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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
They kept their heads buried in the sand years ago when the Japanese imports took most of their business. I think they are doing the same thing again and this time the diesels might just finish them off.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Don't forget that most US makers are selling LDDs in Europe.
John
Diesel - the pairing of cheap fuel and reliable engines that belched black pollutants skyward over a century's growth in the transportation industry - is turning greener.
A cleaner fuel, mandated to be in wide use by Sunday, has paved the way for the 2007 debut of new engines with vastly better emission controls.
The result is "the single greatest achievement in clean fuel since lead was removed from gasoline more than 25 years ago," Stephen L. Johnson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said in a teleconference yesterday.
Scientists project that over the next quarter-century, the amount of particulates, nitrogen oxides and other pollutants spewed into the atmosphere by trucks and
Diesel's biggest sin has been soot - particles that can be inhaled, causing irritation. The smallest can travel deep into the lungs and interfere with the transfer of oxygen to the blood. Some of the particles and the chemicals they contain may get into the bloodstream.
Particle pollution is linked to decreased lung function and increased asthma, absenteeism, emergency-room visits, and heart attacks among people with heart disease. The fragile lungs of children, the elderly and the sick are most at risk.
The greening of diesel does not come cheap.
The EPA estimates implementation costs of $4.3 billion a year - a price tag the agency expects to be offset many times over by public-health benefits calculated at $70 billion a year. By 2030, when nearly all old engines will have worn out and been replaced, 20,000 premature deaths, tens of thousands of bronchial ailments, and more than 7,000 hospital visits will be prevented every year, according to the EPA. buses will be reduced by more than 90 percent.
Columbus is the site of the new light duty diesels that will be used in Ram 1500, Durango, etc...
By Michael Hawthorne
Tribune staff reporter
Published October 11, 2006
The black puff of diesel smoke is joining leaded gasoline as part of America's toxic past.
Starting Sunday, most diesel pumps across the nation will flow with fuel that is dramatically cleaner, the first step in a decades-long effort to curb air pollution that can trigger asthma attacks, cause cancer and take years off lives.
The new fuel contains considerably less sulfur than the dirty diesel it replaces, a change that is expected to reduce harmful soot and other forms of pollution by 10 percent.
When the fuel is pumped into cleaner engines that will be standard on new vehicles beginning next year, the benefits will be even more substantial: a 90 percent decrease in the noxious mix of chemicals present in diesel exhaust today.
Top officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday that the combination of cleaner diesel fuel and engines eventually will prevent 8,300 early deaths and tens of thousands of respiratory ailments every year .
All that said, I know they are making a lot of changes in the 2007 model that is not out yet. I doubt it gets as good a mileage with the bigger 6 cylinder diesel engine. It seems a waste as the 5 cylinder diesel has more than enough power. Probably trying to appease the air gods at the EPA and CARB
I would love to have a Ford Ranger 2 wheel drive with a diesel getting 35-40 MPG.
BUT, the US auto makers will only put it in the top of the line 4X4's (if at all) :mad:
Just how do they get the data that they use to come up with the Ludicrous ideas they bring to market?
I think the issue is that people are willing to pay sticker for cars such as the hemi. You can buy most of the hemi cars with smaller engines--but those are the ones that sit on lots and require incentives to move.
The used side is really the more profitable of the two segments.
They will come--it's not a question of the big three stuck in a box, but simply the issue of getting factories retooled for an emerging market.
But my guess is that Honda and Toyota beat the big three into the LDD pickup market. Possibly, Jeep might step up with a Mercedes LDD. The big three are really in a funk right now and that isn't going to turn around in the next couple years.
John
I don't think Ford Toyota and GM really want diesels in the US. Diesels last longer plus get much better mileage. I have two now and plan on keeping both until someone makes something better. The oil companies don't want diesel cars either.
Diesel cars have not made headway in the USA for the simple reason of the harmful effects of diesel exhaust and the soot and pollution they produce.
Nothing else. Not some big anti-diesel world conspiracy.
The air quality in Europe is overall equal to or better quality than in USA.
Several countries in Europe have longer life expectancy than USA.
45% to 55% of the passenger vehicle market in Europe is diesel.
