So the only thing that separates you from Al Gore is the "P" as in PZEV. That you have stated. I will continue to believe your ideas are over the top from a practical standpoint. You are welcome to your opinions I just do not share them. Fuel economy is ahead of PZEV, SULEV, ULEV or even LEV in my list of priorities.
Do you recall me saying every car "SHOULD BE PZEV?"
I don't remember posting that opinion.
I might have said "it would be NICE if all cars were PZEVs" and that is not an opinion - it's a fact.
It WOULD BE NICE for everyone if all cars were PZEVs. A lot less dirty exhaust would be the result.
That's not to say that fuel economy is not important - it is.
But polluting even LESS per vehicle should be the highest priority. If that is achieved with a combination of exhaust controls and high mileage diesel engines that's FINE with me.
I'd bet THIS is what you remember seeing when you accuse me of saying "every car should be PZEV" which I have never posted as being an ongoing belief of mine. This is what you incorrectly translated to mean that:
Right now, the best thing that could happen to the clean air movement in the USA is to immediately require all automakers who sell cars in the USA to build ALL gasoline-powered 6-cylinder and smaller cars as PZEV cars. That is possible and would only cost $300-$500 per vehicle, which the carmakers can pass on to the buyers. That could be done IMMEDIATELY and would clean the air immensely in regard to gasoline exhaust.
Second would be to outlaw all non-ULSD fuel - FORCE anyone who wants to use a diesel powered device use ULSD or park it. That could also be accomplished.
Third would be to force automakers to offer all diesels which are available in other countries to make those cars (including your Ranger truck) available to US buyers.
Those are things we could likely DO instead of just complaining about how things are backwards. You can't magically reverse those things, but we can and SHOULD do some things.
So, I said that hypothetically in the context of the goal of CLEANING THE AIR.
Notice with that I included two things which would improve the lot of diesel car lovers in the USA also.
I never said "make cars PZEV which would cause the EXCLUSION of diesel cars" at all.
P.S. Gary, you do have an uncanny ability to take some of the things I say and twist them in unusual and unexpected ways which bear little or no resemblance to my actual views. If this talent of yours were a profession, you could be GREAT at it !!!
If this talent of yours were a profession, you could be GREAT at it !!!
Are you saying I could be a politician? I hate the spot light. And I am too lazy to expend that much energy.
So I will not spend the time to go and find all your posts where you wanted all cars to be PZEV. It really makes little difference as you have taken the same approach as CARB. It ain't clean enough yet. When you do get it clean enough we can raise the regulations again.
Ford sells the Fiesta in Europe for 24,000 Euros because the cost of manufacturing is very expensive in Europe.
You take the same blueprints and build it in Canada, America, or Mexico... and you find that $28,000 car can now be sold (with profit) at, mostly likely, around $16-18,000.
It's just amazing that Ford and GM actually sign contracts with their European unions that forbid them from moving the manufacturing of their Euro-models to outside Europe.
But hey, this is the same GM and Ford that let's our own unions do the same.
Personally, I like pollution and think we need more of it. If we increased the amount of CO2 in the air, we could recreate the atmosphere of the Jurassic period, which was much higher in CO2 than now. And that was the time period in which we had a radical explosion in plant life... which lead to more food available to animals, who then began to increase in size.
So, maybe we see it happen again. Wouldn't it be great to see 7-ft tall dogs?
But you are trying to stop that, because... in your opinion, you think pollution is bad.
that many cars in Europe sell for far more (in some cases) or far less (in others) than they do in North America. Generally, horsepower and/or displacement is taxed heavily in Europe. As a result, cars that are cheap in NA are often 2X the price over there. OTOH, many inexpensive small cars (with fantastic fuel mileage) widely available in Europe aren't even sold here.
Partly it's an image thing -- BMW & Audi want to keep their badges "upscale." Selling small cars (with efficient motors) certainly doesn't help, so they aren't available. That's part of why I'm driving an Acura TSX, which is sold as an Accord everywhere else in the world. It's smaller than the US Accord & has both a stiffer suspension & a manual transmission, just like in the "old country." My cuppa tea, and I think many others would appreciate the small, efficient European model -- might even pay extra.
Metrics drive behaviour, and the European tax structure may or may not be relevant to any single car sold both there and here. Forget diesel for awhile -- what are the relative prices of identical gas-powered vehicles sold both places? BMW 128, Audi A3, whatever? Generally the prices are higher over there for a variety of reasons. Take 3 or 4 cars equipped the same in Germany (or England) that are sold in the U.S. and see how the prices differ. Use that factor and see how it applies to that magic 65-mpg Ford.
First off I do talk nostalgic about 67 Chevys and even 57 Chevys...they were some damn nice cars......AND you may not be here if them cars did not have a big back seat ! You need to remember that us old farts are people too so when you say people need cars with computers.....leave us out ! Were knew how to drive, we could drive on snow and ice and never needed a computer to do the driving for us ! We handled panic stops with our calibrated feet ! EPS sounds like some kind of STD where ya need to get to the doc for a shot in the back side ! Mechanics and most drivers back in the good old days could tune a engine by ear and get better MPG then the cheap plastic cars of today, the cars back then weight 3 times todays car do and could easily get the same MPG as todays cars, we did not need a computer to set up a computer...........we could do it by ear with a screw driver......good MPG turn the screws one way, want'a race...turn the screw the other way a turn or two ! My Dads 58 Ford Station Wagon (SUV to you) was always tuned up right, he could carry 8-10 neighbor kids to the lake to go fishing and still get 35+ MPG !
Your right about one thing, we need all the computers in cars today, not because its a better system but because todays young drivers cant drive by the seat of their pants !
