I work for an exhaust supplier and was told by one of the automotive executives that on bigger trucks the exhaust system is the most expensive part of their vehicle. I was surprised by this and said what about the engine or transmission. He replied that it was not even close. Still not certain I believe it.
Why isnt every vehicle a diesel?
- Thread starter FLORIDA
- Start date
- Status
As far as longevity goes, pretty much any gasoline powered cars motor will last 2-300k miles. The rest of the car might not hold up as well. Rust is the enemy of any vehicle. So even if the motor runs great if the frame rusts out, it's done for. By me diesel costs more then gasoline. And the cost of a diesel motor costs more in every vehicle over a gas engine. As everyone else said before me, the smell of Diesel itself turns people off, as well as the higher then gas cost of repairs. If you really want one, go for it. They're not everybody's cup of tea.,,,
Originally Posted By: BigCahuna
As far as longevity goes, pretty much any gasoline powered cars motor will last 2-300k miles. The rest of the car might not hold up as well. Rust is the enemy of any vehicle. So even if the motor runs great if the frame rusts out, it's done for. By me diesel costs more then gasoline. And the cost of a diesel motor costs more in every vehicle over a gas engine. As everyone else said before me, the smell of Diesel itself turns people off, as well as the higher then gas cost of repairs. If you really want one, go for it. They're not everybody's cup of tea.,,,
That's pretty much it. Most any engine can go really long distances, but it seems most of the long-lived examples racked up their miles quickly. Otherwise the car died for some other reason.
I'm not sure if rebuild cost has evened out. Used to be it cost more to machine (rebore, deck, etc) a diesel. Is that true today? Rering, rebore, redo a head... I wonder if the cost to rebuild the major mechanicals has reached par. Similarly, the fuel injector systems seem to be moving towards each other--both are direct injection.
As far as longevity goes, pretty much any gasoline powered cars motor will last 2-300k miles. The rest of the car might not hold up as well. Rust is the enemy of any vehicle. So even if the motor runs great if the frame rusts out, it's done for. By me diesel costs more then gasoline. And the cost of a diesel motor costs more in every vehicle over a gas engine. As everyone else said before me, the smell of Diesel itself turns people off, as well as the higher then gas cost of repairs. If you really want one, go for it. They're not everybody's cup of tea.,,,
That's pretty much it. Most any engine can go really long distances, but it seems most of the long-lived examples racked up their miles quickly. Otherwise the car died for some other reason.
I'm not sure if rebuild cost has evened out. Used to be it cost more to machine (rebore, deck, etc) a diesel. Is that true today? Rering, rebore, redo a head... I wonder if the cost to rebuild the major mechanicals has reached par. Similarly, the fuel injector systems seem to be moving towards each other--both are direct injection.
Nick1994
$100 site donor 2024
Gas engines can go the distance too, and IMO cheaper.
Diesels have complicated fuel systems that make it somewhat difficult to work on by the average Joe.
Volkswagen can't even get it right. Not just their emissions stuff but their common-rail TDI engines from 2009-present have major issues with their high-pressure fuel pumps failing. It can cost $5,000+ to fix, I'm not even kidding. Many of the TDI owner's facing the buy-back are really worried driving these cars because if the HPFP goes, they can't turn it in unless they fix it. Ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Even their 2004+ BEW and BRM engines had major camshaft issues (I was one of those affected) where mine was very worn at 175k miles, dealership maintained religiously.
Diesels have complicated fuel systems that make it somewhat difficult to work on by the average Joe.
Volkswagen can't even get it right. Not just their emissions stuff but their common-rail TDI engines from 2009-present have major issues with their high-pressure fuel pumps failing. It can cost $5,000+ to fix, I'm not even kidding. Many of the TDI owner's facing the buy-back are really worried driving these cars because if the HPFP goes, they can't turn it in unless they fix it. Ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Even their 2004+ BEW and BRM engines had major camshaft issues (I was one of those affected) where mine was very worn at 175k miles, dealership maintained religiously.
