the match that's in play, I'll weigh in on high-altitude octane.
For naturally-aspirated engines, 87 octane is more than sufficient at 5000 feet and above.
For turbo gas engines, if you're planning a drive through high-altitude regions, I'd strongly recommend bringing along bottles of octane booster. Your turbo is making the engine think it's at (or near) sea level. It absolutely "needs" that 91 octane to make anything like its advertised numbers.
Turbo diesel engines are happy at altitude, too. Way back (30+ years ago) there were such things as naturally-aspirated diesels (220 Cummins, etc) & they smoked like chimneys at altitude and lost much power.
If you want to brag about Diesel, come to California and pay $5.49 a gallon for it. That was last weeks price next week it will be $5.59 the way thinks are going.
Yes, Larsb posted a link to an UK twin turbo diesel (Corvette like) sports car with the 45 mpg race day and 70 mph @ 65 mph metric's. So for example, if Corvette could engineer 50 mpg, 4 fills (18.5 gals) could tour you across the USA! (SF to NYC, vs 7 fills) I would agree with your take some of the parts would have to be reengineered. My take is a twin turbo diesel Corvette would be a run away hit, for at least half of Corvette buyers and would probably entice new Corvette owners.
San Diego County diesel varies from $4.65 to $5.25. Cheapest gas is $4.03.
Diesel at $5.59 and gas at $4.03 the cost per mile to drive a Mercedes GL320 CDI vs my Sequoia would be well in favor of the diesel. If gas stays at $4 per gallon and diesel hits $7 per gallon it would be a wash on value. The oil companies know this.
... The new Duramax has the exhaust and turbo where usually is found an intake system on a V-8. Cessna had to halt deliveries on their Diesel offering as the German engine company Thielert is in major financial trouble. The owners of the few engines that are flying are getting antsy about parts and warranty. I believe Cessna caught all theirs. The banks, and the gov. and maybe Cessna are trying to reorganize Thielert. The Cessna order was supposedly going to make this company, but when the German version of the SEC started investigating they found a wing, a prayer and a bunch of BS.
"Will Honda still make an Accord diesel around then? If not, when?"
I was expecting that one of the diesel enthusiasts would respond to your post already. :confuse:
Honda has not released a firm date on when it will be here from what I can tell. Rumor on the internet is a diesel Accord should be here by 2010. Try these web sites or just come back to this forum. I'm sure that as soon as word leaks out it will be posted. http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080113Clean-Diesel-i-DTEC-Engine/ www.vtec.net
I think it was easier for Honda to absorb the additional cost of the diesel engine into their Acura line. If Acura had not made a mess of the MDX seats I would consider one with a diesel. I am not sure what the reason for the rock hard seats in so many of the 2008 SUVs. The new Escalade I drove was not nearly as comfortable as the 2006 model. The Mercedes was good. Will check out the X5 if they manage to bring a diesel model. The Honda Pilot for 2009 looks good. With a diesel it would be on my radar. A Land Cruiser or Sequoia with diesel if they change the current body style. My wife and I both find the new lines from Toyota just plain UGLY.
Yes their mission is to see that we breath cleaner air.
"First: and foremost they think they can get rid of the internal combustion engine by regulating it out of existence."
No, I work with people that are in the air regulation business. That issue never comes up. Their goal is to reduce emissions.
"Second: Congress that is controlled by big business see high mileage vehicles cutting into the profits of Oil companies, automakers and tax revenues."
If that was really true hybrids would not be for sale. Second, congress did mandate ULSD which will allow diesels to compete head to head with other engine and fuel combinations.
"Third: and specific to diesel. There are some people in California that have been given too much authority. They do not like diesel because the exhaust has some elements they would like to eliminate from the air, NOX being the major one left."
I would disagree. CARB is on the right track. California has pollution issues that must be dealt with. CARB is doing what the people of California want. In a Democracy the majority rule.
"The stated goals of CARB include attaining and maintaining healthy air quality; protecting the public from exposure to toxic air contaminants; and providing innovative approaches for complying with air pollution rules and regulations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board
"Diesel Health Effects In 1998, California identified diesel exhaust particulate matter (PM) as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems. Diesel engines also contribute to California's fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) air quality problems. Those most vulnerable are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems." http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/diesel.htm
In 1998, California identified diesel exhaust particulate matter (PM) as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems.
This is all old rehashed information. It does not concern US with the advent of ULSD. Though I feel that it was Congress and the EPA that should have implemented ULSD when the sulfur was determined to be the cause of the above problems. Same as they did with Lead in gasoline.
CARB has done little to curb the issues of diesel emissions. They have allowed cargo ships into the LA harbors that are using bunker oil as fuel. That stuff is the dirtiest fuel on the seas. That is what gets blown up the the San Bernardino mountains and lays as a brown haze over the valley. It cannot be diesel cars as they have been all but blocked from CA by CARB. CARB has done NOTHING to stop 1000s of trucks per day coming in from Mexico using high sulfur diesel.
What CARB has done is point the finger at VW and similar small diesel cars and said we will keep them from coming into CA until they have at least 7500 miles on them. The savings in fossil fuel would have more than compensated for the slight rise in NOX.
