What a ridiculous article. Csaba Csere is an idiot. He frankly does not like diesels and only pays them lip service. Since when do you have to plan your trip around where you can get diesel fuel? I had a diesel in the early eighties and never worried about that. I went everywhere and was not concerned. He says they are 50 state legal but cannot get cleaner than that? Horse Hockey!!!!! The dark side of diesel is PM and NOx, both now nicely taken care of. What Csaba Csere fails to mention is the dark side of gasoline engines, namely unburned HC and CO. Diesels produce none of the first, and ever so little of the second. And look at the VW Lupo. Beats the Prius for Carbon Dioxide output and it is a diesel.
Before I forget, hybrid option is not cheap either and in some cases more than a diesel.
Is a clean diesel-powered car still on your shopping list? It’s probably worth a little due diligence before taking the plunge.
I also found the article somewhat vague and negative toward diesels. Most of the comments I read were pro diesel. Even from folks that had the old noisy slow rabbits and MB 300D models.
I am always a heartbeat away from buying a diesel SUV if one shows itself here in CA. May still get one out of state and license in another state. If Toyota were to offer their diesel Land Cruiser that is a big seller in the rest of the World it would be a welcome solution to my gas guzzling Sequoia. Say it was a $2000 add-on for diesel. RIght now I am getting 15 around town and as high as 17 MPG on the highway. If owners of a Sequoia with diesel could not get 27 MPG on the highway I would look elsewhere. If I drove the average 15k miles per year at current gas/diesel prices we would save about $1050 per year. So the payback would be less than 2 years. I for one do not believe that diesel will continue at the current 50 cents per gallon premium here in San Diego.
Just to let you know what you can buy in a LARGE SUV in the UK. A Toyota Land Cruiser with their very highly acclaimed D-4D 3.0 L diesel is rated 35.8 MPG combined. That is 29.81 MPG US combined. That is 17% better than a 2008 Camry with a 4 cylinder engine. Toyota LC diesel
You like high mileage Toyota sedans. The Avensis diesel is rated at 61+ MPG. It costs about 5000 GBP less than a Prius. Choices that is what I am after, choices. Not the crap we get thrown at us in the US.
PS At $8 a gallon for diesel in the UK the guy driving a Land Cruiser diesel is paying less than I am driving my Sequoia on $3.62 per gallon gas (last fillup).
Here is the real killer, while 27,595 BPS converts to $54,551 USD. US market TLC's go for app 63,200 !!!! = 8,649. MORE!!! Save on fuel mileage!! (29.81-15=14.81/29.81=) 49.7% BETTER, cost of the vehicle, EVEN with a so called $2,000 D2 premium!? As Gagrice stated a Toyota Camry 4 cylinder economy car does not get the economy an SUV like the D2 TLC gets!!??
Another example of what I have been saying about the system dialing out D2 options!?
A Dutch study found that even a short exposure to diesel exhaust fumes can alter brain activity.
Lead researcher Paul Borm of Zuyd University in The Netherlands had 10 volunteers spent one hour in a room filled with either clean air or exhaust from a diesel engine.
The volunteers were wired up to an electroencephalograph machine that records the electrical signals of the brain. Brain waves were monitored during the exposure period and for one hour after they left the room.
The study, published in the journal Particle and Fiber Toxicology, found that after about 30 minutes the diesel exhaust began to affect brain activity.
The findings suggest a stress response, indicative of changed information processing in the brain cortex, which continued to increase even after the subjects had left the exposure chamber.
"We believe our findings are due to an effect (of) nanoparticles or 'soot' particles that are major component of diesel exhaust," Borm said in a statement. These may penetrate to the brain and affect brain function. We can only speculate what these effects may mean for the chronic exposure to air pollution encountered in busy cities where the levels of such soot particles can be very high.
Here's hoping the clean new diesel engines filter well on the PM.
Lead researcher Paul Borm of Zuyd University in The Netherlands had 10 volunteers spent one hour in a room filled with either clean air or exhaust from a diesel engine.
How bogus is that? 20 minutes in a room with a Prius or any other gas engine running and you would be DEAD. I wonder if someone paid those jokers to go into a room with an internal combustion engine running? They had brain damage prior to the test if you ask me.
I would take my chances with nano particles over the silent KILLER carbon monoxide.
PS That explains what happened to the brain dead people they have running the EPA and CARB. Someone left a semi truck idling in their offices. :shades:
You must admit that anyone stupid enough to go into a closed room with any type internal combustion exhaust needs to be eliminated from the gene pool.
My experience is that when I used red dye high sulfur diesel in my little tractor it stinks. When I use ULSD there is no smell from the exhaust. I still would not sit in the barn closed up with the tractor running. Only an idiot would to that even for science. The main point is the carbon monoxide emitted by ALL gasoline cars is much more deadly than exhaust from a diesel engine. I am sure we can find a forum to argue the advantages of being brain dead vs being plain dead.
The Dutch diesel research is plain silly - hard to believe they got paid for it. Research carried out over many centuries proves that spending 30 minutes with your head immersed in a bucket of water also severely affects brain function - and all the other functions. And remember; water is essential to life. Maybe we should ban water.
