Why you can't buy a high mpg car....

[suspectnumber961]

U.S. Government blocks sales of fuel-efficient cars


Have you ever heard of a little German car company called Volkswagon (VW)? Well, what you probably didn't know is that VW makes a car called the Passat Bluemotion 1.6 TDI, and - according to published specs and eyewitness accounts - the vehicle is capable of getting 72-78 miles per gallon under normal load and driving conditions. While the car's engine lacks significant punch, says a review in Autocar magazine, it is certainly economical.

But you can't get one in the U.S. You can, however, get one in Europe.

"How about a projected 915-mile range after a fill up? Or a claimed 71.8mpg at the end of a 36-mile motorway and urban commute? Most impressively, a genuine 58mpg on a drive from southwest London to Sheffield without even trying, with the gauge still reading well over half full with 440 miles' worth of diesel left in the tank at the end of the 406-mile round trip," says the review. "And our car only had 2,000 miles showing on its odometer. There are without doubt even more impressive figures to come once the engine has more miles under its belt."

High-mileage cars you can't get in the U.S.

In an online video, an unidentified American male who labeled himself as "Brian" says he recently returned from a trip to the UK and drove a Passat Bluemotion, confirming the amazing mileage statistics.

Worse, Brian says he called a local VW dealer to inquire about the car and its incredible mileage. He says he was told by the dealer that indeed, the car does get that kind of mileage and that, amazingly, it is even built here at a plant in the U.S., but the government won't let it be sold in the U.S. Those vehicles, Brian says he was told, are shipped to South America and other places - despite the current administration's push for more fuel efficiency for American cars and cars that are allowed to be sold in the country.

One reason the hyper-mileage Passat and other similar fuel-sipping models made by other automobile manufacturers, including Ford, Brian said, is because the emissions standards on those vehicles are not as high as is required for cars sold in the U.S. He says he was told by the VW dealer that high-fuel efficiency motors emit 10 percent more pollutants per gallon of fuel than do U.S.-based cars.

"When you work it out, though, it gets twice as good fuel efficiency, so you actually get less pollutants in the air," even though emissions are 10 percent worse, the man said.

* and this doesn't include the reduced (by 1/2?) amount of pollutants released getting the fuel out of the ground...transported...refined...and to the pump for sale.....

[UltArc]

I'm not a scientist, but could the use be calculating emissions by time? True, each car driving one mile, the VW wins over most things. But if each car ran for 10 minutes, does the VW give off 10% more that way?

FYI, I didn't read the link yet, though I adore the dynasty that is VW.

INSERT AFTER READING LINK: Conspiracy theory. I've never seen a federal road. Only state, and couny roads. Which are maintained by the state. Now, the federal government will impose rules on the states to give them funding, and pressure them to listen to the feds. As in, make all highway speed limits 60, or no money this until you do!

Okay. I get that. But when was the last time the government was forcing us to take money? They don't need that. They could collect a tax at the environmental check stations, over how many miles you went. When you get new tags, have to. So on.

For the advances we have, and the common knowledge we have of other areas in the world market, I doubt it os a conspiracy. And has the conversion between imperial been done to ours been done? That wil about even it out for you.

At least from my seat, the government knows how to get our money. If they could get us to all buy new cars, pr whatever, they would. Seems up and up to me.

Second edit: I ran some rough numbers between US and Imperial, between the UK VW and the US VW, and this article is way off lol

Clearly they do not knw there is a difference in the fuel. Numbers come pretty close, but other factors need to be applied. The reason we don't have it, is because the 1.6 is weak by European standards. An average US consumer would hate it. And the 10% worse emmissions is not made up by the fuel economy.

Sorry to bust your bubble mate.

[California98Civic]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

"When you work it out, though, it gets twice as good fuel efficiency, so you actually get less pollutants in the air," even though emissions are 10 percent worse, the man said.

* and this doesn't include the reduced (by 1/2?) amount of pollutants released getting the fuel out of the ground...transported...refined...and to the pump for sale.....

It would be nice to have these cars here, but I'm opposed to reducing emissions standards across the board to do it. If our law could be amended with a formula to allow diesel models of, for example, the Passat, that meet or beat the emissions of the gasoline Passat through higher mpg to offset higher emissions, then I'd snap-up one of these for my next car.

But doesn't the political analysis of the piece seem really weak? It's really simplistically focused on the current president without any attention to the historical context in terms of politics or transportation infrastructure in the USA. We're not Europe, and our emissions standards were set for our configuration of transportation dependencies, development, and geography.

[Flakbadger]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

the vehicle is capable of getting 72-78 miles per gallon under normal load and driving conditions.

