Click and Clack speak out

[billvon 3,080]

Tom and Ray Magliozzi
Box 3500 Harvard Square
Cambridge MA 02238

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
United States House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

October 25, 2007

To Chairman Ed Markey and Members of the Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming:

You are about to make a crucial decision that may be a turning point
for our country. As you consider how high to raise our nation's CAFE
standards, you are undoubtedly coming under a barrage of lobbying from
various parties. Including us! The obvious question is, who do you
believe?

On the one hand, you have people like Ed Markey, who's been trying to
increase fuel economy for as long as we can remember. Admittedly, he's
from Massachusetts. And yes, we've seen his haircut.

On the other hand, you have the automotive industry (i.e. car
salesmen), whose ratings for honesty are below even those of Congress
in public opinion surveys. Let's remember why:

In 1972, Ford President Lee Iacocca told you that if the "EPA does not
suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut
down." Hm. That wasn't exactly right on the money, was it?

A couple of years later, car makers were back in front of you guys,
squealing over proposed new fuel economy standards. Chrysler Vice
President of Engineering, Alan Loofborrow, predicted that imposing
fuel economy standards might "outlaw a number of engine lines and car
models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would
restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars-or even
smaller ones-within five years." That thing got a Hemi, Alan?

As the industry triple-teamed Congress to keep America from improving
fuel economy, a Ford Executive let fly this whopper: If CAFE became
law, the move could result "in a Ford product line consisting either
of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles..." Ask the man who drives an
Expedition if that ever came to pass.

The onslaught of "we can't... it'll ruin us... you're denying
Americans a choice of vehicles" begins every time we the people--
through our elected representatives-try to bring the auto industry,
kicking and screaming into the modern era. And every time, their
predictions of motorized-skateboard futures have failed to
materialize. Let us repeat that, because the historical record bears
it out to a tee. Every single time they've resisted safety,
environmental, or fuel economy regulations, auto industry predictions
have turned out, in retrospect, to be fear-mongering bull-feathers.

Isn't it time we (you?) stop falling for this 50 year-long line of
baloney?

The truth is, significantly higher average fuel economy can be
achieved. In fact it's already being achieved. And if we don't push
our own auto industry to set world class standards, they'll be beaten
again by the Japanese, the Koreans, and, maybe even the Chinese, who
will do it with or without U.S. Congressional action.

There are technologies aplenty that already exist that could be used
to meet much higher CAFE standards.

* Hybrid-electric vehicles. Hybrids offer, in many cases, a 50%
increase in mileage over gasoline versions of the same vehicles. GM
just introduced a hybrid Chevy Tahoe, that reportedly gets better city
mileage than a Toyota Camry.

* Clean diesel engines. With new, clean diesel fuel now mandated
in America, expect a surge of clean diesel engines in the next three
to five years that get 25% better fuel economy than their gasoline
counterparts.

* Diesel-electric hybrids. Combine the advantages of hybrids with
more efficient diesel engines.

* Turbo chargers and super chargers. These force additional air
into cylinders to wring more power out of available fuel.

* Cylinder deactivation. Cylinders that are not needed at any
given moment, are deactivated, and instantaneously reactivated as soon
as the driver demands additional power. Widely available now.

* Plug-in, series hybrids. Now on the drawing boards, plug-in
hybrids allow drivers to charge up overnight, when the electric grid
is underused, and they'll handle most commutes without ever firing up
their internal combustion engines.

* Automatic stop-start technology. At least one energy analyst we
spoke to believes that this simple technology, in and of itself, could
result in a 10% decrease in fuel use. It's already used in hybrid
vehicles, foreign and domestic, and is on its way in more vehicles in
the next couple of years.

* Higher voltage electrical systems. These save fuel by allowing
energy draining systems, such as power steering, and air conditioning,
to be run electrically, instead of by draining power from the engine
and using fuel.

* Regenerative braking. Captures energy otherwise lost when the
car slows down to give a further boost to on-board battery systems.

* Safe, lightweight materials. Lightweight steel, aluminum and
carbon fiber panels reduce weight, allowing a smaller, more efficient
engine to propel a car just as fast on less fuel.

