[fshagan]

Originally Posted by instarx

You've modified your argument to be whether or not there is currently a 50-state diesel available, and that is not the issue.

The issue is your original outlandish contention that diesels are "dirty, polluting, filthy, planet-destroying monsters". Diesels produce far lower amounts of all regulated emissions (except NOx) than do gas engines. How that translates into "planet-destroying" I can't figure out. For example, diesels produce so little CO that it is impossible to asphixiate yourself in an enclosed garage by running a diesel engine - it simply won't produce enough CO to kill anyone.

No, you've modified what I've said to support your outlandish argument:

I can buy a Prius and get 54 mpg; I can't buy any of the diesels that get that high simply because they are dirty, filthy, polluting destroyers of the planet (or something like that; I'll have to ask our Governator). Top Gear's audience does have a choice, so the trashing of the Prius can be seen as entertaining at least. For those in the US, its a non-sequitar ... equal to saying "Why diet when you can go to the moon and be 1/6th the weight" when you really CAN'T go to the moon!

Notice the parenthetical portion ... "(or something like that, I'll have to ask my Governator)." I'll bet most people took that statement in the same light as most of the statements in this thread ... light hearted banter. And besides that, it isn't even my main point ... which is that choosing a diesel over a Prius isn't even an option for me because my state has determined they are too dirty.

Originally Posted by instarx

I'm going to say this one more time so maybe you will hear it - it has been impossible to introduce a 50-state diesel until 2008 because ULSD was not available as a fuel until late 2007. The responsibility for that lies not with the engine designs or the car companies, or with diesels per se, but with the oil companies that were providing US consumers with the equivalent of third-world diesel fuel until required to change by the EPA.

You can say it all you want, but it is only partially true. The European car manufacturers have been struggling to produce a diesel engine that meets our air quality rules. In order to do so, even with the new low sulfur fuel, they have had to re-engineer their engines and include other emissions controls not found on the European models. VW has failed the California tests a few times, but say they finally have an engine tweaked enough to meet the standard. The low sulfur fuel is only one part of the equation:

The low-sulfur fuel, hailed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a historic advance, has opened the door to sophisticated emissions controls that let diesel engines meet the strict pollution standards of California. Those rules, the world's most stringent by far, require 2009-model diesels to be as green as gasoline or even hybrid models.

From Diesel cars, now sporting both clean technology and fuel savings, are ready for U.S. rollout - International Herald Tribune

But the same article cites the following:

The greening of diesel involves the new ultra-low-sulfur fuel, cleaner-burning engines and a suite of emissions equipment. Filters trap sooty particulates while catalysts use ammonia to convert nitrogen oxides into harmless nitrogen and water in the exhaust.

"There's a little chemical processing plant in there, and some pretty amazing chemistry," said Thomas Hinman, vice president for diesel technologies at Corning, a leading supplier of cellular ceramic filters for diesel engines.

You can not import any new European diesel car into California and register it (cars with over a certain mileage are exempt from the "must be clean" import rules). They must be able to meet our more stringent rules because they are, indeed, dirty, polluting, filthy, planet-destroying monsters (or something like that).

[Note: the preceding statement requires a bit of a sense of humor to be able to recognize hyperbole and irony.]