krio

carmagazine.co.uk

The chairman of General Motors, Rick Wagoner, once told me – over a Starbucks cappuccino and bran muffin in his office in Detroit – that his worst managerial mistake was to kill the EV1 electric car. ‘It didn’t affect profitability but it did affect image,’ said the boss now unkindly known as Red Ink Rick. GM handed the environmental initiative to Toyota and its Prius.

Perhaps. But a much bigger GM powertrain faux pas, done well before Wagoner’s watch, was killing diesel development following the debacle of America’s first production car diesel engine – it powered various big barges, including Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles, in the late Seventies and early Eighties. The engine was a dieselised version of an existing Oldsmobile gasoline V8 and was designed to help boost GM’s CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) figures. It was also utterly hopeless. But if GM had persisted with diesel, they – and the rest of the US industry, which would have followed suit – would not be in the straits they’re in now.

Diesel is perfect for Yank cars. American cars should be expansive, comfortable, stylish, distinctive and packed with muscle. The classic Yank engine is the V8: low revving, masses of low-end torque, big dollops of the big easy. The spiritual successor to the old Yank V8 is the big-chested tons-of-torque new-generation turbodiesel. There is one key difference. Instead of slurping fuel like a fighter jet, diesels sip like a teetotal miser.

If GM had persisted with diesel, Yanks could still today drive gloriously expansive big cars – which they want – and save a fortune at the pumps (reducing their dependence on the Middle East and their carbon emissions). Another reason for enthusiastically adopting diesel is that the Japanese, their main auto enemy, still aren’t terribly good at it (the Japanese don’t buy diesels). The Yanks in Europe, especially Ford with its PSA alliance, make some great diesel engines. Inexplicably, they don’t market any of them in America.

I read in many UK newspapers that the ‘Big Three’ have failed because they do not offer Americans the ‘small, fuel efficient cars they want’. This, as with so much automotive analysis from Fleet Street, is nonsense. They certainly want more fuel efficient cars. But they don’t want small cars. Yanks think big. With diesel, they could stay big but also enjoy small fuel bills.

dallison

i don't know how much saving there would actually be. The cost of diesel is always more expensive than premium and the mileage is a little better i presume.

Are you really that much further ahead?

LuvMyTSX

It comes down the to the chicken and the egg thing. If more cars here used diesel, the refineries would switch some production over to diesel, thereby lowering the price of the fuel. However, we have hardly any diesel vehicles here to choose from, so demand is not high enough to make the switch. The US actually 'trades' diesel fuel for gasoline with Europe, because their demand for diesel is much higher there.

FWIW, I would love to have a diesel car, but none on the market currently interest me. I was geared up for the diesel TSX, but since that got axed, that choice is gone.

LuvMyTSX

Diesel cost less than regular gasoline the last time I was in Europe in 2004. Unfortunately, it is not like that in the US.

Crazy Bimmer

Wouldnt diesel come down in price if more people used it?

The Dougler

iTrader: (1)

no. diesel supply is already at 100% capacity, increasing demand will increase cost until there is significant enough demand increases to warrant adding production capacity in any meaningful way.

Dan

Diesels failed in the U.S. because GM, cheap bastards that they are, made their diesel engine based on a GASOLINE engine block AND paired it with a POS transmission that could not handle the increased torque of a diesel. That was NEVER going to turn out well! 30 years since I owned one and am going have one hell of a big smile on my face when GM goes under.

The Dougler

iTrader: (1)

bitter much?

Dan

It showed?

BigLizard

lol...I can't tell.

Blazin Si

The Jetta TDI puts down some nice torque numbers and gets well over 50 mpg on the highway. If GM were to develop something like that and put it in a midsize car like the Malibu, I think they'd be onto something. It's one of their better looking cars and something I could see myself driving if diesel was an option.

Moog-Type-S

Looks like you are going to have a frown for quite some time.

