Not to state the overwhelmingly obvious, but EVERYTHING is geared for greater consumption, @ a greater rates, @ greater prices, etc. Funny how when the shoes are on the other feet (centipede here) , (China for example) we can CLEARLY see this. If it is a worthy goal to vault a good % of 1.2 billion folks (or whatever they have since multiplied to) from complete and utter poverty to the ranks of the "middle class", EVEN if they are totally green, we are looking at the potential of 4x greater population than the US!!! (AKA minimum of 4x GREATER consumption). Then there is Russia, India, South America, etc.
Gary - in the 1990s, was there ANYONE, ANYWHERE besides the most far left greenies who wanted to "save oil?"
I would say most of the EU wanted to and did something about it. I started my search for a small diesel PU truck in 1998 when I saw one that had been driven from the tip of So America to the Arctic ocean. The two guys from Brazil were averaging 45 MPG with a Ford Ranger crew cab that has never been allowed into the USA for sale. That was at the time of super cheap oil under $10 per barrel. I have always been cheap when it comes to buying gas. I was not going to switch to a smaller gas PU that only saved me 2-3 MPG. That just seemed stupid.
I think putting that on the EPA is a little of an unreasonable reach.
Of course you do. That would be calling a spade a spade. Face it NOTHING was done during the 1990s to save a drop of oil.
And tell us Oh Wise One - what can a guvmint agency do to make people drive less?
It looks like they are doing just that. Watching the price of gas go up and wringing their hands like they wish they could do something. While all along they are counting the coins in their Congressional war chests. This fits the current Congress agenda, to make folks more dependent on government. Just wait a while. They will come up with a program like food stamps and call it "GAS Stamps"
Enough of the diesel crybaby stuff already !! Diesel was not allowed in the 1990s because the exhaust was too dirty. Nothing else was behind that decision.
Gary says, "Face it NOTHING was done during the 1990s to save a drop of oil. "
I never said there was. What I said was "whose job was that?" and if you say the EPA then I say "how" and you don't have an answer.
..."Enough of the diesel crybaby stuff already !! Diesel was not allowed in the 1990s because the exhaust was too dirty. Nothing else was behind that decision"...
We have shown this to be patently false!! We have shown it more than once and you continue to ignore the facts.
if you say the EPA then I say "how" and you don't have an answer.
Of course I have an answer. For every drop of oil that is burned we get CO, CO2, PM, NoX, SO etc, etc. The EPA is falling flat when it comes to cutting consumption via any way possible. That would include using alternatives and DIESEL. If the EU can do it so could we. There was no incentive in Washington DC to cut the use of fossil fuel. It was cha ching as usual. For the amount of energy put out you get less of several pollutants out of diesel than gas.
The only reason we have stayed on the gas standard is it is a waste product of the Oil industry and we are the lucky recipients of that less than great fuel. It started that way over 100 years ago, when John D Rockefeller outfoxed Henry Ford, and is still the same today.
Why are we getting so much refined gas from the UK? They don't need it because their car buyers are given a choice in the matter. Here in the land of the free we are held prisoner to that smelly old waste product "GASOLINE". I forgot, we get a choice, regular, midgrade or Premium..... :P
No, it's not "patently false" at all. It's the fact. Sorry. The regulations (good ones in my opinion) were rightfully too strict for the 1990s diesel technology to be clean enough.
Plus - VERY few people in the 1990s wanted diesel sedans in the USA. The market, and the filter technology, were not ready.
Indeed if we had a significant % of the population being diesel we could "export" the lower yielding & higher cost per mile driven RUG to PUG, even as we get 20-40 % better fuel consumption. (aka consume less fuel)
The regulations (good ones in my opinion) were rightfully too strict for the 1990s diesel technology to be clean enough.
Naivete, what can I say?
I guess we just accept that the Europeans are smarter than we are. They figured out that the bulk of the problem with diesel was sulfur. Just as we figured out that lead was harmful in gas. The 1980s brought a lot of diesels. Many of the VW and MB diesels are still running fine. It was regulation not consumers that killed the diesel market. They continued to build big PU trucks with big diesel engines. Are you saying the BIG 3 Diesel PU trucks and SUVs are all clean burning? If a one ton diesel is OK, why not a 1/2 ton with half the sized diesel engine burning half the diesel and half the pollution? That is all I wanted. The EPA in their infinite wisdom says you want a diesel. BUY A BIG ONE that pollutes a lot. CARB says we don't care if you got a big honkin' diesel truck with straight exhaust. We won't even force you to have a smog test every two years like we do with all the cars. You know the result. They sold big PU trucks with diesel engines by the boat load. Dodge was delivering 70% of their full sized trucks with diesel engines. That in spite of the fact that they cost a lot more. Yes you are very naive when it comes to our government.
If I did not have to consider my other half in my transportation needs, I would drive a stick.
I bet if the choice was between no car at all and a manual, all of the yuppies and princesses would learn right quick how do drive stick.
I find is funny but also a bit sad at the same time that somehow many people just assume that women can't drive stick in this country, despite plenty of evidence around the world that it's just not remotely true.
"I can't get one because my (insert significant other of choice) doesn't (insert lame excuse of choice)"
My mom - at almost 70, can drive stick. So can virtually anyone from the 40s and 50s and 60s. They had no choice and did just fine.
The most dangerous component of diesel exhaust is particulate matter.
The main health problems are solved with a particulate filter - not necessarily lower sulfur.
