In news: snipped-for-privacy@enews3.newsguy.com, Dan O'Connor being of bellicose mind posted:
But let us not forget the AlGore/Oxydental PETROLEUM connection as but one example of Dems being in a petroleum pocket. LOL. Of course we shouldn't mention WHO is in the hip pocket of the TRIAL LAWYERS. ;-)
Governorship not withstanding, the rest of CA legislature is solidly socialist. Big Petrol contributes to whomever promises the biggest bang for the buck. If CARB new standards get pushed back.... that would be okay with me especially as an economic stimulus.
For most of the USA it is a good bet that it will increase significantly as crude oil becomes a premium product and efficiency becomes somewhat important to you. The good news is that modern diesels are sporty, torquey, economical, clean, refined and somewhat superior to a raft of petrol engines. You may bury your head in the sand, somewhat like an Ostrich, but it is inevitable. The big US manufacturers are investing huge amounts of money in diesel technology, far in excess of hybrid technology, though the best results will likely be achieved by hybrid diesels or CNG in intensive urban environments.
Not to mention highly toxic and polluting MTBE [methyl tertiary butyl ether] and well known carcinogen, Benzene. The pollutants in modern low NOx and particulate diesels running ultra low sulphur diesel almost pales into insignificance in comparison. The exhaust from these diesel engines is almost odourless, as you know.
It is estimated that two million out of six million fuel station tanks in the US leak petrol into the ground. 1500 public American water supplies are polluted with MTBE and Benzene. It will cost at least $141 billion Dollars to clean up. Normally the polluter would pay but even considering the clean alternative to MTBE, which was available from the beginning, Big Oil has exerted pressure on the powers that be and 'persuaded' [is that the same as 'bribed'?] them that the American taxpayer should pay for their mess.
All this sound so familiar to those who knew about the lead scandal and how unnecessary, indeed criminal, was its inclusion combined with the brainwashing of citizens to accept, even demand, its continued and totally unnecessary use.
In news:bq9chi$fte$ snipped-for-privacy@bolt.sonic.net, Timothy J. Lee being of bellicose mind posted:
Depends on where you take your exhaust sample. If taken at the tail pipe .... gasoline way cleaner. Taken ahead of the catalyst, there is room for some discussion but gasoline still has the edge.
In news:3fca7bbb snipped-for-privacy@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com, Huw being of bellicose mind posted:
Those are fuel related .... not inherent to spark ignition engines. How does modern diesel exhaust (ahead of any scrubber or catalyst) compare to a spark ignition engine on CNG?
Sadly.... We the Governed in California trusted the oxygenate decision up to the Unqualifed Elected ... same people who got us into the electricity mess.
Neither of those pollutants are present to any measurable extent in diesel fuel. Of course they are fuel related LOL. We are talking about the pollution of two fuels. Why would you or anyone be concerned with gas content before the exhaust exit any more than they would care about the same in a petrol engine?
scandal
You can make light of it if you like but you know that I am correct in the content of my post.
Total pollution is worst from petrol. Especially when considered over the longer term because diesel exhaust emission remains steady over a sustained period whereas petrol engine emissions deteriorate steadily over a lifetime. Also I believe you are still comparing your dirty old fuel with petrol whereas I am comparing modern engines with clean fuel which your country apparently cannot produce yet ROTFLMAO. I believe that BO has pulled the wool over your eyes yet again on this one, don't you think?
In news:3fca9186 snipped-for-privacy@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com, Huw being of bellicose mind posted:
MTBE and benzene are used as oxgenates. California is quickly phasing out both in favor of .... who knows what, for sure.
