Car makers like to take the credit, but auto suppliers have invented much of contemporary car technology. So when the boss of Germany's Bosch (the world's biggest auto supplier) talks about the future of automotive technology, people listen. Here's what Bernd Bohr had to say to Auto, Motor und Sport . "For the year 2015, we expect a total world market of 80 million new cars, of which only about 2.5 to 3 million will be hybrids and 800,000 will be purely electric. So gasoline and diesel engines will continue to predominate. Actually, we calculate that the world market share of diesel cars will rise by another 5 percent, to reach 28 percent." How come? "Despite disproportionate price increases for diesel fuel, in places such as France the share of diesels has increased from 70 to 80 percent, because of a new CO2 tax. Diesels are 30 percent more efficient, too. There is a political dimension: the EU's ambitious plans to reduce CO2 emissions are only reachable if Europe stays at least 50 percent diesel." But the U.S. has shown that diesel is a no go, no? "This is mainly because of high prices for low-sulfur diesel fuel which is caused by low refinery capacities. This bottleneck should be gone around 2010. We expect a diesel market share for the U.S. of 15 percent by 2015". Are you betting the company on these predictions? "We plan to reduce our dependence on auto technology from currently 61 percent to 50 percent."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
So, would a diesel hybrid totally kick ass? Or am I stupid?
“Diesels are 30 percent more efficient…”
It also costs 30% more than petrol, so where’s the cost benefit? CO2 emissions? Well, diesel cars also cost more than petrol cars.
A Toyota Auris 1.6 VVT-i T-Spirit petrol auto, costs £15,580 and emits 161gm/km which means future car tax in the UK means it will cost £180 per year.
Now a VW Golf Plus 1.9 SE TDI with a diesel particulate filter, costs £18960 and emits 144gm/km which means future car tax in the UK means it will cost £125 per year.
So the difference between the 2 taxes is £55 per year. Now if you own the Toyota Auris for ten years you would pay £550 extra than the VW Golf Plus. But the VW Golf costs £3380 more. Which means to make up the difference you’d have to own the VW Golf Plus for 60 YEARS before you’d start to reap the benefit of the tax break!
Not to mention that the Toyota Auris comes with more toys, better built and a lot more reliable….
In Southern Maryland regular is $4.05 and diesel is $4.79. At that price is there any benefit from buying diesel?
There are benefits – first, a diesel engine is more reliable; second, it is more efficient; third, diesel normally costs less to produce, so as soon as we catch up with refining capacity, it’ll start making a lot more sense.
alex_rashev :
August 4th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
There are benefits – first, a diesel engine is more reliable.
I would wager money that a Prius is more reliable than a VW TDi.
I would be interested to see what they (Bosch) are basing their hybrid calculations on.
– toxicroach ” So, would a diesel hybrid totally kick ass? Or am I stupid ? ”
You would be paying both a hybrid premium and a diesel premium to start with. Then….
The diesel produces max torque at 2200-2400 rpm and a corresponding max generated current.
Unfortunately, in order to reach max power the generator current would drop 32%, corresponding to the drop in diesel torque, as engine speed increases by 75% on its way to max rpm @4200rpm.
In practice, a roughly constant speed is used around 2400rpm so that the full current capability of the generator can be utilised. Not a problem on a bus where the payload mass will often swamp the mass of any genset. However on a car or other LDV this would be considered a ponderously heavy power source.
A gasoline engine, on the other hand can generate peak power at 6000rpm with only a 6% drop off in torque. This is more generator friendly.
Besides, the nearly triple rpms allows the frame size of both the generator and engine to be reduced to one third of that needed by the diesel genset.
T2
Not to mention that the Toyota Auris comes with more toys, better built and a lot more reliable….
You forgot so boring to drive you will save money on gas because you wont want to drive anywhere. Instead you will be borrowing your friends VW to get your kicks.
