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 03-27-2011, 07:00 PM
 
15,924 posts, read 16,853,526 times
Reputation: 7619

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
Yeah, "underpowered" would be why a diesel-powered car in Europe (getting probably 40+ mpg) will blow by you at 100 mph. Fact is, modern diesel cars are no longer low-powered slugs. First, most all of them are turbocharged. They have much better low-end torque than most gasoline engines--and it's torque, not horsepower, that makes for acceleration. Thanks to the newer multi-speed automatics and manual transmissions that keep diesel engines in their RPM "sweet spot" better, they also can cruise at speeds well in excess of US speed limits and still get superior fuel economy. There are plenty of diesel cars in Europe comparable to mid-size American cars that can get up to 40 mpg or better.
This is funny, especially considering the British will have to pay a surcharge to park their diesel cars because:

Quote:
The move follows a government report that diesels emit too many small polluting particles, which damage air quality.
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Diesel car owners must pay more to park
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2011, 07:46 PM
 
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
20,793 posts, read 37,464,612 times
Reputation: 20814
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
...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.
This is the truth of the matter. While the US Gov is not using blatant direct tactics to discourage Diesel Usage, CARB states are doing so. This is really misguided, as conservation and cleaner alternative fuels can eclipse any potential gains in the next 20yrs from CARB but, as soon as TOMORROW (rather than setting up restrictive legislation and many thousands of useless (non-productive) jobs.) CARB is very counter to creating value to anyone but GOV. (and a few repair shops).

just remember this >>
Quote:
conservation and improved fuel economy are going to be economically necessary
The VW diesels were not the only beasts getting 40+ mpg over 30 yrs ago. The Saab Sonnet also delivered exceptional economy. Surely there are others too. (early Honda CVCC ?) http://world.honda.com/CIVIC/birthofthecivic/02.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2011, 08:05 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,691 posts, read 86,811,612 times
Reputation: 29355
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.
Not every data comparison is neatly packaged into a single link. But I can tell you that the Euro 4 standard is .25 grams per kilometer while the EPA's Tier 2 limit is .2 per mile. Convert apples to apples and European diesels can emit well over twice the NOx as U.S. diesels. To make them 50-state legal, manufacturers have to knock it all the way down to .07 grams per mile. You're always welcome to do your own research if you're not inclined to take my word for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zea mays View Post
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?
I've already elaborated on that point upthread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zea mays View Post
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.
When California resists the federal govenment's attempts to harmonize its standards with California's standards by insisting that their own standards always be higher, then yes, they're just being persnickety. Taken together with the rest of the "we're too special to follow the trifling federal emissions standards no matter how stringent they become" group of states, the net effect of fracturing the U.S. market is that it even further reduces the present feasability of bringing diesels here. Yes, consumer tepidness plays a role as well, but that would be a lot easier to overcome if car companies could re-introduce diesels into the market to test and possibly shift consumer perceptions without having to spend billions of dollars to develop and certify a whole new line of engines.

Last edited by Drover; 03-27-2011 at 08:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2011, 08:35 PM
 
Location: un peu près de Chicago
773 posts, read 2,002,283 times
Reputation: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
This article from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) talks about diesels and diesel emission regulations.

EIA-Efficiency Benefits Past Experience, and Current Market Issues
Thanks for the link. The data in Fig. 3.6 of your link is what I was looking for. The Europeans have stricter limits on particulate matter, while the US has stricter limits on NOx.

I've found another link that gives the values shown in the lower left of Fig. 3.6: DieselNet: Diesel Exhaust Emission Standards
I've summarized the pertinent data from the above link in the table below:

Region⠀⠀⠀⠀Stage⠀⠀⠀⠀Date⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀NOx⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀PM

Europe⠀⠀⠀⠀Euro 5a⠀⠀ 2009⠀⠀⠀⠀0.18 g/km⠀⠀⠀0.005 g/km
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀0.29 g/mi⠀⠀⠀0.008 g/mi
US⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Tier II⠀⠀⠀⠀2009⠀⠀⠀⠀0.07 g/mi⠀⠀⠀0.011 g/mi
CA⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀LEV II⠀⠀⠀⠀2009⠀⠀⠀⠀0.07 g/mi⠀⠀⠀0.01 g/mi

CA LEV II and US Tier II are practically the same.

