And how many volcanos are actively polluting our environment?
Not to mention that pesky H2O evaporating from the big puddles on either side of us.
I think what we need to do is reduce the volcano pressure
If we were able to somehow tap into the magma and extract it to use in our automobiles, then we would have a free source of fuel and at the same time reduce the continuous pressure building in volcanoes.
Alas with my spotty history I’ll never get elected into office (monica gets around), so the dream will die with me.
Actually the understanding of the government rating systems takes a lot of the hype out of the discussion. Essentially for the "bad stuff" specifically HC and NOx measured in (fraction of) grams per mile an sulev is the same as an sulev etc.
Again the link has been provided in several different posts.
It costs less than $300 per vehicle to make a Sulev car a PZEV car....VW did it for bragging rights only, probably, and are eating the extra cost to help their green image.......:) :shades:
I haven't read all the posts, but have there been rumors of GM adding diesels with their upcoming hybrid system? I thought I once read it will be available to be adapted to any auto tranny. That could be a nice combo.
I am not sure what you find NOT to be transparent? All one needs to do is to go into the gov web site I have linked a number of times AND do your own thing. You want to talk of carb fine, non carb fine also. I tend to focus on CARB because I happen to live in the state.
Should see at lest 70 mpg. Afterall the diesel smart for 2 gets 70mpg.I wonder how they are going to get it past the carb emmission standards. Blue-tec that i hear about sounds like a promising technology for diesel emmissions.
Well, because they are in a BUSINESS to make money, and $300 per car, when they sell 17 million cars a year in the USA, is 5.1 BILLION smackers, per year, which would come off their bottom line.
No car company can do that to their shareholders without government insisting on them doing so.
And we all know with the lobbyists, this will never happen. Sad.
I cannot recall diesel being less expensive here ever since buying my first Prius 5.5 years ago. 10 to 25 cents more is the norm. And our gas has been 10 percent renewable all that time too.
JOHN
Why no more posts about the premium price of diesel fuel? :surprise: :shades:
For sure the "genie is out of the bottle", Pandora's box has been opened and the realization can not be taken back... etc.
As restrictive as it would be for an unleaded gas refinery to be opened up in states such as CA (does damn near impossible ring a bell?) ,(alternative) biodiesel plants have been opening up AND with FAR less investment than the normal 2 billion or so it would take for a new unleaded refinery plant. This is not counting the time on hold as the various court times kicks in as in 5-15 years with the loss in millions in investment dollars due to legal fees. Indeed the Berkeley, CA (city of ) provides the raw waste stream during refuse collection to fund economically a biodiesel cooperative (I read they sell 40,000 gals per year)(private funds but with public cooperation) processing and sales location in the self acknowledge capital of environmental awareness.
So indeed the stakes are very high in legislative work places; in that even as I would appreciate being able to get #2 diesel LESS than 1 mile from my house, I am sure they are not thinking of my one lone TDI, when they make decisions about where to put #2 diesel pumps. But truly even now getting fuel almost ANYWHERE is almost a solitary experience. :)Contrast this with ( As I get) unleaded regular, the cheapest places are literally 5-7 lanes crowded and each have 5-7 lanes of lines. The price is of course very close to the price of #2 diesel.
Why,... beacuase it still is a premium. A prius naysayer predicted that gas would fall back to below 2.00 a gallon by last March and the sales of new model suv's would take off. So far neather has happened and there is "talk" of 4.00 a gallon gas. The news for diesel is not any brighter. Big trucking is seeing hits on their botton line mostly due to higher diesel prices. (even with their fleet purching abilities) Currently diesel is more then gas. Im sure john does not want to hog up bandwith wioth a fresh set pics
No car company can do that to their shareholders without government insisting on them doing so
The Honda Civic Hybrid managed to build their car with SULEV II rating for the NON-CARB states. So your contention is there is no good reason to have LEV, SULEV or PZEV unless it is mandated by the government?
I am a tad perplexed by your statement. While the cities and such indicate the majority of polution is caused by cars that in effect are emissions compliance scofflaws. (5%) or less that cause the majority of the problem. Most all (including mine) are operated in compliance with applicable laws.
So the truth is governments should go after that 5% but that is NOT what they do. They really rely on good citizens to report them, then of course after they receive the reports this is where it really begins to bog down.
why not a car with better mpg and better emissions.....i'm sure we can agree on that
I do agree with the concept. I feel CARB/EPA have gone beyond the point of diminishing returns. With the new standards adopted in 2004 it looks like the agencies are just trying to keep a job. The difference in pollution from a mid nineties car to a current car is very little in terms of grams per mile. Yet they have spread the numbers out to make it look like there is a big difference between a car with a "1" rating and a "5". For example what in 2004 was a "6" is now a "2". By mixing all these numbers they can point out very subtle differences in emissions.
