When did diesel start being cheaper than 87 octane? (2010, tires, MPG)

[whiteboyslo]

In my short time of diesel ownership (bought my truck in February), what I've noticed is that diesel varies wildly in price, both versus gasoline and versus itself. What I mean by that is that I see diesel prices vary by a good amount station to station even in the same neighborhoods. At some stations it's the cheapest thing on the board; on others it's the priciest. I don't really get it, but all that means is that I fill up at the same stations more consistently than I do my gasoline vehicles.

As for mileage, my truck gets way better mileage than its gas counterpart. It's a 91 F250 with a Banks turbo system on it. In town I get mid teens no problem. Highway, I've come close to 20 even with the back loaded up with motorcycles and gear. Compare this to my 89 F250 with the 351W that wouldn't hit teens in town and might get 15-16 on the freeway but only if a nursed it in the slow lane. Actually, the better comparison would be against a truck from the same era with the 460 since it is closer to the displacement of my current truck. Those guys pat themselves on the back if they see mileage better than single digit!

Mike

[sunsprit]

Originally Posted by snofarmer

Yes, 87 octane may be cheaper but diesel fuel has more BTU's.
It holds more power per gallon, this = more millage.
so it is a better buy.

It's a "better buy" only to the extent of purchasing more BTU's at better than parity between the two fuels. If diesel fuel costs 20% more than 87 octane, then it's not a better buy because you are only purchasing 15% more energy content. Historically, when I was buying diesel fuel for 40% less than gasoline, it was a tremendous value. Additionally, a friend had a diesel powered fishing boat many years ago when marine diesel was only a nickle a gallon (no road taxes) ... it sure made for low cost offshore day fishing trips when gasoline was in the low 20 cents per gallon.

If you look at the price disparity between most gasoline cars and their diesel powered siblings, it takes a lot of miles before you reach break-even if the diesel fuel was less expensive than gas. With diesel fuel more than 15% more expensive, the break-even point may never be reached in a typical first owner's service life of the vehicle.




Gas can have water in it that freezes, so can diesel, untreated diesel can gel at temps below 20F. In the fall stations start to receive winterized fuel, so an additive is not needed in the winter.

Stations treat diesel fuel only to the extent that it doesn't cause them problems in storing or dispensing it. So they treat it to a cloud point temp which may be a higher temperature than you'll encounter in using your car. I've seen many a station dispense fuel at sub-zero temperatures in my region only to see that fuel gel in the tank of a car or pick-up truck if it didn't have additional fuel pour point depressant added at the time of dispensing. I've spent way too many a road call to get customers diesel cars started in cold weather around here because they made the same assumption that you do here ... that the stations adequately treat the fuel so they didn't need to use an additive. They did, and it's important to add it when the fuel is being dispensed so that it blends into the fuel. I've seen folk decide to add the fuel additive after driving a car when it was to be parked for awhile, and the additive just dropped to the bottom of the tank and gelled in a glob there, not doing any good at all.



Yes they do and we could too but the EPA has put strict emission laws on diesels and they are expensive, driving up the cost of the vehicle.

Effectively, the Euro diesel emissions standards are no less efficient at clean air than the USA EPA standards. With the advent of DEF exhaust catalyst systems now being required on cars (as it has been in the last few years on heavy trucks) in the USA, the emissions are cleaner yet, but I'm not convinced that this yields a better clean air result. There's a point where clean is clean enough. We've got diesels now that are putting out cleaner air than they are taking in. It's going to be an interesting operating environment for diesel car owners because the DEF freezes, so that will have to be either kept in a heated garage or have an aux heater to keep the system and reservoir from freezing up.

[snofarmer]

Not so def has been in use for a few winters now.
The vehicle does not to inject the fluid all of the time.
The vehicle is allowed to go a predetermined amount of miles with out def.
the def tank has a heater.

Originally Posted by sunsprit

. It's going to be an interesting operating environment for diesel car owners because the DEF freezes, so that will have to be either kept in a heated garage or have an aux heater to keep the system and reservoir from freezing up.

[quote=sunsprit;25695228]It's a "better buy" only to the extent of purchasing more BTU's at better than parity between the two fuels. If diesel fuel costs 20% more than 87 octane, then it's not a better buy because you are only purchasing 15% more energy content.

