Indeed it does! So saddle up! It is funny but while there was a very oblique reference (almost like a footnote) to "clean" diesel there was no treatment of the new ULSD (15 ppm). Also it is interesting how their study filters out the effects of the burning of unleaded gasoline of which comprises upwards of 97% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
I posted a diesel news article, as I will continue to do. Some are positive, some are neutral, and some are critical.
That's how life goes.....
So, let's discuss the article you posted.....
Since light duty diesel vehicles are currently not sold in the state of New York what is the source of the diesel emissions?
quote-Legislators in New York have acted to ensure that major contributors to soot pollution, including school buses, public transit vehicles, and construction equipment are using modern control technology to reduce their emissions by 85 percent, and legislators in other states are joining them. The North Carolina groups endorse similar policies in North Carolina. -end
I have no objection to cleaning up school buses, public transit vehicles and construction equipment.
My objection is to the irrational action of CARB to prevent the sale of clean diesel vehicles through legislation while continuing to allow major contributors to soot pollution, including school buses, public transit vehicles, and construction equipment. :sick:
CARB is not "in charge of" and neither is tasked with controlling or regulating EVERYTHING related to diesel exhaust from ANY and ALL sources.
The California Air Resources Board is a state agency that is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency. CARB reports directly to the Governor’s Office in the Executive Branch of the California State government. The California Air Resources Board’s mission is to promote and protect public health, welfare and ecological resources through the effective and efficient reduction of air pollutants while recognizing and considering the effects on the economy of the state.
CARB duties are to set health-based air quality standards, set and enforce emission standards for motor vehicles, fuels, and consumer products, conduct research, monitor air quality, identify and set control measures for toxic air contaminants, oversee and assist local air quality districts that regulate many non-vehicular sources of air pollution, produce education programs and materials, and provide compliance assistance for businesses.
Here are some of CARB’s Programs. For a full list go to: www.arb.ca.gov/html/programs.htm
* Air Quality and Transportation Planning: Develops clean air and transportation plans to meet federal and state air quality standards for ozone, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide, plus visibility requirements.
* Community Health: This program identifies air pollution’s health effects on children, assesses the public risks in California communities, and reduces these public health risks.
* Consumer Products: Information on CARB’s regulatory activity, both historical and current, for consumer products.
* Mobile Sources: If you are planning to buy a new or recent-model vehicle, check out the Buyer’s Guide to Cleaner Cars. Also includes information on low and zero emission vehicles, the heavy-duty vehicle inspection program, on-board diagnostics, off-road emission reductions, the scrappage program, and the smoking vehicle complaint hot lines throughout California.
* Research Activities: CARB sponsors a comprehensive program of research into the causes, effects, and possible solutions to the air pollution problem in California.
* Clearing California's Skies: CARB also has a video called "Clearing California’s Skies" on its web site that explains the history of fighting pollution in California.
* State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Federal clean air laws require areas with unhealthy levels of ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter to develop plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs). SIPs detail how they will attain national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). CARB is the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB forwards SIP revisions to the U.S. EPA for approval.
They (CARB) can only regulate and suggest action items over what they have control over regulating. This article I posted was in New York mostly, so CARB has no effect there. New York I'm sure has their own clean air board.
We understand what you have said. We also understand what you mean. Why can't you see/understand the economically feasible options are unfolding right in front of your eyes!? Or lungs to stay with the analogy? So you are getting what you advocate!!??
It may be a dead horse. You did bring it up. Trying to equate diesel car exhaust as being the problem when it is really heavy transportation. I do not understand why you find it OK to shaft the little guy with a huge price to clean up his car exhaust, while giving the big guys a free ride. We have known about these issues for decades. The EPA was able to get the lead out in the 1970s. Here is it 30 some years later and our ships, tractors, trucks, planes and trains are still allowed to spew out massive pollution. And it has gotten worse. The newest ships are designed to burn the nastiest bunker oil right out of the ground.
