disallowed because they couldn't meet the pollution regulations, as simple as that. However they will be back as new technology will enable this.

You're basing your emissions on US emissions laws which are biased against diesels for no logical reason (except maybe lobbying from US carmakers scared of a european invasion).

The fueleconomy.gov website shows just a bargraph of pollution scale and no measurements or limits. Not the technical information I was looking for.
It also specifically excludes greenhouse gas (i.e. CO2) from the score.
In short, as biased towards petrol engines as you'd expect it to be.
Click on the "hybrid/diesel/alt fuel" link and you only get "hybrid".

While at the same time, they "moderate" (read increase) the EPA fuel consumption of diesel cars to account for the extra carbon in the fuel.

Inconsistent? Of course.
Otherwise the hybrids and other BS would look like the silly choice they really are.

Back in 2003 mercedes had a diesel car that you could wipe a white cloth around the inside of the exhaust pipe and have it come out white.
That is less soot than any petrol car. But even if it wasn't. I'd rather have soot which my lungs can filter out than particulates small enough to enter my bloodstream through my lungs.

I still don't get your claim that diesels have more equipment and electronics than a petrol.
Both have fuel injection systems, but the diesel doesn't have spark control, it has a feed to the variable geometry turbo instead.
That's about even.
Both have enough sensors to indentify the conditions in intake and exhuast. That's pretty even too.
Fry the computer on either and you're walking home. Can't see a clear winner their either.

I expect modern diesel engines to outlast the old ones, but most importantly to outlast the vehicles they are fitted to. They are far more optimised and refined. Not to mention put through far more rigourous tests than the old diesels were.

 

[bulldog-yota]

The diesel is much more complex than you lead on, the fuel injection system alone is much more advanced than the current gasoline counterparts. You forget the glow plugs on diesels, etc, etc. When gas vehicles start using direct injection with boost it will become more parity in terms of complexity and emissions equipment.

AS to emissions here is a high level explanation of the MB Bluetec used in their modern diesels to meet European emissions
http://www4.mercedes-benz.com/specials/scr/en/index_nocom_en.htm

There is no comparison in complexity between a gas engine and a diesel engine, in the current forms they are available today.

Here is a list of Euro emission specs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_passenger_cars

What each type of emission actually do
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/cars-and-air-pollution.asp

Didn't get the truck one, but here is a list of only CO2 for small cars
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/how-to-use-the-data-tables.asp

Proofs your standpoint on hybrids wrong just for CO2.

For all emissions, Prius
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=10982
vs Toyota Aygo diesel (mpg) (which is a much smaller vehicle
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=16843

Since we might think Toyota doesn't have the most efficient diesels
lets look at the faster MB E350
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=14672
vs the slower 320Diesel
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=15583
This time as stated before les, CO2 and CO for the diesel, but much higher HC+NOx content (see which gasses are more harmful adn smog producing above)

Lastly the old V8 LC100 (can only meet Euro III)
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=11492
vs the state of the art Touareg
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=19134

No conspiracy, but diesels are only cleaning up their act now.

It is not that anybody is against diesels engines, it is just a fact that they had to implement new technology to clean it up.

So please supply relevant detailed tech to show otherwise.

BTW the fueleconomy.gov lists the emissions catergories that include CO2. The TDI is rated much lower than the Cruiser, because of the NOx (which is one of the main smog forming gasses - a very big problem in US cities).

Bottomline is that it takes a lot more to clean up a diesel, complexity = cost and less reliability for rugged usage. Guess only time will tell on that one, but I woudl like to see proof of modern diesels doing a 20-30 year stint in the worst conditions. Modern gas engines won't d it either, but at least the old diesels were up for it.

My original point anyway, don't expect the modern diesel to live up to the simplicity and longvity in an abused Cruiser like the old diesels did. They had to add and change way too much s***, to make it emissiosn friendly, powerful, fast and quiet. The only similarity between the old and new is that they both use compresson ignition and diesel fuel.

