Power Wagon v. Diesel Fuel Costs

[DrTron]

You are absolutely right. CO2 is a climate gas, but NOx and SOx are a lot worse for people and environment. The "acid rain" we had in the 80s are actually SO2 and SO3 that hydrolyze with water to different sulphuric acids. Main contributor back then weren't the Diesels, but coal-fired power plants. Nowadays that problem is gone, by using ULSD and retrofitting power plants with gas washers, where the sulfuric oxides are captured with Calcium carbonate and remain in the sludge as CaSO4, or gypsum. On the other hand, even today large ships (cruise and container ships, tankers, etc.) run on heavy fuel oil, which is basically what's left over after the refinery turns crude into gasoline, kerosine and Diesel. And that stuff is loaded with sulfur, sometimes several percent. And no filters there...

 

[Greenhills]

So your telling me that the implementation of DEF is better for the climate??

The same DEF that is produced in factories, packed in PLASTIC jugs (often wrapped in cardboard), distributed via transport trucks and shipped out to the consumer for vehicles equipped with emissions equipment that also require additional materials and production efforts.... is better for the environment?

This is surely a joke...

 

[akguy09]

People forget to factor the PRICE of DEF into the cost of diesel MPG as well

 

[UglyViking]

I think we are getting well of track of OPs initial question and the focus of this thread. I would be interested in discussing this further, perhaps someone can start a new thread and tag interested parties, or link it here?

 

[Docwagon1776]

So your telling me that the implementation of DEF is better for the climate??

The same DEF that is produced in factories, packed in PLASTIC jugs (often wrapped in cardboard), distributed via transport trucks and shipped out to the consumer for vehicles equipped with emissions equipment that also require additional materials and production efforts.... is better for the environment?

This is surely a joke...

I mean, yeah. Feel free to look up historical air quality data for any major US city from, say 1970, to today and see what you find. See the past decade, let the data speak for itself.

 

[jsalbre]

You are absolutely right. CO2 is a climate gas, but NOx and SOx are a lot worse for people and environment. The "acid rain" we had in the 80s are actually SO2 and SO3 that hydrolyze with water to different sulphuric acids. Main contributor back then weren't the Diesels, but coal-fired power plants. Nowadays that problem is gone, by using ULSD and retrofitting power plants with gas washers, where the sulfuric oxides are captured with Calcium carbonate and remain in the sludge as CaSO4, or gypsum. On the other hand, even today large ships (cruise and container ships, tankers, etc.) run on heavy fuel oil, which is basically what's left over after the refinery turns crude into gasoline, kerosine and Diesel. And that stuff is loaded with sulfur, sometimes several percent. And no filters there...

Ships operating at US ports (and those of a number of other countries) are no longer permitted to use bunker fuel as of March 2020. It's made a huge difference already.

 

[UglyViking]

I mean, yeah. Feel free to look up historical air quality data for any major US city from, say 1970, to today and see what you find. See the past decade, let the data speak for itself.

I commented on this in a much more verbose way on a new thread I started just for this discussion.

Emissions equipment on diesel trucks. A deeper discussion on the pros, cons, and science behind it

I brought this post over from another thread to try and allow that topic to have more focus and instead give us that wanted to discuss diesel emissions, and others who may not be aware of the conversation, ample space to do so. And also to make @Brutal_HO 's job easier, maybe. I mean, yeah...

hdrams.com

I also "quoted you" there to make it easier to find. Please, everyone interested in the diesel emissions conversation please come on over.

 

[bellvedere]

No worries, all great discussion and learned quite a few things myself. I ended up trading it in last night and picked up a new PW. Got a whopping 11.4 mpg on the three hour ride home but the truck is fantastic. Looking forward to building it out so it’ll be tires and rims first..I just can’t stand the headlock rims for some reason.

I really do appreciate everyone’s input and look forward to following along in this group to get more info and to swipe some ideas for my build .

Hope everyone is having a great weekend.

 

[jetrinka]

No worries, all great discussion and learned quite a few things myself. I ended up trading it in last night and picked up a new PW. Got a whopping 11.4 mpg on the three hour ride home but the truck is fantastic. Looking forward to building it out so it’ll be tires and rims first..I just can’t stand the headlock rims for some reason.

I really do appreciate everyone’s input and look forward to following along in this group to get more info and to swipe some ideas for my build .

Hope everyone is having a great weekend.

Congrats on the truck! Enjoy it!

 

[jsalbre]

No worries, all great discussion and learned quite a few things myself. I ended up trading it in last night and picked up a new PW. Got a whopping 11.4 mpg on the three hour ride home but the truck is fantastic. Looking forward to building it out so it’ll be tires and rims first..I just can’t stand the headlock rims for some reason.

I really do appreciate everyone’s input and look forward to following along in this group to get more info and to swipe some ideas for my build .

Hope everyone is having a great weekend.

Silly question, but where are you located? I’m looking to get rid of the rims on my new Rebel when it shows up next month and put some 17s or 18s on it.

 

[DrTron]

Got a whopping 11.4 mpg on the three hour ride home but the truck is fantastic.

I guess it totally depends on where your ride home went. I got around 13 on my 4h ride home, but that was in balmy temperatures and on flat terrain.
But it'll improve over time, breaking in usually takes more fuel than later on.

 

[Docwagon1776]

No worries, all great discussion and learned quite a few things myself. I ended up trading it in last night and picked up a new PW. Got a whopping 11.4 mpg on the three hour ride home but the truck is fantastic. Looking forward to building it out so it’ll be tires and rims first..I just can’t stand the headlock rims for some reason.