Also under the Kyoto Accord, China's pollution's clouds are much worse than LA's EVER WERE!! Might be ok if it stayed in China, but it does travel the world. Also this might escape most folks attention, but cargo ships which are already HUGE are getting HUGER !!! Panama is going to spend BILLIONS to make enlarged locks. Interesting that the operators of the locks system are ... the Chinese. Indeed NYC harbor might want to enlarge their facilities to handle the bigger hardware and greater traffic.
However it has been swagged that 60% of the so called Asian imports comes throught the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
I think you are not looking at the big picture. What would it cost extra in shipping for all the junk from China, if they made the ships coming into our ports burn low sulfur diesel? I doubt it would impact the average American as much as the $5000 plus spent to clean the exhaust in your car. Your arguments fail on so many levels I just do not know where to start. I don't see the average family being impacted at the rate of $5000 every 3 years for a new car. That is more than I spend for gas in that period of time. It would be a lot less if I had a Ford Ranger PU with a 4 cylinder diesel that will get 45 MPG. Clean up the big polluters then go after the little ones. We have it all backwards in this country. Then people point at the pollution in NYC and say that is why we do not want diesel cars. I say it is all political hokum.
Gary, what you are proposing is complete FANTASY. Let us remain in the current world, and do things which are POSSIBLE.
We cannot go back to 1970 and require ULSD.
We cannot (unless you have a fantastic master plan which can bypass the political problems that move might generate ) stop the cargo ships from burning whatever diesel fuel they want to burn.
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.
Actually your proposal JUST enforces the fantasy that things are actually changing, at significantly higher cost with NO benefits. Well things are changing. They are actually getting worse, If the logic you used to get to that fantasy is employed. There would be little of any statistical effect if the three percent of passenger diesels were magically EVEN realistically compelled to use ULSD. Indeed the ULSD IS REALISTICALLY and actually and currently in use and there have been no statistically significant differences; let along measurable ones. !!!????
Well of course there are no measurable differences from using ULSD -
YET
ULSD just became the mandated fuel in October 2006 , my Gosh Man, give it TIME to have an effect !!
Are you trying to say that the lower sulfur makes NO DIFFERENCE in the level of pollution?
Because if that's what you are are saying, then you are completely mistaken.
You want to start a diatribe on the benefits of lowered sulfur in fuel? 'Cause I got my Googlin' Fingers ready my friend..... :shades:
I already started without you:
Reducing sulfur levels to 15 ppm will enable the use of filtering technologies to reduce particulate soot by 90 percent and the use of advanced catalytic and other technologies to reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 95 percent, beginning with the 2007 model year.
When fully implemented, achieving these emission levels will yield the most significant emissions reductions in the U.S. since the elimination of lead from American gasoline. Achieving these emission levels will be environmentally equivalent to removing 13 million (i.e., 90 percent) of today's trucks from American roads.
Well the point is simple, to repeat, the steps you advocate will NOT make the situation better, i.e., it might give the appearance however. Sort of like Al Gore on Oscar Night,living a "carbon" free lifestyle. Guess you have to live the severely consumptive lifestyles to be able to live carbon free. While I have been on the actual AIR FORCE ONE plane (when it was not AIR FORCE ONE) (sans the President) Long ago stationed at Andrews... I haven't used it to commute to CA. Does that count?
Um, you mean how many million right now? I'd say that number is VERY small, since ULSD is MANDATED now and will have even tighter restrictions in upcoming months.
And I'm not advocating ULSD - it has already been mandated.
I guess it's my history as a former Marine to not stand around and wring my hands about problems, but actually go DO something about it.... :shades:
Thanks for serving the country! Air Force leads the way!
But in regards to the very small number for shipping and aero etc etc. your SWAG is extremely way off. Again it has been stated a few times. Just because you ignore it, really does not make it go away.
I have no issue with ULSD. It is actually being used in mine! I have actually wanted it to run (for me anyway) since 2003 and 88,000 miles ago.