 

[Dougal]

The diesel is much more complex than you lead on, the fuel injection system alone is much more advanced than the current gasoline counterparts. You forget the glow plugs on diesels, etc, etc. When gas vehicles start using direct injection with boost it will become more parity in terms of complexity and emissions equipment.

Modern diesels don't have glowplugs. Petrol vehicles do have direct injection and many are boosted. Maybe you're just comparing old low tech engines to new ones.

AS to emissions here is a high level explanation of the MB Bluetec used in their modern diesels to meet European emissions
http://www4.mercedes-benz.com/specials/scr/en/index_nocom_en.htm

That system is used for them to meet Euro V emissions. Not current standards.

Proofs your standpoint on hybrids wrong just for CO2.

No it doesn't.
My standpoint on hybrids are they are a load of crap which is pushed out solely for people in the US who like to think they're being environmentally friendly.
The europeans drive diesel cars which are far better for the environment (manufacturing and running incl)
Highway l/100km prius = 4.2L
Highway 1/100km Aygo = 3.4L

Put the aygo diesel engine in the prius and it'll do even better. The aerodynamic styling and low rolling resistance tyres on the prius are major contributors.

lets look at the faster MB E350
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=14672
vs the slower 320Diesel
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=15583

Not sure what your point is there. But comparing the extra urban fuel consumption backs mine up nicely.
Petrol = 7.2l/100km
Diesel = 5.8l/100km

But OMG the diesel has 0.17grams per km more NOx.

You do realise that NOx decomposes naturally but our oil fields won't grow back anytime soon.

Landcruiser petrol = 13.4 L/100km
Landcruiser diesel = 9.3 L/100km

Speaks for itself really.

Diesels are and always have been better for the environment than petrols.
Diesel HC emissions are almost nil.
NOx breaks down naturally, that brown haze over LA is the result of 4 million commuter miles driven in petrol cars. So claiming petrols are clean is ridiculous.
Soot emissions are close to harmless, but the emotional response is big because it can be seen. Despite the crap that comes out of a petrol engine being both more toxic and more easily ingested by people.

BTW the fueleconomy.gov lists the emissions catergories that include CO2. The TDI is rated much lower than the Cruiser, because of the NOx (which is one of the main smog forming gasses - a very big problem in US cities).

The TDI is rated lower because of the rating system focuses almost entirely on NOx and ignores CO2.
The environment takes a different view. But the environment doesn't start wars to secure it's oil supply either.

Guess only time will tell on that one, but I woudl like to see proof of modern diesels doing a 20-30 year stint in the worst conditions. Modern gas engines won't d it either, but at least the old diesels were up for it.

I would like you to show me an old diesel that has done a 20-30 year stint. 10,000hrs is the standard for a diesel, old ones struggled to meet that, new ones don't.

The old toyota ones were not the reliability yardstick. Cracked head anyone?

 

[hedydd]

I would like you to show me an old diesel that has done a 20-30 year stint. 10,000hrs is the standard for a diesel, old ones struggled to meet that, new ones don't.

My just expired Land Rover was built in 1984 and has completed in excess of 12,000 hours of very hard work and with an average journey between cold starts of about two miles. This was not the best of engines. The 200 and 300 TDi direct injection turbo intercooled engines last much longer. I don't consider my direct injection turbo-intercooled, electronic injection control Toyota six cylinder diesel to be more than just run-in yet at 120,000 miles. These are highway miles for the most part though and to exceed the old Land Rover's hours of service it will need to travel another 180,000 miles approximately, which it is probably capable of.

 

[Dougal]

My just expired Land Rover was built in 1984 and has completed in excess of 12,000 hours of very hard work and with an average journey between cold starts of about two miles. This was not the best of engines. The 200 and 300 TDi direct injection turbo intercooled engines last much longer. I don't consider my direct injection turbo-intercooled, electronic injection control Toyota six cylinder diesel to be more than just run-in yet at 120,000 miles. These are highway miles for the most part though and to exceed the old Land Rover's hours of service it will need to travel another 180,000 miles approximately, which it is probably capable of.