Diesel engines are required in large PU trucks because of the work load they do. The EPA did not want to regulate farmers and ranchers out of business.
Small diesel cars were not needed because:
There has never been a strong market for diesel CARS in the USA.
Gary incorrectly says, "It was regulation not consumers that killed the diesel market."
Oh Really, Gary? If that is so, then can you name me a year before regulation hit the diesel cars that diesel CAR demand was high.............?
Nope. Because diesel cars were never, EVER, more than a super small % of the USA market.
Your argument is that regulations killed the demand.
My argument is "What demand?" What year was the demand so high?
What year were hundreds of thousand of buyers on waiting lists at VW dealerships when the EPA Police came in and said "No Diesel For You !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
That never happened Gary. The demand was NEVER there.
P.S. A few dozen thousand "super-loyal diesel diehards" does not a national market make.
This it not a negative attack on diesel exhaust. It's just to show Gary that EU countries are dealing with diesel pollution in various ways. It's like closing the barn door after the horses are gone if you ask me.
Beginning on Jan. 1, 2005, people who live near highly traveled roads and are forced to constantly breathe diesel fumes will be able to take their cases for cleaner air before German administrative courts -- another innovation. The German council of cities expects this provision of the legislation to produce a flood of lawsuits.
Environmental groups throughout Germany have been getting their legal dossiers ready for weeks. Attorneys specializing in environmental law are preparing briefs. An administration court is likely to be hearing a case relating to the consequences of the EU guideline by as early as the end of January, when a Berlin resident, supported by the environmental group BUND, is planning to file a suit against the German capital for cleaner air.
A number of European cities, like Rome, are choking on traffic problems. The suit's prospects are good. For years, limits for soot particles have been exceeded along some of Berlin's main downtown thoroughfares. And scientists generally concur that the so-called fine dust isn't just unpleasant, but in fact is extremely hazardous to health. Dust particles that are only 0.1 micrometers in diameter can easily enter the blood stream through the lungs and experts consider these particles to be especially toxic and carcinogenic. According to a study by the Federal Environmental Agency, 14,000 German deaths a year are attributable to diseases caused by diesel exhaust gas.
So I don't know "how much smarter" the EU is than we are.
Without proper filters and exhaust technology, diesel exhaust is just not good news for air breathing creatures.
60,000 BlueTec vehicles on the roads in everyday use; 400 million liters of diesel fuel saved
Stuttgart -- Jun 13, 2008 -- Daimler has been offering its highly-efficient BlueTec diesel technology for commercial vehicles since early 2005 - and with great success. Since then, around 160,000 BlueTec commercial vehicles have taken to the streets of Europe, including Mercedes-Benz heavy trucks and Vario vans, as well as Mercedes-Benz and Setra buses.
Over 90 percent of these vehicles already fulfill the Euro5 emissions standard not due for introduction until autumn 2009. So far, these BlueTec vehicles have saved their operators around 400 million liters of diesel fuel and the environment 100 million tones of CO2 emissions. In total, they have covered well over one billion kilometers - providing outstanding proof of their capabilities. With the order of Mercedes-Benz city buses from Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT), environmentally-friendly BlueTec technology is now finding its way into South East Asia.
The new BlueTec diesel technology is the most efficient means of fulfilling EU4 and EU5 emissions regulations for commercial vehicles. So far, BlueTec is unique in combining ecological requirements with economic factors. Compared to the previous EU3 standard, exhaust gases contain at least 80 percent fewer particulates and up to 60 percent less nitrogen oxide. At the same time, BlueTec vehicles consume between two and five percent less diesel fuel. Over an average distance of 150,000 kilometers, this equates to a saving of 1,500 to 2,000 liters of fuel per year.
That never happened Gary. The demand was NEVER there.
You are just plain WRONG!
The wait for a diesel VW Dasher or Rabbit in the late 1970s and early 1980s was at least a year. I know because I wanted one and ended up with a POC 1978 Honda Accord. I could not wait a year to get a vehicle.
You are wrong about diesel demand when they are made available. You are wrong about the need for Big Diesel PU Trucks. At least half the purchasers of a 3/4 ton diesel PU could get by fine with a 1/2 ton diesel PU. The reason they go for the diesel 3/4 ton is simple. It gets better mileage than the 1/2 ton gasser. A 4 or 5 cylinder diesel engine in a 1/2 ton PU could save at least 40% on fuel over the gas versions with equal towing capacity.
All the EU problems with diesel are the same as here. Semi trucks running in the cities with NO particulate traps on dirty diesel. Plus you quoted old sources before the EU adopted ULSD at 15 PPM across the different countries.
I would be for banning ALL vehicles inside big cities as long as they have a way to get around them. No gas or diesel vehicle is ZEV rated. Which is the only way you can have no exhaust emissions. AT-PZEV vehicles still spew crap I don't want to breath. Another good reason to not live in a city. For those that think their PZEV car don't stink, let me hold your nose to the exhaust while it is running.
What year were hundreds of thousand of buyers on waiting lists at VW dealerships when the EPA Police came in and said "No Diesel For You !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Maybe you would like to tell US when there was a waiting list of 100s or 1000s of buyers for any eagerly anticipated vehicle or vehicles. You can call the sales department at Drew VW here in La Mesa CA. Ask them how many requests they get for diesel models every day. They would have bought my Passat TDI for more than invoice if I was not so greedy and wanted MSRP and a little more for it. Just like the Prius. They did not have much demand until a few got out and people gave them a thumbs up. Then they became popular. Same will happen with the diesels that are offered in all 50 states.
