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
Neither of your two favorite whipping boys had anything to do with blocking high mileage diesels in the US. It's entirely due to the 'chicken tax'. The rest of the world has small/midsized diesel P/U. We don't.
The vehicle makers themselves also have a hand in this because they choose NOT to make them here, until recently.
Neither exhaust is healthy for you.
Gasoline might have more toxicity BEFORE it's burned, but not after, at least in the long run. Everyone with any knowledge in this area KNOWS all the medical studies and PROOF over the past few decades that unfiltered high-sulfur diesel exhaust is deadly and not only that, it can cause SHORT-TERM health problems as well.
I'm not going to get into all that because it's a separate issue.
But to tie it into the EPA subject, the EPA controls diesel exhaust emissions because it's their job to keep the air as healthy and clean as possible.
They are doing a very poor job of it. There are trucks coming from AZ and Mexico with no emissions control at all. CARB has restricted the Semi trucks in CA to the point MANY trucking companies have gone under over the last year. The cost to convert is just too high. Yet we get the dirty truck exhaust from AZ and Mexico in the state. Ships coming into San Pedro are still burning crude oil that is extremely high in sulfur. I see trains pulling the long grades with black smoke pouring out.
So why don't you tell US what good things EPA has done. The EPA is good at whipping the little guy that wants to cut his fuel consumption. They are not worth a hoot when it comes to controlling the REAL polluters. Controlling the big polluters should have come first. The EPA is Politics as usual...
And how, praytell, do you suppose the EPA can force Mexican truckers to meet emission requirements? I don't think we have any control or leverage in that area. The EPA does not have the power to close the border.
You want a list of all the good things the EPA has done? It will be a long one, so get ready to read............
National Clean Diesel Program - providing funds for retrofits and many more helpful programs
U.S. Clean Fuel Programs Have Helped to Clear the Air - sulfur in gasoline dropped from 300 PPM in 1997 to 99 PPM in 2005
... all this work has begun to clear the air. The American Lung Association took notice of the cleaner air in its 2007 annual air quality report card, issued in May, saying that smog decreased nationwide from peaks reported in 2002.
"Ozone pollution dropped thanks to a late 1990s requirement to clean up emissions of the raw ingredients of smog, as well as cooler summers in 2003 and 2004," the Lung Association said. "In the West, particularly in California, aggressive measures to reduce emissions from a wide range of air pollution sources - cars, trucks, and other mobile sources - contributed to fewer high ozone days."
Under the proposed plan, ozone forming pollutants will be reduced by 88 tons per day—about 40 tons more than the plan had first proposed.
This one will be PARTICULARLY interesting to YOU Gary:
E.P.A. Pollution Report Omits Global Warming Section
That should cement the fact that the EPA is doing things RIGHT Gary - ignoring Global Warming - That's Right Up Your Alley !!!!!!!!
"(NAFTA) will allow Mexican commercial vehicles to travel in the United States if they meet all local, state, and federal requirements." Texas DOT
Short haul trucks (within 25 miles of the border) don't have to meet the same requirements as the long haul trucks. (Mexico Trucker Online)
How about that..................
Gary replied, "That is your opinion."
Mine, which, backed by thousands of scientists and hundreds of medical studies, seems to in this case be correct.
Not always can an opinion be defended as 100% fact, but this is one instance where that is the case.
I don't know why I bother as you are totally blind to reality on this subject. The EPA bows to the powers and look clean by beating up on those that do not have the bucks to fight their ignorance.
Potential pollution
Local truck-line owner Kevin Nelson of Red Line said that he does not plan to participate in cross-border trucking. He is concerned, however, about the condition of equipment that will come over the border from Mexico, and the pollution it may cause.
“Their average truck in Mexico is a 1993 model, and we all know with the new emissions that we’re trying to meet globally that equipment that old is obviously very pollutant to the air,” he said, adding that the average U.S. truck is a 2001 model.
Emissions standards mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency already are becoming more stringent and more expensive every year.
“Especially just this last year, the engine price went up $10,000,” he said, primarily because of new emissions laws. Another change is coming in 2010.
