The Spie
Well-Known Member
Suckcock's put out an incredible piece of drivel, even for him, on the BBC's "new" Autos section of its website. The drivel in full: http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130109-why-do-americans-not-buy-diesels
If I may, let me counter him point-by-point:
Well, let's just go over to the gas station by me here in Middle America, shall we? 87 octane, $3.13 a gallon. Diesel, $4.08 a gallon. And a base-model diesel Passat is $5500 more than its petrol equivalent (go over to Edmunds to compare prices). There's two big hints right there.
Apparently, you don't, if you didn't bother to research the two salient facts I cited above.
So you had high-end Vauxhalls with diesel engines that were badly retrofitted from petrol engines, like we had Oldsmobiles and Buicks, ones that ended up killing the market for diesels for a generation? I don't think you did.
Except for one little thing: Americans who drove diesels at the time weren't regarded as outcasts. They were regarded as pickup-truck owners. And considering how many pickups are on the road here, both then and now...
Well, that's true here today, especially in urban areas with a shortage of said pickups.
This may surprise you, Richard, but diesel prices here are actually pretty consistent. The variability of diesel prices you cite in your link to AAA later on is identical to the variability of petrol prices from state to state, area to area, urban to rural. It isn't due to availability per se. It's due to taxes.
No, it won't. You apparently aren't aware of our highly variable and Byzantine fuel tax structure here. See above.
The only time that happens is when our refining capacity takes a major hit, like in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Otherwise, it never is. In fact, diesel prices are far less elastic than petrol prices are. They go high, they stay high.
Except that you're now talking about the dominion of $3 gallons, aren't you? And if diesel is 33% higher cost than petrol, that mileage difference is pissed away. Given the lesser overhead and maintenance costs of a petrol engine, there's no advantage.
You also didn't bring up the fact that we don't tax on CO2 like Europe does. There goes diesel's last advantage.
So then why bother bringing them to a country that prioritizes NOx and smog particulate emissions control over CO2? And, again, these systems have to be maintained. Or do you believe that all of us colonials keeps flocks of sheep whose pee we can harvest to put into our diesel emission control systems?
In what single way is it worth it? It doesn't make sense economically for us, and that's what we prioritize: Value For Money.
It still is here.
You also don't mind if your cars belch, stink, and emit sounds like mating rhinos. Maybe we're a little more refined than you in the taste department.
And who says we want the costs passed on to us? We've shown we're not willing to pay extra for this. Again, Suckcock, Value For Money Is King In America. Keep repeating that to yourself, and maybe you'll come to understand it.
There are sensory pleasures to be had in a slaughterhouse as well. I've worked in many of them, so I can tell you that. However, you might not consider them to be pleasures. We don't consider the sensory output of diesels to be pleasures.
And who's going to take the financial risk to spend the money to add the additional equipment to bring them in line with EPA guidelines, certify the engines (about $400K per powerplant, viz. Spectre), and then try to sell them to a public that's already rejected diesel a couple of times? If we don't have them, we can't buy them, and no car company is going to take a chance in this economy to sell them to us. Mercedes and VW are selling as many diesels as we apparently want right now. There's no need for any more. If Ford isn't going to bother, than no one else will.
This man gets a paycheck from the BBC to write this nonsense. The mind boggles.
(Just to clear this up, no, I am not Euro-baiting. The diesel defenders here tend to do a very good job in doing so and trying to sell us benighted Americans on their benefits, especially the ever-so-systematic Germans. This piece, though, posted on the official website of the world's largest broadcast organization, is one of the worst and deserves mocking both for its status, the status of its author, and its incredible idiocy.)
If I may, let me counter him point-by-point:
Suckcock said:So why would more Americans not drive diesels?
Well, let's just go over to the gas station by me here in Middle America, shall we? 87 octane, $3.13 a gallon. Diesel, $4.08 a gallon. And a base-model diesel Passat is $5500 more than its petrol equivalent (go over to Edmunds to compare prices). There's two big hints right there.
?But what do Britons know about our market?? an American might opine. Quite a lot.
Apparently, you don't, if you didn't bother to research the two salient facts I cited above.
In significant ways, the diesel market in the US is similar to that of the UK three decades ago.
So you had high-end Vauxhalls with diesel engines that were badly retrofitted from petrol engines, like we had Oldsmobiles and Buicks, ones that ended up killing the market for diesels for a generation? I don't think you did.
