Click and Clack speak out

[kelpdiver 2]

  Quote

  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

without the historically high gas prices to encourage fuel economy, we've had to focus on emissions instead. If you burned as much gas there as here, the pollution would force the issue.

[billvon 3,085]

>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.

Right - which proves it is NOT a load of bull, despite what car companies would have you believe.


>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.

The problem isn't really particulate filtering; diesel particulate filters take care of that, and they don't care about sulfur. The problem is that sulfur poisons diesel catalytic converters (similar to leaded gas in gas engines.) Until the cleaner fuel came out, there was simply no way to clean the exhaust effectively.

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

Fair enough, although I don't think you'll get much traction with the objection that SUV's are not regulated enough.

>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.

Yep, because they can't meet emissions with those engines. They have an opportunity here to make a lot of money. They can do the engineering and be leaders, or they can wait until european/japanese companies beat them to it. Again.

[Gawain 0]

  Quote

>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.

Right - which proves it is NOT a load of bull, despite what car companies would have you believe.

It proves my point when the only engine that meets the requirement is available in a $50K car, and when first available it couldn't even meet all the requirements in all 50 states.

The regulations went too far. If you want to reduce the emission, reduce the consumption. There were better ways to do it. Regulating a platform out of existence, when it gets far more "bang" for the "buck", does not accomplish the goal.

Reducing consumption, while investing in re-vamping the infrastructure, and drilling for our own oil, selling that on the market (which also benefit American companies and economy) and using that to drive technology towards a good-steward product.

Now, the problem is that we have to do this, against the investment and debt funded by certain interests that don't want us to do this. So, we have to find a real migration plan, one that won't crash the world market in the first place.

  Quote

Fair enough, although I don't think you'll get much traction with the objection that SUV's are not regulated enough.

The reality is though, they aren't regulated the same. I'm not saying it's enough, or too much, I'm simply pointing out that GM and Ford can put any engine they want in a truck or van, but not in a Cobalt or Focus.

  Quote

>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.

Yep, because they can't meet emissions with those engines. They have an opportunity here to make a lot of money. They can do the engineering and be leaders, or they can wait until european/japanese companies beat them to it. Again.

Did you read what I wrote? "Ford, GM, Toyota and Honda..." In every resource I know how to find, there is literally no mass diesel power option in the works for the four of biggest auto makers in the world, for the US market. Emissions might be part of the problem, but if the 07 regs didn't go into effect, and those engines did meet the older requirements, with the current market, I guarantee that those engines would have an immediate notable market share.

The US market made the sacrifice of reducing emissions at the expense of fuel economy in the 90s. Fair enough. Part of the way to reduce consumption is to improve mileage, not through regulation, but through the market.

Toyota, Honda and Ford proved it's possible with hybrids. They could have done it with diesels, but the regulations don't make it feasible anymore. MB did it because they will recoup the investment on a premium brand, they aren't trying to sell millions of cars a year. VW is buying MB's technology and their market share in the US isn't massive either.

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 3,085]

>It proves my point when the only engine that meets the requirement is
>available in a $50K car, and when first available it couldn't even meet all
>the requirements in all 50 states.

All that proves is you need to do some work, then it does meet emissions. Not suprising. The exact same story ("it's too expensive! it's too hard! no one will buy it!") was heard when the EPA first came out with emissions requirements. Once again, turned out to be untrue. Same thing will happen here.

>The regulations went too far.

If no one could produce a car that met emissions, then it went too far. If existing engines could be used without modification, and there was little or no improvement in emissions, then it did not go far enough. If at first only a few cars can meet it, then it's spot on.

>If you want to reduce the emission, reduce the consumption.

?? I assume you are aware that a Ford Expedition emits far less pollution than my Datsun 610 did - even though it gets half the mileage. Pollution (in the form of NOx, SOx, CO, and HC) has nothing to do with consumption.

Likewise, a 5hp diesel running a generator is much, much dirtier than the Bluetec car - even though the Bluetec uses a lot more fuel.

>The reality is though, they aren't regulated the same.

True, and that's a stupid loophole that should be closed.

>Did you read what I wrote? "Ford, GM, Toyota and Honda..."

Sorry, read too fast. Same principle applies though. If they want to be innovators, then they will. If they want to wait for someone else to do the work (like Mercedes-Benz) then they will wonder why their sales are in the toilet.

>Emissions might be part of the problem, but if the 07 regs didn't go
>into effect, and those engines did meet the older requirements, with
>the current market, I guarantee that those engines would have an
>immediate notable market share.

