Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





California Diesel Issue

1235»

Comments

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 30,564
    I have had two diesels in the last year and a half. Both have less smell than our 3 gas vehicles. The one thing is they both have been fed ULSD from BP. It looks like you are from Oregon. I bought the Passat diesel in Portland. The diesel fuel I bought up there was very strong smelling compared to ECD-1 from BP. So it is mostly a fuel situation and not the diesel engines that are currently being sold. I think you will find it less obnoxious driving behind a diesel when the mandated ULSD is in place up there.

    The truth is the exhaust from a car burning gas is more likely to kill you than from even a smelly diesel truck. Breathing any exhaust is not wise. I would not ride a bike or motorcycle on the street for that very reason. I keep my bike riding to the park and beach.
  • alp8alp8 Posts: 656
    b>The truth is the exhaust from a car burning gas is more likely to kill you than from even a smelly diesel truck. Breathing any exhaust is not wise. I would not ride a bike or motorcycle on the street for that very reason. I keep my bike riding to the park and beach.

    the argument that "diesel kills, but gas kills more" is not likely to help the diesel cause

    but that's just my take

    :-)<
  • alp8alp8 Posts: 656
    the argument "offroad diesels are really gross, so passenger car diesels should be left alone" is also not a winner

    but you've convinced many of us that, yes, vehicles using red-dyed diesel should be regulated more than they are......
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 30,564
    vehicles using red-dyed diesel should be regulated more than they are

    When I first bought my Kubota diesel tractor I ran Red Dye Diesel because it was about 40 cents a gallon cheaper. It also smoked a lot when I started the tractor. When I learned about ULSD and ARCO/BP stations started selling it, I switched. My tractor does not smoke at all and does not have that distinctive diesel odor. I think the perception of diesel vehicles is all a result of the fuel we are sold. Just as has been said before. When leaded fuel is what was offered we were killing ourselves with the stuff. I am not against regulation. I am against random regulation without a consistent theme.

    If you are going to force one person to use a more expensive fuel for the environment, force everyone. CARB just picks and chooses the easy targets. Making them the joke that they are. They block the sale of new diesel cars and everyone treats them like they accomplished some great feat. Meanwhile Joe Six Pack buys a one ton dually with a fire breathing Cummins diesel that puts out more pollution than ten VW TDI cars. There are no smog checks so he tosses whatever smog control stuff it has and no one seems to care. CARB shows NO consistency in their regulations.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 17,478
    ..."the argument "offroad diesels are really gross, so passenger car diesels should be left alone" is also not a winner "...

    While you might come to that conclusion or ascribe that to "misguided diesel nuts", my take is the path that should be taken is up to 50% of the vehicle fleet be of "alternative" type fuels, such as diesel, bio diesel, nat gas, electrical, hydrogen, etc.

    Actually there are huge segments of unmitigated gasoline engines also, motorcycles being an example.

    Also there is no reason why red dyed diesel can not be USLD at 15 ppm to bio diesel (almost NO sulfur) . The operative principle here: ON ROAD taxation is not being paid: hence the physical and regulatory sign posts.
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    Yep I am a California tax payer, and last time I was in Pomona I had a hard time finding any 8 story apartment building. But that isn't the point. The point is we have a redundant organization called CARB that has not done what it was established to do and it has cost the people of California more than it is worth. Are there ways to get passed CARB? Sure there are. 3/4 ton trucks or bigger are one way. I have a Diesel F-250 that easily gets 20MPG loaded all day long. My neighbor has a Nissan Titan 1/2 ton that empty gets 15-17 MPG and even less loaded. It isn't hard to see that the Titan is less efficient at doing the job it was designed to do than the F-250 superduty. Who then should be blamed for restricting diesels in California other than CARB? It is based on their recommendations that we have the regulations we have. Because the restrictions put on diesels have had no effect on our air it only seems reasonable that those restrictions should be reviewed and maybe amended to reflect real world needs of the consumer and fuel useage. CARB is simply not in the business of looking at their own house. Nor do they seem to be concerned with what is best for the people they should be serving.

    I happen to manage a small fleet of delivery trucks. Care to guess what fuel my most dependable and profitable trucks use? But I can't use the same technology for my personal vehicle because a small passenger diesel isn't allowed, even if other EPA compliant States can offer them.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 17,478
    I think there is an unintended consequence of cheaper per mile driven; with the current "new diesel car ban" combined with the regulation of registration of "new"/used diesel cars with 7500 miles, actually makes it cheaper, per mile driven acquisition costs.

    I also should probably note that new diesel light truck sales have NEVER been banned in CA.

    There is absolutely NO shortage of diesel fuel. In recent travels across 9 western states (CA,NV,OR,WA,CO, AZ,NM,UT,ID) and 6 southern states ,(TX,OK,MS,LA,FL,AL,) I have literally never had to wait to fuel.

