ABG: Top Gear -- BMW M3 vs. Toyota Prius fuel economy race track competition (video)

[instarx]

Originally Posted by fshagan

Europeans must not care about the environment; they have been using dirty diesel engines for years that can't pass the smog laws in this country, and then they lecture us about carbon emissions.

VW and BMW worked on getting diesels approved for the US, and VW is supposed to have a Rabbit/Golf to be sold her by the end of the year, but they have already pushed back the release date as they try to make it clean enough.

You are completely wrong. Almost no European diesels were imported into the US over the past decade because US diesel fuel had too high a sulfur content, which would have trashed the European cars' advanced emission systems and possibly damaged the engines themselves.

Because new EPA regulations went into effect in late 2007 that required US oil companies to switch to making only ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD), European and Japanese manufacturers can now start to import the advanced diesels they have had for years.

So it wasn't that European diesels were so dirty they couldn't meet US EPA standards, but that they couldn't do it on lousy US fuel. It is simply untrue that the Europeans have been using "dirty diesel" engines for years.

[fshagan]

Originally Posted by instarx

You are completely wrong. Almost no European diesels were imported into the US over the past decade because US diesel fuel had too high a sulfur content, which would have trashed the European cars' advanced emission systems and possibly damaged the engines themselves.

Because new EPA regulations went into effect in late 2007 that required US oil companies to switch to making only ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD), European and Japanese manufacturers can now start to import the advanced diesels they have had for years.

So it wasn't that European diesels were so dirty they couldn't meet US EPA standards, but that they couldn't do it on lousy US fuel. It is simply untrue that the Europeans have been using "dirty diesel" engines for years.

I am not "completely wrong". None of the current European diesels are "50 state diesels" because they are too dirty. They cannot pass California's stringent air quality rules that the EPA is adopting nationwide. They are all too dirty, but as I said, VW is said to be close to getting theirs certified. This Yahoo auto story - Diesel - Overview - Yahoo! Autos - says:

Currently no new diesel passenger vehicles can be sold in the five states that adhere to the more stringent California requirements: California, Massachusetts, Maine, New York and Vermont. The current diesel Liberty, Beetle, Golf and Jetta, in other words, are 45-state vehicles. The EPA, however, is tightening its diesel emissions requirements, and moving them more into alignment with the California requirements. The point at which the two map exactly for passenger cars is called Tier 2 Bin 5 (T2B5).

For a 2007 or later model year diesel passenger car to be sold in all 50 states, it must meet the T2B5 emissions requirements. Currently, there are no T2B5-compliant, 50-state diesel cars. One is on the horizon�-the new Mercedes E320 BLUETEC, to be introduced in 2007. BLUETEC refers to the emissions after treatment system that enables the vehicle to meet the T2B5 standard. The 2007 E320 BLUETEC has NOx emissions that are more than eight times lower than the outgoing 2006 E320 CDI

So far, none of the cars meet our more stringent requirements to be sold in all 50 states. The 2007 BLUETEC didn't make it yet, but the VW engine is close to being accepted (according to VW, it should show up late this year).

[instarx]

That article you quote is from 2006 and reflected the situation in 2006, not 2008. So you are in fact completely wrong. When the article was written it was true that there were no European diesels that could meet Tier 2 regs using U.S. 5 ppm LSD. The enabler of a 50-state diesel, EPA-mandated ULSD fuel, was not introduced into the US until late 2007.

But your biggest error - saying that European diesels operating in Europe (using their version of ULSD) were dirty, filthy, polluting destroyers of the planet was..., well, badly misinformed. Except for the possible exception of NOx, modern diesel engines with emission controls produce far less pollution per mile or per liter than do gas engines.

[fshagan]

Originally Posted by instarx

That article you quote is from 2006 and reflected the situation in 2006, not 2008. So you are in fact completely wrong. When the article was written it was true that there were no European diesels that could meet Tier 2 regs using U.S. 5 ppm LSD. The enabler of a 50-state diesel, EPA-mandated ULSD fuel, was not introduced into the US until late 2007.

But your biggest error - saying that European diesels operating in Europe (using their version of ULSD) were dirty, filthy, polluting destroyers of the planet was..., well, badly misinformed. Except for the possible exception of NOx, modern diesel engines with emission controls produce far less pollution per mile or per liter than do gas engines.

The article from 2006 reflects the situation in 2006 ... and today. I don't think there is a single "50 state diesel" being sold in the US as of this moment because they won't meet our more stringent air quality laws.

The VW Jetta Diesel scheduled for "early 2008" is still not ready, but they say it should be ready for Fall 2008. Mercedes "BlueTec" line, scheduled originally for 2007, is still not here, but the latest news I can find is that in March, 2008, they announced they will be able to sell their 2009 GL320 Bluetec, ML320 Bluetec and R320 Bluetec in America (see Mercedes-Benz Diesel SUVs To Be Available in All 50 U.S. States).

If you know of a European diesel passenger car that meets the California standards and can be sold here in all 50 states, please list it. An assertion that I am "completely wrong" is not a fact, it is an opinion. I have been able to provide some references for my assertion, please provide yours.