Your right about one thing, we need all the computers in cars today, not because its a better system but because todays young drivers cant drive by the seat of their pants !
:surprise: Wow, deep breath!
FWIW, vehicle mortality rate is down while vehicle speed is up. Vehicle reliability is way, way up. In a different universe.
Modern vehicles may have lots of confusing, fiddly little bits on them now but they are quicker, quieter, safer and more reliable.
Nothing wrong with classic cars, just something wrong is suggesting that we have passed some kind of high-water mark of vehicular perfection.
You really live in your own world, disconnected from the current civilization. Modern cars whether you like it or not are far better than old cars; imagine an engine with 1.8L displacement that can outrun old V8 engine, with 0 to 60 in 5.0 second, and best of all can on skid test can pull a good G numbers, far better than any car from the old era. Some of the old engines overheated pretty quick, leading to a major repair, old chevy, ford, and chryslers cars did not have a good reliability, their engine did not last past the 200,000 miles mark unless you keep changing parts for that engine. Automotive technology is so advanced right now that they can extract a lot of power from a small engine using a microprocessors that regulate every thing, from fuel mixture to water temperature, to oil, and monitor all the data captured by sensors. Modern cars are better than old junk from the past whether you like it or not, and you’re alone in your thinking. And to let you know, I worked on old engine and I did tune the engine using my ear and a piece of sponge in the tailpipe, to see how the exhaust is coming out of the tailpipe. Carburetors were simple and easy to disassemble and clean, but they weren’t efficient. Some of the V8 cars did have a lot of power, but their weight kept them from getting the numbers that Suburu WRX gets with I4 engine. One more thing, back then if your car lose control in the snow or ice, you will not hit any body, because there weren’t anybody on the road, currently there are over 200 millions cars on the road, you do not need car that stops from 60 to 0 in 300 ft, the standard in most new cars is around 140 ft, and still it is considered bad, the best cars in stopping are in the range of 116 ft and 121 ft. when you have a car that jumps in front of you going at 60 mph you need those brakes to save your life and life of other people. There you have it, believe what you want. :shades:
I believe that today's plastic cars can go for a lot of trouble free miles. They also cost a LOT more to fix with just slight crashes. Many times they are totaled for seemingly minor collisions. The older cars you dent out and touch up the paint. Plus the cost of repairs when the warranty is gone is MUCH higher than the older pre computer cars. Repairing your own car has gotten much more difficult. So not is all great with the new generation of cars.
My take is perhaps different, but I still contrast the advances in both the 4 cylinder 1.9 T to the V8.
Loads of auto industry strides, probably too numerous to mention have been made, but most to all have technological penalties and prices. Also not all technological strides have been fully implemented.
So for example comparing a diesel VW vs gasser. I am still in wonderment after 110,000 miles that a 1.9T 90 hp/155# ft torque TDI can push a 2950 # car all day long (10 hours) at close to xxx digit speeds and still get high 40's mpg.
Fuel Efficient Couple On the Way To Break Guiness World Record For Lowest Fuel Consumption HERNDON, Va. - Two of the world's most fuel efficient drivers, John and Helen Taylor, are a third of the way through their attempt to break the current world record for lowest fuel consumption across the 48 contiguous United States. Today they will be driving into their ninth day, passing through the northern states of the Great Plains, including South Dakota, North Dakota and Montana. To help them along the way, they are driving the all-new, 50-state-compliant clean diesel Volkswagen Jetta TDI, fueled by Shell's best diesel fuel. "The vehicle seating is extremely comfortable and the power point in the car enables lots of work en route to be done while preserving power," said Helen Taylor. "The car is efficiently driving its way to a fuel economy world record." The current Guinness World Record for the lowest fuel consumption on a nationwide drive is 51.58 miles per gallon.
As of end of day, Wednesday, Sept. 10, the Taylor's have driven more than 2,753 miles through more than 24 states averaging about 58.78 US miles per gallon.
"It has been quite an adventure thus far, the world is getting smaller - on day four we met a girl originally from our small town in Australia now residing in Ohio!" said John Taylor. "We are optimistic we should be able to break the current world record if we stay on course and keep our fuel-efficient driving tips in mind."
Actually it does not seem that amazing to me. I would think if you set one up for record mileage you could get even better than that. What car holds the current record?
They are getting close to 900 miles on a tank, which I would really like. I filled one time and got 16 gallons in my Passat TDI. The tank is supposed to be 14.5 gallons. I think the filler tube adds a couple gallons.
Getting 59 mpg might be further interesting in light of the lastest bru ha ha over the EPA mpg (short) rating for the 2009 Jetta TDI !
I really had no doubt even with the increased hp/#ft of torque, that the mpg would be similar to what I get now on a 03 Jetta EPA rating of 42 C /49 H mpg.
I filled one time and got 16 gallons in my Passat TDI. The tank is supposed to be 14.5 gallons. I think the filler tube adds a couple gallons.
The diesel only had a 14.5 gal. tank? The 1.8T gasser has a 16.4 gal. tank, although Inever ran it down past 15 gallons. I wonder why they shorted the diesel?
New cars are a lot easy to repair than older cars. Take it from somebody that have repaired older engine and newer engines. Back then if my car has an engine problem, I have to use a strategy called process by elimination; current cars have a computer and an OBDII connection, all I have to do connect my OBDII scanner get the faulty code and it will point me directly to the problem, change the part and in less than 2 hours I am back on the road. If you are talking about body shop, the price for repairing a crushed old car is the same as the new car, unless you can do the job yourself. for new car it make more sense to replace a door, or a bumper, than spending too much time repairing it.
