It would seem that if these states (CA, ME, and all the others with a similar set of laws) wanted to really address the issue of diesels and pollution they would have been more pro-active in development of better fuels or use of low sulfer fuels. Instead they ban some of the most fuel efficient cars on the road while allowing the huge numbers of trucks and buses to pollute away using fuel that is decades behind in quality of fuels used in Europe.
Are they also going to ban ALL vehicles that are diesel based? Big trucks, buses, etc. Are they going to police their own bi-state buses that run on diesel? Hmmm.
Did the Portland Oregon city council move to Portland Maine? That, or the same type of nitwits infest both states. I'd like to know how a diesel vehicle with 7500 miles pollutes less than a new one. Of course, I'm sure their soot belching city buses that they love so dearly will be exempt.
I want to know how a little 4 cylinder diesel, with all that technical wizardy VW put into emissions control systems puts out more emissions then big brutish V8s in those American SUVs, which are legal in Cali/Maine..... Not to mention how on earth those V12 Ferrari's and Lambo's that movie stars in California drive, meet the state laws....
I mean the engine burns less fuel... how could it push out more emissions then something drinking 3-4 times more fuel? Or is it JUST particulate emissions they worry about? If that is the case, they should be the first states implementing mandatory cleaner burning fuels... Diesel, and Gasoline.... Hell, they should have pushed for it years ago.
Exactly. The only reason US diesels pollute as much as they do is because of the poor quality of fuel available. In Europe the fuel is much better and diesels are very clean engines. If Maine really wants to do something they should stop listening to the big truck lobby's and their money and regulate the fuel.
Very good point. I suspect that if there is such a law it is going to be declared invalid for that very reason. You know they are not going to go after the trucking industry and all the money they put into political campaigns.
They are not banning diesels, they are just holding them to stricter emissions standards. Currently the VW diesel engines do not meet those standards. For passenger cars and light trucks the standards for diesel powered vehicles is now the same as for gasoline powered vehicles.
They don't. The stricter emissions standards apply to new cars only. You can still buy, sell and drive used diesel vehicles all you want. A car with less than 7500 miles on it is considered new for emission purposes.
Absolutely. The stricter standards apply to passenger cars and light trucks, not huge commercial vehicles.
The big problem is not light trucks and passenger cars, it's large trucks and heavy vehicles. Think the Ford F-250 Super Duty and *larger*. Sadly, those are the vehicles that seem to keep getting passed up when stricter legislation arrives. I'm not an expert, but I don't think that the TDi is really that big an offender emmissions wise. I know that California was/is going to enact some kind of new legislation regarding diesel products, but it's been a year or more since I took any interest in tracking down a TDi at my local dealer here in the Los Angeles area. Although, my dealer did say that more likely than not, the V10 Diesel variant of the Toureag would not pass emissions standards for sale in the state of California. I wonder, if I drive into Nevada and buy one, can I register it here?
Those Ferraris and Lamborghinis do comply with emissions standards for passenger cars, and I'd love to have one!
The limits for CO, HC and NOx are as a percentage of total emissions (which is mostly water and carbon dioxide), so if you use more fuel you get to spew out more pollutants. Manufacturers have to meet Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, though. Just too bad that monster SUVs and trucks are not counted when calculating CAFE. If you and 4 friends buy a Golf to commute to work in, that Golf does count for CAFE, if I decide to get a Chevy Suburban to drive to work with, only accompanied by my leather briefcase, that vehicle does not count.
California does have stricter standards for diesel fuels than most other states. Current standards took effect in 1993, and I am sure there is plenty of room for improvement.
Agreed. It used to be even worse. Minivans designed and built to haul families with kids are classified as trucks and used to not have to meet the same safety standards as passengers cars. That said, even though large trucks have more permissive emissions standards than passenger cars, the standards for those large trucks have also been tightened over the years. One of the issues is that there is a legitimate need for things like an F250 and it will pollute more than a VW Polo. Not so sure if there really is any legitimate need for a Chevy Suburban, though :-)
I know that California was/is going to enact some
formatting link
has information on bringing cars into California.Basically you can not bring in a new car that does not meet Californiarequirements. There are a couple of exceptions. e.g. for militarypersonnel and for cars older than 2 years old.
First the only reason we don't have drastic improvements in diesel emissions is the quality of the fuel. We had the same problem with gasoline and the authorities started by fixing the fuel then setting the standards for the cars.
Of course most of the diesel emissions are not from cars, but from the same commercial vehicles who's owners are fighting any change in fuel so they can save a few cents. They would rather pay the politicians off to keep things the way they are than to clean up the environment.
Second you can't compare diesel and gas emissions. If you held gas engines to the levels of other pollutants that diesels, by nature produce very little, no gas car would meet them.
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.