If you look at the price disparity between most gasoline cars and their diesel powered siblings, it takes a lot of miles before you reach break-even if the diesel fuel was less expensive than gas. With dieself fuel more than 15% more expensive, the break-even point may never be reached./quote]

87 is not a better buy nor is a gas engine.
Why? A diesel will out last the gasser and it will burn less fuel while delivering superior millage. Maintenance costs are not more for a diesel. tracking your costs over the lifetime of the vehicle will tell you this.
You do the math as I have.
I have a gas 3/4 ton dodge 4x4 long box
and a dodge diesel 4x4 long box .
The gasser gets 8 to 14mpg while the diesel gets 15-21mpg.
The diesel will be just be getting broken in when it is time for the gasser to be rebuilt.
Plus the resale of the diesel equipped truck/car is more than the worn out gasser will be at trade in time.


[quote=sunsprit;25695228]Stations treat diesel fuel only to the extent that it doesn't cause them problems in storing or dispensing it. So they treat it to a cloud point temp which may be a higher temperature than you'll encounter in using your car. I've seen many a station dispense fuel at sub-zero temperatures in my region only to see that fuel gel in the tank of a car or pick-up truck if it didn't have additional fuel pour point depressant added at the time of dispensing. I've spent way too many a road call to get customers diesel cars started in cold weather around here because they made the same assumption that you do here ... that the stations adequately treat the fuel so they didn't need to use an additive. /quote]

One the station does not treat the fuel nor is any additive add at the time it is dispensed.
The fuel is a mix of #1 and #2 with an anti gel additive.
This is done at the fuel depot.

Most gel problems come from folks traveling from a area that is warmer than the area they are going to and the fuel is not treated for the cold temps.

In 35 years of operating diesels in sub freezing temps I have only experienced gelling of fuel a couple of times, only a few treat for temps below -50F. And one of toes times the dozer had straight #2 that was not treated.

Do I use a additive to prevent gelling?
sometimes, when the temps fall below -30F .



Yes, the fuel that is the underground tank at the station is much warmer than the fuel in your tank and the filter on the fuel pump at the station does not filter down to the same micron level your trucks filter does, this also allows the wax to pass threw their filter while it will clog yours.


[quote=sunsprit;25695228] I've seen folk decide to add the fuel additive after driving a car when it was to be parked for awhile, and the additive just dropped to the bottom of the tank and gelled in a glob there /quote]

While it could have gone to the bottom of the tank and formed a glob, the fuel pick up is in the bottom of the tank also, thus sucking up the additive. any movement would have mixed the additive with the rest of the fuel.
the injectors get more fuel than they can burn the excess fuel is returned to the tank so would over half of the additive, thus it would be mixed.
That is why when you fill the fuel filter with a product like 911 not only does it get you started the excess product is returned to the fuel tank, thus treating it.

Lastly how did you know what the bottom of the tank looked like? (ie the blob)

[sunsprit]

[quote=snofarmer;25695466]Not so def has been in use for a few winters now.
The vehicle does not to inject the fluid all of the time.
The vehicle is allowed to go a predetermined amount of miles with out def.
the def tank has a heater.

It's another system, with the storage tank and all the controls to inject the DEF that previously weren't on cars. Just more stuff to pay for and to go wrong on the car compared to all of the prior diesel cars that didn't require this technology. From what I've seen in the diesel trucking industry, the DEF systems are far from perfected and have been an ongoing maintenance/running nightmare for a lot of fleets.





[quote=sunsprit;25695228]It's a "better buy" only to the extent of purchasing more BTU's at better than parity between the two fuels. If diesel fuel costs 20% more than 87 octane, then it's not a better buy because you are only purchasing 15% more energy content.

If you look at the price disparity between most gasoline cars and their diesel powered siblings, it takes a lot of miles before you reach break-even if the diesel fuel was less expensive than gas. With dieself fuel more than 15% more expensive, the break-even point may never be reached./quote]

87 is not a better buy nor is a gas engine.
Why? A diesel will out last the gasser and it will burn less fuel while delivering superior millage. Maintenance costs are not more for a diesel. tracking your costs over the lifetime of the vehicle will tell you this.
You do the math as I have.

I've done the math for a combined client base of several hundred diesel powered cars from 1968 through to 1999, cars that were run through my shop on a continuing basis. That doesn't include the additional numbers of diesel cars that dealerships brought to me to put into resale condition, which is several hundred more. Nor does that include my own personal diesel powered cars, starting with an MB 200D of dubious performance at the altitudes we drive in my region. Is that a big enough sample basis to run the analysis on for you?

The only way the cars broke even or were more economical was to buy them secondhand at significantly reduced prices from their 1st owners, and when diesel fuel was significantly lower priced than gasoline.

The fallacy of your argument is that most 1st owners do not ever keep the cars long enough to see the economics work out to their advantage. I know this because so many of the cars I worked on for over 40 years were for the second or third owners, not the first owner who paid the premium price for the diesel vehicle and took the depreciation hit somewhere in the next 3-5 years. Your assumption that every owner keeps the diesel car to it's full service life is false; they don't.

For years, I bought, fixed up for resale, and sold a lot of $20,000 Peugot diesels for $1,500-2,000 in my marketplace when the local Peugeot dealership went out of business and the repair shop techs went on to other brands. Similarly, I bought a lot of MB 4 & 5 cylinder diesel cars for a fraction of their new price that were under 100,000 miles on the clock and less than 4 years old, which I put into saleable condition and made a handsome mark-up on. Most of those cars were running like pigs at the time I bought them because neither the dealerships nor the aftermarket serviced them correctly. That's a primary factor in why the first owners parted with them so inexpensively; they were generally told by the dealership/shop that they were having service the car that major repair expenses were needed or soon to be needed. A few times, I was burned by cars that truly did need significant work ... primarily cars that were driven locally by soccer moms on short driving runs where the engines never got up to operating temperature. That's a big component of getting service life out of a diesel, and if you are only driving it a couple of miles on errands and letting it sit to completely cool down before it's driven again, you will not achieve the potential service life of the engine. Been there, done that ... I've been the advisor to a number of customers who thought they were going to reap huge benefits in fuel economy with a diesel car and it was not to be had in their use.

I have a gas 3/4 ton dodge 4x4 long box
and a dodge diesel 4x4 long box .
The gasser gets 8 to 14mpg while the diesel gets 15-21mpg.
The diesel will be just be getting broken in when it is time for the gasser to be rebuilt.
Plus the resale of the diesel equipped truck/car is more than the worn out gasser will be at trade in time.

Let's try to stay on topic here. The economics of a diesel 3/4 or 1 ton pickup that is actually used for hauling purposes (such as I use for my farm/ranch, but only for such use) are a whole different topic than comparing gasoline cars that readily achieve mid-30 mpg's against their stablemate diesel car that gets into the 40's. With the price disparity for the diesel car at purchase and the higher price point for the diesel, the diesel car isn't an advantage right now.

If the diesel car technology were to receive the same development that the gasoline cars have seen in the last few years, then maybe the numbers will switch back again. But for the moment, I can drive an AWD Subie OBW at 28 mpg on gasoline for less money than I can drive my MB 300Dturbo on diesel at the same mpg. A late Jetta would get better fuel economy, but a comparable condition & utility Jetta is a $10,000++ car in my marketplace. And the proverbial "free" or "couple hundred bucks" Rabbit Diesel at 50 mpg isn't comparable for my space, utility, or comfort levels for the miles I drive each year.


[quote=sunsprit;25695228]Stations treat diesel fuel only to the extent that it doesn't cause them problems in storing or dispensing it. So they treat it to a cloud point temp which may be a higher temperature than you'll encounter in using your car. I've seen many a station dispense fuel at sub-zero temperatures in my region only to see that fuel gel in the tank of a car or pick-up truck if it didn't have additional fuel pour point depressant added at the time of dispensing. I've spent way too many a road call to get customers diesel cars started in cold weather around here because they made the same assumption that you do here ... that the stations adequately treat the fuel so they didn't need to use an additive. /quote]

One the station does not treat the fuel nor is any additive add at the time it is dispensed.
The fuel is a mix of #1 and #2 with an anti gel additive.
This is done at the fuel depot.

