I know this subject has been discussed here already to some degree but I
wanted to revist it. I have an 89 22RE pickup with 200k miles. It gets
about 25mpg highway without any load up here at 7000' elevation. It's not
too bad on the mountain passes but it still dogs out and I have to rev up
and shift down to 3rd gear.
I just bought a 2003 VW Jetta TDI with 30k miles. It gets 48mpg highway
without pampering. This little puppy kicks butt on the passes and doesn't
hesitate to pass even when loaded with people and stuff. Coolest car I've
Then I went to the Toyota Australia website and admired the new Hilux
(Tacoma) 3L Turbo Diesel pickups. Those lucky ducks down under! Now why is
it, again, that we aren't allowed to have the ultimate small truck with
light duty diesel here in the USA???? Can I just order one from Oz and have
it delivered here?
The way the price of gasoline (petrol for Australians) is going I
suggest that everyone convert their Toyotas to diesel as they are more:
can idle all day long
less overheat episodes
can burn bio diesel or vegetable oil (without glycerin)
Well to help everyone dismiss the myth that Toyota diesel pickups &
SUV's are rare in USA & Canada I have included below a list of very
resourcefull links that contain places to buy diesel engines/parts and
Toyota diesel engines models: 2L's, 2L-T's, 3L's and 5L 's for sale
in the greater Los Angeles area:
Engine Trend Inc
4515 S.Soto Street
Los Angeles,CA 90058
21600 Nordhoff St
Reseda Engines in Northridge
8644 Darby Ave
194 Gateway Dr
For Japanese imported diesel Toyota SUV's & pickup trucks:
These are 11 Toyota DIESEL 4-Runner/pickup sites:
Repairs tv's,vcr's,home/car audio out of my home
1985 Toyota 4-Runner,solid front straight axle,factory cruise
control,sunroof,22R-E,W56,RN60LV-MSEK,rusted rear step/towing chrome
bumper with 245 000 KM
I agree, My first vehicle was a 1981 FJ40 Diesel landcruiser (which I
never should have sold as it would likely be running fine today). And
that was the best vehicle I have ever had for reliability. Today I have
a 4X4 Tundra double cab TRD offroad. And it sure would be nice to have
had that diesel option!
My company has 12 Toyota Landcruiser Series 79 and one old series 75. In
canada they are used underground as personnel vehicles and are quite easy to
obtain for about 93K CAD. These particular models come equiped with all the
provisions for underground. Depending on how much you want to spend for
just an engine I do believe that some of my suppliers may have just that,
I'll have to get the info and post it on here tomorrow. The engine running
in those particular model are the 1HZ my master mechanic says it's the same
bolt pattern as my tacoma, i have yet to actually test that.
I'd be very interested in finding out more about getting a diesel engine in
Canada. I've been scouring the web for any resources on converting my 91
pickup from its 3VZE to a Diesel possibly the 1HZ, as with my rudimentary
research I thought it would be the most likely to fit. Please post any info
or relevant links.
This one is our number one supplier of Land Cruisers
but they are also available from these ppl:
actually buy stuff from this company too http://www.mobileparts.com /
Hope that helps
"> I'd be very interested in finding out more about getting a diesel engine
Well, there is a serious issue with crude oil-derived diesel that has long-
range impacts, namely, the substantial particulate emissions with the
numerous compounds that are deemed carcinogenic (some are mutagenic and
teratogenic, too). Breathing those particulates, namely in the so-called
PM-5 range delievers that load right down to the aveola for rapid uptake.
Because of the sheer numbers of vehicles and the substantial amount of
chemical processes that contribute to air emissions, greater control
methodologies are put into force. Pollution is, of course, inevitable but
the amount can be reduced to keep pace with the increasing number of
emitters. Overall reduction is impossible, the reality is that there is a
growing amount overall in the world everywhere.