Again it was a massive strategic mistake not to have ULSD mandated it in the 1970's when unleaded regular/premium was mandated. The structural mistake is the continued use of higher sulfur 3000/4000 ppm fuel oils. The other massive strategic mistake is to NOT mitigate higher type ppm pollution generators such as 3000/4000 shipping, farm, manufacturing, industry, construction, etc etc. fuel oil.
I do not disagree with the ULSD mandate. I am glad for it. That is not good enough for you. Look at your fantasy in post 1907. Mandating that all vehicles have a V6 or smaller. If they were diesel I could go along with it. Gas engines just do not have the torque needed for larger vehicles. Or did you mean only for passenger cars. Giving the Big PU trucks and SUVs a bye? Now how do you propose to make all V6 engines PZEV. Toyota cannot even get their V6 hybrids to AT-PZEV. Honda at least was able to get AT-PZEV rating with their V6 Accord Hybrid. Your $300 to $500 figure is the difference between SULEV II and AT-PZEV. It is the 5 grand getting the car to SULEV that I am annoyed with. My main argument with your philosophy is screwing the little guy and letting the big guy off the hook is OK because they provide jobs etc etc. Protecting my liberties from the environmental cults in this country is high on my list of priorities. Mandating clean fuel for ALL is good. Give me a small diesel PU truck and let US save the oil for future generations. In case you have not noticed you can run ULSD in an old diesel car and it stops blowing out black soot. All this expensive emissions gadgetry is just a way for big business to extract more money from the little guy. And they have you following like a puppy dog.
It is not a complaint at all, it is a real problem. Weight is an enemy of FE.
Toyota may be trying reduce the weight of the hybrid drive system and I am sure they will eventually do it but they will need exotic alloys and exotic battery designs to do this neither of which will lessen the cost of the car.
I read an article about putting a lean burn turbocharged engine in the Gen III Prius. Article states that Toyota is doing this so the engine will not need to run so much. Also, the engine displacement for the Gen III is going up to 1.8L. If I recall correctly, lean burn has issues and if not carefully controlled, can lead to very high emissions.
As to diesel engines being porky, the 2.8L in my Jeep Liberty weights 484 pounds. In the early 1980's the 1.8L diesel in my Isuzu weighed 675 pounds. The VW diesels weigh only a few more pounds than their gasolene counterparts. Hybrids have a long way to go.
OK, you are forgiven. I would think it difficult to get a V8 to SULEV II. Even the ToyLex V8s are at 2-3 on the emissions scale. GMC has been given a 50 state 7 rating on one of their 5.3 liter V8 PU trucks. Not sure how they did it. Smoke and mirrors, I would assume. Looks like Toyota has some catching up to do if they want a green score card.
Now to your V6 wish. Here is the problem as I see it. To get the CARB PZEV rating the manufacturer has to warranty the car's emissions equipment for 15 yrs or 150k miles. Why would they want to do that? It looks like it is only being done for bragging rights on selected automobiles. Then again it is what vehicle you are looking at. My GMC PU truck is ULEV II rated same as the 2007 Camry V6. A full sized PU truck only needs a 4 rating to be SULEV II. If they were willing to warranty the 2007 GMC Full sized PU trucks for 15 years they could get a PZEV rating. From what I read in the long document at CARB, PU trucks for 2001-2006 with diesel engines in CA are required to be ULEV rated. That is pretty darn clean in my book. And good enough until the BIG polluters are brought to that level.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The issue is really on WHOSE nickel the cars' emissions equipment will be on: at the 15 year or 150k Miles marks!!??
Again this is a low profile way for oems to BACK out of the issue I raised and you probably would also agree: that vehicles need to be kept (much) longer than the current auto salvage figures. OEM's want LESS not more.
I currently monitor three cars that are approaching 15 years 1991,1994,1996, 16 years,13,11 years. While CA state says they RANDOMLY select cars in those categories for "smog only testing" it is not reflected in my 100% gotcha or inspection rate: i.e., appears compulsory to me!? To make a long story short: ALL pass with "like new " smog emissions: ie, total waste of time and money to do the smog only testing. Of course to them literally FREE money while accomplishing nothing of value to the environment to which they claim it is really for.