Originally Posted By: spk2000
I work for an exhaust supplier and was told by one of the automotive executives that on bigger trucks the exhaust system is the most expensive part of their vehicle. I was surprised by this and said what about the engine or transmission. He replied that it was not even close. Still not certain I believe it.
Yup, on a newer 6.7L Powerstroke truck, the exhaust/emissions system and the high pressure fuel pump going out would total the truck.
I think there are plenty of Americans who love diesels, but many of them now refuse to buy them because of the added maintenance cost and reduced longevity due to emissions systems. The increased initial purchase price and maintenance/repair costs have caused many potential diesel buyers to go gas. Many fleets around here are replacing older diesel vehicles (older cummins, 7.3 and 6.0 powerstroke trucks) with gasoline trucks.
I work for an exhaust supplier and was told by one of the automotive executives that on bigger trucks the exhaust system is the most expensive part of their vehicle. I was surprised by this and said what about the engine or transmission. He replied that it was not even close. Still not certain I believe it.
Yup, on a newer 6.7L Powerstroke truck, the exhaust/emissions system and the high pressure fuel pump going out would total the truck.
I think there are plenty of Americans who love diesels, but many of them now refuse to buy them because of the added maintenance cost and reduced longevity due to emissions systems. The increased initial purchase price and maintenance/repair costs have caused many potential diesel buyers to go gas. Many fleets around here are replacing older diesel vehicles (older cummins, 7.3 and 6.0 powerstroke trucks) with gasoline trucks.
I'm not a fan of diesels, excluding HD trucks.
Higher purchase price, higher maintenance costs, boring to drive, and the fuel smells terrible amd won't come off once it's on you or your clothes.
Higher purchase price, higher maintenance costs, boring to drive, and the fuel smells terrible amd won't come off once it's on you or your clothes.
A lot of the higher fuel efficiency quoted for diesels comes not from the absolute efficiency(which is higher, but not dramatically so) but rather that the energy density of diesel fuel is higher. It's similar to phenomena like seeing lower gas mileage in a gasoline engine with winter blend gas as opposed to summer blends. Winter blends are more volatile, and in petroleum chemistry higher volatility usually means shorter hydrocarbon chains and lower energy density. Also, if you have a flex fuel vehicle, look at the mileage hit you get on E85 vs. E10.
As far as emissions go-since the US has really started cracking down on exhaust gases NOx, SOx, and VOCs have been the big focus. With closed loop fuel injection VOCs are pretty easy to control(and also helps gas mileage since the gas is actually burning in the cylinder and not coming out the tailpipe). Even without fuel injection, the solutions were usually to run the car lean, advance the spark aggressively, and sometimes run an air injection system into the exhaust to help burn anything in the tail pipe that wasn't burned in the engine. Gasoline tends to be low enough in sulfur that SOx really isn't an issue. Higher combustion temperatures tend to promote NOx formation, so the immediate solution was to lower compression-something you can't really do with diesel and still have a reliable engine. Now, catalytic converters scavenge VOCs and can also handle NOx to the point where we're now seeing high CR engines return.
By contrast, it's hard to tweak combustion conditions in a diesel to cut out VOCs, which is a lot of the reason why they(historically) have had such a distinctive smell. The high CRs inherent in a diesel(again something you can't change too much) make NOx formation a real problem and the higher sulfur content of diesel fuel tends to promote SOx formation. Urea injection cuts down a lot of the NOx and low sulfur diesel fuels help with SOx. You still have the VOC problem, though. There's also the issue of particulates, which are basically non-existent on an in-tune gasoline engine but are a problem with diesel. On stationary engines, you can put scrubbers on that keep this pretty well under control, but they tend to be big and bulky enough that they're impractical on stationary engines.
As mentioned-especially after the recent VAG and now FCA diesel scandals-I see diesels taking another big step back in the USA on anything other than than large pickups on up to big rigs(and busses).