Gasoline contains known carcinogens. Exhaust from gasoline engines contains known carcinogens. Exhaust from gasoline engines is a major source of pollution in the USA.
Gasoline cars are on the decline in Europe for the simple reason of the harmful effects of gasoline exhaust and the pollution they produce.
Legislation and cheap gasoline are the reasons diesel's are unpopular in the USA.
That's silly. Do you think that they don't care about the air quiality over there in europe? If anything they are more concerned about it than we are.
There was a town in Italy about a year ago that had a day of the week where it banned all cars to try to help remedy the poor air - I posted a link to the news story.
ROME After the European Union placed new limits on airborne chemical particles on Jan. 1, many cities across the Continent, from Italy to the Netherlands, found that they were unable to comply, EU officials and scientists say.
Now, a new report from the World Health Organization, to be discussed Wednesday by the European Commission, defines the consequences of such failure: The average European city dweller can expect to die a year before the end of his or her natural life span because of particulate air pollution, the researchers calculate.
While the levels of most types of air pollution have been falling steadily in Europe, levels of dangerous particles have remained steady in the past few years and are increasing in some places. Such pollution is known as PM10, for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter. In cities, it is largely related to traffic.
Low levels of PM10, thought previously to have little or no effect on human health, are in fact highly dangerous, the health agency scientists concluded, after reviewing a growing body of research. Particles are conclusively linked to increased risk of a wide range of health disorders, from infant mortality to heart attacks and lung disease.
One reason that cities have trouble controlling this type of pollution, many scientists theorize, is the rising popularity in Europe of diesel-powered cars, which get better mileage than gasoline-fueled cars but produce larger amounts of particulate pollution - 100 times as much, according to the American Lung Association. Although particle traps can be installed to control such emissions, they are not required and are offered only as an option by most carmakers, including Volkswagen, the diesel market leader.
"Now we know that these small particles are really dangerous, so we need to adapt to that new knowledge," said Dr. Roberto Bertollini, director of the World Health Organization's Special Program on Health and the Environment for the European Region, which conducted the review.
"There's a new scientific basis for a new agenda," said Bertollini, who is based in Rome.
From this page:
Diesel being recognized as a hazard in Europe
The only reason that companies like Toyota and Honda started selling diesel cars is to have a presence in the EU. Honda had a hard time selling any cars in the EU, until they put a diesel into their offerings. Then it was bought from some other automaker. I am glad Honda finally saw the light and are building their own.
Do you think that the sales of hybrids in the EU is an indication of what people with a choice think of them? The only ones being sold are to government agencies that have money to waste.
Yeah--with better air quality than the US.
Larsb, your purpose seems to not be pro-environemnt, nor pro-health, but anti-diesel.
That's strange.
With ULSD at the pumps and the 2008 "clean diesel cars" coming, I'm hopeful that diesel can make inroads ONCE IT'S CLEAN.
My dream car, as long-time members can attest to, is a 5-passenger diesel/electric hybrid which gets EPA 70+ MPG and costs less than $35,000.
Make that a plug-in and it's even better. :shades:
Theory - An assumption or guess. (from Websters Dictionary)
There's a new scientific basis for a new agenda," said Bertollini, who is based in Rome.
quote larsb - Yes and they are paying for their diesel ways. -end
Italians are paying for their diesel ways with a life expectancy that is 2 years longer than Americans. :surprise: How terrible to be subjected to 2 additional years of diesel effects.
I have a theory that larsb has an anti-diesel agenda. :P
Low levels of PM10, thought previously to have little or no effect on human health, are in fact highly dangerous, the health agency scientists concluded, after reviewing a growing body of research. Particles are conclusively linked to increased risk of a wide range of health disorders, from infant mortality to heart attacks and lung disease.
Is PM10 a result of diesel?
Conisder Phoenix as an example of PM10 problem.
The Phoenix metropolitan area is not currently meeting either the annual or the 24-hour health- based standard. Under the plan, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Maricopa County, and the local cities and towns will implement control measures for all the primary sources of airborne particulates. The primary sources of particulate pollution in the Phoenix area are windblown dust from construction sites, agricultural fields, unpaved parking lots and roads, disturbed vacant lots, and paved road dust.
