My dreams of a Ford Ranger with a diesel have been shattered. My neighbor just read an article in the Detroit Free Press that Ford was dropping the Ranger line of pickups. Seems they are making the hole in the sinking ship bigger.
The first link is to the E320 CDI as tested by the British EPA. The seconds is the Prius.
The Prius generates six times as much Carbon Monoxide as the diesel which is more than twice as large. The diesel does not emit and unburned hydrocarbons while the Prius does. The Toyota Corolla with 1.8L engine emits 14 times more CO than the CDI and nearly as much CO2 as the CDI. A 2.4L Honda Accord puts out more CO2 than the 3.2L CDI.
Even gassers and hybrids have their dirty little secrets too.
If you are going to deforest land for the sake of growing trees for fuel, I agree with the article. It is wrong.
I believe that there is a lot of fallow farm land in the United States. That could be put to use to grow whatever for fuel, including alcohol and/or biodiesel. Want to help cut medical bills? Give the tobacco farmers an incentive to grow something other than tobacco, like beets or rapeseed, etc.
A good source of biodiesel is the waste fat from slaughter houses along with the fryer grease from restaurants, or spoiled vegetable oil.
That was one of the articles I read Imagine? A sub 30k Bimmer that gets close to 40 mpg and less than 8 seconds to 60. They have to be absolutely bloody crazy if they don't import that here.
That is some great news. Funny thing though, I just got a letter dated 12/22/05 stating that Honda has not announced any interest in building diesel powered vehicles for the US market. What a difference 2 weeks makes.
Well I think part of it might be caused by the fog of conflicting regulatory messages being sent out. I don't think anyone wants to be in the position VW found itself in with its strategic focus on diesels (specifically for the USA market.) Or for that matter MB who had to back out of the diesel USA market some years back. I admire VW for sticking with the diesel for the USA, but unfortunately if diesel does catch on, they will have to compete just as hard and probably even much harder to remain in the markets.
Honda of course still has/had a tough time competing in the Euro market. I really SWAG in the overall scheme of things they were forced to come up with their own diesel engine/s. Spotlight the iCTDI. http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2003-4030226_1a/
So for the Euro market they need a killer app diesel. So with all the R/D costs to come up with this in house, now the next question is what other markets can it pipeline into. Honda of course has a KILLER reputation in the USA. So except for the fog of regulatory messages, bringing a diesel to the USA is an absolute no brainer, especially since they proabably have studied well the moves VW has made in the new age pioneering of diesels for and in this market.
If anyone is comparing dangers of exhaust, diesel exhaust is FAR FAR more damaging to humans than gasoline exhaust. There have been hundreds if not thousands of studies in the USA over the last 60 years which have declared the danger of diesel exhaust. It's a slam dunk that diesel exhaust is FAR more harmful to human life than gasoline exhaust.
good grief, i can't believe people here are still harping on the way diesel USED to be. That would be like the diesel supporters completely ignoring current hybrids and concentrating on the early electric cars.
john - you haven't responded to the others yet, but i wanted to add something else. You are pointing out 2 large V8 engines in full-size SUVs and comparing that to compact hybrids? Seriously? How about comparing more similar vehicles? The outgoing G-class only meets LEV standards. So, by going diesel, Benz reduced the emissions of this vehicle.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
All of the hybrids now deliver significantly cleaner emissions, the SULEV II rating... which is 2 categories above LEV.
Maybe you can tell us in plain language how much more pollution comes out of a car that is LEV II vs SULEV II? Also why do gas cars put out more CO than diesel cars. Keeping in mind that CO is what just killed 12 miners in West Virginia. The Prius also is rated lower for 45 states than the CARB states.
What you forget is most people buy diesel cars and trucks for their superior torque and driveability characteristics. For me the MPG was secondary and I consider it the EPA's responsibility to control the fuel and emissions.
Diesel emissions are pretty nasty, but will be getting better. Emissions from gassers are not so wonderful either, so to say one is worse than the other is meaningless. They are both horrible.
There are things happening that will reduce the bad things in diesel emissions such as ULSD, PM filters, the addition of biodiesel. The use of B100 reduces the nasty stuff in diesel emissions to nearly nil.
