Diesel better than hybrid and E85
5 Dec, 2007
22 Comments 
US researchers have conducted an interesting cost-benefit analysis which shows diesel engines are your best choice, if saving money is what you’re interested in.
The research team calculated the individual and societal costs and benefits of conventional petrol vehicles, petrol-electric hybrids, high-tech diesels and flex-fuel vehicles burning E85 full time.
The result? Unless petrol prices rise to around $1.50 or more in the next few years, or ethanol prices drop considerably, diesel’s the best overall solution; E85’s the worst.
The findings even surprised the researchers who were expecting hybrids to top the list. The study finds that modern diesel engines provide better performance and fuel economy for the price than hybrid cars (environmental issues were not considered).
The research found that over a vehicle’s life, an E85 powered vehicle (which runs on 85 per cent ethanol and 15 per cent petrol) would cost an extra $US1600 over a conventional petrol car, while a diesel could save as much as $US2300.
Apart from the enormous energy required to create E85 fuels (which as has been shown, generally cancels out the environmental benefits of E85), ethanol itself has less than 70 per cent of the energy of petrol - the more ethanol in the blend the less energy and the less kilometres per litre.
For more information and a link to the research paper click here.
Location: Home / Hybrid, Diesel, Fuel News, Car News / ...
Rate Post: 
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
-
Print it:
December 5th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
bad news for Saab, and bad news for all us that have fallen victim to the E10 fuel hype, whats the point of biofuels if they are useless?
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I think the biofuels argument is a little more complex than what Car Advice is making out.
Ethanol can be, and is, made from waste products from sugar cane, corn, etc, and so can cost (from an environmental point of view) not a lot to generate.
Additionally, it burns cleaner, not releasing the toxic and/or global warming chemicals that are released from burning petrol and refining oil.
On the other hand, in Brazil they are clearing Amazon forest so that they can grow sugar cane/corn to produce ethanol for transport use. This is not such a good approach..
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Is it that surprising that diesel saves more money than anything else. It along with petrol has been distilled for over 100 years so the process is efficent and common whereas all other methods of energy are new and the processes to make the fuel or the batteries are still being refined so that aren’t as effecient as they could be. I would choose the diesel personally especially in turbo form where the performance is exactly the same as petrol and mostly even better
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Glen raises a valid point. Currently diesel is the more viable alternative, and possibly will be for some time, though Ethanol fuels, if sourced appropriately are not entirely without merit.
Battery technology will improve in years to come, and they’ll become more recyclable too. Until then the article is valid and cost/environmental conscious buyers really should consider the diesel alternative.
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
A diesel is a better choice, remember most diesels can run on biodiesel, so your not just confined to one fuel. Fuel Efficiency and enviro hippiness in one. I think the energy suppliers should be looking into how to make higher quantities of biodiesel at cheaper prices. Here in WA, a small company down near albany makes biodiesel from wastes such as animals fats and general vegetable oils, but because they dont make enough the biodiesel, it is mixed with diesel and gull sells it.
Who knows, Hungry Jacks and Maccas may one day be our new BP and Shell. And maccas will have biodiesel happy meal bowsers. Fill up your guts and your herbivore diesel with chip oil.
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
What if petrol prices hit $1.50 .. oh, wait, that’s what Sydney-siders were paying last week
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
What about LPG? I know its not big in the USA, but in Aus it’s still the cheapest way to go.
Example:
In a large car using 14.0 l/100km LPG @ 62 cpl the equivalent deisel would have to achieve 6.0 l/100km @ 145 cpl. (using SA prices). Now the new Mondeo achieves 7.9 l/100km, so its getting closer, but at current prices LPG wins easily.
Anti-spam word “Datsun” - WOW flashback………
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Bret,
mate spot on,
and i must sound like a broken record as any time the fuel cost articles/arguments come up on here i go straight to the conclusion of LPG whooping diesels for cost.
HELLO!!!!!!!!!
i have done the sums over and over and they all point to LPG on top by a country mile.
what i cant understand is why only 1 manufacturer (Ford) offers LPG. no other manufacturer offers it and ford who does cant be bothered promoting it as well as it should be.
why dont they design a kick arse gas system that out economises and totally out powers even unleaded? the technology in LPG is only half of what you get in a petrol car so why not put a little bit of time and finish it off?
LPG has greater performance possibilities if any one cared promote it
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
It is a shame, Andrew M, that only Ford offers an elegant LPG fitment. At least, I think so…I was hounded about this once before on here, to the point where one of the regular posters wrote, “Golfschwein, here in Australia…”, not knowing I am Australian hehe
Anyway, where wuz I? Oh yep. The sad thing about LPG is that if it’s not in a new Falcon, you’ve gotta contend with the giant silver bullet taking up a third of your boot space. Which is a bit yikky yukky, I reckon.
Sorry to come across all technical at this time of day.
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Hey Golfshwein………..sitting at your desk with a glass of Red???
Looking at gas cylinder hanging under the car looks worse !
Never been a big fan of LPG ………..
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Glass of red, Bav Mis? Not yet, but…..s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-n!
:)
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
missile,
in the falcons you dont even see it under the car.
Golf………..
mate not only the space you lose if you convert its also that i believe that you can not optimally tune a car to run on 2 seperate fuels and to run at its peak on both. i believe a duel fuel set up has a bit of a compromise with tuning favoring unleaded of course.
yeah i cant believe ford doesnt wave banners about how they are the only one that does a gas set up and how massive the savings are even if you compare it to a hybrid setup, diesel, or ethanol, LPG wins hands down
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Andrew M, you may love LPG in a Ford F100 or similar, where you can fit 2 100kg Cylinders on the side and get fantasticly cheap running out of a truck.
