Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
0-60 in 15 seconds.. we are not in 60s anymore
>0-60 in 15 seconds.. we are not in 60s anymore
VW Echo Racer
0-60 in 6.2 seconds, 80 mpg
We are in the 21st century.... :shades:
I see those signs down here in NC too. As I understand it the EPA is requiring that diesel fuel be cleaned up to remove some of the stuff (sulfur) that gets into the air beginning in January. Our OLD diesel engines will burn it fine but the NEW 07 vehicles will NOT burn the old diesel fuel that they are selling now. The new 07 trucks will also have to have catalytic converters on them like gas powered vehicles. For this reason lots of folks like me have or are going to buy NEW PUs NOW before this catalytic converter thing comes in.
A lot of the auto makers are giving good deals now. 0% down... 0% financing.. some have employee pricing etc..
The new diesel cars that will be hitting the showrooms in October will clog up on high sulfur diesel. The were all designed to run on the diesel that Germany and several other EU countries have had for many years.
so if that happens, maybe the post-2007-diesel particle-filters may clog somehow or their urea-canisters may get used up real fast. i think we'll be finding out soon after a few 2007 diesels get sold in USA.
also coontie your comment re catalytic converters might be out of date or maybe only accurate for pickup trucks: USA volksy TDIs have had catalytic converters for years...
one thing i agree with you about coontie - all this 2007/new-diesel stuff makes me want to buy a 2006 diesel. and in fact i did just buy a second one (newbeetle TDI DSG), two weeks before a hailstorm heavily "dimpled" my first one (passat tdi) - so i sold the passat to a pal. cheers!
Based on this foundation, within three years, we will introduce a new 4-cylinder diesel engine that meets the world’s toughest emissions standards. With hybrid technology focused more on small cars, we believe that diesel technology is the best fuel efficient technology for larger vehicles. So, R&D is also working on the development of V6 diesel engine technology. We do not have a timetable for introducing such an engine. But it is a key development goal.
Mendel also noted that Honda will not use add-on exhaust aftertreatment technology such as urea SCR to manage the diesel emissions. DaimlerChrysler is using a NOx adsorber in its E320 BlueTec sedan to go on sale this fall, but has proposed using urea-based SCR treatments for its larger vehicles—such as SUVs—in the US.
We sure don't want the failed injection pump problems from 10 years ago with the last switch. That would spell disaster again.
John
John
Is there a forum complaint thread - I do not like this carspace site.
Diesel cleaning up its act
While hybrids are all the rage now, some see diesel as a lucrative destination for buyers
By Rick Popely
Tribune staff reporter
Published August 16, 2006
With gas prices sky high, the promise of 25 percent better fuel economy should trigger a stampede of eager buyers to new-car showrooms.
Except that the engine responsible for this better mileage is the diesel. And in the U.S., diesel-powered passenger cars have remained a niche business with image problems, with American motorists instead embracing another fuel-efficient technology: hybrid gas/electric vehicles.
But diesel is soon to get a makeover, leading industry forecaster J.D. Power and Associates to predict that sales of diesel cars and light trucks will triple by 2013 as automakers roll out cleaner-burning versions in cars and sport-utility vehicles.
That prediction assumes that by 2010, manufacturers can meet a federal requirement that diesels run as cleanly as gasoline engines, a goal that has been expensive and elusive
Sebring in 08.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Aug. 16, 2006 — Do you own an American-made car with a diesel engine from the 1970s or '80s? Is it an Oldsmobile or a Chevrolet?
If so, ABC News would like to hear from you and possibly include your car in one of our reports.
If you have a diesel car from that time and you'd like to participate, please fill out the form below and include your contact information so an ABC News producer can contact you to possibly include you in one of our reports. Make sure to include a phone number where you can be reached, and we may give you a call.
I guess I'm just not patient enough to search for what you are referring to.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Ricardo Developing SULEV, Tier 2 Bin 2 Advanced Diesel
17 August 2006
Ricardoaction1
Ricardo’s separate, internal ACTION development is targeting low-emission diesels. Click to enlarge. Source: Ricardo (DEER 2005)
Ricardo announced today that the company is working in collaboration with a global manufacturer to develop and to demonstrate an advanced diesel technology capable of achieving US Super Ultra-Low Emission (SULEV) and Tier 2 Bin 2 requirements.
Started in late 2005, early project focus has been on developing technologies to deliver engine-out exhaust emissions (without NOx aftertreatment) that achieve stringent Tier 2 Bin 5 emission requirements (0.07 g/mi NOx), delivering NOx levels approximately one-sixth those currently proposed for Euro 5. These technologies include advanced air handling systems, two-stage boosting, advanced exhaust gas recirculation and application of closed-loop cylinder pressure-based engine controls.