I've personally watched the fuel being dispensed by the truck delivery drivers into the ground tanks and watched as they pour the two gallon jugs of pour depressant into the fuel per delivery ticket at the stations in my region. The fuel refinery depot's in my area may treat the fuel to some extent, but the delivery drivers do add more at the point of delivery per retailer contract for the fuel. Maybe not in your area of the country, but here they DO.

Most gel problems come from folks traveling from a area that is warmer than the area they are going to and the fuel is not treated for the cold temps.

Certainly have seen this with cars coming into the area from warmer southern climes.

But as I repeatedly point out, I made my living for over 35 years servicing a large number of euro diesel cars in my region. I got to make a lot of road service calls to cars that were locally owned and operated that purchased their fuel here, not in a warmer climate area. I had one IT company in the Denver area that had a sizable contigent of Diesel powered cars ... mostly VW's and Audi's ... and I had more than one occasion to head up to their parking lot at the end of a workday for them to warm up and start a number of vehicles. As well, an architectural firm in Denver that purchased a fleet of MB diesels for their partners and staffers, and I had more than several times I had to go to the parking garage to get their fleet of cars going at the end of a day, or if a car had sat for several days and was cold soaked.

Additionally, I was called out many times through the years to the re-sale dealerships in the area that had run down the batteries in their MB diesels on the lot in cold weather, trying to glow plug them and get them to crank over adequately. You probably know that once the batteries are ground down to a low charge level, you can't reasonably jump start these cars. It either takes a fully charged battery ... or, my favorite trick on the older MB diesels with less than optimal compression (between engine wear, high density altitude, and cold weather) was to tow start them with my MB 300Dt wagon service vehicle.

My best (lucrative!) road service calls were to folks in the ski country resort areas. For the most part, the shops up in those areas could not get a cold soaked diesel car running, and that included all the AAA or other emergency tow truck operators. They had my phone number and would call me after they couldn't get a car running. For the most part, people bought fuel in the Denver marketplace before heading to the mountains, so it was "treated" fuel. Few would run #1 diesel because they didn't know to do that, although the diesel stations in the high country would have a pump dedicated to that (at higher cost, of course) then #2. Few followed MB's owner manuals that advised running a blend of #1 or kerosene in cold weather; the older manuals even included advice to add gasoline to the #2 diesel.

In 35 years of operating diesels in sub freezing temps I have only experienced gelling of fuel a couple of times, only a few treat for temps below -50F. And one of toes times the dozer had straight #2 that was not treated.

Do I use a additive to prevent gelling?
sometimes, when the temps fall below -30F .



Yes, the fuel that is the underground tank at the station is much warmer than the fuel in your tank and the filter on the fuel pump at the station does not filter down to the same micron level your trucks filter does, this also allows the wax to pass threw their filter while it will clog yours.

Originally Posted by sunsprit

I've seen folk decide to add the fuel additive after driving a car when it was to be parked for awhile, and the additive just dropped to the bottom of the tank and gelled in a glob there /quote]

While it could have gone to the bottom of the tank and formed a glob, the fuel pick up is in the bottom of the tank also, thus sucking up the additive. any movement would have mixed the additive with the rest of the fuel.

Sorry, snofarmer, but even the older MB's that had the gravity feed off the bottom of the tank to the mechanical fuel pump don't pick up the fuel at the very bottom of the tank. They have a space below the pick-up point specifically to allow for debris, sediment, and water to accumulate (as do Peugeot, VW, Audi, Volvo, BMW, and most other cars). Those older benz's had a very bottom of the tank drain plug which was supposed to be drained at routine maintenance intervals to get rid of that stuff. Can't tell you how many times I drained one for what must have been the very first time in ages in the service life of a car. The later model MB's had a labrinyth to minimize fuel slosh at the pick-up, and I've removed the top plate (fuel sender) to look into the tank to see what was plugging these up.




the injectors get more fuel than they can burn the excess fuel is returned to the tank so would over half of the additive, thus it would be mixed.
That is why when you fill the fuel filter with a product like 911 not only does it get you started the excess product is returned to the fuel tank, thus treating it.

You can fill the damn filter all you want with an additive, but if the fuel pump, the fuel lines, the injection pump, and the injectors are clogged with gelled fuel, ain't nothing gonna' move. Your adding stuff to the fuel filter only works to the extent that the fuel system isn't frozen and can circulate fuel through the system and return line back to the tank.