To give you another example. I took my wife's 1990 Lexus LS400 in for a smog check. I asked the tester how it did. He said it was cleaner than many cars that are much newer than our Lexus. We have never had anything emissions related replaced in 17 years. So what has all these added ratings gained us at the tailpipe. I say very little.
What lap are we on in this never ending circle?? Is the 500 over yet?
We get it. You guys disagree on the subject. Repeatedly beating the same arguments to death hasn't made the other guy budge yet. I seriously doubt that anyone is going to "see the light" and come around to your way of thinking at this point.
>> As restrictive as it would be for an unleaded gas refinery to be opened up in states such as CA (does damn near impossible ring a bell?) ,(alternative) biodiesel plants have been opening up AND with FAR less investment than the normal 2 billion or so ... The price is of course very close to the price of #2 diesel.
FWIW several partners and I are in the feasability stage of openning a biodiesel plant out our way. It is absolutely do-able to price B100 less than petroleum diesel, or gas for that matter. We are currently targeting summer B100 at less than $2.79 on road, and less than $2.29 off road. Winter prices would be closer to traditional D2 due to the need for additives and blending with Kero, D1 or D2. Although, in winter we would mix in a lot of bio-heating oil sales anyway.
Even if the arguement is "circular" and the conclusion forgone, we still enjoy showing up for raceday!
In reality, the topic is becoming all the more exiting than it has ever been with Honda, BMW, both the Mercedes and Chrysler divisions of Daimler bring new diesels to market in the 2007-2009 model years and more hybrids arriving on the market each model year.
The result is win-win for hybrids and diesels and their proponents.
No, my assertion is that all car companies COULD spend $300 per car and the USA could technically have a 100% PZEV new car fleet - but that none of them would ever voluntarily do that, because of the money the shareholders would lose.
Let's start by making ALL the HYBRIDS PZEV, HMMMM guys? Toyota and Honda and Ford? How 'bout that?
As frustrating as sometimes reading this thread can be, I would also agree!! But then I have always known that inertia is probably the hardest to overcome. I see this as a break out time for both gassers hybrids and diesels. and variants there of.
First, develop a lightweight battery able to drive a decent sized car for 300 miles. Next, trickle charge the battery overnight using household electric power. Then have stations like gas stations that have charged batteries on hand. Batteries must fit all makes of cars and be made quick change.
Then, to power all these cars build nuclear power stations to supply the electric grid. I can just see the tree huggers throwing their hands up in horror. But wait, think of all the atmospheric pollution you would spare. Using modern techniques and safety devices a perfectly safe nuclear power station could be built. Pebble bed nuclear reactors show promise in this regard.
But best of all, those oil producing countries who depend on nothing but oil for their livelihood, would have to eat oil to survive.
I think you are right. I know Green Star Products has been producing biodiesel in I believe Bakersfield for several years. They cannot keep up with the demand in just the Bay area. Good luck with your venture.
The latest hybrid from Lexus the GS450h did not make the PZEV grade. I wonder why any company would want the CARB AT-PZEV rating. It requires a much longer warranty. I don't think any maker has a PZEV V6 or V8. That to me was the significance of the VW 5 cylinder. The bigger the engine the more pollution it is going to put out. I don't see any way to cut down on GHG with a bigger engine. It is the law of physics. No matter if it is a hybrid or non-hybrid. If you get 30 MPG you will emit a given amount of CO2. A Crown Victoria getting 21 MPG the same as most of the GS450h owners, will both put out the same amount of CO2.
I don't see much need for hybrids unless they do get the rated mileage. There in lies the unhappiness many hybrid owners express here on Edmunds.
Let's not forget the huge amount of methane that is emitted by cow flatulence...
Why aren't environmentalists demanding that cows stop causing global warming? Any environmentalist worth his salt would call for the eradiction of this menace.
Actually I have read in passing, that the real nexus here for going to the ICE in places like Boston, NYC, etc in keeping "transportation" animals was the incredible potential for disease, etc, etc.
Could not agree with you more. Nuke energy and electric-powered vehicles. Not only good for the environment, but would give us a chance to cut ourselves off from the bloody middle east.
Our retreat from nuclear power will prove to be one of the biggest mistakes the US has ever made. Uranium ore is located mainly in stable countries; Canada, Australia, and one of the "stans" in asia and some in the US. FDR was right when he said we have nothing to fear except fear itself. Ironically another irrational fear, namely "global warming" would be reduced by the use of nuclear power.
Now the Chinese are furiously acquiring rights to Uranium ore; Castro is slant drilling the oil out of the continental shelf off of Florida; I tell you its more than a body can take! We better get it together soon.
So it is. Wonder why Toyota could not get a PZEV out of their V6 hybrids. The Accord is also SULEV II in the 45 non-CARB states. Honda was always ahead of Toyota on emissions. I think Toyota only does what they have to do to keep that green glow.
gary says: "So it is. Wonder why Toyota could not get a PZEV out of their V6 hybrids. The Accord is also SULEV II in the 45 non-CARB states. Honda was always ahead of Toyota on emissions. I think Toyota only does what they have to do to keep that green glow."
Two points:
1. Like I said earlier, it costs more money to make a car PZEV car, PLUS the extra cost of providing the longer PZEV warranty. Toyota is on such a tiny margin on their hybrids that it is probably a business decision not to PZEV them.
2. Honda knew the Accord was going to be a low-volume car, so spending the extra money is not a big deal to them. PLUS, Honda was REALLY KEEN on having the "first 6-cyl hybrid" too. just like building the Insight for $30K and selling it for $20K has been considered a "cost of doing business" for them.
Just different philosophies, related to "business" not related to "green-ness" per se.
As I referenced the cost of making vehicles PZEV is a negative for the carmakers, here is an article in which a GM spokesperson flat out says "we don't think people would pay extra for the PZEV":
"We're fairly certain our customers would be unwilling to pay it," says Kevin Cullen, staff development engineer at General Motors' Milford, Mich., proving grounds and technical adviser for GM environmental programs. "If the sticker price reflects the difference in costs, we don't think there'll be a whole lot of PZEVs sold in the open market."
..."As I referenced the cost of making vehicles PZEV is a negative for the carmakers, here is an article in which a GM spokesperson flat out says "we don't think people would pay extra for the PZEV": "...
Evidently Toyota came to the same conclusion on the cars in past posts!
Upon first look, the only area of contention is the 15 year/150,000 mile emissions guarantee. Essentially if one does 25,000 per year, the guarantee is null and void in 6 years. Also if it is true the average USA driver's yearly mileage is 12,000 to 15,000, it again falls short on the time frame 10-12.5 years. My take on cars with 250,000 miles and tests at the 10 year mark at the smog only station, is it is NOT worth the 300. Or in the case of what is paid by consumers for the PZEV designation.
Again worthy of note, there are a high % of NON hybrid cars that meet this higher standard, PZEV.
I have been out of town for several days and have been playing catch-up.
After looking at the posts I have done some research and have several comments/questions.
PZEV rated vehicles are interesting. Some achieve this distinction by being a hybrid, but most others achieve it by how evaporative emissions are controlled and by using a larger catalytic converter. I have some issues with the second means of achieving PZEV as it is rather false in my view. By using a steel gas tank and a more sophisticated means of trapping/collecting evaporative emissions to achieve PZEV is phony. The use of a larger catalytic converter makes sense but there is a cost beyond just the dollars for a larger device. There is the cost of gas flow restriction which means a reduction in power, performance and FE. I have seen data that I can no longer find but will try to locate showing that these cars suffer from lower FE. The next problem that I read about in several articles was that E10 is going to be troublesome for these more sophisticated systems as E10 fuel has more evaporative emissions and tends to be somewhat more corrosive to boot.
Now my question. It concerns diesels and those who complain about them being so terrible. EPA rules for diesel finally started taking hold in 2004. The first EPA rules I can remember started with MY 1968 gassers with CCV and other items that I cannot recall. By my math is a 36 year gap for EPA rules to finally touch diesel. Why? Is it numbers? Or is it that diesels save for NOx and PM are really that clean?
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
Not to mention that pesky H2O evaporating from the big puddles on either side of us.
I think what we need to do is reduce the volcano pressure
If we were able to somehow tap into the magma and extract it to use in our automobiles, then we would have a free source of fuel and at the same time reduce the continuous pressure building in volcanoes.
Alas with my spotty history I’ll never get elected into office (monica gets around), so the dream will die with me.
Again the link has been provided in several different posts.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/
Yes it does even better. It is PZEV in the CARB states and SULEV II in the non-CARB states. Prius & TCH are only ULEV II in the non-CARB states.
Well, because they are in a BUSINESS to make money, and $300 per car, when they sell 17 million cars a year in the USA, is 5.1 BILLION smackers, per year, which would come off their bottom line.
No car company can do that to their shareholders without government insisting on them doing so.
And we all know with the lobbyists, this will never happen. Sad.