Tier 2 Bin 5 is the “50-state diesel” standard—matching California requirements—for light duty vehicles.
ps - there is a jetta diesel "special edition" coming soon to USA.
I wish it stated the anticipated mileage of the R320 and ML320, though.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
New Diesel Land Speed Record: 328 mph
By BROCK VERGAKIS , 08.23.2006, 01:33 PM
A British pilot broke a land-speed record for driving with a diesel engine, racing across the Bonneville Salt Flats at more than 325 mph.
Andy Green broke the supercharged diesel streamliner world record by more than 90 mph by reaching an average land speed Tuesday of 328.767 mph. The old record was 235.756 mph, set by Virgil Snyder on the Bonneville Salt Flats in 1973.
"It's absolutely astonishing what we've achieved today," Green said by telephone from the salt flats, about 90 miles west of Salt Lake City.
The attempt was observed by the FIA, the international governing body of racing. FIA rules require that two passes be made within an hour to arrive at an average speed. Green's first run was clocked at 324.265 mph and his return run at 333.364 mph, said David Petrali, FIA's representative at the 11-mile track.
Only in the future will diesel engine cars have the technology to be clean enough to protect us from the inherent dangers of the exhaust.
We'll have to wait to the 2008 model year to see what carmakers can come up with that might make the 50 state emissions regulations. Once we have a diesel car for sale NEW in California, then we will know they are truly clean.
The bottom-line is that if we can derive more benefit out of scarce resource - consuming less fuel without causing great harm to the environment at the same time - everybody wins.
oooOOOOOOhhhHHH! Scary! I think you may have been exposed to too much MTBE!
Or maybe you stood too long below the hole in the atmosphere caused by gasoline engine emissions.
If you have vehicle A that gets 10 miles per gallon and vehicle B that gets 20 miles per gallon then it would seem to me that the vehicle that gets twice the gas mileage (vehicle
I guess you would have to know how they actually test these engines and vehicles. I suspect the test considers only volume of fuel consumed vs emissions and not MILES DOWN THE ROAD EMISSIONS.
This should spark some thinking!!!
I am thinking of all the deaths from leaded gas that was used for 70 years. It was the only way they knew how to make a gas engine run smoothly. My point which I guess you missed. Was we wasted that time on a lessor powered fuel than diesel. Engine makers have always known that diesel carried more power per gallon than gasoline. No one in the US auto industry spent any real money on developing that gain in power and ultimate gain in MPG. People were happy with the gas engine so why wasted R&D funds when the American public is going for it. Meanwhile the rest of the world has worked to develop diesel engines that are cleaner, more powerful and get much better mileage. We in America get sucked in by Toyota and some overly complex Rube GOldberg machine that needs 38% more parts. Of course that means 38% more possible parts to sell. So Toyota is the smart ones no doubt. Not the American car buyers.
That is part of the issue. California a supposed leader in cutting emissions. Does not have a test for diesel cars. I tried and the smog station next to the DMV said there was no test for DIESEL period. So it was easier to pan diesel cars that they knew were gaining momentum than develop a new test procedure.
Yes you are right. There are several pollutants or emissions that gas cars exceed diesel cars. GHG being one of them.
However, it seems the newer diesels are improved in this area.
I do agree that instead of parts per million in exhaust, we should be looking at grams per mile driven. That would make a lot more sense.
"I am thinking of all the deaths from leaded gas that was used for 70 years." Sounds like unfounded and unsubstantiated environmental dribble to me. What scientific journal article are we quoting here. The Sierra Club gazette doesn't count.
Mostly unsubstantiated opinion. I have not seen anyone post current comparison tests on modern diesel car engines using ULSD that is now mandated in CA.
I would say at least 95% of the 2006 cars sold do not meet SULEV II emissions. Yet that is all you hear when anyone mentions a diesel vehicle. We need some compromises for the sake of practicality. Even Toyota the Jolly Green Giant of the environmentalists, sells less than 10% of it's vehicles that are SULEV II.
And always beware of folks that use the word MAY ... Such as this xxxx MAY cause XXXX ... What that really means is that they don't know but want you to think they do... There is just NO data to prove OR to disprove their point. If they actually knew about XXXX they would quote the source and which Journal it was in.
Remember the word MAY you will see it used a lot in the media and by a certain types. Its a dead giveaway!