Lastly how did you know what the bottom of the tank looked like? (ie the blob)

On those cars when they were brought into my shop, I had an opportunity to see what had accumulated there when I drained the tank. I drained them because it was a lot easier to get the fuel up to temp by having it out of the car's tank. Know what the first thing that came out of many of those cold soaked tanks? the glob of frozen fuel pour deppressant. And if you've ever had a can of BG Pour Depressant sit in your car or trunk (this was sold by most diesel car shops, not the gallon jugs of the stuff sold in the diesel truck stops) ... you'd know that if freezes like a rock in sub-zero temps.


snofarmer, I've spent as many years ... if not way more ... than you in the diesel car business. I know these cars inside and out, have operated them and maintained them over a several hundred car client base here at altitude and in a cold climate. It's pretty clear that you haven't, or you'd know some of these most simple and basic issues about running these cars here, like accessing the inside of the fuel tanks on these cars. Much as I like driving diesel cars, they can only make economic sense when driven in a limited set of circumstances over a long time/distance given the premium price for the initial acquisition cost and the disparity in fuel cost when you compare like cars. If you want to get stupid about comparisons, we can go back to ton-mile efficiencies with Class 8 semi's running 80,000 lbs down the road for a million miles at 6 mpg ... but that isn't really applicable to personal transportation cars, is it?

[Big George]

Just got home from a road trip. There's no diesel cheaper than gas, here in the Midwest. Unfortunately...

[d4g4m]

#2 home heating oil and diesel fuel is basically the same thing. #2 oil has a red die in it so truck inspectors can see that truckers are not cheating by using #2 instead of paying all the taxes of diesel fuel.
Many years ago, diesel fuel was much cheaper than gasoline, basically because diesel is a by product of making gasoline. Refineries don't process oil to make diesel. Top of the chain is Av gas, racing fuel, hi test, mid grade, regular. What is left over is the kerosene based fuels like diesel, #2 home heat, jet fuel.
Refineries discovered that they can market diesel at the same price or higher than gasoline and make all kinds of excuses when questioned about it. If diesel was priced at where it should be, gasoline would cost alot more.

[sunsprit]

Originally Posted by d4g4m

#2 home heating oil and diesel fuel is basically the same thing. #2 oil has a red die in it so truck inspectors can see that truckers are not cheating by using #2 instead of paying all the taxes of diesel fuel.
Many years ago, diesel fuel was much cheaper than gasoline, basically because diesel is a by product of making gasoline. Refineries don't process oil to make diesel. Top of the chain is Av gas, racing fuel, hi test, mid grade, regular. What is left over is the kerosene based fuels like diesel, #2 home heat, jet fuel.
Refineries discovered that they can market diesel at the same price or higher than gasoline and make all kinds of excuses when questioned about it. If diesel was priced at where it should be, gasoline would cost alot more.

Are you sure?

100LL Avgas supply to the USA now comes from offshore, not from domestic refineries. It's such a small market and the requirement for the tetraethyl lead has put this into a very small component of the fuel production, distribution marketplace. They can't run leaded fuel through the pipelines anymore, it has to be entirely handled in dedicated tankers and the world supply producer for the t-lead is down to one outfit in England. That's a source of concern for the DOT/FAA and they are aggressively seeking to find an alternative fuel source for all the high compression (per FAA mandated fuel spec) aviation engines.

Many years ago, the scenario of diesel (and kerosene) was that it was a by-product of producing gasoline when gasoline was nothing more than a distilled fraction of the crude.

But with all the cracking and reformulating technologies now in play, the situation is reversed now that diesel fuel consumption is such a large marketplace. Gasoline is now the by-product of producing diesel. Hence, no need to dump diesel as in yesteryear to accomodate gasoline production, and diesel can now be priced according to it's comparative energy (BTU) content.

and the true lower end products are bunker fuel and products for asphalt product, not diesel or kerosene. Left out of this scenario is all the other by-products from crude that are used in industrial, manufacturing, fertilizer, or other uses.

[YellowHorse]

Originally Posted by sunsprit

What diesel gets "twice the mileage" on a comparable car for car basis?

