I was hoping for something constructive about the fuel
You seem to be the one sidestepping the issue. We gave you examples of folks in your area burning B20 as that is what is available. If B30 or B40 were sold they would use that.
You made a statement touting biomass Ethanol being the future fuel to run gas cars. Yet you did not have any links to back up that statement. It is all pie in the sky. I am aware that there is a huge shortage of biodiesel. As one of the companies I invested in cannot keep up with the demand in the San Francisco Bay area. I was hoping they would expand to San Diego area where their offices are. They cannot get enough crop to expand. Everyone wants to grow corn for the huge subsidies offered by the Feds.
So the simple answer to your question is B100 is best suited for 35 degrees and above. When the temp drops add diesel. With little or no loss for winter driving as so many Hybrid owners complain about.
I am sorry but I have to ask a silly question here. You have heard for years the environmental folks bragging on using McDonald's french fry oil to run their diesel VW's on... BLAH BLAH BLAH... is that not B100?
>> So the simple answer to your question is B100 is best suited for 35 degrees and above. When the temp drops add diesel. With little or no loss for winter driving as so many Hybrid owners complain about.
So... 5 months of the year there's no way to use B100 or even half that. Nice.
As for the so-called complaint, how is 44 MPG WINTER a bad thing? That's still better than the competition. .
... Although not for everybody, B-100 can be used in much colder climes. It would have to be heated. Some systems (yes rare) run the vehicle on regular, commercial, Diesel, fuel, and have a fuel heater on the vehicle, then when the B-100 reaches the proper temp, the engine can be switched to the full bio.
Because it is a carcinogenic fossil fuel. When it is not that hard to get 44 MPG in the winter with a VW TDI. If you don't have a garage to keep your B100 from gelling mix it with 50% diesel fuel for those 5 months. That is if you are really serious about saving fossil fuel and the environment.
There are also fuel tank heaters that run off your battery to keep the Biodiesel from gelling. Again it all has to do with your level of commitment to the environment. Those that stick their nose in the air and act like they are doing a great service because they drive a hybrid are only kidding themselves. You can always do better. Denigrating biodiesel and diesel vehicles is disingenuous to the whole concept of saving the planet.
In the news. Mazda and Hyundai are offering diesel cars in the EU to try and compete with the European models. If the EPA and our Congress is serious about cutting CO2 they will welcome these new advances to our showrooms. I think it is all just talk. We just keep slipping further and further behind, using more and more fossil fuel when there are good alternatives.
Thanks for the link -- the embedded link in the article led to lots of useful information & I was finally able to verify that the diesel comes with a 6-speed manual standard. Excellent -- that makes exactly one diesel in North America that comes equipped the way I would buy it. May have to drop by and look at these things.
Good to see other companies are starting to think in that direction, but I really wish the ones already with a diesel presence in the US would get on the ball and give more options.
Now that their respective 3.0 diesels have met all US emissions standards, keep the Audis, BMWs and Merc diesels coming!
Diesel in an economy [price] oriented car and light truck is needed to produce sales momentum and awareness of diesel in the U.S.A. Under $20K there is nothing available and the sweet spot is $12 to $19K. Hyundai and Kia have quality 4 cylinder diesels that if they certified one or two engines there are multiple vehicles they could be installed in. Mitsubishi announced plans to offer diesel in the Lancer by 2012 a few years ago, though they have been quiet since and I no longer expect to see this happen. Honda and Toyota have no plans to sell their excellent diesels in North America that are even a rumor. Mahinda small truck will go on sale in Q1/Q2 2010, it is expensive for what it is, though it should do OK and meet it's small volume targets.
Ford could easily introduce diesel engines across it's lineup, really unfortunate that they are steadfast against the cost of retrofitting additional treatment equipment to meet the more stringent emissions that CARB has saddled us with. If only someone had the wisdom to harmonize the emisions and safety regulations between EU and U.S.A..........