As someone else has already said; it sounds as if their brain function was questionable before they closed the door. It's the silly season, come early.
We noticed at our corner station yesterday that RUG was $3.01 and diesel was $4! There goes that 33% fuel advantage right out the door .... on that particular day, at least.
'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
Again, we see another flawed article. In Europe, diesels are not required to have PM filters and will not require them for several more years. Thus the problem with the article.
Thanks for the good response. What should also be included in the equation is that US military commitments around the world place a first claim priority on all disesl supplies produced.
..."We noticed at our corner station yesterday that RUG was $3.01 and diesel was $4! There goes that 33% fuel advantage right out the door .... on that particular day, at least. "...
For sure that would be the MAJORITY sentiment; operatively 98% of the owners of the passenger (gasser) vehicle fleet, and I am sure even some diesel owners.
For me, that would be a total mischaracterization on an apples to apples comparison and this would be at worse an opportunity with an apples to oranges comparison!! Here are some numbers (yeah I know reality can be vicious according to some- some folks consider numbers narcotizing also) .... you decide.
Since Civic does not have a TDI (but if they did: SWAG 55 mpg/4=.0727 cents)
So IF you have that spread consistently...and you have a VW TDI and Honda Civic gasser side by side.... and...IF you HAD to buy D2 on that day's spread.....savings of .003 cents per mile driven (spread between RUG to D2)
My current corner store: RUG 3.61/ PUG 3.81/ D2 4.09 gives the numbers a different reality
Again if you run the numbers 29/29/50... .1245 cents .1314 cents .0818 cents per mile driven
Civic @39/3.61=..0926 cents per mile driven D2 12% cheaper!
........... tired already :shades:
So operatively what you say is a PRIME case for a min of 33% HIGHER RUG to PUG fuel consumption......with associated price increases: (per gal, per mile driven, etc., etc.) which...... is what I have been saying all along?!! :lemon: :shades:
So to address the US market yearly mortality rate, pricing increases will be ghosts on the lung mortality rate. RUG to PUG use has already been documented and is WAY higher than D2 (with the same passenger diesel per 100 M mile rate metrics. So now the issue is how much incrementally does a 4% year over year increase in RUG/PUG consumption do to the historic rates of lung fatalities causative by RUG to PUG . vs a slight gain in passenger D2 use.
My swag is TOTAL neg declaration. (sorry) :lemon: I would dare say not even measurable!! Well in theory someone could make a case for HUGE BUX 30 year grants to STUDY the/some of the hypothesis'....!!??
I know, I know, you've posted it a million times (no offense or hostility meant). But that's just not the norm. First of all, you should probably start comparing to a different model since the 1.8T offers much more power than the diesel. Second, you are, of course, using personal numbers on the TDI and comparing to EPA on the other. Does that change the outcome? I don't know. And I don't care. Neither will buyers. They will simply see... on comparable vehicles, like Benz offers, for instance, a ~33% EPA advantage, with a 33% stiffer price a the pumps (again, this is today ... it could easily be different tomorrow), and a higher sticker price, too.
Now I might still choose the diesel personally (MIGHT). But I am also not the norm.
'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
No offense or hostility taken! :shades: I am in a way saying that on a few levels I agree with your take. Overall with a 98% approval rating (gasser) old habits die hard or not at all. (corollary: KILL the (diesel) other 3% that disagree) :sick: Facts die hard in comparison.
The only thing (as I have indirectly stated) that were not my personal mileages were the VW 2.0/1.8T. (by virtue of saying I own Civic/TDI side by side) Most owners of either of those models have trouble hitting 30 mpg and NO WAY when driven like the TDI. Both (2.0, 1.8T) by any metric meet LIKE model specifications.
Again, I did do a different oem/model. The hp on the Civic =110 hp- TDI 90 hp. Again I would get no where near 39 mpg if I drove the (gasser) Civic like I do the TDI. The other side of what you are saying if I take the HP of the 1.8T and apply it to the diesel, the diesel would indeed be monster!! Indeed if you compare the specs of the (2003) 1.8T with the new VW TDI the amazing thing is it still gets much better mpg than the 1.8T.
So while you might want to induce doubt, I just stated what we get side by side. I would invite anyone else who owns (whatever) side by side to post!?? This is not rocket science by any means.
Again you might look at the Honda Civic Real World mpg thread. There are a HOST of folks WAY disappointed from the mpg they are getting. So really D2 is even BETTER than RUG results, even as you probably think is exaggeration on my part (most folks getting worse fuel mileage than my stated 39 mpg). This of course would radically change the illustrated calculations.
I went (200 miles one way) skiing yesterday. While taking in sun/scenery in a lounge chair, was able to talk both to an Ford Expedition owner and a couple doing a 40 day RV trip with a monster engined (gasser) Silverado mated to a 5th wheel. The subject turned to fuel prices. Of course, we all were crying the blues. I didn't have the heart to tell them the TDI I went up there with (and back) got ONLY 51 mpg climibing from zero to 6000 feet (and back again) with speeds up to 85 mph, while breaking in new tires. :sick: :lemon: Not to mention I will be able to keep going 200 more miles on a tank full.