Was that an original 2.5? I didn't think many of those made 2,000hrs without work. Most of them didn't make the 100,000mile mark without work.
How many km did that cover and why do you have an hour meter in your landrover?

I can personally give examples of 11,000hrs on a perkins since last rebuild. But that's 11,000hrs over almost 20 years which is far from full time work.
Another identical perkins had to be rebuilt before the 4,000hr mark.
The engines which cut out 10,000km in 3 years or less will never make 20-30 years.

 

[hedydd]

Was that an original 2.5? I didn't think many of those made 2,000hrs without work. Most of them didn't make the 100,000mile mark without work.
How many km did that cover and why do you have an hour meter in your landrover?

Yes the original naturally aspirated 2.5l. Over its whole life spent fetching and carrying around the farm and pulling a 14ft cattle trailer between farms and markets it only ever had one head gasket apart from normal oil changes every year or so.
I had an hour meter in the LR and my original Land Cruiser installed in about 1990 to see the average miles per hour and to work out more adequate service intervals for vehicles that did little road work.
The LC averaged around 28 miles per hour over a year and the Land Rover averaged just 12 miles per hour, probably less as the years went by and others took over the longer distance trailer haulage. Assuming a consistant 12mph then the LR completed 12,333 hours over its 148,000 mile life. The marine hour meter gave up working some six or seven years ago but the average was fairly consistent around the 10.5 to 11 miles per hour over that time.
My current Land Cruiser, due partly to a change of circumstances over the years, averages a bit higher than the old one at about 30mph even counting long distance work. To complete 12000 hours at the current rate it will be 360,000 miles which will take another 13 years. It is currently 9 years old but had a couple of years where it totalled no more than about 2500 miles per year. Currently doing 16,000 per year or thereabouts.

I can personally give examples of 11,000hrs on a perkins since last rebuild. But that's 11,000hrs over almost 20 years which is far from full time work.
Another identical perkins had to be rebuilt before the 4,000hr mark.
The engines which cut out 10,000km in 3 years or less will never make 20-30 years.

With all the engines I run and have run, never have I had to actually rebuild an engine due to wear or lack of maintenance. The nearest I have got is a Same air cooled 6 litre diesel which melted a piston at about 5000 hours due to an under-piston oil cooling nozzle failure. Just rebuilt the one cylinder by fitting new cylinder, piston etc and a new head. Still going strong.
Must admit to not taking many over 10,000 hours. The nearest one I currently have running is a John Deere 2140 four cylinder, bought about the same time as the Land Rover but not run on anything like an intensive daily basis, which now has in excess of 9000 hours on it. Never had anything but regular oil changes apart from the water pump which now needs to be rebuilt for the third time.

 

[bulldog-yota]

Modern diesels don't have glowplugs. Petrol vehicles do have direct injection and many are boosted. Maybe you're just comparing old low tech engines to new ones.



That system is used for them to meet Euro V emissions. Not current standards.
[/QOUTE]
Here is a good reference for you, in terms of all the technology needed to meet US (specific CA) emission regulations. Keep in mind that US regulations for emissions has been ahead of Euro regulations for some time. In part due to high volume fo passenger vehicle traffic in large cities. If you have ever been to LA you will understand the SMOG problem. Euro emissions was for a reference to you, to show they are clamping down SMOG emissions as well, still not at the same rate as in the US. There is no conspiracy, but rather a real problem.

http://www.touareg.ca/2008_touareg_blue2
http://www.worldcarfans.com/2041117.004/new-vw-touareg-v6-tdi

Strange that they still mention glow plugs in this state fo the art diesel engine. The fact that you don't have to wait for it anymore, doesn't mean it is not there anymore. Now tell me again this engine will be a simplistic and reliable as the old diesels, especially after many years of offroad abuse. We are talkign abotu an engine for a Cruiser afterall.

