Give americans what they want, never mind what makes sense

more stringent emissions only makes sense when their positive effect outweighs their negative effect

As I stated above ;

Only when the negatives outweigh the positives of allowing lower emissions standards on light duty diesels should tougher regs be enacted . We are no where near that point today as the tougher light duty diesel regs of today have the negatives pilled up with no benefits .

The negatives of our over stringent light duty diesel emissions today more than outweigh the positives of allowing them in .

Negatives include the fact that the most fuel efficient light duty transport ever produced have been cut the US off from the US market when we need it the most . A tech that with little if any impact to pollution could make the country energy independent in short order .

Emissions regs only make little sense if they accomplish something like cleaning up the air . But today nothing is accomplished as our current light duty diesel emissions are regulations that don't deal with a problem . What problem could the current regs possibly deal with ????? As I've explained almost no diesel cars exist in the US as very few have been sold here over the last 25 years . No clean air is gained from forcing the few light duty diesels off of our roads .

Or by making the few we get more expensive and reducing their mpgs from having to meet over stringent emissions .

Another negative is we have made bringing any diesels to US so expensive that most manufacturers can only afford to certify one engine . And not the most efficient one but the one they can use in the most applications like the current 2.0L TDI-CR .

Without our dumb regs that accomplish not one thing today we could have the BlueMotion option which the current regs have pretty much ruled out without $$$$$$$$$ spent to make it US spec .

Again a big negative is the current emissions regs make getting a 70+ mpgUS Polo BlueMotion impossible here . Many car makers make similar models that we are cut off from our over stringent emissions regs .

Many of the cars we have today in the US on car lots are sold in Europe with a diesel drivetran . While in the US most of these gasoline powered cars are lucky in the real world driving to get into the high 20s mpgUS their diesel powered replicas have not trouble doubling this fuel economy . Again We are blocked from having this option by our ridiculous over regulated emissions on light duty diesels . If that's not a negative I don't know what is .

The negatives of our current light duty diesel emissions regs can add up to quite a cost .

ONLY When we get to the tipping point where the equilibrium is reached of higher CAFE making the country less dependent on imported oil then we can talk about adopting emissions regs similar to today's .

Until then the current over regulation of light duty diesels make "0" sense , have no positive effect .

I'll keep saying it until it's gotten by all , no clean to gotten from over regulating non-existent light duty diesels ...........cars that haven't been sold here for almost 24 years !

 

CAFE pressure was the only reason we ever had the diesel option here in the 80s

CAFE pressure over the 9 years we had yearly increases from 76-85 was the reason we had diesel option . We cut transport consumption by 75 % in the 9 years we had real CAFE . And as I said before when we dropped real CAFE we were well on our way to reaching the 40 mpgUS mark by the mid 90s . But when that CAFE pressure was removed 1986 , real CAFE dropped like a rock to where it bottom out in the low 10s ~2003 .

Today we aren't a lot better off as it's still only in the high 10s today . With moratorium on light duty diesel emissions to say 2003 levels we could get that number into the high 20s in short order . Within a couple of years we could be back into the mid 30s . With the 40s mpgUS easily reached by 2020 even if we re-adopted today's regs in say 5 years .

I'm not against light duty diesel emissions regs being equal to gas engine's at some point . But only when it's practical to do so which it still really isn't today . The cost of doing so today is just too high for us to pay today . And I'm not talking just about $$$$ if you didn't catch that .................

 

Re: CAFE pressure was the only reason we ever had the diesel option here in the 80s

Do you really believe that Americans would have bought 40 mpg cars when gas was $1.00 a gallon back in the late 80's? Sure some would but most would not. Americans were panicked and desperate to buy fuel efficient cars when gas was expensive but as soon as gas drops we go back to big cars and trucks.

I personally think CAFE is a poor tool to effect real change. Manufacturers will make the cars that people want to buy. When gas is cheap Americans want big cars. If we really wanted to make a change in gasoline and oil consumption in the US we would tax oil to that people have a incentive to conserve.

So we allow lots of polluting diesels to be built and sold, then clamp down on emissions? How does that make sense? When is it practical to cut diesel emissions?

I want to reduce America's dependence on oil as much as you do, but I'm not ready to sacrifice our air quality to do it. We can cut emissions and fuel consumption if we wanted to. We could:

• Drive smaller cars
• Drive less powerful cars
• Drive more expensive cars

The problem is that we as a nation are not willing to accept the sacrifices necessary.


