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
I believe they are flawed from inception and do not believe they are even close to accurate where diesel cars are concerned.
Another is most folks are almost totally clueless about the proper operation of a car. To many, it is an applicance that gets you from point A to point B, while one does a myraid of other things
I was really speaking from the point of view of 100,000 miles actual diesel experiences and others's results on Jetta TDI and comparing it with results from others Jetta 1.8T gasser experiences (since I do not own a 1.8T gasser Jetta side by side with a TDI). The ranges are pretty true to life. Of course there can be and ARE HUGE individual differences for a whole host of reasons. An analysis of the statistical variance will probably show the normal deviation. Since I do not have access to this data I can only give anecdotal variance data.
So for example, there is an almost startling difference between the Jetta TDI/1.8T @ 49/30 mpg= 19 mpg. for 39%. Critics might/will probably poo pooh the differences, but to me, the differences are HUGE. So for example, the part that makes me laugh every time I hear about "dirty" diesel is by default, detractors are saying it is environmentally cleaner to burn (100,000 miles/ 49/30) 3333 gals vs 2041 gals??? REALLY!!!???? If so, why don't those same detractors embrace SUV's instead of scorning them? It would seem to me a premium is placed on TALKING of fuel savings, and only IF the other guy is doing it! Actually saving fuel doesn't really matter!!!! To me this is multi level hypocrisy, a height of disengenuousness. This is not even talking about what happens upstream and downstream of the logistical pipeline!
If governments (at all levels, from world to local) were REALLY serious about conserving fuel, it would be an easy thing to do to subsidize the diesel option, i.e., savings of 20-40%, so it cost the same as the gasser option. The intend would be to encourage a higher population of passenger car diesels, obviously. The advantages to the consumer are indeed a NO brainer. It is pretty obvious they are more interesting in taxation, cash flow, turf, etc. etc., and raisng all of the above!
In contrast on the business side, up to 100,000 dollars per car per year was earmarked for SUV's that were used for business and business purposes; AKA the Hummer exemption.
When in fact the owners are posting as you say much higher mileage than the EPA FORMULA would lead us to believe. That 39% difference when carried over to GHG measurements is significant. Instead of 6.1 tons per year CO2 it is closer to 3.7 tons per year. Which is better than ANY GAS CAR sold in the USA. That includes the Civic on CNG and all the hybrids. The EPA or CARB does not want that to become common knowledge.
Indeed given your quote, my 39% example might be PESSIMISTIC (and I thought I was an optimist, or was that optimistic pessimist or pessimistic optimist (tired already)
But surely, the small car segment (from which I drew the examples) is a small minority of the passenger vehicle fleet, currently estimated (gov reported registrations) at 25%
So if indeed the savings in mid to large to suv sized vehicles is GREATER (53% using your example); going to diesel for these (HIGHER consumption gasser)segments, MAGNIFIES the diesels' advantages!!! Indeed these segments represent the overwhelming majority of the passenger vehicle fleet!! I will leave the math examples out, although it would show even greater savings. I think you both have outlined the ramifications very clearly.
... So for instance, next year, a TDI with common rail injection that can go sixty miles on a gallon of number two fuel oil, would have an incentive against, Navigators, Suburbans, and Jeep Commanders that can only go 18 MPG. The incentive (on NOx regs) would allow: more compression, get rid of EGR, a little more crisp injection timing and maybe a few drivers would go 70 MPG in oH-Nine. So, after the big three: HC, CO, NOx, we need a number like dash "60" for MPG or maybe the total carbon rating.
If anyone was serious about oil dependency, fuel economy, pollution and far more we would be investing billions into mass transit. We would also be educating people about the enormous waste spiral we created through the same advertising and marketing monster that will drive the "new diesel" sales machine.
Tick tock.
People who are interested and aware, and not speaking for the auto and advertising industries, understand the nature and significance of mass transit as well as that of the fallacious statements used to oppose it. Mass transit will continue to grow as the impossibility of maintaining the "status quo" becomes more apparent.
Tick tock.
That could pose a problem :P
Indeed your statement is more true than you know.
You might want to research the history of the railroads in this country for the trials, tribulations, rapid advance, steep decline, almost complete decimation and almost arrested decay, fits and starts, etc. etc., for a more historical view.
We don't have that kind of world, and those of us that can afford to get out of the quagmire we have made of our cities, do so. I and MILLIONS like me have gotten as far out as practical. I enjoy only hearing the birds and crickets. My neighbors are mostly retired like myself and like the same peace and quiet. That said, we do feel an urgency to conserve as best we can.
To do so we should make best use of the natural resources. The MOST practical use of petroleum is in the form of diesel. You get the most energy from a barrel of oil using it that way. There are also many alternatives that will run in engines designed for diesel. Many biodiesel products are coming to market.
You can tick tock all you like. Myself and MILLIONS like me are not going to join you in the filthy swamp known as cities. We will get in our individual vehicles and drive to WalMart. We will buy shoes and shirts from China, as that is all that is available. Ships will continue to dock at the ports spewing nasty stuff into the air. It will continue to be blown over the Los Angeles basin till it hits the San Berardino mountains.