In addition people like Al Gore, based on what he says in his book, have an agenda to eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine. With no real practical alternative. He does have a lot of influence with the Greenies in this country.
"Diesel Health Effects In 1998, California identified diesel exhaust particulate matter
When you find a study based on modern diesel engines such as the MB CDI or the VW TDI sold over the last few years. I would consider an emissions test using ULSD in one of those vehicles legitimate. Tests such as the very biased ones using high sulfur diesel are not in my view helpful to those that would like to use less fossil fuel. California emissions test stations have NO test for diesel vehicles. CARB has looked the other direction as 100s of 1000s of large diesel PU trucks have been sold without any requirement for emissions test. Many PU truck owners remove the emissions equipment and run straight exhaust before their license plates even arrive. So CARB to me is a useless agency that has done LITTLE to clean the air. I know they blow their own whistle and point to a few minor changes they have made. The truth is the removal of lead from gasoline and sulfur from diesel is the biggest improvement in our air quality. When they finally removed most of the sulfur from gas it negated most of the need for a catalytic converter.
My two recent diesel vehicles running on ULSD did not have the noxious odor of any of our gas vehicles. Our 19 year old LS400 passed the emissions test with flying colors. Yet when you get behind it the exhaust is not that pleasant. There is more behind the scenes jockeying with regard to the diesel/gas mix than we will ever know. I think our current capacity for diesel production is being used. If we were to get anywhere close to the EU in our diesel car percentage we would have diesel shortage and a gas glut.
Look at the history of the oil business. There was a time when gasoline was dumped as a useless byproduct in the refining process. Kerosene or number one diesel being the product needed at the time. Gasoline was not invented, it is a natural by-product of the petroleum industry, kerosene being the principal product. Gasoline is produced by distillation, the separating of the volatile, more valuable fractions of crude petroleum. However, what was invented were the numerous processes and agents needed to improve the quality of gasoline making it a better commodity.
The rest of the story on gas:
The first cars back in the late 1800s ran primarily on alcohol.
It was the only reliable, combustible fuel that was available. Oil had already been discovered, but it had a completely different use at that time; it was used for heating and lighting homes.
So the part that they couldn’t use for heating and lighting — the stuff that wanted to explode and nobody wanted to put in an oil lamp — they threw away.
John D. Rockefeller did some experimentation and found out that, although it didn’t do such a good job, it would run a car, too. And he started selling it at dirt-cheap prices in the cities, where he had his oil distribution business.
So gasoline was an industrial waste by product that was marketed as an alternative to the standard fuel, which was alcohol.
The big proponent of alcohol in cars was Henry Ford. He thought that alcohol was the very best fuel for cars — it was clean, it was efficient, and there were a lot more stills in this country than gas stations.
So Ford and Rockefeller fought tooth and nail over what was going to be the nation’s fuel supply, until Rockefeller decided not to play fair anymore.
Rockefeller gave the Women’s Christian Temperance Union $4 million dollars to lobby Congress with. That would be like $400 million dollars today, and, yes, you can buy Congress for that. And so they passed Prohibition. You probably thought it had something to do with drinking and moral decay. But can you imagine an all-male Congress voting to keep working men from drinking?
If you are glad the price of gas is up you should happily be paying the full price. Good grief man, you are probably burning gas and polluting like a mad man at those prices!! Break out the tar and feathers!!
There is a light duty truck sold in mexico, manufactured by GM called the Opel Corsa Utility, it shares the same platform as the corsa sedan, it is avail in 3 trim/engine options an 2 tranny options,,there is a 1.4 and a 1.8 liter gasoline engine and a 1.6 liter diesel engine,,there is a 5 speed manual and a 3 sp + OD automatic,,the 1.4 L gets 42 mpg,,the 1.8 L gets 37 mpg and the 1.6 L gets 48 mpg, this is combined city/highway rating,, You can see specs and pictures at (General Motors South Africa Dealers ) website, Type this in at google. Now my question is this,,if gm already produces this vehicle,,and sells it in mexico,,why don't they sell it here,,and give a much needed boost to u.s. sales quota ?
why don't they sell it here,,and give a much needed boost to u.s. sales quota ?
Almost every country in the world has a choice of small diesel PU trucks except the USA. On the surface it looks like it falls directly on the shoulders of the regulators at the EPA and CARB.
Also we still have a 1963 tax on PU trucks built overseas. That keeps the small trucks out of our market. The Bush administration is battling Detroit over that issue. So you are probably stuck with a PU that at the very best will get 20 MPG. Most of the midsized PU trucks are lucky to get 17 MPG. If you can find a VW Rabbit PU with diesel from the early 1980s it will get you 50 MPG.
RE: Second: Congress that is controlled by big business see high mileage vehicles cutting into the profits of Oil companies, automakers and tax revenues.
"If that was really true hybrids would not be for sale."