Every state has emissions regulations. We have smog and emissions testing in AZ.
So, Gary, since you are so convinced the EPA is doing SUCH a TERRIBLE JOB in light of all the contrary evidence, how would you prefer the country's air and pollution problems be solved and monitored, if not by a guvmint agency?
http://www.dmv.org/smog-check.php
CARB apparently CARES, but I'm not sure what their influence can do:
In 2005, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) published a report on Mexican truck traffic in regards to the first phase of the trucking provision. Their findings report the following air pollution concers:
- an extra 50 tons of NOx and 2.5 tons of particulate matter a day will be added to California's South Coast Air Basin
- 66% of Mexican trucks are older (pre-1993) diesel models and do not have electronic fuel injection
- 25% are diesel trucks older than 1979 having extremely high emissions of NOx and particulate matter
- unlike the US, Mexico does not require trucks to use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel
Well, apparently, CARB is using fines to enforce it:
This from a 2006 story
Mexican trucks entering California will soon face the same air pollution standards as their American counterparts, the California Air Resources Board ruled this week. Following a public hearing, the CARB board of directors voted Thursday, Jan. 26, to require the Mexican trucks to meet Environmental Protection Agency pollution standards. Although a 2004 state law already requires all trucks in the state to carry a sticker certifying that their engines meet emissions requirements, no fines were attached to the violation. Now, inspectors will be able to fine illegal operators up to $300 for a first offense, according to CARB’s Web site.
So the problem is not being ignored Gary.
Detailed testing requirements for diesel vehicles
Also, that way cops wouldn't be completely wasting tax payer money trying to enforce ridiculous rules and regulations that serve no purpose for society.
Cops would not waste gas and resources trying to enforce ridiculous laws and speed limits that serve no purpose for society.
Courts would not have to waste resources trying to convict on questionable evidence and testimony provided by cops who are probably lying and or bending the truth in court anyway.
Everyone could get to where they want to go faster.
Minutes on the road would be reduced for everyone.
Traffic Decrease due to less Highway Patrol.
Less bottle necks created by following Highway Patrol (no one will pass.)
Happier and less stressed lives
Economy improves due to movement of funds from paying fines and traffic tickets and court fees towards businesses, retail, and investments.
People who aren't interested in fuel economy have zero concept of our economy which is super oil dependent. Drive fast and lose a few bucks, big deal. It's the value of your investments and your retirement you are screwing up by wasting gas. Because the waste is cumulative and huge. Worse yet you are hurting the value of everyone's investments by wasting gas. And wating discretionary dollars that could be put into circulation than up your tailpipe imply to get to your destination. Two words-leave earlier!
And the one's who advocate no speed limit-yeah. You want the freedom to go as fast as you care to, but we, as a society, have a responsibility for your ongoing care should you have a wreck on yor own volition and cannot handle the responsibility of paying your medical costs and living expenses.
Regarding your societal responsibility tangent, I hope you don't smoke, drink, or eat poorly.
The US is the only developed nation in the world where going 75mph on a smooth open highway in perfect conditions could draw the ire of so many.
Just get out of the left lane.
Baker, OR 87093 12.1 28.67
Ogden, UT 87535 14.9 29.66
Steamboat 87924 14.1 27.58
Leadville 88256 13.1 25.34 (includes Boulder city driving)
Durango 88625 13.0 28.38
Grnd Juntn 88979 13.2 26.81
Tremonton 89340 12.3 29.34
Baker, OR 89734 12.5 31.52
’95 T Bird LX, 4.6L V8, AT, AC, Cruising Speed 60 MPH. (Used CC)
Still driving on Baker gas since arrival @ home last Saturday.
Less stress than cruising @ 75 and better viewing of the areas traveled. Colorado is high in more than altitude.
The only time I've gone as slow as 60 mph on the interstate is up mountainous terrain in a U-Haul truck. I was embarassed to be such a nuisance going 60 even for short periods of time.
If you're driving and not a passenger, I'd suggest paying attention to the road and not the scenery. It's much safer that way.
But if you're in North Dakota... and the only car on the road for miles, then some leeway is involved.