    If a turbo diesel can be tweaked so an suv type can get 25 to 35 mpg, I most certainly would be a buyer. Short list would include, TDI Toyota Landcruiser, Chevy Tahoe, GMC Yukon, etc.
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    But they haven't grown any faster than many other cities and still their air is bad, so yes, maybe I discount your unintended contention that CARB has made things better or at least your dismissing the conditions that have allowed other cities without carb restrictions to get better and places like Pomona with them to languish. If you chose not to consider CARB and their restrictions or not to defend their actions as you "seemed' to be attempting with your eight story apartment building comment it would be perfectly acceptable for you to conceed the point. If you chose to rationalize why other cities without CARB's help have improved and Pomona with them hasn't that is also your privalige. However that doesn't address the California diesel issue. CARB is a big part of the diesel issue. And as far as Pomona's real growth? Phillips Ranch represents much of that new population growth and is mostly single family homes so a growth rate of 20K in 5 or six years isn't excessive and not enough to account for ozone increasing despite the diesel restrictions. (unless the diesel restrictions are not having any effect on the air quality in the area?) Maybe you would like to revise your apartment building example? Maybe the diesel restrictions aren't helping make the air better? Could it be that they are looking in the wrong direction in their quest for better air quality and should review their stand on diesel? Or are you willing to place your faith in the wisdom they, CARB, have demonstrated so far? **hyperbole intended*** :blush:
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 30,564
    CARB is a big part of the diesel issue

    It was actually one director that absolutely hated diesel. Instead of looking at the advantages and working to clean up the negatives, he just slashed the whole genre of automotive power. Then came out with the ZEV mandate. We all know what happened there.

    I still believe there are TOO many overlapping agencies. If most every COUNTY has an air quality agency. The state has CARB and the Feds have EPA. We are being buried by regulations that do not work well together. One cleans up the air and pollutes the water. Each going in the direction requested by some lobbyist with a fat check book.
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    I agree totally. We have far too many agencies dealing with the same issues so to keep themselves bust they nit pick. The EPA standards should be more than enough. The diesel option should at least be offered to us here as it is in other states. People might not be willing to accept them any much greater numbers but they already offer them in Trucks even if you have to go heavy duty go get one. If my F-250 can get 20MPG with a GVW of over 8500 pounds imagine how a small vehicle weighing 3000 pounds would do? The only reason I wouldn't consider a VW TDI is my opinion of VW and their service departments. But if anyone else offered one it would be worth considering.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 30,564
    For years, Alan Lloyd has regarded diesel as a dirty word, synonymous with brown haze and cancer-causing black soot. It's a view he has shared with environmental activists across the U.S.

    But in a striking change of heart that could alter the kinds of cars and trucks Americans drive, the chairman of the powerful California Air Resources Board is taking a new look at diesel vehicles. He thinks they're poised to emerge as part of the solution to a different environmental problem that's gaining more attention in the U.S.: global warming.

    Coming from the head of California's famously pugnacious clean-air agency, that amounts to environmental apostasy.


    Once a snow ball gets rolling it is hard to stop the avalanche.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,858
    California Jumps the Couch

    quote-
    But when we&#146;re through with all the silliness, a real problem remains: For almost four decades California has earned the grudging respect of the global auto industry by using its status as the U.S.&#146; largest single vehicle market to force new emissions technology with the most stringent regulations technically possible.
    California now is squandering that respect by furthering the notion in the auto industry that it no longer is interested in using science to set rigorous standards for clean air and is instead simply pursuing an extreme political agenda.
    If the frivolous lawsuits continue, auto makers will give up trying to meet emissions with technical innovation and will respond solely through legal channels. They will argue California&#146;s regulations no longer are rational, let alone achievable.
    -end quote

    I agree that CA is using CARB to pursue extreme political agenda i/o pursuing science based regulations.
    Unfortunately, a rational discussion of extreme political agendas is not possible.
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    You have said a mouthful there.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    Don't worry. According to the newspaper editorials (and I'm not talking about conservative papers) and general word of mouth, just about no one's taking Lockyer seriously.

    The science of emissions has been politicized and that's not going to change, but... it's better than everyone taking sides based on their feelings.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,858
    Now we need the politics of emissions to be science"ized".

    re - The science of emissions has been politicized and that's not going to change, but... it's better than everyone taking sides based on their feelings.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,695
    Seems like we can't just blame those Californians, huh? Apparently the feds believe we need to clean up diesels too. At least, according to Rocky's article there...

