Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options

Diesels in the News

1165167169170171

Comments

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    No different than a gasoline car running out of gas. Except that the only recovery option is (tow).
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,107
    edited September 2010
    While a lot more might be generated cleanly, it won't increase much (internationally) as a % of the mix, lots of coal fired plants being built, too.
  • easym1easym1 Member Posts: 218
    I'm with you on this subject.
  • colin_lcolin_l Member Posts: 591
    I found it interesting, though, that the electric cars lost in the Swiss study despite the Swiss using only nuclear and hydroelectric power. They don't have a legion of coal plants as we do in the US, so it would seem if a similar study were done here that diesel would be even more favorable.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Diesel Picks Up Speed
    U.S. car buyers are warming to the fuel. But it still has some drawbacks.


    quote-Audi buyers now choose Turbocharged Direct Injection, or TDI, in about half of the A3 compact sedans sold in the U.S., and 40% of Q7s. That's more than double Audi's initial expectations. Partly as a result, the German luxury brand's U.S. unit posted record sales in this year's first half.-end
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    September 2010 Dashboard: Hybrid Sales Slide, While Clean Diesel Continues Growth

    quote- While sales of hybrids and small cars are down, vehicles with clean diesel engines showed continued strength. All but one clean diesel model made decisive gains compared to last September, boosting overall clean diesel sales by 124.1 percent compared to a year ago. Volkswagen sold nearly 5,000 Jetta TDI units in September. The availability of the Jetta TDI as a fuel-efficient wagon is unique in the marketplace. This upward trend for diesel could continue, but only to a modest degree, because very few new clean diesel models are on the horizon.-end
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    People are again falling in love with trucks and SUVs.

    That fact and people "adjusting" to current gas prices is fueling the small car/hybrid decrease.

    With media interest peaking in the upcoming Volt and Leaf, people are seeing hybrids as "old news."

    The Clean Diesels are finally available in quantities which are allowing it to increase sales.

    Nothing surprising or revolutionary here.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    It is very surprising and revolutionary that sales of diesels would increase while sales of hybrids are decreasing.
    Diesel fuel is more expensive than gasoline.
    Both diesels and hybrids are higher cost compared to conventional gasoline offerings and both are targeted to consumers seeking decreased fuel consumption and/or "green" offerings.

    That diesel sales would increase at a time when people have "adjusted" to current gasoline prices is surprising.

    Hybrids are available in greater quantities and are more affordable than ever, why would their sales decrease when diesel sales are increasing?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    With media interest peaking in the upcoming Volt and Leaf, people are seeing hybrids as "old news."

    I knew the hybrids were just another Fad. Problem is it has left a lot of those ugly Prius for us have to look at. :shades:

    Supposedly VW will be bringing the Tiguan TDI to America. That would be a vehicle to replace the Lexus. Maybe both the Sequoia and LS400.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    edited October 2010
    moparbad says, "It is very surprising and revolutionary that sales of diesels would increase while sales of hybrids are decreasing. "

    On the surface, maybe, but not really, when you take a second to analyze the reasons.

    We all knew when the clean diesels were available in sufficient quantities to fulfill the 5% or so of buyers who might want them, that they would sell well.

    We ALL knew that.

    What we didn't know were these two things:

    1. Gas prices would stabilize to a point that the American people have accepted $2.60 as a reasonable gas price and would start buying pickups, crossovers, ans SUVs in mass quantities again.

    2. Electric cars would storm the media marketplace and put hybrids in the "old news" category.

    Hybrid sales are decreasing in part because people are waiting for electric cars and plug-ins. AND the fact that gas is no longer considered "EXPENSIVE" so that takes away a reason for buying a hybrid.

    P.S. I wish this Forum had a "LIKE" button for comments, because I'm REALLY proud of this post. :shades: :shades: :shades: :shades: :shades:
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It was a good post. Not a great post, but a good post. :shades:

    We were in Evansville, Indiana last year at this time. We filled up several times at one Shell station. The price before my 5% discount was $2.21 per gallon RUG. The cheapest gas is $2.69 today in Evansville. I will be renting an Altima this year. I hope it gets better mileage than my Sequoia did last year. Looks like diesel and premium are about the same price. So a diesel would be nice to have.
  • roland3roland3 Member Posts: 431
    ... We (???), well most of us realize the benefits of clean Diesel, but a significant portion of the market appears to be coming on board. And why not, I was following a TDI for a few miles and othe than the trunk badge I would have never known it was Diesel. Same thing with a Duramax parked beside me, it was so quiet I thought it was a gasoline engine.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I knew they were full of CRAP from the get go. But my voice was never heard. How many billions of gallons of fuel were wasted due to poor investigation by CARB?