There were political attempts to legislatively block hybrids. I can still recall a conversation that I had with the ASME Government Rep for the State I live in around ten years ago. Long story short, there was a proposed Federal regulation for hybrids that functionally claimed that because of the higher risk from electricity + gasoline, that any gas/electric "hybrid" would be required to have a fuel cell to prevent the leaking of any gasoline in a roll-over. The regulation's language was already drafted and pretty far along ... and a hybrid developer (reportedly Toyota or Honda) said: "We do not object at all to this requirement. However, we do wish to point out that as per the way that the language is written, this applies to any vehicle with any electrical system, so this proposal applies to normal vehicles as well as hybrids". Needless to say, the regulation was promptly killed.
"Second, congress did mandate ULSD which will allow diesels to compete head to head with other engine and fuel combinations."
Yet did so in a disjointed fashion that prevented direct, easy applicability of EU ULSD solutions, and "jumped ahead" on particulate standards that were effectively impossible to meet with state-of-the-shelf technology, which successfully produced another couple of years of delay. As it now stands, the BlueTek diesel is just now finally ready for the US Market, and there was IIRC very serious negotiations involved because of the need for the Urea storage tank which nearly side lined it for a few more years.
The overall situation is roadblock after roadblock to create delays in practical implementation. And in the meantime in the US Northeast, we continue to burn billions of gallons of #2 home heating oil in our businesses and private homes without one lick of pollution control standards whatsoever.
When I bought a RLG (regular leaded gas) 1978 Rabbit new in Miami Florida, I truly remember the diesel offerings. What I do not recall was the price of D2 per gal.
Folks will laugh now, for if I remember the times correctly, RLG was .29 cents per gal. I remember odd/even days. It popped to .34 cents per when the gas rationing hit. :sick:
"First: and foremost they think they can get rid of the internal combustion engine by regulating it out of existence."" ========================================================
If only in your dreams. Thanks for the morning laugh, I have to go check out the other conspiracy sites now :shades:
The ZEV Mandate was created by California's Air Resources Board ("ARB", or "CARB") in accordance with Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) Regulations passed in 1990. It required an increasing percent of Zero-Emission Vehicles ("ZEV") to be sold in California. In effect, ZEV means battery-powered EVs, because that is so far the only demonstrated technology with no tailpipe emissions.
Starting with 2% of new car sales of the "Big 7" largest car makers in 1998, the mandated volume was to increase to 10% in 2003.
ZEV vehicles sold in CA to date. Maybe 100. With 7.6 million cars sold in CA back in 2003 that would have been 760,000 EVs. So by this year we should have had about 3.8 million ZEV cars in CA. I guess that plan to get rid of about 4 million internal combustion engines was a BIG failure. Just like the current CO2 mandate by the same bunch of ignorant people in Sacramento. And Californians keep sending them back to make more poor decisions and waste more tax dollars.
"I guess that plan to get rid of about 4 million internal combustion engines was a BIG failure." ===========================================================
As I said; "If only in your dreams".
The real push has to be in breaking our automobile dependency, of whatever type. Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs at profound, unsustainable social and environmental costs..
..."The real push has to be in breaking our automobile dependency, of whatever type. Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs at profound, unsustainable social and environmental costs.."...
Actually in those terms, you have it backwards. The very "city type" existence you recommend is at its heart, unsustainable and at a plethora of levels!
Every so called walkable city has exclusivity as a "implosion" prevent er. All you need do is to look at so called "legacy" cities. Lets use NYC, London, Paris, Rome, pick one, anyone, Sure you can buy a (literally) closet to live in NYC for $1M..... Indeed this type of concentration has the potential to be exponentially dangerous in many ways and on many levels. 9/11 was an unfortunate demonstration. The next disaster can be as simple and as close as an NYC UNION garbage strike etc. San Francisco's last big one was mudder natural, aka 1906 " EARF" quake. The more recent Loma Prieta Earthquake was far from kind also.
Another question might be what populations are beating a path to migrate to say Detroit?
The automobile has literally been a complex tool, whether you like it, hate it or are totally indifferent, etc. So on the one hand you say getting rid of it is in your dreams yet Gagrice is correct and in effect you confirm that what he has said is true. Since this is a diesel thread, the Harvard study showed that bio diesel has lower emissions than so called electrical "plug in ". This of course burns a huge hole in the widely held view that electrical plug in is "BEST"
The real push has to be in breaking our automobile dependency, of whatever type.
ONLY IN YOUR DREAMS :shades:
Not even in my grandkids life will that happen. Hopefully by the time they get their drivers license there will be a lot of high mileage diesel cars and trucks for them to choose from. When ever we get out of the dark ages. For the cities polluted like London, just put a tax on driving inside the city limits. It won't affect me I hate going into ANY city. I waste extra fossil fuel to drive around rather than through them.
The real push has to be in breaking our automobile dependency, of whatever type. Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs at profound, unsustainable social and environmental costs..
Classic unsupported and pie-in-the-sky rhetoric from hypnodude. :P
The real push has to be in breaking our automobile dependency, of whatever type. Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs at profound, unsustainable social and environmental costs.. "...
So what is the length x width of 347.22222 sq ft?
So if you can sustain the $ costs and stand the social and environmental costs, I tip my hat !