I cannot recall diesel being less expensive here ever since buying my first Prius 5.5 years ago. 10 to 25 cents more is the norm. And our gas has been 10 percent renewable all that time too.
JOHN
Why no more posts about the premium price of diesel fuel? :surprise: :shades:
As restrictive as it would be for an unleaded gas refinery to be opened up in states such as CA (does damn near impossible ring a bell?) ,(alternative) biodiesel plants have been opening up AND with FAR less investment than the normal 2 billion or so it would take for a new unleaded refinery plant. This is not counting the time on hold as the various court times kicks in as in 5-15 years with the loss in millions in investment dollars due to legal fees. Indeed the Berkeley, CA (city of ) provides the raw waste stream during refuse collection to fund economically a biodiesel cooperative (I read they sell 40,000 gals per year)(private funds but with public cooperation) processing and sales location in the self acknowledge capital of environmental awareness.
So indeed the stakes are very high in legislative work places; in that even as I would appreciate being able to get #2 diesel LESS than 1 mile from my house, I am sure they are not thinking of my one lone TDI, when they make decisions about where to put #2 diesel pumps. But truly even now getting fuel almost ANYWHERE is almost a solitary experience. :)Contrast this with ( As I get) unleaded regular, the cheapest places are literally 5-7 lanes crowded and each have 5-7 lanes of lines. The price is of course very close to the price of #2 diesel.
Top ten fuel misers - 3 TDIs and 7 hybrids in the bunch:
Here are the top 10 fuel-efficient vehicles for 2006, based on EPA fuel economy data for city driving: City/Hwy
1.Honda Insight 60/66 mpg
2.Toyota Prius 60/51 mpg
3.Volkswagen New Beetle TDI (manual) (tie)
Volkswagen Golf TDI (manual) (tie) 37/44 mpg
4. Volkswagen Jetta TDI (manual) 36/41 mpg
5.Ford Escape Hybrid FWD 36/31 mpg
6.Volkswagen New Beetle TDI (automatic) (tie)
Volkswagen Jetta TDI (automatic) (tie) 35/47 mpg
7.Volkswagen Golf TDI (automatic) 33/44 mpg
8.Ford Escape Hybrid AWD (tie)
Mercury Mariner Hybrid AWD (tie) 33/29 mpg
9.Lexus RX 400h 2WD (tie)
Toyota Highlander Hybrid 2WD (tie) 33/28 mpg
10.Toyota Corolla 32/41 mpg
The Honda Civic Hybrid managed to build their car with SULEV II rating for the NON-CARB states. So your contention is there is no good reason to have LEV, SULEV or PZEV unless it is mandated by the government?
So the truth is governments should go after that 5% but that is NOT what they do. They really rely on good citizens to report them, then of course after they receive the reports this is where it really begins to bog down.
I do agree with the concept. I feel CARB/EPA have gone beyond the point of diminishing returns. With the new standards adopted in 2004 it looks like the agencies are just trying to keep a job. The difference in pollution from a mid nineties car to a current car is very little in terms of grams per mile. Yet they have spread the numbers out to make it look like there is a big difference between a car with a "1" rating and a "5". For example what in 2004 was a "6" is now a "2". By mixing all these numbers they can point out very subtle differences in emissions.
To give you another example. I took my wife's 1990 Lexus LS400 in for a smog check. I asked the tester how it did. He said it was cleaner than many cars that are much newer than our Lexus. We have never had anything emissions related replaced in 17 years. So what has all these added ratings gained us at the tailpipe. I say very little.
We get it. You guys disagree on the subject. Repeatedly beating the same arguments to death hasn't made the other guy budge yet. I seriously doubt that anyone is going to "see the light" and come around to your way of thinking at this point.
Let's move on please!
FWIW several partners and I are in the feasability stage of openning a biodiesel plant out our way. It is absolutely do-able to price B100 less than petroleum diesel, or gas for that matter. We are currently targeting summer B100 at less than $2.79 on road, and less than $2.29 off road. Winter prices would be closer to traditional D2 due to the need for additives and blending with Kero, D1 or D2. Although, in winter we would mix in a lot of bio-heating oil sales anyway.
Even if the arguement is "circular" and the conclusion forgone, we still enjoy showing up for raceday!
In reality, the topic is becoming all the more exiting than it has ever been with Honda, BMW, both the Mercedes and Chrysler divisions of Daimler bring new diesels to market in the 2007-2009 model years and more hybrids arriving on the market each model year.
The result is win-win for hybrids and diesels and their proponents.
Let's start by making ALL the HYBRIDS PZEV, HMMMM guys? Toyota and Honda and Ford? How 'bout that?
