As for "50 state legal", it's just a fancy way of saying "just barely qualifies as clean enough". That Tier2-Bin5 emission rating is nothing to brag about.
Given that it requires a same standard from all passenger light vehicles, how do you judge 'barely qualifies'? Tier 2 Bin 5 are the most rigorous standards in the world.
Until we have 100% electric (which creates emissions at the power plant instead of the tail pipe), what do you expect?
I think he expects to be able to hook the engines' exhaust pipe to the intake of the passenger cabin to supply breathable air. :lemon: Actually not far off as when I was in the service I used oxygen breathing apparatus' generated by the burning of so called "candles".
So not that I do not think it a worthy WIDESPREAD sci fi goal, but it might be app 100 years off and more importantly needing, a trillion or MORE in R & D.
Even in this day and age of LIGHTNING FAST technological changes, diesel (as well as RUG) is expected to be the (go to ) fuels of choice for easily the next generation or two. (30-40 years per gen)
( I was even in the loop where the "internet" was the communication tool after catastrophic result/s to "flush the remaining bombers"; and this was WAY before Al Gore invented "the internet")
The largest cause of smog is diesel exhaust. Diesel cars spit out more particulates and more NOx, which contribute to local smog.
But of course, because of their superior fuel economy, diesel cars also burn less fuel and emit less CO2 than gasoline cars.
So there's a trade-off. You will have a little more particulate and NOx, but a lot less C02. Burning less fuel is better in the long run, but some people are worried about NOx and particulates contributing to smog. That's why the PM and NOx filters in the modern diesels are so important.
Diesels are coming, but slowly. Like I have said repeatedly: for diesels to make inroads in the passenger CAR market in all 50 states, manufacturers other than Mercedes and VW have to get into the game.
The Honda diesels coming into the fray are going to help. Toyota and GM and Ford need to get some passenger diesels going before the choices are wide enough to appeal to a larger range of buyers.
..."The largest cause of smog is diesel exhaust. Diesel cars spit out more particulates and more NOx, which contribute to local smog."...
So you are saying the major cause of smog in LA is the 3% of passenger diesel cars???? This is absolutely, completely and utterly preposterous!!!!!
I know you over many postings to be reasonable even as you take the other side. If you do not wish to explain or amend your quote you might want to accept an invitation to the hybrid threads!?
Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say, imply, or type anything at all similar to what you accuse me of saying.
This whole thread of discussion came from you saying (incorrectly) that hybrids have not contributed to cleaner air in LA (which they have.)
I'm not a scientist, but I can READ. Here are facts, not opinions:
1. Particulate matter, usually from diesel exhaust, is a contributing factor in localized smog in ANY urban area. (that's not making a statement AT ALL as to where the particulate matter comes from - the source is of course mostly trucks, ships, power plants, off-road diesel engines, etc. A very small percentage comes from diesel passenger cars.) 2. Almost all (if not all) hybrid cars and SUVs have polluted less than the gasoline or diesel cars they replaced.
That's all I said. I have not lost my reasonableness overnight. YOU, kind sir, brought hybrids into the discussion, not I.
..."as to where the particulate matter comes from - the source is of course mostly trucks, ships, power plants, off-road diesel engines, etc. A very small percentage comes from diesel passenger cars.) "...
Ah I am glad for the reality check I gave you! Your quote is true. However banning or making almost totally unreasonable the requirements for that very very very small population of already MITIGATED diesel passenger cars WILL NOT, I repeat will not, mitigate emissions from: trucks ships, power plants, off road diesels, etc, etc, and (my sic) air planes, farm equipment, recreational equip such as motorcycles, yada, yada, ad infinitum.
ONLY mitigation of "emissions from trucks ships, power plants, off road diesels, etc etc and (my sic) yada yada ad infinitum. " will MITIGATE IT!! IS this too logical as to make (NO) sense??????
But as I have said in past posts the EPA OHSHA CARB already has given them ALL a pass on this, so in the weirdest of weird situations have already "regulated" this! So that is why you indeed do get this massive pollution OF which you speak.!!!!????
Might I gently remind you the technology is already there to mitigate ALL the ad infinitum, which paradoxically is NOT, BUT the small population of passenger diesel fleet already is MITIGATED!!??
..."Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say, imply, or type anything at all similar to what you accuse me of saying.
This whole thread of discussion came from you saying (incorrectly) that hybrids have not contributed to cleaner air in LA (which they have.) "...
I did NOT put words in your mouth! The question that comes to the fore is, did you post what I quoted or did I make up the quote and attributed it to you!? I categorically assert that I quoted it and did NOT make it up. So if you did not say what you said, then say so!? Or did not say what you really mean.....
The second point I was very clear, the operative words being MEASURABLE and statisitically correlated. So I stand by what I have said.
..."Not that I (personally ) think this way; but YOUR enemy is other GASSERS, NOT diesels!!!!"...
..."I have not lost my reasonableness overnight. YOU, kind sir, brought hybrids into the discussion, not I. "...
Yes, after you did NOT acknowledge YOUR enemy!! Really in the sense that hybrids bring higher cost, higher pollution etc YOU still have the GAS engine.
So another example is If the Honda Accord iCTDI will have the emissions foot print of a Toyota Camry/Honda Accord it will have a 22 mpg advantage over these gassers!!
larsb (that's not making a statement AT ALL as to where the particulate matter comes from - the source is of course mostly trucks, ships, power plants, off-road diesel engines, etc. A very small percentage comes from diesel passenger cars.)
Majority of particulate matter in Phoenix is from dust, not diesel. At least according to the EPA. Ever been to Phoenix, AZ?
"The largest cause of smog is diesel exhaust. Diesel cars spit out more particulates and more NOx, which contribute to local smog. But of course, because of their superior fuel economy, diesel cars also burn less fuel and emit less CO2 than gasoline cars."
But here is what you accused me of saying with the above statement:
"So you are saying the major cause of smog in LA is the 3% of passenger diesel cars???? "
You see the mis-translation/misinterpretation there? Did I anywhere in MY STATEMENT say "passenger diesel cars are the major contributor to LA smog?" NO. I did not say that, I did not insinuate that in any fashion.
I said "diesel exhaust" is a major contributor to smog. I did not specify from where that exhaust came. There is a major difference in what I said (i.e. intended) and what you attributed to me, mi amigo.
No big deal. I just wanted to "clear the air," pun intended.
And while YOUR enemy might be gassers, my enemy is dirty and overly polluting cars, regardless of the engine type. Dirty gassers as well as dirty diesels are in my cross-hairs.
"The toxic chemicals and soot in diesel exhaust contribute to smog and can cause cancer."
and:
"The nitrogen oxide emitted by diesel engines plays a large role in the formation of ground-level ozone, commonly referred to as smog."
and:
"According to a recent study, the exhaust levels on school buses were more than eight times the average levels found in the smoggy air in California. This exposure can result in 23 to 46 additional cancer cases per million children exposed."
I'm not bashing clean diesel technology at all; I'm just defending my CORRECT contention that diesel exhaust contributes in a major way to the harmful effects of "ground level ozone" also known as smog.
Those who comment on this post need to remember the BOLDED statement I made in this post before attacking my intent. Re-read it if required, and take a deep breath.
Well I think we are starting to shed light on the fact that natural occurrences can and do cause SMOG. The other thing that might NOT be acknowledged is the completely natural FIRES that are natural and NORMAL, which sweep the desert. (AKA Los Angeles) The fact that LA authorities suppresses these naturally occurring (and presumably highly pollutive fires )events is unnatural and disruptive and actually increase the pollution due to more stores of fuel burning, should they really catch, from an environmental point of view!!??
If you read my prior post on about EPA, OHSHA, CARB etc, that might clue you. But in truth I have gone on record (posts ago) that this has been a going on 2.5 gen ago mistake early 70's) when they did not require all those emitters to use LSD, ULSD!! But then, you know that.
This is CarSpace. Not ShipSpace, SchoolbusSpace, CommercialTRuckTransportationSpace, or TrainSpace, yet the major tool used here to argue against diesel and to misdirect is the diesel emissions of Ships, Commercial Trucks, Trains, Off-Road Construction Equipment, Planes, Schoolbus, and other vehicles that are not comparable to current passenger cars and light trucks.
I'm tired of this lame attempt to connotate diesel emissions of cars to smog and cancer studies of non-car emissions. There is no scientific support for the anti-diesel crusade of passenger cars and light trucks. There is no mistaking the intent of the anti-diesel spin doctors.
Many more diesel cars and light trucks will be on the market in the next 3 years. They all will meet emissions requirements that are the most stringent in the world.
But we were discussing LA smog. Dust is not a major component of PM in LA, or if it is I have never seen data on it.
This is a car discussion. Less than 3% of the passenger cars and light trucks in CA are diesels If you have data that diesl passenger cars and light trucks are a major source of PM in CA or LA then share it.
Perhaps some of the anti-diesel zealots would prefer Ethanol to diesel?
quote Mark Jacobson- Switching from gasoline to ethanol — touted as a green alternative at the pump — may create dirtier air, causing slightly more smog-related deaths, a new study says.
Nearly 200 more people would die yearly from respiratory problems if all vehicles in the United States ran on a mostly ethanol fuel blend by 2020, the research concludes. Of course, the study author acknowledges that such a quick and monumental shift to plant-based fuels is next to impossible.
Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen component of smog along with small particles. Ethanol would raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles.
Based on computer models of pollution and air flow, Jacobson predicted that the increase in ozone — and diseases it causes — would be worst in areas where smog is already a serious problem: Los Angeles and the Northeast.
Most of those projected 200 deaths would be in Los Angeles, he says, and the only place where ozone would fall is the Southeast because of the unique blend of chemicals in the air and the heavy vegetation. -end
Ethanol is off topic, so discuss it somewhere else. My point is that the link between PM and Smog from industrial and commercial sources to clean, modern, diesel cars and light trucks if off topic also, so discuss it somewhere else. Over 4,000 posts and I've yet to see one scientifically valid study that concludes the current clean diesels will cause cancer or significantly influence PM and Smog.
I hope you are not referring to my own little old self as an "anti-diesel spin doctor."
I fit neither of the two parts of that description, and if you can't see that, then it makes my little eyes water. LOL.....
I got involved in the current discussion because of a hybrid-related post. That's all. No ulterior motives here, and there never have been from my side.
There is no diesel bashing going on here. What Larsb states about pre-filtered diesel for PM and pre-after treatment for NOx is true to some extent. Exhaust from untreated diesel is bad news.
And who do you think we should be blaming for this mess? Who should we be really yelling at? Our wonderful Congress, EPA and the biggest offenders, the automotive industry.
The technology has been out their for sometime and yet, industry in this country always seems to have the need to re-invent the wheel. Totally stupid. I drive a 2005 diesel. If there was an affordable aftermarket PM filter I could fit on my Jeep Liberty CRD, I would have it on there. If the was an affordable aftermarket NOx treatment system I could put on my CRD, it would be on there too.
Here in metro D.C., Shell oil sells diesel at many of it's outlets, all of it LSD or S500. NO ULSD. They are selling ULSD to no name outlets like Liberty or Free State. It is their intention to wait until the absolute last possible minute before they market ULSD under the Shell name. Rather strange when their competitors already are selling ULSD.
