Why arent Diesel fueled cars more popular in the US?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Triumph
Because people mistakenly believe that emissions are more important than fuel economy. If you want someone to blame, blame California and their emissions standards, which make diesel importation to the States an unpallatable idea for foreign manufacturers. If you can't sell a car in California, it's almost not worth selling it at all, because it is such a large market. Thanks alot, tree huggers!

You're welcome polluters. California's tough emissions standards are one of the reasons you can still breathe wherever you live.
Too bad so many of you believe fuel economy is more important than emissions.
Trying to save a buck at the expense of everyone's lungs is selfish.
Diesels engine exhaust contains lots of carcinogens, with soot being the major problem.
Biodiesel puts out maybe half of the soot of a regular fueled diesel, still way too much.
They are also still gutless rattiling pieces of sh**.
If you care about the environment or lung disease, please don't use diesel.

http://www.stopthesoot.org/gaspingbrochure2.pdf
Asthma Linked To Soot From Diesel Trucks In Bronx
More Californians Killed By Diesel Pollution Than Homicide

Do you ride a bicycle?

Of course not. He has a brand spanking new hybrid. But don't call him a hypocrite! 😉

Attention fools: I do not own a hybrid. But I do ride a bicycle. And I drive a 1987 Toyota Corolla with 209,000 miles- and it just passed a dyno smog check, which your beloved diesels aren't even subject to-in California.

Okay... so why did you say that people should buy new hybrids and not old economy cars in the other thread?

 

[nweaver]

gutless? then why do we use inline 6 cylinder diesel engines in Semi trucks...I'm sure it's because they have no power 😉

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: marincounty
I drive a 1987 Toyota Corolla with 209,000 miles- and it just passed a dyno smog check, which your beloved diesels aren't even subject to-in California.

You're aware that in terms of pollutants per mile traveled your 1987 Corolla is FAR worse than a brand new Hummer, right?

ZV

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Triumph
Because people mistakenly believe that emissions are more important than fuel economy. If you want someone to blame, blame California and their emissions standards, which make diesel importation to the States an unpallatable idea for foreign manufacturers. If you can't sell a car in California, it's almost not worth selling it at all, because it is such a large market. Thanks alot, tree huggers!

You're welcome polluters. California's tough emissions standards are one of the reasons you can still breathe wherever you live.
Too bad so many of you believe fuel economy is more important than emissions.
Trying to save a buck at the expense of everyone's lungs is selfish.
Diesels engine exhaust contains lots of carcinogens, with soot being the major problem.
Biodiesel puts out maybe half of the soot of a regular fueled diesel, still way too much.
They are also still gutless rattiling pieces of sh**.
If you care about the environment or lung disease, please don't use diesel.

http://www.stopthesoot.org/gaspingbrochure2.pdf
Asthma Linked To Soot From Diesel Trucks In Bronx
More Californians Killed By Diesel Pollution Than Homicide

Do you ride a bicycle?

Of course not. He has a brand spanking new hybrid. But don't call him a hypocrite! 😉

Attention fools: I do not own a hybrid. But I do ride a bicycle. And I drive a 1987 Toyota Corolla with 209,000 miles- and it just passed a dyno smog check, which your beloved diesels aren't even subject to-in California.

Okay... so why did you say that people should buy new hybrids and not old economy cars in the other thread?

I never said that. I say buy whatever car fits your needs, as long as it isn't a diesel, OK.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: marincounty
I drive a 1987 Toyota Corolla with 209,000 miles- and it just passed a dyno smog check, which your beloved diesels aren't even subject to-in California.

You're aware that in terms of pollutants per mile traveled your 1987 Corolla is FAR worse than a brand new Hummer, right?

ZV

You'd be right about some pollutants, but of course the Hummer will put out way more greenhouse gas (CO2) per mile.
Nice try, though, and you are welcome to buy me a new Hummer and I will gladly junk my Toyota.

 

[drnickriviera]

Pay no attention to Marincounty, he's the resident P&N diesel hater. Says no one should use a diesel, but has no alternative for our existing diesel engine uses.

 

[Jahee]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel

It seems diesel is more environmentally friendly and gives you better gas mileage than regular gasoline... I hear Brazil is mostly diesel now too.

Diesel has very high NOx emissions and also very high particulate emissions. Largely manageable, but it's not more environmentally-friendly, just a different set of trade-offs.

Also, in Europe and South America gasoline is obscenely heavily taxed, while Diesel is taxed much less. The popularity is largely because it's much cheaper to buy Diesel.