I took several looks at the Bluetec website from MB. The application of this technology is mostly for large trucks that haul freight, etc. That means large displacement engines. So if MB can get a LEV rating from large displacement diesels, 9 - 11 liters, that is pretty damn good. Can anyone show me a large displacement gasser, that is over 6 liters in displacement that is LEV?
That may be true for trucks, but not for modern diesel cars. Kindly point me in a direction which supports your allegations. I was at a Mercedes dealership not too long ago and saw an E320D running and no visible smoke was being emitted. Granted invisibility does not mean it is cleaner, but it did not even have that usual odor associated with diesel fuel either.
I just viewed the video. Much of the technology mentioned already is in place in the Jeep Liberty CRD engine. The swirl valve is the only thing that is different/unique. The shape of the piston bowl makes it act like a pre-chambered diesel for noise control. The CRD has something similar.
As for noise, both are equally noisy (0.8 dB difference). For CO the CRD is a little better while the Honda is better for NOx and PM. The Honda is EURO IV rated while the CRD is EURO III rated. This MY 2005 data.
Particulate matter (PM) and nano-PM are still a problem, even with the new diesel engines. Modern diesel engines, using ULSD fuel and other catalysts and filters, CAN BE as much as 90% cleaner than old diesels. Much less of a problem than the old ones of course, because of the low sulfur fuel, but nonetheless still toxic to humans.
"The breathtaking hazards posed by diesel exhaust stand in stark contrast to the lack of a comprehensive program to control diesel emissions from all their sources," says the report, which said current federal regulations of diesel engines and fuel are "a chaotic patchwork."
Particularly susceptible to the effects of diesel exhaust, it says, are children, the elderly, and people with asthma, cardiopulmonary, lung and chronic heart diseases.
Gasoline is far more toxic to groundwater than diesel. Gasoline is far more volatile than diesel and creates at least 100 times more pollution due to vapor emissions during fueling. Gasoline causes far, far, more harm and death to human life each year due to fire, explosion and toxicity than diesel.
I truly think that this has more to do with Honda having the patents on its own engine/technology so it does not have to pay the royalties and on the off chance scenario some other manufacturer wants to use Honda's diesel it is a ready made revenue source.
Having said that for example Honda, Toyota and GM Ford Chrysler can make the EXACT same engine and the market (if past history is any indication)will chose Honda and Toyota over the big 3.:(
I would agree, and these are not just assertions. All one has to do is the the MSDS sheets, suspend the disbelieve due to the discussions on this thread and independently decide which they would rather handle due to all the requirements!!! Gasoline is FAR more than diesel.
You dont want to get into this battle with me, my friend. I have 60 years of diesel exhaust studies I can throw at you.
It's a FACT that DIRTY DIESEL EXHAUST (not ULSD or modern diesels with extensive catalysts and PM filters) is FAR FAR more harmful to humans, contains more carcinogens, than gasoline exhaust.
We cannot compare gasoline exhaust with clean diesel exhaust as yet, as far as I know, because a "clean diesel standard" is not yet developed, and that means the definitive studies have not yet been done.
When they are done, and clean diesel exhaust is shown to be less harmful than gasoline exhaust, I will BOW to the diesel worshippers as required.
right. you have nothing to go on in contemporary terms, so why even bother stating anything yet? I don't know anything about modern jets, so I don't talk about them. Its just that simple.
Expanding on my above example ... I may not know much about DVD recorders, but that doesn't mean I should go on and on about how recording TV is so lousy because my betamax does a horrible job. There are better technologies out there, so why dwell in the past just because I don't have the knowledge to discuss the issues as they apply in TODAY'S world.
By the way, did you catch my statement earlier on about the diesel full-size SUV benzes and how they have a better rating (LEV II) than the current gas-guzzling G-class (LEV)?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
quote-"By the way, did you catch my statement earlier on about the diesel full-size SUV benzes and how they have a better rating (LEV II) than the current gas-guzzling G-class (LEV)?"-end quote
I missed that, but all that means is that MB has put less effort into producing a clean gas engine.
Virtually any gasoline vehicle can be made PZEV as factory stock with about $200 worth of hardware - did you know that?