Economics in the way of true environmental green-ness.
Have I not mentioned that over and over as one of the major problems?
As to your question, "why would they want to do that?" the answer would have to be legislation forcing them to make a certain percentage of their cars PZEV.
Charge $1000 more and you'll still make your profit and have a clean car also.
Most of those cars are never going to see 150K miles or 15 years anyway - so what is the REAL cost to the automakers? Not much really. Drop in the bucket.
The real cost is to the original end user. Much higher cost no REAL benefit!! This is especially true as we seem to agree that most of the cars will not go 15 years or 150k miles in the hands of the original owners. This of course creates enormous opportunities to folks who want/like/have to keep vehicles longer. This would extend my smog only scenario out to 15 years instead of 10 years.
Indeed if it passes, the most logical thing TO do is to buy a used vehicle.
You and I generally knock heads but on this I agree with you whole heartedly. I wish all flavors of diesel, boat/ship, locomotive and jet fuel would be ULSD. That would please me to no end. What would be even nicer is if the refiners would remove more of the aromatic compounds to reduce PM even more and reduce the formation of PAH to almost nothing. That would really make me happy.
The EPA has played with these kinds of proposals for decades. This only says that the NEW engines would be required to meet lower emission standards. As all us diesel fans know the current diesel engines go and go and go. They may put a million miles on the locomotive engine then do an overhaul same high pollution for a long time to come. The EPA is still allowing politics to control when the low sulfur diesel will be required for these engines. They can make them cleaner burning but the high sulfur content is still the bulk of the pollution. Last I read ULSD for trains, ships, tractors and heavy equipment is 8 more years in the future. With ships currently being built to run on very dirty oil it could be 50 years before they are cleaned up. The EPA is made up of a large bureaucracy of civil service employees. They answer to Congress who feed at the lobbyist table.
I have not checked in for some time now. Always glad to see that it is still someone elses fault, and never the endless parade of drivers burning up the world.
Diesel is just another word for nothing left to lose!
I am surprised most folks either ignore or can not or do not see that just going to ULSD would structually remove a HUGE percentage and volume of pollution due to higher/lower ppm. Indeed as we have seen during the recent change over of LSD to ULSD, it was (almost) literally seamless to the consumer. Much of the difficulty was to prevent fraud activity on purity issues, this really points to or is more than apparent, they can be mixed.
Mitigation is of course the next step, which would further drive down the percentage and volume of pollution when using the lower 15 ppm #2 diesel.
Best not tell anyone if you are using veggie oil to conserve on fossil fuel. The agents informed the Wetzels that they were interested in their car, a 1986 Volkswagen Golf, that David Wetzel converted to run primarily from vegetable oil but also partly on diesel.
Wetzel uses recycled vegetable oil, which he picks up weekly from an organization that uses it for frying food at its dining facility.
"They told me I am required to have a license and am obligated to pay a motor fuel tax," David Wetzel recalled. "Mr. May also told me the tax would be retroactive."
Since the initial visit by the agents on Jan. 4, the Wetzels have been involved in a struggle with the Illinois Department of Revenue. The couple, who live on a fixed budget, have been asked to post a $2,500 bond and threatened with felony charges.
How about that.!!!! IN WNC there is a big green crowd... .. If I have to pay $0.50 per gallon for the privilege of driving on our road so should the green folks. We pay more highway tax than any of the surrounding STATES... I am not sure of the 50 cents... its near that though... 47 perhaps.
The Walter Reed Hospital debacle is an utter joke.
A brand new first time squad, unit leader, crew chief knows to CYA 24/7.
These guys/girls get to General Officer positions and act like the three monkeys 1. see 2. hear 3. speak NADA!!?? OH PLEASEEEEEEEE!!!! Actually that is HOW they get to (and how to stay at) General Officer positions!!! I am willing to bet that if you took the media to look at those general officers who so called worked across the street from Walter Reed, the offices they were in are like palaces in comparison.