Your sacrificing by riding in a stinking bus filled with thieves and tramps will not clean the air one little teenie bit.
For the first time in history more people live in cities than do not. All projections, as well as current trends, point to more and more people moving to cities.
Public and private infrastructure expenditures are on the rise everywhere, in large part as a result of this trend. The largest proportion of those expenditures are transportation related and many municipalities are putting money into mass transit as the only viable way to deal with massive traffic congestion and expanding economic activity, as well as pollution from "clean" exhaust.
Transit ridership is up as a result of the rise in fuel prices which will go higher. Some cities are charging fees to drive within city "bounds", others are closing sections of their cities to any driving. As the economic pressures from all sources mount against driving and in favor of mass transit the pendulum will shift even further.
As to transit systems not making any money; that is false, some do. But more to the point, they are not intended to; they serve to assist the general social and commercial enterprises within which they operate. They also create jobs and wealth which is part of economic growth.
By using alternative transportation I am saving 5,000 dollars per year which goes into investments and purchases in the general economy. No one's car, unless operated for business only, has ever made them a dime - cars have become a black hole for money and dollar for dollar 10 times as expensive as transit has ever been.
As for the so called "millions who have left the cities" - no evidence supports that claim. For those who have left, one need only remember the bomb shelters of the 50's to see the usefulness of it. Once they begin to pay the actual costs of what they consume in subsidized services they will suddenly find it useful to move.
AS for the "... thieves and tramps..." on public transportation; they all speak well of you and are surprised at your feelings. As for me - I spent several years in corporate positions and have a real understanding of what the real thieves and tramps really do to us daily. The false notion of auto dependency is just one of the more criminal of their accomplishments.
Tock, Tick.
I know of one city, London that charges to drive your car into the city limits. You care to tell us which cities in the USA do the same. I have heard that NYC has a decent rapid transit system. Yet they are in total gridlock most of the time on their streets. So what good is it? They could impose a charge to go into every major city in America and it would not impact me at all. I would go 100 miles out of my way to avoid most cities in the USA.
Thankfully we still live in a free country where you can decide where you would like to live. I lived in Los Angeles when it was civilized. I do not think that can be said of any major city in the USA today. My motto is avoid cities at any cost. So whether my diesel pollutes or not, I will not be adding to yours or anyone else's pollution in any US city. And I would rather not subsidize your mass transit.
============================================================
Funny! If you wait long enough the lake will come to you. :P
Now is this your call for stopping airline traffic to all the airports close to cities, such as:NYC, San Francisco, Boston, Wash DC. Chicago, LA, Houston, etc. etc. Shipping traffic to ports? :lemon:
There will soon be no mythical "choice" either as the deck stacks higher and higher against the possibility of a solution in time to help.
But I think you know all of this already. "Tend your garden".:shades:
===========================================================
I was being "light" - they don't let me post my heavy stuff! :P
Your arguments on cars causing major pollution is not based on the facts. You are like the politicians in Washington DC and Sacramento. Blame it on cars and let the trains, planes, buses, trucks etc etc pollute as they please.
If you listen to mainstream media I know you are not getting much truth. Only what they want to feed the masses.
Just come up with one bit of data to back your outrageous claims. What US city is growing faster than the suburbs surrounding it?
7 billion people. And we have enabled them to get cars. We have sent our industry to China & India and other countries. China will soon be buying as many cars as we do. If you buy anything made in China you are as much to blame as any of the rest of us.
I imagine within 10 years we will be buying our diesel car from WalMart.
When I see the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Obama and Hillary living in a downtown condo, riding the bus to work, I will think about changing my life style. And the clock is ticking. We will kill each other long before we die from pollution, global warming or oil depletion.
Blufz1 will outlast us all. Out there on the water fishing is a grand way to spend your leisure time. Do they make a diesel outboard?
And can you point out to me exactly how and where the scientific method used in the EPA MPG test is flawed?
Don't you think that if that test were flawed, scientifically speaking, that some scientist somewhere in the world would have challenged and disproved it's validity by now, after 40+ years of use?
Um, Yep.
You're not often flat out wrong Gary, but in disputing the scientific validity of the EPA test, you definitely are wrong this time.
change from: "poolition" TO: pollution
It is far cheaper to go from unleaded regular to diesel in the short term. (40 years)
RDA Re "D" evelopment Agency ('s) activities are almost necessarily generational in nature. Indeed in San Francisco, there are more cars, traffic and (circulation) problems than ever before. This is interesting in light of the fact the metropolitan population rate has been FLAT since 1930!!! OVER TWO GENERATIONS!!
http://www.city-data.com/county/San_Francisco_County-CA.html
..."The City and County of San Francisco (IPA: [ˌsæn frənˈsɪskoʊ]) is the fourth most populous city in California and the fourteenth-most populous in the United States, with a 2006 estimated population of 744,041.[3] San Francisco is the second most densely populated major city[4] in the U.S.[5]"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco
Arguably, if one has to live in the (A) city, San Francisco has to be literally a WORLD DESTINATION !!
Put a source for your statements. If you think that people are moving into cities and leaving the 'burbs, provide the background because I don't think you will find many agreeing with you.