If the EPA & CARB were not so anal they would have allowed smaller diesel PUs and avoided 100s of 1000s of BIG diesel PU trucks clogging the highways. Running straight exhaust with no PM filter. Those do drop mileage you know.
I hope the clean diesel 50-state cars DO take off.
But even the most optimistic projections put diesel car demand in the USA at most 15% of the market by I think they said 2030.
If what you think is true about demand is REALLY true, then when the 50-state diesels hit we will see tons of news stories about the buying frenzy for them.
And that might happen for the first YEAR, while all the diesel diehards get their cars.
But after that...............we'll see...................
But that future demand says NOTHING about demand in the 1990s, which is the era we are talking about.
The 1990s demand WAS............NOT..............THERE..............for diesel cars in the USA.
Is it "smarter" ( your word ) to regulate the diesel cars before they hit the streets or wait until after the pollution is in the air, and deal with it then with clean air initiatives ($$$) and battle lawsuits ($$$) like the EU is now facing?
I think we all know the logical, reasonable answer to that one. I don't think even the diesel diehards on this forum are going to say that the EU way is better.
This is a story from last week about how German kids are dealing with health issues due to vehicle air pollution - specifically diesel particulate matter. Not old - this is current from 4 days ago.
Traffic-Related Pollution Linked to Allergies in Kids By Todd Neale, Staff Writer, MedPage Today Published: June 13, 2008 Reviewed by Dori F. Zaleznik, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
MUNICH, Germany, June 13 -- Traffic-related pollution in metropolitan areas was associated with an increased risk for atopic and respiratory diseases in children, researchers here said.
Children who lived less than 50 meters from a busy road had a 66% higher risk of being diagnosed with asthmatic bronchitis or asthma than those who lived farther away (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.59), Joachim Heinrich, Ph.D., of the Institute of Epidemiology, and colleagues reported in the June 15 issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
Those who lived near a major road were also at a 33% increased risk for allergic sensitization to pollen (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.78).
Both associations weakened in a distance-dependent manner the farther away the children lived, they said.
"Our findings provide strong evidence for the adverse effects of traffic-related air pollutants on atopic diseases as well as on allergic sensitization," they said.
The prevalence of allergic diseases has risen in Europe in the past decades, the researchers said, and one possible explanation for the increase is the exposure to traffic-related pollutants.
DISCLAIMER: This, again, is not an attack on diesel exhaust. It's to point out AGAIN that the EU has not necessarily been" smarter" by their premature adoption of diesel cars without sufficient filter technology.
In the absence of anything other than your opinion Gary, I think it's nearing the time you admit that the EU was not "smarter" in adopting diesel cars before the emission filter technology was developed.
The EPA knows what it is doing regarding public health and diesel vehicle regulation.
I don't know, it is NOT the Europeans that are defending their own oil interests. Last I checked, it was OUR Armed Forces!!! NATO has expanded not contracted.
The 1990s demand WAS............NOT..............THERE..............for diesel cars in the USA.
You really do not need to yell. Maybe you could clue us in as to what diesel cars were available in the 1990s other than VW or MB? I know I was looking for a small PU truck with a diesel engine and could not find one. Makes it difficult to buy a vehicle when they are not offered for sale in this country.
There were no diesel emission restrictions during that time by the EPA. In the case of small diesel PU trucks it was controlled by tariffs. How convenient was that? The countries that offered small diesel PU trucks were locked out of our market by a 25% tariff. Of course the EPA and our Congress would never do anything under the table to satisfy certain lobbies.
Sorry, but Gary has to admit no such thing. Europe has a flourishing diesel market while the U.S. continues to be handcuffed to gasoline. We continue to waste money and resources because of archaic rules and regs. Their health is certainly no worse than ours.
Because someone understands that our political system deals with lobby groups and political agendas does not make them a conspiracy nut.
In the absence of anything other than your opinion Gary, I think it's nearing the time you admit that the EU was not "smarter" in adopting diesel cars before the emission filter technology was developed.
Are you crazy? The EU is not restricting diesel car sales. They are systematically having the automakers improve emissions. That is EXACTLY how the USA has done it with gas cars. They did not pass regulations back in 1975 saying no more gas cars till they are all SULEV II. No I believe the EPA and CARB got the cart ahead of the horse and we are paying the price at the pump. We are wasting billions of barrels of oil because of the lame brains allowed to infiltrate those two agencies. NO balance except on the rare occasion the President may say enough is enough. He does not use that authority enough in my opinion.
Essentially as an opening salvo,short term goals: the barriers should be brought down, to where diesels comprise 10-20-25% of the over all passenger fleet. As a example SUV's are 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
My posts have required admission that I am correct.............from any logical viewpoint anyway. I have shown that the EU is now paying for their hastiness to accept diesel with health and air pollution problems and lawsuits.
They jumped the gun and let the cars in before the regulation and now they are paying the price - and it will continue to cause them lost money, lost work time due to health problems, and sick kids.
The EPA has it right - get the regs in place, and have the diesel cars here when they are CLEAN.
...I think something got lost in the shuffle Gary - I don't think you are understanding me, because if you were, then there is NO WAY we could be disagreeing.......
So you think allowing the air to get dirty first and THEN worrying about cleaning it and the cars up and dealing with lawsuits and asthma epidemics, like the EU has done, is better than the EPA regulating the air to be clean before you start?
I just want to make it clear that you agree with that statement in the way I stated it.....so everyone else besides myself can see the folly of you agreeing with that statement...........