AT THE PRICE OF GAS - YOU'RE FREE TO PASS!
If you hold off buying that new car for a couple more years, will you be able to fill it up with air?
(a) Probably
(b) Maybe
(c) Probably not
(d) Nonsense, this is just a bunch of hot air
(e) Don't know
By A. Pawlowski
CNN
(CNN) -- "You've heard of hybrids, electric cars and vehicles that can run on vegetable oil. But of all the contenders in the quest to produce the ultimate fuel-efficient car, this could be the first one to let you say, 'fill it up with air.'
The compressed air car planned for the U.S. market would be a six-seater, a New York company says.
That's the idea behind the compressed air car, which backers say could achieve a fuel economy of 106 miles per gallon.
Plenty of skepticism exists, but with many Americans trying to escape sticker shock at the gas pump, the concept is generating buzz.
The technology has been the focus of MDI, a European company founded in 1991 by a French inventor and former race car engineer.
New York-based Zero Pollution Motors is the first firm to obtain a license from MDI to produce the cars in the United States, pledging to deliver the first models in 2010 at a price tag of less than $18,000.
The concept is similar to how a locomotive works, except compressed air -- not steam -- moves the engine's pistons, said Shiva Vencat, vice president of MDI and CEO of Zero Pollution Motors.
Gas still plays a role...
The six-seater planned for the U.S. market would be able to reach speeds of more than 90 mph and have a range of more than 800 miles thanks to a dual energy engine, Vencat said. Watch what a prototype looks like and why the cars may take off in cities .
The design calls for one or more tanks of compressed air under the car's floor, as well as a tank holding at least 8 gallons of fuel.
Whether the engine uses just air or both air and fuel would depend on how fast the car is going. It would run purely on compressed air at speeds less than 35 mph, Vencat said.
Since the car could only go a short distance when using just air, fuel is needed to get the full range, he explained.
'Above 35 mph, there is an external combustion system, which is basically a heater that uses a little bit of gasoline or biofuel or ethanol or vegetable oil that will heat the air,' Vencat said.
'Heating the air increases its volume, and by increasing its volume, it increases [the car's] range. That's why with one gallon of gasoline or its equivalent we are able to make over 100 mpg.'
Vencat said an on-board compressor would refill the air tank while the car is running, or owners could refill it by plugging it into a power outlet for four hours.
Is it for real?
Experts aren't sure Americans will be zipping around in air cars and getting 106 mpg, or more than twice the fuel economy of hybrid-electric vehicles such as the Toyota Prius.
It is possible to power a car with compressed air, but the mileage claim is "at the edge of possibility," said John Callister, director of the Harvey Kinzelberg Entrepreneurship in Engineering program at Cornell University's College of Engineering.
He noted that such dramatic fuel efficiency is associated with tiny experimental cars, not bigger mainstream ones.
Who would build it?
• Production would be similar to a franchise business
• The cars would be manufactured by privately owned plants that could produce at least 4,000 vehicles a year.
• The cost of a license to build the car in an "exclusive geographical area" in the United States is about $460,000.
• Geographical areas are defined by 110,000 new vehicle registrations. For example, Georgia could have four plants at most, but there could be 15 in California.
• The cost of a plant is $20 million.
• The first plant is scheduled to be built in New York in 2010.
Source: Shiva Vencat, vice president of MDI and CEO of Zero Pollution Motors
'No one's really proven a six-seater passenger car [can get] any better than 75 miles to the gallon. So this would represent a big step forward,' Callister said.
'They would have to prove that before they can throw rocks at the Prius.'
Another expert expressed concern about the amount of energy it would take to generate the required air pressure: 4,500 pounds per square inch, or more than 120 times the pressure inside the tires of a typical four-door sedan.
"That is above what you normally find even in an industrial setting," said William Bulpitt, senior research engineer at the Georgia Institute of Technology's Strategic Energy Institute.
'That takes quite a compressor to do. ... It takes horsepower to compress the air up to that pressure.'
If you count that energy, it's hard to believe the car would be that much more efficient than an electric vehicle, Callister said.