Let me make a case for comparison experimental design... Larsb always likes to present one side.
Where is the control group? Where are the groups with the Prius, Civic, Camry, etc, or even one comparison? Like some posts before would they ban gassers if they gassed the gasser group/s to death? Doubt it!?
In San Diego today it is about $3.60 to $4.09 or about 12% higher. I would almost bet they are back to even by the Memorial day weekend. Diesel is always higher in the winter because of heating oil demand. The biggest gap I have seen here is 60 cents about two months ago. It has never been to where a diesel car does not have the advantage cost per mile wise.
..."Sales of new autos in Japan are expected to drop to a 27-year-low of 5.3 million vehicles for the fiscal year starting next month, down 0.6 percent, as demand gets battered by soaring gas prices and sluggish wage growth, according to the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association."...
Wonder how diesel cars are selling world wide during this high priced oil period? I would bet VW and MB are better placed to meet the demand. Toyota diesel engines do not meet EU5 emissions yet. I believe all the Mercedes and VW engines are now up to the latest EU standards. Honda diesels in the EU are still rated as EU4 not EU5. So all the Japanese may have a struggle to catch up with the demand for high mileage cars. While the US muddles along with nothing much worthwhile to offer for good mileage.
I would think one hint would be what sells best in the China markets, gasser or diesel. On the face of it it seems China is reaping their current pollution issues at least in part by failing to implement gasser emissions standards of either the CA/USA or even European standards.
Carbon monoxide is a short term killer. The nano soot is a concern long term. I would not be so quick to dismiss the study. Certain parts of the country are like being in a closed room. Los Angeles comes to mind.
"Owing to geography, heavy reliance on automobiles, and the Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex, Los Angeles suffers from air pollution in the form of smog. The Los Angeles Basin and the San Fernando Valley are susceptible to atmospheric inversion, which holds in the exhausts from road vehicles, airplanes, locomotives, shipping, manufacturing, and other sources." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles%2C_California#Environmental_issues
"Thanks for posting this - this site can be fairly vicious when contrary information is posted."
You noticed that too. If a person brings up anything even close to saying diesels are less than perfect there are at least half a dozen people that will respond in force. You would have thought you stepped on their dog or cat -- which I suspect is likely named Diesel! I really don't mind. I usually learn something new with each post.
Some folks are part of a diesel club, others are in a little deeper to the point where it is a religion. I always wondered what would happen if you put a bunch of E85 advocates in with diesel supporters in a closed room. Nothing right? They would all calmly talk about the advantages and disadvantages of each fuel.
The evidence keeps on rolling in that soot is not a good thing to have hanging around. The good news is that with ULSD and emission improvements the numbers should get a lot better in the future.
The emission gear will work as long as people actually keep the gear on their vehicle. I have been reading and hearing of people removing the emission equipment. Some even put the stuff back on to pass the smog test. As long as the number of people doing this is small it probably won't be a major issue. If on the other hand more people decide to do this the government will need to crack down.
With (US market) gassers now at 98% and growing, may I be so bold as to say, you might have that back wards. Diesel passenger vehicle fleet used to be @LESS than 3 percent. Lastest figures indicate it is @ 2%. 33% LESS!?
Actually when the subject turns to GASOLINE...
"If a person brings up anything even close to saying diesels are less than perfect there are at least half a dozen people that will respond in force"...
The math overwhelming indicates passenger diesel's is/has been/continues to be a MINORITY position!! Given the update figures that statement is almost polyannishly optimistic!? But I take it you disagree, even as the diesel population has managed to go down in percentage terms.
Nobody, especially diesel users/advocates have even remotely claim/s/ed diesel WAS/can be PERFECT. It is a mis characterization. What is not a mis characterization is the environmentalist's advocate using less imported oil. The less than perfect gasser fuel is well documented. So if one cares to do the math. diesel do have a plethora of advantages. Perhaps that is why folks rail against them.
Gassers 2003 VW 2.0/1.8T get/s 29 mpg,
TDI gets 50 mpg.
Which uses more?
Which uses less?
What is the percentage? (50-29=21/50=42%)
The other thing you ignore or discount is while I do have a diesel , 80% of my vehicles are still GASSERs. Again what is the overwhelming position of the so called "religious" folks you are talking about? :shades:
So it seems like "the use less " advocates want to critize those that are actually using less while they continue seemly FULL consumption. One might say this is a case of " do as we say, not as we do". Or, we might want to look up the defintion of hypocrisy.
The balance is of course is it is EVERYONE 's transportation nickel. As such, folks will do what they will do.
Me, all I want is a modest proposal, in the free market system for the oems to offer diesels in the model lines they think will flourish. Folks who want diesels will buy them, those that do not, will not. Funny how they do that with gassers and it is almost a total non issue!? I and others have made no secret of the recognition of the advantages of diesels. So plan b in case the modest proposal does not come to fruition, run the current one 500,000 to 1,000,000 miles.