So what is your point? As our favorite Toyota salesman will tell you the exchange rates vs the dollar makes vehicles built elsewhere over priced in the USA. If you look at the bottom line the Sportswagen TDI was 80% of the total SW sold. I believe 40% of all Jettas sold were TDI. I see no reason to buy anything else from VW other than their great diesel vehicles.
When the World Wide figures come out for 2009 I think VW will have passed up Toyota as the number ONE automaker.
I know it is hard to accept that the Prius was down 12% for 2009 while VW Jetta was up 11% mostly due to TDI sales. And the Jetta Sportswagen was up 202%. For a total Jetta Sales 108,427, thanks to their great mileage TDI. :P
quote VW0A- Volkswagen of America Inc. announced in December that its line of clean diesel TDI models sold 41, 278 models—approximately 20 percent of the company’s overall sales volume for the year. December sales totaled 4,378 units.
“There’s never going to be a Prius motor sport cup,” said Sean Maynard, spokesman for Volkswagen of America. “The TDI is fun to drive—its torquey, and people are becoming more aware that they don’t have to sacrifice performance for the sake of fuel economy.” -end
20% of sales volume of the entire lineup was diesel. Very impressive.
VW is offering good value in their diesels and making a profit doing it. The same cannot be said of Toyota and their hybrids. The Prius is still a loss leader with the weak dollar and strong Yen. If they did not have to haul the batteries and PSD from China to Japan then the cars to America they may be able to make a profit. :shades:
I like that Golf Wagon TDI. Are we going to get them? Or are they just for First World Countries.
Just for comparison: The Golf Estate Sportline TDI is rated at 57+MPG US. It is slightly bigger than the Prius and sells for $1700 USD less in the UK. No wonder VW is far and away the largest selling in the EU where they have a choice. Here even if you want a Golf or Jetta Sportwagen TDI you have to wait 3-6 months for one in most of the USA.
Seriously, what should the expectation for TDI in 2010 be?
Considering the US market is not a big prize for VW, I would say they just continue to dribble them in and keep the prices from going down. In this current recession, VW has proven much wiser than the other automakers.
Think about this. Why should VW send many Golf TDI models to the USA. They can sell all the loaded Golf TDIs they can build in the EU for 27k euros ($39k USD) with less hassles. You can bet if Toyota could sell the Prius in the EU they would not be sending them here by the boatload at a very small profit, or maybe even a loss. Toyota sells the Prius here so they can get around the CAFE limits on their full line of Gas Hogs. No other reason. VW does not have that problem as they only have fuel efficient vehicles in their line-up. The Touareg is a gas hog with the RUG engine. They don't sell enough to even register. Just there for those that want the most capable SUV on US soil. It is one of my top choices with the V6 TDI. If I can ever get over that silly Urea injection issue.
I would rather have the Tiguan 4motion that has the 2.0L TDI sold all over Europe and gets 43 MPG US. It all has to do with our worthless dollar and ignorant regulations. The US government would not get half as much fuel tax on the VW diesel versions so why not limit them through archaic regulations? VW does not need the US market to be Number One in the World. As we are a declining auto market just as Japan is.
I think the ignorance stops at the Mexican Border. I think Canada has a little better choice of diesels than we do. Most of South America has all the small diesel trucks that are banned here by Congress and the 1960s Chicken Tax.
If you want a small economical SUV or PU truck in the USA you are screwed. Best mileage to date with my 1999 Ford ranger is 16 MPG. Same truck sold in Brazil with 4 cylinder diesel gets 45 MPG. Basically that means a person in the USA with a 10 year old Ranger will have used 6,667 more gallons of fossil fuel than the Ranger owner in Brazil. They can point fingers at the USA and claim we are using more than our fair share of fossil fuel. And we can say talk to Congress. They are the ones making the rules. I have wanted a small diesel PU truck since first seeing one in 1998. To date I could have saved 8000 gallons of fuel. Not to mention about $22,000.
Gary says, "I think the ignorance stops at the Mexican Border."
So does the line of dirty diesel exhaust air.
