Ask the Car People.SM


California Diesel Issue - READ ONLY

168 messages,  Last post on Oct 08, 2006 at 9:03 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum.

What is this discussion about? Diesel

Messages Page 15 of 17

#139 of 168 Re: Toxic Plume [gagrice] by alp8

Sep 27, 2006 (10:08 pm)

Replying to: gagrice (Sep 27, 2006 9:04 pm)
b>The truth is the exhaust from a car burning gas is more likely to kill you than from even a smelly diesel truck. Breathing any exhaust is not wise. I would not ride a bike or motorcycle on the street for that very reason. I keep my bike riding to the park and beach.
 
the argument that "diesel kills, but gas kills more" is not likely to help the diesel cause
 
but that's just my take
 
<

#140 of 168 Re: Not trying to bust your chops on the "banning" observation... [ruking1] by alp8

Sep 27, 2006 (10:13 pm)

Replying to: ruking1 (Sep 27, 2006 7:30 pm)
the argument "offroad diesels are really gross, so passenger car diesels should be left alone" is also not a winner
 
but you've convinced many of us that, yes, vehicles using red-dyed diesel should be regulated more than they are......

#141 of 168 Re: Not trying to bust your chops on the "banning" observation... [alp8] by gagrice

Sep 28, 2006 (6:34 am)

Replying to: alp8 (Sep 27, 2006 10:13 pm)
vehicles using red-dyed diesel should be regulated more than they are
 
When I first bought my Kubota diesel tractor I ran Red Dye Diesel because it was about 40 cents a gallon cheaper. It also smoked a lot when I started the tractor. When I learned about ULSD and ARCO/BP stations started selling it, I switched. My tractor does not smoke at all and does not have that distinctive diesel odor. I think the perception of diesel vehicles is all a result of the fuel we are sold. Just as has been said before. When leaded fuel is what was offered we were killing ourselves with the stuff. I am not against regulation. I am against random regulation without a consistent theme.
 
If you are going to force one person to use a more expensive fuel for the environment, force everyone. CARB just picks and chooses the easy targets. Making them the joke that they are. They block the sale of new diesel cars and everyone treats them like they accomplished some great feat. Meanwhile Joe Six Pack buys a one ton dually with a fire breathing Cummins diesel that puts out more pollution than ten VW TDI cars. There are no smog checks so he tosses whatever smog control stuff it has and no one seems to care. CARB shows NO consistency in their regulations.

#142 of 168 alternative fuels: diesel et al. by ruking1

Sep 28, 2006 (8:30 am)

..."the argument "offroad diesels are really gross, so passenger car diesels should be left alone" is also not a winner "...
 
While you might come to that conclusion or ascribe that to "misguided diesel nuts", my take is the path that should be taken is up to 50% of the vehicle fleet be of "alternative" type fuels, such as diesel, bio diesel, nat gas, electrical, hydrogen, etc.
 
Actually there are huge segments of unmitigated gasoline engines also, motorcycles being an example.
 
Also there is no reason why red dyed diesel can not be USLD at 15 ppm to bio diesel (almost NO sulfur) . The operative principle here: ON ROAD taxation is not being paid: hence the physical and regulatory sign posts.
 

#143 of 168 Re: CARB [alp8] by boaz47

Sep 28, 2006 (10:09 am)

Replying to: alp8 (Sep 27, 2006 4:06 pm)
Yep I am a California tax payer, and last time I was in Pomona I had a hard time finding any 8 story apartment building. But that isn't the point. The point is we have a redundant organization called CARB that has not done what it was established to do and it has cost the people of California more than it is worth. Are there ways to get passed CARB? Sure there are. 3/4 ton trucks or bigger are one way. I have a Diesel F-250 that easily gets 20MPG loaded all day long. My neighbor has a Nissan Titan 1/2 ton that empty gets 15-17 MPG and even less loaded. It isn't hard to see that the Titan is less efficient at doing the job it was designed to do than the F-250 superduty. Who then should be blamed for restricting diesels in California other than CARB? It is based on their recommendations that we have the regulations we have. Because the restrictions put on diesels have had no effect on our air it only seems reasonable that those restrictions should be reviewed and maybe amended to reflect real world needs of the consumer and fuel useage. CARB is simply not in the business of looking at their own house. Nor do they seem to be concerned with what is best for the people they should be serving.
 