My brother only spends $1.30/gallon to fill up his Mercedes 300D on vegetable oil, so diesel engines can’t be all that bad
first, a diesel engine is more reliable;
Once upon a time, depending on who’se diesel, but not true anymore. Diesel maintenance costs are higher than gas engine’s.
second, it is more efficient;
That 30% is down to 25% and shrinking, due to increases in gas engine efficiency. Diesel loses efficiency as part of making them “clean”.
diesel normally costs less to produce
We seem to have left “normal” times behind, perhaps for good.
Finally, regarding CO emissions: Diesel has a greater carbon content, so it ‘s CO output per gallon is 12-15% greater than gasoline. That narrows the diesel’s CO advantage substantially.
This guy’s numbers (Bosch one) speaks of 2 things…
In a 80M market, 3M is nothing… or 3.75%. And 800K is 1%… so he’s clearly stating that ICE or related technologies are here to stay for some time. The fuel to be employed is another matter. Same goes for the size of the engines/cars.
Second, following his numbers, hybrids/electric are, you guessed it, a small “niche”. Or fad if you prefer so.
What does he foresee for the future? Big nice question.
Toyota is betting on hybrids, not electrics. Honda… fuel cells?. Renault-Nissan –> full electrics.
The rest?
Hybrids may be an intermediate solution, if not a massive one. But the long term is in hydrogen.
The diesel produces max torque at 2200-2400 rpm?
Is this just for your VW or for ALL diesel engines? I’m no farmer, but don’t tractors run at much lower normal RPM? I suspect that the peak power/torque RPMs can be adjusted up or down with tuning/design, just like on a gasoline engine.
Good for Bosch. They have the bravery to give out a plan. (GM lacks this bravery.) It is easy to criticize someone’s plan but a good thing about a plan is that if any part starts to slip the company can see the slippage and make adjustments. So lets enjoy Bosch’s attempt to see into the future, see if they got it right, and see how well Bosch makes adjustments (if any) to their plan.
@Stingray:
There is no way that fuel cells can be a solution. Not while there’s no infrastructure. PHEV/electric cars have the infrastructure, if an old one.
Bosch could be right, hey he should know eh! I do know that Diesel engines last a long time with the minimum of maintenance, I have a 12 hp Kubota Tractor that I use for my rural property for Grass and Winter snow blowing, its now over 22 years old and still runs like the day I got it, now I also realize that you cant compare it to a Car running every day either! I will be going to the UK shortly, would enjoy renting a Diesel vehicle there, but have never had the opportunity to rent one as they seem to be in demand but not for two week rentals!
Diesel fuel here in Ontario Canada is about 20 cents more per litre than is gasoline! yet diesel is easier to make than is Gasoline, its crazy out there!
Redbarchetta :
I would rather walk than drive a Volkswagen. I would get farther.
Subject #1: Dissimilar items: A tractor motor is vastly different than an automotive diesel. It’s heavy and it runs slow, which is how diesels got their reputation for reliability. Pretty much anything built like a tank and that would never turn more than 1800 rpm is going to last a long time.
Subject #2: Why diesels suck, currently: I just did an analysis of two 2004 Jettas, one gas and one diesel, to find out which one would be cheaper to run. Diesel cars are more expensive these days, and dealers know that 45-50 mpg ratings will support a much higher price.
I’ll spare you the math, but with $4 gas and $4.50 diesel, driving 10k a year highway only miles, it takes 10 years to reach break-even. Only then is it cheaper to run a diesel Jetta.
Typical German arrogance, written in a German car magazine. Bosch is lightyears behind Toyota in hybrid technology and ahead in diesel development, their press releases and forecasts only can be what they are. Saying anything else would be pissing in their own pool.
@KatiePuckrick
A Toyota Auris 1.6 VVT-i T-Spirit petrol auto, costs £15,580 and emits 161gm/km which means future car tax in the UK means it will cost £180 per year.
Now a VW Golf Plus 1.9 SE TDI with a diesel particulate filter, costs £18960 and emits 144gm/km which means future car tax in the UK means it will cost £125 per year.
So why not compare a Auris gasser and a Auris diesel, or a Golf gasser/diesel?
