Algae slime makes good “Fuel” for moviegoers

For an alternative perspective on the future of the automobile, it may help to look at an alternative film. “Fuel” by Josh Tickle is a thought-provoking documentary that examines America’s addiction to oil and what we can do about it.
 
Tickle does a good job of keeping the serious subject rather upbeat and hopeful, as he travels the world in his so-called Veggie Van, fueled by used vegetable oil. The film is engaging and friendly, cajoling audiences into sympathy with its message, not browbeating them.
 
Tickle is a fan of biodiesel, and a lot of the movie is focused on that fuel. Biodiesel is a promising alternative that until recently had problems only with scalability. It worked terrifically for the few consumers who made the commitment to use it, but it looked difficult to supply enough to fuel more than a million or so of America’s roughly 240 million cars. (Read “Diesel vs. biodiesel vs. vegetable oil.”)
 
“Fuel” also documents the growth of the algae biofuel movement, which promises to create economies of scale that biofuels have not had before. (We’ll look into this fuel movement and share our own findings later.)
 
Statistics on alternative fuels are notoriously squishy. Different studies show different advantages. But as a student of these studies, Tickle’s numbers are within the range of those cited by neutral sources, unlike those of some other documentaries on the automotive industry.
 
That’s not to say the movie doesn’t occasionally paint a rosy picture. As with other documentaries, its problems are more of omission, rather than commission. Framing the discussion around biofuels results in a myopic exclusion of any discussion of fuel cells, batteries, or the micro-level economics fundamental to most American families.
 
For example, after it spends a significant amount of time interviewing officials and citizens of some European countries moving off of oil, and noting how they may pay less for biodiesel than for petroleum-based fuel, it fails to mention that consumers in the United States almost always pay more.
 
And “Fuel” misses the point that the government is now heavily subsidizing the development and distribution of electric cars and plug-in hybrids to wean the U.S. off of oil. And while it touches on the future of wind and solar power, it never mentions the fact that these alternatives also need advanced batteries that can piggy-back off the development of new batteries for cars.
 
One amazing statistic in the film compares the cost of funding wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (to protect American access to oil, the film posits) with the cost of providing enough solar panels to meet the electricity needs of every household in the United States. Based on our check of government and solar industry figures, the cost would be about $350 billion, or about three years of averaged war funding. (Admittedly, the issue is more complex than pure dollars, but it is an interesting bit of trivia, nonetheless.)
 
Accepting the biodiesel emphasis for what it is, leaves an informative and engaging documentary. It raises interesting questions worth considering, and it’s worth seeing even for those who consider themselves pretty well informed on alternative fuel issues.

—Eric Evarts

Diesel power just in: Mercedes GL320, BMW X5 3.0 diesel, BMW 335d

Some automakers have had long-standing plans to offer diesel engines in this country. European automakers have stuck with those strategies despite the volatile price disparity between diesel and regular fuel. Japanese and domestic automakers, including Honda, Nissan and GM, have shelved their diesel plans for now.

Impressed by diesels we’ve previously tested from Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen, we have added three more to our test fleet to see how they compare to their conventional counterparts. Our latest diesel models include the Mercedes-Benz GL320 Blue Tec and a pair of BMWs--the X5 and the 335d.

Mercedes-Benz GL320 Blue Tec
We were impressed with the GL450 when we tested it in 2006--a roomy, comfortable, yet responsive handling vehicle. We were also impressed with the 210-hp, 3.0-liter V6 diesel engine when we tested it in the E320 Blue Tec, which combined strong performance and refinement, yet returned 29 mpg overall. It was also free of traditional diesel smell, smoke, and sluggishness. Hence, we wanted to see how this engine performed in the GL.

Even though the GL is very heavy (5,655 lbs.), this engine remains smooth and muted, but initial off-the-line acceleration is sluggish. Once underway, it pulls strongly and manages to hit 60 mph in less than 10 seconds--a far cry from the 7.4 seconds we recorded for the GL450. Observed fuel economy, so far, is averaging 20 mpg overall. We got 15 mpg for our V8-powered GL450. If you’re starting to crunch the numbers, you should know that the GL320 is actually $1,000 cheaper than the GL450.

The other major difference between the two is that the GL320 comes with 20-inch run-flat tires, which brings more impact-harshness to the ride quality. Plus, the steering feedback is compromised. The GL benefits from a $1,550 federal tax credit for the first 60,000 purchasers, but you won’t qualify if you hit the AMT tax.