Another issue is that home heating oil which is #2 diesel has 5000 PPM of sulfur. That will be with us until 2010. Why the wait?
Is Ethanol really off the mark here? Not really. One of the combustion by-products of ethanol is formaldehyde. Anyone for pickled lungs???
and looking forward to 900,000 more diesel powered miles by way of a second 100,000 miles. To date it almost feels a bit like suspended animation. It not only is cheaper per mile driven, but waiting for diesel and availability of diesel have been total non issues. Because of the lack of logistical repair support, I have developed region friendships among folks who also have diesels!! The only boring thing to report is I will need new tires in maybe 10,000 miles for 110,000 (to 120,00 miles if it measures up to the tire tread gauge) trouble free (tire) miles. 50 mpg overall is not had to take (relatively) either. I have changed the oil and filter app 4/5 times also. Love that no jack up, from the dipstick, evacuator system also!
moparbad says, "Over 4,000 posts and I've yet to see one scientifically valid study that concludes the current clean diesels will cause cancer or significantly influence PM and Smog."
Well, do greenhouse gases contribute to smog? The 2008 E320 which is for sale in CA now emits 8.1 tons of GHG to the atmosphere annually, according to the fueleconomy.gov website.
Do the new cars completely eliminate NOx and PM emittance? That would be the only way they "do not pollute" and "do not contribute to cancer."
I think the "pollution free/contaminant free" car has yet to be mass produced. Neither diesel nor gasoline cars will ever get to that point.
P.S. I just noticed diesel at my local convenience store yesterday was $3.29 and RUG was $2.79. That's a steep difference, and it will negatively impact some of the fuel-saving benefits of the new diesel cars if the difference remains that high.
..."Well, do greenhouse gases contribute to smog? The 2008 E320 which is for sale in CA now emits 8.1 tons of GHG to the atmosphere annually, according to the fueleconomy.gov website. "...
Well, according to the very same web site the E350 (gasser) now emits 9.6 tons of GHG to the atmosphere annually,
As far as I know, all previous diesel models of the same car which have both a diesel and a gasoline engine option are the same result - lower CO2 for the diesel. It's in part because the diesel version of the engine is smaller than the gasoline engine, and in part it's because diesel cars in general emit less CO2 than gasoline cars. So what's your news? This is nothing new with Bluetec.
I have no problem with facts. In fact, I'm mostly ALL ABOUT facts. That's why when you started with the "hybrids are not helping the LA air" statement, I had to get in and correct you.
On your statement about "confusing me with facts:" Maybe some other people you deal with do that, but the day I ignore a pertinent fact for the sake of making a point will be the day I resign from this forum.
..." It's in part because the diesel version of the engine is smaller than the gasoline engine,"...
Again not to be contrarian, but for (FACT) example, my TDI is a 1.9 L TDI/8.4 tons vs a 1.8 TT/11.3 tons (gasser), diesel being LARGER?
..."That's why when you started with the "hybrids are not helping the LA air" statement, I had to get in and correct you."...
Sure I can understand that, but no one/agency has come out with a MEASURABLE difference,(in other words, does not even trip the RADAR) let alone statistically significant correlation with the (arguably) largest in use fleet of HYBRID vehicles. ( Prius Civic, etc) And... you did not cite any one or agency that did.
Do your assertions make logical sense? Why yes, BUT so do most documented but failed hypothesis' that did not cut the scientific test, but more importantly, the (statistical) correlation mustard.
Another person cited the so called negative effects of the more environmentally correct alternative fuel ethanol!!! It also gets 25% LESS fuel economy than the RUG that it would again presumably replace.
I got my example from comparing two models of the Jetta - diesel engine was smaller.
on the hybrid difference:
It's not possible to measure it - it's just common sense. There are too many other factors that go into air pollution.
All we can know FOR SURE is that if the Prius is sold to 50,000 CA buyers, then those buyers will be polluting less than just about every one of the 50,000 cars those users MIGHT have bought.
They pollute at least as much as the new clean diesels. You are not accounting for the additional electrical power plant emissions caused when you "plug it in."
..."I got my example from comparing two models of the Jetta - diesel engine was smaller.
on the hybrid difference:
It's not possible to measure it - it's just common sense. There are too many other factors that go into air pollution.
All we can know FOR SURE is that if the Prius is sold to 50,000 CA buyers, then those buyers will be polluting less than just about every one of the 50,000 cars those users MIGHT have bought. "...
I am directly quoting from the fuel.gov, side by side comparisons (2003 Jetta 1.9 LITER TDI, Jetta 1.8 liter TT) So again, is 1.9 liter larger or smaller than 1.8 liter? Or am I having trouble communicating today?
Well if it is "not" possible to measure it, then what can I say? I too believe in common sense and that common sense is sometimes not so common. Bottom line is the assertion as common sensical as it is (and I even agree with it, stand alone that is) does NOT cut the measurable mustard (and you agree, it seems) let alone the statistical mustard which is a MUCH higher measure and computation. From a life cycle point of view, hybrids are more pollutive and costly. This is neither here nor there, but I came very close to buying a 2004 Prius. In line with the next post directive, ..., I am now glad I did buy the diesel! I know that my "boring" report does not help the marketing buzz much, but boring is good sometimes.
... Winter2, you might want to search GEO2 TECHNOLOGIES, they have a great new ceramic particulate filter. Probably be quite awhile before it reaches the aftermarket (if ever). BTW, it's a privately held company.
That is hard to determine when you bring up all the negatives diesel presents with trucks, buses, trains, ships etc.