The diesel version of the smart is the current CO2 champion State-of-the-art compact three-cylinder petrol engines with a capacity of 999 cc are installed at the rear of the smart fortwo. In Western Europe customers can currently choose from two naturally aspirated engine versions with mhd (micro hybrid drive) technology delivering 45 or 52 kW (61/71 hp) respectively, and a turbo engine rated at 62 kW (84 hp). A three-cylinder turbo engine is also at the heart of the 72 kW (98 hp) smart fortwo BRABUS.
In addition, a diesel variant is available – the smart fortwo cdi – which is the world champion in low CO2 emissions. The 33 kW/45 hp two-seater car consumes just 3.3 litres of fuel (NEDC) per 100 kilometres on average, which means that it can travel approximately 1000 kilometres without refuelling.
This was confirmed by the Italian car magazine “Quattroruote” with a 1,000km drive from Rome to Salzburg. At just 88 grams per kilometre it has the lowest CO2 emissions worldwide!
That is 71.28 MPG US Combined.
Of course we get the gas guzzling version, as it is a well known fact the US consumer does not want diesel cars. Why would anyone want to get 71 MPG when you can get 36 MPG in the same car with a gas engine? :sick:
Yes, if the regulators ever change their attitude and begin to promote diesel use in the U.S., THEN, I will take the oil shortage seriously.
Shading the regulations against diesel is a sure sign that something else is going on here. Larsb likes to refer to this idea as a "conspiracy theory". No conspiracy, just an awareness of the power that special interest groups wield in the U.S.
..."Why would anyone want to get 71 MPG when you can get 36 MPG in the same car with a gas engine?"...
Essentially this is Malmouza's argument. Or if it is not his argument, it is what he sees as the US markets' take.
Of course we just went through the environmentalists' (democrats) nirvana period of HIGH per gal fuel prices, and even this short nivana period proved to move the democrats off of the generations old " drill over my dead party's" position.
I am ok with it as long as (folks that want it) I have access to those diesel cars that DO get better MPG: like 71 mpg!! to etc. (in my case 44-62 mpg: when a like model gasser struggles to knock down 30 mpg.) :lemon: :shades: But evidently, even the democrats have a hard time living with the real world effects of their own fantasy policies.
You guys really do need to get some good diesel cars. My old Skoda Fabia vRS, (VW Polo chassis, slightly bigger body with 5 door hatch), 1.9/130bhp TDi + 6MT regularly turned in 54mpg but the temptation to enjoy the torque generally proved too enticing. My current Volvo S60 D5/185bhp + 6A will cruise at 70mph at around 53mpg if I'm being sensible but, once again, the torque and fun factor generally proves irresistible.
As I posted elsewhere - our Spring Euro trip - in the S60 - was 1700 miles and included some 120mph Autobahn cruising plus a little "By jove that was fun" driving up and down Swiss valleys. Overall consumption, (calculated), was decimals over 40mpg. Of course, this is all Imperial mpg but you can do the math.
No hard to see why us "Old World" folk like our oil-burners. Really cannot understand what's stopping your market but conspiracy theories are always fun.
..."Why would anyone want to get 71 MPG when you can get 36 MPG in the same car with a gas engine?"... This is may be your argument; I never said that gasoline cars get more MPG than diesel cars. But I said and proved in more than one occasion that buying a diesel car in USA won’t make any economical sense, because the added premium of $4000 or more versus RUG cars, and the premium you have to pay for the diesel fuel which is more than $1. It does not take a genius to know that you need to keep that diesel car for more than 10 years to break even. I do not keep my cars for more than 5 years. {Ruking1}You are one those people that are here in this forum for all the wrong reasons, you do not bring anything instructive to the table, your posts are all useless. Why anybody would like to pay a premium for the same car that he/she can get for less running on RUG, and then pay premium for the ULSD fuel, just to drive diesel cars??? Until US government change the way they tax ULSD fuel, it will not make an economic sense to buy diesel. You can buy diesel if you’re fanatic about it, me like the majority of people I work hard for my money, I always crunch the numbers, and compare. In the automotive market today they are a lot of alternative vehicles that can save gas and haul 5 people and cost less to own. :shades:
Indeed we do need a wider and better choice of turbo diesels.
We are @ a little at a disadvantage on this side of the pond, in that we do not know /nor is it common knowledge what the European fleet fuel/defacto standards are. In the US, it is 27 mpg fleet, defacto 22 mpg.
This may or may not be as plain as day, but both sides of the pond are definitely grounded in high and ever increasing per mile driven costs.
So for example even @ 9/4 per gal and 45/22 mpg., the per mile driven costs are respectively .20 cents/.1818 cents. While D2/50 mpg in the US is @ .08 cents per mile driven, I take no comfort in the logistical systems' almost relentless increasing of the costs. :lemon:
Coming from you, I should take your vilification as a compliment ! :shades:
Part of the problem is not keeping cars LONGER!
In answer to your question like model VW 1.8T gets 30 mpg 3.77 per gal, TDI gets 50 mpg, 4.08 per gal. Per mile driven that is .126 cents/.0816 cents.
Per your logic, .126 cents is LESS than .0816 cents per gal!! You are arquing the case that .0444 cents MORE per mile driven is cheaper than .0444 cents LESS. This of course is in line with the (twisted) logic you agree with but of course have denied several times:
"..."Why would anyone want to get 71 MPG when you can get 36 MPG in the same car with a gas engine?"... "...
..."You can buy diesel if you’re fanatic about it, me like the majority of people I work hard for my money, I always crunch the numbers, and compare. In the automotive market today they are a lot of alternative vehicles that can save gas and haul 5 people and cost less to own."...
Fanatic? Hardly. We operate a Honda Civic (gasser) side by side. So who doesn't work hard for the money? So yes there are roughly 98% of the passenger vehicle fleet as alternatives to diesels. Like models gassers consume more fuel, on the order of 20-40%.
Lets start with what we really need, thats a vehicle that will go from home to work and back, safely and cheap. Next we need a people mover...for thoses with a family ! Next we need a hauler for those with trailers/boats/critters/etc !
Right now I (if I wanted a new vehicle) would need a cheap, high MPG, safe small car. I do not need to drive over 65 MPH (most times I only drive 55 now) at my age I'm in no hurry ! Similar to a work/grocery getter with no or a single rider ! I do not need 20 speakers or GPS or heated seats etc !
Anyone remember when Honda and Subaru first came out with cars in America ? Small and with 2 cylinder motorcycle engines ! Just think how they would do today !
Can you please educate me as to which particular "special interest groups" are involved in the "anti-diesel" movement?
It almost seems that you are denying that special interest groups and lobbyists exist in the U.S. Hopefully that is not the case.
To answer your question we can start with all the so called green or alternative energy interests. Ethanol, battery technology, hybrid car technology, fuel cell technology, cng technology, and the list goes on and on.
If our fuel costs went down substantially so would their future outlook, so yes, they have a special interest in keeping more cost effective diesel out of the U.S.
Larsb has always been in denial about the special interest groups that use their influence to ban diesel cars and transportation.
Claiming that new clean-diesel technologies such as International's "green diesel" school bus have "no" environmental benefit, American Lung Association of California (ALA-Cal.) launched a new anti-diesel advertising campaign.
That's the claim of the little-known Dump Diesel Coalition, which was ready to plunk down $2,400 to have its anti-diesel ads posted in three bus shelters near San Francisco City Hall.
Is there an anti-diesel conspiracy afoot? Thursday April 17, 2008
I don't often link to articles on other sites, but this editorial by Detroit News columnist John McCormick echoes my thoughts almost verbatim. It has to do with the fact that diesel prices have mysteriously started to creep upwards just as the US is about to get its first proper introduction to diesel cars.
I've always been a big fan of diesel, but I've also thought that it's going to take the introduction of a diesel-powered Honda or Toyota before Americans will take diesel cars seriously. That is about to happen -- Acura (a division of Honda) has announced their plans for a diesel-powered TSX, and we expect that Honda will introduce a diesel in one of their cars (most likely the Accord, the CR-V or the Element) shortly thereafter.
Diesel cars are bad news for the oil companies. They get fantastic fuel economy, and unlike gasoline engines, diesels can run on non-oil-based fuel (such as biodiesel) with little or no modification. (And with modification, they can run on straight vegetable oil -- in fact, Dr. Rudolph Diesel originally designed the engine to run on peanut oil.) Diesels offer a clear path away from oil dependance -- but how open will Americans be to embracing the diesel when the fuel is priced 50 cents to a buck higher than gasoline? (As it happens, even with a 25% price hike, a diesel may still save you money.) The oil companies are making excuses, but I call BS -- I think this is an attempt to head off diesel at the pass.
A. A blog from a guy who has the same OPINION as you do - no FACTS AT ALL to back up his allegations. B. A ridiculous "radical" organization (Dump Diesel Coalition) which obviously has ZERO political power. Google has a total of 47 hits about this group - most of them THEIR OWN websites. WHEW are those dudes POWERFUL !!! They did most of their organizational stuff back in 2002 when diesel exhaust WAS TRULY FILTHY. C. An article by a "pro-diesel interest group" showing their paranoia by saying "even though CNG buses pollute less than diesel buses they COST MORE !!!"
Sorry, good try, but NO SOUP FOR YOU my friend.
Questions for you Gary:
Do you think there are more "pro-diesel groups" or are there more "anti-diesel groups?" Which of the two groups has more political power?
P.S. Search the term "pro diesel" on Google and you get 34,700 hits. Search the term "anti diesel" on Google and you get 19,000 hits.
It almost seems that you are denying that special interest groups and lobbyists exist in the U.S. Hopefully that is not the case.
To answer your question we can start with all the so called green or alternative energy interests. Ethanol, battery technology, hybrid car technology, fuel cell technology, cng technology, and the list goes on and on.
If our fuel costs went down substantially so would their future outlook, so yes, they have a special interest in keeping more cost effective diesel out of the U.S.
There obviously are lobbyists on all sides of an issue pro and con. It's part of our capitalistic business model. Each side wants its side to win in order to make more money. There is nothing bad about this. The most effective organizer, lobbyist or producer normally wins.
However this has nothing to do with diesels being 'kept out of the country'....that's victim-speak. None are being kept out if they want to provide vehicles here. VW, Merc and Honda are prime examples. Now whether these will succeed or not is a different question.
There is nothing bad about this. The most effective organizer, lobbyist or producer normally wins.
I see we agree on that. And who might they be? Are there any more powerful than the OIL COMPANIES?
The real problem is getting regulations behind technology rather than ahead of it. I know it is hard for you and larsb to see past the Toyota hybrid smokescreen. There are better technologies than the overly complex hybrids on the market. They are being sold in countries that are very pollution conscious such as the UK and Germany. So I don't buy into the argument that they could bring them here if they want. They have been BLOCKED in CA up until this year in one way or another for the last decade.
Protesting against diesel when you SELL the resource to MAKE diesel is without a doubt one of the most ridiculous things ever.
Anyone have any links which show Big Oil has or supports an anti-diesel lobby group?
