By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
That has been my position from the beginning. However the folks that bill the Prius burning unleaded regular as the "non pollutant" have misplaced priorities. They further support no other energy source that does not burn or does not pollute. They are not also getting out of their Prius to walk or bike the 50 miles each way to work either!
I have no problem debating the +s & -s of diesel, hybrids or global warming. I think you know what I found to be negative toward those that believe that diesel is a better solution to our fossil fuel problems. It was your following rant.
"Oh, diesel is so great, I just love to sit on my porch and sniff it all night with a Cold Beer"
then all this board would be is a bunch of people saying,
"Me Too !! Diesel Rocks !!!" "Me Too !! Diesel Rocks !!!" "Me Too !! Diesel Rocks !!!" "Me Too !! Diesel Rocks !!!" "Me Too !! Diesel Rocks !!!" "Me Too !! Diesel Rocks !!!" "Me Too !! Diesel Rocks !!!" "Me Too !! Diesel Rocks !!!" "Me Too !! Diesel Rocks !!!" "Me Too !! Diesel Rocks !!!" "Me Too !! Diesel Rocks !!!" "Me Too !! Diesel Rocks !!!"
I did not say that was you guys, RIGHT NOW.
I said that would become you guys if no one (I'm not talking about only ME) was around here stimulating other thoughts and generating "devil's advocate" type posts.
And I know what I'm talking about because that does TEND to happen on some forums which do not contain other views, because I have seen it happen.
Take two comparable cars. The 2006 xA and the 2006 beetle diesel. The VW diesel dumps 2 tons less CO2 in a year than the Scion. Owners are getting according to the EPA site over 42 MPG with the VW, compared to the xA that gets just 24 MPG. That is 43% better fuel economy for cars that are virtually the same size. Their emissions scores are only 1 point difference, yet the Scion is available new in CA and the VW TDI is not. Why would you suppose that is? I think it is folks like yourself that will only except a car if it is SULEV. So a compromise is made and VW with their fine line of CLEAN diesels lose to the big Dog Toyon.
But I'm not prepared to say that those agencies are not doing their jobs.
There are obviously other reasons why the TDIs are not 50-state cars, besides the CO2. If CO2 were the only thing the EPA and CARB considered, then you know that would not stop the TDIs.
The EPA has to set and enforce emissions rules, and they do so based on research into public health and air pollution factors. CARB also.
We may not have access to the meeting minutes when those decisions were made, but you can bet they were not made haphazardly. All the interested parties had their say, and a decision was made based on the information at hand.
The cutoff had to be made, and the TDI vehicles at the time did not make the cut. Future ones will make the cut.
And we have also gone over in pretty good detail some of the reasons why!?
Using me and WA State as an example:
We have two autos, both Fords one a Ranger 4.0L and an Explorer 4.0L. According to the EPA both get 14 city 18 hwy. Between the two we average about 20,000 miles total.
20,000 miles divided by 18mpg equals 1250 gals. of gasoline annually.
1250 Gallons times $0.18.4 Federal gas tax equals $230
1250 Gallons times $0.34 WA State gas tax equals $425
If we both drove VW Jetta TDI @ 42 MPG
20,000 miles divided by 42mpg equals 476 gals. of diesel. Taxed the same as gas in WA
476 Gallons times $0.18.4 Federal gas tax equals $88
476 Gallons times $0.34 WA State gas tax equals $162
The Feds loose $142 annually from two drivers.
The state looses $263 annually from two drivers.
Why would State and Federal Government want you to conserve fuel? What would they gain? Anyone?
$0.18.4 Federal tax is as of 2005
On July 1, 2007 WA State tax is $0.36 per Gallon.
As far as the EPA was concerned, the TDI and CDI emissions were acceptable. It was the biggest car-market in the country choosing the higher CARB regs that pushed the diesel standards up. Since the manufacturers are proving they could meet those standards- maybe not a bad thing?
At present I burn 1250 gallons of gas a year @ 20000 miles.
If I drive a Jetta TDI I would burn 476 gallons of diesel a year a difference of 774 gallons of fuel.
Which pollutes most, 1250 gallons of gas or 476 gallons of diesel?
