But,

I have said before that Fiat (who build the enigne the US is so keen to see) see no future for diesels and we are starting to see their small capacity turbo petrols come on line.

Look at BMWs new 118i Petrol engine, it emits140gC02/km comapred to 159 for a 9-3 Diesel. MPG, 47.9 BMW, 49.7 Saab. BHP? 141 BMW 150 Saab. Or you could use the 320i Petrol 151gCO2, 44.8mpg, 170 BHP and a second quicker to 60 than the Saab. Diesel does not look so good now does it?

Now look at large petrol vs small turbo petrol VWs 1400cc TSi (Turbo and supercharger) desgined to replace the 2000cc petrol. 1.4 emits 169gCO2 the 2.0 petrol 197gCO2. As you can see, if BMW used a TSI type engine with their stop start tech as applied in the 118i then the CO2 could be reduced even further, probably to the EU target 120g/km

Fiat will be doing exactly this with their new 500 (Swade really, I thought you were a man of class and taste, to misquote the Stones. Its the best thing they have done for years.) this is why they see the end of diesel (Korum – diesel has never ever been cool. Not even if it was being driven to the North Pole by James Dean)

Dont forget Fiat are leaders in the diesel field. VW who, I think the diesel supporters want to emulate, are pushing TSI across the board too.

I can see with GMs treatment of Saab over the years whay everyone is cynical, I really can, but Lutz is right if they are going down the BMW/Fiat route. I know the TTid is a great engine but so is the GM built 1.6 turbo – why no calls for it to be fitted in place of the 2.0 turbo in the 9-3?
If the US goes diesel they run the risk of adpoting it just as Europe moves away from diesel. Diesel has a future but it will be in the 9-5 class and above and then it will still be a limited market.

You mention “russpartikel” or “soot”. We in the U.S. call that “P.M.” for “particulate matter”. Another major emission from diesels (more so than gasoline engines) are nitrogen oxides (NOx), which mix with NMOG to create smog and acid rain. All internal combustion engines emit other pollutants like carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO).

All of these emissions are harmful to humans (except CO2) or to the environment (CO2). While diesel engines will emit less CO2, they emit more NOx.

And get that electric rear drive concept going. Or hire me! yeahright.

You know, us Floridian’s aren’t the sharpest tools, but check this out. A 62 year old retiree accidentally found a way to burn salt water. How sweet would it be to go to the beach to refuel… ?

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=85990

“BouvineExcrement!”

Can’t we find a way to combust CRAP as a fuel? Methanol – Cow chips for your car!

To answer your questions to the best of my ability with the knowledge I have on the subject:

1. Yes, we’re projected to run out of fossil fuels. There is a finite supply. We also have woefully too little refinery resources as you point out.
2. While “reducing our dependence on foreign oil” would be nice for political purposes, I don’t know that petrodiesel is a means to this end as you point-out. However, if everyone were to theoretically switch over to diesel overnight the increased fuel economy afforded by using diesel rather than gasoline would reduce the amount of oil required to be imported.
3. There are still some technologies being worked-on which will increase the efficiency of the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine, but it is very close to being as efficient as it’s going to get.
4. This is a really stupid argument against the assertion that we are contributing to global climate change. See this (no offense intended).
5. Whether ethanol is “worth it” is a matter of debate. From where I stand it is, even when made from the most inefficient feedstock (corn). IMHO the most immediate danger to the environment is CO2 emissions. When you burn oil you’re taking carbon that was sequestered in the earth for millions of years and add that carbon to the atmosphere. When you burn ethanol you are indeed adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but the next batch of corn will “breathe”-in that CO2 to offset it. It’s still not perfect, but better than burning petroleum, IMHO. I would rather see an EV charged by cleaner energy (photovoltaic, solar-thermal, geothermal, tidal, wave, wind, small hydroelectric, AND (not “or”) nuclear) than internal combustion engines continue, but that’s just MHO.

I actually came back to pose some general questions, because I agree that diesel is not necessarily the panacea … but I don’t know what is … in fact I’m not sure what the root cause of the major push for alternative fuels really even is.

- Are we running out of fossil fuels? or just refinery capacity? (Since the US limits our own building of refineries and exploration, it is actually kinda hard to tell.)
- Is it purely political — OPEC etc? If yes, is diesel an improvement?
- Has gasoline reached its peak performance/emission? Are the alternatives really that much better?
- Is it “global warming” … if so, what are we going to do about the warming of Mercury and Jupiter?
- Is ethanol worth the energy to produce? especially when we are using a food stock like corn — and raising it’s price?

I’m just not the type that will take an issue at face value just because it is neatly packaged and handed to me. I’m skeptical of Lutz, as well as his critics. I want to know who stands to gain from each side of the argument. (Obviously Lutz can’t come out in string favor of diesels, as his company barely has any to sell.)

I like the idea of having choices, especially in the case of some of the flex fuel vehicles — where you can simply fill up with whatever option is easier/cheaper/better at the time … ultimately though, having choices will be what helps control the cost of all fuels … simple supply and demand. Right?

Finally, there was something in the news a few weeks ago about a movement here in Florida … it seems that gasoline has a signifcant rate of thermal expansion … which creates a bit of an issue in warmer climates … it seems that a gallon of gas pumped at 32 degrees F (0 C) has significantly more “energy” available (like 10-15%) than a gallon pumped at 80 degrees F (26.7 C) … so there’s a group that wants pumps to compensate (price or volume) based on the temperature.

Kinda makes sense to buy it by the amount of “stored energy” (kw?) rather than the volume when you think about it. Something like that might make people look at ethanol differently when they see that it actually has a lower level of stored energy. (They’ll realize that they can’t put as much “energy” in their tank.)

Just some things to chew on …