Now in the US there is regulatory action to address particulate emissions
from diesel engines whatever their size being argued out as we speak in
rulemaking, but since air pollution respects no boundaries, it's an
integrated effort in the developed nations. Simliar regulatory actions are
being implemented in Japan and by the EU, to be implemented in tiers. That
said, expect long-term impacts, maybe something along the lines of some
kind of effluent control measures being required for the car or truck
Of course, bio-diesel including "diesel" derived from thermal decomposition
plants for the most part do not have those concerns. I know that in EPA
Region 9 substantial grants and rulemaking was put into effect to make the
transition lucrative for the large landfills to implement waste diversion
into available plant systems but alas, that effort went nowhere dealing
with the states agencies within Region 9. I ought to know, I oversaw Region
9 for 12 years.
Landfill= waste stream + heat (from methane from the thermal decompisition
plus some from the buried wastes) + electricity (from methane burned at the
co-gens) + room (landfills take up lots of room) = bio-diesel. It was a
no-brainer except that we were dealing with people and empires...
Arnolod Swarzenegger came along after my time but from what I understand,
he's gung-ho for bio-diesel and alternate fuels and technologies. I
remember the day when the head of the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
was canned. Was that great news!
Anyway, now you have some information on diesel emissions in the future to
ponder. After all, fate favors the prepared mind. Personally, I wouldn't
convert if you were in the US or Europe. Canada has a serious disconnect
in the collective mindset on the pollution that nation generates, though
there are so many issues and factors and foriegn investors that, well, it's
a mess. Australia and New Zealand, you bet convert, the population density
is so low that nature can handle and remediate the effluent. Japan, have a
diesel there and you have a huge tax and penalty yearly on the emissions.
China...just download images from NASA's Visible Earth of that country seen
through the Terra sensor onboard SeaWIFS and you'll see what gross
particulate pollution looks like, same with Mexico.
Want to know about the chemistry of what diesel is and the by-products are
and it's effect in humans and the environement in general? Just ask, my
doctorate was in atmospheric chemistry. Makes for great reading if you're
having problems getting to sleep.
Andrew, sorry for the delay, just back from a sail trip.
First, crude derived diesel contains numerous elements from the incomplete
combustion process of diesel producing a zillion variations of the
aromatics among others, a full list will be forthcoming. Bio-diesels do
not have the aromatics just from the nature of the feedstock and the
process seperation. In other words, decaying planktonic masses slow-cooked
under the specific range of heat and pressure over the several million +
years stay contained together in the same location, producing a plethora of
complex hydrocarbons complexed with other elements like sulfur, etc.
Anaerobic thermal decomposition process is too fast for the complex
hydrocarbons to form- mainly various lengthed saturated hydrocarbons
(alkanes) are formed with a low percentage of double bonds and essentialy
no triple bonds (depending on residence time, feedstock and temperature)
Second, diesel engines are big polluters just by the nature of the design.
This does not mean diesels are a poor designs, they are very good at what
industry uses them for-and that diesel is a safer fuel then gasoline, or
like our sailboat has-hydrogen. And in terms of gasoline versus crude-
derived diesel, crude-derived diesel is relatively less harmful to the
environment. But that's not the point. Of concern in the US (only) are
the PM10 and PM 5 emissions for tiered regulatory action. PM 5 means
particulates of 5 microns, likewise PM 10 is particulates of 10 microns.
Diesels spew out a huge load of these, the products of the combustion
process. Those particulates themselves are made up of numerous
hydrocarbons, some of which are strongly associated with cancer-
carcinogens, or substances known to cause mutations-mutagens. Periodically
new compounds are added to the lists. There's some debate right now about
a compound being a teratogen. Anyway, some of those compounds in the
particulates are also are persistent in the environment.
Third, those particulates are mostly coated with volatiles that have
shorter-term persistence, but are nasty. For instance, you might have read
about the poly-nuclear aromatics?
Fourth, those particulates are of the right size to deposit into the
aveolar sacs and either stay (PM10) or are exhaled (PM5 and smaller). In
all cases those particulates and the "coatings" are in contact and readily
absorbed into the bloodstream.
So, this is the issue at hand and the reason of the regulatory attention.