If I did not know better I would say you are a diesel basher. You will not let up until they produce a diesel as clean as a hybrid. I for one will never buy another hybrid. I just do not like the concept or the complexity. Now I am stuck with a gas guzzing Sequoia because of the ignorance of regulators in CA. Not that it makes much difference. I just don't like having to go to the gas station every 10 days or so. I would have liked a diesel that would go a month or more between fillups. I saved enough on the Sequoia to buy all the gas I could possibly use over the next 6-8 years.
Maybe I will buy a used diesel beetle or rabbit to run my errands.
It might seem that way to you, but the reality is that there have been dozens of Diesel News posts in the last year, if not more. A quick 5-minute scan of the recent posts shows that diesel news articles were posted on:
Aug 17 Aug 18 (multiple articles) Aug 20 (multiple articles) Aug 22 Aug 23 Aug 29 Aug 23 (multiple articles) Sept 2 Sept 4 Sept 11 Sept 14 (multiple articles) Sept 16
There are plenty of diesel news articles.
It just so happens that these articles lead to "discussion" of the articles and all content of the articles are subject to discussion.
It just so happens that diesels and hybrids are incontrovertibly linked together in the USA vehicle world in 2007 because of the way they will be battling for owners and battling for market share, and how they both are superior technology to the standard "gasoline only" engines in other cars, and how fuel prices and other factors will affect their acceptability to buyers.
Some good news to start all you diesel-sniffers off for a good weekend !!! (And I mean "diesel-sniffers" in the nicest, MOST KIND way, you guys know that - just a little friendly teasing among "amigos" right? )
Mark your calendars, because we're calling today a watershed moment for the advancement of diesel's acceptance in the U.S. General Motors has just announced a new 4.5L V8 Duramax turbo-diesel powerplant it plans to use in the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra half-ton pickups, as well as the HUMMER H2. The new oil burner is expected to produce at least 310 horsepower and 520 ft-lbs. of torque. It features dual-overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, a variable-vane turbocharger and aluminum cylinder heads with integrated manifolding that helps keep the overall package small enough to fit in the same space as the automaker's small-block gas V8s.
That's right, just imagine the possibilities. Wherever GM uses a small-block V8 gas engine, it could potentially use the 4.5L V8 Duramax diesel. In a few years we could be driving diesel Impalas, diesel Camaros, maybe even a diesel Corvette! To quote GM's press release, the engine's small size gives it "the flexibility to introduce this engine in a wide variety of vehicle applications should there be future market demand." Indeed.
Military Hummers used (haven't kept up pass the mid 90's) to come stock with diesel engines. They also could drive you batty as they had the higher compression for a whole host of reasons, the spin off being the "marbles in a can" sound. They also did not have emissions abatement to speak of !? So my take is given a civilian version, it will probably have lower compression eliminating the marbles in a can noise.
The potential here can be enormous! 520# ft of torque will be more than the already potent Corvette Z06 (505 hp gasser) 470 # ft of torque. This is especially true since the diesel makes an already very roadable car even MORE roadable!! A twin turbo configuration can give it the capability of a 0-60 sub to 4 sec time!!!! The Chevy small block V8 can be an almost bullet proof platform for a diesel. Variable and twin turbos can really make any model a huge joy to drive. I am hoping the bean counters don't prevail in cheapening out the bullet proofing! Because of GM's past history with poor diesel motor quality, anything less than a homer, knocking the cover off the ball will not be good for GM.
quote- Diesels have also helped Chrysler showcase more efficient SUVs. Chrysler also began selling a Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 3-liter diesel engine this year that reaches 23 mpg on the highway. Executives have said the engine could make its way into more vehicles. However, strict government emission standards in some states limit the company's options, until a better cleaner diesel is available. -end
300 with the 3.0 is a fantastic vehicle, I'm hoping it will be offered here in the US.
...a Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 3-liter diesel engine this year that reaches 23 mpg on the highway...
I have never seriously looked at SUVs as a choice for my family, so I'm completely disconnected from that market but, Crikey!, the diesel gets 23 mpg!?!?! OMG, what does the gasser version get? In the past 20 years, I've never shopped for or owned a vehicle that got less than 30 mpg on the highway and 20 around town.
That is why the V8 diesel might be a great fit & application. I get 25 mpg with a 350 CI V8 gasser and with a 25% increase (due to diesel) that puts it at 31 mpg!!
It will be a market KILLER application if it can hit 35 mpg!!
The MB diesel 6 cynlinder is already a proven entity.
Some folks on the Honda Civic board (Cvici is acknowledge to be one of the leading if not the leader economy car) claim high teens to high 20's and that is with an GASSER I4 motor!!
The new Honda Accord (bigger amd much more powerful motor) iCTDI looks to hit the US market with an almost radical 52 mpg!! Of course, there will be a huge population that adhere to the notion: why get 52 mpg when high teens to high 20's will do!!?? :confuse: While it would have been way cool to have a Civic iCTDI (probably even better mpg, due to at least one variable: lighter weight), bring on the Honda ACCORD iCTDI !!
I think that is not very good mileage for a Grand Cheokee Diesel. The GL320 CDI from Mercedes that I tested a couple times will easily get 28 MPG on the highway. It weighs in at 5500 lbs or there about. These are both true utility vehicles. If you do not travel in snow or back roads they may be a waste of money. They are also very safe in a crash. So you get what you pay for. And you have to decide what is important when looking for a vehicle.
PS They both get about 15 MPG overall with the gas engine.
Which model of the Jetta was he originally comparing? The 2003 Jetta had 4 engines choices, 2 "economy" engines and the "performance" versions with the 1.8T and 2.8. IMHO the 1.8 would not be comparable to the diesel because they have different purposes. The diesel would be most comparable to the 2.0 and the diesel is indeed smaller in displacement.
I love performance, and I drive hard but I paid attention to my tach yesterday when I was driving "normally" for me and I rarely get over 4500 rpm, even when accelerating hard. I would love to see how much fun a BMW 330D with a 6 speed would be, it seems like it would fit my driving style and having a car that size with acceleration essentially equal to an Acura TL, while pulling down over 30MPG seems like the best of both worlds. I say bring on the diesels, hell I think all SUVs should come standard with oil burners, especially after seeing the MB SUV's mileage vs the gassers.
I thought hard about NOT answering your post; as the answer is not a sound bite able one, as indeed the VW TDI IS or has been positioned artificially. Now this is not necessarily a "BAD" thing, but truly it belies (on one level) the diesel motors potential ( but NORMAL) performance. So in its present configuration it functions below its potential.
So for example with just a simple injector (4 each@ 300. total) R/R (and a clutch upgrade ($725). and a 6 speed vs 5 speed: the way the diesel was designed to run in Europe) this thing would have the torque of the VW Jetta V6 GASSER motor. Indeed not only does one gain 25 hp and 40 #ft of torque, but (if one does not get on it too much) 2 mpg BETTER for a 52 mpg!!!
Even at that, the oem clutch that came with the car has a life expectancy of 400,000-500,000 miles. If indeed it lasts that long, at that time, I will do a NORMAL R/R with the V6 clutch upgrade and .205 injectors (.184 comes stock) and do a 5th gear (tweak @ $58.) upgrade!! An alligator chip will further rock (10 hp/20 #ft of torque more) this "Clark Kent" machine. 52 mpg will not be hard to take either. (90 hp/155# ft of torque to 125 hp/215 # ft of torque)
My '78 Rabbit Diesel (old technology-no fancy computer controls/manual "choke"/slow glow plugs/etc) would regularly get 45mpg and often over 50 in the summer. I once drove it from DC to Montana on only 3 tanks of fuel each way.
I drove it over 150,000 miles and only got rid of it because the body was so rusted (no floors left) it would not pass inspection. I sold it to a guy who pulled the motor and put it in his rabbit diesel truck. It was still on the road at least 2 years after I sold it to him.
Now that is way cool! The trick now a days is in keeping the integrity of the other "than diesel" portions, as the TDI motor has a design life of 25,000 hours. (you can use whatever average mph) Assuming 45-50 mph, we are swagging a min of 1,000,000 miles. So if one lives in a less rust prone area, this of course will increase the chances of longer mileage.
I wanted a 1978 Dasher Diesel. The wait was over a year. A friend in Alaska ordered one and made $1000 profit when it arrived at the dealer. It looks like we have the same situation brewing now with used diesel cars. Will VW be able to meet demand for the 50 state diesel?
PS I needed a car for my 75 mile each way commute. I bought a 78 Honda Accord. Don't ask me what I thought of that car.
... ruking 1, although compression is a factor in Diesel noise production, the huge difference today will be the multiple fuel pulses of the common rail systems. Start combustion smoothly and relatively quietly and add pulse and volume as necessary for the requisite power.
Comments
Given that it requires a same standard from all passenger light vehicles, how do you judge 'barely qualifies'?
Tier 2 Bin 5 are the most rigorous standards in the world.
Until we have 100% electric (which creates emissions at the power plant instead of the tail pipe), what do you expect?
So not that I do not think it a worthy WIDESPREAD sci fi goal, but it might be app 100 years off and more importantly needing, a trillion or MORE in R & D.
Even in this day and age of LIGHTNING FAST technological changes, diesel (as well as RUG) is expected to be the (go to ) fuels of choice for easily the next generation or two. (30-40 years per gen)
( I was even in the loop where the "internet" was the communication tool after catastrophic result/s to "flush the remaining bombers"; and this was WAY before Al Gore invented "the internet")
But of course, because of their superior fuel economy, diesel cars also burn less fuel and emit less CO2 than gasoline cars.
So there's a trade-off. You will have a little more particulate and NOx, but a lot less C02. Burning less fuel is better in the long run, but some people are worried about NOx and particulates contributing to smog. That's why the PM and NOx filters in the modern diesels are so important.
Diesels are coming, but slowly. Like I have said repeatedly: for diesels to make inroads in the passenger CAR market in all 50 states, manufacturers other than Mercedes and VW have to get into the game.
The Honda diesels coming into the fray are going to help. Toyota and GM and Ford need to get some passenger diesels going before the choices are wide enough to appeal to a larger range of buyers.
So you are saying the major cause of smog in LA is the 3% of passenger diesel cars???? This is absolutely, completely and utterly preposterous!!!!!
I know you over many postings to be reasonable even as you take the other side. If you do not wish to explain or amend your quote you might want to accept an invitation to the hybrid threads!?
This whole thread of discussion came from you saying (incorrectly) that hybrids have not contributed to cleaner air in LA (which they have.)
I'm not a scientist, but I can READ. Here are facts, not opinions:
1. Particulate matter, usually from diesel exhaust, is a contributing factor in localized smog in ANY urban area. (that's not making a statement AT ALL as to where the particulate matter comes from - the source is of course mostly trucks, ships, power plants, off-road diesel engines, etc. A very small percentage comes from diesel passenger cars.)
2. Almost all (if not all) hybrid cars and SUVs have polluted less than the gasoline or diesel cars they replaced.
That's all I said. I have not lost my reasonableness overnight. YOU, kind sir, brought hybrids into the discussion, not I.
Ah I am glad for the reality check I gave you!
ONLY mitigation of "emissions from trucks ships, power plants, off road diesels, etc etc and (my sic) yada yada ad infinitum. " will MITIGATE IT!! IS this too logical as to make (NO) sense??????
But as I have said in past posts the EPA OHSHA CARB already has given them ALL a pass on this, so in the weirdest of weird situations have already "regulated" this! So that is why you indeed do get this massive pollution OF which you speak.!!!!????