India shows interest
The compressed air car will get a chance to prove itself next year when it competes for the Automotive X Prize. The multimillion-dollar award will go to the team that 'can win a stage race for clean, production-capable vehicles that exceed 100 mpg equivalent fuel economy,' according to the X Prize Foundation.
The air-car concept has also drawn the interest of Tata Motors, India's largest automaker. The company announced an agreement with MDI last year to further develop and refine the technology.
However, the cars have yet to hit the streets in India or anywhere else.
'The project is under progress. We do not yet have any timeframe for launch," said Debasis Ray, the head of corporate communications for Tata Motors.
Only prototypes exist at this point,' Vencat said.
Light design
The body of the car planned for the United States would be built with fiberglass and injected foam. The chassis, composed of aluminum rods, would be glued together, not welded.
The design allows the car to be as light as possible, Vencat said.
For anyone who has doubts about its safety, he insisted computer simulations show that the vehicle would pass crash tests and meet all U.S. safety standards.
'Do you think somebody would actually put millions of dollars into making a car that will not pass safety regulations? There's no point in doing that,' Vencat said.
Callister pointed out that there haven't been any lightweight, 100-plus mpg cars to pass crash tests but said it could be done through a "very clever design" of a lightweight frame.
A good prototype could dispel many of the doubts about the compressed air car, he added.
Mass Market feasibility is another thing altogether.
If they can make it feasible for a commuter vehicle, then I'm all for it.
Time is money, and it would take a whole lot more than $4/gallon gas to buy more of my time. I'm too productive to be wasting time saving pennies, when I could be spending my time earning dollars.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I drive a shiny, newer car that's going to depreciate, my tires might last 20K miles at $800 a set, I need 93-octane, and I want a lot of nice features, including AWD. So after all that I see little reason why I should then worry about whether I'm driving such that I'm getting 26 or 27mpg? I drive to have fun many times in how and where I go; and poking along is not necessarily fun.
If I have to drive a 15 yr. old econobox only to work and other "needed" driving, wear a drab gray jump-suit, or live in a corrugated tin-shed - all in the name of conservation - I'll quit work.
"Merely Existing" is not the same as "Living Life"; you should be trying to have the most fun you can, while you can.
Exactly. The problem is, there is an ever-growing number of eco-weenies and safety brownshirts that believe that they know what's best for us.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
There is no proof that driving slower, or spending less on oil, will help the stock market (which is what you are suggesting when you talk about retirement, given that most people have 401(k)s or pensions invested heavily in the stock market). If that were the case, the stock market would have boomed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when gasoline usage declined and the speed limit was 55 mph. Didn't happen. Your contention is not supported by history.
golfman4: And the one's who advocate no speed limit-yeah. You want the freedom to go as fast as you care to, but we, as a society, have a responsibility for your ongoing care should you have a wreck on yor own volition and cannot handle the responsibility of paying your medical costs and living expenses.
Considering that people who drive the speed limit or slower have more accidents than those who drive faster than the speed limit, I'd suggest that you need to re-think this.
... but we, as a society, have a responsibility for your ongoing care should you have a wreck on yor own volition and cannot handle the responsibility of paying your medical costs and living expenses.
So golfman4, what do you think of the freedom that people have who boat, swim, mountain climb, skydive, and ride motorcycles, ... who do things that increase their risk of injury/death? Should they all be outlawed too? Or are you just singling out drivers?
Or do you think that if the trip someone was going on was unneeded (however you want to define that), and they are hurt and killed that this is somehow a wrong to society? Should the Sunday afternoon drive in the country be unlawful, because people could be hurt or killed, that otherwise wouldn't occur if the people just stayed home?
This brought to my mind the whole idea of "halo cars" and what they do, or don't do, for a company.
Cars like:
Chevrolet Corvette
Mitsubishi EVO
Subaru WRX STi
Cadillac XLR
Dodge Viper
These limited production, high performance cars were supposed to increase the prestige of the parent company, and also interest the car buyer in the more mundane products the automaker produces (and makes money on).
Is the idea of the "high performance halo car" dead in 2008?