Normal driving conditions for Europe. As I recall, when they drove this car on Top Gear, they had to keep the speed below 50 MPH (Somewhere around 45) to break 70 MPG.
That's not to say this car isn't incredible, because it is, and I would buy one in a heartbeat if it were offered here, but just something I remembered.

Thanks for the link.

[euromodder]

I live in Belgium, and this is diesel-territory with the majority of new cars being diesels.


The MPG numbers of the current crop of efficient diesels may seem wildly attractive, there are also serious downsides.

One is cost - both purchase and maintenance.

Another is complexity, and it's directly related to cost.
These are no longer DIY engines once you get beyond swapping fluids and filters.
We're up to the point that the dealers themselves can't fix the issues with the cars' emission treatments systems anymore.

Next up, the emissions themselves.
NOx is a serious issue.
So far, diesels still score far worse on NOx than petrol engines.
Soot particles, the next serious issue.
We got diesel particulate filters (DPF) to cure that, right ?
Wrong.
Current research points out that the current soot filters are actually making things worse.
While you won't see any black smoke out the tailpipe, and the problem seems to have gone, it has actually become worse as the regeneration process doesn't obliterate the soot-particles stuck in the DPF. It makes them smaller, invisible to the human eye, and also invisible to the testing equipment used for the tests.
Using more sensitive equipment shows the problem isn't gone, only reduced in particulate size.
These small particles go even deeper into everyone's lungs .


Diesel, I'm afraid, is not the magical solution.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Flakbadger

Normal driving conditions for Europe.

The longer average distances in the wide open US are actually more favorable to diesels than the crowded European situation.

Matching the NEDC fuel consumption numbers in the real world with a diesel, is already a bit of a challenge.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by UltArc

Second edit: I ran some rough numbers between US and Imperial, between the UK VW and the US VW, and this article is way off lol

The MPGs quoted are Imperial gallons /mile.

Spritmonitor.de has actual fuel consumption numbers for the 1.6 TDi Passat .

The reason we don't have it, is because the 1.6 is weak by European standards. An average US consumer would hate it.

This is the likely reason you don't get the 1.6L TDi Blue Motion in the States that do allow the 2.0L TDi on their roads.
The average US motorists' perception, and VW's fears that it won't sell because of that.

There's no environmental reason why you could get the 2.0L TDi but not the 1.6L TDi - they both meet the same emissions standards.


It's just a sensible car, with sensible power for its size and weight.
Gets you from A to B.

[metromizer]

A wise man once said "If a story doesn't make sense, follow the money..."

In the state of California, I pay about 50cents/gallon in taxes to my local, state, and federal governments. <http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/gasswapfaq.htm#2>

Why would any of these tax collecting entities want me to purchase a fuel-sipper?

If the end game was solely to clean up our air, the Federal and State regulatory agencies would use total emissions per mile driven as the metric, instead of emissions per gallon burned. I contend that this is no 'test protocol oversight'.

[F8L]

eromodder just beat me to it but I was going to comment on the often confusing Imperial gallons vs. U.S. gallons. Keep in mind that the car mentioned in this article is rated at 69mpg Imperial and the 2012 Toyota Prius Liftback is rated at 72.4mpg Imperial....

We have to be very careful about throwing around numbers without clarification.

[SoobieOut]

Originally Posted by euromodder

I live in Belgium, and this is diesel-territory with the majority of new cars being diesels.


The MPG numbers of the current crop of efficient diesels may seem wildly attractive, there are also serious downsides.

One is cost - both purchase and maintenance.

Another is complexity, and it's directly related to cost.
These are no longer DIY engines once you get beyond swapping fluids and filters.
We're up to the point that the dealers themselves can't fix the issues with the cars' emission treatments systems anymore.

Next up, the emissions themselves.
NOx is a serious issue.
So far, diesels still score far worse on NOx than petrol engines.
Soot particles, the next serious issue.
We got diesel particulate filters (DPF) to cure that, right ?
Wrong. Current research points out that the current soot filters are actually making things worse.
While you won't see any black smoke out the tailpipe, and the problem seems to have gone, it has actually become worse as the regeneration process doesn't obliterate the soot-particles stuck in the DPF. It makes them smaller, invisible to the human eye, and also invisible to the testing equipment used for the tests.
Using more sensitive equipment shows the problem isn't gone, only reduced in particulate size.
These small particles go even deeper into everyone's lungs .


Diesel, I'm afraid, is not the magical solution.

I saw in the news that the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified diesel engine exhaust as carcinogenic to humans and could cause lung cancer.

WHO declares diesel a carcinogen - South Africa | Moneyweb

This will really put a damper on the diesel automobile, i think there is no alternative to heavy load trucks right now, but with Hybrids, Electric and CNG there are alternatives to diesel cars.

This will be another hit to the Euro economy if they ban diesel autos.