Google "anti-diesel lobby" "oil companies" and you get THREE hits. I'd love someone to find me a real news story or commentary which has proof that Big Oil is politically opposed to diesel fuel.
Just saying it because it "might make sense" is not enough. Proof is required.
Well silly you, if they were out in the open and above board about it, we wouldn't have a conspiracy would we? Hmmmm...
By the way, I did not mention oil companies when I answered you question about special interest groups. My focus was on alternative energy devotees and other environmental nuts. But oil companies have their lobbyists also.
There obviously are lobbyists on all sides of an issue pro and con. It's part of our capitalistic business model. Each side wants its side to win in order to make more money. There is nothing bad about this. The most effective organizer, lobbyist or producer normally wins.
Couldn't agree more. It is Larsb that doesn't believe in special interest groups lobbying for their cause. Or maybe he believes in all of them except those lobbying against diesel.
Do I seem uneducated enough to you that one would assume I do not know about lobbying? If so, then I am doing a very bad job indicating my true education and intelligence level around here.
OF COURSE there are lobbyists. OF COURSE they have a MINOR influence on policy decisions, SOMETIMES.
But there is no proof (nor even a minor indication) anywhere that "Big Oil" has lobbyists who practice the demonic art of "anti-dieselism."
If you want to say there are anti-diesel lobbyists with considerable political clout, then I challenge you to identify them. ( Other than the very small San Fran local "Dump Diesel Coalition" effort which can't even get any websites other than it's own to even talk about it. )
So far, all this talk about Big Oil wanting to crush diesel cars is just talk. No facts behind it at ALL - none whatsoever.
Comments
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
So the only thing that separates you from Al Gore is the "P" as in PZEV. That you have stated. I will continue to believe your ideas are over the top from a practical standpoint. You are welcome to your opinions I just do not share them. Fuel economy is ahead of PZEV, SULEV, ULEV or even LEV in my list of priorities.
I don't remember posting that opinion.
I might have said "it would be NICE if all cars were PZEVs" and that is not an opinion - it's a fact.
It WOULD BE NICE for everyone if all cars were PZEVs. A lot less dirty exhaust would be the result.
That's not to say that fuel economy is not important - it is.
But polluting even LESS per vehicle should be the highest priority. If that is achieved with a combination of exhaust controls and high mileage diesel engines that's FINE with me.
I'd bet THIS is what you remember seeing when you accuse me of saying "every car should be PZEV" which I have never posted as being an ongoing belief of mine. This is what you incorrectly translated to mean that:
Right now, the best thing that could happen to the clean air movement in the USA is to immediately require all automakers who sell cars in the USA to build ALL gasoline-powered 6-cylinder and smaller cars as PZEV cars. That is possible and would only cost $300-$500 per vehicle, which the carmakers can pass on to the buyers. That could be done IMMEDIATELY and would clean the air immensely in regard to gasoline exhaust.
Second would be to outlaw all non-ULSD fuel - FORCE anyone who wants to use a diesel powered device use ULSD or park it. That could also be accomplished.
Third would be to force automakers to offer all diesels which are available in other countries to make those cars (including your Ranger truck) available to US buyers.
Those are things we could likely DO instead of just complaining about how things are backwards. You can't magically reverse those things, but we can and SHOULD do some things.
So, I said that hypothetically in the context of the goal of CLEANING THE AIR.
Notice with that I included two things which would improve the lot of diesel car lovers in the USA also.
I never said "make cars PZEV which would cause the EXCLUSION of diesel cars" at all.
P.S. Gary, you do have an uncanny ability to take some of the things I say and twist them in unusual and unexpected ways which bear little or no resemblance to my actual views. If this talent of yours were a profession, you could be GREAT at it !!!
Are you saying I could be a politician? I hate the spot light. And I am too lazy to expend that much energy.
So I will not spend the time to go and find all your posts where you wanted all cars to be PZEV. It really makes little difference as you have taken the same approach as CARB. It ain't clean enough yet. When you do get it clean enough we can raise the regulations again.
Maybe it just seems like forever, and what's with the "could?"
You take the same blueprints and build it in Canada, America, or Mexico... and you find that $28,000 car can now be sold (with profit) at, mostly likely, around $16-18,000.
It's just amazing that Ford and GM actually sign contracts with their European unions that forbid them from moving the manufacturing of their Euro-models to outside Europe.
But hey, this is the same GM and Ford that let's our own unions do the same.
Personally, I like pollution and think we need more of it. If we increased the amount of CO2 in the air, we could recreate the atmosphere of the Jurassic period, which was much higher in CO2 than now. And that was the time period in which we had a radical explosion in plant life... which lead to more food available to animals, who then began to increase in size.
So, maybe we see it happen again. Wouldn't it be great to see 7-ft tall dogs?
But you are trying to stop that, because... in your opinion, you think pollution is bad.
Which is fine, but realize that it's an opinion.
Partly it's an image thing -- BMW & Audi want to keep their badges "upscale." Selling small cars (with efficient motors) certainly doesn't help, so they aren't available. That's part of why I'm driving an Acura TSX, which is sold as an Accord everywhere else in the world. It's smaller than the US Accord & has both a stiffer suspension & a manual transmission, just like in the "old country." My cuppa tea, and I think many others would appreciate the small, efficient European model -- might even pay extra.