There is no left-wing, government conspiracy keeping diesels out of the US.
It's just a matter of manufacturer's choice at this time.
If gas prices remain high, American manufacturer's will get into the game.
If gas prices fall, we'll get more gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs, because that is where the money is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2011, 09:25 PM
 
Location: un peu près de Chicago
773 posts, read 2,002,283 times
Reputation: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Not every data comparison is neatly packaged into a single link. But I can tell you that the Euro 4 standard is .25 grams per kilometer while the EPA's Tier 2 limit is .2 per mile. Convert apples to apples and European diesels can emit well over twice the NOx as U.S. diesels. To make them 50-state legal, manufacturers have to knock it all the way down to .07 grams per mile.
Federal Tier 2 and California LEV II NOx standards are the same: 0.07 g/mi. I don't know where you came up with a US Tier 2 NOx limit of 0.2 g/mi; it is 0.07 g/mi, same as the California limit. See my post and included link above; it's explained there.

Quote:
You're always welcome to do your own research if you're not inclined to take my word for it.
You betcha.

Quote:
I've already elaborated on that point upthread.
Well I must have missed your elaboration.

Quote:
When California resists the federal govenment's attempts to harmonize its standards with California's standards by insisting that their own standards always be higher, then yes, they're just being persnickety.
For eight years the Republican administration and their big oil cronies have leaned heavily on the EPA to not enforce the environmental protection laws. It took a Supreme Court decision to allow several northeastern states to adopt California's clean air standards. The EPA fought against California and the northeastern states, and the EPA was backed in their fight by the Bush administration as "friends of the court." I have more faith in the air protection laws of California, Massachusetts, New York, etc. then I do in the federal government. Even now, the party of "No" is trying to defund the EPA. If the party of "No" gets its way, in two years the EPA will be toothless. I'm sticking with California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2011, 09:36 PM
 
Location: un peu près de Chicago
773 posts, read 2,002,283 times
Reputation: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthRabbit View Post
While the US Gov is not using blatant direct tactics to discourage Diesel Usage, CARB states are doing so.
Federal and Califirnia NOx and PM emission standards are nearly identical. See DieselNet: Diesel Exhaust Emission Standards

Quote:
CARB is very counter to creating value to anyone but GOV. (and a few repair shops).
How is CARB creating value to the GOV. & repair shops?

Quote:
Just remember this >>
It's all a vast GOV. conspiracy to keep us hooked on Middle Eastern oil (finished your thought for ya).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2011, 04:30 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,691 posts, read 86,811,612 times
Reputation: 29355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zea mays View Post
Federal Tier 2 and California LEV II NOx standards are the same: 0.07 g/mi. I don't know where you came up with a US Tier 2 NOx limit of 0.2 g/mi; it is 0.07 g/mi, same as the California limit. See my post and included link above; it's explained there.
OK, so the .2gpm was a temporary standard on the way to lowering it to .07. So the U.S. standard is way lower than the Euro 4 standard. That makes my case even stronger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zea mays View Post
Well I must have missed your elaboration.
You can review it at any time. It's still there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zea mays View Post
For eight years the Republican administration and their big oil cronies have leaned heavily on the EPA to not enforce the environmental protection laws. It took a Supreme Court decision to allow several northeastern states to adopt California's clean air standards. The EPA fought against California and the northeastern states, and the EPA was backed in their fight by the Bush administration as "friends of the court." I have more faith in the air protection laws of California, Massachusetts, New York, etc. then I do in the federal government. Even now, the party of "No" is trying to defund the EPA. If the party of "No" gets its way, in two years the EPA will be toothless.
So on the one hand you claim the Tier II EPA standards -- which the federal government has been implementing uninterrupted since 1999 -- is the same as California's but at the same time the EPA has been fighting against implementing these laws? I'm not sure how you can reconcile these two claims. Or maybe I'm just confused about what you're trying to claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zea mays View Post
I'm sticking with California.
Go ahead. But then don't scratch your head wondering why there are virtually no diesel cars in the U.S. market or claim the government has no part in it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2011, 09:52 AM
 
809 posts, read 894,131 times
Reputation: 991
I did some googling and could not exactly find it; So maybe someone could help me or back me up.