* Better transmissions. Six speed automatic transmissions, widely
available now from Ford and others, increase fuel economy by 5% and
offer smoother acceleration. Mercedes has seven speeds. Lexus has
eight. Nissan has CVTs Ð continuously variable transmissions. All of
these improve mileage AND performance.

* Common rail fuel injection. Now standard on modern diesels, this
same high pressure fuel delivery technology is beginning to be used to
increase fuel economy in gasoline engines, too.

* All wheel drive systems that use electric motors at the non-
driven wheels, like on the Lexus RX350 hybrid, eliminate heavy, gas-
wasting differentials and drive train components on cars designed to
go in the snow.

* More appropriately sized and weighted cars. When we're facing a
future of global oil wars and economy-killing gasoline prices, perhaps
having single commuters drive 5,000 pound SUVs is something we'll just
have to learn to live without. And modern computer electronics, such
as stability control, can now ameliorate any driving dynamic issues
that result from lack of mass.

* More appropriately powered cars. In 1964, the most powerful,
over-the-top Mustang muscle car you could buy came with an optional,
four-barrel, 271 horsepower engine. Today, that's what comes standard
on the highest rated minivans. 275 horsepower. To take your kid to
nursery school? What does this say about our national priorities? Do
we really want to send our kids to fight and die in the desert so that
we can go 0-60 in eight seconds instead of ten seconds?

The truth is, we could achieve a CAFE standard of 35 miles per gallon
in five years if we made it a priority. Every one of the above
technologies is either available now or is well along in the pipeline.
There's nothing "pie in the sky" here that hasn't been thought of or
invented yet.

Look what American industry did in World War II. Look what we did with
the space program. It's time to make energy independence just as high
a priority. And it starts with you guys (and gals), our
representatives. Don't buy the "can't do" bull this time.

Not only can it be done, but by increasing CAFE standards
dramatically, you'll be helping the American automotive industry
compete-by forcing them to synchronize their priorities with those of
the American people, and the populations of other countries where they
will be increasingly marketing their cars.

It's the job of private enterprise to design and sell products. But
it's the job of Congress to set our national priorities. Trust us, the
car companies won't go out of business because America insists that
they build the world's best, most efficient cars. We urge you to set
the bar high for American ingenuity. We have no doubt our car industry
will make the grade-to the benefit of all Americans.

Sincerely,

Tom and Ray Magliozzi

[speedy 0]

It is a shame that such sensible proposals have to be tarnished with the AGW scam

If people would just leave out the global warming bullshit I would be first in line to support laws that would force car makers to manufacture more fuel efficient vehicles.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[Rookie120 0]

Why has the American auto Co's fought so hard against these increases. Especially now since that is what most people are looking at when they buy a car is fuel economy. People want higher fuel mileage but it seems they wont get onboard.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[billvon 3,080]

> Why has the American auto Co's fought so hard against these increases.

Because, to them, change is a peril, not an opportunity.

When California proposed the 2% EV mandate, Honda and Toyota hired dozens of engineers to look into the feasibility of EV's. Ford hired dozens of lawyers. Different worldview.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Why has the American auto Co's fought so hard against these increases. Especially now since that is what most people are looking at when they buy a car is fuel economy. People want higher fuel mileage but it seems they wont get onboard.

Change and real innovation costs money. The industry found that it could make tons of money by throwing bigger bodies on small truck chassis and charging triple the price. Made 'em a ton of money in the short run but has come back to bite them. Just ask Ford.

[ryoder 1,590]

Are you sure Click & Clack wrote that? No where in that text do I see them making fun of their listeners, each other, nor themselves.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Are you sure Click & Clack wrote that? No where in that text do I see them making fun of their listeners, each other, nor themselves.

I was looking for a little more humor in the speech also. I love to listen to those guys. Such dorky humor but very fun to listen to. I love the credits at the end. I love the Russian chauffeur Pikupn Dropoff.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I was looking for a little more humor in the speech also. I love to listen to those guys. Such dorky humor but very fun to listen to. I love the credits at the end. I love the Russian chauffeur Pikupn Dropoff.

And their tailor, "Hugh Jass".

[Gawain 0]

Quote

* Hybrid-electric vehicles. Hybrids offer, in many cases, a 50% increase in mileage over gasoline versions of the same vehicles. GM just introduced a hybrid Chevy Tahoe, that reportedly gets better city
mileage than a Toyota Camry.

The current EPA MPG for the 2008 Camry, 4-cyl, automatic is: 21/31 (cty/hwy); V6: 19/28; Hybrid: 33/34.

The current EPA MPG for the yet-to-be-released Chevy Tahoe Hybrid is: 21/22 (2WD), 20/20 (4WD).

My money is on the Camry for returning a real-world MPG better than the EPA estimate, even with the "new" guidelines that the estimates follow.

Quote

* Clean diesel engines. With new, clean diesel fuel now mandated in America, expect a surge of clean diesel engines in the next three to five years that get 25% better fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts.

No, there won't be a surge. The regulations are out-pacing the technology. Even Diamler's new "BluTec" diesel is only legal in 42 states. VW has pushed their diesel back. The big-three, Toyota and Honda have exactly nothing on the table for diesels in the US.

Quote

* Diesel-electric hybrids. Combine the advantages of hybrids with more efficient diesel engines.

Maybe, but fuel-cell technology is where GM seems to be spending the money. Diesel is less efficient to make (from a petroleum standpoint). The diesel-hybrid is a non-starter from a regulation standpoint.

Quote

* Turbo chargers and super chargers. These force additional air into cylinders to wring more power out of available fuel.

At the expense of fuel economy. Consumption is the root cause. Reduce consumption, and lower all those nasty gasses that people claim to be worried about.

Quote

* Cylinder deactivation. Cylinders that are not needed at any given moment, are deactivated, and instantaneously reactivated as soon as the driver demands additional power. Widely available now.

Only available and truly feasible in larger displacement engines. Despite the relatively simple concept, it is extremely difficult to engineer these engines. The concept has been around for decades, GM offered it in the Caddilac "468" in the seventies.

Quote

* Plug-in, series hybrids. Now on the drawing boards, plug-in hybrids allow drivers to charge up overnight, when the electric grid is underused, and they'll handle most commutes without ever firing up
their internal combustion engines.

Would be nice if we got most of our power from Nuclear, but our already overly taxed power grid is still reliant on COAL. The power has to come from somewhere. Expand the grid, build out nuclear, and then provide an incremental demand on it with the new technology.

Quote

* Automatic stop-start technology. At least one energy analyst we spoke to believes that this simple technology, in and of itself, could result in a 10% decrease in fuel use. It's already used in hybrid
vehicles, foreign and domestic, and is on its way in more vehicles in the next couple of years.

That analyst didn't consider that the "start-up" process produces more of those nasty gasses that people say they're all wrapped up about...

Quote

* Higher voltage electrical systems. These save fuel by allowing energy draining systems, such as power steering, and air conditioning, to be run electrically, instead of by draining power from the engine
and using fuel.

Electrical systems put a tax on the alternator, which in turn will tax the engine if you rely too much on electrical assist systems.

Quote

* Regenerative braking. Captures energy otherwise lost when the car slows down to give a further boost to on-board battery systems.

This makes sense, but the weight of the batteries will drain efficiency. So, widespread use does not make sense to me.

Quote

* Safe, lightweight materials. Lightweight steel, aluminum and carbon fiber panels reduce weight, allowing a smaller, more efficient engine to propel a car just as fast on less fuel.

...and only cost 10x more to make. Never mind the energy used to fabricate these super-materials. The loss in weight also means changing the crash standards because the safety paradigm of the vehicle has changed dramatically.

Quote

* Better transmissions. Six speed automatic transmissions, widely available now from Ford and others, increase fuel economy by 5% and offer smoother acceleration. Mercedes has seven speeds. Lexus has eight. Nissan has CVTs Ð continuously variable transmissions. All of these improve mileage AND performance.

All those extra gears add weight. They are very selective in where these are available. The Lexus eight-speed is only available on their $70,000 LS.