Metrics drive behaviour, and the European tax structure may or may not be relevant to any single car sold both there and here. Forget diesel for awhile -- what are the relative prices of identical gas-powered vehicles sold both places? BMW 128, Audi A3, whatever? Generally the prices are higher over there for a variety of reasons. Take 3 or 4 cars equipped the same in Germany (or England) that are sold in the U.S. and see how the prices differ. Use that factor and see how it applies to that magic 65-mpg Ford.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
You need to remember that us old farts are people too so when you say people need cars with computers.....leave us out ! Were knew how to drive, we could drive on snow and ice and never needed a computer to do the driving for us ! We handled panic stops with our calibrated feet ! EPS sounds like some kind of STD where ya need to get to the doc for a shot in the back side ! Mechanics and most drivers back in the good old days could tune a engine by ear and get better MPG then the cheap plastic cars of today, the cars back then weight 3 times todays car do and could easily get the same MPG as todays cars, we did not need a computer to set up a computer...........we could do it by ear with a screw driver......good MPG turn the screws one way, want'a race...turn the screw the other way a turn or two !
My Dads 58 Ford Station Wagon (SUV to you) was always tuned up right, he could carry 8-10 neighbor kids to the lake to go fishing and still get 35+ MPG !
Your right about one thing, we need all the computers in cars today, not because its a better system but because todays young drivers cant drive by the seat of their pants !
Have a nice day ! OLD GUYS RULE !
:surprise: Wow, deep breath!
FWIW, vehicle mortality rate is down while vehicle speed is up.
Vehicle reliability is way, way up. In a different universe.
Modern vehicles may have lots of confusing, fiddly little bits on them now but they are quicker, quieter, safer and more reliable.
Nothing wrong with classic cars, just something wrong is suggesting that we have passed some kind of high-water mark of vehicular perfection.
And to let you know, I worked on old engine and I did tune the engine using my ear and a piece of sponge in the tailpipe, to see how the exhaust is coming out of the tailpipe. Carburetors were simple and easy to disassemble and clean, but they weren’t efficient. Some of the V8 cars did have a lot of power, but their weight kept them from getting the numbers that Suburu WRX gets with I4 engine. One more thing, back then if your car lose control in the snow or ice, you will not hit any body, because there weren’t anybody on the road, currently there are over 200 millions cars on the road, you do not need car that stops from 60 to 0 in 300 ft, the standard in most new cars is around 140 ft, and still it is considered bad, the best cars in stopping are in the range of 116 ft and 121 ft. when you have a car that jumps in front of you going at 60 mph you need those brakes to save your life and life of other people. There you have it, believe what you want. :shades:
I believe that today's plastic cars can go for a lot of trouble free miles. They also cost a LOT more to fix with just slight crashes. Many times they are totaled for seemingly minor collisions. The older cars you dent out and touch up the paint. Plus the cost of repairs when the warranty is gone is MUCH higher than the older pre computer cars. Repairing your own car has gotten much more difficult. So not is all great with the new generation of cars.
Loads of auto industry strides, probably too numerous to mention have been made, but most to all have technological penalties and prices. Also not all technological strides have been fully implemented.
So for example comparing a diesel VW vs gasser. I am still in wonderment after 110,000 miles that a 1.9T 90 hp/155# ft torque TDI can push a 2950 # car all day long (10 hours) at close to xxx digit speeds and still get high 40's mpg.
2009 Jetta TDI going for world record !!!
Fuel Efficient Couple On the Way To Break Guiness World Record For Lowest Fuel Consumption
HERNDON, Va. - Two of the world's most fuel efficient drivers, John and Helen Taylor, are a third of the way through their attempt to break the current world record for lowest fuel consumption across the 48 contiguous United States. Today they will be driving into their ninth day, passing through the northern states of the Great Plains, including South Dakota, North Dakota and Montana. To help them along the way, they are driving the all-new, 50-state-compliant clean diesel Volkswagen Jetta TDI, fueled by Shell's best diesel fuel.
"The vehicle seating is extremely comfortable and the power point in the car enables lots of work en route to be done while preserving power," said Helen Taylor. "The car is efficiently driving its way to a fuel economy world record."
The current Guinness World Record for the lowest fuel consumption on a nationwide drive is 51.58 miles per gallon.
As of end of day, Wednesday, Sept. 10, the Taylor's have driven more than 2,753 miles through more than 24 states averaging about 58.78 US miles per gallon.
"It has been quite an adventure thus far, the world is getting smaller - on day four we met a girl originally from our small town in Australia now residing in Ohio!" said John Taylor. "We are optimistic we should be able to break the current world record if we stay on course and keep our fuel-efficient driving tips in mind."
Just your typical diesel car.
They may top 60 MPG if they get a good tailwind across the southern plains.
Ha Ha Very Funny Oh FunnyMan.
Life is GOOD, it is sinking in ! :shades:
Gary says, "Just your typical diesel car. "
They are getting close to 900 miles on a tank, which I would really like. I filled one time and got 16 gallons in my Passat TDI. The tank is supposed to be 14.5 gallons. I think the filler tube adds a couple gallons.
I really had no doubt even with the increased hp/#ft of torque, that the mpg would be similar to what I get now on a 03 Jetta EPA rating of 42 C /49 H mpg.
To beat it with a larger car would be an even better accomplishment.
That's more difficult considering the Prius tank is around 10 gallons.
Getting a 900 mile tank in any car is a good feat, however.
The diesel only had a 14.5 gal. tank? The 1.8T gasser has a 16.4 gal. tank, although Inever ran it down past 15 gallons. I wonder why they shorted the diesel?
They knew it would get twice the miles on a tank as the gasser.
State-of-the-art compact three-cylinder petrol engines with a capacity of 999 cc are installed at the rear of the smart fortwo. In Western Europe customers can currently choose from two naturally aspirated engine versions with mhd (micro hybrid drive) technology delivering 45 or 52 kW (61/71 hp) respectively, and a turbo engine rated at 62 kW (84 hp). A three-cylinder turbo engine is also at the heart of the 72 kW (98 hp) smart fortwo BRABUS.