Jet fuel is an even higher carboned chained fuel than diesel. Air travel has been almost wholesalely endorsed and recommended by environmentalists. Indeed if the after math of 9/11 is any indication. Air travel is essential to among other things our economic well being. Yet jet aviation has NO emissions abatement NONE, NADA, ZIPPO, There are even sanctioned procedures to dump fuel over oceans, over land etc. Further studies done at sea level and at altitude indicate that burning even jet fuel at sea level is not as toxic injurious etc than burning jet fuel at its normal altitudes. And this is at many many multiples.
So it kind of makes you wonder why environmental wonks dont get together and start a company that provides these products and services?
Also you never hear environmental folks say DON'T go to any of these exotic places now do you? Greenpeace even uses conventional ships fuel to get in the way of world's shipping trade. (tsk tsk)
I'm trying to locate a full-size SUV that does considerably better. Can you help me out?
so far, i have: Escalade - Bin8 Suburban - Bin8 Tahoe - Bin8 Durango - Bin8 Expedition - LEV/Bin8 QX56 - Bin8 Grand Cherokee - Bin8 Range Rover - Bin8 Navigator - LEV/Bin8
Ah, here we go, Sequoia = ULEV II
But look at all those other manufacturers who aren't putting an effort into producing a clean gas engine. Benz certainly isn't in the minority.
I don't see any PZEV, so, no, I didn't know any vehicle could be made PZEV. Have any proof of that? I find it REALLY hard to believe manufacturers wouldn't just LOVE to make their big V8 vehicles PZEV for a lousy $200 and have a HUGE marketing advantage.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Well, one reason car manufacturers limit PZEVs is because they are required to hold longer warranties for PZEV cars, so that increases their cost and lowers their profit margin:
"For used clean car buyers - your best bet will be to find a PZEV or AT PZEV. You will be guaranteed the remainder of the 15 year / 150,000 mile warranty, and you'll be buying the cleanest car available."
well, they must be keeping that rule a secret from the manufacturers because I just checked a couple of websites and they only state their standard warranty applies.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
"Well, one reason car manufacturers limit PZEVs is because they are required to hold longer warranties for PZEV cars, so that increases their cost and lowers their profit margin: "
So the environmentalist dont think their new products would be worth the hassle eh? Or even pass muster? I guess nothing adds insult to injury than an environmentalist trying to sue an environmentalist company?
SUVs have looser emissions requirements, sort of. An SUV rated SULEV can pollute up to ten times more than a car rated SULEV, at least through 2007.
I don't want to get into an SUV vs car debate. That's not my intention by any means. I merely brought up the full-size suv because that was the data we had on hand in regards to benz and their NEW diesel full-size suv. If we had such information for a car, i would happily use it.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
It's a FACT that DIRTY DIESEL EXHAUST (not ULSD or modern diesels with extensive catalysts and PM filters) is FAR FAR more harmful to humans, contains more carcinogens, than gasoline exhaust.
How relevant are these studies to choosing a hybrid or diesel? The health risks are so infinitesimal that they are of no concern. Diesel or Hybrid, which to choose based on my likes and dislikes, their cost, their features, my driving needs,that is what is important. Being allowed to have a choice is important.
For me, a Liberty CRD appealed to me, the Hybrid Camry 2007 also seems promising depending on the cost.
The vast majority of consumers do not choose a vehicle based on emissions, yet the vocal enviro-enthusiast minority is attempting to take away the choice of diesel. This is the same crowd that forced MTBE and mandated electric cars in CA..... :sick: Now there is MTBE ground water pollution throughout the country.
27 mpg highway this past weekend on my CRD. The CRD Liberty is a DEAL in my judgement. They can currently be purchased for less than $21K brand new. That makes them a terrific buy.
This is already being done with SUV's, I took a 10 year old SUV with 116k miles on it to a CA smog only station. As most folks know a smog only station is mandated to get higher failure rates, and they are barred from doing repairs. The 10 year old smog results were actually better than the one taken at the first biannual mark!! It passed with flying colors,( in my humble opinion it needed a tune up BADLY) which effectively means all the smog fees and test up to that time were only in effect to generate revenues!!! I also had another 14 year old SUV 1987 that was sold at the 14 year mark with the same results!!! Essentially the bad stuff is barely measureable.