Diesel never took off in the US because until very recently (last 10-15 years) Diesels were noisy, hard to start, smokey, rattly, and gutless. They were in europe too, but the huge tax subsidies on diesels made them more popular just because of the fiscal advantage.

ZV

Actually, Diesel is more expensive to buy than petrol by about 3-5p a litre. At least it is in England.

Unless you mean diesel is cheaper if you work it out per mile?

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: drnickriviera
Pay no attention to Marincounty, he's the resident P&N diesel hater. Says no one should use a diesel, but has no alternative for our existing diesel engine uses.

No, you shouldn't use diesel if you care at all about the environment or public health.
But I do have an alternative for our existing diesel engines. It's called a soot trap combined with cleaner fuel.
Regular 4-cycle engines have been subject to pollution controls since the '70's, and I along with millions of Californians have had to spend lots of money on smog inspections and repairs to continue to drive.
Meanwhile, diesels have been exempt from pollution controls all of these years, all the while spewing tons of particulates into the air.
My solution, ban new diesels and mandate pollution controls on the older ones.

 

[Mashed Potato]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
It smells like FRIED RICE. /thread

FIXED!!

at least my friends does...

Can I eat your friends car?

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Meanwhile, diesels have been exempt from pollution controls all of these years, all the while spewing tons of particulates into the air.
My solution, ban new diesels and mandate pollution controls on the older ones.

Please get your facts straight. Heavy duty trucks are mostly exempt from pollution controls. That's why diesels are only offered on 2500 and larger pickups. Light trucks and passenger cars have to pass the same emissions standards. Any new diesel cars will be just as clean as the equivalent gasoline-engined car while being 40% more efficient.

You're wasting your time hating on new diesel cars with modern pollution controls. Better to focus on cleaning up big rig trucks, ships and locomotives.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: marincounty
Meanwhile, diesels have been exempt from pollution controls all of these years, all the while spewing tons of particulates into the air.
My solution, ban new diesels and mandate pollution controls on the older ones.

Please get your facts straight. Heavy duty trucks are mostly exempt from pollution controls. That's why diesels are only offered on 2500 and larger pickups. Light trucks and passenger cars have to pass the same emissions standards. Any new diesel cars will be just as clean as the equivalent gasoline-engined car while being 40% more efficient.

You're wasting your time hating on new diesel cars with modern pollution controls. Better to focus on cleaning up big rig trucks, ships and locomotives.

My facts are straight, diesels are exempt from pollution controls. Light trucks and cars have to pass the same emissions standards-developed for 4-cycle engines. They don't yet have a particulate standard for diesels, so they skate through.
Show me where any diesel puts out less particulate pollution than any 4-cycle engine.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: marincounty
I drive a 1987 Toyota Corolla with 209,000 miles- and it just passed a dyno smog check, which your beloved diesels aren't even subject to-in California.

You're aware that in terms of pollutants per mile traveled your 1987 Corolla is FAR worse than a brand new Hummer, right?

ZV

You'd be right about some pollutants, but of course the Hummer will put out way more greenhouse gas (CO2) per mile.
Nice try, though, and you are welcome to buy me a new Hummer and I will gladly junk my Toyota.

So you admit that I'm right and then say "nice try"? Interesting tactic.

ZV

 

[0roo0roo]

cuz lung cancer aint' fun
until recently diesel emissions were very uncool

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: marincounty
My facts are straight, diesels are exempt from pollution controls. Light trucks and cars have to pass the same emissions standards-developed for 4-cycle engines. They don't yet have a particulate standard for diesels, so they skate through.
Show me where any diesel puts out less particulate pollution than any 4-cycle engine.

Show me where particulates are proven to be hazardous. They fall right out of the air. They don't stay suspended you know.

Friggin' California enviro-nuts. Nothing like short-sighted environmental laws that don't balance impact at all. Europe doesn't have a huge air pollution problem and diesels make up huge percentages of their vehicle fleets.

ZV

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: marincounty
My facts are straight, diesels are exempt from pollution controls. Light trucks and cars have to pass the same emissions standards-developed for 4-cycle engines. They don't yet have a particulate standard for diesels, so they skate through.

Here's the EPA web page on the Tier 2 emission standards. Diesel emissions are regulated. Particulate emissions are regulated. The NOX and CO standards for gasoline and diesel are exactly the same. The Tier 2 standards are fuel neutral.
http://www.epa.gov/tier2/index.htm

and a page just on diesel regulations:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/diesel/diesel.htm

Show me where any diesel puts out less particulate pollution than any 4-cycle engine.