    (10-08) 04:00 PDT Sacramento - --

    California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state's clean-air standards, and scientists have spent the past several months revising data and planning a significant weakening of the landmark regulation, The Chronicle has found.

    The pollution estimate in question was too high - by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries.

    The staff of the powerful and widely respected Air Resources Board said the overestimate is largely due to the board calculating emissions before the economy slumped, which halted the use of many of the 150,000 diesel-exhaust-spewing vehicles in California. Independent researchers, however, found huge overestimates in the air board's work on diesel emissions and attributed the flawed work to a faulty method of calculation - not the economic downturn.

    The overestimate, which comes after another bad calculation by the air board on diesel-related deaths that made headlines in 2009, prompted the board to suspend the regulation this year while officials decided whether to weaken the rule.
    Proposal announced

    On Thursday, after months of work, the air board and construction industry officials announced a proposal that includes delaying the start of the requirements until 2014 and exempting more vehicles from the rule. It would be a major scaling back of the rule if the air board approves it in a vote scheduled for December. The announcement was made as The Chronicle was preparing to publish this report, which had been in the works for several weeks.

    The setbacks in the air board's research - and the proposed softening of a landmark regulation - raise questions about the performance of the agency as it is in the midst of implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 - or AB32 as it is commonly called, one of the state's and the nation's most ambitious environmental policies to date.

    AB32, which aims to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, has come under intense political attack this year as the state prepares to elect a new governor. Critics cast the law as a jobs killer because of the expenses to industry and businesses in conforming to new pollution regulations. Supporters say it will reinvigorate the state's economy and create thousands of new jobs in the emerging green sector.

    Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has promised to suspend the law for at least a year, while Democrat Jerry Brown supports the law. California voters, meanwhile, will vote on Proposition 23, a November initiative to suspend AB32 until the unemployment rate - now at 12.4 percent in California - falls to 5.5 percent or less for a year.
    No answers

    Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, offered no explanation when The Chronicle questioned her about the diesel emissions miscalculation. She was recently asked why the air board estimate of a nitrous oxide source was off by at least a factor of two - air board scientists have since revised their numbers, and data show the estimate was off by 340 percent. Nichols' response: "I can't answer that for you."

    Nichols was emphatic, though, when asked whether she has concerns about other scientific calculations made by air board scientists.

    "No, no, no, no, no, no, no and no," she said.

    Members of Nichols' board don't have an answer for the overestimate either, said Ron Roberts, an air board member who is a Republican supervisor in San Diego County and who voted in favor of the diesel regulation.


    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL#ixzz1- 1iqEfuN9
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,107
    edited October 2010
    CARB reminds me of the Three Stooges - one of them makes a hole in their boat, water pouring in. The solution? "Go make another hole to let the water out!" yells Larry!
  • colin_lcolin_l Member Posts: 591
    Your link doesn't work-- you need to drop the # and everything that follow. There are 3 pages to that article, which I agree is interesting, and I don't know that it is really appropriate to copy & paste such a large amount of it here.

    Anyway:
    Totally agree. Very naive, or perhaps disingenuous, of Ms Nichols to not even consider the possibility that other CARB numbers are erroneous. I'm not saying she should go on the offensive and publicly state that all the numbers are suspect and need independent review, but a reasonable person would be concerned and suspicious.

    It seems likely there will be further investigation, more problems and more excuses.
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Member Posts: 5,618
    edited October 2010
    I knew they were full of CRAP from the get go.

    Yeah, I heard quite a bit about this over the last day or two while I was traveling in California.

    Can't wait for the local CARB apologist (whose handle escapes me at the moment) to sign on and tell us the "real story." Edit -- I went and looked it up: larsb. I'm sure he'll chime in at some point.