Seriously, everyone with any modicum of common sense knows that there are several reasons why diesel does not have a good foothold in the USA, and historically stinky and dirty exhaust is one of the main reasons.
That has been and is still changing, and therefore that will be one less excuse that Americans cannot use going into the future.
"More clean diesels please, and the cleaner the better" I always say.
High Sulfur diesel fuel was a significant barrier to private owner light passenger vehicles in the U.S.
Private owner, diesel light passenger vehicles are not now, and have not in the past 20 years contributed a significant portion or the air pollution in the U.S..
You can joust at windmills all you want, preventing the cleanest diesels from entering the market while allowing the highest sulfur fuel and highest emission diesel vehicles is not only ridiculous, it is harmful both to our economy and to our health.
Alternative fuel vehicles and higher fuel efficiency vehicles are needed, why create obstacles to eliminate them from the market?
For one thing, public safety comes to mind. That's been the basis of diesel exhaust regs for the entire history of the air regulation industry.
That's why now, when the exhaust is so much cleaner, the cars are making a bit of a surge.
Lars, explain how public safety is improved by preventing the cleanest emission diesel vehicles from being sold, and allowing the commercial trucks, school buses, commercial aircraft, construction equipment, trains, ships, and diesel powered equipment that produce 99% of the diesel emissions are allowed to continue without stringent exhaust regulations? Only now are moderate regulations being enacted.
CARB and EPA could regulate diesel powered Alien Spaceships and have as much affect on public safety as they have by attacking diesel cars.
Even when regulations allowed the same diesel cars to be sold in U.S. as in Europe without having to engineer a different emissions system to meet U.S. regs., sales as a percentage of the total market were minimal.
Regulators nearly made the diesel car extinct by enacting regulations too stringent and disparate before technology could meet them in a reasonable time frame at a reasonable cost.
Why don't we just ban jet powered cars in the interest of public safety too?
>> High Sulfur diesel fuel was a significant barrier to private owner light passenger vehicles in the U.S.
Then when that barrier was removed... diesel owners still had to deal with the higher cost of the fuel, the replacement of the particulate filter, and the high cost of emission cleansing.
That last item is the worse. Either you pay up-front for a top-grade catalytic-converter or routinely pay for urea refills. 7.5 gallons at $32 per gallon every 16,500 miles is way beyond what y'all here ever said it would cost. Yet, that's what Consumer Reports recently paid.
Year after year, it's just another excuse. Too little, too slowly was the assessment of progress by the auto task-force for GM. I'd say the same is true for diesel too.
Shouldn't you be pushing for market growth rather than complaining? .
... GM to have Diesel hybrids within a year. In a rare moment of government clarity the Obama administration over-ruled CARB and EPA and will allow any Diesel hybrid to be built without: EGR, SCR, and particulate filters. In a move to significantly reduce carbon footprint by making cars lighter, less problematic, and hugely more fuel efficient, it was a realization that the hybrids will only be in Diesel mode less than twenty percent of operational time, and that the above mentioned *band-aids*, either cause more pollution than they reduce, or contribute way too much to green house gas to be allowed to continue. Some people think this might be the best automotive stimulation package ever. The administration went on to praise the engine builders for major improvements in fuel management and atomization that reduce particulate and increase MPG. GM made an immediate announcement that they would be dropping about two thousand dollars from the emission package penalty.
Shouldn't you be pushing for market growth rather than complaining?
Why? The more people that have diesel vehicles the higher the price of fuel. Diesel in CA has been equal to or less than RUG going on a year now. I would like to see it stay that way. As far as I am concerned the whacked out enviro types have made it difficult to save fuel in large PU trucks and SUVs.
Adblue is less than half a penny a mile at current pricing. Adblue is available for $8 per gallon. You can make your own with Urea and water. One part urea to two parts water. It is a common fertilizer.
Your biggest fear is folks will realize that driving can be fun in a diesel car that gets great mileage. That will all but kill the hybrids that are NOT fun or pleasant to ride around in.
