U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-26-2011, 01:47 PM
 
811 posts, read 895,742 times
Reputation: 993

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Narfcake View Post
Folks wanted bigger cars with more features, which means more weight, and more power. The manufacturers are only making what the consumers would buy.
Car safety standards played a huge roll in this also. Braces here, reinforcements there, stricter collision standards, roll over standards, driver/passenger air bags, pedestrian collision changes the list goes on and it all adds weight. That and like you said, this country is addicted to XL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2011, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,691 posts, read 86,925,945 times
Reputation: 29356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zea mays View Post
US and European standards on ULSD (Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel) fuel are pretty much the same (US: 15 ppm, Europe: 10 ppm). European diesels could meet current EPA requirements with very little modification. I expect to see more diesels in the US in the near future.

For an easy-to-read and up-to-date article:
Scientific American: Why European Diesel Cars Are Not Available in the U.S.
BTW, Fed taxes on gasoline = 18¢/gal; Fed taxes on diesel = 24¢/gal. Not much difference there.
The issue isn't sulfur content, its NOx emissions. The U.S. is more stringent about NOx than Europe, and it's a lot harder to control NOx emissions at the higher combustion temperatures of a diesel versus a gasser.

And while 8 cents a gallon may not sound like a lot, over a car's lifetime of fuel consumption it can make or break whether the fuel economy savings of a diesel will offset the higher initial costs. The plain truth of the matter is that consumers are extremely senstiive to fuel prices and our tax structure favors gasoline over diesel, whereas in Europe the incentives are the other way around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2011, 07:45 PM
 
Location: un peu près de Chicago
773 posts, read 2,007,180 times
Reputation: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85 View Post
A quick Wikipedia search will tell you that the 2010 320d produces 181hp and 380NM torque.
Not at 6000 rpm.

Quote:
I might have phrased myself wrong in saying it keeps peak torque all the way to 6250rpm ...
That is what you said and that is what I called you on.

Quote:
what I meant was that it keeps in the power band (there's no notable drop in power pulling all the way to the red line), I suspect the HP is doing some of the high rpm work.
Not sure what you are saying here. You originally said that torque was broadband, not peaky.

Quote:
That said, the powerband in this BMW diesel is absolutely astonishing, the fact that you got so much torque so low down in the range, and through so much of it, means passing at highwayspeeds, even in 5th and 6th is a breeze.
The fastest European cars are gasoline driven.

Quote:
I would strongly suggest trying one if you're ever in Europe. It blew my mind away.
I have driven the Autobahn — not in a Diesel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2011, 08:06 PM
 
Location: un peu près de Chicago
773 posts, read 2,007,180 times
Reputation: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
The issue isn't sulfur content, its NOx emissions. The U.S. is more stringent about NOx than Europe, ...
The point I am trying to make in this thread is that it is not the US government, the EPA, Obama or Nancy Pelosi, that are keeping diesels off American highways. That seems to be a common belief on this thread. It is a major expense for a car company to convert a car line to diesel when American acceptance is questionable, and that is what has been holding back the introduction of diesels. Gasoline prices and concern about mpg have only begun to arise in the last several months.

European environmental standards are as rigorous as those in the states if not more so. A European diesel would pass American standards with little modification. If gasoline prices remain high over the next year, I expect car manufacturers in the US to begin testing the water, tepidly, with a few diesel models.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2011, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Blue Ridge
20,900 posts, read 22,740,288 times
Reputation: 8641
Quote:
The point I am trying to make in this thread is that it is not the US government......
In a way it is. Look at the gov'ts of the EU and the cost of gas there. The taxes instead of being meer pennies per gallon are $3-5 dollars per gallon (approx exchange from liters and euros). So even if diesels ever become a large percentage of vehicles in the US, the US will increase the taxes to make up the lost revenue. Just remember: No good deed goes unpunished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2011, 12:19 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,691 posts, read 86,925,945 times
Reputation: 29356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zea mays View Post
The point I am trying to make in this thread is that it is not the US government, the EPA, Obama or Nancy Pelosi, that are keeping diesels off American highways . . .
. . . but they are making it more difficult; or to be more precise, the tax and regulatory environment overseen by these parties are making it more difficult. And making it more difficult still are the handful of states that feel it's their duty to make sure their own emissions standards are always one step ahead of the federal standards. By making a car 45-state legal instead of 50-state legal, a car company loses out on a 50-million-person market right there -- and soon to be about an 80-million-person market as more states adopt the California standard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2011, 01:19 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,691 posts, read 86,925,945 times
Reputation: 29356
Meanwhile on the other side of the pond...

