Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
I don't think regulators can be the whole cause, because there are a lot of diesel pickups on the roads around here. The problem is that the current engines are oversized, they're noisy, and they stink - and the people who buy them think that those are features! ("Lookit me, I'm a big bad trucker in my own 18-wheeler!")
|
Those are great features, my 82 suburban has all of them and best of all eaks out 26mpg with its former autotragic moving a couple K of crafts around, once I get a chance to test it with a double overdrive stick we shall see if my record gets broken or not. My father plans on using it as a dingy/trailer on trips to fairs and whatnot behind their motor home, it should get excellent FE on those trips and save fuel because they usually need a normal vehicle to hop around and collect packages/supplies, while they are on the road months at fairs.
One difference between my 82 and new TD's though is that it does not ever smoke and is emission controlled, but it still stinks as does all exhaust clear or not.
And I agree, it is NOT regulators, if diesels were widely available on the market and half the cars on the lot were diesel you would likely see a massive increase in the number of diesels on the road.
Many people will buy whatever is available on the lot out of fear of ordering and if diesels were there many people would have a diesel.
There is still great fear of diesel by certain people but market acceptance has more to do with how many are out there and marketing, not whether people want it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clev
NOx and particulate emissions. Particulates are particularly bad in areas like Southern California.
They're reformulating diesel to reduce the sulfur content in the U.S. This will allow manufacturers to use catalysts and other devices to reduce these emissions. I would expect diesels to be more accepted in the next 5-10 years as these emissions are brought under control and CO2 becomes a bigger target.
|
Sadly they could just make diesel from CNG like Europe does on its jet fuel and there were be absolutely no need to reformulate or clean diesel as fuel made that way is naturally sulphur free. Then add a little BD for lubrication.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clev
Unfortunately, they're doing the same thing to diesels they do to gasoline cars. California mandates squeakier-clean new car standards, but they completely exempt pre-1973 vehicles from any testing at all. Consequently, people legally drive old pieces of junk that emit 1,000 times more pollution than a new car.
|
Somehow I doubt very many people drive pre73 cars, likely are some but not any important #.
Anyway the way you talk. everybody who drives an old car only drives 12 banger Bentleys and 500ci Caddies or Herse's?
My 81 Comutacar is electric, the 70 Subaru gets in the 50's on a bad day in town no less. I've also been told that it passes pollution checks so long as it is allowed to get up to operating temperature first. (and doesn't have an exhaust leak)
There are economical cars from the early years kept on road just as there are gas gusslers.
Needless to say if you count ALL pollution emitted, your volume is directly related to the amount of gas you burn, you can't make up pollution out of nowhere, true a clean car emits more CO2 and less exotics but it is still emitting the same total of carbon out the tailpipe if you compare an old 50mpg car to a New one.
Also I have been told that many areas test ALL vehicles, several of the Subaru club members have been complaining about tailpipe sniffers not choosing the right test protocal for the 2cylinder subaru.
Cheers
Ryan