Jet fuel and diesel fuel are basically the same except that jet fuel has an additive to keep it from gelling at high cold altitudes. The Airforce Academy just bought a fleet diesel airplanes to train their cadets.
Here's a USA today FAQ page which says that PZEV can be done for $500 per car:
Ames, IA: I just reread your excellent article from a year and a half ago on PZEV technology. It seems like a vehicle with less than 10 percent of normal rates of pollution coming out the tailpipe would do less damage to the environment than one featuring hybrid technology alone (does the new Lexus SUV meet PZEV standards like the Prius does?) plus costs to the manufacturer for PZEV technologies run around 500 dollars while Hybrid systems seem to add 3 or 4 thousand. In a rational world it seems like green consumers should be a lot hotter for PZEV than Hybrid technologies, if it's a stark choice between the two, and yet they don't seem to be. Does PZEV lessen performance somehow? Is the Hybrid story easier to grasp and sexier to the consumer than the PZEV story?
James R. Healey: The Lexus RX 400h, according to Lexus, is "a Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV) in California (Tier 2 – Bin 3 in other states), one of the most stringent emissions ratings in the industry."
So it's not as pollution-free as a PZEV Focus or Prius.
I'm with you. I don't get why environmentalists didn't buy PZEV Focuses by the 10s of 1,000s starting in '04 when they first were available.
No measurable compromise in performance, either mph or mpg, and almost no price penalty.
It's harder for automakers to market PZEVs than it is hybrids. Put a better, less permeable gas tank and fuel system on a car, tighten up the engine control parameters and get PZEV. Where's the sex appeal? But cram in an electric motor or two, some fancy transmission and a tweaked gas engine to create a high-tech hybrid and you catch the imagination of lots of people. The improved mpg of hybrids is a big selling point, but as we see the switch to making hybrids the high-performance models, which just happen to get pretty good mpg, some of that advantage is lost and PZEVs, especially because they tend to be small, economy cars anyway, begin to seem lots smarter.
I have seen it quoted cheaper than $500 though - still looking.
There is but one catch: The technology does come at a cost, which automakers generally don't care to quantify but is thought to be in the hundreds of dollars per car. While this doesn't seem a substantial sum, it is to carmakers, who think in terms of hundreds of thousands or even millions of units and who believe, rightfully so, that car buyers aren't likely to pay that extra cash to drive "green." In most cases this cost is being absorbed for competitive reasons, but there are some instances where a surcharge is being tacked on. Subaru, for instance, has raised the base MSRP of its Legacy and Outback PZEV models by $200.
if your other sources are like that one, don't bother looking for them. One person posting a message on some board somewhere does nothing to impress me or prove the point.
I mean, what kind of vehicle are they referring to? Is that all it takes to go from SULEV II to PZEV? I don't find that hard to believe, but I'm pretty sure its going to take ALOT more than that to make a ULEV vehicles into PZEV. So your claim of turning "ANY vehicle" into PZEV with a few hundred bucks is far from proven in that quote.
ok - your 2nd post came through as i was typing this one. they are, indeed, talking about cars that are already low emissions. So, yes, in many cases, that's an easy and cheap upgrade, apparently. But, again, FAR from "ANY vehicle."
And, really, what does any of this mean? We don't know yet. Will new hybrid diesels be PZEV? I don't know. BUT, I have to wonder this ... even if they are, let's say, SULEV, is a PZEV gas vehicle better, considering it burns more fuel?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
get off it Mopar. You are wrong, and I just don't feel like doing the postings to prove you wrong, which I CAN do, but don't feel it necessary.
But trust me, everyone else: Diesel exhaust has been proven by HUNDREDS of scientific studies to be FAR more harmful to humans than gasoline exhaust. Deal with it.
Here is the USA Today article which quotes the $500 per car:
he extra cost of PZEV (pronounced PEE-zev) hardware is estimated at $500 a car by automakers and consultants, but at less than $200 by California clean-air officials. Whatever the amount, most car companies say it is enough to discourage them from offering PZEVs nationwide.