Nonsense. If that was true, then they WOULD have had a market share in 03, 04, 05 and 06. They didn't. There's no magic new market now that went away when the regulations went into effect.

>Toyota, Honda and Ford proved it's possible with hybrids.

Right, and it took them a decade to do it.

>They could have done it with diesels, but the regulations don't make it
>feasible anymore.

Of course it is. Why do you expect every single manufacturer to do that in a year? A few did; they proved it can be done. The rest can follow if they so choose.

Or they can hire lawyers, sue everyone and bankroll candidates who will oppose emissions controls, as they have done in the past. Their choice.

[kallend 2,113]

  Quote

  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 job of running a corporation (including running it into the ground) falls to MANAGEMENT.

...

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

[Amazon 7]

  Quote

The job of running a corporation (including running it into the ground) falls to MANAGEMENT.

Yup and George had plenty of practice at it..... now he has run the country into the ground.... Way to go GW.... perhaps a bit more studying in College instead of the frat boy parties would have helped..........NAH.. would never happen... guys from that segment of society did not have to do jack in tthat time and place.. based on who daddy was.

[diablopilot 2]

  Quote

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.

Hell, several manufacturers (including Cadilac) had the feature available in the 1920's and 30's.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[mnealtx 0]

  Quote

  Quote

The job of running a corporation (including running it into the ground) falls to MANAGEMENT.

Yup and George had plenty of practice at it..... now he has run the country into the ground.... Way to go GW.... perhaps a bit more studying in College instead of the frat boy parties would have helped..........NAH.. would never happen... guys from that segment of society did not have to do jack in tthat time and place.. based on who daddy was.

And he STILL had a higher GPA than your boy Kerry...go figure.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

  Quote

>It proves my point when the only engine that meets the requirement is
>available in a $50K car, and when first available it couldn't even meet all
>the requirements in all 50 states.

All that proves is you need to do some work, then it does meet emissions. Not suprising. The exact same story ("it's too expensive! it's too hard! no one will buy it!") was heard when the EPA first came out with emissions requirements. Once again, turned out to be untrue. Same thing will happen here.

Point taken. Now, add the fact that UAW has the big three over the barrel. Then the math does not work. MB has a comfortable profit margin with their vehicle line up. The big three can measure profits in single dollar increments in some cases.

  Quote

>The regulations went too far.

If no one could produce a car that met emissions, then it went too far. If existing engines could be used without modification, and there was little or no improvement in emissions, then it did not go far enough. If at first only a few cars can meet it, then it's spot on.

When catalytic converters were required in the 70s, that was an easy, industry-wide fix. When emission mandate pretty much meant the carburetor was to be going the way of the do-do, that too was not a crazy engineering fix, since fuel injectors were wide-spread.

If at first only one car can meet it....how quaint. Mercedes had to take the E320 diesel off the market in order to design a new engine. When government forces businesses to make decisions like that, it proves that government needs to be more prudent in how developing a framework can be a map for industry, rather than a wall.

  Quote

>If you want to reduce the emission, reduce the consumption.

?? I assume you are aware that a Ford Expedition emits far less pollution than my Datsun 610 did - even though it gets half the mileage. Pollution (in the form of NOx, SOx, CO, and HC) has nothing to do with consumption.

So, your Prius and Civic Hybrid put out as much CO as an expedition?

  Quote

>Did you read what I wrote? "Ford, GM, Toyota and Honda..."

Sorry, read too fast. Same principle applies though. If they want to be innovators, then they will. If they want to wait for someone else to do the work (like Mercedes-Benz) then they will wonder why their sales are in the toilet.

Somehow, I think the businessmen at Toyota and Honda will disagree with you on that.

  Quote

>Emissions might be part of the problem, but if the 07 regs didn't go
>into effect, and those engines did meet the older requirements, with
>the current market, I guarantee that those engines would have an
>immediate notable market share.

Nonsense. If that was true, then they WOULD have had a market share in 03, 04, 05 and 06. They didn't. There's no magic new market now that went away when the regulations went into effect.

With $3.00/gal fuel right now, I guarantee you that a notable chunk of the market would trade in a 25mpg V6 Accord for a 40mpg 2.2L CRD Accord if available.

Like you said, if the technology is widespread, the more affordable it is. Unfortunately, diesel engines, even in trucks is a heavy premium. A Jeep Grand Cherokee has a $2000.00 premium for the 3.0L diesel. It's even more expensive in the larger trucks.