CARB cares as part of their certification for new vehicle sales in California. The EPA also cares what happens in the event of catalyst removal by the owner or catalyst failure. This happens with cars like Honda Civics (kids!). The OBD-II emissions control systems in our 1995+ cars have an O2 sensor before the catalyst and an Air/fuel sensor after the catalyst which .... when a threshold level of catalyst performance deterioration occurs, will kick on the MIL. In California, when the MIL is ON, you FAIL your biannual smog test on the spot and are prevented from renewing your vehicle registration until the problem is corrected. But you can drive around with only one working brake light, a cracked windshield, nearly bald tires, no wiper blades, and a big dent in your quarter panel where the gas door is. (Arghh)
Maybe MB's, but not BMW's and others'. This is more of an exception that confirms the generalization I made.
JUST 202Kg for a 2.7 V6???
As I said, DIRECT-INJECTION gas engines, which there are only a few examples of.
It really lingered at about 15 to 20% until the very late '90s, when it sky rocketed to the current 50% and more in the next few years. Considering how fast it's popularity grew, a text-book fad, just like SUVs in the US and to a lesser extent in Europe as well.
This is wishful thinking. Just look at the sales of the Diesel Beetle and Jetta relative to their gas counter-parts in the US and you'll understand that it's nothing but a niche that has no future. FYI, the best selling VW in the US is the V6 Jetta...
The only market in which Diesel is expected to grow in popularity is in full-size pick-ups and SUVs, which are often used for towing.
Will it? Is that so certain the same has been said 30 years ago and nothing like such has materialized?
Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Here you display your ignorance. GM alone is investing over $1 billion in hybrids, and zilch in Diesels, except to keep Opel and Saab running, but with no plans for Diesel engines for the US car market...
petrol 221lbsft@ 3500erpm diesel a massive 369@ 2000
petrol 0/60 6.9sec diesel 7.1sec.
petrol max 155mph diesel 152mph
30 to 70mph figures in gear not known but experience indicates that the diesels mid range torque will actually convert to a significant advantage in its favour.
Petrol 29.7mpUKg diesel 41mpUKgallon combined average consumption. Both absolutely refined driving experience.
Just driven the new 530D SE today. Super car with vast performance. Not sure about the I-Drive, but the new park sensors with dash display is novel.
Gas engines not so much more of these pollutants than Diesel engines as these do others more concerning pollutants as irritant NOx and carcinogenic particulates, which are particularly more intense closer to the ground than CO and HC.
No wonder many European cities ban cars circulation in one way or another...
BMW do not make commercial vehicles but their engines are used in heavy duty applications such as Range Rover.
and others'. This is more of an exception
All PSA advanced diesels, Fiat, Nissan, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Renaut, VW and other manufacturers engines are used in commercial vehicles. BMW is fairly unique AFAIK.
Again I have to ask why your experience appears so limited?
system
Yes, that is exceptionally light for a cast iron block engine and comporable with most alloy engines.
because I
Again I have to point out that there are neumorous examples of direct injection petrol engines now on the market. An example is the Audi 2.0FSI with 35mpg average. The 130 TDi exceeds
50mpg. Both are 130hp engines. Maybe you have a better example LOL?
At which point does a fad turn into a trend?
Beetle
Arab fuel is cheap in the US so of course the V6 will sell well because fuel is a low factor in the total running cost. Your fuel is also inexcuseably dirty which produces dirty diesel exhausts and prevents the very latest engines being marketed to advantage. There is also very little choice yet in the US which stifles growth. It is well known that the fuel is kept dirty so that US manufacturers are not swamped with advanced imports of economical engines which would effect both domestic vehicle manufacturers volume and credibility while lowering overall fuel consumption, out of which Big Oil takes a percentage. It just wouldn't do, would it?
This is NOT gas, it's an additive that the environmentalists pushed for and now backfires. So much for good intentions... :-P
Maybe, but even ultra-low S Diesel emits more NOx and particulates than gas engines.
And if they carried Diesel, how would it be different? What does Diesel or gas have to do with it?
When the government mandates MTBE, why should those who followed the law be sued?
You mean the lead that was used in gas since the early 20s all over the world and which was phased out in the early 70s in the US and only in the early 90s in Europe?
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.