Please point to boosted high compression direct injection lean running gas engines available on the market today. I probably should have been more specific in what I meant.

No it doesn't.
My standpoint on hybrids are they are a load of crap which is pushed out solely for people in the US who like to think they're being environmentally friendly.
The europeans drive diesel cars which are far better for the environment (manufacturing and running incl)
Highway l/100km prius = 4.2L
Highway 1/100km Aygo = 3.4L

Put the aygo diesel engine in the prius and it'll do even better. The aerodynamic styling and low rolling resistance tyres on the prius are major contributors.

It's a pity that hybrids are viewed in this light by many, as the technology offers a significant advantage for commute (city/stop-start traffic) vehicles. It also opens the possibility to make up for reduce fuel range and power on alternative fuel vheicles in the future, such as propane, ethanol, etc. I pointed it out to provide proof point that hybrids are the lowest emissin producing vehicles per this UK table, with no hidden US agenda in it.

However I have my doubts to it's feasibility in heavy vehicles like the LC, and it distracts fromt he main discussion in thsi thread, so I will stop going down this rathole.

You do realise that NOx decomposes naturally but our oil fields won't grow back anytime soon.

Please provide scientific references with the relevant details on thsi topic. Maybe you should educate all the "smart" folsk in the US EPA and Euro emission baords on this topic. They seem to be on the worng track according to you.

Diesels are and always have been better for the environment than petrols.
Diesel HC emissions are almost nil.
NOx breaks down naturally, that brown haze over LA is the result of 4 million commuter miles driven in petrol cars. So claiming petrols are clean is ridiculous.
Soot emissions are close to harmless, but the emotional response is big because it can be seen. Despite the crap that comes out of a petrol engine being both more toxic and more easily ingested by people.

See my comment above regarding scientific relevant data on that topic.

The TDI is rated lower because of the rating system focuses almost entirely on NOx and ignores CO2.
The environment takes a different view. But the environment doesn't start wars to secure it's oil supply either.

Again see comment above.

I would like you to show me an old diesel that has done a 20-30 year stint. 10,000hrs is the standard for a diesel, old ones struggled to meet that, new ones don't.

The old toyota ones were not the reliability yardstick. Cracked head anyone?

I believe there are a number of folks on this board that will proof you worng on this topic. Heck even a number of gas engines have done 20+ years fo service. Remmeber I'm refierring to a relatively light duty diesel in a Cruiser, not commercial appplications.

I would like people to understand the new technology, every technology has it pros and cons, and it is good to evaluate the merit of each technology rather than simply making balnket statements.

You have been proven worng on numerous of your opinions you stated already, so unless you provide some relevant datapouints the discussion is pretty futile. It would be in everybodies best interest if you can provide the actual data ratherthen makign blind statements. I'm open for learning new thigns, but would rather baseit on real data than your opinion.

As I said a number of times now, there is a number of exiting things happening, options would be good, but it is also good for people ot go into somethign with the information available. Rather than just makign decisions based on unproven opinion.

Each technology has it's place or else one technology would have taken over. If diesel was that much superior it would account for more than the 40-50% of car sales in Europe by now, where they don't have the crazy US scientist meddling in their affairs.

Also interesting to note is that it takes more oil to produce diesel than gasoline. Biodiesel is another intersting alternative to look into as well.

SO please come back with verified facts, adn maybe we can learn somethign from you. Or maybe you will learn somethign form the data I presented to date. Thus far you have only provided your opinion and seem more interested in arguing and bagging on technologies you don't understand or are uninformed about.

Back to main topic.

I still stand by my statement, that modern diesels won't live up to the expectations if folsk compare them to the simplistic old generation diesels of yore. If people have the right expectations, they wil be much happier as modern diesels are an engineering marvel, but beware of the pitfalls it will bring for apllications like a Cruiser. Find out the good and the bad before blindy jumping on the band wagon. Hopefully Toyota will make an engine available in the future that will meet all the requirements for sale in the US.