    :-P

    The feds, of course, are just adopting previous Californian regs with this one, but it gives California more cred that the feds ALWAYS wind up adopting California emissions standards, usually within a few years.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    Maybe if we are lucky they will leave as many loop holes in their regulations as California does? Like last night when my friend traded in his 1/2 Dodge Hemi on a 3/4 ton Dodge Cummings diesel? That way we won't have to worry about Japanese or European diesels in any of the other states and we can simply have fleets of Cummings and Powerstrokes? Very wise people these regulators? Who needs increased fuel mileage anyway? After all the prices are dropping like a rock. :blush:
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,695
    you're right, you don't have to worry. They will. :-P

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    Ha my friend. You got me there. It is the one lone piece of confidence I have in the brain trust we call the EPA and CARB. They couldn't plug a loop with all the Portland cement ever made. They give credence to the saying, "those who can't, teach." Like they say, you can tell a politician or appointed politician is lying simply because they are moving their mouth. There doesn't seem to be any real interest in fuel useage or saving in either in California or the Other states. Imagine how well your Echo would do with a small diesel? I used to car pool with a man that owned a VW Rabbit diesel. In 1988 he got 45 MPG almost every day. 49 On a long trip to your area from my area. One of the slowest cars I ever drove but it wasn't a turbo or even a common rail. That was 18 years ago. Imagine how much fuel we could have saved if we as a state had the small diesel option? Shoot in trucks you get about 30 percent better mileage at least. After all, entry level commuters aren't speed demons anyway, why not give them a small diesel? Oh, I forgot. They head of CARB had a personal distaste for diesels. Like I said, fuel mileage must not be as important as some make it out to be. :confuse:
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,695
    it would ROCK for mpg! But I am getting a consistent 40-41 mpg, so I am satisfied. I have researched Jetta and Beetle diesels on-line, and it seems most drivers get about the same mileage I do with my gasser. Their cars, of course, are much heavier and a little bigger. So if I wanted heavier and bigger, I would rue the diesel regulations in existence today. But for me personally, it would go AGAINST my preferences, so I am not worried.

    Even when 50-state diesels become prolific in a couple of years, I don't think we will see too many in cars as small as Echos and Corollas. They will be in midsize cars and crossovers to start, I should think. And I have always felt that large trucks should have diesels once it is clean enough - why even have a gas option in a full-size truck or truck-based SUV?

    But the thing is, between constantly-advancing gas engine management technologies, and the burgeoning hybrids, small cars have other ways to get to superlative fuel economy, so I doubt the automakers will go to the trouble of certifying diesels for these smaller cars unless they have a diesel all ready to go in the EXACT SAME model somewhere else in the world (ie Europe, most likely).

    And I will put in another plug here for lighter weight - the automakers should be focusing on lightening the fleet just as much as advancing engine technology, if not more. It is rare to find a crossover under two tons of curb weight these days, and that trend is extending to new midsize car models too. Unbelievable.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 30,564
    I parked next to a guy today with a 1986 CRX. It looked like the day it came off the showroom floor. His license plate was 86 CRX. I complemented him on keeping it so nice. He bought it new and would not trade for a brand new Civic. He gets consistent 40+ MPG. I guess we have really advanced in 20 years here in the Golden State. I doubt the new Civic handles close to the old CRX.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,695
    his old CRX has more rattles and squeaks though! :-P

    The new Civic (and even the new smaller model, Fit) fit more people than his CRX too. This is more a case of Honda changing its offerings than cars standing still for 20 years. But in one regard you are right on the money - fuel economy has stood still (actually regressed as a measure of the fleet as a whole) while we made cars needlessly heavy and fast (yes, fast is usually good, but what is it good for in a family or commute car that will spend all its time going to the store and the soccer game and sitting in rush hour traffic?).

    I am curious to know from those of you who are very familiar with diesels: do today's diesels do much better than mid-80s diesels for fuel economy? Can an apples to apples comparison even be made vehicle-wise?

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 30,564
    Can an apples to apples comparison even be made vehicle-wise?

    I think diesel technology pretty much parallels gas engine technology. They have added HP and emissions control and the mileage has not gone up. So I guess you can say it is better now. A lot of folks with diesel Rabbits got 50 MPG.