    Meanwhile, the main stumbling block to getting the excellent diesel vehicles available in Europe to the U.S. is (you guessed it) the California Air Resources Board.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    edited October 2010
    So they go overboard (on accident) by holding diesel exhaust down "too much?"

    No harm there.

    If the miscalculation meant LESS diesel exhaust air pollution, then who in their right mind would say it was a bad thing?
    .
    .
    Seriously, though - which is the worse mistake:

    Allowing MORE pollution
    Allowing LESS pollution

    ??
  • colin_lcolin_l Member Posts: 591
    Me! Excessive regulations cost a LOT of money.

    We make no pollution with no cars at all, but obviously we need cars. Your simplistic dismissal of this issue is troubling. I'll say it again: excessive regulations and laws are wasteful and damage the macroeconomy.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I remember posting when some of the laws went into affect. Several large Trucking companies either folded or left the state. Lies and half truths used to push an agenda seems to be the way politicians work. And any way you look at CARB it is a political entity controlled by a few radical environmentalists. They got theirs and the rest of you can move into a cave.

    One of the major recent problems was an air board estimate of premature deaths caused by particulate matter spewing from diesel engines. The first calculation found 18,000 deaths a year in the state had links to particulate matter. That has been revised down by nearly half.

    The revision was ordered after the board scientist who oversaw that study was outed as having faked his scientific credentials.


    How many of those deaths could have been from the long term affects that wildfire smoke has on people? We have had a lot of fires over the last several years. That is PM in the smoke.
  • coontie66coontie66 Member Posts: 110
    You think the liberal environmental movement that now controls California and the USA would lie to you? GO FIGURE? Remember to listen for the key words they use!

    May, might, could affect, and such words that really mean they don't know the answer and are just guessing. If questioned they have no answer but want you to believe they do. Scientific studies don't work for these folks. They just go on guessing and quoting their friends and other greenies. They are never called on this. Just ask for written proof and their arguments usually fall apart. Global warming and this CARB crap are really good examples.

    Phooey!!
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    I'll second that. Phooey, phooey !!

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    edited October 2010
    That's right larsb, drive that tack home with a 50 million dollar sledge hammer. Never mind the businesses that go bankrupt, the jobs that are lost, and all the citizens left to wonder WTF?

    Is it any wonder that many of us believe organizations like CARB have no credibility whatsoever? The guy who did the study had no scientific credentials? I guess that is an easy mistake to make when millions are at stake. Utterly ridiculous !!

    Why are they different from BP, who had to reimburse people for their mistakes? All CARB does is laugh and say oops !! No accountability whatsoever.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    edited October 2010
    They may or may not have "cred" but they have an important job to do.

    Would you prefer an agency that makes a mistake and actually KEEPS THE AIR CLEANER, or no agency at all, and let the pollution begin in earnest?

    Sometimes you gotta be careful what you wish for. If CARB went away, the air in CA would quickly get a lot nastier than it already is.
    .
    .
    .
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    edited October 2010
    houdini1 says, "Never mind the businesses that go bankrupt, the jobs that are lost, and all the citizens left to wonder WTF? "

    You talking about trucking companies that closed?

    Well, apparently we had too many of them anyway. I don't remember any news reports of their being a shortage of truckers/trucking companies in Cali, do you?

    If a few small companies are shut down, and the industry does not falter, then they had too many companies anyway.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Sometimes you gotta be careful what you wish for. If CARB went away, the air in CA would quickly get a lot nastier than it already is.

    That is total BS. We would save jobs and a heck of a lot of wasted tax dollars. CARB is just duplication of the EPA. We have to pay for both in CA. If you want them so bad we would be glad to give the whole bunch of losers to you in AZ. You forget in addition to CARB each area of CA has an air quality board. Which makes it a triple waste of money. It has little to do with pollution, and everything to do with empire building in Local, State and Federal Governments. They are bleeding US with no significant improvement in air quality over the last 20 years. It may be worse with the 1000s of ships coming to our ports from China.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I don't remember any news reports of their being a shortage of truckers/trucking companies in Cali, do you?