I don’t know about the UK, but in Germany diesel is still 1-2% cheaper than gas most of the time. Diesels still have higher residuals, so if you lease, the diesel is a complete no-brainer.
“The diesel produces max torque at 2200-2400 rpm?”
Depends upon the engine and application. I work with several Diesel engines, some work best at 1800, some at 700, some at 2500, some at 2000. It is hard to toss out a blanket statement like that.
I seem to get the best driveability and MPG out of my TDI and CRD around ~2000 RPM.
I think the Bosch guy’s hybrid predictions are a bit off, but I agree on his predictions on fuel prices stabilizing after ULSD production gets sorted out. BioDiesel is actually very cheap to produce (the pump prices you see are blatant profiteering) but is still produced at a very low-volume. Once the volume of that goes up it might get more reasonable as well. Not to mention help clean up Diesel’s output and reputation.
I just wish that here in the USA we had a broader choice of Diesel-powered cars. One Benz and one VW is not exactly what makes a buyer’s market. The ‘Diesel premium” is mostly just Dealers tacking on what they can in a crappy market otherwise. When I bought my last TDI it actually cost $2000 LESS than a comparable gasoline model. No demand for Diesels when gasoline was $1.20 a gallon.
–chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org
I dunno. My 1984 Volvo 240 Diesel seems really cheap to run.
I paid $1000 in 2006. I’ve put 25,000 miles on it (at 33-35mpg).
I replaced one tie rod end.
Diesels are cheaper, you just gotta pick the right one.
@Katiepuckrik:
1. Pushing the Toyota Auris as the best compact car there is, especially compared with the Golf. First of all, using a petrol-Diesel comparison to make a point about VW pricing is illogical. There is also a Diesel Auris. Second, in terms of the market impact of the (imo boring and ugly looking) Auris vs. the Golf I think the market has spoken…
2. Your completely irrational defense of the Jaguar X-type, just because you own one yourself. This car is one of the main factors to blame for the demise and dilution of the Jaguar brand, a FWD, Mondeo based disaster both in terms of sales and reliability.
Just one question remains: Why the Auris? I can understand the need to defend your own purchasing decisions, so my only explanation is that you not only own an X-Type, but also an Auris…
@ Vega
1. The reason I continually use the Toyota Auris as a benchmark is because, all in all, it is the best value midrange hatchback on the European market. I could choose the Honda Civic, but, for me, its looks are a little too freaky for my liking. Personally, I don’t understand why people have such a hard-on for the VW Golf. It doesn’t handle as good as a Ford Focus, it isn’t as reliable as a Toyota Auris, it isn’t as fuel efficient as a Honda Civic and it doesn’t have the value of a Vauxhall Astra. So what’s so special about it?
As for my comparision being illogical, no it isn’t. I purposely chose the VW Golf because German diesel engines are the best on the market and Toyota make some of the best petrol engines (in terms of efficiency) on the market. I wanted to compare the two. Naturally, you’d have to pay a premium for the best on the market, surely? But since people don’t like that, I’ll compare a Toyota Auris diesel.
The Toyota Auris 2.0 D-4-D T-Spirit costs £16900 and is in the car tax band of £125. The difference of £55 (and a difference of £1320 in car prices) between that and a petrol engined Auris still means it would take 24 YEARS before the tax break is meaningful.
2. This comment of yours is so bizarre I don’t even know where to begin!
Firstly, how is my defence of the Jaguar X-type “irrational”? Because I own one and love it? How is that irrational? Surely, that’s the most logical way to assess a car! TTAC don’t write car reviews BEFORE they’ve driven a car, do they…?
Secondly, the reason for Jaguar’s nadir is because of Ford’s inept management of it. Nothing more. They bought the brand, a brand famous for luxury sedans and luxury sports cars and positioned it between Volvo (a maker of luxury cars) and Aston Martin (a maker of luxury sports cars) and told not to encroach on either’s cache!
Jaguar’s engineering is some of the best in the world.