These forums are owned and controlled by Edmunds, not the government. You may recall the Obama administration had issues with Edmunds during and after Cash for Clunkers, as we were highly critical of the program and its merits; they even issued releases trying to counter our findings. But they never prevented us from making our case.
moparnotsogood says, "Why don't we just ban jet powered cars in the interest of public safety too? "
I'm all for that. I mean, who REALLY needs a jet-powered car?
Jay Leno does, and he has more than one. Who really needs a show on NBC when you have so many fantastic vehicles?
On the topic of diesel's in the news- Looks like not much of anything in the news at the NAIAS for diesel. Focus is on electric and hybrid and direct injection.
Mahindra is in discussions with Navistar to assemble trucks in the United States to avoid the Chicken Tax.
quote- According to the Environmental Protection Agency, if one third of the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet were powered by diesels, foreign oil imports could be reduced 1.4 million barrels per day. By comparison, that savings is 40 percent greater than the one million barrels the U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia every day. This reduced crude oil consumption would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 180 million tons per year. -end
Reduce fuel consumption and cut carbon dioxide emissions. Yes!
Thats just too ahh whats it called yes -- that would be just too damn simple :-)
If you were to wave a magic wand and switch all the gas burning cars to clean diesels over night our demand for oil would drop through the floor by 30-40%. And that would be without any fancy dohicky green trees lighting up on dashboards trying to modify driving behavior.
When it comes to cars and technology the US public is the wrong audience to ask given all they do is look at the pump price - sticker price and HP rating and then purchase a vehicle without really knowing their loan interest or how the loan works.
All things that affect true owner costs that people fail to consider. U know that same fuzzy feel good math that we used in the housing biz the past few years :-)
... Well, I guess GM can't wait for my wishful thinking news release and now says it will be a minor technology change to take the gasoline (or maybe Diesel) engine out of the Volt and go full electric. Actually I think it's the grand master of intelligent design that is driving the industry to full electric. How else can you explain the interim stupidity of EGR and SCR we will have to live through ?
It's probably safer to have a gasoline or diesel back-up to an electric car in case the power runs out. There's still no charging stations as much as gas stations. Unless all gas stations will accomodate electric charging.
... Well, Lutz did not specify a release date for the full electric, only that the tech was not nearly as complicated. The big "if" is a battery breakthrough. I am not so sure that we have not already had the last major leap.
*** You do know that we're meaningless and powerless as far as they are concerned? California's(largest state) CARB essentially dictates the market as they are the giant stumbling block that none of the manufacturers want to tell off.
There hasn't been a single instance that I can remember when CARB has listened to the public's concerns. They do what they want and then everyone scrambles to lick their boots. Currently they hate diesels.
I am sure you are correct. It will be interesting to see what new stumbling block they put in front of the diesels that have met their emissions requirements. If gassers were treated as diesels have been we would not have any cars sold in CA. I think that may be the grand plan. Then price electricity to the point where EVs are impractical. It will keep the price of existing vehicles high. Especially diesel cars.
It's their mandate and their job to keep the air clean.
Containing remaining old dirty diesel exhaust (of which there are a lot of sources) and making sure future diesel exhaust is scrubbed is one of their goals.
Nothing wrong with that, if you care about clean air.
If every state in the Union were to set their own standards for vehicle emissions our cars could cost many $1000s more. If we are going to have an EPA in the Federal government, the states should follow their guidelines. Otherwise do away with the EPA and save a few 100 $billion in the process. About 10 years ago a vehicle sold in any state but CA could not be licensed here unless you brought it up to 50 state compliance. CARB is not doing the People's Republic of California any favors. They still have done little to stop the pollution from ocean going cargo ships. The major cause of SMOG in the LA basin.
They are for the most part "Bunker Oil" engines. They run on crude oil with as much as 5000 PPM sulfur. And yes we have the option of denying them access to our ports.
As long as we are at it maybe every city should have their own emissions standards. So you can only use your vehicle in cities you are in compliance with. WE ARE OVER REGULATED BY STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES.