Granted, the US is one of the biggest generators of particulate pollution-
our coal plants in the right atmospheric conditions produce a haze that
rivals China visually from space (Look at the SeaWIFS imagery to see what
I'm referring to). Outdated plant designs and lack of government support
in providing incebntives to add pollution control systems is one reason, as
well as the limited advancement of technology, and most of all, the US is a
very big and heavily populated place unlike Canada. That said, the US is
the only nation looking at limiting particulate emissions. Japan heavily
penalizes generators so that all those low mile gas engines show up
elsewhere in the world. Diesels on the other hand are limited to trucks,
and are subject to a carbon tax. The US is wallowing about on the
direction it wants to go. Diesels as mentioned earlier are very good at
what they do, but the environmental and public health issues outweigh the
benefits-more so as the population grows and densification increases.
A word on what diesel is. When a crude oil is processed-be it an asphaltic
crude (like from Alaska, California, or Alberta to name a few areas) or a
paraffin based crude (like Libyan "honey" crude or some of Pensylvanian
crudes to cite some examples), the first major step is distillation. Crude
oil is heated to take advantage of the broad range of boiling points for
various hydrocarbon consituents. During the distillation process, crude
oil is heated to the boiling point and directed to distillation tower(s),
where the various petroleum fractions condense at different levels as their
vapors ascend thorugh the tower. For simplicity of the process
description, I'll present the products as straight-run distillates . In
reality, most petroleum distillation products require secondary refining
operations, such as cracking, alkylation, condensation, reforming and
blending. The conventional terminology, Cn, the 'n' represents the total
number of carbon atoms present in a particular hygrocarbon molecule. That
gasolines, C5-C10 (25-210 degrees C)
naphta, C8-C12, (65-210 C)
kerosene and jet fuels, C11-C13, (150-250 C)
diesels and fuel oils, C14-C18, (160-400 C)
heavy fuel oils, C19-C25, (315-540 C)
lubricating oils, C20-C45, (425-540 C)
So you can see that diesel fuel is a range of hydrocarbon molecules with
each molecule having 14 to 18 carbons. These can be single bonded to
hydrogen, or with double bonds or triple bonds. The carbon range is moslty
what's there, anything heavier doesn't burn but spew out. Likewise, the
double and triple bonded carbons in the chain burn differently dependent on
numerous factors. make that carbon molecule a ringed hydrocarbon with
sidechains and there are even more and totally different products of
combustion. More so that the air mixture is somewhat starved in combustion
is a big reason why so mucgh effluent is produced.
A little more on crude oil. Crude oil is unrefined liquid petroleum. It
ranges in gravity from 9 degrees to 55 degrees API, and in color from
yellow to black, and it may be a paraffin, asphlat or a mixed base. If a
crude oil contains a sizeable amount of sulfur or sulfur compounds, it is
called a sour crude; if it has little or no sulfur, it is a sweet crude.
Just to make sense when reading about crude oils, crudes may be referred to
as heavy or light according to ther American Petroleum Institute (API)
gravity, the LIGHTER oils having a HIGHER gravities (stressing a very
common mistake among many in the field of experts).
The big division mentioned above was that crudes were were either
asphaltics, or naphthene-based, and paraffins. Though this is useful for
the most part as a crude description of crude, it is not alltogther true.
More on that in a bit.
First, naphthene-based crude oil. It is a crude charaterized by a low API
gravity (meaning it's a heavy oil) and a low yield of lubricating oils
having a low pour-point and a low viscosity index (compared to paraffin-
based crude oils). It is often called asphaltic or asphaltบsed oil
because the residue from its distillation contains asphaltic materials but
little or no paraffin wax. Naphthene hydrocarbons can be expressed with
the general formula, CnH2n (ethylene or ethene, C2H4, etc)
Paraffin-based crude oils are characterized by a high API gravity, a high
yeld of low octane gasoline, and a high yield of lubricating oil with a
high pour-point and high viscosity index. Likewise, a paraffin based crude
contains little or no asphalt and whose residue from distillation contains
paraffin wax. Paraffin hydrocarbons are saturated with the formula CnH2n +
2 (methane, CH4, ethane, C2H6, etc). heavier paraffin hydrcarbons, those
of C18H38 and heavier, form the waxlike substance called paraffin.
Now in chemical terms, crude oils from which petroleum products are
produced are incredibly complex, composed of several thousand constituents.
However, the majority of hydrocarbon constituents can be grouped into five
basic categories: paraffins, isopraffins, aromatics, napthenes and
asphaltics. Following is an example of each:
Paraffins. An example of paraffins is hexane (C6H12) with a boiling point
of 69 degrees C.
Isoparaffins. An example of isopraffins is 2,2,4 trimethypentane (C8H18)
with a boiling point of 99 degrees C.
Napthenes. An example of napthenes is cyclohexane, a single-bonded ring of
six carbons (C6H12) with a boiling point of 80 degrees C. Another is
decalin, two six sides single-bond carbon rings (C10H18) with a boiling
point of 187 degrees C.
Aromatics. An example of aromatics is benzene, a six-carbon, alternating
single- and double-bonded carbon ring (C6H6). This is the "benzene ring"
of which thousands of complex aromatics have within their structure.
Benzene has a boiling point of 80 degrees C. Benzene is one of the first
hydrocarbons strongly associated with cancer and thusly a carcinogen. It is
also a suspected mutagen (causing mutation) and teratogen (kills the fetus
are very low levels). Another is xylene, an alternating single- and double-
bonded carbon ring with two side chains of carbon, (C8H10) with a boiling
point of 144 degrees C. Xylene is a strongly suspected carcinogen, mutagen
Asphaltics. An example of an asphaltics is carbazole, two alternating
single- and double-bonded carbon rings (benzene rings) joined on eith side
to a five-sided sible-bonded carbon ring with one carbon replaced by a
single-boned nitrogen (C12H9N)
Okay, enough of that for now...my better half wants to go to bed. More
Your wish is my command. I'll do that. Sounds good right off. I'll
describe some enforcement actions we did on my watch sometime, it's amazing
what corporations do in the name of the all-mighty buck.
hi there, Thanks very much for the in depth response. It will take me a
bit to wrap my head around it but I've read it twice now and it is comin
into focus. I'm still unclear on how Bio-D compares emmisions wise. Are
you saying it's less polluting because it lacks the aromatics/ogens like
benzene. I do not beleive it to be a viable alternative to Crude at our
current and future energy consumption levels mainly because a friend of mine
said that the entire surface of the earth would have to be devoted to
growing plants to make the oil.
One other note, did I understand you right when you said that PM5 emissions
despite being exhaled are still taken into the bloodstream?
Basically, it's like this: bio-diesel is a more intensive process that
produces a "crude" that lends itself to easier/cheaper/"cleaner" processing
to the final product. Key point is this: bio-diesel just doesn't have the
hundreds of complex hydrocarbons to start with. Crude oil is just nasty
stuff (though there are some paraffin crudes that are unbelievably sweet in
more ways then what "sweet" means in the petro biz. The best sweet
paraffins come from Libya (honey crude). BTW: If you get into following
the petro biz you'll also hear about crude oil "blends." This is a way to
up the value of a crude.
About PM5: the particulate does not enter the bloodstream, just the
soluble "load," that is, the gunk on the particulate which either absorbs,
adsorbs or causes some biochemical interaction. Entering the bloodstream
isn't the only effect. For PM10, this tend to remain in the aveolar sac
causing effects from both the mechanical contact and the slower interaction
of the particulate's chemnical make-up to the lung tissue. PM5 tends to
come and go, though with hydrocarbon particulates, the evidence is that
these actually remain behind, too. Again, the products of combustion are
Before I forget, refining crude into diesel is at best, crude. To subject
the crude to the processes needed to refine to a higher degree of "purity"
(a term I use very loosely), requires a huge investment of money. For
instance, just distilling to a range of carbon with contaminants would
require construction of huge distillation columns where a more precise
fraction is possible. Then there's the numerous additional processes
required. There's just a limited amount of refinery space and process time
with making a gallon cost something so high as to kill the market. As an
analogy. It's cheaper to make steel from steel scrap then from iron ore.
So the same is true in refining a specific target carbon fraction from a
feedstock that limits the possible hydrocarbons to around 110-140 possile
chemicals versus the thousands from a napthene based crude. Refiners make
"diesel" which is really a carbon fraction with a specific carbon "weight"
and flashpoint, not from what is actually in it. In fact, "disel" varies
from batch to batch, and fron the crude in which it is derived from, and
from the process time.
I hope I'm not sounding negative aboput petrochemistry, I confess I have a
deep and passionate interest in the whole affair. Environmentally, we must
do something about global warming or it will do something to us as entities
on the closed environment that this planet is. But I don't see this as
anywhere the threat as human population is truly is. That said, the oil is
still there and is mightily useful for a myriad of products. Geologically,
vast hydrocarbon emissions have occurred in the past that have tremendously
affected lifeforms, from methane hydrates that have released from intense
subsea volcanism and bolide impacts, to the huge release of natural gas
from the "redrocks" within the US. Why not capture it and use it? While
I'm at it, I should also say I consult for BP from time to time and have
consulted for ExxonMobil. I have an interest is decarbonizing natural gas,
reinjecting the carbon into formation for storage.
Remind me to chat about our solar and fuel celled boat and electric home
1 of the Masses wrote:
Canada has a serious disconnect
I am curious about what you mean here. Are you referring to Canada's
commitment to decrease greenhouse gas, through targeted reductions in
emissions; as evidenced by being a signing member of the Kyoto
agreement? (which was notably not signed by the USA) Or are you
suggesting that since we are one of the larger net producers of oil and
gas in the world that we are somehow collectively environmentally
challenged? Or what?
I read some where that even though gasoline engines produce fewer
particulates than diesels they produce more in the way of Nox and other
smog forming compounds than diesel.
Further I was recently reading re. the manufacture of biodiesel and
wondering why more people don't do it?
What we really need is to get third-world nations to sign and follow the
Kyoto treaty. It's my understanding that when, say, Mexico produces
rampant pollution, and Canada and the United States reduce their
pollution, those pesky air currents carry the Mexican pollution over
Watch the count up:
I remember a joke about a fellow asks the difference between one million
and one billion. His friend told him that if he gave him a million
dollars, and the guy spent $3,000 a day, he'd be back in less than a
year. But if he gave him a billion dollars, he wouldn't be back for
almost 1,000 years... :>))
"I'll take 'Money that starts with a B', Art!"
Well, about Kyoto. First, I was in a senior position in EPA for 12 years
and was canned by George W. Bush, so I have no political affiliation with
the current administration. I'm just one of the masses so to speak now.
That said, I spoke in defense of the US's resolve to not honor the Kyoto
agreements for several reasons, mostly in light of recent discoveries as to
what the threats are to the atmosphere. During the rulemaking, carbon
dioxide was the big culprit and the West the big baddie. Granted, it is
indeed a serious issue with fundamental impacts to everything in the
biosphere yet the Third World remained blameless to the disasters they were
making. The US was right to walk out on the talks.
Methane emissions and the effects on the atmosphere and the ozone is far
more threatening then carbon dioxide production, all things being equal.
Methane is 0,76 the density of air at standard temperature and pressure
(STP). This means it rises in the air column. A fraction of that total
amount is oxidized via several pathways however the majority rises into the
upper atmosphere where several fundamental impacts occur:
1. methane reacts with ozone-a highly reactive oxidizer- to create water
vapor and carbon dioxide (both directly and indirectly via carbon monoxide
as a intermediate step). In other words, methane is delievered to the upper
atmosphere to cause numerous impacts.
2. methane is 25 times more effective as a greenhouse gas then carbon
3. water vapor is 6 times more effective as a greenhouse gas then carbon
4. water vapor isn't found in the upper atmosphere, meaning the stratosphec
and troposphe, normally except for large volcanic eruptions, nuclear weapon
detonation, and chance atmospheric conditions that lofts water vapor up
into the upper atmosphere. Jet transport was thought to be the primary
pathway for increased water vapor in the stratosphere until several recent
satellite programs found the culprit. The first sensor was part of my
doctoral thesis in 2000.