Comments
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=15609
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=10982
The first link is to the E320 CDI as tested by the British EPA. The seconds is the Prius.
The Prius generates six times as much Carbon Monoxide as the diesel which is more than twice as large. The diesel does not emit and unburned hydrocarbons while the Prius does. The Toyota Corolla with 1.8L engine emits 14 times more CO than the CDI and nearly as much CO2 as the CDI. A 2.4L Honda Accord puts out more CO2 than the 3.2L CDI.
Even gassers and hybrids have their dirty little secrets too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1659036,00.html
Uhhh...yes...Oil Palms for biodiesel are replacing all vegetation in the US and UK and will soon destroy the earth!
BMW 1 Series Diesel Wish it was offered in the USA!!
I believe that there is a lot of fallow farm land in the United States. That could be put to use to grow whatever for fuel, including alcohol and/or biodiesel. Want to help cut medical bills? Give the tobacco farmers an incentive to grow something other than tobacco, like beets or rapeseed, etc.
A good source of biodiesel is the waste fat from slaughter houses along with the fryer grease from restaurants, or spoiled vegetable oil.
What a difference 2 weeks makes.
Honda of course still has/had a tough time competing in the Euro market. I really SWAG in the overall scheme of things they were forced to come up with their own diesel engine/s. Spotlight the iCTDI.
http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2003-4030226_1a/
So for the Euro market they need a killer app diesel. So with all the R/D costs to come up with this in house, now the next question is what other markets can it pipeline into. Honda of course has a KILLER reputation in the USA. So except for the fog of regulatory messages, bringing a diesel to the USA is an absolute no brainer, especially since they proabably have studied well the moves VW has made in the new age pioneering of diesels for and in this market.
This has been a good news day for those who like diesels.
JOHN
EPA standards? Why not mention the toxicity of gasoline compared to the toxicity of biodiesel?
Compare an MSDS for gasoline to one for biodiesel.
Biodiesel contains no hazardous materials. MSDS Biodiesel
Gasoline is a carcinogen. Even the vapors are known to cause kidney damage. MSDS Gasoline
Even petroleum based diesel is MUCH SAFER to your health than gasoline. MSDS Diesel #2
Diesel is also MUCH SAFER in an accident, fire and explosion hazard of a combustible is much, much, lower than a flammable such as gasoline.
I'm not worried about epa emissions standards, EPA got it wrong and the EU got it right.
good grief, i can't believe people here are still harping on the way diesel USED to be. That would be like the diesel supporters completely ignoring current hybrids and concentrating on the early electric cars.
john - you haven't responded to the others yet, but i wanted to add something else. You are pointing out 2 large V8 engines in full-size SUVs and comparing that to compact hybrids? Seriously? How about comparing more similar vehicles? The outgoing G-class only meets LEV standards. So, by going diesel, Benz reduced the emissions of this vehicle.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Maybe you can tell us in plain language how much more pollution comes out of a car that is LEV II vs SULEV II? Also why do gas cars put out more CO than diesel cars. Keeping in mind that CO is what just killed 12 miners in West Virginia. The Prius also is rated lower for 45 states than the CARB states.
What you forget is most people buy diesel cars and trucks for their superior torque and driveability characteristics. For me the MPG was secondary and I consider it the EPA's responsibility to control the fuel and emissions.
Further not all hybrids are SULEV II rated.
There are things happening that will reduce the bad things in diesel emissions such as ULSD, PM filters, the addition of biodiesel. The use of B100 reduces the nasty stuff in diesel emissions to nearly nil.
As for noise, both are equally noisy (0.8 dB difference). For CO the CRD is a little better while the Honda is better for NOx and PM. The Honda is EURO IV rated while the CRD is EURO III rated. This MY 2005 data.
"The breathtaking hazards posed by diesel exhaust stand in stark contrast to the lack of a comprehensive program to control diesel emissions from all their sources," says the report, which said current federal regulations of diesel engines and fuel are "a chaotic patchwork."
Particularly susceptible to the effects of diesel exhaust, it says, are children, the elderly, and people with asthma, cardiopulmonary, lung and chronic heart diseases.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/15/politics/main549471.shtml
Not only is it not a slam dunk, it is JUNK SCIENCE. Gasoline exhaust is equally toxic as diesel exhaust.
gasoline exhaust toxicity vs. diesel
Gasoline is far more toxic to groundwater than diesel.