6. Manhattan Price: $4,320 per sq. ft. What you get for $1.5 million: Studio apartment Annual price change: 25%
At the high end, Manhattan continues to boom even as the credit crunch deepens. In fact, in the first quarter of 2008 average prices were up 19% and the price per square foot was up 16%, according to the Corcoran Group. There are several reasons: First, the city has been shielded from the subprime crisis, largely because its co-ops and condos are well out of reach of most buyers with poor credit and shaky finances. Second, it remains a popular destination for movers and shakers in the financial, entertainment, and media world. Last, because of the weak dollar it is more affordable than ever for wealthy foreigners looking for a Manhattan pied-à-terre.
I don't know why we always let him drag us into politics. His ideology has absolutely nothing to do with diesel in the news. Unless the EPA or CARB has figured out a new regulation to make it more difficult to buy a high MPG diesel car or truck.
..."HONDA has spent decades establishing a reputation for fuel efficiency. But nothing in the company’s current lineup, including its Civic Hybrid, can match the mileage of the diesel Accord that I recently tested in and around New York City....
..."The Accord — a demonstration car provided by Robert Bosch, the German technology company, to highlight its fuel injectors and other diesel components — returned a remarkable 53 miles a gallon on the highway, 34 in the city and 44 in combined driving. Those miles included a bumper-to-bumper crawl through Manhattan, the worst possible conditions for fuel efficiency. "...
Six weeks ago an Acura salesman told me that the 2010 TSX will have a diesel and it should be available approximately one year from now. My guess is it will be available in late fall 2009,(October-November).
Right. Honda USA has different issues than Honda Europe, for an example: Honda USA is almost 100% gasser. Honda Europe is pushing (or wants to) 35% diesel. To cut to the chase, the US market diesel engine has gone from economy (Honda Civic/Accord) to the higher end (Acura TSX , still an Accord platform) .It is designed to solve a few issues in the Acura line up and not to eclipse their own economy car line (Honda) , with a real economy car.
I don't know why we always let him drag us into politics. His ideology has absolutely nothing to do with diesel in the news. Unless the EPA or CARB has figured out a new regulation to make it more difficult to buy a high MPG diesel car or truck.
Good question. After some thought, for my .02 cents, the answer to your question is YES.
Reflecting on diesel experiences, it is FAR too logical this is an economy car (par excellence') to: rates total integration across a product line. I will go so far as to say D2 is better in most ways than gassers. All things being equal, (they are not obviously) I would want all current (past also) selections to have been diesel. Indeed I would have bought far fewer vehicles if they were. Perhaps that is part of the problem.
When I set aside my own diesel car experiences, it is clear a diesel (at this stage) is an acquired taste, not unlike hybrid when they first came out.
While (the over priced) Prius is the name most associated with Hybrids, Honda first hit the market with the hybrid Insight. It had mpg in spades. Honda had absolutely two fine hybrid products in the Insight & Civic, yet the consciousness/marketing/sales goes to Toyota Prius. Both the Insight & Civic cost (FAR) less than the Prius, yet Prius was more successful from a marketing/sales perspective. My sense now is that Honda wants to take a different tack (high end) for diesel introduction into this country. From my diesel experiences, clearly a (majority) detriment. However the only experiences one usually cares about is ones own.
I can think of another reason or two why Honda is putting the diesel in the Acura first. 1) Acura owners are paying for PUG which is close to diesel in price. They are probably less sensitive to the difference in price (higher income levels). 2) Honda may need a bit more time to get the engine production numbers up. 3) Logistics, Honda is doing very well. All those extra car sales are probably putting a bit of a strain on their system. Rolling out a new product will take more time. I'm sure they don't want to rush the product to market.
... Could it be what some believe was the situation with the CRD in the Liberty, in that Honda is trying to bring the Diesel in, system wide, including all the way to the line mechanics in the dealerships ? Starting (in the States) with the smaller sales volume Acura.
I would think that true. I have read and recalled in places (I don't remember all the oem and models mentioned) about follow on models with diesel options, such as Honda Pilot, Ridgeline, Toyota Tundra, Tacoma, Acura MDX (in addition to TSX), etc.
Diesel mechanics (passenger vehicles) are truly scarce. Even VW dealers where you are supposed to get oem sanctioned service for VW diesels, seem to at best, have diesel mechanics who seem only to throw parts and shoddy labor at diesels.
You can blame it on the CARB and EPA. Emissions regulations in the US are far stricter than in the EU. All of those diesel cars that you saw in the EU will not meet US pollution standards. Tier 2 Bin 5 is incredibly strict and technically very difficult and expensive to meet. And all the work required to meet Tier 2 Bin 5 has the side effect of reducing the mileage.
... This is where an incentive program should appear. Minor lessening of NOx regs for a vehicle with excellent MPG and smaller carbon footprint. It also might help if total tailpipe output was given any consideration; although MPG and carbon output can give us the same answer. As it is now there is no distinction between something that gets twenty MPG and fifty MPG.
In terms of the current standard of 27 mpg and defacto standard of 22 MPG, the overwhelming majority of passenger vehicles get between 10 mpg to 27 mpg. Passenger vehicles that get 50 mpg are oxymoronically in the EXTREME minority. Both of course are by design/s and regulation/s.