In addition, a diesel variant is available – the smart fortwo cdi – which is the world champion in low CO2 emissions. The 33 kW/45 hp two-seater car consumes just 3.3 litres of fuel (NEDC) per 100 kilometres on average, which means that it can travel approximately 1000 kilometres without refuelling.
This was confirmed by the Italian car magazine “Quattroruote” with a 1,000km drive from Rome to Salzburg. At just 88 grams per kilometre it has the lowest CO2 emissions worldwide!
That is 71.28 MPG US Combined.
Of course we get the gas guzzling version, as it is a well known fact the US consumer does not want diesel cars. Why would anyone want to get 71 MPG when you can get 36 MPG in the same car with a gas engine? :sick:
Shading the regulations against diesel is a sure sign that something else is going on here. Larsb likes to refer to this idea as a "conspiracy theory". No conspiracy, just an awareness of the power that special interest groups wield in the U.S.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Essentially this is Malmouza's argument. Or if it is not his argument, it is what he sees as the US markets' take.
Of course we just went through the environmentalists' (democrats) nirvana period of HIGH per gal fuel prices, and even this short nivana period proved to move the democrats off of the generations old " drill over my dead party's" position.
I am ok with it as long as (folks that want it) I have access to those diesel cars that DO get better MPG: like 71 mpg!! to etc. (in my case 44-62 mpg: when a like model gasser struggles to knock down 30 mpg.) :lemon: :shades: But evidently, even the democrats have a hard time living with the real world effects of their own fantasy policies.
Can you please educate me as to which particular "special interest groups" are involved in the "anti-diesel" movement?
That way I can send them a letter letting them know how I feel about their special interest.
As I posted elsewhere - our Spring Euro trip - in the S60 - was 1700 miles and included some 120mph Autobahn cruising plus a little "By jove that was fun" driving up and down Swiss valleys. Overall consumption, (calculated), was decimals over 40mpg. Of course, this is all Imperial mpg but you can do the math.
No hard to see why us "Old World" folk like our oil-burners. Really cannot understand what's stopping your market but conspiracy theories are always fun.
This is may be your argument; I never said that gasoline cars get more MPG than diesel cars. But I said and proved in more than one occasion that buying a diesel car in USA won’t make any economical sense, because the added premium of $4000 or more versus RUG cars, and the premium you have to pay for the diesel fuel which is more than $1. It does not take a genius to know that you need to keep that diesel car for more than 10 years to break even. I do not keep my cars for more than 5 years. {Ruking1}You are one those people that are here in this forum for all the wrong reasons, you do not bring anything instructive to the table, your posts are all useless. Why anybody would like to pay a premium for the same car that he/she can get for less running on RUG, and then pay premium for the ULSD fuel, just to drive diesel cars???
Until US government change the way they tax ULSD fuel, it will not make an economic sense to buy diesel. You can buy diesel if you’re fanatic about it, me like the majority of people I work hard for my money, I always crunch the numbers, and compare. In the automotive market today they are a lot of alternative vehicles that can save gas and haul 5 people and cost less to own. :shades:
We are @ a little at a disadvantage on this side of the pond, in that we do not know /nor is it common knowledge what the European fleet fuel/defacto standards are. In the US, it is 27 mpg fleet, defacto 22 mpg.
This may or may not be as plain as day, but both sides of the pond are definitely grounded in high and ever increasing per mile driven costs.
So for example even @ 9/4 per gal and 45/22 mpg., the per mile driven costs are respectively .20 cents/.1818 cents. While D2/50 mpg in the US is @ .08 cents per mile driven, I take no comfort in the logistical systems' almost relentless increasing of the costs. :lemon:
Coming from you, I should take your vilification as a compliment ! :shades:
Part of the problem is not keeping cars LONGER!
In answer to your question like model VW 1.8T gets 30 mpg 3.77 per gal, TDI gets 50 mpg, 4.08 per gal. Per mile driven that is .126 cents/.0816 cents.
Per your logic, .126 cents is LESS than .0816 cents per gal!! You are arquing the case that .0444 cents MORE per mile driven is cheaper than .0444 cents LESS. This of course is in line with the (twisted) logic you agree with but of course have denied several times:
"..."Why would anyone want to get 71 MPG when you can get 36 MPG in the same car with a gas engine?"... "...
..."You can buy diesel if you’re fanatic about it, me like the majority of people I work hard for my money, I always crunch the numbers, and compare. In the automotive market today they are a lot of alternative vehicles that can save gas and haul 5 people and cost less to own."...
Fanatic? Hardly. We operate a Honda Civic (gasser) side by side. So who doesn't work hard for the money? So yes there are roughly 98% of the passenger vehicle fleet as alternatives to diesels. Like models gassers consume more fuel, on the order of 20-40%.
Next we need a people mover...for thoses with a family !
Next we need a hauler for those with trailers/boats/critters/etc !
Right now I (if I wanted a new vehicle) would need a cheap, high MPG, safe small car. I do not need to drive over 65 MPH (most times I only drive 55 now) at my age I'm in no hurry ! Similar to a work/grocery getter with no or a single rider ! I do not need 20 speakers or GPS or heated seats etc !
Anyone remember when Honda and Subaru first came out with cars in America ? Small and with 2 cylinder motorcycle engines ! Just think how they would do today !
It almost seems that you are denying that special interest groups and lobbyists exist in the U.S. Hopefully that is not the case.
To answer your question we can start with all the so called green or alternative energy interests. Ethanol, battery technology, hybrid car technology, fuel cell technology, cng technology, and the list goes on and on.