BMW X5 3.0 diesel
In contrast to the Mercedes example above, the X5 diesel adds an eye-opening $3,700 to the price of the 265-hp, regular-gas 3.0 model. So far, our diesel X5 is getting 23 mpg on average, compared with 17 mpg overall for the gas version. The X5’s diesel is not quite as refined as the Mercedes but feels punchier. In fact, it beats the regular X5 in 0-60 mph acceleration, but it’s less quick initially from a standstill. Other than that, the diesel X5 retains the choppy ride, excellent steering and agile handling (as well as confusing controls) of the standard X5.

Diesel and gasoline are about equal in price these days, so it’s a matter of how far you drive when it comes to payback time for the diesel version’s higher price. There is also added maintenance due to the replacement of the Urea solution (also required with the Mercedes), which serves in emission-cleaning arsenal. BMW replaces it at service intervals and will warn you 1,000 miles prior. This diesel qualifies for a $1,550 federal tax credit. With that, and at current gas prices, and with an annual mileage of 12,000 miles it would take more than four years to break even.

BMW 335d
On the face of it, there is a $2,275 premium for a 335d over the rear-wheel drive 335i, once adjusted for the standard automatic transmission in the diesel. However, assuming your attitude is one of saving money and fuel, you’d probably look at the more popular 328i. In that case, the diesel commands a whopping $8,975 price premium. So far we’ve been getting 33 mpg with the diesel according to the car’s trip computer. Our last 328i attained 23 mpg overall.

Beyond the questionable economics, the diesel 3 retains its excellent steering and body control and one might argue is even more of a hoot to drive. We haven’t completed our acceleration tests yet, but the torque of the diesel delivers an addicting mid-range rush that, if you’re not careful, will send the car into three-digit speeds all too easily. The 335d benefits from a $900 federal tax credit. With that taken into account it would take about 20 years to break even compared to a 328i at an annual mileage of 12,000.

Bottom line
In general, diesel engines cut fuel consumption by about 30 percent and as a byproduct reduces C02 emissions. And contemporary common-rail diesel combined with devices that abolish smoke and smell make the engines a lot more livable. That said, in terms of particles causing soot, diesels are still not as clean as modern gas engines.

Opting for a diesel in today’s environment may not save you money. It is a function of the price differential to the conventional version, the price of diesel fuel and your annual mileage. Other than economics, any diesel can be fueled with an up to 20 percent bio-diesel blend, which further cuts petroleum consumption. If diesel prices remain similar to gasoline, as they are today, there would be true appeal.

—Gabe Shenhar

More automakers abandon diesel entries

Just as an expected new wave of efficient diesel-powered cars was set to come to the U.S., several automakers are canceling plans for upcoming diesels.

Following news last week that General Motors suspended plans for a small diesel V8 for its light-duty pickups, Wards Auto World has confirmed that Honda has scrapped plans to put a four-cylinder diesel in the TSX sedan. Nissan has also reportedly canceled plans for a V6 diesel to go into its high-end Maxima.

These cancellations would leave German automakers Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen as the only car brands selling diesel passenger cars in the United States for now.

With cars sales volume decreasing, adding another powertrain variant to a model line is certainly something an automaker would have to carefully consider. Given the volatility in diesel prices over the past 12 months, ranging from about $5 a gallon last summer down to about $2 now, motorists may be skeptical whether the added cost for purchasing a diesel-engined car is a safe investment. While the fuel-economy benefits over traditional engines is undeniable, the price ratio for diesel compared to gasoline has proven quite varied.

Given the worldwide economic challenges and the impact on consumer buying behavior, it is natural for automakers to be timid about new initiatives at this time, but it is a shame for them to come so close to introducing a low-compromise solution to reducing fossil fuel consumption only to withdraw.

Also read “Why does diesel fuel cost so much?” and “Can diesels save money and oil?”

—Eric Evarts

Learn about driving green in the Consumer Reports special fuel economy section

Why does diesel fuel cost so much?

Part two of a two-part series. Also read “Can diesels save money and oil?”