It is who that controls the budget who is at fault. You can write up civil engineering work orders (which get deferred anyway) till you can paper the walls with the work orders!!! Push too hard and you can wind up stationed in the antarctic circle during the winter without a snorkel parka!! ?? No one in the chain of command wants to be the tallest midget. NOTHING WILL CHANGE, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
I knew the time would come when emissions issues would be mooted into oblivion. In the passenger vehicle fleet, compared to how long it took gassers to get to the same levels, diesels are literally light years ahead.
One practical issue comes up as a consequence in comparison to a like gasser. If one uses the gasser 25 mpg/diesel 49 mpg, VW Jetta over 250,000 miles, 14 gals, the must fill up is 715 times/365 times. This would mean that you would HAVE make HALF as many trips to the fuel station, if you had the diesel (actually 1.95589041 x)
Comments
That's how life goes..... :shades:
Ban all jet airplanes!
Ban all large diesel trucks!
Ban all diesel construction equipment!
Ban all diesel trains!
Allow only clean diesel cars and trucks!
After these measures are immediately implemented, the air will be cleaned up! :surprise: :sick: :confuse: :P
We need economically feasible options....
That's how life goes.....
So, let's discuss the article you posted.....
Since light duty diesel vehicles are currently not sold in the state of New York what is the source of the diesel emissions?
quote-Legislators in New York have acted to ensure that major contributors to soot pollution, including school buses, public transit vehicles, and construction equipment are using modern control technology to reduce their emissions by 85 percent, and legislators in other states are joining them. The North Carolina groups endorse similar policies in North Carolina. -end
I have no objection to cleaning up school buses, public transit vehicles and construction equipment.
My objection is to the irrational action of CARB to prevent the sale of clean diesel vehicles through legislation while continuing to allow major contributors to soot pollution, including school buses, public transit vehicles, and construction equipment. :sick:
CARB is not "in charge of" and neither is tasked with controlling or regulating EVERYTHING related to diesel exhaust from ANY and ALL sources.
The California Air Resources Board is a state agency that is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency. CARB reports directly to the Governor’s Office in the Executive Branch of the California State government. The California Air Resources Board’s mission is to promote and protect public health, welfare and ecological resources through the effective and efficient reduction of air pollutants while recognizing and considering the effects on the economy of the state.
CARB duties are to set health-based air quality standards, set and enforce emission standards for motor vehicles, fuels, and consumer products, conduct research, monitor air quality, identify and set control measures for toxic air contaminants, oversee and assist local air quality districts that regulate many non-vehicular sources of air pollution, produce education programs and materials, and provide compliance assistance for businesses.
Here are some of CARB’s Programs. For a full list go to: www.arb.ca.gov/html/programs.htm
* Air Quality and Transportation Planning: Develops clean air and transportation plans to meet federal and state air quality standards for ozone, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide, plus visibility requirements.
* Community Health: This program identifies air pollution’s health effects on children, assesses the public risks in California communities, and reduces these public health risks.
* Consumer Products: Information on CARB’s regulatory activity, both historical and current, for consumer products.
* Mobile Sources: If you are planning to buy a new or recent-model vehicle, check out the Buyer’s Guide to Cleaner Cars. Also includes information on low and zero emission vehicles, the heavy-duty vehicle inspection program, on-board diagnostics, off-road emission reductions, the scrappage program, and the smoking vehicle complaint hot lines throughout California.
* Research Activities: CARB sponsors a comprehensive program of research into the causes, effects, and possible solutions to the air pollution problem in California.
* Clearing California's Skies: CARB also has a video called "Clearing California’s Skies" on its web site that explains the history of fighting pollution in California.
* State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Federal clean air laws require areas with unhealthy levels of ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter to develop plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs). SIPs detail how they will attain national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). CARB is the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB forwards SIP revisions to the U.S. EPA for approval.