Quote

* Common rail fuel injection. Now standard on modern diesels, this same high pressure fuel delivery technology is beginning to be used to increase fuel economy in gasoline engines, too.

You have to count in the fact that diesel engines do not rev as high either.

Quote

* All wheel drive systems that use electric motors at the non-driven wheels, like on the Lexus RX350 hybrid, eliminate heavy, gas-wasting differentials and drive train components on cars designed to go in the snow.

In northern Japan, where nearly every car sold has AWD, where AWD Civics, Corollas, micro-1K-type cars are the norm, even they do not utilize this widely. There is a reason for that. I don't know for sure, but cost is certainly an issue.

Quote

* More appropriately sized and weighted cars. When we're facing a future of global oil wars and economy-killing gasoline prices, perhaps having single commuters drive 5,000 pound SUVs is something we'll just have to learn to live without. And modern computer electronics, such as stability control, can now ameliorate any driving dynamic issues that result from lack of mass.

Let the market determine that. We hardly need more government intervention.

Quote

* More appropriately powered cars. In 1964, the most powerful, over-the-top Mustang muscle car you could buy came with an optional, four-barrel, 271 horsepower engine. Today, that's what comes standard
on the highest rated minivans. 275 horsepower. To take your kid to nursery school? What does this say about our national priorities? Do we really want to send our kids to fight and die in the desert so that we can go 0-60 in eight seconds instead of ten seconds?

271 gross HP versus 275bhp. Two different standards. Typical shrill from people that literally lie to your face. They forgot to mention that these engines are far more efficient, and deliver far fewer emissions.

Also, see how nice it is accelerating onto the freeway in 10 seconds, when the conditions are safer to do it in 7 or less. Nearly all traffic congestion can be attributed to one slow car.

Quote

The truth is, we could achieve a CAFE standard of 35 miles per gallon in five years if we made it a priority. Every one of the above technologies is either available now or is well along in the pipeline. There's nothing "pie in the sky" here that hasn't been thought of or invented yet.

Yes, simply ban large vehicles and make every car a hybrid-like Prius/Civic clone. That's not what a free market is about. Then, you will see a massive loss of jobs.

Quote

Look what American industry did in World War II. Look what we did with the space program. It's time to make energy independence just as high a priority. And it starts with you guys (and gals), our representatives. Don't buy the "can't do" bull this time.

That's fine, but if you're going to force it on the auto industry, then you have to force an infusion of domestic sources of energy, which must include oil. That means a comprehensive migration over 50 years or more, drill in the Gulf of Mexico, ANWR, California and building Nuclear power plants like they're going out of style, Coal-Gas-Conversion plants and a massive upgrade of the power-grid (Eisenhower era build-out).

Quote

Not only can it be done, but by increasing CAFE standards dramatically, you'll be helping the American automotive industry compete-by forcing them to synchronize their priorities with those of the American people, and the populations of other countries where they will be increasingly marketing their cars.

Now, that is pie-in-the-sky. You know how many "American" cars are truly sold abroad? Practically none. Ford's line-up in Europe is completely different from the US. If the US really wanted to increase CAFE standards so drastically, then ease the diesel restriction, and everything from the Ford Focus, to the Mazda 6, to the Dodge Caliber, to the Toyota and Honda line will have highly efficient diesels.

Quote

It's the job of private enterprise to design and sell products. But it's the job of Congress to set our national priorities.

Um, no that is not their job. Where in the founding documents does it say that?

Quote

Trust us, the car companies won't go out of business because America insists that they build the world's best, most efficient cars. We urge you to set
the bar high for American ingenuity. We have no doubt our car industry will make the grade-to the benefit of all Americans.

In case these two don't know it, the big three are teetering on the edge of going under forever. Innovation has been choked in Detroit. A profound change in direction from these automakers is possible, but in the immediate term, you'd see a lot of lost jobs if anyone got the gumption to actually make such a drastic, sudden change.

Don't get me wrong, I think the management at the big-three needs to grow a pair and get serious. Doing so with government intervention is not the way to do it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

And their tailor, "Hugh Jass".