HOSTS - please step in and pipe your opinion. Who did it right - the EU or the EPA?
It does not matter how many cars or car brands were available. Neither MB diesels nor VW diesels were a significant chunk of auto sales. That's how we know the demand was low. The market has shown through the decades that when cars are in demand, the demand will be met sooner or later.
Simple math:
Demand High = LARGE sales volume = SUVs Demand Low = LOW sales volume = diesel cars in the 1990s
None of your posts on the EU diesel problems separate trucks, trains, cars & buses from the fray. How can you say with any amount of confidence that it is the diesel cars that are the problem in the EU? So their trucks, trains and buses are not causing any of the pollution? I want balance you are thinking lopsided just as the EPA and CARB. Make it look like we are doing something for the air by stopping a guy from buying a Smart Fortwo diesel. A car that was tested and claimed to be cleaner than 1200 models of gas cars. There is no balance it is totally screwed up by people with an agenda and CLEAN air is not their goal.
Why, pray tell, is it anymore important for the average truck driver to have a diesel truck than the average citizen to have a diesel car? He can get a gas engine that will pull that trailer down the road just fine. Sure it may cost him twice as much in gas. Well guess what? It costs me twice as much in gas also.
The truth is the trucking industry pays through the nose to Congress for that looking the other way while they spew out tons of PM. But CARB will say it is under control there will be no new VW Jetta TDIs being sold to pollute our air. They have to wait until the car is broke in at 7500 miles then it will be clean and we will let it into our pristine state. Only one word to describe your view of government, Naive!
Just another senseless post with NO substantiation. MB sedan sales were 80% diesel till blocked by regulations in 1999. Same for the Suburban diesel. The only diesel allowed in an SUV was the ultra large Excursion that was mostly sold in diesel. I know most all the ones in Alaska were diesel. Who in their right mind would buy a V10 gas engine that got 6 MPG.
MB diesel sales numbers for 199x? What year? New stories about lack of diesel proliferation in the 1990s?
How about VW? Sales figgars? What do you require?
Whatever it is, I will find it and post it. I know I am correct. You are coming from a blinded perspective - a diesel lover. I'm coming from more of a neutral position than you are. I love clean diesels but not the older dirty ones.
US Sales of VW Diesel Cars Climbed Sharply in April 8 May 2006
Bloomberg. Sales of Volkswagen cars with diesel engines reached a record 22% of VW’s total sales last month. VW posted sales of 20,528 units of all vehicles in the US in April, an 11.2% increase from April 2005.
In 2005, diesels represented 14% of Volkswagens sold in the US, and 12% each for 2004 and 2003. The company currently offers four models with a diesel option: the Jetta, the New Beetle the Golf (now renamed the Rabbit), and the Touareg SUV.
The US VW diesel cars all currently use a 4-cylinder, 1.9-liter engine and offer fuel economies (depending upon vehicle and transmission) from 37 mpg to 40 mpg US combined. (The Touareg diesel uses a 10-cylinder, 5.0-liter engine that offers 19 mpg US combined.)
In April, the diesel versions accounted for 38% of 9,930 total Jetta purchases; 40% of 3,580 total New Beetle purchases, and 13% of 1,875 total Golf purchases according to the company. Diesel sales of the Golf were constrained by a dwindling supply before the coming switchover to the new model (the reborn Rabbit).
When the time came to replace his Volkswagen Passat in late 2003, Andres Zervigon, an associate professor of art history at the University of La Verne, traveled all the way up to Santa Maria to purchase the exceptionally rare fuel-efficient vehicle he was looking for. Zervigon, however, was not hunting for a Toyota Prius or a Honda Civic Hybrid; instead, he was after a diesel-engined Volkswagen Golf TDI.
“I was debating between a hybrid and a diesel,” he recalled.
Yet with memories of growing up with a Mercedes-Benz 220 D in the family still fresh in his mind, and upon doing plenty of research, Zervigon decided to go diesel.
And he is not alone; according to data from a study conducted by R.L. Polk & Company, almost 470,000 new diesel-powered passenger vehicles were registered in the United States in 2004, an increase of nearly 56 percent over those in 2000. In Western Europe, meanwhile, approximately half of all new passenger vehicles registered last year were diesels.
"Volkswagen's move bucks a trend in recent years toward more powerful gasoline engines. Diesel-powered cars have nearly disappeared from auto showrooms.
Mr. Young declined to predict how many diesel cars the company expected to sell. The Rabbit diesel, introduced in 1977, reached a peak of 150,000 sales in 1980. Sales of the Golf diesel slipped to 14,600 annually by the time that model was discontinued."
So although I don't know what year the Golf diesel was discontinued, but the demand was slipping. So if there was a demand in the 1990s, it happened after this.
COMPANY NEWS; 2 Diesel Models From Mercedes SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES Published: February 8, 1990
LEAD: Mercedes-Benz said it would offer two new models in the United States that are equipped with turbocharged diesel engines. The plan renews the company's commitment to a small but loyal group of diesel car buyers in this country. The 300D, introduced for sale this week, sells for $39,700, the company said.
Mercedes-Benz said it would offer two new models in the United States that are equipped with turbocharged diesel engines. The plan renews the company's commitment to a small but loyal group of diesel car buyers in this country. The 300D, introduced for sale this week, sells for $39,700, the company said. The 350SDL, which will make its debut in May, has a larger engine and will cost $56,800.