To put in perspective how little fuel the Jetta uses, the tug I run has 2 Cat engines rated at 1125hp each total 2250. It is small compared to most tugs on Puget Sound and we easily go through 500 gallons of fuel a day when busy.
... So there must be a reason. There is !!! The above mentioned agencies have had success in the one area the average person comprehends. VISIBILITY. NOx is (by far) the strongest factor in the brown haze over cities that we all hate. Would I like to see "the brown haze" go away ? Yes; but not at the expense of GHG and terrible fuel economy I believe that if we had a minor lessening in NOx regs and a major increase in economy we can have both clear skies and less GHG. Unfortunately many of the people that read this board don't understand the mechanics and chemistry involved, so you might imagine the general public as having less than one percent comprehension, the other 99 percent think CARB, EPA and EURO are gods. These agencies appear to think that more NOx regs will maintain their lofty status, and seem to be only interested in the visable picture and don't realize the many plus sides of modern Diesel
All the regulators, by the rules they have in place would say that 476 gals of diesel pollutes more than 1250 gals of unleaded regular and/premium!!!! EVEN as their own studies say they do not (gal vs gal)!!!
But at what cost? A diesel engine costs at least $1000 more than a similar gas engine. Meeting the tier 2 bin 5 regulations adds at least an additional $1000 in complicated emissions control gear (which will, of course, require additional maintenance). In addition, meeting the added emissions equipment reduces mileage -- instead of a 25% mileage improvement over gasoline engines, you're looking at a 10-15% improvement.
CARB needs to be legislated out of existence and the idiots running it need to be run out of the country on a rail.
Job security is very costly!
Air regulation of this sort in California is a mandatory requirement. Without it, the air there would get unlivable.
If diesel cars were allowed without regulation as you apparently want it to be, couldn't it be taxed at the same level as gasoline and get the same tax revenues?
Why would they get "less revenue" if diesel were allowed?
Diesel is 40% more efficient than gas so you use 40% less of it. If all passenger cars became diesel overnight Federal highway funds would be reduced by 40%.
From post 3728
20,000 miles divided by 18mpg equals 1250 gals. of gasoline annually.
1250 Gallons times $0.18.4 Federal gas tax equals $230
1250 Gallons times $0.34 WA State gas tax equals $425
If we both drove VW Jetta TDI 42 MPG
20,000 miles divided by 42mpg equals 476 gals. of diesel. Taxed the same as gas in WA
476 Gallons times $0.18.4 Federal gas tax equals $88
476 Gallons times $0.34 WA State gas tax equals $162
The Feds loose $142 annually from two drivers.
The state looses $263 annually from two drivers.
And road tax revenue is going down anyway.
The "pay per mile" tax might replace the gas/diesel tax also.
Tax revenue loss is NOT a good excuse for why diesels are not popular.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
We all know it would (gas to diesel) not happen over night and any increase would be incremental, but politicians will do anything to keep from messing with the fuel taxes. Or so it seems.
My point is that "loss of tax revenue" is NOT
allow me to stress it and repeat it for the English-Challenged among us:
NOT
the reason that diesel is regulated at a stricter level than unleaded.
It's a FACTOR PERHAPS but is not the REASON.
Just a cursory review of the post above yours would show your assertion of what I have and continued to say to be FALSE! If you go back to almost any of my posts you will find it is also not true. I have consistently pointed out passenger diesel cars DO have emissions controls! Indeed YOU have categorically excused the various regulatory agencies for their (almost)total lack of reining in a plethora of unmitigated generators!!!
By the way, shouting only draws more attention to your clumsy attempt to cover up your lack of understanding of tax revenues and/or basic math. :shades:
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I type using English grammar rules, not my vocal cords.
Just so we are talking about the same thing, here is the gig: ULR@ 2.99, #2 diesel@ 3.04 (current corner store prices) (GASSER) VW Jetta 30 mpg, (#2 diesel)TDI 49 mpg. Total per mile driven fuel cost: .0964516/.0620408 cents
As you know states charge different rates. So in CA, for example ( it is .18 cents for both unleaded regular and #2 diesel) http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/motor_fl.html
so divide by 30/49 mpg that is .0058064/.0036734 cents per mile taxation. 26.5% LESS !!!!! Given the reason for why taxation is levied in the first place diesel folks should be given a 26.5% discount for using that much less in fuel!!!