Let’s put aside the fact that the X-Type was built on the Ford Mondeo platform; a platform which was an award winning piece of engineering. People slate the X-Type BECAUSE it was built on a Mondeo platform, but what exactly does that mean? Just because something has a humble beginning, doesn’t mean it can’t be something brilliant! Humans share 96% of their DNA with monkeys, but it’s that 4% which makes the difference*. Likewise with the X-Type, Jaguar took that platform and MADE it a Jaguar!
As for reliability issues, I don’t know where you got that from. Here’s a reliability survey; guess which car was the highest ranked non-japanese car of the last decade? I’ll give you a clue, it wasn’t the VW Golf….
And how does the X-Type dilute the Jaguar brand? The X-Type holds true to the values of a Jaguar car (i.e excellent ride quality and elegance). It’s an entry level car for the range. Just like Boxster is for Porsche. No-one says that’s “diluting” Porsche’s brand, do they?
Also, for the record, I own a Toyota Yaris and a Jaguar X-type. I love them dearly. My next car will be either a Toyota Auris or Jaguar X-Type (If I get rid of the first X-Type). But I also like, the Yaris diesel, Toyota Prius, Jaguar XF XJ and XK, Honda Accord (aka Acura TSX), Ford Focus Cabriolet, Vauxhall Monaro and Audi TT.
* = To give you an idea of how definitive that 4% can be, think about this. In the 4% of DNA which humans don’t share with monkeys, lies the answer to curing HIV/AIDS…..
1. Still, judging the long-term technological viability and market perspective of an engine technology purely on the tax specifics of a single national market is not very insightful in my view. Especially considering that you conveniently forget the still far better fuel economy Diesels have even compared to modern petrol engines. And the big advantage in usable torque in the rev range drivers actually spend most time in (1500-3000rpm).
2. Yes, the Boxster is an entry model. But it’s not exactly based on a Fiat Barchetta platform, is it? By using a mass-market FWD platform in order to compete with C-Class, 3 series et al. Jag brought a knife to a gunfight. And yes I know, an A4 is also FWD, but that’s part of their heritage and brand. Jaguar buyers, even more so than MB or BMW customers, expect luxury and exclusivity in technology and engineering. They don’t want the same eninge as the sales rep in the Mondeo next to them. I’m glad for you that you like the X-Type and it may be the perfect car for you. But there’s just no point denying the damage this car has done to Jag’s brand and financials. People just don’t want to buy it in relevant numbers (European sales 2007: X-type 17,712; 3-series: 285,596). Just like the Auris, actually (2007 Europ. sales: 152,623, VW Golf: 435,055, Peugeot 207: 437,505).
In terms of reliability, I was obviously wrong. While the X-type seems to have a Germany-specific weakness (Auto-boxes dying below 60,000 miles due to heavy Autobahn use), globally reliability seems to be OK.
@ Vega
1. I didn’t “coveniently” forget about the mpg of a diesel. In my first post, you’ll note I mentioned that diesel also COSTS 30% more than petrol. So, therefore, any mpg gain with a diesel is cancelled out by the extra price of diesel fuel. Also, wait until HCCI comes to market….
2. Why is there this big hang up on the X-Type being based on the Ford Mondeo? Do people still have the same hang up on the Lexus ES (based on a Camry platform)? Or the Acura TSX (rebadged standard Euro Accord)?
It just makes no sense.
Also, could you double check about the Mondeo platform being FWD? My X-Type is AWD….
With regards to your sales figures. The Auris has only been on sale for a year and a half and the Golf has been on sale for 25 years, yet the Auris is achieving well over a third of the sales the VW Golf has. Give the Auris a little more time. Also, the Peugeot 207 is a competitor for the Toyota Yaris, not the Auris. The Peugeot 307 would have been more relevant.