Britain turning against diesel cars - UPI.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2011, 04:46 PM
 
Location: un peu près de Chicago
773 posts, read 2,007,180 times
Reputation: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
. . . but they are making it more difficult; or to be more precise, the tax and regulatory environment overseen by these parties are making it more difficult.
Do you have a link that compares the European and US regulatory emissions requirements for diesel engines? I'd be interested in seeing that. I'm interested in requirements on particulate matter and NOx emissions. I thought the European and US requirements were pretty much the same.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "tax" overseen by these parties (which parties?) that is making it more difficult. Are you referring to the federal 6¢/gal tax differential between diesel and gasoline?

Quote:
And making it more difficult still are the handful of states that feel it's their duty to make sure their own emissions standards are always one step ahead of the federal standards.
And why do you think California adopted tighter regulations on diesel exhaust? Just to be persnickety? Or perhaps they demanded cleaner air. I'd rather look at it as the federal EPA being one step behind. Under the previous administration the EPA was practically asleep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2011, 04:58 PM
 
Location: un peu près de Chicago
773 posts, read 2,007,180 times
Reputation: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilVA View Post
Quote:
The point I am trying to make in this thread is that it is not the US government......
In a way it is. Look at the gov'ts of the EU and the cost of gas there.
So you think the government is finding ways to prevent diesels coming to the US so as not to lose money on gasoline taxes? What a clever conspiracy theory. You are the first to have mentioned it. And how is the government going about doing it?

But then why is the government subsidizing buyers of all-electric automobiles, to the tune of about $7000 per car. Perhaps they hope to recoup the subsidy and lost gasoline taxes through taxes on electric power. Oh our Machiavellian government — it makes the mind spin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2011, 05:47 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,134,776 times
Reputation: 9066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zea mays View Post
Do you have a link that compares the European and US regulatory emissions requirements for diesel engines? I'd be interested in seeing that. I'm interested in requirements on particulate matter and NOx emissions. I thought the European and US requirements were pretty much the same.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "tax" overseen by these parties (which parties?) that is making it more difficult. Are you referring to the federal 6¢/gal tax differential between diesel and gasoline?


And why do you think California adopted tighter regulations on diesel exhaust? Just to be persnickety? Or perhaps they demanded cleaner air. I'd rather look at it as the federal EPA being one step behind. Under the previous administration the EPA was practically asleep.
This article from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) talks about diesels and diesel emission regulations.

EIA-Efficiency Benefits Past Experience, and Current Market Issues

Unfortunately, there is no painless way to reduce America's prolific use of petroleum--a reduction that either economics or politics are going to make a necessity. If we insist on maintaining a very structurally inefficient automobile/suburbia-centered lifestyle, then vehicles are going to have to get a lot more energy-efficient. That may mean accepting more lenient standards for exhaust emissions, if relaxing them will improve fuel economy. It may also mean things like lowered speed limits and other measures to improve vehicle fuel efficiency. One thing is certain: Any new energy supplies that we bring on-line are going to be much more expensive than the dwindling supplies that they replace. That means that conservation and improved fuel economy are going to be economically necessary unless we are willing to see our whole transportation system seize up one day. I predict that nobody is going to like what is coming, but come it will--whether we like it or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top