We should all adopt an anti-construction, anti-agriculture, anti-unpaved road (pave over North America!), anti-paved road dust agenda!
But PM from diesel exhaust WE HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER.
If a construction company is stirring up dust in the process of building a house, then that's part of life.
If a farmer stirs up dust working a field, that's part of life.
Those PM are NATURE MADE, just like a lot of the greenhouse gases which are harming our Earf. Not too much we can do about the pollution that NATURE gives to us.
Sucking on diesel exhaust particulates is CONTROLLABLE by using cleaner fuel, cleaner filters, etc.
Control what you can control, in the name of health. Everything under the sun can hurt us. We CAN make some of that stuff hurt us LESS by being smart.
But PM from diesel exhaust WE HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER."...
Let's see, 97.1 -97.7 % is the current passenger vehicle fleet, meaning MOST (actually overwhelmingly, but who is counting?) emissions comes from unleaded regular. Yet you do not advocate control of the PM from unleaded regular at all, or the MAJORITY OF THE PASSENGER VEHICLE FLEET. You also would ban the 2.3-2.9% of the diesels, which admittedly doesn't even have statistically correlated, validated, related variables, simply because you can!!??? But you want no controls over the things that actually have been shown to have statistically correlated variables and causal relationships as cited in Moparbad's posts!??? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
You really don't need any of us to marginalize your posts. You do that quite well by yourself.
Why do we have control over diesel cars and not diesel trucks, trains, planes, ships and tractors. I will tell you why. EPA and CARB are like the playground Bully. They always go after the little guys they know they can beat up. Never take on the big guy because he will rub your nose in the dirt. EPA could control all of the above if they wanted to. Arizona could control the contractors and farmers if they wanted to. It is easier to blame it on the little guy. When that is totally a lie.
You or no other anti diesel poster have come up with any test results of a modern diesel engine burning ULSD that was any dirtier than the other vehicles in the same class burning gasoline. That includes the new Blutec that passed the 2009 emissions. CARB just does not trust the owner to maintain the vehicle at those levels.
To get closer to home. I don't recall you saying you would not buy a 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid that was only rated a "TWO" in the non CARB states. There were many cars with better emissions. In fact the Avalanche you traded in was a "3" on the EPA site. So you were only interested in getting better mileage. It had nothing to do with emissions. Yet you poo poo anyone that would buy a diesel to get better mileage because it is not up to the highest possible PZEV standard. If that is not hypocrisy what might it be?
I wonder how you sleep at night knowing that your car is part of Toyota's scheme to sell more gas guzzling high polluting vehicles.
link title
that link for a reply..
quote-
In January, new diesel engine rules will force automakers to cut emissions by as much as 95 percent.
As a result, new diesel-powered vehicles will run smoother and quieter than previous models. Those advances, coupled with high gasoline prices, have automakers scrambling to get models on the road.
By 2010, U.S. customers will have diesel options for everything from small compact cars to large sport utility vehicles.
"You just can't walk away from a 30 percent improvement in fuel economy," said Jim Kelly, engine business president for diesel engine maker Cummins Inc., based in Columbus, Ind.
-end
Honda says that with the i-CTDi, it is hard to tell by the sound that the car is diesel-powered. Combined city/highway fuel economy of the European Accord is estimated at nearly 42 miles a gallon; 0-60 acceleration takes slighty more than nine seconds.
And by then, the new Prius will be sporting 90 MPG.
Diesel cars better plan on doing better than this car to win over USA drivers and car buyers.
PS Even if it IS 42 MPG USA the Prius will be on the road with a 90+ MPG rating by then.
So unless you are saying the Accord's competitor, the Camry or the Camry hybrid will be sporting 90 mpg, or was that less due to the European conversion? or the Camry will under go a metamorphosis into the Prius; you might be missing the boat here at the very least, or way off base, which is probably more like it.
Being as how this is a diesel thread and NOT a hybrid thread, it would be interesting to see if Toyota will come out with a Camry diesel offering.
larsb- Converts to 35 MPG in the USA. Not even as good as thc TCH Incorrect.
42 mpg combined is higher mpg than the TCH's 40 mpg combined.
If the next generation Prius delivers 90 mpg that will be great. There is not a single solution to future energy needs. :surprise: Diesels, Hybrids, Hydrogen, Electric and other transportation choices are all needed to contribute to greater energy independence.