So getting back to my post about those felony old folks on a fixed income. A state is prosecuting those old folks over .18 cents per gal!!! This is PURE theater!!! This is not a drop in the bucket it is atomization of fractions of a droplet vs the great lakes !!! So you say they are NOT concerned about revenue loss!!???
Here's a project for you:
Find me one single document on the web which indicates that any major decision from CARB or the EPA about diesel fuel or vehicle regulations was based on lost tax revenue.
Find me that, and you can earn the coveted Edmunds "I Told You So" ribbon.
PS Don't pat yourself on the back too soon. And don't clear the trophy space on the mantle. That document does not exist.
Off topic: You probably also take comfort in C.J. US Supreme Court Earl Warren's Comission's conclusion of the single bullet theory.
link title
Not sure if you need to be a member to read so a summary is that some chemists have improved the processing of bio-fuels to produce a purer form of glycerol (by-product) that can be used in a number of biodegradable products, they mention items from bio-degradable hospital products to improved materials for industrial grass growth (think- the green mats they put down at the side of a highway when re-growing grass after construction).
From my simple perspective, it seems that the potential benefits of bio-diesel, probably blended with ULSD, are very much untapped. Imagine cutting down on the need for crude based diesel by another 10-20% based on using biomass. :surprise:
You are exactly right on consistency. Without major refiners bio-diesel will stay as a niche product, that's why it is so important to see articles like this coming out. Investment needs to come from the big players for alternative energies to take off. You can reference some of the articles I have posted on Tyson and Conoco-Philips partnering to get some encouragement there...
And as far as conspiracies go - I'm not the one who thinks there is a conspiracy to keep diesel cars off the roads - I'm just exactly the opposite. I know for a fact there is no conspiracy.
That is a little disingenuous. There is severely restricted supply of passenger diesel (i.e. none in the biggest car-buying state in the country) which limits the opportunity for the market to act.
It's like saying that 5 years there was no demand for organic food products but now there is huge demand. The level of demand may not have changed much but availability of that product has changed dramatically which has allowed more customers to make a decision on which product they want.
That sounds like a broken record. If it ain't available it is hard to buy. And you know how lame your used diesel argument is. Most people are not going to buy a used car for more than a new one. Diesel sales in CA is a niche market by design. The architects are sitting in an ivory palace in Sacramento wondering what they can do to block diesel cars when they are proven cleaner than any gas car. They are probably brainstorming how to hold off the GW fanatics that know that diesel is the best solution to GHG and cutting our dependence on fossil fuel.
Your anti-diesel side is showing again. As far as 4 cylinder cars. The Camry has always sold 80% as 4 bangers. No change there.
Do you really think any politician with even a 1/4 of a brain would write a memo saying we have to block hybrids and diesels to maintain our current level of gas tax? That would never happen. So sure it would be nearly impossible to find any document to that end. You know they talk about it or we would not have the tax by mile talks. Do you think that was only for the hybrids?
Last I checked, virtually every product for sale in our economy is based on supply and demand.
If the demand is high enough, the suppliers fill it so as not to lose sales.
If there had been a super high demand for VW TDIs in the last few years, it would have been all over the news just like the super high demand for the Prius was all over the news.
That's not a knock on diesel passenger cars at all - it merely a fact that the market is not demanding huge numbers of them.
All indicators are that with the soon-to-be modern clean diesels that are in the pipeline, the demand will go up. And that's because there will be more choices.
I said about two years ago that Honda and Toyota and others besides VW and MB have to offer diesel passenger cars for the market to increase. I still see that as true.
But just as the small number of HEVs are not impacting revenue in huge ways, neither is the diesel car fleet impacting it that much. And it's won't. Even the largest estimates put diesel and HEV at 10% of the market in 5-7 years, tops.
If you have to adjust your fuel tax revenues to counteract an effect caused by a mere 10% of the cars on the road, then something else is in play besides what that 10% is doing. The costs for road upkeep must be going up faster than the fuel tax can support it.
The demand for Prius could be shown because it was available for everyone and so everyone had a chance to buy it. Passenger diesel just is not avilable for huge numbers of consumers.