  Quote

>Toyota, Honda and Ford proved it's possible with hybrids.

Right, and it took them a decade to do it.

Huh? The Prius wasn't even available in Japan until 1998. The Insight was available in the US in 1999. It took them no-time. Toyota can't build Priuses fast enough...or Camry and Highlander Hybrids for that matter. Honda's Civic Hybrid is also a shining star of quality.

  Quote

>They could have done it with diesels, but the regulations don't make it
>feasible anymore.

Of course it is. Why do you expect every single manufacturer to do that in a year? A few did; they proved it can be done. The rest can follow if they so choose.

No. ONE MANUFACTURER DID. ONE. Not a few. One. Ichi. Uno. Un.

I don't expect every manufacturer to, but I do expect that the government would be a good steward so as not to cripple technology in the commercial market. If they want to demand a "moon-shot" for the military/defense sector, fine. That does not excuse artificial manipulation of the commercial market though.

  Quote

Or they can hire lawyers, sue everyone and bankroll candidates who will oppose emissions controls, as they have done in the past. Their choice.

Well, they had to do that for the "all electric" car didn't they? Remember that crazy law that had to be repealed in California? Were the automakers crying wolf then? No. Battery technology was not ready, and still is not ready.

My point being overall (since you and I aren't really disagreeing, just nitpicking details), is that these emissions regulations, must be part of a bigger, broader energy policy. The government didn't mandate stability control in all vehicles overnight, they have 5-7 years to do it.

Bring the diesel regs in line and open the market for B100. Make sure the Dept. of Agriculture is tied in. Map out a plan to build new refineries, new nuclear power plants, begin drilling for our own resources and let American companies start getting fat selling oil to the world for a change. Meanwhile, we will be almost as independent as Brazil.

We could do it in 25 years with a sweat.

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!

[kelpdiver 2]

  Quote

Well, they had to do that for the "all electric" car didn't they? Remember that crazy law that had to be repealed in California? Were the automakers crying wolf then? No. Battery technology was not ready, and still is not ready.

Quite a few car owners felt otherwise. Once the requirement was repealed, so were their car leases.

The electric Rav4 has gone up in value as a result. There are people who were quite happy with what it and the EV1 delivered.

[billvon 3,085]

>So, your Prius and Civic Hybrid put out as much CO as an expedition?

No.

>With $3.00/gal fuel right now, I guarantee you that a notable chunk of the
>market would trade in a 25mpg V6 Accord for a 40mpg 2.2L CRD Accord if
>available.

Then why aren't they doing the same for hybrid versions of the same sort of vehicles?

>Huh? The Prius wasn't even available in Japan until 1998. The Insight
>was available in the US in 1999. It took them no-time.

When I was working with Ford's electric-car program in 1994, Toyota was already working on their hybrid (and their EV.) They started work on the G21 (their code name for the Prius) in 1992; it took them a long time to get it right.

>No. ONE MANUFACTURER DID.

I listed several. You can deny that the rest are valid (they don't meet emissions in all 50 states, they are SUV's and not 'real cars', they don't have enough cupholders whatever) but right now you can buy any of a dozen diesel vehicles and drive it to work.

>Well, they had to do that for the "all electric" car didn't they? Remember
>that crazy law that had to be repealed in California? Were the automakers
>crying wolf then? No. Battery technology was not ready, and still is not
>ready.

Yes they were. And once again, they hired lawyers, Japan hired engineers. In fact, Toyota and Honda DID produce electric cars; the battery technology WAS ready, and those cars are now fetching more than original cost because they work well. (Check out the documentary "who killed the electric car" - battery technology was about the only thing that did NOT play a part in its demise.)

>Bring the diesel regs in line and open the market for B100. Make
>sure the Dept. of Agriculture is tied in.

Already done.

>Map out a plan to build new refineries . . .

Are you saying have the government plan/build new refineries here? Or pass laws to require gas companies to do it? Not sure what action you are advocating here.

>new nuclear power plants . . .

Again, what action do you advocate? We should renew Price-Anderson and open the waste repository, but beyond that I don't see government having a big role.

>begin drilling for our own resources and let American companies
>start getting fat selling oil to the world for a change.

Not going to happen; the numbers just aren't there. We have an eight month supply of oil. That's it.

>Meanwhile, we will be almost as independent as Brazil.

To be as independent as Brazil we'd have to put as much effort into it (percentage-wise) as Brazil did. And americans are, unfortunately, unwilling to do that.