Last post on Oct 08, 2006 at 8:03 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
#164 of 168 Re: if my car had a diesel [boaz47]
Oct 07, 2006 (10:10 am)
..."The real question is, how serious are we about fuel useage if we as a State are willing to sacrifice 25 to 30 percent fuel savings from the private fleet by restricting diesel and out of the same organization will allow the state and public fleet full diesel access? Does this honestly make sense to you? One of the largest users of diesels in California is the state itself? And if you think the lesson is lost on the people just look at what we are transporting our children to school in. If diesel is bad for us why are we putting our most precious resource, our children, into big yellow twinkies five days a week to get to school? And don't try telling me for a minute the kids aren't directly exposed to diesel fumes while riding in those twinkies." ...
Your quote is one of the reasons why I think this whole fuel savings issue is a "strawman" aka FAKE. BOGUS!!!!
Lets look at it from a fuel savings point of view. If you are truly interested in saving fuel why would you MANDATE and or chose the fuel that takes 37% MORE to do the same job!!??? Why would you mandate the majority of passenger vehicle fleet to use 37% more fuel when they can use diesel and use 37% LESS!!!??? Another way to look at is is why doesn't CA state convert ALL of their vehicles from diesel!!?? DAH they save 37% !!!!!!
This idea that diesel emissions can not and will not be mitigated "correctly" is another bogus illogical logic and almost knee-jerk reactionary attitude.
#165 of 168 Re: if my car had a diesel [ruking1]
Oct 07, 2006 (11:45 am)
I think you are correct. But one of our big problems is admitting we made a mistake in the first place and are too proud to scold CARB or the EPA for allowing such a two faced sort of logic. Orwell simply had the wrong date.
#166 of 168 Re: if my car had a diesel [boaz47]
Oct 07, 2006 (11:53 am)
I think you are right. He was 20 years off. CA banned the sale of new diesel cars in 2004. CARB did create a cottage industry for those willing to buy used diesel cars and bring them into the state.
#167 of 168 Better diesel fuel needed
Oct 08, 2006 (7:38 pm)
Better diesel fuel needed
Toyota instead urges an over-50-cetane number minimum and aromatics levels more like those of California Air Resources Board (CARB) diesel (averaging around 21%, although the default limit is 10%).
"It is essential that diesel fuel cetane and aromatics must improve," Toyota powertrain general manager Tetsu Watanabe said here. "Fuel quality is a big problem--low average cetane number (44) and aromatics are high--35% average and 54% maximum in the U.S."
Ironically, Toyota showed that its "DPNR" test car fleet in Europe is meeting European emissions and performance goals even in countries with 300-ppm sulfur fuels.
CA has some of the best diesel in North America, and only the highest diesel emissions vehicles are permitted to burn it.
Even with ULSD diesel, the cetane is still a problem in the US.
#168 of 168 Re: Better diesel fuel needed [moparbad]
Oct 08, 2006 (8:03 pm)
I think BP/ARCO ULSD is 52 Cetane minimum. That is all I ever used in my Passat TDI. It ran great. I think we are awash in regulations and lacking the manpower to enforce the laws. If Toyota tested our diesel and found it lacking someone dropped the ball. I blame the EPA and CARB.