Gasoline is far more volatile than diesel and creates at least 100 times more pollution due to vapor emissions during fueling.
Gasoline causes far, far, more harm and death to human life each year due to fire, explosion and toxicity than diesel.
Having said that for example Honda, Toyota and GM Ford Chrysler can make the EXACT same engine and the market (if past history is any indication)will chose Honda and Toyota over the big 3.:(
I would be happy if they did, but that is politics for you.
It's a FACT that DIRTY DIESEL EXHAUST (not ULSD or modern diesels with extensive catalysts and PM filters) is FAR FAR more harmful to humans, contains more carcinogens, than gasoline exhaust.
Trust me on that one. I'm 100% correct.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
When they are done, and clean diesel exhaust is shown to be less harmful than gasoline exhaust, I will BOW to the diesel worshippers as required.
Expanding on my above example ... I may not know much about DVD recorders, but that doesn't mean I should go on and on about how recording TV is so lousy because my betamax does a horrible job. There are better technologies out there, so why dwell in the past just because I don't have the knowledge to discuss the issues as they apply in TODAY'S world.
By the way, did you catch my statement earlier on about the diesel full-size SUV benzes and how they have a better rating (LEV II) than the current gas-guzzling G-class (LEV)?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I missed that, but all that means is that MB has put less effort into producing a clean gas engine.
Virtually any gasoline vehicle can be made PZEV as factory stock with about $200 worth of hardware - did you know that?
Also you never hear environmental folks say DON'T go to any of these exotic places now do you? Greenpeace even uses conventional ships fuel to get in the way of world's shipping trade. (tsk tsk)
so far, i have:
Escalade - Bin8
Suburban - Bin8
Tahoe - Bin8
Durango - Bin8
Expedition - LEV/Bin8
QX56 - Bin8
Grand Cherokee - Bin8
Range Rover - Bin8
Navigator - LEV/Bin8
Ah, here we go, Sequoia = ULEV II
But look at all those other manufacturers who aren't putting an effort into producing a clean gas engine. Benz certainly isn't in the minority.
I don't see any PZEV, so, no, I didn't know any vehicle could be made PZEV. Have any proof of that? I find it REALLY hard to believe manufacturers wouldn't just LOVE to make their big V8 vehicles PZEV for a lousy $200 and have a HUGE marketing advantage.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
you trying to educate me on jets so I can talk about them?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
"For used clean car buyers - your best bet will be to find a PZEV or AT PZEV. You will be guaranteed the remainder of the 15 year / 150,000 mile warranty, and you'll be buying the cleanest car available."
From this page:
http://www.zevinfo.com/en/gv/vsearch/used.asp
Car makers are usually dragged kicking and screaming into making cleaner cars - for some reason, they HATE to do that.
I'm looking for the page which mentioned the ease of making vehicles PZEV - still trying to find it....stand by..... :shades:
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
So the environmentalist dont think their new products would be worth the hassle eh? Or even pass muster? I guess nothing adds insult to injury than an environmentalist trying to sue an environmentalist company?
I don't want to get into an SUV vs car debate. That's not my intention by any means. I merely brought up the full-size suv because that was the data we had on hand in regards to benz and their NEW diesel full-size suv. If we had such information for a car, i would happily use it.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Now I know that there are other cars that are not hybrid that are PZEV. So who says you need batteries or a PSD or electric motors to have a PZEV car?
Since diesels produce not unburned hydrocarbons, does that not qualify them for PZEV status?
It's a FACT that DIRTY DIESEL EXHAUST (not ULSD or modern diesels with extensive catalysts and PM filters) is FAR FAR more harmful to humans, contains more carcinogens, than gasoline exhaust.
Trust me on that one. I'm 100% correct.
making it impossible to infer causality between DE exposure and lung cancer risk from these studies
How relevant are these studies to choosing a hybrid or diesel? The health risks are so infinitesimal that they are of no concern.
Diesel or Hybrid, which to choose based on my likes and dislikes, their cost, their features, my driving needs,that is what is important. Being allowed to have a choice is important.