If dubya wouldn't let GM go under.....then there is no way whatsoever Obama lets GM go under.

mrmako

Exactly. GM is not that far from being a good car company. The Malibu/Aura/LaCrosse/G6 could be really good cars with some key additives:

1. A diesel motor like a Mercedes or VW. Have the option of 50 MPG.
2. An interior that is not copied across the models, with quality materials that do not scream CHEAP.
3. If they are going to do badge engineering, limit it to 2 models. There's nothing more annoying than seeing the same car, sans cosmetics.

I'm toning down my GM hatred, but they did this to themselves folks.

majin ssj eric

Sorry but I like my engines to be smooth and high revving which eliminates diesel. I could care less about fuel mileage. Just give me an engine that revs to at least 7500 rpm and I'm happy....

sho_nuff1997

iTrader: (2)

To an extent, but until the taxes go down on diesel--it will always be higher. The diesel taxes are an average of 6 cents/gal higher than gasoline.

Also, the US has huge environmental restrictions on the amount of sulfur emitted from diesel. Which is a big reason we don't have very many diesel engines here. It's not plausible for a company to waste all this money meeting the government's demands.

CL6

The U.S. exports diesel to Europe and imports gas from them. It costs hundred of millions to switch from making gas to diesel and no new refineries have been built in the U.S. in over 20 years. Diesel prices will increase more than gas prices will and they don't do great in very cold climates unless you can plug them in. Also as more consumers use diesel it will cost industry more because they are buying from the same source.

Diesel will not become big in the States.

picus

Ya but that isn't what they want to replace. They want diesels to replace the low revving high torque big V8s. I think it makes a lot of sense. Heck, watching Jeremy Clarkson go 800km on one tank in a twin turbo V6 diesel (with 442lb/ft of torque) convinced me.

I'd love to see GM offer a performance diesel (like above), 300hp/450lb/ft of torque twin turbo, 25mpg/35mpg 0-100km in ~6s to replace some of their 4.5+L V8s. Then offer a small diesel like the TDI for 50+mpg in smaller cars.

F23A4

I'll take Integrated Motor Assist (aka Hybrids) thank you.

mrmako

So which is worse for the environment, the nickle metal hydride battery that can not be recycled(which requires replacement after 5-7 years), or a clean burning diesel, that are now almost as clean as gas burners? Hmmm...

picus

I honestly wonder which causes more long term damage. Strip mining for nickel (and the whole battery making process), or the process of producing & delivering diesel? Anyone into that stuff?

CL6

I think they can be recylced and they do last longer than 5-7 years.

mrsteve

iTrader: (1)

The Nickel Metal Hydride batteries can be recycled and should last 150-200 thousand miles.

Nickel Cadmium batteries are the ones that are not recycled.

However, the lechate from both forms of batteries can contaminate soil/groundwater if disposed of improperly. I believe Toyota actually pays a few hundred dollars for batteries that end up in junk yards to ensure they're recycled.

F23A4

^^ Thank you!!

TzarChasm

It's not only GM that tried and failed with diesel. Both Mercedes and VW had several Diesel models in the late 70's and early 80's. My parents had a Mercedes 300 diesel that ran forever but sucked ASS to drive. The diesel vibrates your fillings out at a stop, and the power was complete garbage. My friend had a Jetta and that thing was slower than a poodle pulling a skateboard. It was pathetic.

Back in the old days nobody was able to produce a decent diesel, so don't just blame GM.

Currently I have no idea how well the new cars with Diesel engines meet the emissions standards. If they don't there may be more than one reason why you don't see anyone making them here.

mrsteve

iTrader: (1)

Diesel technology today can make plenty of power... but they'll never match the punchy responsiveness you get from a gasoline motor.

CL6

My understanding is the torque gives you the 'punchy responsiveness' and if you compare the 2009 Mercedes-Benz ML320 diesel to the 2009 ML350 gas you get 398 lbs. ft. of torque at 1,600 RPM vs. 258 @ 2,400 RPM. There is a tiny delay between 3-7 mph as the turbo spools up but I disagree about the pep.