The test you're proposing is impractical and based on ideological purity. Particulate traps can clean up 90% of emissions and are improving all the time.

 

[Bateluer]

Diesel still suffers from the same critical flaw as gasoline. Its made from oil. We need to get off the oil dependency entirely, not transfer it to another medium.

E85 is a good stepping stone to hydrogen fuel.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Show me where particulates are proven to be hazardous. They fall right out of the air. They don't stay suspended you know.

umm. right. Particulates are hazardous. These both reference EPA publication Air quality criteria for particulate matter. Washington, DC: EPA; 1996. (EPA/600/P95/001cF, ORD.).
http://www.epa.gov/tier2/frm/ria/chii.pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1116028

Friggin' California enviro-nuts. Nothing like short-sighted environmental laws that don't balance impact at all. Europe doesn't have a huge air pollution problem and diesels make up huge percentages of their vehicle fleets.

There's a good reason Californians pushed clean air laws. Did you ever try running or swimming in LA back in the 80's? I did and it sucked. If you talk to real old-timers, it was worse in the 50's and 60's. You couldn't even stand outside on a bad day because your eyes would be burning.

Europe is a different situation completely. They tax fuel over $3 per gallon to encourage conservation. You can get around most cities by walking, bicycling or mass transit that's easy and efficient. Most people don't live in sprawled suburbs that need cars for transportation.

Also, the air over there isn't always that great either. After a day of walking around Rome, blowing my nose would come out black. This was over 10 years ago and Rome was probably the worst of all the cities I visited.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Diesel still suffers from the same critical flaw as gasoline. Its made from oil. We need to get off the oil dependency entirely, not transfer it to another medium.

E85 is a good stepping stone to hydrogen fuel.

Biodiesel can be made more efficiently from biomatter than can E85.

 

[compuwiz1]

From what I've seen, a diesel in a truck, as an example costs at least $5000 more than a gas engine. With diesel higher than the price of regular unleaded, here in CA, it doesn't make much sense, as any fuel savings will take a long time to recoup.

If that is the same scenario with diesel cars, I can see why they are not more popular.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Show me where particulates are proven to be hazardous. They fall right out of the air. They don't stay suspended you know.

umm. right. Particulates are hazardous. These both reference EPA publication Air quality criteria for particulate matter. Washington, DC: EPA; 1996. (EPA/600/P95/001cF, ORD.).
http://www.epa.gov/tier2/frm/ria/chii.pdf
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1116028

Friggin' California enviro-nuts. Nothing like short-sighted environmental laws that don't balance impact at all. Europe doesn't have a huge air pollution problem and diesels make up huge percentages of their vehicle fleets.

There's a good reason Californians pushed clean air laws. Did you ever try running or swimming in LA back in the 80's? I did and it sucked. If you talk to real old-timers, it was worse in the 50's and 60's. You couldn't even stand outside on a bad day because your eyes would be burning.

Europe is a different situation completely. They tax fuel over $3 per gallon to encourage conservation. You can get around most cities by walking, bicycling or mass transit that's easy and efficient. Most people don't live in sprawled suburbs that need cars for transportation.

Also, the air over there isn't always that great either. After a day of walking around Rome, blowing my nose would come out black. This was over 10 years ago and Rome was probably the worst of all the cities I visited.

IIRC the Po Valley in northern Italy has the worst air quality in the developed world.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
From what I've seen, a diesel in a truck, as an example costs at least $5000 more than a gas engine. With diesel higher than the price of regular unleaded, here in CA, it doesn't make much sense, as any fuel savings will take a long time to recoup.

If that is the same scenario with diesel cars, I can see why they are not more popular.

The price difference isn't that high with smaller engines. You could look at the pricing at the old VW TDIs for examples.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Diesel still suffers from the same critical flaw as gasoline. Its made from oil. We need to get off the oil dependency entirely, not transfer it to another medium.

E85 is a good stepping stone to hydrogen fuel.

Considering that diesels are 40% more efficient than the same size gasoline car, they're a good start to using less oil. Compare that to E85 which reduces mileage by 30% because it has less energy than gasoline. Diesel engines aren't picky about fuel octane either, so they're more flexible with fuel.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Dunbar

Originally posted by: silverpig
It's because diesel in NA is really dirty. Euro diesel is much cleaner.

Not anymore, since October 2006 all diesel sold in the US is ultra-low sulpur compliant.

Ah. Okay then, I guess it's because it WAS really dirty. It's got a reputation and needs time to change I guess.