5. The water vapor in the upper atmosphere is broken down slowly by UV into
hydrogen which appears to leak away to space and oxygen O2. O2 is
transparent to UV.
6. modeling the generation rate of ozone from oxygen in lab conditions on
Earth reveals a very slow process to regenerate ozone, somewhere in the
order of 8-10,000 years. As I understand it, it's an evolving niche in the
world of atmospheric chemistry. More work is needed to answer the many
7. the culprit of all the methane production comes from rice production,
overwhelmingly from the Third World nations. Contrary to everything heard,
domestic cattle do not produce worldwide more then 3-6% though actual
quantification is ongoing using population counts and sampling in regions
8. estuaries at one time before human destruction was responsible for
somewhere around an estimated 15-20% though, of course, actual amounts are
impossible to determine now since they are gone.
9. overall methane levels in the lower atmosphere has increased to 1-3 ppm
in many areas of the world around or downwind of rice growing areas.
In the developed countries methane's effects was generally understood by
the early Nineties, at least for the most part. For instance, methane
emissions are controlled at sewage treatment facilities, or public owned
treatment works-POTWs-to use the regulatory lingo. Municipal landfills
have gas extraction systems in place to extract and burn the methane-in
large landfills, to generate electricity. Of course, everyone drives
interanl combustion vehicles around which geenrate phenomenal amounts of
carbon dioxide and significant portion of the carbon monoxide. However,
emission control systems are constantly evolving and effectively reducing
CO2 and CO, as well as cooling down combustion temperatures to limit NOX.
However, and this is exceedingly important for everyone to understand,
carbon dioxide emissions at the Earth's surface does not rise into the
upper atmosphere for the most part! Carbon dioxide is a heavy molecule,
and sinks to low areas in the air column. Again, that carbon dioxide is
far more effective as a greenhouse gas in the upper strata of the
atmosphere! This is the fundamental point of the US walking out on Kyoto.
Since the recent earth monitoring sensors have been lofted to analyze
emissions in defense of the US stand another ozone depletion pathway was
discovered. In fact, this country rivals the rice producing nations
collectively for ozone depletion: Brazil. It seems that slash-and-burn
practiced at the enormous levels in that country creates such a plume that
upper atmosphere injection of particulates and gasses converts ozone to
oxygen, water vapor and carbon dioxide. Thge process pathway is still
poorly understood, having been quantified earlier his year.
About NOX. Actually, poorly maintained cars and older cars are big
generators of NOX. NOX is created by the burning of nitrogen which is 78%
of the Earth's atmosphere, mostly by combustion temperatures above 1870
degrees F. This has been a debate in the US, since this country
manufactures (meaning owning the companies that builds cars and trucks) and
uses most of the cars out there. The US is a big country with a big
population that is growing rapidly. So, of course, the EPA has been
wrapped around the idea of what to do about older cars and trucks, pursuant
to the Clean Air Act. To be clear on this, a few dirty cars in a small
area is less an impact it seems then a lot of moderately dirty cars in a
huge area. Hence, this regulatory push and incentives to the Big Three.
One side it's unfair to competition and other tax payers, but on the other
hand the sales of new cars with new and better emission control devices
continues to reduce ooverall air emissions. Now the problem is that all
those older cars are still on the road, and far, far worse, ending up in
third world countries.
On of the aims of NAFTA was that Mexico would benefit from industry and
commerce shifting to Mexico if that country, and Central and South America
acively stops the flow of immigrants into the north, and to get busy on
environmental protection. Well, Mexico violated the first condition while
the ink was still wet. Part two was the continuing degradation of the
environment; to the remaining estuaries, to marine mammal protection,
protecting ceratin fisheries, to sewage outfalls and most telling of all in
the world environment, air pollution. Back to NAFTA, recently Vincente
Fox violated the terms of NAFTA again with the recent decision to allow and
register cars and trucks from the US and elsewhere that were illegal or in
bad running order. The terms of NAFTA specified that emissions control
systems must be funtioning, and cars before a certain age not allowed in.