CARB Study: Low Sulfur Diesel Produced Lower Emissions than CNG
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A transit bus equipped with a particulate filter running on low sulfur diesel fuel produced lower emissions than a compressed natural gas bus, according to a study released April 18 by the California Air Resources Board.
Your contention has been from the first you posted here was that not many folks want a diesel car because of numerous reasons. My contention since 1998 on this forum was give US a chance to buy and then the automakers will know. They go through ups and downs just as the Prius did. They were discounting hybrids less than a year ago.
If during the 1990s, the big years for SUVs, a diesel model was offered along with a gas version they would have and did sell well. Diesel Suburbans were very popular. In spite of the early problems GM had with diesel engines. If you had ever spent any time driving a modern diesel car, your opinions would carry more weight. In fact I would be so bold to say that not many here that have owned a diesel car are on your side of the issues. At least I drove a Prius twice before I dissed it.
OK, I asked a simple question and you responded with a question. I thought you might actually talk technical details about the diesel/auto combinations - besides the mpg numbers.
"Nissan is concerned that turbo lag associated with turbocharged engines mated to an automatic transmission would deter new buyers from opting for the diesel powertrain."
My take on the article, I did not think that diesel turbos had much of a lag. I know gasser turbos can have a bit of a lag. Can someone expand on the diesel turbo lag issue?
Second, I wonder if Nissan, being heavy into CVTs, did not have a auto trans that matched well. The Murano has 248 lbs of torque, and as far as I know, that is the largest/most powerful engine that has a CVT. The diesel Maxima will have over 300 lbs of torque, yes/no??? They probably do not have a CVT strong enough for the diesel.
"that we are truly fuel economy minded"
That is just one example of why we are not fuel economy minded. And besides, how could people grab the steering wheel and talk on their cell phone at the same time if they had to shift a manual. :confuse:
That test was done in 2002 before they banned diesel car sales in CA. I have made up my mind what I think of CARB and their small diesel car ban. They are bought off pure and simple.
Comments
While I personally would not characterize myself as far left, I do resemble the rest of YOUR remark!!
Indeed for me it started 37 years ago with a 1970 Beetle (first car) in 1971. @30-32 mpg.
(as I edit this, it seems almost like ancient history........
I meant anyone with any political clout who could actually DO ANYTHING about it.
I would say most of the EU wanted to and did something about it. I started my search for a small diesel PU truck in 1998 when I saw one that had been driven from the tip of So America to the Arctic ocean. The two guys from Brazil were averaging 45 MPG with a Ford Ranger crew cab that has never been allowed into the USA for sale. That was at the time of super cheap oil under $10 per barrel. I have always been cheap when it comes to buying gas. I was not going to switch to a smaller gas PU that only saved me 2-3 MPG. That just seemed stupid.
I think putting that on the EPA is a little of an unreasonable reach.
Of course you do. That would be calling a spade a spade. Face it NOTHING was done during the 1990s to save a drop of oil.
And tell us Oh Wise One - what can a guvmint agency do to make people drive less?
It looks like they are doing just that. Watching the price of gas go up and wringing their hands like they wish they could do something. While all along they are counting the coins in their Congressional war chests. This fits the current Congress agenda, to make folks more dependent on government. Just wait a while. They will come up with a program like food stamps and call it "GAS Stamps"
Gary says, "Face it NOTHING was done during the 1990s to save a drop of oil. "
I never said there was. What I said was "whose job was that?" and if you say the EPA then I say "how" and you don't have an answer.
We have shown this to be patently false!! We have shown it more than once and you continue to ignore the facts.
Of course I have an answer. For every drop of oil that is burned we get CO, CO2, PM, NoX, SO etc, etc. The EPA is falling flat when it comes to cutting consumption via any way possible. That would include using alternatives and DIESEL. If the EU can do it so could we. There was no incentive in Washington DC to cut the use of fossil fuel. It was cha ching as usual. For the amount of energy put out you get less of several pollutants out of diesel than gas.
The only reason we have stayed on the gas standard is it is a waste product of the Oil industry and we are the lucky recipients of that less than great fuel. It started that way over 100 years ago, when John D Rockefeller outfoxed Henry Ford, and is still the same today.
Why are we getting so much refined gas from the UK? They don't need it because their car buyers are given a choice in the matter. Here in the land of the free we are held prisoner to that smelly old waste product "GASOLINE". I forgot, we get a choice, regular, midgrade or Premium..... :P
Plus - VERY few people in the 1990s wanted diesel sedans in the USA. The market, and the filter technology, were not ready.
You are aiming your vitriol at the wrong group !!
It's the American Public who did not want to buy 1990s era diesel cars that you should be mad at !!
You think it was the guvmint's fault - but can the guvmint FORCE anyone in the USA to buy a car they do not want?
I don't think so.
So the reality of the matter is more like:
Why consume 1 gal when TWO will DO !!!!!
Naivete, what can I say?
I guess we just accept that the Europeans are smarter than we are. They figured out that the bulk of the problem with diesel was sulfur. Just as we figured out that lead was harmful in gas. The 1980s brought a lot of diesels. Many of the VW and MB diesels are still running fine. It was regulation not consumers that killed the diesel market. They continued to build big PU trucks with big diesel engines. Are you saying the BIG 3 Diesel PU trucks and SUVs are all clean burning? If a one ton diesel is OK, why not a 1/2 ton with half the sized diesel engine burning half the diesel and half the pollution? That is all I wanted. The EPA in their infinite wisdom says you want a diesel. BUY A BIG ONE that pollutes a lot. CARB says we don't care if you got a big honkin' diesel truck with straight exhaust. We won't even force you to have a smog test every two years like we do with all the cars. You know the result. They sold big PU trucks with diesel engines by the boat load. Dodge was delivering 70% of their full sized trucks with diesel engines. That in spite of the fact that they cost a lot more. Yes you are very naive when it comes to our government.
If I did not have to consider my other half in my transportation needs, I would drive a stick.
I bet if the choice was between no car at all and a manual, all of the yuppies and princesses would learn right quick how do drive stick.
I find is funny but also a bit sad at the same time that somehow many people just assume that women can't drive stick in this country, despite plenty of evidence around the world that it's just not remotely true.
"I can't get one because my (insert significant other of choice) doesn't (insert lame excuse of choice)"
My mom - at almost 70, can drive stick. So can virtually anyone from the 40s and 50s and 60s. They had no choice and did just fine.
(incessant snickering)
The main health problems are solved with a particulate filter - not necessarily lower sulfur.
Diesel engines are required in large PU trucks because of the work load they do. The EPA did not want to regulate farmers and ranchers out of business.
Small diesel cars were not needed because:
There has never been a strong market for diesel CARS in the USA.
Gary incorrectly says, "It was regulation not consumers that killed the diesel market."
Oh Really, Gary? If that is so, then can you name me a year before regulation hit the diesel cars that diesel CAR demand was high.............?
Nope. Because diesel cars were never, EVER, more than a super small % of the USA market.
Your argument is that regulations killed the demand.
My argument is "What demand?" What year was the demand so high?
What year were hundreds of thousand of buyers on waiting lists at VW dealerships when the EPA Police came in and said "No Diesel For You !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
That never happened Gary. The demand was NEVER there.
P.S. A few dozen thousand "super-loyal diesel diehards" does not a national market make.
2004 story on diesel pollution problems in Germany
Beginning on Jan. 1, 2005, people who live near highly traveled roads and are forced to constantly breathe diesel fumes will be able to take their cases for cleaner air before German administrative courts -- another innovation. The German council of cities expects this provision of the legislation to produce a flood of lawsuits.
Environmental groups throughout Germany have been getting their legal dossiers ready for weeks. Attorneys specializing in environmental law are preparing briefs. An administration court is likely to be hearing a case relating to the consequences of the EU guideline by as early as the end of January, when a Berlin resident, supported by the environmental group BUND, is planning to file a suit against the German capital for cleaner air.
A number of European cities, like Rome, are choking on traffic problems.
The suit's prospects are good. For years, limits for soot particles have been exceeded along some of Berlin's main downtown thoroughfares. And scientists generally concur that the so-called fine dust isn't just unpleasant, but in fact is extremely hazardous to health. Dust particles that are only 0.1 micrometers in diameter can easily enter the blood stream through the lungs and experts consider these particles to be especially toxic and carcinogenic. According to a study by the Federal Environmental Agency, 14,000 German deaths a year are attributable to diseases caused by diesel exhaust gas.
So I don't know "how much smarter" the EU is than we are.
Without proper filters and exhaust technology, diesel exhaust is just not good news for air breathing creatures.
Regulation FIRST and deal with cleaner air to start with,
OR
Allow diesels FIRST then clean the air LATER and pay for lawsuits like the EU is trying to do?
Which is "smarter" now?
Go Go BlueTec !!!
60,000 BlueTec vehicles on the roads in everyday use; 400 million liters of diesel fuel saved
Stuttgart -- Jun 13, 2008 -- Daimler has been offering its highly-efficient BlueTec diesel technology for commercial vehicles since early 2005 - and with great success. Since then, around 160,000 BlueTec commercial vehicles have taken to the streets of Europe, including Mercedes-Benz heavy trucks and Vario vans, as well as Mercedes-Benz and Setra buses.
Over 90 percent of these vehicles already fulfill the Euro5 emissions standard not due for introduction until autumn 2009. So far, these BlueTec vehicles have saved their operators around 400 million liters of diesel fuel and the environment 100 million tones of CO2 emissions. In total, they have covered well over one billion kilometers - providing outstanding proof of their capabilities. With the order of Mercedes-Benz city buses from Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT), environmentally-friendly BlueTec technology is now finding its way into South East Asia.
The new BlueTec diesel technology is the most efficient means of fulfilling EU4 and EU5 emissions regulations for commercial vehicles. So far, BlueTec is unique in combining ecological requirements with economic factors. Compared to the previous EU3 standard, exhaust gases contain at least 80 percent fewer particulates and up to 60 percent less nitrogen oxide. At the same time, BlueTec vehicles consume between two and five percent less diesel fuel. Over an average distance of 150,000 kilometers, this equates to a saving of 1,500 to 2,000 liters of fuel per year.
You are just plain WRONG!
The wait for a diesel VW Dasher or Rabbit in the late 1970s and early 1980s was at least a year. I know because I wanted one and ended up with a POC 1978 Honda Accord. I could not wait a year to get a vehicle.
You are wrong about diesel demand when they are made available. You are wrong about the need for Big Diesel PU Trucks. At least half the purchasers of a 3/4 ton diesel PU could get by fine with a 1/2 ton diesel PU. The reason they go for the diesel 3/4 ton is simple. It gets better mileage than the 1/2 ton gasser. A 4 or 5 cylinder diesel engine in a 1/2 ton PU could save at least 40% on fuel over the gas versions with equal towing capacity.
All the EU problems with diesel are the same as here. Semi trucks running in the cities with NO particulate traps on dirty diesel. Plus you quoted old sources before the EU adopted ULSD at 15 PPM across the different countries.
I would be for banning ALL vehicles inside big cities as long as they have a way to get around them. No gas or diesel vehicle is ZEV rated. Which is the only way you can have no exhaust emissions. AT-PZEV vehicles still spew crap I don't want to breath. Another good reason to not live in a city. For those that think their PZEV car don't stink, let me hold your nose to the exhaust while it is running.
Maybe you would like to tell US when there was a waiting list of 100s or 1000s of buyers for any eagerly anticipated vehicle or vehicles. You can call the sales department at Drew VW here in La Mesa CA. Ask them how many requests they get for diesel models every day. They would have bought my Passat TDI for more than invoice if I was not so greedy and wanted MSRP and a little more for it. Just like the Prius. They did not have much demand until a few got out and people gave them a thumbs up. Then they became popular. Same will happen with the diesels that are offered in all 50 states.
If the EPA & CARB were not so anal they would have allowed smaller diesel PUs and avoided 100s of 1000s of BIG diesel PU trucks clogging the highways. Running straight exhaust with no PM filter. Those do drop mileage you know.
But even the most optimistic projections put diesel car demand in the USA at most 15% of the market by I think they said 2030.
If what you think is true about demand is REALLY true, then when the 50-state diesels hit we will see tons of news stories about the buying frenzy for them.
And that might happen for the first YEAR, while all the diesel diehards get their cars.
But after that...............we'll see...................
But that future demand says NOTHING about demand in the 1990s, which is the era we are talking about.
The 1990s demand WAS............NOT..............THERE..............for diesel cars in the USA.
Is it "smarter" ( your word ) to regulate the diesel cars before they hit the streets or wait until after the pollution is in the air, and deal with it then with clean air initiatives ($$$) and battle lawsuits ($$$) like the EU is now facing?
I think we all know the logical, reasonable answer to that one. I don't think even the diesel diehards on this forum are going to say that the EU way is better.
Kids are unhealthy the closer to the road they live
Traffic-Related Pollution Linked to Allergies in Kids
By Todd Neale, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: June 13, 2008
Reviewed by Dori F. Zaleznik, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
MUNICH, Germany, June 13 -- Traffic-related pollution in metropolitan areas was associated with an increased risk for atopic and respiratory diseases in children, researchers here said.
Children who lived less than 50 meters from a busy road had a 66% higher risk of being diagnosed with asthmatic bronchitis or asthma than those who lived farther away (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.59), Joachim Heinrich, Ph.D., of the Institute of Epidemiology, and colleagues reported in the June 15 issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
Those who lived near a major road were also at a 33% increased risk for allergic sensitization to pollen (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.78).
Both associations weakened in a distance-dependent manner the farther away the children lived, they said.
"Our findings provide strong evidence for the adverse effects of traffic-related air pollutants on atopic diseases as well as on allergic sensitization," they said.
The prevalence of allergic diseases has risen in Europe in the past decades, the researchers said, and one possible explanation for the increase is the exposure to traffic-related pollutants.
DISCLAIMER: This, again, is not an attack on diesel exhaust. It's to point out AGAIN that the EU has not necessarily been" smarter" by their premature adoption of diesel cars without sufficient filter technology.
The EPA knows what it is doing regarding public health and diesel vehicle regulation.
While you “might” be right, I just find this statement so bazaar.
You really do not need to yell. Maybe you could clue us in as to what diesel cars were available in the 1990s other than VW or MB? I know I was looking for a small PU truck with a diesel engine and could not find one. Makes it difficult to buy a vehicle when they are not offered for sale in this country.
There were no diesel emission restrictions during that time by the EPA. In the case of small diesel PU trucks it was controlled by tariffs. How convenient was that? The countries that offered small diesel PU trucks were locked out of our market by a 25% tariff. Of course the EPA and our Congress would never do anything under the table to satisfy certain lobbies.
Because someone understands that our political system deals with lobby groups and political agendas does not make them a conspiracy nut.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Are you crazy? The EU is not restricting diesel car sales. They are systematically having the automakers improve emissions. That is EXACTLY how the USA has done it with gas cars. They did not pass regulations back in 1975 saying no more gas cars till they are all SULEV II. No I believe the EPA and CARB got the cart ahead of the horse and we are paying the price at the pump. We are wasting billions of barrels of oil because of the lame brains allowed to infiltrate those two agencies. NO balance except on the rare occasion the President may say enough is enough. He does not use that authority enough in my opinion.
Mine are for EMPHASIS. Like grammar rules. You remember grammar..........
They jumped the gun and let the cars in before the regulation and now they are paying the price - and it will continue to cause them lost money, lost work time due to health problems, and sick kids.
The EPA has it right - get the regs in place, and have the diesel cars here when they are CLEAN.
So you think allowing the air to get dirty first and THEN worrying about cleaning it and the cars up and dealing with lawsuits and asthma epidemics, like the EU has done, is better than the EPA regulating the air to be clean before you start?
I just want to make it clear that you agree with that statement in the way I stated it.....so everyone else besides myself can see the folly of you agreeing with that statement...........
HOSTS - please step in and pipe your opinion. Who did it right - the EU or the EPA?
Simple math:
Demand High = LARGE sales volume = SUVs
Demand Low = LOW sales volume = diesel cars in the 1990s
Why, pray tell, is it anymore important for the average truck driver to have a diesel truck than the average citizen to have a diesel car? He can get a gas engine that will pull that trailer down the road just fine. Sure it may cost him twice as much in gas. Well guess what? It costs me twice as much in gas also.
