The reason that diesel can be used so freely in Europe is because they use low-sulfur, or in some countries, zero-sulfur diesel. Peugeot has particulate emissions filters that last for over 100,000 miles.

Diesel is, in fact, a much cleaner and efficient fuel in Europe because of the technology over there. GM needs to bring some of that tech over here, and improve on it further.

Case in point: BMW 535d. Diesel engine, 0-60 in 6secs, limited to 155mpg. It’s more efficient, produces less CO2, is quieter, faster and cheaper than its gasoline equivalent.

Google this – GM sells cars in Europe that meet EURO5/6 that takes affect Jan 2009.

US wide the requirement is Tier 2 BIN5. These standards are in point of fact LESS than EURO5/6.

VW is selling the Jetta diesel here in 2008 in all 50 states, and have nearly filled their 2009 production quota already…

SO, why doesn’t he want a small diesel ? Remember, a small diesel with a set rpm will ALWAYS produce less CO2 and less emmisions than ANY gas / E85 engine can do…

Answer: the diesel will last nearly as long as the Li-I battery so we will be driving it too long = less sales.

Other manufactures have risen to the challenge and are taking market share. Volkswagen has much smaller economies of scale, yet they offer a diesel engine. I drive a diesel Jetta and my daughter drives a diesel Beetle, which get 48 and 50 MPG respectively. Yet GM does not offer a diesel engine car. The excuse is that the American public doesn’t want a diesel engine. Why is this true? Could it be that during the last oil crises GM brought out diesel engined cars that were junk? They converted gas engines to run on diesel, which turn out to be unreliable. Management was more interested in a quick buck then the customer’s long-term well being. This same management philosophy plays out in other area as well. For example it is well known that 90% of all engine wear occurs in the first few second of engine operation. To address this issue both German and Japanese auto makers have check valves in the engine lubrication systems. These valves prevent the engine oil from draining out of the engine when it is turned off, thus insuring that the engine has lubrication available for starting. Detroit engines do not have this innovation. As a result Detroit engines start to burn oil just a few years after purchase. Whereas the Japanese engines will continue to run, with out the obligatory blue cloud, for at least 100,000 miles if not 200,000 miles. My diesel Jetta has passed 200,000 miles and is headed for 300,000 miles. The American public may not know why these other engines are so durable they just know that an American engine is not durable and “appears” to be of lower quality. When in fact it is not a quality issue it is a management issue. Management has to decide to order the engineering change that will extend engine life knowing full well that the car will not wear out so quickly and sales will suffer. But will they suffer? Yes in the short run because the engines will last longer. But, in the long run a reputation for quality will be reestablished and market share will return. Looks like a Win, Win situation to me.
Vice-Chairman Bob Lutz if you want to recapture GM’s glory days, stop making excuses and offer the American public a car that is superior to the competition. American’s want to buy an American cars, give them something that is worth buying. If you are unwilling then it wouldn’t surprise me that GM will go the way of the Hudson and the Studebaker. The American public will not continue to buy product that they perceive to be inferior when alternatives are available.

Mr. Lutz it may be more expedient to only offer the Volt from the beginning with only a gas engine since it is off the shelf technology then say so. But please don’t insult us by making a bunch of excuses. Stop playing the victim, stop making excuses. Excuse makers never win!

I made exactly those points. I think the government should support GM and America in rolling out the Volt that in the same way that JFK had the audacity to send America to the moon before the end of the 60’s today’s President should commit America to having 50% of the autos on it’s roads using e-Flex technology by 2015! And back it up with as much money as it takes to get the job done.

The money spent subsidizing this transformation will be earned backed with decreased health problems, decreased environmental problems, and decreased (actually NO oil imports) oil imports by the year 2030! After that it is massive savings and better health and environment for all Americans!

Comparing the Volt to the Tesla is apples to oranges.

The Tesla is – a light high performance two seat roadster. It simply doesn’t take a lot of energy to make a lighter vehicle GO. I’m sure if you wail on it, and drive it like you stole it, that ~200 mile range will be SIGNIFICANTLY reduced.

And again, once it’s discharged, your only option is to plug it in to recharge.

The Volt will be a more practical vehicle. This means it will be BIGGER and HEAVIER.

MAYBE if the Tesla’s battery pack were put in a Volt chassis, it might get more than 40 miles range, but it wouldn’t be very significant.

See, in EVs, weight is a HUGE hurdle. Weight will reduce the range on battery by a much larger factor than a vehicle powered by an ICE.

For you, and people that have to commute more than 40 miles a day, consider the Volt a hybrid, because that’s what it will be for you. If you don’t want that, you’ll have to wait for something else….

… like maybe the ZAP-X. It will have a much greater range on battery… but it will cost about $60,000.