I really do appreciate everyone’s input and look forward to following along in this group to get more info and to swipe some ideas for my build .

Hope everyone is having a great weekend.

I've gotten as low as mid 12's in high wind and low temps with winter blend gas to low 17's in ideal conditions, highway driving. I don't do much city driving at all.

 

[Desertfox73]

Since this thread is asking about PW vs Diesel fuel costs, the math here in Nashville is:

Drive 10k miles, you’ll pay:

• PW: $2,100 in gas, assuming 15mpg and $3.15/gal (current price for regular)
• Diesel: $2,600 in gas, assuming 17mpg and $4.42/gal (current price for diesel), plus approximately $100 in DEF assuming you go through a 2.5-gal jug of DEF every 2500 miles.

Keep in mind that selecting the diesel option on a 2500 is an instant $10k added to the sticker price over gas. Even if you keep your truck for 10 years, that‘s $1,000/year added to the cost of driving diesel.

 

[DrTron]

I guess which only confirms the statement: "Only get a diesel if you tow heavy loads regularly."
In that scenario the diesel probably comes out ahead, long-term.

 

[CharlieL]

Since this thread is asking about PW vs Diesel fuel costs, the math here in Nashville is:

Drive 10k miles, you’ll pay:

• PW: $2,100 in gas, assuming 15mpg and $3.15/gal (current price for regular)
• Diesel: $2,600 in gas, assuming 17mpg and $4.42/gal (current price for diesel), plus approximately $100 in DEF assuming you go through a 2.5-gal jug of DEF every 2500 miles.

Keep in mind that selecting the diesel option on a 2500 is an instant $10k added to the sticker price over gas. Even if you keep your truck for 10 years, that‘s $1,000/year added to the cost of driving diesel.

This sums things up pretty well, IMHO. I think that the fuel costs are pretty much a wash; get the truck you want that fits your needs. Here's how I looked at it today, with several assumptions:

1. Assume PW gets 8 towing & 12 in town. (Please don't beat me up too much on these numbers - just interpreting what I've read here.)
2. Assume diesel gets 12 towing & 16 in town. (this is the real average mpg with 24k on my truck).
3. Assume 50/50 towing & city. So average MPG = PW-10, diesel-14.

With today's Nationwide Average fuel prices at Mid-Grade $3.875, Diesel $4.662 (per AAA), then average fuel cost per mile would be 38.75 cents for PW, 33.3 cents for diesel, not including DEF costs. So, with a difference of about a nickle per mile, the fuel mileage cost difference is insignificant. Over 10,000 miles, that would be about $500, as pointed out by Desertfox73. Now, when diesel was less, of course, that was different but I don't anticipate diesel becoming less per gallon anytime soon.

 

[gimmie11s]

I appreciate that. I'm not a Diesel guy, but there's a reason for the emissions equipment and to not "delete" it: Diesels are, by nature, a lot more harmful to both population and the environment than gas engines. That comes from the kind of fuel, the pressure and gas chemistry in Diesels and is just physics and chemistry. No way to change that.
And only recently we have acquired the technology to make that mostly go away. Don't get me wrong, I personally think that 3-way-catalytic converters for gas engines (first introduced sometime in the late 70's, I think) are a godsend. As a 70s kid, I remember how awful traffic fumes were.
So the issue that was solved with catalytic converters in gas engines (HC, CO and NOx) is rather easy to fix chemically with fuel injection (lambda=1) and a catalyst, they get converted to water and CO2.
It's a bit more difficult with Diesel engines, mostly because of the soot (hence particulate filters, I remember Diesel cars always having a black tail end), and as soot is a particulate and not a gas, it clogs and poisons the catalyst and it cannot easily be used to chemically reduce NOx, and the CO content alone is not high enough. Therefore, a urea solution (DEF) is injected after the particulate filter to reduce the NOx and turn it into water and nitrogen, both of which are harmless.

Certainly, an emissions system as complex as that has to be maintained, but I think that's well worth it compared to the toxic emissions it prevents. "Deleting" a truck doesn't make it run better (contrary to popular belief), but it obviously eliminates the need for maintenance on the emissions system, which probably is why people do it in the first place.

Oh lord, here we go.

 

[DrTron]

Oh lord, here we go.

Too technical? ;-)

 

[techman]

I bought a diesel because I wanted one.

 

[OldJeepsNewTrucks]

You are absolutely right. CO2 is a climate gas, but NOx and SOx are a lot worse for people and environment. The "acid rain" we had in the 80s are actually SO2 and SO3 that hydrolyze with water to different sulphuric acids. Main contributor back then weren't the Diesels, but coal-fired power plants. Nowadays that problem is gone, by using ULSD and retrofitting power plants with gas washers, where the sulfuric oxides are captured with Calcium carbonate and remain in the sludge as CaSO4, or gypsum. On the other hand, even today large ships (cruise and container ships, tankers, etc.) run on heavy fuel oil, which is basically what's left over after the refinery turns crude into gasoline, kerosine and Diesel. And that stuff is loaded with sulfur, sometimes several percent. And no filters there...

Well that last part is not accurate. Ships operating in Emission Control Areas (usually from 200 miles offshore to the coast) must use fuel with a content of .10% sulfur or less. This is a MARPOL Annex VI requirement which is an international convention that many countries around the world are signatory to.

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/INV/Alerts/0215.pdf

 

[DrTron]

For coastal areas or in port (the Emission Control Areas you mentioned), you are correct, I forgot about that. As for offshore though...