Might I gently remind you the technology is already there to mitigate ALL the ad infinitum, which paradoxically is NOT, BUT the small population of passenger diesel fleet already is MITIGATED!!??
..."Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say, imply, or type anything at all similar to what you accuse me of saying.
This whole thread of discussion came from you saying (incorrectly) that hybrids have not contributed to cleaner air in LA (which they have.) "...
I did NOT put words in your mouth! The question that comes to the fore is, did you post what I quoted or did I make up the quote and attributed it to you!? I categorically assert that I quoted it and did NOT make it up. So if you did not say what you said, then say so!?
The second point I was very clear, the operative words being MEASURABLE and statisitically correlated. So I stand by what I have said.
..."Not that I (personally ) think this way; but YOUR enemy is other GASSERS, NOT diesels!!!!"...
..."I have not lost my reasonableness overnight. YOU, kind sir, brought hybrids into the discussion, not I. "...
Yes, after you did NOT acknowledge YOUR enemy!!
So another example is If the Honda Accord iCTDI will have the emissions foot print of a Toyota Camry/Honda Accord it will have a 22 mpg advantage over these gassers!!
Majority of particulate matter in Phoenix is from dust, not diesel. At least according to the EPA. Ever been to Phoenix, AZ?
Your implied link of diesel cars to the largest cause of smog is COMPLETELY FALSE.
"The largest cause of smog is diesel exhaust. Diesel cars spit out more particulates and more NOx, which contribute to local smog. But of course, because of their superior fuel economy, diesel cars also burn less fuel and emit less CO2 than gasoline cars."
But here is what you accused me of saying with the above statement:
"So you are saying the major cause of smog in LA is the 3% of passenger diesel cars???? "
You see the mis-translation/misinterpretation there? Did I anywhere in MY STATEMENT say "passenger diesel cars are the major contributor to LA smog?" NO. I did not say that, I did not insinuate that in any fashion.
I said "diesel exhaust" is a major contributor to smog. I did not specify from where that exhaust came. There is a major difference in what I said (i.e. intended) and what you attributed to me, mi amigo.
No big deal. I just wanted to "clear the air," pun intended.
And while YOUR enemy might be gassers, my enemy is dirty and overly polluting cars, regardless of the engine type. Dirty gassers as well as dirty diesels are in my cross-hairs.
See my friend, I am not the only one!! Like I said, if I were you, I would amend what you said, as your other quote does make of sense and reason.
"The toxic chemicals and soot in diesel exhaust contribute to smog and can cause cancer."
and:
"The nitrogen oxide emitted by diesel engines plays a large role in the formation of ground-level ozone, commonly referred to as smog."
and:
"According to a recent study, the exhaust levels on school buses were more than eight times the average levels found in the smoggy air in California. This exposure can result in 23 to 46 additional cancer cases per million children exposed."
I'm not bashing clean diesel technology at all; I'm just defending my CORRECT contention that diesel exhaust contributes in a major way to the harmful effects of "ground level ozone" also known as smog.
Those who comment on this post need to remember the BOLDED statement I made in this post before attacking my intent. Re-read it if required, and take a deep breath.
But we were discussing LA smog. Dust is not a major component of PM in LA, or if it is I have never seen data on it.
You also might also want to explain why RUG is allowed to have 2x the sulfur content than ULSD. (30 ppm vs 15 ppm)
Another question might be why diesel fuel was allowed to be dirty for 30 months after RUG was reduced to 30 ppm?
I'm tired of this lame attempt to connotate diesel emissions of cars to smog and cancer studies of non-car emissions.
There is no scientific support for the anti-diesel crusade of passenger cars and light trucks.
There is no mistaking the intent of the anti-diesel spin doctors.
Many more diesel cars and light trucks will be on the market in the next 3 years.
They all will meet emissions requirements that are the most stringent in the world.
The diesel's are coming.
But we were discussing LA smog. Dust is not a major component of PM in LA, or if it is I have never seen data on it.
This is a car discussion. Less than 3% of the passenger cars and light trucks in CA are diesels
If you have data that diesl passenger cars and light trucks are a major source of PM in CA or LA then share it.
Perhaps some of the anti-diesel zealots would prefer Ethanol to diesel?
quote Mark Jacobson-
Switching from gasoline to ethanol — touted as a green alternative at the pump — may create dirtier air, causing slightly more smog-related deaths, a new study says.
Nearly 200 more people would die yearly from respiratory problems if all vehicles in the United States ran on a mostly ethanol fuel blend by 2020, the research concludes. Of course, the study author acknowledges that such a quick and monumental shift to plant-based fuels is next to impossible.
Each year, about 4,700 people, according to the study's author, die from respiratory problems from ozone, the unseen component of smog along with small particles. Ethanol would raise ozone levels, particularly in certain regions of the country, including the Northeast and Los Angeles.
Based on computer models of pollution and air flow, Jacobson predicted that the increase in ozone — and diseases it causes — would be worst in areas where smog is already a serious problem: Los Angeles and the Northeast.
Most of those projected 200 deaths would be in Los Angeles, he says, and the only place where ozone would fall is the Southeast because of the unique blend of chemicals in the air and the heavy vegetation.
-end
Ethanol is off topic, so discuss it somewhere else.
My point is that the link between PM and Smog from industrial and commercial sources to clean, modern, diesel cars and light trucks if off topic also, so discuss it somewhere else.
Over 4,000 posts and I've yet to see one scientifically valid study that concludes the current clean diesels will cause cancer or significantly influence PM and Smog.
I fit neither of the two parts of that description, and if you can't see that, then it makes my little eyes water. LOL.....