In the UK of the 1980s, diesel drivers were outcasts. They were required to fill up around the back of the station, over by the truckers, to be looked upon by gasoline burners with a mixture of pity and smugness.
Except for one little thing: Americans who drove diesels at the time weren't regarded as outcasts. They were regarded as pickup-truck owners. And considering how many pickups are on the road here, both then and now...
And that presumed diesel drivers could even find somewhere to fill up, as not every filling station bothered to stock their fuel.
Well, that's true here today, especially in urban areas with a shortage of said pickups.
This sheer lack of availability led to great variability in pricing.
This may surprise you, Richard, but diesel prices here are actually pretty consistent. The variability of diesel prices you cite in your link to AAA later on is identical to the variability of petrol prices from state to state, area to area, urban to rural. It isn't due to availability per se. It's due to taxes.
But with more diesel purchasers, the laws of the marketplace would kick in, bringing prices into greater alignment.
No, it won't. You apparently aren't aware of our highly variable and Byzantine fuel tax structure here. See above.
Given the need for low-sulfur refining, diesel would not necessarily become cheaper than premium in the US.
The only time that happens is when our refining capacity takes a major hit, like in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Otherwise, it never is. In fact, diesel prices are far less elastic than petrol prices are. They go high, they stay high.
It is pricier on the other side of the Pond, too, but although Europeans gripe about it, they still know the savings add up. Diesel generally returns 30% better mileage than gas, and in the dominion of $8 gallons, this is no small advantage.
Except that you're now talking about the dominion of $3 gallons, aren't you? And if diesel is 33% higher cost than petrol, that mileage difference is pissed away. Given the lesser overhead and maintenance costs of a petrol engine, there's no advantage.
Even our EU 6 standards, due in 2015, do not quite match the States? strict limits on smog- and acid rain-causing emissions.
You also didn't bring up the fact that we don't tax on CO2 like Europe does. There goes diesel's last advantage.
Relative to a gasoline-burning engine, it is more difficult to control NOx in a diesel, which is why, to meet those comparatively stricter emissions limits, diesels in the US are required to use expensive, onboard after-treatment systems, which decrease the amount of particulate matter that leaves the tailpipe. Diesel engines are already more expensive to develop than gasoline units, given their turbos and complex injection systems. After-treatment systems make them even pricier.
So then why bother bringing them to a country that prioritizes NOx and smog particulate emissions control over CO2? And, again, these systems have to be maintained. Or do you believe that all of us colonials keeps flocks of sheep whose pee we can harvest to put into our diesel emission control systems?
Here?s the thing: It?s worth it.
In what single way is it worth it? It doesn't make sense economically for us, and that's what we prioritize: Value For Money.
Diesel used to be a dirty fuel and a dirty word,
It still is here.
but recent technologies have addressed both problems, which is why the world outside the United States thinks of the choice between gasoline and diesel as a foregone conclusion.
You also don't mind if your cars belch, stink, and emit sounds like mating rhinos. Maybe we're a little more refined than you in the taste department.
And even with the additional costs, passed on to the consumer, of emissions compliance equipment,
And who says we want the costs passed on to us? We've shown we're not willing to pay extra for this. Again, Suckcock, Value For Money Is King In America. Keep repeating that to yourself, and maybe you'll come to understand it.
the sensory pleasures of a diesel-powered vehicle are difficult to deny.
There are sensory pleasures to be had in a slaughterhouse as well. I've worked in many of them, so I can tell you that. However, you might not consider them to be pleasures. We don't consider the sensory output of diesels to be pleasures.
It is high time, America, to give diesels a better look.
And who's going to take the financial risk to spend the money to add the additional equipment to bring them in line with EPA guidelines, certify the engines (about $400K per powerplant, viz. Spectre), and then try to sell them to a public that's already rejected diesel a couple of times? If we don't have them, we can't buy them, and no car company is going to take a chance in this economy to sell them to us. Mercedes and VW are selling as many diesels as we apparently want right now. There's no need for any more. If Ford isn't going to bother, than no one else will.
This man gets a paycheck from the BBC to write this nonsense. The mind boggles.
(Just to clear this up, no, I am not Euro-baiting. The diesel defenders here tend to do a very good job in doing so and trying to sell us benighted Americans on their benefits, especially the ever-so-systematic Germans. This piece, though, posted on the official website of the world's largest broadcast organization, is one of the worst and deserves mocking both for its status, the status of its author, and its incredible idiocy.)
Last edited: