Great, get the better fuel in place first. It can clean up the existing crop of gross polluting diesels.
It can't happen soon enough. I'm looking forward to the day when there will be no diesel buses in NYC.
----------------- Alex
Nice theory, but not true either. You have to slash-and-burn a lot of rainforest to produce enough corn to make biodiesel viable on a worldwide scale, so I'd say its a net loss :-(
Yes, they do, and always will.
They both offer a lot of SUV models with different trim, but very few unique SUV chassis, making the whole SUV line cheap and easy to build. Especially since so much of the public truly doesn't seem to realize that the H2 is just a tarted-up Yukon.
I agree, I was speaking from a North America-centric perspective.
nate
"Always" seems a bit strong. Amount of CO depends on degree of combustion. Furthermore, I am not sure how stable CO is in the presence of O2 before it oxidises to CO2. Any 'offers'?
DAS
Another US-centric view. Come on, guys, 99% of you in this NG might be in the USA and this forum focuses on cars primarily bought in the US, but some of the issues raised have a global angle and you must try to remember that there is quite a big world out there, beyond the Pacific and the Atlantic...
;-) DAS
There is? Are you sure? :-)
Matt
How so?
The claim was that Ford and GM put "all their eggs" in the SUV basket.
My point was to show that this isn't true even if you JUST look at the SUV market in the US. Worlwide, SUVs are an even *smaller* share of the market, so its even less true.
Only as strong as "never" :-)
True enough, but the very *best* internal combustion engines in the world still produce measureable CO emissions. Burners that can avoid having the flame region come into contact with cold metal that quenches the flame can approach zero CO (boiler combustors, gas turbines of certain designs, etc.) but you just can't avoid some degree of quench in a recipricating internal combustion engine, Diesel or otherwise.
Not very stable... but potentially deadly while its around. Gasoline engines with catalysts nowdays produce virtually no CO *after* the catalyst, but there's still a lot there in the exhaust stream before the catalyst.
From a US-centric perspective, it seems that the vast majority of effort goes toward SUVs and very few new car lines are introduced each year, if any. Hell, there aren't really *any* good US-made cars anymore, unless you count some of Chrysler's specialty offerings, or the Z06 'vette.
nate
On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:11:29 -0500, Steve spake thusly:
In real-estate terms, possibly. In atmospheric terms, almost a perfect circle. There will always be some losses, but the number can't be very substantial.
I probably overstated with the term "never" but I am reasonably sure that any CO emissions would be negligible. Remember how much air a diesel can gulp, almost unrestricted.
On Mon, 17 May 2004 18:05:39 -0500, Steve spake thusly:
Point taken :-)
But aren't we entering to split-hair territory with respect to todays diesels?
On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:38:53 +0100, "Dori A Schmetterling" spake thusly:
Sure. Now consider how much more air a diesel draws in relation to any given amount of fuel sent into the cylinder, compared to a gasoline engine which must maintain a precise ratio.
Wouldn't that mean that with plenty of air any carbon has a better chance of burning to completion?
Do you have the CO emission figures petrol v diesel (in a MODERN engine?
DAS
I have a 12,000 mile service interval and the petrol users have a 9,000 mile service interval. I checked that before I bought the car. Yes I use more oil in a change but I don't need new spark plugs or HT leads, no HT electrics at all in fact.
I don't dispute it.
Thats what I said.
I don't know what engine sizes you can get in the states but here the Cruiser comes as 2.0l petrol or 2.2 deisel. The torque from the deisel is far greater than from the petrol making for better pulling ability. I can accelerate from 50 mph to 70mph in 5th. The petrol driver would have to change down or wait a couple of hours to catch up.
I stated it would not contribute to global warming, it will still polute but there is no net gain to CO2 when using a biofuel. The plant absorbs C02 when it grows and this is then released as the fuel is burnt. Fossil fuels release CO2 which has been trapped in the ground for countless millenia
John
See below.
DAS
Your post looked to me like it was part of the line suggesting big commitment to SUVs. Anyway, I wasn't referring entirely to you.
DAS
On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:56:27 +0100, "Dori A Schmetterling" spake thusly:
I read the figures a while ago but the numbers [and the name of the publication] escape me. I will try searching the net.
I disagree, there have been many new or re-engineered cars introduced in the last few years, and the only SUV that's gotten a big redesign is the Durango (unless I've missed one). The Ford Focus, despite a rough start, has now got an extremely good reputation. So does the current Neon. Yeah, Chevy still cranks out craptacular Cavaliers, but that's the exception more than the rule.
In contrast, the Japanese are cranking out new-design SUVs at an appalling rate (and many of them are appalling SUVs, too- like the hideous Nissan Armada).
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.