Thats a good one.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[billvon 3,080]

>Diesel is less efficient to make (from a petroleum standpoint).

Correct; it contains more energy, which is one reason you get better mileage. (There is a reason most long-haul trucks and trains use diesel.)

>The diesel-hybrid is a non-starter from a regulation standpoint.

Why?

>At the expense of fuel economy.

Nope. Turbochargers increase efficiency and result in better gas mileage (if the engine is run on the same schedule.)

>Only available and truly feasible in larger displacement engines. Despite
>the relatively simple concept, it is extremely difficult to engineer these
>engines.

?? My Honda Civic hybrid (4cyl 1500cc) does this.

>That analyst didn't consider that the "start-up" process produces more
>of those nasty gasses that people say they're all wrapped up about...

Not if you heat the converter beforehand - which some vehicles do. Also many manufacturers (like Toyota) are now making "storage" catalysts that store the pollutants until operating temperature is reached.

>Electrical systems put a tax on the alternator, which in turn will tax
>the engine if you rely too much on electrical assist systems.

MUCH MUCH less than the same hydraulic or mechanical link. In addition, such vehicles have integrated starter/generators, not alternators.

>This makes sense, but the weight of the batteries will drain efficiency.
>So, widespread use does not make sense to me.

The benefits are far greater than the drawbacks. That's one reason hybrids get better mileage.

>and only cost 10x more to make. Never mind the energy used to
>fabricate these super-materials. The loss in weight also means
>changing the crash standards because the safety paradigm of the
>vehicle has changed dramatically.

Which is EXACTLY what the big three have said any time such changes were proposed. They were wrong every single time.

>All those extra gears add weight. They are very selective in where these
>are available. The Lexus eight-speed is only available on their $70,000
>LS.

Right. So the answer there is to make them cheaper and more available.

>271 gross HP versus 275bhp. Two different standards. Typical shrill
>from people that literally lie to your face. They forgot to mention that
>these engines are far more efficient, and deliver far fewer emissions.

Who, exactly, are you calling names here?

>Also, see how nice it is accelerating onto the freeway in 10 seconds,
>when the conditions are safer to do it in 7 or less. Nearly all traffic
>congestion can be attributed to one slow car.

The idea that slow acceleration results in increased traffic is pretty unsupportable. Indeed, if you artificially restricted everyone's power output, traffic flow would likely improve due to the reduced number of collisions.

>Yes, simply ban large vehicles and make every car a hybrid-like
>Prius/Civic clone. That's not what a free market is about.

And no one is suggesting that.

>Then, you will see a massive loss of jobs.

A concerted effort to change our energy sources would not only create jobs, it would make the Silicon Valley hiring boom of the 80's look like a bake sale. US auto engineers could name their salaries. The Big Three would go from marketplace losers to stock market leaders again.

>That's fine, but if you're going to force it on the auto industry, then you
>have to force an infusion of domestic sources of energy, which must
>include oil.

?? That makes as much sense as saying you have to buy more food in order to lose weight.

>Um, no that is not their job. Where in the founding documents does it
>say that?

We the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty . . .

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . . .

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States . . .

>In case these two don't know it, the big three are teetering on the edge
>of going under forever. Innovation has been choked in Detroit. A
>profound change in direction from these automakers is possible, but in
>the immediate term, you'd see a lot of lost jobs if anyone got the
>gumption to actually make such a drastic, sudden change.

That may well be true. But if that's the only way to save those companies, a lot more people will be saved by making the right decision, even if it's painful.

The car companies have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into new technology several times in the past. In every case car sales INCREASED afterwards. In every case their predictions of doom and gloom did not come to pass. Perhaps it's time to do it again.

[airtwardo 7]

In every case their predictions of doom and gloom did not come to pass. Perhaps it's time to do it again.

Quote

Not 'perhaps'...it's a given that drastic change will eventually come, the question is who will be the first to actually get the ball rolling.

I wonder sometimes if the big 3 aren't reluctant to commit to a real strategy because of the rapid changing technology.

One sure way to sink the foundering Detroit ship would be to sink major $'s in a design that fuel cells from the next UFO crash would make obsolete.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[billvon 3,080]

>the question is who will be the first to actually get the ball rolling.