So all those wrecks that were expected to be recycled in the US now look to
be the new transportation source in Mexico. The US governemnt has declined
to act on this. That is a very big mistake with long term consequences,
both legally (the Environmental Justices Act) and environmentally, in that
one, single badly running car produces more pollutants then AT LEAST
several hundred well-operating cars. The actual number vary, the latest
California Emissions requirements might make that ratio twice as high.
Now is there NOX emissions in diesel engines? Yes, there is, depending on
several factors. What makes diesels bad is that aside from the
particulates, there's the carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide emissions, and
NOX. The problem is that the emission control devices on gasoline engines
cannot work well or for long for diesel engines. Hence the discussion in
the US on tiered enforcement to phase out diesels in cars and light trucks
within the next decade or so. I worry how that might roll up the trucking
and shipping industry, power plants, etc. Anyway, in California several
air basins (San Diego, Los Angeles-Ventura, Santa Barbara, Riverside-San
Bernardino, and the Central Valley are all impacted by vehicle emissions
(LA-Ventura and the Central Valley by particulates, too) and the State of
California might once again lead the nation by enacting tougher standards.
The real issue is population. Everyone wants a pice and it all affects the
environment. It's like when we were kids running down a steep hill, if you
stop you'll fall and tumble, so we run even faster to stay upright, knowing
full well that at the bottom of the hill we'll crash and it will really
You linked to a site referring to Kyoto. I know of that reference from
reading over the years the rebound for and against.
Anyway, another point o be made is the confounding effects of poor
countries. For instance, landfills in the west, specifically in the
developed nations do not emit methane. Dumps in Third World countries are
real belchers. The other sources of methane, natural emissions from
underlying oil, gas and coal fields is surprisingly low. There's something
very positive to be said about oil and gas extraction. Wild ruminants in
Africa-wildebeest, zebra, giraffe, etc., emit little methane-mostly carbon
I referred to an issue with Canada about coal plant emissions. For some
strange reason, the Canadian government denies Canadian emissions on talks
with the US about reducing stack emissions. Mining practices are pretty
bad still. You'd think the Candians would learn from the huge disasters
made by the US and other nations. I don't get that denial thing...it's too
much like the US! Of course, I truly cannot understand why the other EPA
region heads don;t get active to reduce stack emissions pursuant to the
Clean Air Act and other enabling bodies of law. I would think that action
speaks louder then words, and the effects to Canadian water bodies and air
quality is very clear.
Anyway, it's down to the boat to plan on where the back-up fuel cell goes.
More later on the diesel / bio-diesel.
Thanks 1 for the very informative posts on this diesel thread. One question
that would arise when considering the restriction of small diesel vehicles
on roadways is how is it that German automakers (Mercedes & VW) seem to sell
many diesel cars here in USA? It's just hard to imagine that small 2 litre
turbo diesels would cause much of a problem for the regulatory aspect when I
look around me on these southwest colorado roads and see so many 3/4 and 1
ton pickups that say cummins, power-stroke, or dura-max. Why are the Big 3
allowed to put so many of these mid size diesels on the road? There's got
to be some twist.
True, but the reg's are getting tighter. I think a lot of these trucks are
being fitted with cats (for one of several type controls) now due to this.
Also, many of the diesel engine manufactures for the Class 5 and up are
having to meet tighter emissions reg's.
I'm not completely informed on these any more but the last I read some are
meeting emissions without using cats and making more power too.
I'm like Chuck and wonder how VW and especially Mercedes who's been selling
diesel passenger vehicles in the U.S. for quite a few years make emissions
reg's. GM built a diesel for several years as well in passenger vehicles. It
was a 350 C.I. gas engine converted to diesel, it had good performance and
fuel savings but reliability was bad. There have been others as well I'd
guess but gas was cheap then so people wouldn't tolerate the noise and etc.
I'm sure with the cost of fuel now it would be different.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.