Sign In Join 



Diesels in the News

8144 messages,  Last post on Dec 03, 2009 at 4:39 PM

You are in the Diesels Forum. Your Host is kcram

What is this discussion about? Diesel


Messages Page 774 of 815
1
...
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
...
815
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#7730 of 8144
Re: GTD [alltorque] by jlbl
Jun 20, 2009 (1:12 pm)
Reply

Replying to: alltorque (Jun 20, 2009 12:28 pm)

Among SEAT's, the León model worths a mention too, in particular its R Series and Cupra Series, both equipped with diesel engines:
 
Seat León Cupra
 
Seat León FR
 
Regards,
Jose
#7731 of 8144
Re: GTD [alltorque] by houdini1
Jun 20, 2009 (2:22 pm)
Reply

Replying to: alltorque (Jun 20, 2009 12:28 pm)

Altorque and jlbl, you guys really know how to rub it in !! ARRGGGHH!!
 
We never get the good stuff here in the third world !
#7732 of 8144
Re: GTD [houdini1] by jlbl
Jun 20, 2009 (2:47 pm)
Reply

Replying to: houdini1 (Jun 20, 2009 2:22 pm)

Hi, Dan,
 
you guys really know how to rub it in !! ARRGGGHH!!

 
 
 
Regards,
Jose
#7733 of 8144
Clean diesel by avalon02wh
Jun 21, 2009 (7:53 am)
Reply
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/cleaner-trucks-and-buses
 
So I guess California got it right after all. The world did not end when they made diesel engines comply with emissions standards.
#7734 of 8144
Re: Clean diesel [avalon02wh] by ruking1
Jun 21, 2009 (8:41 am)
Reply

Replying to: avalon02wh (Jun 21, 2009 7:53 am)

"So I guess California got it right after all. The world did not end when they made diesel engines comply with emissions standards. "
 
Well it does beg the (current ) question: why does CA STILL mandate 2 to 6 times dirtier air ???? (than it has to be)
 
They are a minimum of 31 years behind the times. They could have "HAD" those dropped those figures
 
"New diesel trucks and buses cut soot and smog more than 90%"
 
easily 31 years ago, the same time CA first mandated the switch to UN leaded gas for the passenger vehicle fleet. So what would be your calculation of 31 years of 97% less emissions????
 
The actual figure, standard wise is 97% ( LSD 500 ppm / ULSD 15 ppm) Indeed if they made bio diesel a viable economic alternative/option (for the big rigs; trucks and buses) , they could have it down even lower 99%(>5 ppm to ZERO ppm which essentially would mean the air is 30 x dirtier than it would have to be (using 1 ppm/30 ppm) We can actually use (point).5 ppm and the figure would now be 60 x dirtier.
 
On the other "hand in glove" topic of diesel cars (since I would assume most of us do not drive diesel big rigs/buses) , as a comparison, RUG to PUG is STILL 30 ppm or a MINIMUM of 2x DIRTIER than ULSD (15 ppm) diesel. So with CA having 98% RUG to PUG (almost mandated) the air is least 2 x to a more normal 6 x dirtier (If bio diesel were used, and in a greater population of diesel cars...) air than it has to be, if more passenger car diesels both volume and percentage were allowed.
 
CA still allows bunker oil (3000 to 5000 ppm ) to be burned at all shipping levels, and with NO emissions devices CA still allow jet fuel to be up to 3000 ppm. Aviation fuel users require no emission devices, and leaded fuel is still the norm.
#7735 of 8144
Re: GTD [jlbl] by alltorque
Jun 21, 2009 (9:44 am)
Reply

Replying to: jlbl (Jun 20, 2009 1:12 pm)

Jose, You're right; the Cupra and FR variants are both up there with the best. Body design leaves the rest of the VAG outfits struggling some way behind.
 
Correction to me previous post - the Skoda Yeti is actually Golf-based and comes in FWD or AWD flavours.
 
Shane neither SEAT nor Skoda will make it across the water.
#7736 of 8144
Re: Clean diesel [ruking1] by roland3
Jun 21, 2009 (11:09 pm)
Reply

Replying to: ruking1 (Jun 21, 2009 8:41 am)

... CARB and EPA are just waking up to the fact that there might be some benefit to burning less fuel, after 35 years with no regard to fuel volume. If it were not for the environmentalists pushing for less carbon output, I would have to wonder if we would ever have a spec for carbon per mile. All previous measurement specs were for tailpipe quality with no regard for quantity, and usually resulted in much greater carbon output.
#7737 of 8144
Re: Clean diesel [roland3] by ruking1
Jun 22, 2009 (6:45 am)
Reply

Replying to: roland3 (Jun 21, 2009 11:09 pm)

Right the literal translation to this is very easy to illustrate. It is better to get 12 mpg on a RUG to PUG SUV than 49 mpg on a diesel Jetta......new car sales of one were banned for a number of years.....
#7738 of 8144
Re: Clean diesel [ruking1] by jkinzel
Jun 22, 2009 (9:14 am)
Reply

Replying to: ruking1 (Jun 22, 2009 6:45 am)

My guess is; sell more volume, get more taxes. Diesels = less volume, less taxes.
 
No other logic holds water.
#7739 of 8144
Re: Clean diesel [jkinzel] by ruking1
Jun 22, 2009 (9:49 am)
Reply

Replying to: jkinzel (Jun 22, 2009 9:14 am)

Indeed, low cost per mile driven (fuel). All I did was run the recent (current) numbers (on another thread- VW Jetta TDI ) and RUG- PUG is (per mile driven (fuel) 107 -122 % more than diesel for a LIKE model car. In the example I used 03 VW Jetta's 2.0 RUG, 1.8T PUG, 1.9TDI D2.

Messages Page 774 of 815
1
...
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
...
815
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics
Advertisement