    That is the problem. The trucking companies in other states pick up the slack. We lose jobs and no improvement in AQ, trucks from other states are not held to our ridiculous CARB rules. IC protects them from our idiocy in CA. You just do not understand how CA politics work. The Eco nuts are destroying our economy. And have not improved squat. That is what that report was saying.
  • yesdiesel1yesdiesel1 Member Posts: 23
    Dear Mr H.
    If I am reading your post correctly then your the problem!
    My guess is that all the folks you voted for are busy right now trying to get Cap & Trade done by the lame ducks just to make sure they have more of what you earn and you become more depend on them.
    Nancy, Harry and Obama love you and your elk.
    :sick:
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    12.8% is the unemployment rate in California.

    Excessive regulation based on sham science that CARB imposed on California, CARB emissions states and on our nations emissions regulations have added cost to transportation and business and prevented economic growth.

    CARB did not prevent pollution, they created imaginary pollution.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Hey, I completely understand how all you diesel lovers have a grudge against CARB.

    You wanted them to just let the diesel cars flow. I get it.

    But to say they did NOTHING to help improve the air?

    That's a little bit of an exaggeration, no?
    .
    .
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited October 2010
    But to say they did NOTHING to help improve the air?

    That's a little bit of an exaggeration, no?


    How about the end does not justify the means. The Eco nuts running CA have nearly destroyed the most vibrant state in the Union. When they raise taxes to the unbearable levels to support their ignorance, the retirees that are carrying much of the tax burden will bail out and leave this a waste land.

    It is not just diesel cars that they blocked from entering the whole USA. It is the CO2 mandates that have raised electric, gas, water and sewer rates. The ultra left legislature has all but banned coal, nuclear, hydro and a lot of wind and solar power. Yet they keep giving out building permits to their buddies to build mega burbs with golf courses that suck all the water out of the state. If I could get close to what I have into this house back out, I would probably bail out of the state. I may just make this a vacation home and move my main residence to a friendlier state.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    If you have problems with exaggeration then CARB with their 340% exaggeration of emissions is to blame.

    Improving the quality of the air we breathe is a goal we can all agree on.
    CARB is guilty of being inept at the very least and fraud and negligence are accusations gaining steam as more is known about CARB's methodology and the qualifications of it's "experts".
    What has CARB done?
    CARB advocated MTBE that polluted groundwater in CA and other states.
    CARB in 1990 passed the Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate, a misguided, costly initiative with ever changing rules.
    CARB used fraudulent data to determine particulate emissions. Author of the report used to justify the clean truck strategy, Hien Tran, had purchased his PhD from a diploma mill Thornhill University. Very little effort is required to validate academic credentials at this level. Apparently CARB made no effort to validate credentials.

    Now it's been discovered that CARB "grossly miscalculated" the data it used to set pollution limits. Overestimate fueled state's landmark diesel law

    Separating fact from political fancy is not a talent present at CARB.

    CARB nearly killed non-commercial diesel passenger vehicles in the United States by not acting in a responsible manner. CARB, as they have done in the past, mandated emissions reductions that were not attainable in the time frame mandated and added unreasonable cost.

    CARB is responsible for diesel emissions standards that are stricter than anywhere else in the world, which prevents diesel vehicles from being developed or sold in United States without costly modifications.

    EU has reduced diesel emissions in a responsible manner.

    We should all have a grudge against CARB. CARB's dishonesty damaged the clean air initiatives as much as they did the diesel vehicle market.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    moparbad says, "CARB is responsible for diesel emissions standards that are stricter than anywhere else in the world, which prevents diesel vehicles from being developed or sold in United States without costly modifications."

    When it comes to clean air, I think most people living in CA would opt for having the strictest regs. They help keep the air clean and help asthmatics live a better life.

    I think that's because CARB has a better understanding about diesel exhaust issues than the EU.

    Some towns in Europe have had to BAN DRIVING on some days in an effort to reduce (diesel) air pollution.

    Look - diesel is GREAT for efficiency, and diesel engines have all that lovely torque, etc etc.

    But the dangers of diesel exhaust have not COMPLETELY gone away just because technology has made engines produce cleaner exhaust.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,107
    "When it comes to clean air, I think most people living in CA would opt for having the strictest regs. They help keep the air clean and help asthmatics live a better life."

