By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
It is the "brand" for VW/Audi diesels of recent vintage. It will continue to be used on the turbocharged common rail direct injection diesels.
kcram - Pickups Host
The California Air Resources Board voted unanimously to clean up emissions from vehicles like bulldozers, fork-lift trucks and snowcats which are used on ski resorts.
The rules will eventually force the oldest and most polluting equipment out of service.
Construction firms will have to spend billions of dollars on new vehicles or on refitting engines.
Time to buy stock in Caterpillar, Cummins, John Deere, etc.
kcram - Pickups Host
The minivan that Chrysler will build for VW at the St. Louis assembly plant will have VW diesel engine. Wonder if it will be sold in the US?
quote-
A DIESEL car has beaten the world's best-selling hybrid vehicle, the Toyota Prius, to the top spot in a new government guide to greener motoring.
A new model of the Volkswagen Polo, which will be available in Britain in October, produces just 99 grams of carbon dioxide () per kilometre - five grammes fewer than the petrol-electric hybrid, Prius.
The Prius has become synonymous with environmentally minded celebrities, such as Leonardo DiCaprio, but the new Polo Blue Motion could prove even greener for some drivers.
Diesel cars dominate the government's new 'Act on ' list, with officials advising motorists who drive predominantly outside towns and cities to choose them over petrol cars.
-end
VW Polo is not sold in USA unfortunately.
This is because diesel engines produce more harmful pollutants, such as particulates and nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (collectively known as NOX)."
=========================================================
And now for a little more truth to the desperate spin....
The article's content is fairly balanced in my opinion.
What is desperate illogical folly is the crusade of diesel haters that concentrate their efforts in preventing the cleanest diesels from being sold and at the same time they do little and present minimal effort in achieving any change in the largest sources of diesel pollution which are the commercial vehicles, trains, ships, and off-road construction equipment. Just as they remained silent as the US continued to offer the highest sulfur diesel fuel anywhere in the developed world for the past 20 years. :surprise: Many of the same misdirected activists suggest a solution of driving extremely expensive electric cars with heavy batteries and short ranges that would obtain their power from an already overtaxed electrical grid obtaining power from the filthiest, coal fired power plants. If it plugs in it must be clean, right? :sick:
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
They advocating using less fuel. So when you say diesel gets between 20-40% better fuel mileage and it is technologically very able to have emissions similar to and less than unleaded regular, the antis go into irrational over drive.
They say dont burn so called dirty diesel (it is not, but to illustrate) yet made LSD the only one commonly available!!?? So when I bought my 2003 TDI which was DESIGNED to run on ULSD, for a number of years, the most available fuel was LSD. While the results are predictable No tests have been published on this NOW using ULSD.
They almost made impossible getting a reliable source of bio diesel.
Do you have any emissions data comparing the new Polo TDI with a comparable new gas car? Or are you just spinning old out dated information?
Here is an easy one. More is paid in taxes for a gal of diesel than unleaded regular. Now this is strange given the systems' stated goal of reduced gasoline use. Yet if they really wanted to jump start the change to diesel all they need do is to cut the diesel tax!! Or eliminate it!!! Do you really think any of it is going to happen?
That is not even feasible - of course that would not be done.
The road tax coffers of the states are ALREADY going down because more people are moving out of SUVs and taking public transportation.
Anyway,
Things are not "stuck" because the USA will not reduce diesel fuel taxes.
Things are "stuck" because of all the things I mentioned in this post:
Things take time
Indeed the example you used truly illustrates one of the points I have made ..."The road tax coffers of the states are ALREADY going down because more people are moving out of SUVs and taking public transportation"... etc, etc,. Do what they say and guess what, they are scrambling to replace all that loss revenue from lesser use of SUV's!!! (I am sure you have experienced the rise in fuel prices.)Keep in mind, the SUV population is only 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet. So these are almost like codes (code words) for increased cost per mile driven.
On the other hand, the truth is the politicians have long known this is a great area to raid for petty cash (a billion here, a billion there). CA politicians have long sinced use this as part of the general fund! So while we do pay for roads and road repairs, we have some of the worst roads (as determined by experts in the field) in the NATION. Sounds like in your state, they are following the CA example and are duly working on the state of your roads also!
The road tax base is diminishing because people are driving more fuel efficient vehicles. Especially hybrids. Public transportation is a huge waste of tax money except in the densest population centers.
More information on gasoline and diesel.
Per 100,000 miles (projected), unleaded regular 15 mpg
vs
Per 100,000 miles (projected, unleaded regular 38 mpg
vs
Per 100,000 miles (projected) #2 diesel 50 mpg.
The unleaded regular gasoline generator pays 66% more per mile ($2,652.13) in taxation over #2 diesel ($899.20)
The 38 mpg unleaded regular generator pays ($1,046.84) or 14% more than the #2 diesel generator.