EDIT: It was not until the ~ 2000 that CARB and the EPA cracked down on diesel emissions. Until then manufacturers were free to make as many diesel vehicles they like without expensive emissions technology. Why didn't the manufacturers push diesels in the US from 1986 to 2000? Answer: Gas was cheap and people didn't want slow, stinky, noisy diesels. Those diesels sold in the US did not sell very well so they were dropped.

 

again point missed

Where is the dirtier air going to come form ???

If we adopted 2003 emissions for say 3 years and for each loophole vehicle we remove that allows for 40-50 light duty diesels to be sold and put on the road with no change to pollution levels . Saving millions if not billions of barrels of oil in the first years . Remove 10,000 loophole vehicles that allows for 400,000-500,000 light duty diesels without anymore pollution than today ........


If re-adopt 04 Emission the ratio is even higher 60-70 light duty diesels for every loophole vehicle removed . Making 600,000 to 700,000 must be sold to equal the pollution of the 10,000 loophole vehicle that they replace .

That's a lot of room to give while we are saving the US from it's waste of today . With this change we would get cleaner air as the ratio of pollution spewers removed wouldn't be matched by light duty diesels sold .

And when the match point is reached you re-enact today's emissions rules problem solved .

We would not get dirtier air and we would overnight become less dependent on middle east oil . That would take money out of the hands of people that want to kill us . And that would make us safer .........

I'm not against higher taxes on fuel to force people to use energy more wisely . It is also a good idea to pay for road repairs and construction . But in today's political climate that isn't likely so CAFE seems to be the only way to get there from here .

Today's plan of going to 35.5 mpg CAFE by 2016 is a bad joke as that could be done overnight if we so chose . But it's better than the nothing we've done over the last 25 years . It's really nice to have a real energy policy again , sort of ......

 

Re: again point missed

What is a "loophole vehicle"? What percentage of the total fleet do these vehicles make up?

 

no CAFE , no US diesel options it's just that simple

As I said it because no more CAFE pressure from 86-to now is why there were no diesel options over that time . Before CAFE was dropped car makers had to meet a minimum CAFE so the diesels had to be sold to allow for larger more wasteful cars . That is how CAFE works for anyone that doesn't know . An auto maker must sell enogh fuel efficient options to bring the average up to a point to allow for lower mpg cars to be sold .

Once that pressure was gone there was no more pressure to sell them so none sold except for VW & MB . Both of which had a strong diesel rep in the US with a loyal customer following . So didn't need CAFE pressure to keep selling them . But the rest of the auto industry required that pressure to sell them here . And if the diesel options increase in the next few years it will be thankful to CAFE pressures .

4 auto makers to date are selling car diesels today . With Honda , Mitsubishi & Subaru having plans to bring a US spec diesel cars to market in the next couple of years to help meet CAFE requirements . The Head of Toyota of America said as much in an interview last month , "we have diesel options ready to go for the US market if CAFE requires it".

If we did as I suggest re-adopt 03 spec emissions for a time that list of car makers offering US spec diesels would become a lot longer very quickly .

 

no CAFE , no US diesel options it's just that simple

As I said it because no more CAFE pressure from 86-to now is why there were no diesel options over that time . Before CAFE was dropped car makers had to meet a minimum CAFE so the diesels had to be sold to allow for larger more wasteful cars . That is how CAFE works for anyone that doesn't know . An auto maker must sell enogh fuel efficient options to bring the average up to a point to allow for lower mpg cars to be sold .

Once that pressure was gone there was no more pressure to sell them so none sold except for VW & MB . Both of which had a strong diesel rep in the US with a loyal customer following . So didn't need CAFE pressure to keep selling them . But the rest of the auto industry required that pressure to sell them here . And if the diesel options increase in the next few years it will be thankful to CAFE pressures .

4 auto makers to date are selling car diesels today . With Honda , Mitsubishi & Subaru having plans to bring a US spec diesel cars to market in the next couple of years to help meet CAFE requirements . The Head of Toyota of America said as much in an interview last month , "we have diesel options ready to go for the US market if CAFE requires it".

If we did as I suggest re-adopt 03 spec emissions for a time that list of car makers offering US spec diesels would become a lot longer very quickly .