That is a pipe dream that Toyota used to try and get the folks in the UK interested in the dead hybrids in Europe. I have real money that says that Toyota will not build an honest 90 MPG Prius for US consumption. They are cutting the size of the batteries in the hybrids not making them bigger. Look under your back seat for yourself.
Show me a gas hybrid that will go 130 MPH for 24 hours straight, then get 92 MPG on the trip home. It will never happen.
Honda’s new Accord 2.2 i-CTDi Sport has this week set no fewer than 19 world speed records and achieved 3.07 litres / 100 km (92 mpg) fuel economy to boot. British racing driver Robin Liddell and freelance journalist Iain Robertson were part of the European record-setting team.
Amongst the speed records set, which were all achieved in Production Car Class B (2000 – 2500 cc), were 133.04 mph (1 mile flying start), 84.25 mph (1 mile standing start) and an average speed of 130.38 mph over a 24-hour endurance period. These records were all set at Papenburg high-speed oval test track in north-west Germany
I am not sure why Larsh is making a case for no birds in the bush, and none in hand with they hybrid, when at least two are already in hand with the Honda cTDI getting 92 mpg, and on the flips side 24 hours, 130 plus mph?????
Yes, that's certainly a reasonable REAL WORLD usage for a car.
There is no denying that the Honda i-CTDi Accord is an amazing piece on engineering. And the USA will get in it 2009, according to recent news by Honda.
But that's EURO 92 MPG, which is about double the Euro 47.9 MPG which the car is rated.
About the same as the Prius which got 109 MPG in the comparable test - just about double the combined EPA rating of 55.5.
So the best diesel and the best Hybrid get about double their mileage rating in comparable tests. A wash.
PS here is a page with the Euro Accord specs:
Honda Accord diesel
If hybridizing an standard Civic gains it about 12 MPG, what would a hybrid of this Accord diesel hit? 50+ MPG USA? And give all the diesel people their beloved "torque" and their 350,000 mile engine.
Gary could finally embrace Hybrids !!! :shades:
Absolutely not!!! Why mess up a perfectly good running gear with unneeded complexity. I think people will get 50 MPG out of the Accord diesel engine. Then you will see all those TCH owners jumping ship.
I started out thinking hybrids were good. I DO NOT believe they are. Both from an economic and an environmental point of view. Too much pollution in the manufacturing and too many things to go wrong with them. It would need to be guaranteed for 10 years bumper to bumper, then I might consider it. If you never keep a car past the duration of the warranty you would not understand.
When I sell my 2005 Sierra Hybrid, I will probably buy an older truck. One that is easy to work on with lots of independent repair shops. I would not trust a Toyota/Lexus dealer to be honest with non warranty repair. Lexus of El Cajon told us things needed repair that were in good condition. Your experience may be good when Toyota is the only place for hybrid repair. That is a risk I would not take.
This Accord engine is not a simple thing. There is a TON of new, fancy diesel technology in the engine. You are not going to get THAT car worked on by a shadetree mechanic either.
Those Days Are Mostly Over. Cars are too complex, and getting more complex by the year.
If you base your decision on what car to buy on whether or not your old mechanic buddy Joe Schmuckatelli can work on it, then you are soon going to run out of cars which have that as an option. The world marches on !!! :shades:
Why add 30% more complexity when it is just a waste of money and creates a lot more pollution in a third world country?
You are assuming that Honda solves their problems with electronics rather than hardware solutions. They claim they can get emissions to an acceptable level with just a catalytic convertor. I agree that the lengths that Mercedes has gone to in complying give me concerns.
I am not a big fan of much of the added crappola that is desired by folks that do not know how to drive conservatively. ABS, ESC, XYZ & PQR do not make for a better car IMO. I will take control and responsibility for my vehicle. I do not need Honda or Toyota to drive for me.
Frankly, that's a pile of poo.
You've gone out about the expense of ULSD, when ULSD will make all the heavy diesel equipment currently in operation much cleaner.
It wouldn't shock me if the move to ULSD cleaned up the air as much as every car moving to hybrid in the US.
I actually can go up to 700 miles and not fuel.
What kind of fancy new technology?