Twice as much sulfur goes in, yet less NOx comes out. Yup, that's ironic.
SULEV is quite a bit cleaner than "Tier-2 Bin-5".
What's your point?
That is completely untrue. Where do you think the air pollution comes from? Vehicles. Diesel PM is a smog-causing agent. You put more PM into the air, the smog problem increases. More diesels on the road putting more PM into the air = more smog.
Go to this site and run some reports and get edumacated:
The Pollution Scorecard Site
Diesel emissions rank as the #1 health risk in virtually every state, by a LONG shot. We reduce diesel emissions, and that will in turn make the air healthier.
Man, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to......(nevermind).
This site is very informative but very out of date as most data I saw 2002 or older. I see no place that diesel particulate mater was calculated using ULSD.
And when I saw the listing under Agriculture for animal waste and it made me realize that the best solution to our pollution problems is a good plague, something to reduce the population or “thin the herd”.
I could have missed it, but I did not see the above statement in the link posted. Personal opinion perhaps?
Ruking1 said "statistically alter" and my opinion is that he is correct. Besides, the more diesels you have the less gasoline pollution you would have.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Not personal opinion - I would not post a personal opinion and try to pose that as a fact. Opinions are opinions and facts are facts.
In the group of chemicals which are cancer-causing pollutants found in polluted air, diesel emissions rank as the #1 risk. See that page. See other pages on the site too.
So what you are saying is the less than 3% passenger diesel fleet ULSD emissions dwarfs the upwards of 97% gasser passenger vehicle fleet unleaded gasoline emissions???
..."Man, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to"....
Second, I LOVE how "diesel emissions" is one grouping, while everything else on that list is individual chemicals. And when I click on "diesel emissions" for an explanation, I get, "Could not find a chemical with a CAS number (EDF Substance ID) of "9902" in the database." So apparently they can't even explain their own grouping. Nice site.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The fact is that diesel emissions from high sulfur diesel and diesel emissions from vehicles without PM traps are a health risk and modern clean diesels solve this problem.
Of course, we can all follow CA's lead and implement pollution rules that cause greater harm to the environment and human health.
Just what we don't need are more intelligent CA solutions. Anyone remember MTBE?
SAE 2000-01-1882-
Contradicting southern California's rationale to ban new clean-diesel engines and replace them with compressed natural gas (CNG), a new study shows that the combination of ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) with a particulate matter (PM) trap actually produces less emissions cancer risk than CNG.
The study, by Swedish consultancy Ecotraffic for the Gothenburg, Sweden, municipal traffic office, analyzed actual exhaust gases of transit buses operating on diesel as well as alternative fuels including CNG, ethanol and biogas. Eco-traffic is one of Europe's most respected air pollution consultancies, with previous studies for the Swedish EPA and the European Commission.
Related Results: diesel emissions cancer risk europe
Range Of Technologies Will
Help Diesel Survive Emissions
Results were presented in a paper (SAE 2000-01-1882) to the Society of Automotive Engineers international fuels & lubes conference here.
Sweden has some of the world's toughest fuel and air pollution regulations, requiring ultra-clean Swedish Class 1 diesel. This ULSD, with less than 10 ppm sulfur, results in ultra-low emissions when combined with the Johnson-Matthey "CRT" soot trap, the study shows.
When combined with a low-pressure exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) device developed by Sweden-based STT, a clean-diesel bus can achieve ultra-low PM and toxics as well as cut engine-out nitrogen oxides (NOx) in half. While CNG vehicles produce somewhat less NOx on average, great variability in NOx emissions from CNG "raise some questions about the long-term stability of the control systems," the study found.
-end
larsb In the group of chemicals which are cancer-causing pollutants found in polluted air, diesel emissions rank as the #1 risk.
The #1 cause of cancer deaths is lung cancer. The #1 cause of lung cancer (over 87%) is cigarrette smoking. This is according to the National Cancer Institute.
Lung Cancer and diesel exposure from trains
How is it even possible that the #1 health risk per larsb does not equal the #1 cause of cancer? :confuse:
There is no question that diesel exhaust from engines without modern pollution controls and when using high sulfur diesel is harmful over long periods of time.
This does not correlate to make modern clean diesels using ULSD Public Health Enemy #1 as you (larsb) would seem to imply.
It is patently absurd for diesel haters to continually present studies of high pollution commercial on and off road vehicles as the argument against modern light duty passenger diesel vehicles.
There is not a diesel semi, diesel train, diesel ship, diesel road grader, etc. (or gasoline for that matter), that meet tier 2 bin 5.
There are many diels arriving in the US soon that will.
Diesel is coming. Diesel choice is nearly here.
What did I do to deserve such an honor?
I honestly have no clue, as I know NOTHING of a 2.4 Accord diesel.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
First off, it's not "per larsb" it's "Per the Pollution Scorecard" website.