    All the added emissions has dropped mileage. The truth is most of the improvement in air quality is a result of cleaner gas and diesel. I would like to see a valid study that shows the amount of pollution from 1970 cars and current vehicles. With a percentage blocked by emissions devices and how much was removed from the fuel to start with. I see old Mercedes diesels running around in CA and not blowing out black smoke. On a recent trip I noticed diesel PU trucks in AZ blowing black smoke. The difference is 15 PPM sulfur and 500 PPM in other states. I think perceptions will change when we get all the states selling clean diesel. CA mandated on road diesel have no more than 130 PPM in 1991 if memory serves me. Too bad they let the construction & ag business off the hook. Big bucks buy off politicians.
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    You make a valid point about big trucks. Some people just would rather have a gas engine because it is quieter. They have improved diesel a lot and from inside the cab it is a fairly quiet ride. But from outside you know when someone is driving a diesel.
    You are also correct in that diesels are less effected by weight. Because they get much of their torque at lower RPMs they are as dependant on weight to get their fuel mileage. At least to a point they aren't. If you had two cars like yours, one with a small diesel and one with your small gas engine their might not be a big difference in fuel mileage on a daily basis. The diesel owner would have to drive as carefully as you might to get their fuel mileage but they more than likely would only get a few more MPG better. However if you had a reason to place 4 people in your car and spent the day driving around town or up to the mountains to go skiing you would get a big difference in fuel mileage. The Diesel however would still deliver about what it did empty. That is how it works in trucks today. empty my 3/4 ton ford gets about 25 percent better fuel mileage than a 1/2 ton any other kind of Pickup empty. With a full load, and I can haul up to 12,000 pounds, I can get 50 percent better fuel mileage on a long trip to the river. We have tried it hauling the rock crawlers out to Johnson Valley. We have been pulling about the same weight as friends in a gas powered rig up and down hills to get to Johnson valley from Phoenix. The F-250 averaged 20 MPG and the Nissan Titan averaged 10 with a 7,000 pound load. empty we still go 20 to 22 and he got 15 to 17. I have no reason to expect less from commuter class diesels.

    The real question is, how serious are we about fuel useage if we as a State are willing to sacrifice 25 to 30 percent fuel savings from the private fleet by restricting diesel and out of the same organization will allow the state and public fleet full diesel access? Does this honestly make sense to you? One of the largest users of diesels in California is the state itself? And if you think the lesson is lost on the people just look at what we are transporting our children to school in. If diesel is bad for us why are we putting our most precious resource, our children, into big yellow twinkies five days a week to get to school? And don't try telling me for a minute the kids aren't directly exposed to diesel fumes while riding in those twinkies.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 17,478
    ..."The real question is, how serious are we about fuel useage if we as a State are willing to sacrifice 25 to 30 percent fuel savings from the private fleet by restricting diesel and out of the same organization will allow the state and public fleet full diesel access? Does this honestly make sense to you? One of the largest users of diesels in California is the state itself? And if you think the lesson is lost on the people just look at what we are transporting our children to school in. If diesel is bad for us why are we putting our most precious resource, our children, into big yellow twinkies five days a week to get to school? And don't try telling me for a minute the kids aren't directly exposed to diesel fumes while riding in those twinkies." ...

    Your quote is one of the reasons why I think this whole fuel savings issue is a "strawman" aka FAKE. BOGUS!!!!

    Lets look at it from a fuel savings point of view. If you are truly interested in saving fuel why would you MANDATE and or chose the fuel that takes 37% MORE to do the same job!!??? Why would you mandate the majority of passenger vehicle fleet to use 37% more fuel when they can use diesel and use 37% LESS!!!??? Another way to look at is is why doesn't CA state convert ALL of their vehicles from diesel!!?? DAH they save 37% !!!!!!

    This idea that diesel emissions can not and will not be mitigated "correctly" is another bogus illogical logic and almost knee-jerk reactionary attitude.
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    I think you are correct. But one of our big problems is admitting we made a mistake in the first place and are too proud to scold CARB or the EPA for allowing such a two faced sort of logic. Orwell simply had the wrong date.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 30,564
    I think you are right. He was 20 years off. CA banned the sale of new diesel cars in 2004. CARB did create a cottage industry for those willing to buy used diesel cars and bring them into the state.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,858
    Better diesel fuel needed

    quote-
    Toyota instead urges an over-50-cetane number minimum and aromatics levels more like those of California Air Resources Board (CARB) diesel (averaging around 21%, although the default limit is 10%).

    "It is essential that diesel fuel cetane and aromatics must improve," Toyota powertrain general manager Tetsu Watanabe said here. "Fuel quality is a big problem--low average cetane number (44) and aromatics are high--35% average and 54% maximum in the U.S."

    Ironically, Toyota showed that its "DPNR" test car fleet in Europe is meeting European emissions and performance goals even in countries with 300-ppm sulfur fuels.
    -end

    CA has some of the best diesel in North America, and only the highest diesel emissions vehicles are permitted to burn it. :sick:

    Even with ULSD diesel, the cetane is still a problem in the US. :sick:
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 30,564
    I think BP/ARCO ULSD is 52 Cetane minimum. That is all I ever used in my Passat TDI. It ran great. I think we are awash in regulations and lacking the manpower to enforce the laws. If Toyota tested our diesel and found it lacking someone dropped the ball. I blame the EPA and CARB.
1235»
Sign In or Register to comment.
California Diesel Issue - Page 5 — Car Forums at Edmunds.com