    It is this kind of thinking that will result in WORSE quality air. There is no "strictest regs", except for the elimination of all fuel use. So reality is this: we as a society have only so money to spend (there is a limit, don't you agree), so each dollar we spend should be done efficiently. We should get the most pollution reduction we can for the cost (in taxes and regulations). It sounds like CARB blew it - inaccurate technical basis means that folks in CA were paying WAY too much for the actual pollution reductions. ONLY when real data is used can proper costs and benefits be determined. Bad science means that MORE pollutants are being emitted at any level of taxation/regulation, not less!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You completely over look the main cause of pollution from diesel vehicles. That is sulfur content. Now that most diesel sold for on road use is ULSD, the main cause of pollution has been eliminated without anything done to the engine. It is the smallest amount of emissions that they have forced the auto makers to spend $millions to eliminate. I don't consider that a wise use of money. In your eagerness to down play how the advantages of diesel far outweigh the negatives, you have glossed over the evil deeds of CARB.

    MTBE should have been enough to get CARB disbanded and not allowed to spread their poison any further. There constant fight with EPA costs the tax payers $billions.
  • roland3roland3 Member Posts: 431
    ... It's a rather grim situation when the reg. makers start listening to me. I've been saying for some time there is no place left to go with the regs. Evidently CARB created someplace. I wonder if they will return to our planet and work for less total (and carbon) output, with some small incentives in allowable NOx ?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I have argued for at least ten years that the CARB agenda was to eliminate the internal combustion engine. Starting with diesel. Every time VW would meet their regulations, they would up the ante. It was quite obvious they were not going to allow the CA driver the opportunity to save on fuel with the superior fuel diesel. They are being bought off by the oil companies the same today as Rockefeller did 100 years ago. They want to keep the balance with gasoline to diesel production. They have a glut of gasoline right now and are not sure what to do.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary says, "I have argued for at least ten years that the CARB agenda was to eliminate the internal combustion engine."

    That would be ridiculous, Gary.

    Everyone in their right mind knows that ICE vehicles will be around for at least a few more decades, maybe until after 2100. They will go away some day, but not in our lifetimes.

    Gary says, "They are being bought off by the oil companies the same today as Rockefeller did 100 years ago."

    Conspiracy theory lover, much?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That would be ridiculous, Gary.

    You have obviously not read Al Gore's book on the subject. A book many of the Eco Nuts in CA consider the environmental bible. Yes it is ridiculous to consider getting rid of the most economical way for people to get around. Many would like to force US into just such a situation with stupid regulations.

    Conspiracy theory lover, much?

    Hardly, Rockefeller was very open in his promotion of Gasoline over alcohol, in defiance of Henry Ford. Prior to that gasoline was disposed of as waste.

    1. The original automobiles ran on alcohol because when they were invented gasoline was not available.

    2. Rockefeller spent $4 million (that we know of) to promote Prohibition, a ban on alcohol manufacturing in the US that started in 1919 just as the car industry was taking off.

    3. When Prohibition was lifted in 1933, gasoline stations were ubiquitous and most engines ran on gasoline only.


    Google It
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    edited October 2010
    You are responding to the wrong conspiracy. I was talking about the "CARB getting paid off by the oil companies" one, not the Rockefeller one.

    And on the "elimination of the ICE vehicle," I DID say "anyone in their RIGHT mind" so that leaves AlGore and his cronies out of the picture. They can continue to live in their little fantasy world.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That is the problem. Many of the people in CARB are not of a Right Mind. They have an agenda and will lie about data to push it. Look at who the oil companies give lobby money to for your evidence. If you can get that info. It is what our governments have become. Corrupt from the lowest to highest levels. You may think it is ok, I don't.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    When have they lied, again, exactly?

    .
    .
    .

    And of course no one thinks corruption is acceptable. But some of us aren't as cynical as to believe everything "guvmint related" is corrupted.

    Government is a slice of society, because it is made up of individual persons. In every large group of persons, you will find a corrupt few.

    Might as well not whine about it - it's a fact that cannot be changed.