Don’t get me wrong, I like diesels and I’m looking at a couple for my next car. But I wish people would stop banging on as if they are a panacea……
Bosch is a large company that’s been producing components for diesel engines for a long time. So when the head of the company says this, I think there’s at least some truth to it. I don’t have anything against hybrids or other alternative propulsion systems (except for hydrogen, because there’s no infrastructure), but I currently think diesel is the best technology available for lowering fuel consumption. Plus diesels are much more fun to drive than a comparable gas engine. That’s why I’ve owned 4 VW diesels since I’ve been driving. So if Mr. Bosch says it’ll be 15% of the US market in 7 years, I’ll happily believe him. However, since most Americans are too dull to be able to perform simple math, I doubt the 15% market penetration will happen unless car companies start offering brain transplants to people. The 2009 Jetta TDIs are actually priced very close to what I paid in 2003 for my Jetta, and the fuel economy will be similar as well.
brettc,
GM is a large company that’s been producing cars for a long time. So when the head of the company says that the future of the industry is in SUV’s, do you reckon there may be some truth in it…..?
@KatiePuckrick
The Auris has only been on sale for a year and a half
…
Not to mention that the Toyota Auris comes with more toys, better built and a lot more reliable…
Maybe it’s my lack of a sense of humour, being German, but you can’t quite talk of reliability for a one and a half year old car.
“The Auris has only been on sale for a year and a half and the Golf has been on sale for 25 years, yet the Auris is achieving well over a third of the sales the VW Golf has.”
It’s not like Toyota entered this market segment with the Auris. It’s predecessor, the Corolla, has been unsuccessfully trying to win over the European compact market since 1971 now (that’s 37 years, compared to the Golf’s 34). The Corolla’s failure to do so was the reason for the rebranding (after 8 generations of Corollas in Europe). So the Auris is hardly a new kid on the block.
You’re right btw that the 207 is in a lower class. So how about the Focus (2007 Europ. sales 406,557) or the Astra (402,044)?
@ Mirko Reinhardt
The Auris shares a lot of underpinnings and components with previous and current Corollas.
@ Vega
I’ll admit the Corolla never quite caught the imagination of the European buyer (I didn’t like it), but Toyota refined the styling and changed the name and is now selling much better than the previous Corolla, despite it being its sister.
My point is that Auris is a much better car and selling much better. So give it time and the mixture of the Corolla’s reliability and the new styling will win European buyers over.
If Honda changed the Civic’s styling I reckon it would win more customers, despite it being a technologically sound car.
PLEASE read what he is saying!
He is trying to tell you that the reason for diesel being higher now is a bottleneck.
It will be gone by 2010.
Then, diesel will once again be related to its true lower cost to produce than gas.
Next, IF you think a hybrid is more reliable than a diesel, you should forfit your rights to vote and raise children.
My brother only spends $1.30/gallon to fill up his Mercedes 300D on vegetable oil, so diesel engines can’t be all that bad
You cannot compare an ancient Mercedes diesel to a modern TDI with a high-pressure injection system. Try running SVO in BlueTec E320 or VW TDI.
People have this weird blind spot with diesel; they extrapolate the experiences of people with old engines (no high pressure injectors, no emissions control, occasionally no turbocharger) and apply it to a modern turbodiesel with injector pressure high enough to cut metal. Modern turbodiesels are brutally complex and operate under very high mechanical stresses–much higher than a hybrid does.
A Mercedes 300D? What’s that, 90hp and only slightly more torque? 0-60 in >12 seconds? Emissions that can kill at twenty paces? When you’re losing drag races to cars like the Prius and Civic GX, you’re not exactly comparing apples to apples.
And, lets be honest, powertrain reliability is a small part of TCO, and even then a large amount of diesel’s reliability advantage is theoretical speculation, based purely on versions of the old “heavy iron block must be strong” adage. Sure, a VW TDI is in theory less complex than Toyota’s HSD, but what about the supporting electronics? The fuel rail? Injectors? The turbocharger? The emissions control system? Those are all high-tolerance, high-stress components. And VW (and Mercedes, BMW, Renault and Fiat) don’t exactly have the greatest reputation for long-term viability of electronics and supplementary equipment.
He is trying to tell you that the reason for diesel being higher now is a bottleneck.
It will be gone by 2010.
Then, diesel will once again be related to its true lower cost to produce than gas.