Then, to power all these cars build nuclear power stations to supply the electric grid. I can just see the tree huggers throwing their hands up in horror. But wait, think of all the atmospheric pollution you would spare. Using modern techniques and safety devices a perfectly safe nuclear power station could be built. Pebble bed nuclear reactors show promise in this regard.
But best of all, those oil producing countries who depend on nothing but oil for their livelihood, would have to eat oil to survive.
The latest hybrid from Lexus the GS450h did not make the PZEV grade. I wonder why any company would want the CARB AT-PZEV rating. It requires a much longer warranty. I don't think any maker has a PZEV V6 or V8. That to me was the significance of the VW 5 cylinder. The bigger the engine the more pollution it is going to put out. I don't see any way to cut down on GHG with a bigger engine. It is the law of physics. No matter if it is a hybrid or non-hybrid. If you get 30 MPG you will emit a given amount of CO2. A Crown Victoria getting 21 MPG the same as most of the GS450h owners, will both put out the same amount of CO2.
I don't see much need for hybrids unless they do get the rated mileage. There in lies the unhappiness many hybrid owners express here on Edmunds.
Why aren't environmentalists demanding that cows stop causing global warming? Any environmentalist worth his salt would call for the eradiction of this menace.
SAVE THE EARTH, DOWN WITH COW FLATULENCE!!!
:P
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Now the Chinese are furiously acquiring rights to Uranium ore; Castro is slant drilling the oil out of the continental shelf off of Florida; I tell you its more than a body can take! We better get it together soon.
http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/pebble_bed.html
Two points:
1. Like I said earlier, it costs more money to make a car PZEV car, PLUS the extra cost of providing the longer PZEV warranty. Toyota is on such a tiny margin on their hybrids that it is probably a business decision not to PZEV them.
2. Honda knew the Accord was going to be a low-volume car, so spending the extra money is not a big deal to them. PLUS, Honda was REALLY KEEN on having the "first 6-cyl hybrid" too. just like building the Insight for $30K and selling it for $20K has been considered a "cost of doing business" for them.
Just different philosophies, related to "business" not related to "green-ness" per se.
As I referenced the cost of making vehicles PZEV is a negative for the carmakers, here is an article in which a GM spokesperson flat out says "we don't think people would pay extra for the PZEV":
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-09-16-cleancar_x.htm
"We're fairly certain our customers would be unwilling to pay it," says Kevin Cullen, staff development engineer at General Motors' Milford, Mich., proving grounds and technical adviser for GM environmental programs. "If the sticker price reflects the difference in costs, we don't think there'll be a whole lot of PZEVs sold in the open market."
Evidently Toyota came to the same conclusion on the cars in past posts!
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/10/fusionmilan_are.html
Current California PZEVs (non-electric)
Automaker PZEV models
GM 0
Ford (w/Fusion/Milan) 4
Mazda (Ford) 2
Volvo (Ford) 4
DaimlerChrysler 2
Toyota/Lexus 3
Honda 5
Nissan 2
BMW 1
Hyundai-Kia 2
Mitsubishi 1
Subaru 2
Volkswagen 2
Again worthy of note, there are a high % of NON hybrid cars that meet this higher standard, PZEV.
The article is dated 11 October 2005 and is referencing 2006 model year vehicles..
4 Hondas, 3 Toyotas, Hyundai, Kia, Pontiac, Chevy, Saturn.
3 Hybrids, 1 CNG car, 8 gassers.
(No diesels)
After looking at the posts I have done some research and have several comments/questions.
PZEV rated vehicles are interesting. Some achieve this distinction by being a hybrid, but most others achieve it by how evaporative emissions are controlled and by using a larger catalytic converter. I have some issues with the second means of achieving PZEV as it is rather false in my view. By using a steel gas tank and a more sophisticated means of trapping/collecting evaporative emissions to achieve PZEV is phony. The use of a larger catalytic converter makes sense but there is a cost beyond just the dollars for a larger device. There is the cost of gas flow restriction which means a reduction in power, performance and FE. I have seen data that I can no longer find but will try to locate showing that these cars suffer from lower FE. The next problem that I read about in several articles was that E10 is going to be troublesome for these more sophisticated systems as E10 fuel has more evaporative emissions and tends to be somewhat more corrosive to boot.
Now my question. It concerns diesels and those who complain about them being so terrible. EPA rules for diesel finally started taking hold in 2004. The first EPA rules I can remember started with MY 1968 gassers with CCV and other items that I cannot recall. By my math is a 36 year gap for EPA rules to finally touch diesel. Why? Is it numbers? Or is it that diesels save for NOx and PM are really that clean?