And second of all, no one here said diesel is the #1 cause of cancer. What was said is that "In the group of chemicals which are cancer-causing pollutants found in polluted air, diesel emissions rank as the #1 cancer risk factor."
That does not include cigarette smokers (which should have gone without saying) who put the death directly into their own lungs.
And you diesel lovers can argue 'til the cows come home (which apparently is your tendency) about how wonderful diesel is. But until someone comes out with a "PM-free" diesel engine, then diesel exhaust will continue to be a health hazard.
That's not to say I don't want clean diesel sedans on our shores - I surely do want that, because of the overall reduction in fossil fuel usage we will see. But that nasty PM needs to be reduced to nil or nothing for diesel exhaust health issues to go away.
This sort of falls under the "don't hate the messenger" category. I'm not inventing anything new, just passing on information.
I have posted a LOT of positive diesel news items on this forum.
I post both things which are negative and things which are positive for diesels just to stimulate debate.
This forum is called "diesels in the news" not "for diesel lovers only."
Once I stop contributing positive posts, the hosts will let me know.
Biodiesel in the fleet
VW to "World Premiere" 8 new vehicles next month in Europe
You might also want to do the job @ two liters.
... Also, today you would have common rail injection with it's incredible spray pattern that produces less soot to begin with and even greater MPG.
Posts in "Diesels in the News" and other diesel topics would be expected to be relevant to personal transportation vehicles.
What I don't understand is why studies are linked and referenced repeatedly that have nearly no relevance at all to the current, recent past, or future passenger and light truck diesels. Specifically I am referring to the many emissions studies that are based on emissions levels from commercial trucks, buses, trains, ships and off road equipment. You can not extrapolate the results of the studies on these vehicles and then apply them to low emissions modern light duty diesels used for personal use.
I'm certainly not posting about hybrid trains in the hybrids forum or changing the oil on a 737 plane in the maintenance topics.
Emissions from a Kenworth are not equal to emissions of a Jetta Tdi.
So why do people post Pollution Scorecard type of studies and make the generalization that they are "just posting the negatives"? Have some objectivity please!
larsbI have posted a LOT of positive diesel news items on this forum.
I post both things which are negative and things which are positive for diesels just to stimulate debate.
This forum is called "diesels in the news" not "for diesel lovers only."
Once I stop contributing positive posts, the hosts will let me know.
Only if you thought you could refute any advantage the diesel might have over a hybrid.
The truth is you have NOT posted anything NEW. NONE of the studies you or your fellow diesel haters have posted are based on modern diesel engines using ULSD. Your posts are merely smoke screens trying to point out half truths and mostly old data. Post some pertinent diesel data. Say actual tests of a Mercedes blutec engine running on ULSD. Show a comparison of actual emissions with a Mercedes gas car for the same model. I think you will find when all the emissions are measured, the DIESEL will be a clear winner. For all of US.
I just do not think you see the BIG picture. The people in Washington are on your side. They do not want to rock the apple cart with diesel cars that offer a true alternative. They are not interested in cutting fossil fuel consumption by ONE barrel per day. You have fallen into their way of thinking.
It will be interesting to see how they get their CAFE regulations on fullsized PU trucks and SUVs. No way they can do it without diesel engines. Even your beloved Toyota has flopped on building large vehicles with hybrid drive.
Time for the diesel haters to wake up and smell the roses. There will be no CAFE standards me without DIESEL.......
kcram - Pickups Host
Let's be honest no matter what you burn it's unhealthy to breathe it in but diesel is very clean now and he US has the strictest emissions on diesels in the world. You guys that complain about diesel should live where I do!
I see old smoke belching diesels all over the place, no emissions at all! God only knows how much sulphur is in the diesel fuel here.
But I run biodiesel and in a modern diesel engine so i don't get all the garbage coming out of my own truck. but public transport here is mostly dirty diesels and I can imagine how my lungs look after th years I've spent here.
So as long as the info is on topic and accurate it doesn't HAVE to be just pro-diesel. But I am very definitely pro-diesel and always will be.
Message 3524
Message 3506
3457
3430
3422
3224
3000
2822
2574
et al
My point has been made. I "DO" post positive diesel news articles that are current and topical. I do NOT only post OLD data or smoke screens.
I have MANY TIMES stated that I am NOT a "diesel hater" and yet I still get called one. Isn't that the same as calling me a liar? Have I ever called anyone here a liar?
As for your request to show tests of a BlueTec diesel versus a gas Mercedes - BELIEVE ME, I'M AS ANXIOUS AS YOU ARE TO SEE THAT TEST. I WISH SOMEONE WOULD DO ONE. Until they do, all we have is the tests and the data which have been done. I can't generate that data out of the air.
And recent news shows that there ARE new diesels on the horizon in the USA.