European diesels are too dirty to be sold in all 50 states in America. They may be cleaner than European gasoline cars, but they aren't cleaner than California's standard for both gas and diesel cars.

[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.

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 seem to think that MB, VW or Honda introducing diesels within a year of the introduction of ULSD is some sort of negative comment on diesels. These manufacturers can't simply flip a switch and introduce new car lines - it takes time. Within a year is ultra-fast and most likely based on marketing rather than nasty, dirty, planet-destroying diesel problems.

[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.]

[instarx]

I agree this has gotten more serious than it deserves to be, but I think you also gave diesels a bad rap that they do not deserve. Just because there is not a 50-state diesel less than a year after it even became possible does not mean that diesels are horrible, polluting engines. Of all pollutants only NOx is not far below CA emissions requirements. I don't call that a dirty, polluting engine, I call it a clean engine with an NOx problem. Unfortunatly it doesn't matter how much you reduce all the other pollutants, you still can't exceed even one.

Originally Posted by fshagan

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).

Not quite true. You can lease a brand new E320 Bluetec diesel in California right now. Check with your local MB dealer if you don't believe me.

That "filthy, polluting, planet-destroying" comment might have been construed as ironic banter if you had not paired it with "Europeans must not care about the environment; they have been using dirty diesel engines for years...".

[fshagan]

Originally Posted by instarx

Not quite true. You can lease a brand new E320 Bluetec diesel in California right now. Check with your local MB dealer if you don't believe me.

I'm not sure this is true ... the last information I saw was dated a few days ago (July 1) and said that they would be leasing them "soon", or that customers could order one "now". They have missed the intro date several times because they have trouble passing the California standards, and I suspect this is another case of that, where the press release is premature.

The latest list of acceptable cars to be sold new in California that are not filthy, polluting, planet-destroying cars is at Background Material: 2008 California Certified Vehicles, but it hasn't been updated in over a year. Maybe the planet hating evil Europeans who desecrate the environment and give us things like fascism, nazism and communism (as well as warm beer) have finally gotten one of their cars clean enough to pass our enlightened standards. They will soon if they have not so far.

Originally Posted by instarx

That "filthy, polluting, planet-destroying" comment might have been construed as ironic banter if you had not paired it with "Europeans must not care about the environment; they have been using dirty diesel engines for years...".

So "irony + irony = serious"? I hope I have enough hyperbole in the sentences above to make that equation equal out to ironic banter for you. (I am serious about the warm beer, though). Let me know what particular combination of words would do it for you and I'll try to comply.

Seriously, I do want to see diesel available here, as I think it is the best choice for long-term improvements in fuel efficiency and energy independence (barring some kind of breakthrough in battery technology that gives EVs the range and quick charging ability to pass muster with Americans). Bio-diesel can be made from non-food sources such as algae, and it can be distributed through the existing infrastructure (unlike ethanol, which is problematic in terms of pipelines and storage). Bio-diesel can also provide a "short term closed loop" carbon cycle rather than increasing the amount by releasing carbon trapped over the past few centuries.

The extra $1000 or so cost over conventional gas engines is also less than the premium for gas/electric hybrid systems, so there's only the price differential in the fuel to worry about in terms of consumer acceptance. And that objection will probably be mitigated by the higher mileage diesel vehicles generally get.

[instarx]

Originally Posted by fshagan

Maybe the planet hating evil Europeans who desecrate the environment and give us things like fascism, nazism and communism (as well as warm beer) have finally gotten one of their cars clean enough

Don't forget Democracy, the Magna Carta, and the chocolate eclair.

Originally Posted by fshagan

Bio-diesel can be made from non-food sources such as algae, and it can be distributed through the existing infrastructure (unlike ethanol, which is problematic in terms of pipelines and storage)

Algae-based diesel is not yet a reality, but it is thought it may be possible in the near future. I hope so. And biodiesel cannot be transported through petro-diesel pipelines because it would contaminate aviation fuel that travels through the same pipelines. All biodiesel currently has to be transported by tanker (ship, truck, or train). Kerosene, #1 fuel oil, #2 diesel, and Jet-A are basicaly the same thing, while biodiesel is very different.

[fshagan]

Originally Posted by instarx

Don't forget Democracy, the Magna Carta, and the chocolate eclair.

You got me on the chocolate eclair. I like Europe again now.

Originally Posted by instarx

Algae-based diesel is not yet a reality, but it is thought it may be possible in the near future. I hope so. And biodiesel cannot be transported through petro-diesel pipelines because it would contaminate aviation fuel that travels through the same pipelines. All biodiesel currently has to be transported by tanker (ship, truck, or train). Kerosene, #1 fuel oil, #2 diesel, and Jet-A are basicaly the same thing, while biodiesel is very different.

Hawai'i has a plant going into production soon (if it hasn't started up already), and Spain, I think, has a plant in production. So it is here.

I had thought ASME biodiesel was acceptable to the automakers, but evidently they won't warranty engines used with more than B5 (VW), and only a few will warranty up to B20 (20% biodiesel, accepted by Peugeot and Citroen). As far as I know, none of them accept higher blends. If biodiesel cannot be transported using the same infrastructure, that eliminates its advantage entirely.