As far as emissions go-since the US has really started cracking down on exhaust gases NOx, SOx, and VOCs have been the big focus. With closed loop fuel injection VOCs are pretty easy to control(and also helps gas mileage since the gas is actually burning in the cylinder and not coming out the tailpipe). Even without fuel injection, the solutions were usually to run the car lean, advance the spark aggressively, and sometimes run an air injection system into the exhaust to help burn anything in the tail pipe that wasn't burned in the engine. Gasoline tends to be low enough in sulfur that SOx really isn't an issue. Higher combustion temperatures tend to promote NOx formation, so the immediate solution was to lower compression-something you can't really do with diesel and still have a reliable engine. Now, catalytic converters scavenge VOCs and can also handle NOx to the point where we're now seeing high CR engines return.
By contrast, it's hard to tweak combustion conditions in a diesel to cut out VOCs, which is a lot of the reason why they(historically) have had such a distinctive smell. The high CRs inherent in a diesel(again something you can't change too much) make NOx formation a real problem and the higher sulfur content of diesel fuel tends to promote SOx formation. Urea injection cuts down a lot of the NOx and low sulfur diesel fuels help with SOx. You still have the VOC problem, though. There's also the issue of particulates, which are basically non-existent on an in-tune gasoline engine but are a problem with diesel. On stationary engines, you can put scrubbers on that keep this pretty well under control, but they tend to be big and bulky enough that they're impractical on stationary engines.
As mentioned-especially after the recent VAG and now FCA diesel scandals-I see diesels taking another big step back in the USA on anything other than than large pickups on up to big rigs(and busses).
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
I'm not a fan of diesels, excluding HD trucks.
Higher purchase price, higher maintenance costs, boring to drive, and the fuel smells terrible amd won't come off once it's on you or your clothes.
How is it boring to drive? Once I tuned mine it was a road demon. Once above 60mph (2k rpm) I would no longer have to shift. Just roll into it, and it'd take off. In 3rd or 4th gear, once it hit 3k it'd pull to above 4k something fierce. No need to hit 6k. I've never had a turbo gasser to compare with, but all my gassers need 3k at a min to do anything, which means they are never motoring along in the power band, always below it.
It was a bit laggy with the bigger turbo, but I liked to think of it as Igor was under the hood, responding to throttle inputs with a "Yes master" before whipping the horses.
I'm not a fan of diesels, excluding HD trucks.
Higher purchase price, higher maintenance costs, boring to drive, and the fuel smells terrible amd won't come off once it's on you or your clothes.
How is it boring to drive? Once I tuned mine it was a road demon. Once above 60mph (2k rpm) I would no longer have to shift. Just roll into it, and it'd take off. In 3rd or 4th gear, once it hit 3k it'd pull to above 4k something fierce. No need to hit 6k. I've never had a turbo gasser to compare with, but all my gassers need 3k at a min to do anything, which means they are never motoring along in the power band, always below it.
It was a bit laggy with the bigger turbo, but I liked to think of it as Igor was under the hood, responding to throttle inputs with a "Yes master" before whipping the horses.
Simple, don't put all the eggs in one basket.
Last edited:
Back in the day of the W123, Mercedes priced the diesels lower than the gas cars because they said they were less desirable.
The diesels in these vehicles were very simple with bulletproof Bosch inline injection pumps.
The only maintenance required was to change the fuel filters occasionally as well as the oil, frequently, since nothing loads the engine oil with soot like an old Mercedes diesel.
Water in the fuel didn't seem to be a big issue with these things since there was no water separator that needed to be drained.
If you went with the diesel, you got a slow car that would deliver better fuel economy than a 230E or 280E. Mercedes fixed the slow problem by turbocharging the 300D, which also improved fuel economy.
I had two 240Ds, one of which exceeded 200K before I sold it. It still looked good and ran well and there were few problems for any owner of these cars with the excellent four speed automatic of the day. The 240D was also available with a four speed stick in the US but these were rare.
Cold weather starting at temperatures that would cause no problems with any SI engine could be difficult or even impossible due to fuel gelling, but the simple solution was to make sure you garaged the car for nights where temperatures below 5F or so were forecast.
Today, diesels are complicated with common rail fuel injection and expensive exhaust systems that were unneeded back in the day, along with the pretty much mandatory turbo.
Gas vehicles also offer much better fuel economy today than was the case in the late seventies as well as more power with no great increase in complexity.