Diesel costs more to refine for several reasons, and scarcity is indeed one of them. A second is that modern diesel is not cheap to refine; you cannot use, as it were, the dregs of a barrel of crude to make ULSD. You will never see the old days of cheap, crude heating oil usable in automobiles.
Another is that it takes more physical fuel to make a volumetric unit of diesel. Ever notice that diesel is heavier than gasoline for the same volume? A lot of the fuel’s purported efficiency comes from the sheer mass of combustible hydrocarbons in a given gallon. You pay for that additional mass of fuel.
psarhjinian
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
If this were true…then simply put, diesel would always have been higher than gas.
It has never been so…until now.
Read..bottleneck.
And you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with the modern diesel.
In fact, they are able to run on the biodiesel fuels now sold.
@ ppellico
In fact, they are able to run on the biodiesel fuels now sold.
The fuel filler cap of my 3-week-old BMW 118d has “NO BIODIESEL” written all over it in big green letters.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
If this were true…then simply put, diesel would always have been higher than gas.
It has never been so…until now.
That would be three factors:
1. Supply and demand. And demand for crude oil is going upwards, so don’t expect the price for it’s derivatives to go down. And since there’s only a fixed amount of refined fuel available from a given unit of crude, a spike in gasoline demand would reduce available diesel, which would thusly spike diesel prices further.
2. Diesel (in Europe) has benefited from artificially lower tax rates; in North America, it’s benefited from being useless, until recently, for anything other than heating oil and heavy equipment. Because we weren’t powering passenger cars with very tight emissions standards and highly complex injection systems, the quality of fuel could be poor (and thusly plentiful and cheap), so much more was available, which leads to…
3. Modern diesel engines, ULSD, and such. It’s much more expensive to make ULSD than it is to make regular, fresh-outta-the-can tractor fuel; it must be refined (it can’t be made from “leftovers”) and every unit of modern diesel made results in fewer units of gasoline, which is a problem (see #1)
Read..bottleneck.
And you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with the modern diesel.
In fact, they are able to run on the biodiesel fuels now sold.
Biodiesel, blended biodiesel and straight vegetable oil are not the same thing, any more than ethanol, blended Ethanol and straight alcohol are. There are a significant number of engines that will accept B10 or B20, but not B100, just as most cars can handle E10, some E85 but very few E100. Most modern, passenger-car diesels will flat out die if you run SVO.
The 80s-vintage 300D running on melted earwax that people continually bring up as an example of the Power Of Diesel is rather a red herring. Again, go on and try running an E320 BlueTec on straight veggie oil and let me know how that goes for you.
Biodiesel has the same net-energy problems that ethanol has: it’s not necessarily net-energy-positive, or net-carbon-positive, to run biodiesel. It can be, depending on the circumstances in which it’s made, but blanket statements about it’s environmental friendliness effect are disingenuous, if not plain wrong.
psarhjinian
Thanks for the great detailing.You sound very informed and it was nice.
But your one point about the oil limit is misleading.
The fact that something has a “fixed amount” means nothing..IF you don’t know what the end amount is.
As I have tried to explain for months on this sight and to others is there is not a shortage of oil.
In fact, we have limited ourselves to its discovery and its removal.
So don’t talk about oil as if it has already seen these limits as there has been no such real information.
And, in fact again, it has begun to decline in price.
So what gives with your therory?
It should actually just keep rising.
I never said all diesels run on all biodiesels.
I don’t care about BMW diesels and their limits.
In fact again, most new diesels coming out actually brag about their abilities to use the biodiesels available.
Even the VW interviews have them spouting these benefits.
Now, you may be right when discussing the cost to produce diesel today. With the new, lower sulfer rules and the increased government taxes on diesel, the old cost rules are out the window.
I think…?
I am really not sure of the actual cost comparisons and have searched for a long, long time for the truth, the numbers.
Nobody comes clean with the facts.
Perhaps TTAC can give us the low down for once.
As it is, if all stays as it is now, diesels are better because of the mileage and longevity of the diesel engine.
Not so sure if cost to produce diesels keeps rising and the new bio diesels do not catch on with production.
Thanks for the nice information, however.