. . . and who gets left behind.

I hope the US car companies can pick up the ball on this. They used to be world leaders in automotive innovation, design and manufacturing; I hope they still have the desire and determination to reclaim that spot.

[Zep 0]

What are the diesel restrictions your talking about, I know the US is a long way behind Europe in small diesel (4cyl) motors with direct injection,
Really I'm just wondering why.

Gone fishing

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

>the question is who will be the first to actually get the ball rolling.

. . . and who gets left behind.

I hope the US car companies can pick up the ball on this. They used to be world leaders in automotive innovation, design and manufacturing; I hope they still have the desire and determination to reclaim that spot.

Almost word for word as used to be said of US color TV manufacturers in the 1970s.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why has the American auto Co's fought so hard against these increases. Especially now since that is what most people are looking at when they buy a car is fuel economy. People want higher fuel mileage but it seems they wont get onboard.

People say they're for fuel economy, but the buying habits of the past decade show otherwise. Given the option, most opt for the bigger, faster, more powerful. Even as gas prices spike, if you're willing to spend 40-80k on an SUV, does the fuel cost really bother you that much?

The makers are afraid to take chances. The prius sells a shitload in part because it has limited competition still. Is the Escape Hybrid selling very well? (well, it's an ugly car with any engine) I'm happy to see more choices coming along, but so far I don't see a reason to trade in the 10 year old Subaru; I just hope I do find the next 10 year car choice for me before I need it.

Government encouragement would help this revolution along. How to do it is the catch. Again someone has to act like a leader. America would benefit greatly from a jump to 35 mpg, and that should be viewed as the first step to higher levels if we intend to be a superpower in the middle and end of this century.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Yep.

I keep seeing commercials for enormous SUVs, with tv screens in them.

It seems many Americans want to drive around in their living rooms.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[AWL71 0]

Quote

>the question is who will be the first to actually get the ball rolling.

. . . and who gets left behind.

I hope the US car companies can pick up the ball on this. They used to be world leaders in automotive innovation, design and manufacturing; I hope they still have the desire and determination to reclaim that spot.

I hope so as well. Step 1 in this would be to do away with the unions. They suck productivity and cash out of the American car companies without abandon.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[billvon 3,080]

>Almost word for word as used to be said of US color TV manufacturers in the 1970s.

Yep. Well, who knows? Maybe the car companies will be better at learning from the past.

[n23x 0]

Quote

will be better at learning from the past.

Now what, given our current state of affairs, would make you even think to state this as a possibility.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[Gawain 0]

Quote

What are the diesel restrictions your talking about, I know the US is a long way behind Europe in small diesel (4cyl) motors with direct injection,
Really I'm just wondering why.

The US emissions laws have pretty much regulated diesel engines in automobiles out of existence. The rules are so strict right now, that Diamler's best diesel is legal in 42 out of the 50 states. Having said that, American and Japanese auto makers have been making very efficient diesel engines for the European market for years. They just don't run clean enough to be legal here.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,080]

>The rules are so strict right now, that Diamler's best diesel is legal
>in 42 out of the 50 states.

Did you mean to say "not legal?"

Actually, the problem most manufacturers have had with the US is LACK of regulation, specifically lack of fuel standards. It's not too hard to build very low pollution diesels, but you have to start with low sulfur fuel to do it - and until very recently (2007) low sulfur diesel was not available in the US.

The 2007 EPA diesel rules required fuel suppliers produce the cleaner diesel, and also put new emissions requirements in place for heavy-duty diesel (i.e. truck) engines. Truck manufacturers haven't had much trouble meeting the new requirements, although beforehand they complained as much as any US car company did.

In any case, the Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec sedan is now available and meets emissions standards for all 50 states - so it's certainly doable. Some others:

2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD

Mercedes-Benz 2008 GL-Class (320/420) CDI
Mercedes-Benz 2007 ML320 CDI
Mercedes-Benz 2007 R320 CDI

2007 Volkswagen Touareg V10 TDI
2007 Chevrolet Silverado 2500/3500 HD
2007 Dodge Ram 2500/3500 Regular/Quad Cab
2008 Ford Super Duty F-250
2007 GMC Sierra 2500/3500 HD

2007 Chevrolet Express 2500 Work Van
2007 Dodge Sprinter Van
2007 Ford E-Series Full Size Van

>They just don't run clean enough to be legal here.

