New Trump emission rules

To start off, not a fan of the President. Wondering what effect his emissions changes will have if any on those thousands of TDI's VW is maintaining in lots all over the country. If they become eligible to sale VW could recoup some of their money. (I got $19,000 for a 2013 passat with 110,000 miles, loved that car just couldn't pass on the cash)
That will start the conspiracy theories. That said, I would love to pick one up.

No effect. Traditional regulated emissions - no change. The only meaningful change is holding the line on CAFE.

To start off, not a fan of peas.

Look at satellite photo on google of Balmoral Racing Park 60417. That is a lot of TDI.
Freezing emissions at 2020 levels has no effect on these TDI.

Frankly, there is very little that VW is sitting on that is not legal to sell . . . The *only* thing affected by the buyback that can't be, if my memory serves, is the Gen-2 with manual. Ann Gen-1 and all Gen-3 have fixes, and can be resold. The thing is that VW has to want to, and find it financially a good thing to do . . . and none of this has to do with any regulatory changes by anyone. The consent decree with VW stipulated this, and it has not changed . . . And, considering that this was a court ruling, It is not in the view of the White House to make changes on rules issues . . . unlike his predecessor, Trump *does* realize the correct limitations of his office . . . (yes I have a positive view of our President . . . ).

The EPA has been needing to be put on a leash for a long time. The "global warming"or is it "climate change", I can't remember has more to do with politics than hard scientific fact. Any idea who funds the research? Politicians and if you don't support them as a scientist, you don't get grant money.

Having your exhaust cleaner than the air that goes into you intake will not make a bit of difference on a global scale when you have horrific pollution problems in places like this.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/armine-sahakyan/the-grim-pollution-pictur_b_9266764.html

Carb and California seem to be leading the charge with their Loony Tune mindset. Check out California's Prop 65 if you want to see some full strength Loony Tunes legislation.

Clean air? Of course, but let's stop throwing common sense out the window................

Instead of looking at NOx (Nitrous Oxide) emissions, we should be looking at overall pollution of a vehicle from the point of manufacture until the end of its serviceable life.



What if the CAFE standard were based upon:
1. Pollution to produce entire vehicle. Engine, parts, components, etc. Calculated at each factory from those that make seats and dashboards, to electronic components, to the factory that finally assembles the car.

2. Serviceable life span (years and miles)

3. Fuel usage (MPG) (miles per charge, etc) and Cost to obtain that fuel.

4. Impact that would occur if that vehicle weren't disposed of properly ( i.e. totaled vehicle spilling it's fuel at the point of an accident).



Battery powered vehicles would have a strong position in terms of cleanliness at their "tailpipe", but would suffer in terms of ecological impact of damaged, improperly destroyed battery packs, and cost/issues of production.



Then the "Overall Impact" wouldn't just concentrate on tailpipe pollution as an end-all/be-all, it would include the overall impact of that vehicle. Including gasoline engined vehicles which tend average half the usable life of a diesel vehicle. So- in essence, generally speaking Gasoline cars must be produced about twice as often as a diesel.

Add VOC's to that. If total VOC's from refining, transport, storage and use were considered Diesel is a lot cleaner than RUG for VOC emissions.

Emissions should be taken as a package, not as absolute individual limits based on vehicle HP. That's why a ford raptor is a legal and a TDI is not. One pollutes far more than the other overall.



I think current auto emissions need to be thrown out the window and a new common sense approach taken.

Common sense and the govt is an oxymoron. Not many things that get done in Wash DC make sense. I've given up on what goes on in the govt . How about wind power, solar and subsidizing elecrtric cars for millionaires costing $100,000.

showdown 42 said:

Common sense and the govt is an oxymoron. Not many things that get done in Wash DC make sense. I've given up on what goes on in the govt . How about wind power, solar and subsidizing elecrtric cars for millionaires costing $100,000.

Click to expand...

I'm with ya there.

But to the OP's point: the TDIs in storage are subjected to their own special conditions, and not related to any regulatory changes or freezes forthcoming. If anything, any changes will make pump sucking pigs (already the most popular vehicles sold here) even more popular.

And I am not a fan of Harley Davidsons.

turbocharged798 said:

Emissions should be taken as a package, not as absolute individual limits based on vehicle HP. That's why a ford raptor is a legal and a TDI is not. One pollutes far more than the other overall.

I think current auto emissions need to be thrown out the window and a new common sense approach taken.

Click to expand...

Automotive emission limits for CO, HC, NOx, PM are not based on horsepower. They are set limits based on amounts of emissions per distance travelled. Same limits apply to a Ford Raptor (<8500lb GVWR) as to a VW TDI. The EXACT same limits.

It's different for heavy-duty vehicles, but it has to be. It's totally unreasonable to expect a fully loaded tractor trailer unit to emit as little as a Chevy Spark. Heavy-duty emission limits are based on power, but they are based on power OUTPUT, not ratings. (A rated 1000 hp engine that's only making 100 hp to make the vehicle go, is only making 100 hp ... it doesn't matter what the rating is.)

The Raptor falls under the light truck category, doesn't it? Not as lax as the 8500+ but not as strict as passenger cars either. This is why Ford made most all of its "half ton" pickups slightly over the 6000 GVWR limit, too. Although that may not apply the same anymore.

(BTW, this is where the "F150" came from... it was conceived in the '70s as a heavier GVWR than the F100, specifically to get it slightly over that 6000 GVWR tier at the time, which allowed them to use bigger more powerful engines).

The science behind climate change is solid and any argument otherwise can be easily refuted. What should be done about it, however, is political. Yes, some EPA regulations of the past (including VW's emissions scandal) are absolutely asinine, and overall emissions regulations should be reformed. That said, the current EPA (and Trump) going as far as denying the existence of climate change is void of common sense and dangerous. This is one of several reasons why I don't support Trump

Ol'Rattler said:

The EPA has been needing to be put on a leash for a long time. The "global warming"or is it "climate change", I can't remember has more to do with politics than hard scientific fact. Any idea who funds the research? Politicians and if you don't support them as a scientist, you don't get grant money.

Having your exhaust cleaner than the air that goes into you intake will not make a bit of difference on a global scale when you have horrific pollution problems in places like this.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/armine-sahakyan/the-grim-pollution-pictur_b_9266764.html

Carb and California seem to be leading the charge with their Loony Tune mindset. Check out California's Prop 65 if you want to see some full strength Loony Tunes legislation.

Clean air? Of course, but let's stop throwing common sense out the window................

Click to expand...

From what I see, none of you live in the LA basin, Fresno, or Bakersfield. I don't like the APCD either, but at least you can see the mountains now which wasn't true 40 years ago.

I'm not going to argue climate change and scientific fact or fiction behind it, but the real bind is that the current regulations for clean air are beyond what is reasonably accurate to measure. Pending regulations are worse.

piotrsko said:

From what I see, none of you live in the LA basin, Fresno, or Bakersfield. I don't like the APCD either, but at least you can see the mountains now which wasn't true 40 years ago.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY, which is why so many people in middle America resent any regulations that do not apply to us due to geographical constrains and population density.

piotrsko said:

From what I see, none of you live in the LA basin, Fresno, or Bakersfield. I don't like the APCD either, but at least you can see the mountains now which wasn't true 40 years ago.

Click to expand...

I used to live in LA. True, the pollution there has gone down a lot from decades past, but there are still some pollutants that have not gone done and continue to be a problem.