The people who are usually quoting the (false) stats you mention would be public health advocates of various kinds, and we might speculate, american companies that are behind the curve in diesel technology.
dave
Do the research yourself, but here's a starting point:
The components of diesel exhaust (DE) emissions are a public concern for the following reasons:
Emissions from diesel engines include over 40 substances that are listed by the EPA as hazardous air pollutants. Components of DE contain potential cancer causing substances such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, nickel, and PAHs. The diesel particulate matter (DPM) is very small (90% are less than 1um by mass), making DPM easy to respire into the deep lung. DPM has hundreds of chemicals adsorbed to their surfaces, including many known or suspected carcinogens. There are many irritants and toxic chemicals in the gaseous phase of DE. Oxides of nitrogen, component of urban smog, are in the gaseous phase of DE. There is a likelihood that people in both ambient and occupational settings can be exposed to DE. DE has the potential to cause adverse health effects including cancer, pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases. Studies show workers exposed to higher levels of DE are more likely to develop lung cancer. In 1990, the state of California identified DE as a chemical known to cause cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that DE probably causes cancer in humans. The EPA has proposed classifying DE as a probable human carcinogen.
Acute Effects of Diesel Emmission Exposure:
Workers exposed to high concentrations of diesel exhaust have reported the following short-term health symptoms:
irritation of the eyes, nose and throat,
lightheadedness,
heartburn,
headache,
weakness, numbness, and tingling in extremities,
chest tightness,
wheezing, and
vomiting.
I'm not saying gasoline exhaust is harmeless - I'm just saying the the medical world KNOWS that diesel is WORSE.
If indeed it is "worse" (statistically significant) then the regulatory agencies are truly asleep at the wheel and much much worse. The VERY same agencies you would want to BAN diesel operations.
I have given examples. ALL farm operations are unabated. ALL marine operations are NOT required to have ANY emissions controls diesel OR unleaded regular. ALL military operations are unabated. Construction and mining equipment the same way. Home heating oil burns unabated during the winter as in the northern tiered states (others as well). Absolutely NO requirement for abatement. I am sure YOU do not fail to see that a 24/7 diesel operation is much more pollutive than operating MY diesel 2 hours per day 5 days a week to do a commute. Incidently the car diesel has emissions regulation. ALL air traffic is unabated. ALL mass transportation is unabated (except for those areas TESTING Hydrogen powered busses). Fed State and local vehicles are NOT required to do smog tests. The school bus that transports your kids is unabated. The list goes on and on and on.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060825/AUTO01/608250353/1148-
"In addition to pickups, GM said the new diesel is compact enough to fit in vehicles that now carry its legendary "small-block" V-8. That list includes the Cadillac CTS-V, Chevrolet Impala and Pontiac Grand Prix sedans.
"We can build them," said Tom Stephens, group vice president of GM Powertrain. "It doesn't mean people are going to buy them."
Also Thursday, GM shared details of an updated diesel engine for its heavy-duty pickups that complies with the stricter federal emissions laws taking effect next year. The 2007 6.6-liter Duramax diesel will be available early next year and boasts a 90 percent reduction in emissions of black, smoky particulate matter and a 50 percent cut in smog-forming NOx.
The announcement comes just days after Ford said it will have a new clean diesel for its 2008 F-Series Super-Duty pickup line.
Your quote of the quote: ...""We can build them," said Tom Stephens, group vice president of GM Powertrain. "It doesn't mean people are going to buy them."" ...
I can well understand the reluctance of the biggie 2.5 American OEM's. They need to get a clear picture that small block diesels will sell well in traditionally gasser vehicles such as the ones you have cited. Using my diesel car experience I happen to think if EXECUTED correctly (bullet proof engine and TRANSMISSION designed for the diesel) is a KILLER KILLER application. However even you would agree that mine has been a minority voice.
However they have in the PAST and continue to produce diesel equipped vehicles. They do not want to get yet another issue WRONG. I cite as an example the HUGE drop in (gasser) SUV sales. So why would one want to oxymoronically produce MORE (diesel)suv's with the huge glut and ever slumping sales?
people have not given up on driving these beasts
give us 30 mpg Yukons and we'll be back, I am sure
I will eat my hat if people choose a 40 mpg Jetta over a 30 mpg Yukon, or the like.
People are stupid. They want to pretend they are Johnny Outdoorsman even though all they do is work in a cubicle and haven't towed a boat or driven on a dirt road in a hundred years. I don't think the image issue will change that quickly.
Well, not until the ladies start saying "Jetta guys are just so much cuter than SUV guys"
;-)
[eye roll]
And always beware of folks that use the word MAY ... Such as this xxxx MAY cause XXXX ... What that really means is that they don't know but want you to think they do... There is just NO data to prove OR to disprove their point. If they actually knew about XXXX they would quote the source and which Journal it was in.
Remember the word MAY you will see it used a lot in the media and by a certain types. Its a dead giveaway!
you are a real piece of work
got any other prejudices that you want to get off your chest?
LOL
yikes!!! run away - maroon alert