Have you ever heard of a VW or MB dealership using a waiting list for diesel cars?
Maybe it has happened and I missed it.....?
High demand pushes prices of 7500 mile passeneger diesel to be higher than when bought new. That's a clear indication that demand is outstripping supply since there are not even enough 7500 mile diesels available to make the price come below the cost of a brand new product.
What I'm saying is that the demand being low IS ONE of the several factors why there are so few diesel passenger cars on the road in the USA.
Of course anywhere something is BANNED the demand will go up - ever heard of Prohibition? LOL
As far as demand for the Prius. Toyota could not give them away until DeCaprio bought one and people decided it was cool to look like a movie star at the Oscars. They would still be sitting on the back lots without the Hollywood connection and millions in advertising. VW has not advertised the diesel cars. It is strictly word of mouth. I have a friend here that is selling his 2003 Jetta TDI for $19,500. That is $5000 over what Edmund's claims is the TMV. That is BIG demand. When a 5 year old Prius sells for that kind of premium you can claim equal demand for the hybrid as there is for diesel. Even the latest polls show diesel interest getting higher and hybrid interest going down.
Like I said before - this is not a knock on diesel passenger cars, AT ALL in ANY WAY. It's just a realistic assessment of current demand.
The overall NATIONAL demand is not there, other than a few diesel diehards.
Show me that the sales have been increasing in areas where the TDIs have been for sale.
Show me a story about a TDI waiting list.
( Blah Blah Blah DiCaprio Prius Hollywood Broken Record Broken Record. You are not dragging me into an HEV discussion on this Forum.)
"Selling" a car for $5000 over TMV and "receiving the money" are two different stories. (Remember? You used to use this argument against me when the used HEVs were selling for far over TMV.)
I am saying that even the most optimistic "future projections" show diesel at 5.0 percent of the market, even with the NEW diesels coming from Honda and others.
One anecdotal "my friend is selling a TDI" does not indicate NATIONAL demand. It signifies REGIONAL demand. ( Just like the tens of thousands of Priuses that sell in CA indicate merely a REGIONAL demand. )
National demand for diesel passenger cars, overall market demand, is what I'm talking about. That demand is not large.
There are no TDI/BlueTec/E320 CDI waiting lists, are there?
Jetta TDI 2000-2007: 2 sold, 5 unsold.
Passat TDI 2000-2007: 1 sold, 1 unsold.
Beetle TDI 2000-2007: 1 sold, 1 unsold.
This was within 500 miles of 92101 Zip Code.
DISCLAIMER: I have said before that E-Bay Motors is not a good choice for judging what people are or are not getting for used cars. This was just a quick check to see if it appeared as if demand was high on that website. If there had been 50 of each kind sold there, that would indicate a booming used market.
I don't know what this data proves if anything; I just wanted more information on the Forum for discussion purposes.
Data compiled by R.L. Polk & Co. show that registration of diesel passenger vehicles in the US - including cars, trucks and SUVs - has grown 80% since 2000, up from 301,000 diesel vehicles that year to 543,777 diesel registrations in 2005.
For the light-duty market, diesel registrations nearly doubled (95% growth) from 2000- 2005, with 31% growth in 2005 alone. When given a choice between a gasoline or diesel engine, 45 per cent of consumers purchased the diesel engine option in 2005.
The Diesel Technology Forum says J.D. Power and Associates predicts that US diesel sales will approximately triple in the next 10 years, accounting for more than 10 per cent of US light vehicle registrations by 2015 - up from 3.6 per cent in 2005.
PS
I will be one of them now that I finally got rid of the only hybrid to invade my life. If it is not diesel I will not buy another new vehicle.
I will be another to buy only diesels!
To Larsb: of course it is a very false choice to buy, for example: a twin turbo F150 diesel when one really wants/ needs a Honda Civic cTDI! And vice versa!!?? It is hard to measure actual purchase of a twin turbo F150 diesel and to project (from that) next years' demand when it is not being sold!!?? Of course it is another FALSE choice if one wants either in a diesel, and diesel options are NOT available! Can hardly buy em, if em ain't available!!! But I think you know that, unless you are deluding yourself. Personally I do not think you are deluding yourself, but your argument is far from sound and even less convincing.