Well, a lot of them do. More will come with time.

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD

That engine REALLY has my interest. It is a 3.0L turbo-diesel. Compared to the 4.0L gas engine in my 2006 Wrangler, the Grand Cherokee CRD gets:
- 6% better HP.
- 20% better mileage.
- 60% better torque.

And since it is a turbo, I suspect it doesn't lose as much power/torque up in the mountains I drive every winter.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>The rules are so strict right now, that Diamler's best diesel is legal
>in 42 out of the 50 states.

Did you mean to say "not legal?"

I stand corrected, the new BlueTec is finally legal in all 50 states.

Quote

Actually, the problem most manufacturers have had with the US is LACK of regulation, specifically lack of fuel standards.

That's a load of bull and you know it. The rules for automobile diesel emissions have gotten so strict with the fuel, the manufacturers had to design entirely new engine technology to meet it. The result is that it's only available on one car sold in the US right now (the aforementioned E-Class, for a mere $50K).

Quote

It's not too hard to build very low pollution diesels, but you have to start with low sulfur fuel to do it - and until very recently (2007) low sulfur diesel was not available in the US.

The two go hand in hand. The new fuel was needed, but unless the new engines had the right particulate filtering in it, it was a moot point. The new "BluTec" diesel from MB can't run on "traditional" diesel.

Quote

The 2007 EPA diesel rules required fuel suppliers produce the cleaner diesel, and also put new emissions requirements in place for heavy-duty diesel (i.e. truck) engines. Truck manufacturers haven't had much trouble meeting the new requirements, although beforehand they complained as much as any US car company did.

That's because if the fact that literally everything in this country hinges on the success of the trucking industry. Not a thing in this economy is not touched by a truck. The Class 8 vehicles have had stricter NOX emissions since 2002. That particulate portion went into effect this year.

Quote

In any case, the Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec sedan is now available and meets emissions standards for all 50 states - so it's certainly doable. Some others:

2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD

Mercedes-Benz 2008 GL-Class (320/420) CDI
Mercedes-Benz 2007 ML320 CDI
Mercedes-Benz 2007 R320 CDI

2007 Volkswagen Touareg V10 TDI
2007 Chevrolet Silverado 2500/3500 HD
2007 Dodge Ram 2500/3500 Regular/Quad Cab
2008 Ford Super Duty F-250
2007 GMC Sierra 2500/3500 HD

2007 Chevrolet Express 2500 Work Van
2007 Dodge Sprinter Van
2007 Ford E-Series Full Size Van

Out of all of those, only one is a car. The rest do not fall under the same restrictions.

Quote

>They just don't run clean enough to be legal here.

Well, a lot of them do. More will come with time.

Bill, trucks are the exception. Your list showed only two with mileage over 25mpg hwy. VW will have a Jetta in 2008 with a diesel, but none of this is high-volume. That Volvo V10 diesel costs $70K...

Ford, GM, Toyota and Honda have diesels that they could put in their respective auto line-up right now. There is a reason why they won't do it.

It ticks me off too, because I could be driving a Honda CR-V with a 2.2L CRD, getting 45MPG. That gets my attention.

Or, I could be driving an American version of Honda's UK Accord (Acura TSX here) with the same diesel engine.

Or, I could be driving Ford Ranger with a 2.5L Diesel.

Or, a Ford Focus from the UK...with a diesel.

That's a sliver of what's available in the UK alone.

None of that is coming to the US.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

It ticks me off too, because I could be driving a Honda CR-V with a 2.2L CRD, getting 45MPG. That gets my attention.

My dad gets over 80mpg real life mileage with his diesel Toyota Yaris! (Ok, it's a smaller engine and he drives like an old man, but pretty stunning, eh?)

Seems insane that you guys are actually prevented from having that in the US

Do you want to have an ideagasm?