 

loophole vehicles

Loophole vehicles are vehicles built under the heavy industrial vehicle emissions rules ( car emission exempt ) and are Gas Guzzler Tax exempt . This was a loophole that was created for industrial use only . These vehicles today include SUVs and pickup truck that are now sold for passenger use which it was never intended to be used for . Emissions regs are lax , are about what car emissions were in 1980 . And they're exempt from the $10-20k GGT that applies to passenger cars that achieve such low mpgs .

 

Re: CAFE pressure was the only reason we ever had the diesel option here in the 80s

Dreamer,

Thanks for a lot of good background info on the history of CAFE and why we do not have high mileage diesels in the US. Could you clarify two points:

Could you give some examples of "loophole vehicles" (SUVs and passenger vehicles) sold as exempt?


And;

???

Thanks

 

All large SUVs and light trucks are loophole vehicles. These vehicles fall into a business category that is exempt from normal car regulations. The original thinking was that only farmers and businesses would use such large vehicles, so they were given a special break on taxes and regulations. The unintended consequence was that it made large SUVs attractive to car buyers, and caused the SUV market to develop.

The same sort of thing happened in Europe with diesel cars. Fuel taxes favored diesels, so diesels became more popular.

Tom

 

The real answer is to push manufacturers to push the technology to be more efficient. Without epa standards we never would have had catalytic converters, or fuel injection, and egr etc to clean the air. Cafe standards that raise the bar force manufacturers to build more efficient vehicles.

If the reality is that American's want big cars,, then they will have to pay the price for them,, and in fact,, the technology that drives the Prius and other innovative technology filters both up and down the car scale. ABS, air bags etc were originally on high rent cars,,, now on all,, due to maturation of the technology.

In the real world,, to some great extent,,, people can have what they want and what they need, the options just need to be available. Those of us who use very little energy in our homes have proved to others that you don't have to live in a cave to be efficient,,you just have to understand, invest in and use the technology. CFL bulbs were only for treehugging greens a few years ago, now they are mainstream,, AND the technology has improved significantly AND has gotten cheaper.

Icarus

 

Madness, I say. Why shouldn't passenger car regulations apply to all vehicles that carry passengers? Why not give the tax breaks only to those actually using their vehicles for business?

 

Or better yet, apply similar standards to all vehicles. The cost of pollution produced should be covered by who ever is using the products produced by "business vehicles".

P.S. I am a builder who has built more than 100 homes and never owned a truck bigger that a 4 cylinder Ranger. Not everyone "needs" a monster 4x4. If I did "need" it, the additional pollution should be part of my cost of business.

 

I'm a semi-retired builder,, build a couple of hundred custom homes over the years. I went through the "big truck" phase f-250 in the 1970's. (I did haul a great deal of fire wood in that truck however) But I realized that if I needed more than a few studs,,, I was going to have it delivered anyway!

I now drive a '82 VW rabbit/caddy pick up, gas rig,, 34 mpg. Carries my hand tools,, a ladder and a bit of lumber,, all I need.

Icarus

 

JSH covered many of my points, so I won't repeat them verbatim

Something else to keep in mind regarding diesel cars in the EU: Up until very recently, diesel was taxed far differently than gasoline, to the point the average driver needed very little convincing to buy a diesel car

In most EU countries, diesel taxation is creeping up, to be more in line with petrol. With the cost savings decreasing, a diesel is a harder sell

As far as the legally exempt HD vehicles sold in the US and Canada as daily drivers, the high fuel prices of last summer appeared to finish a lot of them off. A lot of those hillbilly toy trucks, with a $6,500 diesel engine option, were repo'd when the true cost of fueling them became apparent

Let's not confuse fuel economy ratings in the EU, to the US. First of all, fuel economy is calculated far differently in the EU and other countries, than in the US. Secondly, fuel economy is rated in litres per 100 km in the EU. When they do convert to mpg, they convert to miles per IMPERIAL gallon, not miles per US gallon

As an example, the FJ Cruiser is rated by the EPA at 16 city, 20 highway. Miles per US gallon. Transport Canada rates the same FJ, with the exact same emissions (US Federal, not CARB), at 21 city and 28 highway, miles per Imperial gallon.

You don't have to try very hard to get the EPA rating out of an FJ. The Canadian rating is a fantasy.

I am NOT in favor of reduced emissions requirements. What next, chop the DPF off the diesel fleet?? No f***ing way. I used Mexico City as an example of what happens when nobody gives a s*** about emissions.