For me, a Liberty CRD appealed to me, the Hybrid Camry 2007 also seems promising depending on the cost.
The vast majority of consumers do not choose a vehicle based on emissions, yet the vocal enviro-enthusiast minority is attempting to take away the choice of diesel.
This is the same crowd that forced MTBE and mandated electric cars in CA..... :sick: Now there is MTBE ground water pollution throughout the country.
27 mpg highway this past weekend on my CRD. The CRD Liberty is a DEAL in my judgement. They can currently be purchased for less than $21K brand new. That makes them a terrific buy.
Ames, IA: I just reread your excellent article from a year and a half ago on PZEV technology. It seems like a vehicle with less than 10 percent of normal rates of pollution coming out the tailpipe would do less damage to the environment than one featuring hybrid technology alone (does the new Lexus SUV meet PZEV standards like the Prius does?) plus costs to the manufacturer for PZEV technologies run around 500 dollars while Hybrid systems seem to add 3 or 4 thousand. In a rational world it seems like green consumers should be a lot hotter for PZEV than Hybrid technologies, if it's a stark choice between the two, and yet they don't seem to be. Does PZEV lessen performance somehow? Is the Hybrid story easier to grasp and sexier to the consumer than the PZEV story?
James R. Healey: The Lexus RX 400h, according to Lexus, is "a Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV) in California (Tier 2 – Bin 3 in other states), one of the most stringent emissions ratings in the industry."
So it's not as pollution-free as a PZEV Focus or Prius.
I'm with you. I don't get why environmentalists didn't buy PZEV Focuses by the 10s of 1,000s starting in '04 when they first were available.
No measurable compromise in performance, either mph or mpg, and almost no price penalty.
It's harder for automakers to market PZEVs than it is hybrids. Put a better, less permeable gas tank and fuel system on a car, tighten up the engine control parameters and get PZEV. Where's the sex appeal? But cram in an electric motor or two, some fancy transmission and a tweaked gas engine to create a high-tech hybrid and you catch the imagination of lots of people. The improved mpg of hybrids is a big selling point, but as we see the switch to making hybrids the high-performance models, which just happen to get pretty good mpg, some of that advantage is lost and PZEVs, especially because they tend to be small, economy cars anyway, begin to seem lots smarter.
I have seen it quoted cheaper than $500 though - still looking.
There is but one catch: The technology does come at a cost, which automakers generally don't care to quantify but is thought to be in the hundreds of dollars per car. While this doesn't seem a substantial sum, it is to carmakers, who think in terms of hundreds of thousands or even millions of units and who believe, rightfully so, that car buyers aren't likely to pay that extra cash to drive "green." In most cases this cost is being absorbed for competitive reasons, but there are some instances where a surcharge is being tacked on. Subaru, for instance, has raised the base MSRP of its Legacy and Outback PZEV models by $200.
http://www.greencar.com/index.cfm?content=features1
I mean, what kind of vehicle are they referring to? Is that all it takes to go from SULEV II to PZEV? I don't find that hard to believe, but I'm pretty sure its going to take ALOT more than that to make a ULEV vehicles into PZEV. So your claim of turning "ANY vehicle" into PZEV with a few hundred bucks is far from proven in that quote.
ok - your 2nd post came through as i was typing this one.
they are, indeed, talking about cars that are already low emissions. So, yes, in many cases, that's an easy and cheap upgrade, apparently. But, again, FAR from "ANY vehicle."
And, really, what does any of this mean? We don't know yet. Will new hybrid diesels be PZEV? I don't know. BUT, I have to wonder this ... even if they are, let's say, SULEV, is a PZEV gas vehicle better, considering it burns more fuel?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
But trust me, everyone else: Diesel exhaust has been proven by HUNDREDS of scientific studies to be FAR more harmful to humans than gasoline exhaust. Deal with it.
Here is the USA Today article which quotes the $500 per car:
he extra cost of PZEV (pronounced PEE-zev) hardware is estimated at $500 a car by automakers and consultants, but at less than $200 by California clean-air officials. Whatever the amount, most car companies say it is enough to discourage them from offering PZEVs nationwide.