I got involved in the current discussion because of a hybrid-related post. That's all. No ulterior motives here, and there never have been from my side.
There is no diesel bashing going on here. What Larsb states about pre-filtered diesel for PM and pre-after treatment for NOx is true to some extent. Exhaust from untreated diesel is bad news.
And who do you think we should be blaming for this mess? Who should we be really yelling at? Our wonderful Congress, EPA and the biggest offenders, the automotive industry.
The technology has been out their for sometime and yet, industry in this country always seems to have the need to re-invent the wheel. Totally stupid. I drive a 2005 diesel. If there was an affordable aftermarket PM filter I could fit on my Jeep Liberty CRD, I would have it on there. If the was an affordable aftermarket NOx treatment system I could put on my CRD, it would be on there too.
Here in metro D.C., Shell oil sells diesel at many of it's outlets, all of it LSD or S500. NO ULSD. They are selling ULSD to no name outlets like Liberty or Free State. It is their intention to wait until the absolute last possible minute before they market ULSD under the Shell name. Rather strange when their competitors already are selling ULSD.
Another issue is that home heating oil which is #2 diesel has 5000 PPM of sulfur. That will be with us until 2010. Why the wait?
Is Ethanol really off the mark here? Not really. One of the combustion by-products of ethanol is formaldehyde. Anyone for pickled lungs???
Well, do greenhouse gases contribute to smog? The 2008 E320 which is for sale in CA now emits 8.1 tons of GHG to the atmosphere annually, according to the fueleconomy.gov website.
Do the new cars completely eliminate NOx and PM emittance? That would be the only way they "do not pollute" and "do not contribute to cancer."
I think the "pollution free/contaminant free" car has yet to be mass produced. Neither diesel nor gasoline cars will ever get to that point.
P.S. I just noticed diesel at my local convenience store yesterday was $3.29 and RUG was $2.79. That's a steep difference, and it will negatively impact some of the fuel-saving benefits of the new diesel cars if the difference remains that high.
Well, according to the very same web site the E350 (gasser) now emits 9.6 tons of GHG to the atmosphere annually,
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
8.1 tons IS less than 9.6 tons? Or was that 9.6 tons is less than 8.1 tons? Or was that don't confuse me with the facts we don't like diesel?
Overall I made around 44mpg going slower at 70mph. But then mine is a stick shift.
So I think that makes a difference also. VW diesel automatic of the same years made only 39mpg (revised EPA estimates).
Still 13 years ago that was very good and is only being achieved by the Honda Fits and Toyota Yarises of today.
I have no problem with facts. In fact, I'm mostly ALL ABOUT facts. That's why when you started with the "hybrids are not helping the LA air" statement, I had to get in and correct you.
On your statement about "confusing me with facts:" Maybe some other people you deal with do that, but the day I ignore a pertinent fact for the sake of making a point will be the day I resign from this forum.
Again not to be contrarian, but for (FACT) example, my TDI is a 1.9 L TDI/8.4 tons vs a 1.8 TT/11.3 tons (gasser), diesel being LARGER?
..."That's why when you started with the "hybrids are not helping the LA air" statement, I had to get in and correct you."...
Sure I can understand that, but no one/agency has come out with a MEASURABLE difference,(in other words, does not even trip the RADAR) let alone statistically significant correlation with the (arguably) largest in use fleet of HYBRID vehicles. ( Prius Civic, etc) And... you did not cite any one or agency that did.
Do your assertions make logical sense? Why yes, BUT so do most documented but failed hypothesis' that did not cut the scientific test, but more importantly, the (statistical) correlation mustard.
Another person cited the so called negative effects of the more environmentally correct alternative fuel ethanol!!! It also gets 25% LESS fuel economy than the RUG that it would again presumably replace.
on the hybrid difference:
It's not possible to measure it - it's just common sense. There are too many other factors that go into air pollution.
All we can know FOR SURE is that if the Prius is sold to 50,000 CA buyers, then those buyers will be polluting less than just about every one of the 50,000 cars those users MIGHT have bought.
on the hybrid difference:
It's not possible to measure it - it's just common sense. There are too many other factors that go into air pollution.
All we can know FOR SURE is that if the Prius is sold to 50,000 CA buyers, then those buyers will be polluting less than just about every one of the 50,000 cars those users MIGHT have bought. "...
I am directly quoting from the fuel.gov, side by side comparisons (2003 Jetta 1.9 LITER TDI, Jetta 1.8 liter TT) So again, is 1.9 liter larger or smaller than 1.8 liter? Or am I having trouble communicating today?
Well if it is "not" possible to measure it, then what can I say? I too believe in common sense and that common sense is sometimes not so common. Bottom line is the assertion as common sensical as it is (and I even agree with it, stand alone that is) does NOT cut the measurable mustard (and you agree, it seems) let alone the statistical mustard which is a MUCH higher measure and computation. From a life cycle point of view, hybrids are more pollutive and costly. This is neither here nor there, but I came very close to buying a 2004 Prius. In line with the next post directive, ..., I am now glad I did buy the diesel!
kcram - Pickups Host
I don't believe that there are any plug-in cars running right now.
That is hard to determine when you bring up all the negatives diesel presents with trucks, buses, trains, ships etc.
If I did not know better I would say you are a diesel basher. You will not let up until they produce a diesel as clean as a hybrid. I for one will never buy another hybrid. I just do not like the concept or the complexity. Now I am stuck with a gas guzzing Sequoia because of the ignorance of regulators in CA. Not that it makes much difference. I just don't like having to go to the gas station every 10 days or so. I would have liked a diesel that would go a month or more between fillups. I saved enough on the Sequoia to buy all the gas I could possibly use over the next 6-8 years.
Maybe I will buy a used diesel beetle or rabbit to run my errands.