Comments
No. That's not even remotely close to what I asked.
I was hoping for something constructive about the fuel, wondering about cost & effectiveness of the additives to prevent geling in the cold.
Should have known better.
.
You seem to be the one sidestepping the issue. We gave you examples of folks in your area burning B20 as that is what is available. If B30 or B40 were sold they would use that.
You made a statement touting biomass Ethanol being the future fuel to run gas cars. Yet you did not have any links to back up that statement. It is all pie in the sky. I am aware that there is a huge shortage of biodiesel. As one of the companies I invested in cannot keep up with the demand in the San Francisco Bay area. I was hoping they would expand to San Diego area where their offices are. They cannot get enough crop to expand. Everyone wants to grow corn for the huge subsidies offered by the Feds.
So the simple answer to your question is B100 is best suited for 35 degrees and above. When the temp drops add diesel. With little or no loss for winter driving as so many Hybrid owners complain about.
So... 5 months of the year there's no way to use B100 or even half that. Nice.
As for the so-called complaint, how is 44 MPG WINTER a bad thing? That's still better than the competition.
.
Because it is a carcinogenic fossil fuel. When it is not that hard to get 44 MPG in the winter with a VW TDI. If you don't have a garage to keep your B100 from gelling mix it with 50% diesel fuel for those 5 months. That is if you are really serious about saving fossil fuel and the environment.
There are also fuel tank heaters that run off your battery to keep the Biodiesel from gelling. Again it all has to do with your level of commitment to the environment. Those that stick their nose in the air and act like they are doing a great service because they drive a hybrid are only kidding themselves. You can always do better. Denigrating biodiesel and diesel vehicles is disingenuous to the whole concept of saving the planet.
In the news. Mazda and Hyundai are offering diesel cars in the EU to try and compete with the European models. If the EPA and our Congress is serious about cutting CO2 they will welcome these new advances to our showrooms. I think it is all just talk. We just keep slipping further and further behind, using more and more fossil fuel when there are good alternatives.
Now that their respective 3.0 diesels have met all US emissions standards, keep the Audis, BMWs and Merc diesels coming!
Quattro + TDI would be fantastic to me.
Under $20K there is nothing available and the sweet spot is $12 to $19K. Hyundai and Kia have quality 4 cylinder diesels that if they certified one or two engines there are multiple vehicles they could be installed in. Mitsubishi announced plans to offer diesel in the Lancer by 2012 a few years ago, though they have been quiet since and I no longer expect to see this happen.
Honda and Toyota have no plans to sell their excellent diesels in North America that are even a rumor.
Mahinda small truck will go on sale in Q1/Q2 2010, it is expensive for what it is, though it should do OK and meet it's small volume targets.
Ford could easily introduce diesel engines across it's lineup, really unfortunate that they are steadfast against the cost of retrofitting additional treatment equipment to meet the more stringent emissions that CARB has saddled us with.
If only someone had the wisdom to harmonize the emisions and safety regulations between EU and U.S.A..........
.
When the World Wide figures come out for 2009 I think VW will have passed up Toyota as the number ONE automaker.
I know it is hard to accept that the Prius was down 12% for 2009 while VW Jetta was up 11% mostly due to TDI sales. And the Jetta Sportswagen was up 202%. For a total Jetta Sales 108,427, thanks to their great mileage TDI. :P
PS
Someone gave you bum scoop on the 41K.
David Booth, National Post
TDI Jetta, Jetta SportWagen, Golf and Touareg = 41,278 -end quote
And now, the rest of the story....
quote VW0A-
Volkswagen of America Inc. announced in December that its line of clean diesel TDI models sold 41, 278 models—approximately 20 percent of the company’s overall sales volume for the year. December sales totaled 4,378 units.
“There’s never going to be a Prius motor sport cup,” said Sean Maynard, spokesman for Volkswagen of America. “The TDI is fun to drive—its torquey, and people are becoming more aware that they don’t have to sacrifice performance for the sake of fuel economy.” -end
20% of sales volume of the entire lineup was diesel. Very impressive.