The truth is the trucking industry pays through the nose to Congress for that looking the other way while they spew out tons of PM. But CARB will say it is under control there will be no new VW Jetta TDIs being sold to pollute our air. They have to wait until the car is broke in at 7500 miles then it will be clean and we will let it into our pristine state. Only one word to describe your view of government, Naive!
MB diesel sales numbers for 199x? What year? New stories about lack of diesel proliferation in the 1990s?
How about VW? Sales figgars? What do you require?
Whatever it is, I will find it and post it. I know I am correct. You are coming from a blinded perspective - a diesel lover. I'm coming from more of a neutral position than you are. I love clean diesels but not the older dirty ones.
How about the MB diesel sales vs gasser sales of like models from 1980 till 1999?
8 May 2006
Bloomberg. Sales of Volkswagen cars with diesel engines reached a record 22% of VW’s total sales last month. VW posted sales of 20,528 units of all vehicles in the US in April, an 11.2% increase from April 2005.
In 2005, diesels represented 14% of Volkswagens sold in the US, and 12% each for 2004 and 2003. The company currently offers four models with a diesel option: the Jetta, the New Beetle the Golf (now renamed the Rabbit), and the Touareg SUV.
The US VW diesel cars all currently use a 4-cylinder, 1.9-liter engine and offer fuel economies (depending upon vehicle and transmission) from 37 mpg to 40 mpg US combined. (The Touareg diesel uses a 10-cylinder, 5.0-liter engine that offers 19 mpg US combined.)
In April, the diesel versions accounted for 38% of 9,930 total Jetta purchases; 40% of 3,580 total New Beetle purchases, and 13% of 1,875 total Golf purchases according to the company. Diesel sales of the Golf were constrained by a dwindling supply before the coming switchover to the new model (the reborn Rabbit).
“I was debating between a hybrid and a diesel,” he recalled.
Yet with memories of growing up with a Mercedes-Benz 220 D in the family still fresh in his mind, and upon doing plenty of research, Zervigon decided to go diesel.
And he is not alone; according to data from a study conducted by R.L. Polk & Company, almost 470,000 new diesel-powered passenger vehicles were registered in the United States in 2004, an increase of nearly 56 percent over those in 2000. In Western Europe, meanwhile, approximately half of all new passenger vehicles registered last year were diesels.
"Volkswagen's move bucks a trend in recent years toward more powerful gasoline engines. Diesel-powered cars have nearly disappeared from auto showrooms.
Mr. Young declined to predict how many diesel cars the company expected to sell. The Rabbit diesel, introduced in 1977, reached a peak of 150,000 sales in 1980. Sales of the Golf diesel slipped to 14,600 annually by the time that model was discontinued."
So although I don't know what year the Golf diesel was discontinued, but the demand was slipping. So if there was a demand in the 1990s, it happened after this.
I will post more......
We are not discussing diesel demand TODAY or in 2003 or in 2004, but in the 1990s.
It did not exist.
2 Diesel Models From Mercedes
SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: February 8, 1990
LEAD: Mercedes-Benz said it would offer two new models in the United States that are equipped with turbocharged diesel engines. The plan renews the company's commitment to a small but loyal group of diesel car buyers in this country. The 300D, introduced for sale this week, sells for $39,700, the company said.
Mercedes-Benz said it would offer two new models in the United States that are equipped with turbocharged diesel engines. The plan renews the company's commitment to a small but loyal group of diesel car buyers in this country. The 300D, introduced for sale this week, sells for $39,700, the company said. The 350SDL, which will make its debut in May, has a larger engine and will cost $56,800.
Small but loyal - similar to today's following?
Lower Emissions than CNG
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A transit bus equipped with a particulate filter running on low sulfur diesel fuel produced lower emissions than a compressed natural gas bus, according to a study released April 18 by the California Air Resources Board.
Seems like the "demand" must have been SCREAMING with all those news stories on the subject !!!!
If during the 1990s, the big years for SUVs, a diesel model was offered along with a gas version they would have and did sell well. Diesel Suburbans were very popular. In spite of the early problems GM had with diesel engines. If you had ever spent any time driving a modern diesel car, your opinions would carry more weight. In fact I would be so bold to say that not many here that have owned a diesel car are on your side of the issues. At least I drove a Prius twice before I dissed it.
"Nissan is concerned that turbo lag associated with turbocharged engines mated to an automatic transmission would deter new buyers from opting for the diesel powertrain."
My take on the article, I did not think that diesel turbos had much of a lag. I know gasser turbos can have a bit of a lag. Can someone expand on the diesel turbo lag issue?
Second, I wonder if Nissan, being heavy into CVTs, did not have a auto trans that matched well. The Murano has 248 lbs of torque, and as far as I know, that is the largest/most powerful engine that has a CVT. The diesel Maxima will have over 300 lbs of torque, yes/no??? They probably do not have a CVT strong enough for the diesel.
"that we are truly fuel economy minded"
That is just one example of why we are not fuel economy minded. And besides, how could people grab the steering wheel and talk on their cell phone at the same time if they had to shift a manual. :confuse:
Read Entire Article
Most auto manufacturers stopped selling diesels in the United States in the 1990s.
I don't know of anything dumber for them to have done than to stop selling diesels with all the DEMAND which was going on !!!!!! (sarcasm alert)