It appears now that the long awaited Accord diesel ( euro-Accord diesel ) will actually arrive but it will end up being the TSX diesel. It will be hidden away in Honda's closet ( Acura ) at a premium price using premium-costing fuel.
Definition of niche vehicle. It's not a very enthusiastic runout on Honda's part IMO.
Actually that is true. If MOST are NOT used to getting 50-60 mpg, and used to getting 12-27 mpg; then switch to a Honda Civic that gets 38-42 mpg (95-98 % of surveyed Civic owners do NOT get this), then a Civic looks like a GREAT economy car. Yahoo autos lists (used obviously) 04 Honda Civics for more than what I paid new!!
I understand by way of Edmunds.com Honda Civic threads there is an a squeeze on (remaining )08 Civics @ MSRP +. Makes you wonder what the 09 Civics will go for.
"You can blame it on the CARB and EPA. Emissions regulations in the US are far stricter than in the EU."
Actually we should be thanking them for making the cars meet the standards. Most of the people in the country would like to breath clean air. The standards are needed.
... How do you address the carbon problem, without admitting the measurement process was never any good from the get-go? Start with a reality check. Probably no more than fifteen percent of the population thinks you are infallible. Go back to your core of good intentions and admit that we can have two and half to three, TDI's, Diesel Focus(s) and Aveos etc. that are as clean or cleaner (all added together) than one 350 HP large pickup that are availiable now and have been for years.
This is the excuse that the oil companies trot out when trying to explain their high prices. Too many dollars chasing too little gasoline. I say it is all a bunch of BS.
The big oil companies are more like monopolies or utility companies. There has been many occasions in my state (ks) where utility companies have requested rate increases when the winter was very mild or the summer was very cool, etc. Their reasoning always goes that because less fuel or electricity was used their sales and profits are down, thus they need an increase. This is a case of increasing prices because of lower demand.
Just a few days ago someone asked one of the big oil company execs why the price of gasoline continued to rise even though oil prices were going down. His reply was that gas prices continued to rise because they were concerned about a possible lower demand in the U.S.
You can bet that if we somehow cut our use of oil by 50% in the U.S. you would see gas prices increase by at least 50% to maintain their profits. If we went from an average of 25 mpg to an average of 50 mpg in the U.S. the price of gas would probably go to $8.00 a gal as our reward.
Epidemiologic studies of different occupational cohorts consistently show that the risk of lung cancer among workers classified as having been exposed to diesel exhaust is approximatley 1.2 to 1.5 times the risk in those classified as unexposed.
Let's face it: fuel emissions from fossil fuels is never good for us. It's a necessary evil in our society, however.
Reducing the bad stuff and destroying it before it enters the atmosphere is good for us all. That's why the advanced filters in the new diesel cars are beneficial to us all and we should welcome them.
I had 3 friends in Prudhoe Bay die from a gas Ford Explorer left running in a downstairs garage. The girl that left the truck running was convicted of manslaughter. Only did a short sentence. It was a big downer for our tight knit little community. Diesel smell would alert you long before you would die from carbon monoxide. Just another reason the diesel cars are a better choice than gas cars. I'm with Roland on cutting the restriction a bit on NoX. 3 small diesel PU trucks will not pollute as much as one large gas PU truck. They will use less fuel than the one truck also. Then you would have less tax and that is one good reason to limit diesel vehicles.
I was sorry to hear of your 3 friends dying of carbon monoxide poisoning. Indeed diesel smell would long alert you before carbon monoxide as one of the problems is carbon monoxide can be odorless. This is another incidence that highlights the greater taxes more RUG to PUG consumption policy and some of the real reasons behind limting diesel vehicles. Burning 50 mpg when 29 mpg will do is verboten.
Ruking1, do you REALLY believe, in your heart of hearts, that the "real" restrictions on diesel vehicles are in place merely because they get better mpg?
If you DO really believe that (and as sensible as you seem to be I cannot see how you would actually REALLY think that) then WHOM do you believe is behind such a conspiracy?
Comments
For naturally-aspirated engines, 87 octane is more than sufficient at 5000 feet and above.
For turbo gas engines, if you're planning a drive through high-altitude regions, I'd strongly recommend bringing along bottles of octane booster. Your turbo is making the engine think it's at (or near) sea level. It absolutely "needs" that 91 octane to make anything like its advertised numbers.
Turbo diesel engines are happy at altitude, too. Way back (30+ years ago) there were such things as naturally-aspirated diesels (220 Cummins, etc) & they smoked like chimneys at altitude and lost much power.
That was last weeks price next week it will be $5.59 the way thinks are going.
Diesel at $5.59 and gas at $4.03 the cost per mile to drive a Mercedes GL320 CDI vs my Sequoia would be well in favor of the diesel. If gas stays at $4 per gallon and diesel hits $7 per gallon it would be a wash on value. The oil companies know this.
I was expecting that one of the diesel enthusiasts would respond to your post already. :confuse:
Honda has not released a firm date on when it will be here from what I can tell. Rumor on the internet is a diesel Accord should be here by 2010. Try these web sites or just come back to this forum. I'm sure that as soon as word leaks out it will be posted.
http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080113Clean-Diesel-i-DTEC-Engine/
www.vtec.net
Yes their mission is to see that we breath cleaner air.