I never had a diesel car, but the diesel trucks sure get twice the fuel economy, especially when hauling (actually it is better than twice the mileage when hauling). I have two friends with gas rigs and one with diesel and I run a diesel rig myself, I'm a horse owner and 3 out of the 4 friends are as well, the odd man out is a contractor. In asking my three friends what they get in fuel economy, empty and loaded, I know the diesels get 50% to maybe close to 75% better fuel economy when loaded (loaded, my friends gets 5-7mpg on their gassers, while me and my friend that run diesels get 15-17mpg loaded).
I had a friend that use to ask me how I could afford the fuel on my diesel because, "diesel is just sooooo much more expensive" (at that time diesel was about 25-30 cents more than regular). I use to reply, to her disbelief, that diesel would have to be twice what regular gas cost before I start paying close to what she paid in fuel.
It didn't sink in until last year when me and my friend hauled out to a location to go riding that my friend finally realized the difference between my diesel and her gasser in the out of pocket money we spent on fuel. I don't know the size difference of our tanks, but I spent $110 to fill the tank, from 1/4 tank, and it took me there and back home and still had just under 1/4 tank left. My friend spent nearly $300 (it was something like $140 each time she filled it) on the same trip and filled her tank before heading out and refilled before heading back and was abot 1/8 tank on arrival to our riding spot and then again arriving back home.

Edited to add: all trucks are 1 tons. Both diesels are dually, mine is a '95 Ford 7.3 powerstroke, 4.10 gear ratio and gets the 15 mpg hauling; my friend's diesel is a '03 5.9 cummins, 3.73 gear ratio and gets the 17 mpg hauling (he has reported 23 mpg while unloaded!). I don't know the years of the gas engines, but the one owned by the contractor looks quite a bit older than my '95 body and is a SRW chevy, and is the one that gets 5-6 mpg loaded and reports 8 mpg empty. The other is a ford dully and has the newer, post '97 body style, is a V-10 and gets about 7 mpg hauling.

[bolillo_loco]

Originally Posted by sunsprit

What diesel gets "twice the mileage" on a comparable car for car basis? None that I've seen in over 40 years of working on diesel cars.

While I realize that you did state car, I had two F-250s. Both trucks were 4x4, had 35" BFGoodrich mud T/As, manual, and sat at least 80" tall to the top of the cab. I had to let air out of the tires to get them in the garage, which was an 84" rough opening. Both trucks had large cab lights, and the garage door hung down an inch or two. The 1974 had a 390 cid gasoline motor while the 84 had a 420 cid diesel. The gasoline truck got 10 - 12 mpg while the diesel got 18 - 20.

I do agree, as a general rule, diesels get roughly 40% better fuel economy, but there are always exceptions to this where diesels aren't too much better or they double the fuel economy, but again, I do agree, this is rare.

[sunsprit]

Originally Posted by YellowHorse

I never had a diesel car, but the diesel trucks sure get twice the fuel economy, especially when hauling (actually it is better than twice the mileage when hauling). I have two friends with gas rigs and one with diesel and I run a diesel rig myself, I'm a horse owner and 3 out of the 4 friends are as well, the odd man out is a contractor. In asking my three friends what they get in fuel economy, empty and loaded, I know the diesels get 50% to maybe close to 75% better fuel economy when loaded (loaded, my friends gets 5-7mpg on their gassers, while me and my friend that run diesels get 15-17mpg loaded).

Thank you for the lecture about diesel PICK-UP TRUCKS.

As I've pointed out through the years, I am a multiple Ford and Dodge pick-up truck owner/operator, and I well know the fuel efficiencies of these vehicles compared to gasoline fueled pick up trucks when used for hauling purposes, as I do for my horses, livestock and farm equipment and supplies. But many diesel pick up trucks are used around here simply for personal transportation and the odd infrequent few bales of hay or critter supplies. Every one of those diesel trucks doesn't pencil out compared to the acquistion cost and operating cost of a 1/2 ton gasoline pick up truck. The only way mine pencil'ed out was to buy them with a 100-150K miles on the odometer for a substantially reduced price from new and to use them only for hauling purposes.

But you've totally missed the point about CARS! in the context of gasoline vs diesel fuel. There's no diesel car that gets TWICE the fuel mileage of the comparable stablemate, and every one of the diesel cars requires a premium price to buy it in the first place.