But you don’t have an answer as to where to put the cumbersome tank into a Mazda 2.
So LPG is VERY limited in its usefulness to the average motorist, and it is getting worse not better due to the way modern engines are built. Most modern engines are NOT LPG compatible, due to the very hot and low calorific nature of LPG - modern engines are designed to reach operating temperature very quickly to counter emissions, which, if done using LPG, causes heads to crack. Then the EGR systems using LPG exhaust don’t work as well to cool the combustion process once operating temperature is reached.
The better LPG installations now run the engine on petrol until heated enough to switch over, so open loop operation is always on petrol. These installations can use 1 tank of petrol for every 7 tanks of Gas, so the economy takes a bit more of a hit, especially in city driving in a cold place like Melb.
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Oh, and I forgot to add thet the Ford LPG dedicated car is a shocker - it has serious problems with the Gas system that have not been sorted properly and never will. Due to the use of ancient LPG technology since modern can’t be used - modern requires starting on petrol and there a’nt no petrol in these vehicles.
That’s why Ford doesn’t push them. Too many problems.
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Is it raining down there???
Must be wine time now!!
Yeah AndrewM……..but I still don’t like the idea of it in ya boot either!
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Reckless,
mate the gas tank goes where the unleaded tank would have been. id say the mazda 2 for eg would have a smaller tank not a 100kg like a large car would.
i do agree that the current ford LPG system is dinosaur technology and thats what im saying. why dont they put some technology into it.
its not only new duel fuels that require starting on petrol first, but the old systems required it too. thats not to do with emissions but rather the fact that the motor struggles to start on LPG. they use to have a manual switch and you had to put it back to petrol before you started.
then the systems got a bit better where they would automatically start on petrol and switch back when you reached like 60km/h.
now the injection process has gotten much better and that is what ford has yet to adopt
i would say the ford system is old technology but i wouldnt go as far as saying it is a shocker.
a lot of modern engines cant take it due to the high risk of back fire associated with LPG.
the commys have trouble taking it due to the damage that does or would occur to the plastic parts used in the manifold. the system designed to suit the commys has a much better injection process hence no back fire.
also the use of 1 tank of petrol for every 7 gas is to lubricate the engine components as gas offers no lubrication. to overcome this ford uses a different piston rings.
its nothing to do with modern engines as you can tailor it making a few mods like ford has so the fuel does suit it much better
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Yes, raining. rather puts the kybosh on the idea of a pot-luck dinner for six in the back garden. perhaps a little wine will help.
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
MMMMMMMM………maybe some nice pasta ……..smoke salmon prawn fettuccine with snow peas and asparagus in white wine cream sauce!!!! I guess your lounge isn’t very big ha,so entertaining outside would be a regular thing! You like Top Gear????? I watched an episode of the new series last night,,,downloaded off the internet! Will ask hubby for the link and will send it to you if you like!
(Report)
December 5th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Wonder what a Diesel/Gas jobby would come out at?
More power less cost. And the $2000 Government rebate does apply?
(Report)
December 6th, 2007 at 12:54 am
I think Ford has been having problem with using the newer technology for reasons along the lines of paying another company rights to use the technology, which has slowed development down so they just stuck with the old CFI method of injection. The main problem the LPG system has, is ‘wax’ forming in the condenser or that round thing next to the motor which makes it hard to start when cold. But when thats gone its great but otherwise there have been very few problems. I wouldn’t call it a shocker reckless1 oh and LPG motors run hotter than petrol. The fuel usage figures they advertise them with i think are very exaggerated, its very easy to get 9 to 11L/100. I’ve tested it and ford has demonstrated it by driving around australia for $1000… i dont know if many people know about it. But they used a E-Gas fairmont and it was driven by v8supercar drivers.
And andrew the heads have harder valve seats to help reduce premature valve recession and they have harder valve stem guides to overcome the lack of petrol lubrication. All up the motor itself in a LPG falcon is a better motor and should outlive a petrol motor.
The next falcon, i read that they are going to use a plastic inlet manifold for the lesser models and metal for the turbo versions. This could mean they will use a better LPG injection system that will have to eliminate back firing because of the plastic manifold.. otherwise they’ll use a metal one if they stick with this old CFI method. And there is a manufacturer that makes rectangular LPG tanks with cell devisions, that can withstand impacts of 120km/h. Definitely safer than a petrol tank and They take up half the space but the same volume but cost quite a bit more. If ford adopts these new innovations in the orion they’ll be onto something quite brilliant.
(Report)
December 6th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Minnow, it’s impossible in my view for a rectangular? LPG tank with or without cell divisions that can cram the same volume into half the space.
That’s just plain impossible - 80 litres of LPG with 68 usable requires 80 litres of space (plus a bit for the steel and fittings) NO MATTER WHAT THE SHAPE.
The next Falcon won’t have a better injection system, because to be better requires dual fuel - petrol to start the engine before flick over tp gas, and this requires two fuel tanks, obviously. The next Falcon is the last using the antique straight 6 engine, after that there’ll only be V6 or V8. The V6 won’t be LPG compatible so there’ll be no more dedicated LPG falcons after Orion, if in fact Ford bothers to make an Orion version at all. With the poor sales of the current one, I expect it to disappear off the scene.
(Report)
December 6th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Reckless,
some of the things you say dont add up.
firstly the last thing you said was ford prob wont make an orion LPG due to poor sales.
well if you actually looked the sales have been quite strong for the current LPG model and there are spy shots of an LPG model testing, so a double knock on the head to that silly theory.
i also think its a little silly how you keep concluding that a modern engine cant run on gas.
i was going to keep going but ill be back later
(Report)