If our fuel costs went down substantially so would their future outlook, so yes, they have a special interest in keeping more cost effective diesel out of the U.S.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Claiming that new clean-diesel technologies such as International's "green diesel" school bus have "no" environmental benefit, American Lung Association of California (ALA-Cal.) launched a new anti-diesel advertising campaign.
That's the claim of the little-known Dump Diesel Coalition, which was ready to plunk down $2,400 to have its anti-diesel ads posted in three bus shelters near San Francisco City Hall.
Is there an anti-diesel conspiracy afoot?
Thursday April 17, 2008
I don't often link to articles on other sites, but this editorial by Detroit News columnist John McCormick echoes my thoughts almost verbatim. It has to do with the fact that diesel prices have mysteriously started to creep upwards just as the US is about to get its first proper introduction to diesel cars.
I've always been a big fan of diesel, but I've also thought that it's going to take the introduction of a diesel-powered Honda or Toyota before Americans will take diesel cars seriously. That is about to happen -- Acura (a division of Honda) has announced their plans for a diesel-powered TSX, and we expect that Honda will introduce a diesel in one of their cars (most likely the Accord, the CR-V or the Element) shortly thereafter.
Diesel cars are bad news for the oil companies. They get fantastic fuel economy, and unlike gasoline engines, diesels can run on non-oil-based fuel (such as biodiesel) with little or no modification. (And with modification, they can run on straight vegetable oil -- in fact, Dr. Rudolph Diesel originally designed the engine to run on peanut oil.) Diesels offer a clear path away from oil dependance -- but how open will Americans be to embracing the diesel when the fuel is priced 50 cents to a buck higher than gasoline? (As it happens, even with a 25% price hike, a diesel may still save you money.) The oil companies are making excuses, but I call BS -- I think this is an attempt to head off diesel at the pass.
OIL COMPANIES ARE ANTI DIESEL
ANTI-DIESEL FORCES THREATEN ECONOMY: INDUSTRY STUDY
A. A blog from a guy who has the same OPINION as you do - no FACTS AT ALL to back up his allegations.
B. A ridiculous "radical" organization (Dump Diesel Coalition) which obviously has ZERO political power. Google has a total of 47 hits about this group - most of them THEIR OWN websites. WHEW are those dudes POWERFUL !!! They did most of their organizational stuff back in 2002 when diesel exhaust WAS TRULY FILTHY.
C. An article by a "pro-diesel interest group" showing their paranoia by saying "even though CNG buses pollute less than diesel buses they COST MORE !!!"
Sorry, good try, but NO SOUP FOR YOU my friend.
Questions for you Gary:
Do you think there are more "pro-diesel groups" or are there more "anti-diesel groups?" Which of the two groups has more political power?
P.S. Search the term "pro diesel" on Google and you get 34,700 hits.
Search the term "anti diesel" on Google and you get 19,000 hits.
To answer your question we can start with all the so called green or alternative energy interests. Ethanol, battery technology, hybrid car technology, fuel cell technology, cng technology, and the list goes on and on.
If our fuel costs went down substantially so would their future outlook, so yes, they have a special interest in keeping more cost effective diesel out of the U.S.
There obviously are lobbyists on all sides of an issue pro and con. It's part of our capitalistic business model. Each side wants its side to win in order to make more money. There is nothing bad about this. The most effective organizer, lobbyist or producer normally wins.
However this has nothing to do with diesels being 'kept out of the country'....that's victim-speak. None are being kept out if they want to provide vehicles here. VW, Merc and Honda are prime examples. Now whether these will succeed or not is a different question.
I see we agree on that. And who might they be? Are there any more powerful than the OIL COMPANIES?
The real problem is getting regulations behind technology rather than ahead of it. I know it is hard for you and larsb to see past the Toyota hybrid smokescreen. There are better technologies than the overly complex hybrids on the market. They are being sold in countries that are very pollution conscious such as the UK and Germany. So I don't buy into the argument that they could bring them here if they want. They have been BLOCKED in CA up until this year in one way or another for the last decade.
That brings up an interesting question.
Does "Big Oil" have an anti-diesel lobby which they own or support?
That would be kinda silly, since they sell the natural resource from which diesel is made.
Better read back a few posts. You missed the very real reasons.
Protesting against diesel when you SELL the resource to MAKE diesel is without a doubt one of the most ridiculous things ever.
Anyone have any links which show Big Oil has or supports an anti-diesel lobby group?
Google "anti-diesel lobby" "oil companies" and you get THREE hits. I'd love someone to find me a real news story or commentary which has proof that Big Oil is politically opposed to diesel fuel.
Just saying it because it "might make sense" is not enough. Proof is required.
By the way, I did not mention oil companies when I answered you question about special interest groups. My focus was on alternative energy devotees and other environmental nuts. But oil companies have their lobbyists also.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Couldn't agree more. It is Larsb that doesn't believe in special interest groups lobbying for their cause. Or maybe he believes in all of them except those lobbying against diesel.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
OF COURSE there are lobbyists. OF COURSE they have a MINOR influence on policy decisions, SOMETIMES.
But there is no proof (nor even a minor indication) anywhere that "Big Oil" has lobbyists who practice the demonic art of "anti-dieselism."
If you want to say there are anti-diesel lobbyists with considerable political clout, then I challenge you to identify them. ( Other than the very small San Fran local "Dump Diesel Coalition" effort which can't even get any websites other than it's own to even talk about it. )
So far, all this talk about Big Oil wanting to crush diesel cars is just talk. No facts behind it at ALL - none whatsoever.