As far as I can see, you aren't going to get lower cost per mile with any modern light diesel in this country, regardless of the great fuel economy you might see.
The diesels in these vehicles were very simple with bulletproof Bosch inline injection pumps.
The only maintenance required was to change the fuel filters occasionally as well as the oil, frequently, since nothing loads the engine oil with soot like an old Mercedes diesel.
Water in the fuel didn't seem to be a big issue with these things since there was no water separator that needed to be drained.
If you went with the diesel, you got a slow car that would deliver better fuel economy than a 230E or 280E. Mercedes fixed the slow problem by turbocharging the 300D, which also improved fuel economy.
I had two 240Ds, one of which exceeded 200K before I sold it. It still looked good and ran well and there were few problems for any owner of these cars with the excellent four speed automatic of the day. The 240D was also available with a four speed stick in the US but these were rare.
Cold weather starting at temperatures that would cause no problems with any SI engine could be difficult or even impossible due to fuel gelling, but the simple solution was to make sure you garaged the car for nights where temperatures below 5F or so were forecast.
Today, diesels are complicated with common rail fuel injection and expensive exhaust systems that were unneeded back in the day, along with the pretty much mandatory turbo.
Gas vehicles also offer much better fuel economy today than was the case in the late seventies as well as more power with no great increase in complexity.
As far as I can see, you aren't going to get lower cost per mile with any modern light diesel in this country, regardless of the great fuel economy you might see.
Originally Posted By: spk2000
I work for an exhaust supplier and was told by one of the automotive executives that on bigger trucks the exhaust system is the most expensive part of their vehicle. I was surprised by this and said what about the engine or transmission. He replied that it was not even close. Still not certain I believe it.
Chrysler wants a cool $3400 for a replacement DPF on my truck alone. No thanks.
I work for an exhaust supplier and was told by one of the automotive executives that on bigger trucks the exhaust system is the most expensive part of their vehicle. I was surprised by this and said what about the engine or transmission. He replied that it was not even close. Still not certain I believe it.
Chrysler wants a cool $3400 for a replacement DPF on my truck alone. No thanks.
I owned a late model Jetta TDI for a while. Loved the car, loved the instant torque and the way it drove in the mountains.
However, the reliability was not there. Diesels are not more reliable or longer lasting. The combustion events are violent, requiring tougher parts.
Diesel aircraft engines use wooden props, as the violence excites the aluminum props to failure!
Same for my Jetta, the dual mass flywheel exploded. A common problem with 4 cylinder diesels of all sorts.
A higher cyl count results in fewer vibrational issues.
However, when you compare Ford's well built modular engines, capable of more than a million miles, diesels don't look so reliable anymore. With many small diesels failing to start and run well beyond 200K due to slight losses in compression.
However, the reliability was not there. Diesels are not more reliable or longer lasting. The combustion events are violent, requiring tougher parts.
Diesel aircraft engines use wooden props, as the violence excites the aluminum props to failure!
Same for my Jetta, the dual mass flywheel exploded. A common problem with 4 cylinder diesels of all sorts.
A higher cyl count results in fewer vibrational issues.
However, when you compare Ford's well built modular engines, capable of more than a million miles, diesels don't look so reliable anymore. With many small diesels failing to start and run well beyond 200K due to slight losses in compression.
Last edited:
And this was my dilemma when shopping for a new work truck. When you factor all the added costs associated to expensive fuel filters, DEF, emissions devices etc it may not be worth it to run diesel. In the truck I bought it was another 10k bucks to get a diesel. I may never see the savings in the 20 years I plan to keep the truck. But where the diesel got me was the stronger transmission for towing and the exhaust brake. I was not very impressed with the engine braking on my 1500. The safety factor alone was worth a lot.
But I must admit, when the warranty is up or nearly up I will be looking at deleting and possibly removing the engine bay mounted fuel filter and getting one of those CAT filter mounts.
I doubt this venture will get me any $$ savings but hey its just money...
But I must admit, when the warranty is up or nearly up I will be looking at deleting and possibly removing the engine bay mounted fuel filter and getting one of those CAT filter mounts.
I doubt this venture will get me any $$ savings but hey its just money...