I like that Golf Wagon TDI. Are we going to get them? Or are they just for First World Countries.
The Golf Estate Sportline TDI is rated at 57+MPG US. It is slightly bigger than the Prius and sells for $1700 USD less in the UK. No wonder VW is far and away the largest selling in the EU where they have a choice. Here even if you want a Golf or Jetta Sportwagen TDI you have to wait 3-6 months for one in most of the USA.
Since long before ULSD, we've been hearing about the flood coming.
348,558 is a number that actually did happen.
Seriously, what should the expectation for TDI in 2010 be?
.
Considering the US market is not a big prize for VW, I would say they just continue to dribble them in and keep the prices from going down. In this current recession, VW has proven much wiser than the other automakers.
Think about this. Why should VW send many Golf TDI models to the USA. They can sell all the loaded Golf TDIs they can build in the EU for 27k euros ($39k USD) with less hassles. You can bet if Toyota could sell the Prius in the EU they would not be sending them here by the boatload at a very small profit, or maybe even a loss. Toyota sells the Prius here so they can get around the CAFE limits on their full line of Gas Hogs. No other reason. VW does not have that problem as they only have fuel efficient vehicles in their line-up. The Touareg is a gas hog with the RUG engine. They don't sell enough to even register. Just there for those that want the most capable SUV on US soil. It is one of my top choices with the V6 TDI. If I can ever get over that silly Urea injection issue.
I would rather have the Tiguan 4motion that has the 2.0L TDI sold all over Europe and gets 43 MPG US. It all has to do with our worthless dollar and ignorant regulations. The US government would not get half as much fuel tax on the VW diesel versions so why not limit them through archaic regulations? VW does not need the US market to be Number One in the World. As we are a declining auto market just as Japan is.
We are so screwed on this continent regarding modern diesel cars (except for Mexico, I imagine).
If you want a small economical SUV or PU truck in the USA you are screwed. Best mileage to date with my 1999 Ford ranger is 16 MPG. Same truck sold in Brazil with 4 cylinder diesel gets 45 MPG. Basically that means a person in the USA with a 10 year old Ranger will have used 6,667 more gallons of fossil fuel than the Ranger owner in Brazil. They can point fingers at the USA and claim we are using more than our fair share of fossil fuel. And we can say talk to Congress. They are the ones making the rules. I have wanted a small diesel PU truck since first seeing one in 1998. To date I could have saved 8000 gallons of fuel. Not to mention about $22,000.
So does the line of dirty diesel exhaust air.
Seriously, everyone with any modicum of common sense knows that there are several reasons why diesel does not have a good foothold in the USA, and historically stinky and dirty exhaust is one of the main reasons.
That has been and is still changing, and therefore that will be one less excuse that Americans cannot use going into the future.
"More clean diesels please, and the cleaner the better" I always say.
Private owner, diesel light passenger vehicles are not now, and have not in the past 20 years contributed a significant portion or the air pollution in the U.S..
You can joust at windmills all you want, preventing the cleanest diesels from entering the market while allowing the highest sulfur fuel and highest emission diesel vehicles is not only ridiculous, it is harmful both to our economy and to our health.
Alternative fuel vehicles and higher fuel efficiency vehicles are needed, why create obstacles to eliminate them from the market?
That's why now, when the exhaust is so much cleaner, the cars are making a bit of a surge.
That's why now, when the exhaust is so much cleaner, the cars are making a bit of a surge.
Lars, explain how public safety is improved by preventing the cleanest emission diesel vehicles from being sold, and allowing the commercial trucks, school buses, commercial aircraft, construction equipment, trains, ships, and diesel powered equipment that produce 99% of the diesel emissions are allowed to continue without stringent exhaust regulations? Only now are moderate regulations being enacted.
CARB and EPA could regulate diesel powered Alien Spaceships and have as much affect on public safety as they have by attacking diesel cars.