It might seem that way to you, but the reality is that there have been dozens of Diesel News posts in the last year, if not more. A quick 5-minute scan of the recent posts shows that diesel news articles were posted on:
Aug 17
Aug 18 (multiple articles)
Aug 20 (multiple articles)
Aug 22
Aug 23
Aug 29
Aug 23 (multiple articles)
Sept 2
Sept 4
Sept 11
Sept 14 (multiple articles)
Sept 16
There are plenty of diesel news articles.
It just so happens that these articles lead to "discussion" of the articles and all content of the articles are subject to discussion.
It just so happens that diesels and hybrids are incontrovertibly linked together in the USA vehicle world in 2007 because of the way they will be battling for owners and battling for market share, and how they both are superior technology to the standard "gasoline only" engines in other cars, and how fuel prices and other factors will affect their acceptability to buyers.
Hummer H2 and trucks going to get this engine
Mark your calendars, because we're calling today a watershed moment for the advancement of diesel's acceptance in the U.S. General Motors has just announced a new 4.5L V8 Duramax turbo-diesel powerplant it plans to use in the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra half-ton pickups, as well as the HUMMER H2. The new oil burner is expected to produce at least 310 horsepower and 520 ft-lbs. of torque. It features dual-overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, a variable-vane turbocharger and aluminum cylinder heads with integrated manifolding that helps keep the overall package small enough to fit in the same space as the automaker's small-block gas V8s.
That's right, just imagine the possibilities. Wherever GM uses a small-block V8 gas engine, it could potentially use the 4.5L V8 Duramax diesel. In a few years we could be driving diesel Impalas, diesel Camaros, maybe even a diesel Corvette! To quote GM's press release, the engine's small size gives it "the flexibility to introduce this engine in a wide variety of vehicle applications should there be future market demand." Indeed.
The potential here can be enormous! 520# ft of torque will be more than the already potent Corvette Z06 (505 hp gasser) 470 # ft of torque. This is especially true since the diesel makes an already very roadable car even MORE roadable!! A twin turbo configuration can give it the capability of a 0-60 sub to 4 sec time!!!! The Chevy small block V8 can be an almost bullet proof platform for a diesel. Variable and twin turbos can really make any model a huge joy to drive. I am hoping the bean counters don't prevail in cheapening out the bullet proofing! Because of GM's past history with poor diesel motor quality, anything less than a homer, knocking the cover off the ball will not be good for GM.
quote-
Diesels have also helped Chrysler showcase more efficient SUVs. Chrysler also began selling a Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 3-liter diesel engine this year that reaches 23 mpg on the highway. Executives have said the engine could make its way into more vehicles. However, strict government emission standards in some states limit the company's options, until a better cleaner diesel is available.
-end
300 with the 3.0 is a fantastic vehicle, I'm hoping it will be offered here in the US.
I have never seriously looked at SUVs as a choice for my family, so I'm completely disconnected from that market but, Crikey!, the diesel gets 23 mpg!?!?! OMG, what does the gasser version get? In the past 20 years, I've never shopped for or owned a vehicle that got less than 30 mpg on the highway and 20 around town.
It will be a market KILLER application if it can hit 35 mpg!!
The MB diesel 6 cynlinder is already a proven entity.
Some folks on the Honda Civic board (Cvici is acknowledge to be one of the leading if not the leader economy car) claim high teens to high 20's and that is with an GASSER I4 motor!!
The new Honda Accord (bigger amd much more powerful motor) iCTDI looks to hit the US market with an almost radical 52 mpg!! Of course, there will be a huge population that adhere to the notion: why get 52 mpg when high teens to high 20's will do!!?? :confuse: While it would have been way cool to have a Civic iCTDI (probably even better mpg, due to at least one variable: lighter weight), bring on the Honda ACCORD iCTDI !!
PS
They both get about 15 MPG overall with the gas engine.
I love performance, and I drive hard but I paid attention to my tach yesterday when I was driving "normally" for me and I rarely get over 4500 rpm, even when accelerating hard. I would love to see how much fun a BMW 330D with a 6 speed would be, it seems like it would fit my driving style and having a car that size with acceleration essentially equal to an Acura TL, while pulling down over 30MPG seems like the best of both worlds. I say bring on the diesels, hell I think all SUVs should come standard with oil burners, especially after seeing the MB SUV's mileage vs the gassers.
So for example with just a simple injector (4 each@ 300. total) R/R (and a clutch upgrade ($725). and a 6 speed vs 5 speed: the way the diesel was designed to run in Europe) this thing would have the torque of the VW Jetta V6 GASSER motor. Indeed not only does one gain 25 hp and 40 #ft of torque, but (if one does not get on it too much) 2 mpg BETTER for a 52 mpg!!!
Even at that, the oem clutch that came with the car has a life expectancy of 400,000-500,000 miles. If indeed it lasts that long, at that time, I will do a NORMAL R/R with the V6 clutch upgrade and .205 injectors (.184 comes stock) and do a 5th gear (tweak @ $58.) upgrade!! An alligator chip will further rock (10 hp/20 #ft of torque more) this "Clark Kent" machine. 52 mpg will not be hard to take either. (90 hp/155# ft of torque to 125 hp/215 # ft of torque)
I drove it over 150,000 miles and only got rid of it because the body was so rusted (no floors left) it would not pass inspection. I sold it to a guy who pulled the motor and put it in his rabbit diesel truck. It was still on the road at least 2 years after I sold it to him.
(I had a 78 Rabbit 2dr gasser)
PS
I needed a car for my 75 mile each way commute. I bought a 78 Honda Accord. Don't ask me what I thought of that car.
Terrible that 78 Honda Accord, as I remember, almost every aspect.