There are three main reasons diesel fuel costs so much, according to the petroleum experts we interviewed:

Diesel prices track the economy – only with a sizeable lag, says Sal Gilbertie, senior vice president of energy and renewable fuels at NewEdge LLC in New York. Almost all truck, train, and barge transit relies on diesel fuel (and related heavy petroleum distillates). So as the economy grows, and more goods are shipped, demand for diesel fuel grows, too. That drives up prices. Since companies plan in advance for this shipping, the demand (and thus prices) for diesel lag behind the overall economy. That’s why once the recession started, diesel prices dropped quickly, says Mr. Gilbertie. This long-term trend fluctuates.

An immediate, but lasting, supply squeeze jolted diesel prices up last summer. As oil supplies tightened after years of rising demand, European countries, which used to export diesel fuel to the U.S., no longer had excess supplies to export. European governments have long favored diesel fuel with lower taxes to encourage fuel savings. The effect has become so pronounced that in countries such as Britain and Italy, that more than 50 percent of all new cars sold there are diesel-powered. Thus demand for diesel fuel is rising faster in Europe than demand for gasoline. So European oil refineries, which used to have excess capacity, no longer did. Since the U.S. has no excess refining capacity of its own, this caused a sharp spike in diesel prices, added on top of an already-rising trend.

Taxes. Unlike Europe, the U.S. government charges a higher tax on diesel fuel than on gasoline: 24 cents per gallon, vs. 18 cents. Since trucks use lots of diesel fuel, and wear out roads faster than cars, this may increase revenue for road construction. But it begs the question: If we want consumers to save oil and produce less CO2, why not swap the extra tax to gasoline, to improve diesels’ payoff equation for consumers and encourage them to burn less gas?

Our tests have shown the latest diesels to easily match the comfort, convenience, and performance of gasoline-powered cars. We think it would be easy for consumers to make the switch if it were cost effective although finding gas stations with a diesel pump can be difficult if you don’t live near an interstate highway. Fiddling with fuel taxes usually runs the risk of disrupting highway funding in the United Sates. But a Federal Highway Administration spokesman Douglas Hecox says he doesn’t expect that switching the extra six cents in tax from diesel to gasoline would have any effect on the highway fund’s shortfall. 

Now that a new crop of diesels is coming on the market from Acura, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, and others, the question of how to make saving fuel be cost effective for consumers is taking on increasing urgency. We hope the Obama administration will keep this in mind as it wrestles with saving the U.S. auto industry and finding new money for the highway fund.

—Eric Evarts

Learn more about driving green in the Consumer Reports special fuel economy section

Can diesels save money and oil?

Part one of a two-part series. Also read "Why does diesel fuel cost so much?"

As regular readers know, we’ve been impressed with the latest diesel cars we’ve tested. Both the Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec and the latest Volkswagen Jetta TDI have felt as smooth, quiet, and powerful as gasoline counterparts we tested, while returning much better fuel economy.

The Jetta TDI returned 33 mpg, better than any other current non-hybrid car we’ve tested with more than two seats. The E320 Bluetec got 29 mpg, on par with most small gasoline-powered sedans. (In general, diesels are about 30 percent more efficient than equivalent gas cars.) Both diesels were comfortable and well-equipped, unlike some of the other fuel misers we’ve tested recently.

That’s all good news, and we’d love to follow it up by saying diesels are a great way to save money, as well as oil, and put less CO2 into the atmosphere. But those numbers aren’t so clear.

Cars with diesel engines have always cost more to buy than equivalent gas-engined cars. It used to be that by burning cheaper fuel – and less of it – diesels would compensate for their extra up-front cost fairly quickly. That doesn’t seem to be so true anymore.

What happened?

The cost of optional diesel engine has gone up, as automakers have been required to install higher-tech emissions controls. New diesels cost $1,000 to $3,000 more to buy than comparable gas models. Still, as a one-time cost, this has a relatively small impact on the cost of ownership.

The price of diesel fuel has risen above gasoline. Today, it costs about as much as premium gas, or about 10 percent more than regular. At this rate, diesels can bring a small savings over five years of ownership, according to Consumer Reports owner cost data. Sometimes, however, diesel fuel costs even more. Last summer, when gas prices peaked, diesel fuel cost more than $5 a gallon, or about 25 percent more than regular. That 25-percent higher fuel cost, added to the higher up-front purchase price for the car, may not be enough to offset diesels’ 30-percent advantage in fuel economy.

All told, the overall operating costs have made diesels an unattractive option for consumers. This reduced the incentive for Americans to save fuel by buying diesels at a time when petroleum supplies were as tight as they had ever been.

—Eric Evarts

Learn more about driving green in the Consumer Reports special fuel economy section