Even when regulations allowed the same diesel cars to be sold in U.S. as in Europe without having to engineer a different emissions system to meet U.S. regs., sales as a percentage of the total market were minimal.
Regulators nearly made the diesel car extinct by enacting regulations too stringent and disparate before technology could meet them in a reasonable time frame at a reasonable cost.
Why don't we just ban jet powered cars in the interest of public safety too?
Then when that barrier was removed... diesel owners still had to deal with the higher cost of the fuel, the replacement of the particulate filter, and the high cost of emission cleansing.
That last item is the worse. Either you pay up-front for a top-grade catalytic-converter or routinely pay for urea refills. 7.5 gallons at $32 per gallon every 16,500 miles is way beyond what y'all here ever said it would cost. Yet, that's what Consumer Reports recently paid.
Year after year, it's just another excuse. Too little, too slowly was the assessment of progress by the auto task-force for GM. I'd say the same is true for diesel too.
Shouldn't you be pushing for market growth rather than complaining?
.
Why? The more people that have diesel vehicles the higher the price of fuel. Diesel in CA has been equal to or less than RUG going on a year now. I would like to see it stay that way. As far as I am concerned the whacked out enviro types have made it difficult to save fuel in large PU trucks and SUVs.
Adblue is less than half a penny a mile at current pricing. Adblue is available for $8 per gallon. You can make your own with Urea and water. One part urea to two parts water. It is a common fertilizer.
Your biggest fear is folks will realize that driving can be fun in a diesel car that gets great mileage. That will all but kill the hybrids that are NOT fun or pleasant to ride around in.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
They took a run at you and caused a little "spat" though didn't they ?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
And came out looking quite foolish, while Edmunds is likely no worse for wear.
Good for Edmunds for not cow-towing in that instance.
I'm all for that. I mean, who REALLY needs a jet-powered car?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I'm all for that. I mean, who REALLY needs a jet-powered car?
Jay Leno does, and he has more than one. Who really needs a show on NBC when you have so many fantastic vehicles?
On the topic of diesel's in the news-
Looks like not much of anything in the news at the NAIAS for diesel. Focus is on electric and hybrid and direct injection.
Mahindra is in discussions with Navistar to assemble trucks in the United States to avoid the Chicken Tax.
Diesel may be better fuel deal for U.S.
quote-
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, if one third of the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet were powered by diesels, foreign oil imports could be reduced 1.4 million barrels per day. By comparison, that savings is 40 percent greater than the one million barrels the U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia every day. This reduced crude oil consumption would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 180 million tons per year. -end
Reduce fuel consumption and cut carbon dioxide emissions. Yes!
If you were to wave a magic wand and switch all the gas burning cars to clean diesels over night our demand for oil would drop through the floor by 30-40%. And that would be without any fancy dohicky green trees lighting up on dashboards trying to modify driving behavior.
When it comes to cars and technology the US public is the wrong audience to ask given all they do is look at the pump price - sticker price and HP rating and then purchase a vehicle without really knowing their loan interest or how the loan works.
All things that affect true owner costs that people fail to consider. U know that same fuzzy feel good math that we used in the housing biz the past few years :-)
I didn't know about that.
:P
Gas, diesel or hybrid? Automaker says it's up to local markets
***
You do know that we're meaningless and powerless as far as they are concerned? California's(largest state) CARB essentially dictates the market as they are the giant stumbling block that none of the manufacturers want to tell off.
There hasn't been a single instance that I can remember when CARB has listened to the public's concerns. They do what they want and then everyone scrambles to lick their boots. Currently they hate diesels.
Containing remaining old dirty diesel exhaust (of which there are a lot of sources) and making sure future diesel exhaust is scrubbed is one of their goals.
Nothing wrong with that, if you care about clean air.
After all, they are the AIR resources board.
They can only do what they can do. They have no jurisdiction in regulating the diesel engines of other country's cargo ships.
As long as we are at it maybe every city should have their own emissions standards. So you can only use your vehicle in cities you are in compliance with. WE ARE OVER REGULATED BY STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES.