2010 TDI golf confirmed for North America

Does CARB apply to pickup trucks? Around here F-250 diesels, etc seem pretty common, and trucks in general are very common. I just haven't read or heard any advertisement for clean diesel trucks. Just curious. I live in a non-CARB state .

All diesels 2007 and newer are "clean diesels". Your 2007 and later medium and heavy duty trucks have DPFs (hence the need for CJ-4 oils and ULSD in them).

My fear is that a couple years down the road we will have a repeat of 2004 with CARB deciding that the current 50-state TDIs are no longer clean enough and change the regulations again, effectively banning them (again) and taking out a large chunk of VW's TDI market with it. I don't like that one state should have that kind of power over the rest of the country. I don't like that California basically gets to dictate what I can and cannot buy in North Carolina. Sure VW could keep selling the current TDIs here, but without the CARB states that's much smaller market, and they may decide it's not worth it. For awhile there I wasn't sure there would ever be a future Golf TDI available in the US if something were to happen to mine. So I'm really glad we now can buy them again.

vehicles over 8600lb GVW do not require 'Smog" inspection in "most" cases.
I like to think that besides making a ton of money over 20 years as a smog technician I have also helped to clean the enviroment for my children and grandchildren.

TornadoRed said:

Every new president that comes into office revokes a great many executive orders promulgated by his predecessor. In 2007 President Bush signed Executive Order 13422 calling for improved cost-benefit analysis in environmental regulation and ensuring new regulations by agencies could be vetted in the White House before they took effect. While EPA was not mentioned in the EO, it was widely known that the EPA had gone out of control and 13422 was intended to bring it back under executive control.

In President Obama's first week in office in January 2009, one of his first actions was to revoke 13422 -- letting the EPA have its independence back, to do whatever it wants. Of course it will do what Obama wants it to do -- regulate every aspect of daily life by businesses and households. But Obama does not have to take the blame for what it does, he can pretend that the agency is independent of the White House.

Click to expand...

Hi TR,

Understood, but E.O. 12898 was never revoke as far as I know. As a matter of fact, EPA referenced it in a Final Rule issued in November 2009 ( http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-26540.htm ).

The policy as I understand it is that no environmental regulation will be promulgated that benefits a vast majority at the expense of a relative few. That's exactly what the EPA Tier 2/HD highway diesel rule/off-road diesel rule/locomotive rule do (as EPA admits). Here are selected examples directly from EPA technical documents (Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs))...


…It should be noted, however, that the potential exists for a few localized areas to actually experience slight increases in ozone concentrations as a result of NOx emission reductions. (page 119)

Source: EPA Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Highway Heavy-Duty Engines, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd-hwy/1997frm/hwy-ria.pdf

(Note this Rule was promulgated in 1997, during the Clinton Administration.)


…While this final rule will reduce ozone levels generally and provide significant ozone-related health benefits, this is not always the case at the local level. Due to the complex photochemistry of ozone production, NOx emissions lead to both the formation and destruction of ozone, depending on the relative quantities of NOx, VOC, and ozone catalysts such as the OH and HO2 radicals. In areas dominated by fresh emissions of NOx, ozone catalysts are removed via the production of nitric acid, which slows the ozone formation rate. Because NOx is generally depleted more rapidly than VOC, this effect is usually short-lived and the emitted NOx can lead to ozone formation later and further downwind. The terms “NOx disbenefits” or “ozone disbenefits” refer to the ozone increases that can result from NOx emission reductions in these localized areas. According to the NARSTO Ozone Assessment, these disbenefits are generally limited to small regions within specific urban cores and are surrounded by larger regions in which NOx control is beneficial…. (page 2-113)

...one county in the NewYork City CMSA (Bronx County), which is currently not in violation of the NAAQS, is projected to violate the standard in 2020 as a result of the rule. The net effect is a projected 1.4 percent increase in the population living in violating counties..... (page 2-114)

…EPA’s air quality modeling predicts NOx disbenefits in the areas identified by some studies as “VOC-limited” (e.g., Los Angeles)…. (page 2-223)

Source: EPA Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines, http://epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr/420r04007c.pdf


…Note that 5 counties, Cook County (0.2 ppb) in Illinois; Lake County (0.1 ppb) in Indiana; and San Bernardino (0.1 ppb), Riverside (0.5 ppb) and Orange (5.5 ppb) counties in California are projected to experience increases in their ozone design values because of the NOx disbenefit that occurs in these VOC-limited areas…. (page 2-36)

Source: EPA, “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder.” http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/420r08001a.pdf


Granted, the increases are generally trivial in this case, except for Orange County, CA, which if I’m not mistaken, has a fairly significant population (3 million?). However, this is the impact from just this rule. Collectively, who knows?

EPA justifies these actions in that they (the Rules) benefit a vast majority of the populations even if a relative few experience a disbenefit (which is exactly what E.O. 12898 prohibits if I am interpreting it correctly).

I personally don’t care if locomotives are required to run SCR to control NOx emissions. I do have an issue with regs that actually have selected disbenefits. I’m convinced that EPA is violating E.O. 12898, and I welcome any opposing opinions.

Bob_Fout said:

All diesels 2007 and newer are "clean diesels". Your 2007 and later medium and heavy duty trucks have DPFs (hence the need for CJ-4 oils and ULSD in them).

Click to expand...

Does this mean that they are and have been manufactured to the same standard as the new clean TDI Jetta and Golf standards ? Or do they get off with a lesser standard ? I knew they had particulate filters as do many of the European diesel cars, but I didn't think that they had the extra stuff that a car needs to be sold in a CARB state.

Marley said:

Does this mean that they are and have been manufactured to the same standard as the new clean TDI Jetta and Golf standards ? Or do they get off with a lesser standard ? I knew they had particulate filters as do many of the European diesel cars, but I didn't think that they had the extra stuff that a car needs to be sold in a CARB state.

Click to expand...

They meet the lesser Federal EPA standards. Don't know how that compares to CARB states.

How does anyone in a CARB state buy a new work truck?

Bob_Fout said:

They meet the lesser Federal EPA standards. Don't know how that compares to CARB states.

How does anyone in a CARB state buy a new work truck?

Click to expand...

The bigger question, when the new regs take effect -- is how anyone can sell an old work truck? (or farm tractor, or earth mover, or irrigation pump)

The answer is, they have to sell out-of-state.

Naturally, dumping all this used equipment is going to kill the resale value and do real damage to the sales of new equipment. So CARB is not just hurting the California economy, it will destroy jobs in truck and heavy equipment factories in other states as well. And the farm equipment dealers in small towns across America.

I'm pretty sure they can't outlaw something that was purchased (and taxed) at a time that it was legal to do so.

I can guarantee you this, If my car suddenly becomes illegal to drive someone is going to have to deal with some VERY pissed off people.

As far as selling a car that is not sold in California, there is a grandfather clause of sorts. The same reason it is legal to drive a 05 and 06 TDI in California even though they weren't sold here then.

The vehicle can be purchased elsewhere and transferred to California registration after the vehicle has 7500 miles. Once it has a legal California title, it can be sold at will afterwards.

Golf TDI 2010 testdrive

I test drove a new 2010 TDI Golf. The platform has changed so much from the old 1976 Rabbit that I drove in college. Rabbit was spartan, simple, easy to work on, VERY utilitarian, and was remarkably economical to drive. A diesel version was available, and it went 50mpg on the highway! It also rattled like crazy at idle and blew out some pretty bad stuff.

I didn't buy it. The basic reason was that the Golf was originally an economy car, and I really want to drive something that pushes tailpipe emission farther down like the Ford econetic or Toyota's Yaris 1.4l turbo diesel, available in Europe and/or down under.

The new Golf has excellent road feel and offers downright plush luxury compared to my old Rabbit. What was really crazy was that for about $1000 more, the Jetta has practically the same tailpipe emissions and drivetrain, with much more space and comfort.

What would I be happy with? Well, my brother couldn't buy an Econetic in Canberra last weekend because all 10 on the lot were sold before he got there! I'd just order one if I could. The new Jetta and Golf TDIs are very comfortable cars, but they are not economy cars.

dubStrom said:

What was really crazy was that for about $1000 more, the Jetta has practically the same tailpipe emissions and drivetrain, with much more space and comfort.

Click to expand...

I thought the interior space was identical, and only the trunk space was different. And that the seats were the same or nearly so, so the comfort should be about the same.

You complain because the Mk6 Golf if not spartan enough, but I think you are mistaken if you think the Golf is more spartan than the Jetta. Maybe you should reexamine your criteria and try to be more objective.

three pennies a mile...

TornadoRed said:

I thought the interior space was identical, and only the trunk space was different. And that the seats were the same or nearly so, so the comfort should be about the same.

You complain because the Mk6 Golf if not spartan enough, but I think you are mistaken if you think the Golf is more spartan than the Jetta. Maybe you should reexamine your criteria and try to be more objective.

Click to expand...

More objective? Interior space did seem a little more narrow. No, I didn't say the Golf is more spartan. I noted more space and comfort in the Jetta. The comfort is a combination of more weight and space. The added weight smoothes out the ride, and space is always useful.

Neither car could be consider a sports car (both too heavy).

The complaint was that it is NOT an economy car anymore, that's all. That is my criteria. I stated that, didn't I? I would be perfectly happy with the horsepower and torque that the ALH makes, or even less. Making more power and adding luxury items (electric windows,etc) adds weight, production cost, and reduces economy. I miss the focus on economy that VW used to aim for in the smallest models.

Do you remember the television add where the guy calculates his cost on a 65 or 68 Beetle, and they do a bit where he does his midnight ride spreading the news..."three pennies a mile, three pennies a mile!" ???

No, He Does Not@

dubStrom said:

Do you remember the television add where the guy calculates his cost on a 65 or 68 Beetle, and they do a bit where he does his midnight ride spreading the news..."three pennies a mile, three pennies a mile!" ???

Click to expand...

He cannot because he is not old enough!

dubStrom said:

I noted more space and comfort in the Jetta.

Click to expand...

Most likely it was the placebo effect, because they're really the same size in the passenger compartment. Actually, the roofline of the Jetta is an inch lower than the Golf. The side bolsters on the Golf's seats may make it feel more confining, though.

Trunk-wise, the Jetta has more floor space, but you're limited to trunk height. The Golf has less floor space but is more useful for the occasional big items.

dubStrom said:

Do you remember the television add where the guy calculates his cost on a 65 or 68 Beetle, and they do a bit where he does his midnight ride spreading the news..."three pennies a mile, three pennies a mile!" ???

Click to expand...

At $2.80/gallon and 40mpg, that works out to "seven pennies a mile." I'm sure that's less than the '60's "three pennies a mile", when you figure in inflation.

And you get an entry-level luxury car to do it in. Win-win!

Close but no Prize

frugality said:

At $2.80/gallon and 40mpg, that works out to "seven pennies a mile."

Click to expand...

More than $.07 per mile when you figure in the cost of adding Opti-Lube!

How much in additional cents per mile when doing that?

Don't leave home without it, or at least I would not if I had one.

Derrel H Green said:

More than $.07 per mile when you figure in the cost of adding Opti-Lube!

How much in additional cents per mile when doing that?

Don't leave home without it, or at least I would not if I had one.

Click to expand...

Some of us do not even know what Opti-Lube is, and have certainly never purchased anything like that.

Surprised . . .



Can't believe that you of all people do not know what Opti-Lube is.

Of course, those of you with the older models do not have
the need for it, but the newer '09s and later do IMHO.

You do read 'Horror Stories' don't you?

Derrel H Green said:

Can't believe that you of all people do not know what Opti-Lube is.

Of course, those of you with the older models do not have
the need for it, but the newer '09s and later do IMHO.

You do read 'Horror Stories' don't you?

Click to expand...

IP wear is still a valid concern for older TDIs. The Spicer report is years old, most of us here at least saw it.

Thanks . .

Bob_Fout said:

IP wear is still a valid concern for older TDIs.
The Spicer report is years old [and] most of us here at least saw it.

Click to expand...

I meant no disrespect for anyone with the older VW diesels.
I had a JSW in 2002 and it was indeed a fine running machine.
Wish I'd not traded it in on that used E-300DT sedan.

IMHO, I cannot see how I'd have a new TDI without using a good additive.
Just because that report is indeed old does not mean it is out-of-date and not worth considering.

That report is what I am basing my opinion on.

Derrel H Green said:

I meant no disrespect for anyone with the older VW diesels.
I had a JSW in 2002 and it was indeed a fine running machine.
Wish I'd not traded it in on that used E-300DT sedan.

IMHO, I cannot see how I'd have a new TDI without using a good additive.
Just because that report is indeed old does not mean it is out-of-date and not worth considering.

That report is what I am basing my opinion on.

Click to expand...

No disrespect taken. I reference its age only to show opti-lube is not unknown on here, been semi-popular since it came out.

Thanks and Agreed . .



I had never heard of Opti-Lube or known about it until I read that report.

I'm interested only because I believe that its' use 'might' help just a little to prevent
the HPFP from going South on the '09 and later TDIs as a few seem to have done.
That idea scares the h*** out of me, what with VW trying to deny fixing 'em when,
in a few cases, they do go bad. Seems one fellow even had HPFP failure twice!

Decisions decisions. What's a guy to do?

Some of us that are new to TDI's would appreciate the lack of cryptic in-jokes.

Lordscarlet, the Spicer test showed that some additives are better than others at improving the lubricity of untreated diesel. The highest ranked product, however, was a 2% blend of biodiesel.

Lubricity is just one measure of a diesel fuel additive -- others include cetane boost, water dispersion or emulsification, injector cleaning, antigelling, and so on.

It may be a good idea to add something to your fuel. I do, and it may have contributed to the longevity of my injection pump. It may also be a good idea to do some of your own research and decide what is the most cost-effective way to obtain the benefits you desire. Take note, however -- not every claim made by additive producers is verifiable. Cetane boost? you can feel the difference. But better fuel mileage? that's a function of the energy in the fuel, measured in BTUs, and no additive can change the fundamental chemistry of the fuel.

dubStrom said:

I noted more space and comfort in the Jetta. The comfort is a combination of more weight and space. The added weight smoothes out the ride, and space is always useful.

Neither car could be consider a sports car (both too heavy).

Click to expand...

The Golf TDi only comes with the sports suspension which will make it ride a tad stiffer than the Jetta. Proper shocks will make any weight vehicle ride smoothly.
I wouldn't consider the Golf to be too heavy. Any car that has those kinds of features and space, yet with a manual transmission weighs under 3,000LBS is good in my book.

And I wouldn't consider any front wheel drive car to be a sports car.

TornadoRed said:

Lordscarlet, the Spicer test showed that some additives are better than others at improving the lubricity of untreated diesel. The highest ranked product, however, was a 2% blend of biodiesel.

Lubricity is just one measure of a diesel fuel additive -- others include cetane boost, water dispersion or emulsification, injector cleaning, antigelling, and so on.

It may be a good idea to add something to your fuel. I do, and it may have contributed to the longevity of my injection pump. It may also be a good idea to do some of your own research and decide what is the most cost-effective way to obtain the benefits you desire. Take note, however -- not every claim made by additive producers is verifiable. Cetane boost? you can feel the difference. But better fuel mileage? that's a function of the energy in the fuel, measured in BTUs, and no additive can change the fundamental chemistry of the fuel.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I didn't even really know what to research based on the previous snarky comments.

I didn't want to step on any of the fine salesmen's toes over on Vortex, but I've discovered there are a couple Golf TDI's available in the metro Detroit area.

My salesman Dan Kelley at Suburban VW of Farmington Hills has a '10 Golf 4-dr manual Reflex Silver with Cold weather package, Mat Kit, and 9W2 bluetooth In-Stock! It just got off the truck on Friday. If I wasn't so picky on options I would've already scooped this up! I think the sticker is $24.1K

Also, there's an open allocation for a Golf TDI at Ralph Thayer VW in Livonia. This is the dealership my co-worker got his Golf TDI from in December and had a great experience.

I hope this is helpful to those out there struggling to find Golf TDI's. I just wish it would help move my order along.

Cheers,
Ryan

Man... If we dumb hicks from the sticks were only as caring, affluent, and drove quick silver wagens running opti-lube... The world would be a better place...

I am sorry, but for pages I have seen this thread disolved into a diatribe not about the great TDi cars, but onto a referendum of the great state of california. I travel to california and enjoy the weather, most of the people are okay, but most are as radical as the freemen of Montana in their penchant for the environment. If I lived like they do(jammed ontop of one another...but I don't), I would too...

But the point is that where 98% of us folks live the carb is more detrimental than positive. I also work in Europe and would love to have some of their diesels. But in regulation, comes problems of handcuffing industries that may actually do better than if not handcuffed... I bet a mini diesel or TDI Polo is cleaner than any conventional mid sized car... at 60-70 mpg they are darn clean... But carb makes it too hard and too expensive to bring those lower profit margins here and meet our 50 state standards... not our federal standards, but Quacky Californian standards that most of us have not chosen... so we sorta resent your regulation stepping on our toes...

I am sorry but I just spent an hour trying to find out more about a car and realize why I keep declining the transfer to Cali... The Hicks from the Sticks comment was flaming, disparaging, and utterly disrespectful... But it is okay for enlightened californians to disparge everyone else and then ask for the rest of the country to bail them out because there enlightened regulation has pushed every manufacturer and most other companies to greener pastures...

Darrell your message is heard and you make a point, But your delivery is childish and demeaning... but to most of the 49 states if the big one hit and everything west of the SanAndreas faultline seperrated, we vote for you guys to secede...


Now onto the TDI discussion