Originally posted by Pogodually
Everyone needs to drop Mr jackson an email and tell him how we like our diesels.
JMHO
Did exactly that. See below. I used the following as the email address: -- email address removed --
<Begin Email text>
I have just read the column by Les Jackson. In it, he describes his reaction to a diesel powered Volkswagen Jetta.
It is unfortunate, but Mr. Jackson includes in his opinion several items which are not only untrue, but blatantly incorrect. Let me elaborate.
>The Jetta is powered by a turbocharged diesel engine and that’s where the problem begins.
This indicates the obvious bias of the writer, which is unfortunate when a reporter is supposed to report information objectively.
>The main purpose of the diesel engine is to develop high torque (for pulling heavy loads) and to do so efficiently and economically.
This is true. However, he fails to note that this torque can be applied in a manner which means a car can be moved quite easily at comfortable speeds.
>The truth is, a diesel engine will typically get twice the fuel mileage of a comparable gasoline engine and last twice as long.
This is false. A diesel engine will be more efficient due to not only its design, but the fuel it burns. But it will not "typically get twice the fuel mileage of a comparable gasoline engine. " While is possible to do this, it is not typical, nor should it be expected.
It would seem that Mr. Jackson portrays the diesel favorably in this case, which is true. However, I mention this error to demonstrate the lack of knowledge that Mr. Jackson seems to possess in regard to diesel engines. To wit, Mr. Jackson then says a diesel engine will last twice as long as a gasoline engine. This is also in error.
Due to heavier construction, a diesel engine may last as much as four times a comparably sized gasoline engine. However, this feature too, is variable depending on many circumstances. Thus, Mr. Jackson starts his string of conclusions without factual basis, or regard for reality based conditions.
>What they are not designed for is quietness, smoothness and enhancement of the driving experience.
This is a matter of personal taste, to be sure. In my Dodge Ram, many first time riders note the smoothness of the ride and quiet diesel. While this may seem a contradiction, as the Cummins is noisy while standing next to the truck, in the cab it is quite calm and the diesel has little effect on overall comfort. While a Jetta is not a large pickup truck with an industrial diesel under the hood, this fact should be in the Jetta's favor. Mr. Jackson appears to portray the Jetta as a vibration filled uncomfortable ride. I am sure it is not as he claims in many Jetta owners opinion.
>The little diesel engine rattles and shakes, belches blue smoke for a few seconds, followed by a teeth-rattling noise and an acceleration profile that matches a UPS truck.
While this may be true, Mr. Jackson appears unaware that a gasoline engine does the same with more harmful emissions on start up. Further, as a diesel gets warmer, it becomes even more quiet and fuel efficient.
>It’s just that way with diesel engines. Driving a diesel is too much like work. Regardless of the technology under the hood, diesels are tediously slow and lethargic.
This is blatantly incorrect. Mr. Jackson needs to find a school offering a course in diesel technology basics, and sit back for a very informative few days. Even before the latest computer control, but now especially with it, diesel engines can be made to perform in almost any acceleration or hauling situation. This can be done while keeping emissions low. I can speak from experience with the Cummins diesel in the Dodge Ram; a diesel can and will provide all the acceleration a driver could want, and then some. These trucks are hardly lethargic, I have to conclude that the diesel Jetta is not slow either.
>Worse, diesels aren’t very clean-burning. They emit smelly, oily smoke that annoys those driving behind and forces the rolling-up of windows and turning on of air conditioners.
Again, Mr. Jackson shows his ignorance of diesels. Due to the nature of a diesel engine, it is lower in emissions than a gasoline engine. A diesel engine will typically emit less "greenhouse" type gasses per horsepower or comparable displacement than a gasoline engine. The two main emissions are Oxides of Nitrogen and soot. Thats right, SOOT. Carbon monoxide emission is much lower from a diesel than a gasoline engine, and carbon dioxide is associated with the diesel due to its compression ignition design. A gasoline engine cannot claim the same.
Take a drive next to a diesel engine that has computer controlled fuel delivery. You will find very little smoke, certainly no black clouds that used to be the norm. The tailpipe emissions of a diesel are not oily either. This would indicate a problem with the engine, since this is the result of incomplete combustion. A properly operating diesel will have no visible tailpipe emissions, and very little smell. Further, a gasoline engine has an odor as well, but Mr. Jackson seems to think breathing those emissions is more desirable.
>It is my humble opinion that diesel drivers have a slight, holier-than-thou attitude. It's as if they are more fiscally responsible than the rest of us because their Mercedes, Peugeot, Volkswagen or truck diesel will outlast our cars’ inferior gasoline engines by many years. They all seem to drive their diesel smudgepots with a smugness borne of being eccentrically different.
It appear this is the basis on which Mr. Jackson builds his opinion of diesel engines. This is unfortunate, since it has little to do with the engine itself.
Perhaps the new owners of a diesel powered Jetta will find a smugness born of being environmentally responsible. Would that be more suitable to Mr. Jackson?
>One of the few reasons manufacturers sell diesel-powered cars in the United States is that they make them for Third-World countries anyway. Diesel engines do get better fuel mileage but there are so few of them sold here that there is no statistical impact on corporate average fuel economy data.
Again, it appears that Mr. Jackson uses irrrelevant data to support his condemnation of the diesel engine. Or does he? Perhaps the fact that these countries pay even more for fuel than we do is motive enough for them to get a more efficient engine?
>Let’s face it, most of us dislike diesel-powered cars for one reason or another.
Blatantly false. There is a shortage of diesel powered Ram Pickups, and the line for diesel powered Jettas grows by the day.
>Fortunately, it seems, so does the EPA, since they are about to regulate diesel engines more stringently, reducing their emissions to those of gas engines.
Again, false. The EPA is more concerned with the fuel a diesel burns than the engines that burn it. Thus, they are regulating the chemicals in the fuel, such as sulpher. There are certain changes that have to be made in the fuel systems of diesel engines to handle the fuel modifications, but this is already agreed upon. Also, new programming of the electronic fuel controls on diesel engines has provided a means of lowering the emissions. Further, it hardly changes the fact that a gasoline engine has more emissions than a diesel.
>It’s about time somebody regulated good taste.
Indeed, its also time someone regulated good jounalism in general, and Mr. Jackson in particular. Mr. Jackson needs to move into the 21st century and find out about the new technologies available to make diesel engines not only more desirable, but more user friendly than in past decades.
Thank you for your time.
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
DENNY... ... ... ... ... ...