 

I may be wrong,,, but if memory serves, the new cafe standards includes SUV's and light trucks,,, finally closing a loop hole you could drive truck through!

Please inform me if I have this wrong,

T

 

The HD trucks are exempt, eg 3/4 ton trucks

 

Re: CAFE pressure was the only reason we ever had the diesel option here in the 80s

Many guys are in jacked up 4x4s because they like them. Many gals in Highlanders are out of safety concern (those in Lexus SUVs are another story, of course). If you read the news, in most collisions the car loses (except when the higher one rolls over). If everybody is in smaller cars, the playing ground will be level (barring those semis and delivery trucks).

Without rules every jockey will be using stimulants, everybody will working 10 hours 7 days, and start from age 6, due to competition pressure.

 

No it isn't , in the current plan to raise CAFE there is still a loophole you can drive a SUV or Truck through . Sorry my attempt at humor , LOL but not really so funny ................

 

The average diesel car compared to a gasoline option in the same car can go twice as far per gal .......... So in order for the price per gal to equal the cost of a gasoline option diesel must cost 2X as much . The highest the spread ever got to was ~30% so the diesel was still cheaper per mile . If the average American could do simple math this would be easily seen .

where t F.... did I suggest doing anything with heavy duty diesel emissions ???????????????????????????????????????? I stated light duty diesels enough I thought to get the point across , I guess you missed that ........

The only reason all of the diesels you speak of where sold was they were in a Loophole vehicle . That is why we haven't had a light duty diesel pickup options since the late 80s , they must meet car emissions & fuel economy standards ...........Anything larger falls under loophole class , exempt from CAFE standards and car emissions . The worst of the gasoline powered loophole SUVs & pickup in fact barely meet 1980 car emissions spec . Loophole diesels are cleaner in fact their gasoline counter parts in the same model only because the diesel option by design is cleaner . And loophole diesels have more restrictions on their emissions going back to 99 MY so the gasoline powered loophole vehicles spew out far more pollution than diesels of that era .

And the big thing is these things with diesel power are in no way built to get mpgs but for towing and in loophole vehicles only so have not one thing to do with what I'm suggesting . So they are a useless comparison to light duty diesels of the era , which had extremely strict emissions starting back to January of 1992 in the US , 1985 in CA .

Sorry but EPA tests on SUVs are just as useless as they are on light duty diesels when it comes to the real world . I have a friend that has a 08 FJ and never sees above 8-12 mpgUS tank after tank . That is @ sea level on nothing but flat roads . On the highway the best she has gotten is ~15 mpgUS .

Have another friend with a big Chrysler SUVs that is rated 14 city / 19 highway , what a f*)king joke . In reality it returns 7-9 mpgUS running around Iowa , he's gotten 12 mpgUS once . It was such a big deal he called a TV station to do a test to confirm his results . The TV station achieved even lower averages in a test .

This is common on the EPA rating of our rolling brick loophole fleet , common on most in the US EPA figures of today are about as useful as a golf spikes are in a thunderstorm .

And on going back to ~03 emissions on light duty diesel , the US spec emissions for that year were pretty stringent so they are pretty clean . And if they replace loophole vehicles where is the dirty air going to come ??

Your Mexico city comment still makes no sense , 03 US spec light duty diesels had to pass opacity and NOx reduction levels specs , diesels already have very low levels of CO & CO2 without emissions controls . Complex emissions controls and high tech engine controls were required to meet that MY spec ........so again where's the dirty air you speak of going to come from ??????????

So a comment like "the Mexico city comment" still makes no sense and really makes it look like you really don't get it & have no clue . The positive benefits of allowing a small , minuet change in emissions to level that would open a world of options ( literally a world of options ) to US car buyers making the US use/waste less energy overnight .

And you are filling with your "Mexico City statement" the quotes we all here about "hybrid owners not having or wanting a clue , which I don't happen to agree with for the most part .

I've spent quite a while trying to explain why it wouldn't create a pollution issue . jayman & JSH would you like to explain your idea not founded in any facts that it would ?????

Oh another fact you missed , that until this MY year , 09 there were no DPFs on light duty diesels in the US . A diesel without a DPF , all light duty diesels that have came before today are far cleaner than the 65-75 % US fleet today of the gasoline powered loophole vehicles that fill our roads today without a DPF ..........

It sounds like there are a lot of holes in things you think you know .