 

[Dougal]

If diesel was that much superior it would account for more than the 40-50% of car sales in Europe by now, where they don't have the crazy US scientist meddling in their affairs.

More than 50% of the cars sold in Europe are diesel.

The bluetech system is being introduced now to meet future requirements.
The gasoline engine has few if any aces up it's sleeve to improve it's appalling efficiency.
Nissan, Toyota, Honda and others all produce direct injection high compression petrol engines.
The smart car is turbocharged.
Hybrid cars are unless unless you're in continual stop/start traffic. Diesels are a much better choice.
LA's smog is the result of too many cars being driven unncesssarily
20 years use does not mean 10,000hrs use.
Have done plenty of driving in the current 100 series diesel cruisers and can assure you that none of your points are valid.
It doesn't take more oil to produce diesel than gasoline, they are all products of the same refining process.
Your comments on new engines not lasting is baseless speculation.
Have been on the diesel bandwagon for 7 years now, given the choice of diesel vs petrol in any car, I'll take the diesel.

Thermal efficiency of a petrol engine, worse than 30% at best point.
Thermal efficiency of a diesel engine, 43% in a VW 1.9 TDI (197g/kwh at best point)

 

[83bj60]

If diesel was that much superior it would account for more than the 40-50% of car sales in Europe by now, where they don't have the crazy US scientist meddling in their affairs.

In 2005, already more than 75% of all vehicles in France were Diesel-powered. About the same in Spain, about 60% in Italy and 40% in Germany. Maybe they are not 'crazy' after all. And what is it in America? 2%? Hmmm... What's wrong with this picture?

http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb?P384

No offence intended, but your argument is getting quite old. America is not the be-all and end-all anymore.

My 5,500 lb full time full wheel drive truck uses no more fuel than a Camry and certainly MUCH LESS than your gas guzzler and produces much less greenhouse gasses.

Enough with the hegemony of the narrow minded Kalifornian Legislators! You guys are too easily blinded by lack of knowledge and the belief that all diesels are like the old ones of 30 years ago that produce more soot and visible pollutants, forgetting the HUGE amount your gas guzzlers invisibly pour out in your atmosphere. That's a little bit shortsighted, don't you think?

Not everyone lives in LA, maybe you should get out more!!!

 

[hedydd]

More than 50% of the cars sold in Europe are diesel.

Yes indeed and about 90% of SUV's. Even in the UK where diesel fuel is the same price as petrol and often more expensive.

The bluetech system is being introduced now to meet future requirements.
The gasoline engine has few if any aces up it's sleeve to improve it's appalling efficiency.
Nissan, Toyota, Honda and others all produce direct injection high compression petrol engines.

Many new versions of VW/Audi group petrol engines are now direct injection turbocharged petrol engines of low swept volume but high power and torque. The potential drawback with this technology from all brands is the increase in particulate levels to the point that soot filters could be needed. However they are very powerful and much more economical than heritage engines although still far from being as economical as diesel engines.

The smart car is turbocharged.
Hybrid cars are unless unless you're in continual stop/start traffic. Diesels are a much better choice.
LA's smog is the result of too many cars being driven unncesssarily
20 years use does not mean 10,000hrs use.
Have done plenty of driving in the current 100 series diesel cruisers and can assure you that none of your points are valid.

And to be fair the 1HD FTE is old technology and cannot be compared favourably with the latest engines, hence the move to the new V8 common-rail high performance unit which will provide a huge increase in performance and refinement while being even more economical.

It doesn't take more oil to produce diesel than gasoline, they are all products of the same refining process.
Your comments on new engines not lasting is baseless speculation.
Have been on the diesel bandwagon for 7 years now, given the choice of diesel vs petrol in any car, I'll take the diesel.