I saw a documentary that spoke of Henry Ford being really big on diesel and bio fuels. Then came prohibition of alcohol which lumped those fuels in the act; And thus became illegal. They where saying this helped play a large role in the lower usage of said fuels now in the states. If true, I can see that; As stifling something at it's birth would be the best way to keep it held back in the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2011, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Vancouver, B.C., Canada
10,715 posts, read 22,330,588 times
Reputation: 5137
I think the new diesel with the DPF Regeneration


which is the process by which exhaust temperatures are increased so the particulates are combusted. The frequency and length of regeneration will fluctuate as both are determined by the drive cycle. For most drive conditions, regeneration frequency will vary from 100 - 600 miles (161 - 804 Km) between occurrence and last from 10 to 40 minutes. The first regeneration does not require 100 miles (161 Km) and may occur at any time. The length of regeneration is usually reduced if a constant speed above 30 MPH (48 Km/h) is maintained.

oncde it goes into regeneration you have to drive it around till it goes through it's cycle or other diesels used urea injection which is urine injected into the exhaust to meet the new EPA standards.

Urea injection into the exhaust systems of diesel engines is a newly developed method of pollution reduction. AutoWeek reports that urea injection systems are expected to be available on diesel-powered trucks and cars beginning in 2010. The pollutants removed by these systems are nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide

Exhaust from the diesel engine first goes through a particulate filter that has been required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for some time. The particulate filter removes solid particles of soot which causes the black smoke, commonly emitted from diesel engines. Downstream from the particulate filter, a mixture of urea and water is misted into the exhaust line from a small tank. Heat in the exhaust turns the urea into ammonia and then, a catalytic converter turns the ammonia into nitrogen and steam

Read more: What Is Urea Injection? | eHow.com What Is Urea Injection? | eHow.com

that is why pre-DPF diesels still command such a high price
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2011, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Holiday, FL
1,577 posts, read 1,669,432 times
Reputation: 1151
I think it's interesting that the "hydrogen experiment" by the auto industry a few years ago was designed to fail even before it got to the drawing board. While I do understand that fuel cell technology is not cheap, the one maker that used a little common sense got put down immediately. The "Hydrogen 7" could run on either hydrogen or gasoline because it used a conventional engine. Engines can run quite well on hydrogen as proven by the Russian Army during WWII. When the German Army had Leningrad surrounded and fuel supplies cut off, they could not understand how the Russians were still able to get supplies to the front lines. The trucks were powered by hydrogen.

First clue that the experiment was designed to fail? In "TECHNOLOGY REVIEW", an article quoted an automotive expert saying that a conventional engine powered by hydrogen would produce more carbon dioxide than currently available gasoline powered engines. No one questioned the fact that his statement is impossible. You can not produce more carbon dioxide by putting less carbon into the mix. Gasoline is hydro-carbon. Hydrogen has no carbon. Where does all the extra carbon dioxide come from?

Also, the means of keeping fuel onboard. Super-cooled tanks that are super pressurized and designed to leak fuel? Why, when there is another means of storing hydrogen at room temperature, at a greater density then liquid, with just a few bars of pressure. And, you don't have to replace fuel that you've already paid for. But the trade off makes it weigh more.

Also, with the current technology in solar and wind power, there is no excuse for the cost of hydrogen to be so high. We keep getting told that wind and solar energy is free, so why does the consumer have to pay so much to have it implimented? Not only that, there is also engineering technology available in this country that could reduce the cost of electricity, but it is not being used... WHY?

There is also a problem with the electric powered cars. Not noticeable at this point, it will come into play as those cars get popular. The grids are not designed to handle the extra demand of charging all those batteries. In some of the more populated areas, a very hot day puts extra demand on the electric supply and has been known to cause 'brown-outs". Now, add charging all those cars to the demand of a hot day that already causes a brown-out, and what is the result that you have?

Something else they're not telling you about all those wind generators, the pollution they cause. People living near them are finding out that they can't get to sleep because of the "WHOOSH, WHOOSH" everytime a sale (or blade) comes around. Then, there is the lubrication that leaks and drips onto the ground. In some, it can be measured to nearly fifty gallons a day. The supply of companies that are capable of repairing them is limited because of the few people that can actually work at that altitude and the conditions. So, one of those generators could be leaking for six months or more before someone gets to replace worn bearings and seals.

The only way that you will ever see those small European cars in this country is when they no longer have any kind of choice. And, it's the American consumer that gives them that choice. We accepted front-wheel drive from the industry and took their word that they were cheaper to operate and safer. While they are cheaper to produce, they are not cheaper to operate or maintain. As a matter of fact, they are more expensive to maintain, and no improvement in cost of operation. And, the safety factor? Non-existent. If front wheel drive was so much better and safer, why don't we find it on the one vehicle on the highway where better and safer is far more important than any other? We have the technology. Why don't we have front-wheel drive school buses? But, we accept what they tell us and what they give us. It's time for Americans to start questioning the things we're told and demand that they supply us with something that actually is better, and cheaper, not fancier.
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