    Just be happy for the vast majority of individual persons in guvmint who are NOT corrupt.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    edited October 2010

    How about the end does not justify the means. The Eco nuts running CA have nearly destroyed the most vibrant state in the Union. When they raise taxes to the unbearable levels to support their ignorance...


    Actually, the real reason that California is failing is due to three simple things, and none of them have to do with eco-anything.

    1 - Proposition 13. This was enacted in 1977(IIRC) and it basically froze tax rates on properties(as long as you own it, it's frozen at the date you bought it). While this is a good thing in theory, it set up a system where the only way to generate more taxes to keep up with inflation as a city was to have ever-higher prices. If the real estate market ever went down, you basically instantly ran out of money.

    2 - Propositions. California is now paying over 20% of its entire gross income to fund and fuel 30 years of propositions and initiatives. The people are essentially voting themselves into bankruptcy. You'll note that #1 and #2 are purely the voter's fault and have nothing at all to do with the government, taxes, or any of the other rationalizations for the lousy situation that are so prevalent in the press and our culture today I singled out Prop 13, because it was a NAFTA-like critical junction that started a whole chain of events..

    3: - Illegal immigrants. 15% of California are illegal immigrants and their under-working-age children. Now, this isn't anything political from me. It's a simple assessment of dollars and cents spent supporting the children of these people, who because they are U.S. citizens but are also too young to legally work, are a huge burden on public services. Their parents are living mostly on a cash basis and skirting the laws(which, while understandable given their situation is still money lost). The combination of the two means that effectively California is having to provide for the rest of the population on only 80% of the money that it should have.(that 15% is vastly more expensive to deal with from schools to the load on state hospitals, and all the way to police and social services and so on)

    It's not CARB or the politicians. It's the people themselves that have done it to themselves over the the last thirty years.

    note - 30 years because these initiatives generally take 30 years to pay off/down. These initiatives also account for 4-5% more sales tax. The state has only increased sales tax once or twice in the last 40 years. The rest is from initiatives. In a way, I feel a little(but not much) sorry for the politicians as they try to do their job and the people keep throwing gasoline on the fire.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited October 2010
    While those have had affect on the tax base. It does not alleviate the crazy environmental regulations that have forced companies out of business or to another state. That has eroded the tax base more than Prop 13. CA has one of the overall highest tax bases (income and sales) per capita in the USA. So there is no excuse for the budget being underfunded. The legislature's looking the other way on illegal immigrants and the tremendous drain on our economy, is all government's fault not the majority of the constituency that want them out of the state.

    I am sure that the loss of fuel tax is another reason they have directed CARB to make owning a diesel car close to impossible.

    PS
    Cannot blame me on the Propositions. I vote no on all of the spending props.
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Member Posts: 5,618
    the public employee's union & the retirement gravy train they've been able to generate for themselves.

    Governor Moonbeam started screwing CA up in the '70s (which is what prompted Prop 13 in the first place), and it's looking more likely that he's going to get another shot at it. CARB will get even more support.

    Oh boy.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    edited October 2010
    Not to mention all those small villages where the mayor and police chief, etc. are all paying themselves $500,000. per year. Probably just the tip of the iceberg.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Preachin' to the choir on this forum.

    The only problem remaining is that carmakers are still yet to be convinced that the USA buyer will accept diesel sedans in droves (meaning large enough volume to generate enough profit for their venture.)
  • altair4altair4 Member Posts: 1,469
    I wonder if the current up-tick in gasoline prices (at least here in the East) won't help persuade the US buyer of the attributes of diesel. As the world economy starts to recover (albeit slowly), the demand for oil will increase dragging the price of gasoline with it. Add to that the precariously weakened US dollar and it doesn't take much to get back to $4 bux a gallon for the rest of the country in the not too distant future. That's the scenario that will make the case for diesel. Especially with the dismal press that GM's Volt is receiving for it's mediocre fuel economy.
  • tifightertifighter Member Posts: 3,785
    Especially with the dismal press that GM's Volt is receiving for it's mediocre fuel economy.

    Its not all dismal...
    127 MPG: The Chevy Volt Diaries

    25 NX 450h+ / 24 Sienna Plat AWD / 23 Civic Type-R / 21 Boxster GTS 4.0 / 03 Montero Ltd

Sign In or Register to comment.