"First: and foremost they think they can get rid of the internal combustion engine by regulating it out of existence."
No, I work with people that are in the air regulation business. That issue never comes up. Their goal is to reduce emissions.
"Second: Congress that is controlled by big business see high mileage vehicles cutting into the profits of Oil companies, automakers and tax revenues."
If that was really true hybrids would not be for sale. Second, congress did mandate ULSD which will allow diesels to compete head to head with other engine and fuel combinations.
"Third: and specific to diesel. There are some people in California that have been given too much authority. They do not like diesel because the exhaust has some elements they would like to eliminate from the air, NOX being the major one left."
I would disagree. CARB is on the right track. California has pollution issues that must be dealt with. CARB is doing what the people of California want. In a Democracy the majority rule.
http://airnow.gov/
"The stated goals of CARB include attaining and maintaining healthy air quality; protecting the public from exposure to toxic air contaminants; and providing innovative approaches for complying with air pollution rules and regulations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board
"Diesel Health Effects
In 1998, California identified diesel exhaust particulate matter (PM) as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems. Diesel engines also contribute to California's fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) air quality problems. Those most vulnerable are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems." http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/diesel.htm
This is all old rehashed information. It does not concern US with the advent of ULSD. Though I feel that it was Congress and the EPA that should have implemented ULSD when the sulfur was determined to be the cause of the above problems. Same as they did with Lead in gasoline.
CARB has done little to curb the issues of diesel emissions. They have allowed cargo ships into the LA harbors that are using bunker oil as fuel. That stuff is the dirtiest fuel on the seas. That is what gets blown up the the San Bernardino mountains and lays as a brown haze over the valley. It cannot be diesel cars as they have been all but blocked from CA by CARB. CARB has done NOTHING to stop 1000s of trucks per day coming in from Mexico using high sulfur diesel.
What CARB has done is point the finger at VW and similar small diesel cars and said we will keep them from coming into CA until they have at least 7500 miles on them. The savings in fossil fuel would have more than compensated for the slight rise in NOX.
In addition people like Al Gore, based on what he says in his book, have an agenda to eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine. With no real practical alternative. He does have a lot of influence with the Greenies in this country.
In 1998, California identified diesel exhaust particulate matter
When you find a study based on modern diesel engines such as the MB CDI or the VW TDI sold over the last few years. I would consider an emissions test using ULSD in one of those vehicles legitimate. Tests such as the very biased ones using high sulfur diesel are not in my view helpful to those that would like to use less fossil fuel. California emissions test stations have NO test for diesel vehicles. CARB has looked the other direction as 100s of 1000s of large diesel PU trucks have been sold without any requirement for emissions test. Many PU truck owners remove the emissions equipment and run straight exhaust before their license plates even arrive. So CARB to me is a useless agency that has done LITTLE to clean the air. I know they blow their own whistle and point to a few minor changes they have made. The truth is the removal of lead from gasoline and sulfur from diesel is the biggest improvement in our air quality. When they finally removed most of the sulfur from gas it negated most of the need for a catalytic converter.
My two recent diesel vehicles running on ULSD did not have the noxious odor of any of our gas vehicles. Our 19 year old LS400 passed the emissions test with flying colors. Yet when you get behind it the exhaust is not that pleasant. There is more behind the scenes jockeying with regard to the diesel/gas mix than we will ever know. I think our current capacity for diesel production is being used. If we were to get anywhere close to the EU in our diesel car percentage we would have diesel shortage and a gas glut.
Look at the history of the oil business. There was a time when gasoline was dumped as a useless byproduct in the refining process. Kerosene or number one diesel being the product needed at the time.
Gasoline was not invented, it is a natural by-product of the petroleum industry, kerosene being the principal product. Gasoline is produced by distillation, the separating of the volatile, more valuable fractions of crude petroleum. However, what was invented were the numerous processes and agents needed to improve the quality of gasoline making it a better commodity.
The rest of the story on gas:
The first cars back in the late 1800s ran primarily on alcohol.
It was the only reliable, combustible fuel that was available. Oil had already been discovered, but it had a completely different use at that time; it was used for heating and lighting homes.
So the part that they couldn’t use for heating and lighting — the stuff that wanted to explode and nobody wanted to put in an oil lamp — they threw away.
John D. Rockefeller did some experimentation and found out that, although it didn’t do such a good job, it would run a car, too. And he started selling it at dirt-cheap prices in the cities, where he had his oil distribution business.
So gasoline was an industrial waste by product that was marketed as an alternative to the standard fuel, which was alcohol.
The big proponent of alcohol in cars was Henry Ford. He thought that alcohol was the very best fuel for cars — it was clean, it was efficient, and there were a lot more stills in this country than gas stations.
So Ford and Rockefeller fought tooth and nail over what was going to be the nation’s fuel supply, until Rockefeller decided not to play fair anymore.
Rockefeller gave the Women’s Christian Temperance Union $4 million dollars to lobby Congress with. That would be like $400 million dollars today, and, yes, you can buy Congress for that. And so they passed Prohibition. You probably thought it had something to do with drinking and moral decay. But can you imagine an all-male Congress voting to keep working men from drinking?
If you are glad the price of gas is up you should happily be paying the full price. Good grief man, you are probably burning gas and polluting like a mad man at those prices!! Break out the tar and feathers!!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
You can see specs and pictures at (General Motors South Africa Dealers ) website,
Type this in at google.
Now my question is this,,if gm already produces this vehicle,,and sells it in mexico,,why don't they sell it here,,and give a much needed boost to u.s. sales quota ?
Almost every country in the world has a choice of small diesel PU trucks except the USA. On the surface it looks like it falls directly on the shoulders of the regulators at the EPA and CARB.
Also we still have a 1963 tax on PU trucks built overseas. That keeps the small trucks out of our market. The Bush administration is battling Detroit over that issue. So you are probably stuck with a PU that at the very best will get 20 MPG. Most of the midsized PU trucks are lucky to get 17 MPG. If you can find a VW Rabbit PU with diesel from the early 1980s it will get you 50 MPG.
"If that was really true hybrids would not be for sale."
There were political attempts to legislatively block hybrids. I can still recall a conversation that I had with the ASME Government Rep for the State I live in around ten years ago. Long story short, there was a proposed Federal regulation for hybrids that functionally claimed that because of the higher risk from electricity + gasoline, that any gas/electric "hybrid" would be required to have a fuel cell to prevent the leaking of any gasoline in a roll-over. The regulation's language was already drafted and pretty far along ... and a hybrid developer (reportedly Toyota or Honda) said: "We do not object at all to this requirement. However, we do wish to point out that as per the way that the language is written, this applies to any vehicle with any electrical system, so this proposal applies to normal vehicles as well as hybrids". Needless to say, the regulation was promptly killed.
"Second, congress did mandate ULSD which will allow diesels to compete head to head with other engine and fuel combinations."
Yet did so in a disjointed fashion that prevented direct, easy applicability of EU ULSD solutions, and "jumped ahead" on particulate standards that were effectively impossible to meet with state-of-the-shelf technology, which successfully produced another couple of years of delay. As it now stands, the BlueTek diesel is just now finally ready for the US Market, and there was IIRC very serious negotiations involved because of the need for the Urea storage tank which nearly side lined it for a few more years.
The overall situation is roadblock after roadblock to create delays in practical implementation. And in the meantime in the US Northeast, we continue to burn billions of gallons of #2 home heating oil in our businesses and private homes without one lick of pollution control standards whatsoever.
-hh
Folks will laugh now, for if I remember the times correctly, RLG was .29 cents per gal. I remember odd/even days. It popped to .34 cents per when the gas rationing hit. :sick:
========================================================
If only in your dreams. Thanks for the morning laugh, I have to go check out the other conspiracy sites now :shades:
Starting with 2% of new car sales of the "Big 7" largest car makers in 1998, the mandated volume was to increase to 10% in 2003.
ZEV vehicles sold in CA to date. Maybe 100. With 7.6 million cars sold in CA back in 2003 that would have been 760,000 EVs. So by this year we should have had about 3.8 million ZEV cars in CA. I guess that plan to get rid of about 4 million internal combustion engines was a BIG failure. Just like the current CO2 mandate by the same bunch of ignorant people in Sacramento. And Californians keep sending them back to make more poor decisions and waste more tax dollars.
===========================================================
As I said; "If only in your dreams".
The real push has to be in breaking our automobile dependency, of whatever type. Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs at profound, unsustainable social and environmental costs..
Actually in those terms, you have it backwards. The very "city type" existence you recommend is at its heart, unsustainable and at a plethora of levels!
Every so called walkable city has exclusivity as a "implosion" prevent er. All you need do is to look at so called "legacy" cities. Lets use NYC, London, Paris, Rome, pick one, anyone, Sure you can buy a (literally) closet to live in NYC for $1M..... Indeed this type of concentration has the potential to be exponentially dangerous in many ways and on many levels. 9/11 was an unfortunate demonstration. The next disaster can be as simple and as close as an NYC UNION garbage strike etc. San Francisco's last big one was mudder natural, aka 1906 " EARF" quake. The more recent Loma Prieta Earthquake was far from kind also.
Another question might be what populations are beating a path to migrate to say Detroit?
The automobile has literally been a complex tool, whether you like it, hate it or are totally indifferent, etc. So on the one hand you say getting rid of it is in your dreams yet Gagrice is correct and in effect you confirm that what he has said is true. Since this is a diesel thread, the Harvard study showed that bio diesel has lower emissions than so called electrical "plug in ". This of course burns a huge hole in the widely held view that electrical plug in is "BEST"
ONLY IN YOUR DREAMS :shades:
Not even in my grandkids life will that happen. Hopefully by the time they get their drivers license there will be a lot of high mileage diesel cars and trucks for them to choose from. When ever we get out of the dark ages. For the cities polluted like London, just put a tax on driving inside the city limits. It won't affect me I hate going into ANY city. I waste extra fossil fuel to drive around rather than through them.
Classic unsupported and pie-in-the-sky rhetoric from hypnodude. :P
The real push has to be in breaking our automobile dependency, of whatever type. Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs at profound, unsustainable social and environmental costs.. "...
So what is the length x width of 347.22222 sq ft?
So if you can sustain the $ costs and stand the social and environmental costs, I tip my hat !
6. Manhattan
Price: $4,320 per sq. ft.
What you get for $1.5 million: Studio apartment
Annual price change: 25%
At the high end, Manhattan continues to boom even as the credit crunch deepens. In fact, in the first quarter of 2008 average prices were up 19% and the price per square foot was up 16%, according to the Corcoran Group. There are several reasons: First, the city has been shielded from the subprime crisis, largely because its co-ops and condos are well out of reach of most buyers with poor credit and shaky finances. Second, it remains a popular destination for movers and shakers in the financial, entertainment, and media world. Last, because of the weak dollar it is more affordable than ever for wealthy foreigners looking for a Manhattan pied-à-terre.
link title
He should enjoy the debate on this thread.
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f146c1e/2145
..."The Accord — a demonstration car provided by Robert Bosch, the German technology company, to highlight its fuel injectors and other diesel components — returned a remarkable 53 miles a gallon on the highway, 34 in the city and 44 in combined driving. Those miles included a bumper-to-bumper crawl through Manhattan, the worst possible conditions for fuel efficiency. "...
link title
He should enjoy the debate on this thread.
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f146c1e/2145
Please don't send him there. :P
Reflecting on diesel experiences, it is FAR too logical this is an economy car (par excellence') to: rates total integration across a product line. I will go so far as to say D2 is better in most ways than gassers. All things being equal, (they are not obviously) I would want all current (past also) selections to have been diesel. Indeed I would have bought far fewer vehicles if they were. Perhaps that is part of the problem.
When I set aside my own diesel car experiences, it is clear a diesel (at this stage) is an acquired taste, not unlike hybrid when they first came out.
While (the over priced) Prius is the name most associated with Hybrids, Honda first hit the market with the hybrid Insight. It had mpg in spades. Honda had absolutely two fine hybrid products in the Insight & Civic, yet the consciousness/marketing/sales goes to Toyota Prius. Both the Insight & Civic cost (FAR) less than the Prius, yet Prius was more successful from a marketing/sales perspective. My sense now is that Honda wants to take a different tack (high end) for diesel introduction into this country. From my diesel experiences, clearly a (majority) detriment. However the only experiences one usually cares about is ones own.
1) Acura owners are paying for PUG which is close to diesel in price. They are probably less sensitive to the difference in price (higher income levels).
2) Honda may need a bit more time to get the engine production numbers up.
3) Logistics, Honda is doing very well. All those extra car sales are probably putting a bit of a strain on their system. Rolling out a new product will take more time. I'm sure they don't want to rush the product to market.
They already have the diesel in the TSX.. it's the Euro Accord.. All they have to do it make it EPA compliant..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Diesel mechanics (passenger vehicles) are truly scarce. Even VW dealers where you are supposed to get oem sanctioned service for VW diesels, seem to at best, have diesel mechanics who seem only to throw parts and shoddy labor at diesels.
Definition of niche vehicle. It's not a very enthusiastic runout on Honda's part IMO.
I understand by way of Edmunds.com Honda Civic threads there is an a squeeze on (remaining )08 Civics @ MSRP +. Makes you wonder what the 09 Civics will go for.
Actually we should be thanking them for making the cars meet the standards. Most of the people in the country would like to breath clean air. The standards are needed.
http://www.swri.org/3pubs/ttoday/spring06/PDFs/Particulars.pdf
The Euro 6 standard will be close to the US standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards
The big oil companies are more like monopolies or utility companies. There has been many occasions in my state (ks) where utility companies have requested rate increases when the winter was very mild or the summer was very cool, etc. Their reasoning always goes that because less fuel or electricity was used their sales and profits are down, thus they need an increase. This is a case of increasing prices because of lower demand.
Just a few days ago someone asked one of the big oil company execs why the price of gasoline continued to rise even though oil prices were going down. His reply was that gas prices continued to rise because they were concerned about a possible lower demand in the U.S.
You can bet that if we somehow cut our use of oil by 50% in the U.S. you would see gas prices increase by at least 50% to maintain their profits. If we went from an average of 25 mpg to an average of 50 mpg in the U.S. the price of gas would probably go to $8.00 a gal as our reward.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
link title
Epidemiologic studies of different occupational cohorts consistently show that the risk of lung cancer among workers classified as having been exposed to diesel exhaust is approximatley 1.2 to 1.5 times the risk in those classified as unexposed.
Let's face it: fuel emissions from fossil fuels is never good for us. It's a necessary evil in our society, however.
Reducing the bad stuff and destroying it before it enters the atmosphere is good for us all. That's why the advanced filters in the new diesel cars are beneficial to us all and we should welcome them.
If you DO really believe that (and as sensible as you seem to be I cannot see how you would actually REALLY think that) then WHOM do you believe is behind such a conspiracy?
And from where comes their power?