Thermal efficiency of a petrol engine, worse than 30% at best point.
Thermal efficiency of a diesel engine, 43% in a VW 1.9 TDI (197g/kwh at best point)

My experience is that modern engines last longer than ever before. I remember back in the 1960's where engines needed an overhaul at around 60,000 miles and were shot at 100,000 miles as a rule. In the 1980's that stretched to 120,000 miles for petrol and 150,000 for diesel cars on average. During the 1990's it became common for petrol engines to last 150,000 miles before an overhaul and diesels easily exceeded 200,000 miles and much more for high mileage drivers. All this while service intervals stretched from 3000 miles to a now common 20,000 miles. Some VW and GM European engines now have service intervals [including oil changes] of up to 20,000 miles for petrol engines and a scaresly credible [for Americans] 30,000 miles for diesel. These are nothing exotic, just VW Golf and GM/Vauxhall Vectra and others.
In fact they last so well these days that even spark plugs have 60,000 or even longer service intervals. So much longer do car bodies and drivetrains last that they are usually scrapped due to old age and low value eventually combined with quite trivial problems which would cost more than the value of the vehicle ie next to nothing.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Diesel Shmeesel.......they suck.

 

[83bj60]

Diesel Shmeesel.......they suck.

Thank you for your enlightened response... Keep wasting your resources, your grandkids are going to love you for it...

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Thank you for your enlightened response... Keep wasting your resources, your grandkids are going to love you for it...

Oh, and you probably believe in global warming?

 

[bulldog-yota]

More than 50% of the cars sold in Europe are diesel.

The bluetech system is being introduced now to meet future requirements.
The gasoline engine has few if any aces up it's sleeve to improve it's appalling efficiency.
Nissan, Toyota, Honda and others all produce direct injection high compression petrol engines.
The smart car is turbocharged.
Hybrid cars are unless unless you're in continual stop/start traffic. Diesels are a much better choice.
LA's smog is the result of too many cars being driven unncesssarily
20 years use does not mean 10,000hrs use.
Have done plenty of driving in the current 100 series diesel cruisers and can assure you that none of your points are valid.
It doesn't take more oil to produce diesel than gasoline, they are all products of the same refining process.
Your comments on new engines not lasting is baseless speculation.
Have been on the diesel bandwagon for 7 years now, given the choice of diesel vs petrol in any car, I'll take the diesel.

Thermal efficiency of a petrol engine, worse than 30% at best point.
Thermal efficiency of a diesel engine, 43% in a VW 1.9 TDI (197g/kwh at best point)

No point in further discussion, you have brought no information of references with detailed info to the table. Nothing to learn here, but your opinion.

No offence intended, but your argument is getting quite old. America is not the be-all and end-all anymore.

Enough with the hegemony of the narrow minded Kalifornian Legislators! You guys are too easily blinded by lack of knowledge and the belief that all diesels are like the old ones of 30 years ago that produce more soot and visible pollutants, forgetting the HUGE amount your gas guzzlers invisibly pour out in your atmosphere. That's a little bit shortsighted, don't you think?

Not everyone lives in LA, maybe you should get out more!!!

For the purposes of the discussion it is (See thread start). It is about getting a diesel option for the US, which will ultimately imply complying to the "crazy Kalifornian emission standards" (which has gotten on top of air pollution before basically anybody else, they are just setting a trend the rest of the world is slowly adopting like unleaded gas).

No offense, but again no info or references just opinion.

Diesel Shmeesel.......they suck.

Diesel is a fuel technology with lots of potential, but there are many other options as well. I wouldn't be quick to write any of them off just yet.

Your resposne is critized for bringing nothing to the table but opinion. Yet I don't see anything else posted with real info or content either. Like what diesel will Toyota put in, specs, technology that will have to be used for emissions, etc, etc. How will it compare to the 5.7 V8 with 6 spd auto? What transmission options might be available? What would be the pros and the cons of each choice in detail with som ereferenced info?

I guess it is just an internet thread anyway

 

[Pskhaat]

Shotts, now we all know how much the atmosphere is warming, you're just trying to start something now...