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I owned a late model Jetta TDI for a while. Loved the car, loved the instant torque and the way it drove in the mountains.
However, the reliability was not there. Diesels are not more reliable or longer lasting. The combustion events are violent, requiring tougher parts.
That wasn't the issue with the old style mechanical naturally aspirated diesels slower turning (2,800 max rpm on many of those motors) that would run forever (at least 10,000 hours and often quite a bit more!). But they were smoky, and didn't work well in cars as they were super slow off the line.
They fixed the power & smoky issues in the newer diesels with turbos and electronic ignition, but at the expense of reliability.
I owned a late model Jetta TDI for a while. Loved the car, loved the instant torque and the way it drove in the mountains.
However, the reliability was not there. Diesels are not more reliable or longer lasting. The combustion events are violent, requiring tougher parts.
That wasn't the issue with the old style mechanical naturally aspirated diesels slower turning (2,800 max rpm on many of those motors) that would run forever (at least 10,000 hours and often quite a bit more!). But they were smoky, and didn't work well in cars as they were super slow off the line.
They fixed the power & smoky issues in the newer diesels with turbos and electronic ignition, but at the expense of reliability.
Originally Posted By: spk2000
I work for an exhaust supplier and was told by one of the automotive executives that on bigger trucks the exhaust system is the most expensive part of their vehicle. I was surprised by this and said what about the engine or transmission. He replied that it was not even close. Still not certain I believe it.
I do. I was told that one exhaust filter wholesales for $6500, plus a $2k core charge. Trucks now have two.
I work for an exhaust supplier and was told by one of the automotive executives that on bigger trucks the exhaust system is the most expensive part of their vehicle. I was surprised by this and said what about the engine or transmission. He replied that it was not even close. Still not certain I believe it.
I do. I was told that one exhaust filter wholesales for $6500, plus a $2k core charge. Trucks now have two.
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Which would you rather have - a Tesla 85D, or an Audi diesel AWD? ...
An Audi Diesel AWD.
Which would you rather have - a Tesla 85D, or an Audi diesel AWD? ...
An Audi Diesel AWD.
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Which would you rather have - a Tesla 85D, or an Audi diesel AWD? Silent fast smooth, or not so much and just as expensive ...
Hard call. I think I'd rather have the Tesla, but I'd be worried about longevity as I tend to drive a vehicle for a long time (Audi is just as bad, but will Tesla be around in 10 years with full aftermarket support?
). Otherwise, the quiet ride would suit me fine; and it'd be interesting to be "forced" into 20-30 minute breaks every 3 hours (for recharging). Although having to pay for a home charging station would be a big bummer.
Which would you rather have - a Tesla 85D, or an Audi diesel AWD? Silent fast smooth, or not so much and just as expensive ...
Hard call. I think I'd rather have the Tesla, but I'd be worried about longevity as I tend to drive a vehicle for a long time (Audi is just as bad, but will Tesla be around in 10 years with full aftermarket support?
Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Which would you rather have - a Tesla 85D, or an Audi diesel AWD? Silent fast smooth, or not so much and just as expensive ...
Hard call. I think I'd rather have the Tesla, but I'd be worried about longevity as I tend to drive a vehicle for a long time (Audi is just as bad, but will Tesla be around in 10 years with full aftermarket support?
). Otherwise, the quiet ride would suit me fine; and it'd be interesting to be "forced" into 20-30 minute breaks every 3 hours (for recharging). Although having to pay for a home charging station would be a big bummer.
That's the rub. With Tesla, you deal with Tesla, or you park your car forever.
Do anything to your car that Daddy Elon does not like, and he will disable your car.
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Which would you rather have - a Tesla 85D, or an Audi diesel AWD? Silent fast smooth, or not so much and just as expensive ...
Hard call. I think I'd rather have the Tesla, but I'd be worried about longevity as I tend to drive a vehicle for a long time (Audi is just as bad, but will Tesla be around in 10 years with full aftermarket support?
That's the rub. With Tesla, you deal with Tesla, or you park your car forever.
Do anything to your car that Daddy Elon does not like, and he will disable your car.
- Status