They (CARB) can only regulate and suggest action items over what they have control over regulating. This article I posted was in New York mostly, so CARB has no effect there. New York I'm sure has their own clean air board.
The problem with my objection is your lack of information and understanding of CARB and NESCAUM and their relationship.
You posted on NY and then stated CARB has no effect in NY.
NY has adopted CARB emissions limits for diesel passenger vehicles.
However it has been swagged that 60% of the so called Asian imports comes throught the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Gary, your response is similar to the one which generated my answer last time, so here is that response since we are going over old data AGAIN:
Same response insert here
We cannot go back to 1970 and require ULSD.
We cannot (unless you have a fantastic master plan which can bypass the political problems that move might generate ) stop the cargo ships from burning whatever diesel fuel they want to burn.
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.
YET
ULSD just became the mandated fuel in October 2006 , my Gosh Man, give it TIME to have an effect !!
Are you trying to say that the lower sulfur makes NO DIFFERENCE in the level of pollution?
Because if that's what you are are saying, then you are completely mistaken.
You want to start a diatribe on the benefits of lowered sulfur in fuel? 'Cause I got my Googlin' Fingers ready my friend..... :shades:
I already started without you:
Reducing sulfur levels to 15 ppm will enable the use of filtering technologies to reduce particulate soot by 90 percent and the use of advanced catalytic and other technologies to reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 95 percent, beginning with the 2007 model year.
When fully implemented, achieving these emission levels will yield the most significant emissions reductions in the U.S. since the elimination of lead from American gasoline. Achieving these emission levels will be environmentally equivalent to removing 13 million (i.e., 90 percent) of today's trucks from American roads.
The point I am making is that steps are being taken, more CAN be done, and the situation WILL get better.
Guaranteed.
Did you not read that using ULSD will be like removing 13 million diesel cars and trucks from the USA roads?
Is that not making the situation better?
You are in effect advocating the most severe restrictions on the product causing the least effect/affect.
And I'm not advocating ULSD - it has already been mandated.
I guess it's my history as a former Marine to not stand around and wring my hands about problems, but actually go DO something about it.... :shades:
But in regards to the very small number for shipping and aero etc etc. your SWAG is extremely way off. Again it has been stated a few times. Just because you ignore it, really does not make it go away.
I have no issue with ULSD. It is actually being used in mine! I have actually wanted it to run (for me anyway) since 2003 and 88,000 miles ago.
Again it was a massive strategic mistake not to have ULSD mandated it in the 1970's when unleaded regular/premium was mandated. The structural mistake is the continued use of higher sulfur 3000/4000 ppm fuel oils. The other massive strategic mistake is to NOT mitigate higher type ppm pollution generators such as 3000/4000 shipping, farm, manufacturing, industry, construction, etc etc. fuel oil.
I'll second that! I enjoy driving 750HP diesel firetrucks with USAF on the sides!
Toyota may be trying reduce the weight of the hybrid drive system and I am sure they will eventually do it but they will need exotic alloys and exotic battery designs to do this neither of which will lessen the cost of the car.
I read an article about putting a lean burn turbocharged engine in the Gen III Prius. Article states that Toyota is doing this so the engine will not need to run so much. Also, the engine displacement for the Gen III is going up to 1.8L. If I recall correctly, lean burn has issues and if not carefully controlled, can lead to very high emissions.
As to diesel engines being porky, the 2.8L in my Jeep Liberty weights 484 pounds. In the early 1980's the 1.8L diesel in my Isuzu weighed 675 pounds. The VW diesels weigh only a few more pounds than their gasolene counterparts. Hybrids have a long way to go.
Still better than putting all those people on the road in cars.
I said "every vehicle with a v-6 and smaller should be PZEV" but I did not intend to kill off V8 and larger engines.
I just have never heard of a V8 being rated PZEV so I'm not sure if it is possible.
Again this is a low profile way for oems to BACK out of the issue I raised and you probably would also agree: that vehicles need to be kept (much) longer than the current auto salvage figures. OEM's want LESS not more.