Need a model? Or is that not clear enough? Europe has 52% registered passenger vehicle fleet diesels. Get out more, take a trip, see for yourself.
ruking1 says, "Larsb always likes to present one side."
Thats....because.....there is only ONE SIDE to the "diesel exhaust is harmful" situation, unfortunately.
The first study or news story I find which headlines:
"Diesel Exhaust Better than Viagra" or "Diesel Exhaust Cures Cancer" or "Diesel Exhaust Smells Like Rose Petals"
I will certainly post that study also.
P.S. That's not to say gasoline exhaust is helpful, either. All the dangers of that exhaust are also well known. It's just that no one I know about is doing ongoing studies about those effects, while apparently there ARE studies ongoing about diesel exhaust effects.
It is really about time you put it in the gasser context and comparison. So you really think burning (using my example) more gasoline is better than burning less diesel!!?? Might be a clue why most folks are confused.
Gas Jetta: 17 gallon tank, 32 MPG, range 544 miles for $49.13 to fillup cost per mile: .0903125 cents Diesel Jetta: 17 gallon tank, 48 MPG, range 816 miles, for $63.75 to fillup. cost per mile: .078125 cents
So even at 86 cents per gallon difference, the diesel has the advantage. The spread would have to be $1.45 per gallon for gas to equal the diesel in cost per mile.
I have never said burning more gas is better than burning less diesel.
Burning less fossil fuel, regardless of how you have to do it, is better in it's own way in ALMOST every situation.
But for a hypothetical example: If every gasoline car in Phoenix was replaced by a diesel car produced in the same year, the air would quickly become almost unbreathable.
So in that case, no, burning less diesel fuel would NOT be preferable to burning more gasoline.
..."I have never said burning more gas is better than burning less diesel. "...
Whether you did or not does not change the fact that is what is happening operatively in the passenger vehicle fleet!! 98% gasser 2% diesel.
Your hypothetical example is a total warp. They can't even measure current passenger diesel fleet emissions in the real world, let alone make a statistical connection. Because of the balances of how "barrel of fuel" is processed 100% diesel will probably never be a reality.
Wolfsburg / New York, 20 March 2008 - The Volkswagen Passat BlueMotion is one of the most environmentally friendly cars worldwide. The jury of international judges of the “World Car of the Year Awards” awarded Volkswagen, which came in third, the famous prize this Thursday in New York. Wolfgang Hatz, Head of Volkswagen Group Powertrain Development, received the award. “The Passat BlueMotion,” said Hatz, “is, with fuel consumption of 5.1 litres diesel, one of the world’s most economical cars in its category and is also very affordable. Our ‘BlueMotion’ label is increasingly becoming a model for a whole new generation of economical cars. We are very proud that the jury of the “World Car of the Year Awards” honoured this model role.”
..."The evidence keeps on rolling in that soot is not a good thing to have hanging around. The good news is that with ULSD and emission improvements the numbers should get a lot better in the future."...
Those sources are UNMITIGATED ( BY LAW- how disengenuous is that?????????) and bunker oil is easily 5000 ppm sulfur. At the least, my take: MITIGATE IT!!?? The current law was made in full recognition of the effects on surrounding areas.
This is TOTALLY logical but might not seem so, but you can NOT stop the effects of NON passenger vehicle fleet related unmitgaged emissions by banning a 2% minority population of mitigated D2 emissions,unmeasurable in the real world.
Really you are making the case I have already made. With the DIESEL passenger vehicle fleet at 2% and remember the passenger diesel fleet iIS MITIGATED, The passenger diesel fleet emissions are literally UNMEASURABLE in the real world.
So do you think the situation would be better/worse if all those unmitigated diesel NON passenger diesel fleet sources were (waving the magic wand) all RUG TO PUG emitters with the attendant easily 20-40% greater consumption?
So all is not lost, if indeed it was REALLY that important to stop those unmitigated emissions, it would be easy . We actually have INXS of 40 years of nuclear powered air craft carriers (aka adaptable to commercial shipping). But I am sure you would agree, it is probably not THAT important. :lemon: :sick:
"Fuel consumption equal or lower than 47.6mpg combined"
The criteria specifically says: "Fuel consumption equal to or lower than 5.0 L/100km (47.6 mpg US) combined (55% City + 45% Highway) or equivalent (blended fuel volume if flex-fuel)."
I'm thinking that a slightly better translation would have been to write: "Fuel consumption equal to or better than 47.6 mpg combined." By the way, they both fail to meet that criteria with the official combined rating for the Prius coming in at 46 mpg and the HCH coming in at 42.
Based upon my reading of the eligibility requirements, the reason they were both eliminated from the running is because they are not new models (either newly being produced or soon to be produced).
Actually, it appears they WANT to give this award to cars which are NOT in the highest echelon MPG standards - cars which achieve a "green" state without going overboard.....thus the "BELOW 47.6 MPG" requirement.
If they only included cars over 47.6 MPG, that would considerably narrow the field of possible entrants.
Sorry, the 2007 EPA numbers for virtually all cars was pretty much wishful thinking, the Prius and HCH included. The current ratings of 46 and 42 are far more accurate, realistic and real world.
I'm thinking that you need to re-read the evaluation criteria for the "World Green Car".
The first part of the criteria says:
The candidates must be all-new or substantially revised.
Candidates need to be in production and introduced for sale in at least one major market between January 1 - December 31, 2007.
OR
the vehicle/technology may be a prototype or experimental vehicle with potential near-future application provided that it has been released for individual or press fleet evaluations in quantities of ten or more.
The above meaning that to be considered, cars must fall into one of the above two categories, AND must meet at least one of the following criteria (i.e. the second part) as well:
a. Tailpipe emissions equal to or better than California SULEV or US EPA Tier 2, Bin2, or Euro V regulations, or equivalent.
b. Fuel consumption equal to or lower than 5.0 L/100km (47.6 mpg US) combined (55% City + 45% Highway) or equivalent (blended fuel volume if flex-fuel).
c. Use of a major advanced powerplant technology (beyond engine componentry) aimed specifically at increasing the vehicle's environmental responsibility (e.g. hybrid, fuel cell, etc.)
(NOTE: Flex-fuel technologies will be considered only in cases where the vehicles are available in countries where the infrastructure for both fuels is broadly established.)
The way I read it, just because a car doesn't get equal to or better than 47.6 mpg, that doesn't exclude it from being considered, just so long as it's clean enough or has a sufficiently innovative powerplant or propulsion methodology.
You're misreading the qualifying statement... it's fuel CONSUMPTION must be below 5L/100km (equiv to 47.6 mpg), not fuel ECONOMY below 47.6 mpg. Lower consumption is higher economy - note the metric value is fuel unit per distance, not the US value of distance per fuel unit.
If you only used 4.8L/100km, that would equal 49 mpg
The earlier poster pointed out that the car had to be a "new model" for the considering year to be included.
That's why the HCH and Prius are not qualified to receive the award and were not even nominated. Had this been held in 2004, the Prius would have won, and the HCH DID win in 2006, the year of it's last re-design.
"That's why the HCH and Prius are not qualified to receive the award and were not even nominated. Had this been held in 2004, the Prius would have won, and the HCH DID win in 2006, the year of it's last re-design."
Clearly your opinion, an opinion that many of us (me included) don't share.
Comments
Before I forget, hybrid option is not cheap either and in some cases more than a diesel.
I also found the article somewhat vague and negative toward diesels. Most of the comments I read were pro diesel. Even from folks that had the old noisy slow rabbits and MB 300D models.
I am always a heartbeat away from buying a diesel SUV if one shows itself here in CA. May still get one out of state and license in another state. If Toyota were to offer their diesel Land Cruiser that is a big seller in the rest of the World it would be a welcome solution to my gas guzzling Sequoia. Say it was a $2000 add-on for diesel. RIght now I am getting 15 around town and as high as 17 MPG on the highway. If owners of a Sequoia with diesel could not get 27 MPG on the highway I would look elsewhere. If I drove the average 15k miles per year at current gas/diesel prices we would save about $1050 per year. So the payback would be less than 2 years. I for one do not believe that diesel will continue at the current 50 cents per gallon premium here in San Diego.
Just to let you know what you can buy in a LARGE SUV in the UK. A Toyota Land Cruiser with their very highly acclaimed D-4D 3.0 L diesel is rated 35.8 MPG combined. That is 29.81 MPG US combined. That is 17% better than a 2008 Camry with a 4 cylinder engine. Toyota LC diesel
You like high mileage Toyota sedans. The Avensis diesel is rated at 61+ MPG. It costs about 5000 GBP less than a Prius. Choices that is what I am after, choices. Not the crap we get thrown at us in the US.
PS
At $8 a gallon for diesel in the UK the guy driving a Land Cruiser diesel is paying less than I am driving my Sequoia on $3.62 per gallon gas (last fillup).
Another example of what I have been saying about the system dialing out D2 options!?
30 minutes of diesel inhalation alters brain activity
Study: Diesel Exhaust Stresses Your Brain
A Dutch study found that even a short exposure to diesel exhaust fumes can alter brain activity.
Lead researcher Paul Borm of Zuyd University in The Netherlands had 10 volunteers spent one hour in a room filled with either clean air or exhaust from a diesel engine.
The volunteers were wired up to an electroencephalograph machine that records the electrical signals of the brain. Brain waves were monitored during the exposure period and for one hour after they left the room.
The study, published in the journal Particle and Fiber Toxicology, found that after about 30 minutes the diesel exhaust began to affect brain activity.
The findings suggest a stress response, indicative of changed information processing in the brain cortex, which continued to increase even after the subjects had left the exposure chamber.
"We believe our findings are due to an effect (of) nanoparticles or 'soot' particles that are major component of diesel exhaust," Borm said in a statement. These may penetrate to the brain and affect brain function. We can only speculate what these effects may mean for the chronic exposure to air pollution encountered in busy cities where the levels of such soot particles can be very high.
Here's hoping the clean new diesel engines filter well on the PM.
How bogus is that? 20 minutes in a room with a Prius or any other gas engine running and you would be DEAD. I wonder if someone paid those jokers to go into a room with an internal combustion engine running? They had brain damage prior to the test if you ask me.
I would take my chances with nano particles over the silent KILLER carbon monoxide.
That explains what happened to the brain dead people they have running the EPA and CARB. Someone left a semi truck idling in their offices. :shades:
Nothing wrong with that research. It's all with the goal of making the air safer for human consumption.
My experience is that when I used red dye high sulfur diesel in my little tractor it stinks. When I use ULSD there is no smell from the exhaust. I still would not sit in the barn closed up with the tractor running. Only an idiot would to that even for science. The main point is the carbon monoxide emitted by ALL gasoline cars is much more deadly than exhaust from a diesel engine. I am sure we can find a forum to argue the advantages of being brain dead vs being plain dead.
As someone else has already said; it sounds as if their brain function was questionable before they closed the door. It's the silly season, come early.
'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
http://www.californiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx
For sure that would be the MAJORITY sentiment; operatively 98% of the owners of the passenger (gasser) vehicle fleet, and I am sure even some diesel owners.
For me, that would be a total mischaracterization on an apples to apples comparison and this would be at worse an opportunity with an apples to oranges comparison!! Here are some numbers (yeah I know reality can be vicious according to some- some folks consider numbers narcotizing also) .... you decide.
Apples to apples
VW Jetta 2.0/1.8T 29 mpg/3.01 (you didn't price PUG
VW Jetta TDI 50 mpg/4.=.08 cents per mile driven
Which costs more? What is the % more?
Apples to Oranges
Honda Civic 39 mpg/3.01= .077 cents
Since Civic does not have a TDI (but if they did: SWAG 55 mpg/4=.0727 cents)
So IF you have that spread consistently...and you have a VW TDI and Honda Civic gasser side by side.... and...IF you HAD to buy D2 on that day's spread.....savings of .003 cents per mile driven (spread between RUG to D2)
My current corner store: RUG 3.61/ PUG 3.81/ D2 4.09 gives the numbers a different reality
Again if you run the numbers 29/29/50... .1245 cents .1314 cents .0818 cents per mile driven
Civic @39/3.61=..0926 cents per mile driven D2 12% cheaper!
........... tired already
So operatively what you say is a PRIME case for a min of 33% HIGHER RUG to PUG fuel consumption......with associated price increases: (per gal, per mile driven, etc., etc.) which...... is what I have been saying all along?!! :lemon: :shades:
So to address the US market yearly mortality rate, pricing increases will be ghosts on the lung mortality rate. RUG to PUG use has already been documented and is WAY higher than D2 (with the same passenger diesel per 100 M mile rate metrics. So now the issue is how much incrementally does a 4% year over year increase in RUG/PUG consumption do to the historic rates of lung fatalities causative by RUG to PUG . vs a slight gain in passenger D2 use.
My swag is TOTAL neg declaration. (sorry) :lemon: I would dare say not even measurable!! Well in theory someone could make a case for HUGE BUX 30 year grants to STUDY the/some of the hypothesis'....!!??
Now I might still choose the diesel personally (MIGHT). But I am also not the norm.
'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
The only thing (as I have indirectly stated) that were not my personal mileages were the VW 2.0/1.8T. (by virtue of saying I own Civic/TDI side by side) Most owners of either of those models have trouble hitting 30 mpg and NO WAY when driven like the TDI. Both (2.0, 1.8T) by any metric meet LIKE model specifications.
Again, I did do a different oem/model. The hp on the Civic =110 hp- TDI 90 hp. Again I would get no where near 39 mpg if I drove the (gasser) Civic like I do the TDI. The other side of what you are saying if I take the HP of the 1.8T and apply it to the diesel, the diesel would indeed be monster!! Indeed if you compare the specs of the (2003) 1.8T with the new VW TDI the amazing thing is it still gets much better mpg than the 1.8T.
So while you might want to induce doubt, I just stated what we get side by side. I would invite anyone else who owns (whatever) side by side to post!?? This is not rocket science by any means.
Again you might look at the Honda Civic Real World mpg thread. There are a HOST of folks WAY disappointed from the mpg they are getting. So really D2 is even BETTER than RUG results, even as you probably think is exaggeration on my part (most folks getting worse fuel mileage than my stated 39 mpg). This of course would radically change the illustrated calculations.
I went (200 miles one way) skiing yesterday. While taking in sun/scenery in a lounge chair, was able to talk both to an Ford Expedition owner and a couple doing a 40 day RV trip with a monster engined (gasser) Silverado mated to a 5th wheel. The subject turned to fuel prices. Of course, we all were crying the blues. I didn't have the heart to tell them the TDI I went up there with (and back) got ONLY 51 mpg climibing from zero to 6000 feet (and back again) with speeds up to 85 mph, while breaking in new tires. :sick: :lemon: Not to mention I will be able to keep going 200 more miles on a tank full.
Let me make a case for comparison experimental design... Larsb always likes to present one side.
Where is the control group? Where are the groups with the Prius, Civic, Camry, etc, or even one comparison? Like some posts before would they ban gassers if they gassed the gasser group/s to death? Doubt it!?
Best Regards,
Shipo
..."Sales of new autos in Japan are expected to drop to a 27-year-low of 5.3 million vehicles for the fiscal year starting next month, down 0.6 percent, as demand gets battered by soaring gas prices and sluggish wage growth, according to the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association."...
link title
link title
Urban 43.56 US mpg
Extra Urban 58.8 US mph
143 hp/221 #ft of torque
link title
"Owing to geography, heavy reliance on automobiles, and the Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex, Los Angeles suffers from air pollution in the form of smog. The Los Angeles Basin and the San Fernando Valley are susceptible to atmospheric inversion, which holds in the exhausts from road vehicles, airplanes, locomotives, shipping, manufacturing, and other sources."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles%2C_California#Environmental_issues
You noticed that too.
Some folks are part of a diesel club, others are in a little deeper to the point where it is a religion. I always wondered what would happen if you put a bunch of E85 advocates in with diesel supporters in a closed room. Nothing right? They would all calmly talk about the advantages and disadvantages of each fuel.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/24/climatechange.fossilfuels
CARB Study Details Diesel Soot Impact On West Oakland
http://www.cunninghamreport.com/news_item.php?id=232
The evidence keeps on rolling in that soot is not a good thing to have hanging around. The good news is that with ULSD and emission improvements the numbers should get a lot better in the future.
The emission gear will work as long as people actually keep the gear on their vehicle. I have been reading and hearing of people removing the emission equipment. Some even put the stuff back on to pass the smog test. As long as the number of people doing this is small it probably won't be a major issue. If on the other hand more people decide to do this the government will need to crack down.
Actually when the subject turns to GASOLINE...
"If a person brings up anything even close to saying diesels are less than perfect there are at least half a dozen people that will respond in force"...
The math overwhelming indicates passenger diesel's is/has been/continues to be a MINORITY position!! Given the update figures that statement is almost polyannishly optimistic!? But I take it you disagree, even as the diesel population has managed to go down in percentage terms.
Nobody, especially diesel users/advocates have even remotely claim/s/ed diesel WAS/can be PERFECT. It is a mis characterization. What is not a mis characterization is the environmentalist's advocate using less imported oil. The less than perfect gasser fuel is well documented. So if one cares to do the math. diesel do have a plethora of advantages. Perhaps that is why folks rail against them.
Gassers 2003 VW 2.0/1.8T get/s 29 mpg,
TDI gets 50 mpg.
Which uses more?
Which uses less?
What is the percentage? (50-29=21/50=42%)
The other thing you ignore or discount is while I do have a diesel , 80% of my vehicles are still GASSERs. Again what is the overwhelming position of the so called "religious" folks you are talking about? :shades:
So it seems like "the use less " advocates want to critize those that are actually using less while they continue seemly FULL consumption. One might say this is a case of " do as we say, not as we do". Or, we might want to look up the defintion of hypocrisy.
The balance is of course is it is EVERYONE 's transportation nickel. As such, folks will do what they will do.
Me, all I want is a modest proposal, in the free market system for the oems to offer diesels in the model lines they think will flourish. Folks who want diesels will buy them, those that do not, will not. Funny how they do that with gassers and it is almost a total non issue!? I and others have made no secret of the recognition of the advantages of diesels. So plan b in case the modest proposal does not come to fruition, run the current one 500,000 to 1,000,000 miles.
Need a model? Or is that not clear enough? Europe has 52% registered passenger vehicle fleet diesels. Get out more, take a trip, see for yourself.
Thats....because.....there is only ONE SIDE to the "diesel exhaust is harmful" situation, unfortunately.
The first study or news story I find which headlines:
"Diesel Exhaust Better than Viagra"
or
"Diesel Exhaust Cures Cancer"
or
"Diesel Exhaust Smells Like Rose Petals"
I will certainly post that study also.
P.S. That's not to say gasoline exhaust is helpful, either. All the dangers of that exhaust are also well known. It's just that no one I know about is doing ongoing studies about those effects, while apparently there ARE studies ongoing about diesel exhaust effects.
In Phoenix:
Lowest RUG: $2.89
Lowest Diesel: $3.75
Span: 86 cents
For comparison:
Gas Jetta: 17 gallon tank, 32 MPG, range 544 miles for $49.13 to fillup
cost per mile: .0903125 cents
Diesel Jetta: 17 gallon tank, 48 MPG, range 816 miles, for $63.75 to fillup.
cost per mile: .078125 cents
So even at 86 cents per gallon difference, the diesel has the advantage. The spread would have to be $1.45 per gallon for gas to equal the diesel in cost per mile.
Burning less fossil fuel, regardless of how you have to do it, is better in it's own way in ALMOST every situation.
But for a hypothetical example: If every gasoline car in Phoenix was replaced by a diesel car produced in the same year, the air would quickly become almost unbreathable.
So in that case, no, burning less diesel fuel would NOT be preferable to burning more gasoline.
Whether you did or not does not change the fact that is what is happening operatively in the passenger vehicle fleet!! 98% gasser 2% diesel.
Your hypothetical example is a total warp. They can't even measure current passenger diesel fleet emissions in the real world, let alone make a statistical connection. Because of the balances of how "barrel of fuel" is processed 100% diesel will probably never be a reality.
Clean and Blue
Wolfsburg / New York, 20 March 2008 - The Volkswagen Passat BlueMotion is one of the most environmentally friendly cars worldwide. The jury of international judges of the “World Car of the Year Awards” awarded Volkswagen, which came in third, the famous prize this Thursday in New York. Wolfgang Hatz, Head of Volkswagen Group Powertrain Development, received the award. “The Passat BlueMotion,” said Hatz, “is, with fuel consumption of 5.1 litres diesel, one of the world’s most economical cars in its category and is also very affordable. Our ‘BlueMotion’ label is increasingly becoming a model for a whole new generation of economical cars. We are very proud that the jury of the “World Car of the Year Awards” honoured this model role.”
Top 10 finalists:
1) BMW 118d
2) SmartForTwo cdi
3) VW Passat 1.9 TDI BlueMotion
4) Chevy Equinox Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
5) Chevy Malibu Hybrid
6) Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon Hybrids
7) Lexus LS 600h L
8) Nissan Altima Hybrid
9) Saturn Aura Green Line
10) Saturn Vue Green Line
Best Regards,
Shipo
Fuel consumption equal or lower than 47.6mpg combined
That's what left off the Prius and the HCH.
Those sources are UNMITIGATED ( BY LAW- how disengenuous is that?????????) and bunker oil is easily 5000 ppm sulfur. At the least, my take: MITIGATE IT!!?? The current law was made in full recognition of the effects on surrounding areas.
This is TOTALLY logical but might not seem so, but you can NOT stop the effects of NON passenger vehicle fleet related unmitgaged emissions by banning a 2% minority population of mitigated D2 emissions,unmeasurable in the real world.
Really you are making the case I have already made. With the DIESEL passenger vehicle fleet at 2% and remember the passenger diesel fleet iIS MITIGATED, The passenger diesel fleet emissions are literally UNMEASURABLE in the real world.
So do you think the situation would be better/worse if all those unmitigated diesel NON passenger diesel fleet sources were (waving the magic wand) all RUG TO PUG emitters with the attendant easily 20-40% greater consumption?
So all is not lost, if indeed it was REALLY that important to stop those unmitigated emissions, it would be easy . We actually have INXS of 40 years of nuclear powered air craft carriers (aka adaptable to commercial shipping). But I am sure you would agree, it is probably not THAT important. :lemon: :sick:
The criteria specifically says: "Fuel consumption equal to or lower than 5.0 L/100km (47.6 mpg US) combined (55% City + 45% Highway) or equivalent (blended fuel volume if flex-fuel)."
I'm thinking that a slightly better translation would have been to write: "Fuel consumption equal to or better than 47.6 mpg combined." By the way, they both fail to meet that criteria with the official combined rating for the Prius coming in at 46 mpg and the HCH coming in at 42.
Based upon my reading of the eligibility requirements, the reason they were both eliminated from the running is because they are not new models (either newly being produced or soon to be produced).
Best Regards,
Shipo
They will qualify next year because the new EPA ratings are:
HCH: 42
Prius: 46
HCH won in 2006; can't find out who won in 2005.
If they only included cars over 47.6 MPG, that would considerably narrow the field of possible entrants.
Best Regards,
Shipo
The first part of the criteria says:
The candidates must be all-new or substantially revised.
Candidates need to be in production and introduced for sale in at least one major market between January 1 - December 31, 2007.
OR
the vehicle/technology may be a prototype or experimental vehicle with potential near-future application provided that it has been released for individual or press fleet evaluations in quantities of ten or more.
The above meaning that to be considered, cars must fall into one of the above two categories, AND must meet at least one of the following criteria (i.e. the second part) as well:
a. Tailpipe emissions equal to or better than California SULEV or US EPA Tier 2, Bin2, or Euro V regulations, or equivalent.
b. Fuel consumption equal to or lower than 5.0 L/100km (47.6 mpg US) combined (55% City + 45% Highway) or equivalent (blended fuel volume if flex-fuel).
c. Use of a major advanced powerplant technology (beyond engine componentry) aimed specifically at increasing the vehicle's environmental responsibility (e.g. hybrid, fuel cell, etc.)
(NOTE: Flex-fuel technologies will be considered only in cases where the vehicles are available in countries where the infrastructure for both fuels is broadly established.)
The way I read it, just because a car doesn't get equal to or better than 47.6 mpg, that doesn't exclude it from being considered, just so long as it's clean enough or has a sufficiently innovative powerplant or propulsion methodology.
Best Regards,
Shipo
If you only used 4.8L/100km, that would equal 49 mpg
kcram - Pickups Host
That's why the HCH and Prius are not qualified to receive the award and were not even nominated. Had this been held in 2004, the Prius would have won, and the HCH DID win in 2006, the year of it's last re-design.
Clearly your opinion, an opinion that many of us (me included) don't share.
Best Regards,
Shipo