Does Prius do more for Toyota than Corvette does for Chevrolet? Or to put it another way, does a Prius make you want to buy a Corolla more than a Corvette makes you want to buy a Cobalt?
Is Chrylsler's move a healthy sign of "pruning" or a foreboding of "swooning"?
Shiftright
Visiting host
Money is sexy, and a Viper says 'money.'
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Right now, Toyota is heavily pushing its "green" image, and the Prius is the perfect poster child. It doesn't hurt that these days Toyota has no performance cars to speak of, so having a halo sports car wouldn''t do them a whole lot of good.
I expect that once Volt gets a lot closer to reality, GM will do the same thing for Chevy: make Volt its halo model and flaunt it EVERYWHERE.
Halo cars demonstrate, among other things, the focus of the company and their engineering prowess. In that respect, complicated machines like Prius and Volt do just as good a job as models like Corvette and........Supra?
Sidenote on the whole Viper thing: it's expensive to maintain a street-ready supercar program, and you get a lot more return for your buck if you design a $30-50K car like Corvette and Evo than if you do an almost-$90K car like the Viper. If Chrysler Group had a 400 hp version of the Viper ready to go for $50 grand, I would say that would still be a good halo car for them, especially given the dearth of fuel-efficient models in their stable.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It's interesting that "status" and "prestige" are much more changeable terms than we first thought, isn't it?
What women say and what women do are often two different things.
Chrysler is supposed to be in the car business, not running a dating service.
I'm not entirely certain I'd WANT the kind of woman attracted to a Viper. I'd have to think about that.
True. I bet you could put some ugly, old, fat dude in a Viper, and then find some guy who, under normal circumstances could get any woman he wanted...even Ellen DeGeneris and Jodi Foster, and probably a good deal of men, too, and stick that one in a Prius. And I imagine the Viper dude would still get more action. :shades:
However Toyota is the sensible shoes car company. Touting the Prius is good for them.
I don't think that the Viper does anything for the 'new Chrysler'. MOPAR is dead.
They may turn that around with the Challenger, but I don't think that they can resurrect their performance image.
The CTS-v and the Corvette, on the other hand, are still excellent and valuable halo cars for GM. I think there is still truth in the old saying:
"All the women who have been picked up in a Corvette couldn't be laid end to end."
Money talks and BS walks. Most women would not go for the geek in a Prius over an old dude in a Viper. I cannot imagine anyone wanting Ellen Degenerate. Jodie Foster is a different story. Not if she is driving a Prius. Maybe an LS460 or S550. There is nothing sexy about a Prius. Only teenagers will fold the seats flat. A Viper at the Four Seasons will get results. Park the Prius and rent a Viper or at least a Vette.
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
Gee, Claire could be on to something here. Could the Prius be the Revenge of the SNAG? (Sensitive New Age Guy) who had a brief fling of success in the late 60s, early 70s? Will the brute in the brute's car take a back seat? Does anyone still read Wired Magazine except the people who write it?
I think a black on black Porsche twin turbo would be my weapon of choice here.
But Porsche doesn't need "halo" cars. Every Porsche is a halo car.
I agree. The Corvette still does GM some good. But not so the Viper for Chrysler. There's just not enough heritage or history in the car.
"Know Your Audience" right? Isn't that what the best entertainers do?
I realize that savagery has a visceral appeal, I"m not denying it, but man you ride a Harley in San Francisco and you're going to be drinking beer by yourself in a bar with broken windows and a noisy ceiling fan. Good luck, pard.
Not that I would consider a Prius a ticket to paradise for a man or woman on the prowl--that's pretty silly, too.
But a Prius has a lot of appeal to techno-geeks, and if you are in Geekland, like Silicon Valley area, it makes sense that you will get kudos for driving one. It's like driving an iPhone. They are almost non-cars in a way.
At least I respect the Viper for what it can do on a race track. And I respect the Prius for what it can do technologically. The Harley to me is just a marketing success, I don't get why anyone would actually want one. It's not a very good motorcycle, and I've driven many types of bikes. It's about as sexy as a washing machine to me. :P