I currently monitor three cars that are approaching 15 years 1991,1994,1996, 16 years,13,11 years. While CA state says they RANDOMLY select cars in those categories for "smog only testing" it is not reflected in my 100% gotcha or inspection rate: i.e., appears compulsory to me!?
To make a long story short: ALL pass with "like new " smog emissions: ie, total waste of time and money to do the smog only testing. Of course to them literally FREE money while accomplishing nothing of value to the environment to which they claim it is really for.
Economics in the way of true environmental green-ness.
Have I not mentioned that over and over as one of the major problems?
As to your question, "why would they want to do that?" the answer would have to be legislation forcing them to make a certain percentage of their cars PZEV.
Charge $1000 more and you'll still make your profit and have a clean car also.
Most of those cars are never going to see 150K miles or 15 years anyway - so what is the REAL cost to the automakers? Not much really. Drop in the bucket.
Indeed if it passes, the most logical thing TO do is to buy a used vehicle.
EPA Proposes Rule to Cut Diesel Locomotive and Marine Pollution
shows that the EPA isn't completely out of their mind.
Diesel is just another word for nothing left to lose!
Carry on oh brave ones!
I am surprised most folks either ignore or can not or do not see that just going to ULSD would structually remove a HUGE percentage and volume of pollution due to higher/lower ppm. Indeed as we have seen during the recent change over of LSD to ULSD, it was (almost) literally seamless to the consumer. Much of the difficulty was to prevent fraud activity on purity issues, this really points to or is more than apparent, they can be mixed.
Mitigation is of course the next step, which would further drive down the percentage and volume of pollution when using the lower 15 ppm #2 diesel.
Four more diesels!
The agents informed the Wetzels that they were interested in their car, a 1986 Volkswagen Golf, that David Wetzel converted to run primarily from vegetable oil but also partly on diesel.
Wetzel uses recycled vegetable oil, which he picks up weekly from an organization that uses it for frying food at its dining facility.
"They told me I am required to have a license and am obligated to pay a motor fuel tax," David Wetzel recalled. "Mr. May also told me the tax would be retroactive."
Since the initial visit by the agents on Jan. 4, the Wetzels have been involved in a struggle with the Illinois Department of Revenue. The couple, who live on a fixed budget, have been asked to post a $2,500 bond and threatened with felony charges.
taxing veggie oii
Of all the hot air rising around this global warming etc etc. The only thing they are dead serious and real about is the revenue.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
A brand new first time squad, unit leader, crew chief knows to CYA 24/7.
These guys/girls get to General Officer positions and act like the three monkeys 1. see 2. hear 3. speak NADA!!?? OH PLEASEEEEEEEE!!!! Actually that is HOW they get to (and how to stay at) General Officer positions!!! I am willing to bet that if you took the media to look at those general officers who so called worked across the street from Walter Reed, the offices they were in are like palaces in comparison.
It is who that controls the budget who is at fault. You can write up civil engineering work orders (which get deferred anyway) till you can paper the walls with the work orders!!! Push too hard and you can wind up stationed in the antarctic circle during the winter without a snorkel parka!! ??
70 MPG!
quote-
VW's central claim for its new baby is an even greener performance than the hybrids.
The Bluemotion is said to emit 102 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre.
This is below the Toyota Prius at 104g/km and the Honda Civic hybrid at 109.
end quote-
One practical issue comes up as a consequence in comparison to a like gasser. If one uses the gasser 25 mpg/diesel 49 mpg, VW Jetta over 250,000 miles, 14 gals, the must fill up is 715 times/365 times. This would mean that you would HAVE make HALF as many trips to the fuel station, if you had the diesel (actually 1.95589041 x)
Still pretty good, but not amazingly good.
As far as emmissions, let's see the EPA test before we have cows.
They put a hybrid drivetrain with that and they might have my money.
PS No I looked further into the car and it's too small for my family, even in a diesel/hybrid configuration.
Waiting to see the 94 MPG Prius in two years.