As for the tick tock stuff, come on, it's just silly.
To downtown.
There are maybe dozens of urban renewal projects going on downtown. New luxury condos are sprouting up all over the place. Construction is rampant.
It's part of a long-term process to revitalize the downtown area and bring residents down there to live and to work.
It's working so far. Long-term, who knows? But for now, people are buying the condos.
The central issue (my .02 cents)is the dissonance between scientific and infinitely duplicate able EPA procedures and what happens in the real world. Indeed the only real problem is the so called EPA numbers of city/highway are in BOLD print. The solution is pretty easy: put the RANGE in BOLD print and the EPA city highway in small print!!!! :shades:
Is that not what has happened for 2008? The reason being the Hybrids were so far off that they received complaints and threatened lawsuits. The truth is the old tests came closer to reality for diesels than it did gas hybrids.
To dispute your earlier claim that one size DOES NOT fit all. They have ONE set of TESTS that is for all light vehicles. There is nothing taken into consideration for hybrids, diesels or regular gassers.
IMO the EPA has accomplished nothing but to further muddy an already muddy stream. The one light at the end of the tunnel is the personal mileage claims they have included. A much better indicator of what to expect.
So why did they change the tests if they were NOT flawed after 40 years?
PS
The question is: are people selling out from the suburbs and moving into the city. My guess is no they are not. The growth in Phoenix is all the retirees from around the country converging on the SW. They sell a home in LA for a cool million and buy a Phoenix condo for $400,000, and pocket the rest.
Nothing about the test was flawed in a scientific sense.
The old test did not consider the effect of air conditioning on MPG, nor the effects of high-speed highway driving. Those are the two main changes in the new test.
And I suppose they could have different tests for different vehicles if they wanted to, but why do that?
The "One test fits all cars" method is a better way to provide shopping comparison estimates for car shoppers, which is the ultimate goal of the test.
Shouldn't we take this to an EPA Test forum, rather than here in the Diesel forum?
Let us for example say ok, we do need a specfic test for each: 1. hybrids 2. diesels 3. regular gassers. So for example we already know that under the so called "old" EPA tests; hybrids under perform, diesels over perform and regular gassers may or may not perform at par. Lots of room for discontent!? Absolutely!! There were intense pressures to change the tests and in fact they were! All coincidently perform in the stated RANGE that each oems says; given the tests they conduct and certify to the EPA. EPA probaby does have the right to duplicate and or audit.
So NOW if one considers a new car one issue that arises from this new test matrix is a whole NEW TEST MATRIX!!!! So now (for example )one would ask how would a Honda Civic (gasser old epa of 29/38 mpg) perform in the hybrid test, diesel test, etc!!! We think the level of complication is weird now!!?? So in that sense each cars stated range in facts covers thr RANGE! Perhaps the real flaw is of expectations. We NEED a city and highway figure !!??
The artificially created mass hysteria of the endless highway and dependence on the automobile has with it the same denial that occurs with some of those who suddenly face a terminal illness. The patient denies that their is a problem, proceeds to expand the activity that caused the ailment, blames others for his fate, plans as if his life will not end, rejects all advice from specialists, and at the end leaves everything in chaos for everyone else.
Maybe diesel gurneys are the answer? Diesel hearses?
Tick tock.
As you will recall, my post about students had to do with automobile trends and how to determine their future direction - ask the students what they want to buy when they are working. If detroit had listened to the students in mid century they would still be on top. The reference to students had to do with the direction of the auto, it is is a prediction based on the opinions of those who will do the buying. In contrast, the statement about the shift in populations is factual, well known, and being responded to, sometimes frantically, by public and private sectors around the world.
More study, fewer diesel fumes.
I just stated that people are moving into downtown Phoenix, which plays into the "mass transit" and the pollution discussion.
And the Maricopa bus ride thing? There is a Rapid bus which goes from 40th Street/Pecos Park-N-Ride to downtown in 34 minutes. So drive your car from your home in Maricopa to the Park-N-Ride, about 20 minutes, and be downtown barely over an hour from leaving home in Maricopa.
Death in the cities, media lies, cars don't cause pollution, missed the news on city growth, chinese goods, WalMart madness, death from apocalypse, corrupt politicians, but diesel cars will save us. I see a movie in the works - "Diesel Man".
As for Bfluz, I hope he lasts a long, long time - but I expect he hopes the cities don't collapse, because if they do his lake will sadly be history in 24 hours. Not a good ending for anyone.
Tick tock
What do you actually predict is the problem, fix and end-product if there is no fix?
I don't think you should be surprised that most of the conversation in a forum on diesels in the news relates to diesels. You could start a public transport forum.
The cryptic references to the end of the world seem a pointless and, of course, offer no opportunity for a conversation since we have no idea what you are referring to. Is it global warming? Are we all going to suffocate on the fumes? Are we all going to die in our homes as gasoline runs out?
In summary, what is your point and lets debate it.
If there is no point, that's fair also. Just don't be surprised if you get responses that are not positive.
Function: intransitive verb
to make fun : JEST, SPORT :P