I happen to manage a small fleet of delivery trucks. Care to guess what fuel my most dependable and profitable trucks use? But I can't use the same technology for my personal vehicle because a small passenger diesel isn't allowed, even if other EPA compliant States can offer them.

#144 of 168 Re: CARB [boaz47] by ruking1

Sep 28, 2006 (11:20 am)

Replying to: boaz47 (Sep 28, 2006 10:09 am)
I think there is an unintended consequence of cheaper per mile driven; with the current "new diesel car ban" combined with the regulation of registration of "new"/used diesel cars with 7500 miles, actually makes it cheaper, per mile driven acquisition costs.
 
I also should probably note that new diesel light truck sales have NEVER been banned in CA.
 
There is absolutely NO shortage of diesel fuel. In recent travels across 9 western states (CA,NV,OR,WA,CO, AZ,NM,UT,ID) and 6 southern states ,(TX,OK,MS,LA,FL,AL,) I have literally never had to wait to fuel.
 
If a turbo diesel can be tweaked so an suv type can get 25 to 35 mpg, I most certainly would be a buyer. Short list would include, TDI Toyota Landcruiser, Chevy Tahoe, GMC Yukon, etc.

#146 of 168 Re: CARB [alp8] by boaz47

Sep 28, 2006 (11:53 pm)

But they haven't grown any faster than many other cities and still their air is bad, so yes, maybe I discount your unintended contention that CARB has made things better or at least your dismissing the conditions that have allowed other cities without carb restrictions to get better and places like Pomona with them to languish. If you chose not to consider CARB and their restrictions or not to defend their actions as you "seemed' to be attempting with your eight story apartment building comment it would be perfectly acceptable for you to conceed the point. If you chose to rationalize why other cities without CARB's help have improved and Pomona with them hasn't that is also your privalige. However that doesn't address the California diesel issue. CARB is a big part of the diesel issue. And as far as Pomona's real growth? Phillips Ranch represents much of that new population growth and is mostly single family homes so a growth rate of 20K in 5 or six years isn't excessive and not enough to account for ozone increasing despite the diesel restrictions. (unless the diesel restrictions are not having any effect on the air quality in the area?) Maybe you would like to revise your apartment building example? Maybe the diesel restrictions aren't helping make the air better? Could it be that they are looking in the wrong direction in their quest for better air quality and should review their stand on diesel? Or are you willing to place your faith in the wisdom they, CARB, have demonstrated so far? **hyperbole intended***

#147 of 168 Re: CARB [boaz47] by gagrice

Sep 29, 2006 (6:33 am)

Replying to: boaz47 (Sep 28, 2006 11:53 pm)
CARB is a big part of the diesel issue
 
It was actually one director that absolutely hated diesel. Instead of looking at the advantages and working to clean up the negatives, he just slashed the whole genre of automotive power. Then came out with the ZEV mandate. We all know what happened there.
 
I still believe there are TOO many overlapping agencies. If most every COUNTY has an air quality agency. The state has CARB and the Feds have EPA. We are being buried by regulations that do not work well together. One cleans up the air and pollutes the water. Each going in the direction requested by some lobbyist with a fat check book.

#148 of 168 Re: CARB [gagrice] by boaz47

Sep 29, 2006 (7:59 am)

Replying to: gagrice (Sep 29, 2006 6:33 am)
I agree totally. We have far too many agencies dealing with the same issues so to keep themselves bust they nit pick. The EPA standards should be more than enough. The diesel option should at least be offered to us here as it is in other states. People might not be willing to accept them any much greater numbers but they already offer them in Trucks even if you have to go heavy duty go get one. If my F-250 can get 20MPG with a GVW of over 8500 pounds imagine how a small vehicle weighing 3000 pounds would do? The only reason I wouldn't consider a VW TDI is my opinion of VW and their service departments. But if anyone else offered one it would be worth considering.

Messages Page 15 of 17

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement