www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2016 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You




Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > TDI (Diesel) Emissions

TDI (Diesel) Emissions This is a discussion about emissions from TDI's. Pro's cons of Diesels (including biodiesel) effects on the environment and how they compare to Gasoline and other fuel sources for Internal combustion engines.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 30th, 2018, 20:59   #1
laminated
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Default rolling back emissions standards. Our faint hope clause??

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/c...s&ref=headline
laminated is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 7th, 2018, 22:55   #2
tikal
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southeast Texas
Fuel Economy: 37 MPG (~ 45% city)
Default

It is not clear how this might help to bring more efficient light duty diesel vehicles to the US. If there is no requirement for the cars to be efficient and the cost of fuel is relatively low (current situation) then there is no incentive to sell vehicles that do much better MPG than today's average (somewhere around 23-25 MPG if I am not mistaken).

While VW was caught cheating other manufacturers such as BMW, Mercedes Benz and GM were able to sell compliant light duty diesel cars.
tikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2018, 16:21   #3
turbobrick240
Veteran Member
 
turbobrick240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: maine
Default

As much as Pruitt and his cronies would like to roll back environmental regulations, it's much easier said than done. Most of his efforts will be blocked by litigation for years, by which point there may well be a new administration in power, and much less hostile to environmental protections. As effective as Pruitt has been at grabbing headlines, he's really not very effective at the deregulation he would like to see.
turbobrick240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2018, 07:46   #4
20IndigoBlue02
Veteran Member
 
20IndigoBlue02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North NJ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by laminated View Post
CAFE mpg is one thing, but it doesn't say anything about rolling back emissions requirements.
__________________
2016 Tiguan SE 4Motion
20IndigoBlue02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2018, 09:19   #5
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 20IndigoBlue02 View Post
CAFE mpg is one thing, but it doesn't say anything about rolling back emissions requirements.

Exactly, and as we have found out, high fuel economy and low emissions are treated as two different things, hence the making of a bunch of 50 MPG cars "illegal".

If anything, relaxed CAFE regs will mean LESS likelihood of any more diesels.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com
oilhammer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2018, 10:10   #6
tadawson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lewisville, TX
Default

Frankly, I think on a lot of this regulation, there is a fine line between reasonable and excessive. If you can get 97% of the benefit at, say, 25% of the cost and regulation, is the last 3% really worth it, or should they look at other sources of pollutants that are far larger? At some point, the result is so minimal that pursuing it becomes insane, and I think in a lot of cases (diesels being one) that that point has been crossed and things need to roll back a bit.

And I don't want to hear the 'but then we will have air like China' crowd, because that's *NOT* what I said! Rolling back to reasonable regulation is not, in any way, the same as eliminating it . . .

Last edited by tadawson; April 10th, 2018 at 14:25.
tadawson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2018, 18:55   #7
turbocharged798
Veteran Member
 
turbocharged798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ellenville, NY
Fuel Economy: 40-50mpg
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tadawson View Post
Frankly, I think on a lot of this regulation, there is a fine line between reasonable and excessive. I you can get 97% of the benefit at, say, 25% of the cost and regulation, is thr last 3% really worth it, or should they look at other sources of pollutants that are far larger? At some point, the result is so minimal that pursuing it becomes insane, and I think in a lot of cases (diesels being one) that that point has been crossed and things need to roll back a bit.

And I don't want to hear the 'but then we will have air like China' crowd, because that's *NOT* what I said! Rolling back to reasonable regulation is not, in any way, the same as eliminating it . . .
I agree. Some common sense regulations would be nice.

Just like a new F150 Raptor is legal that gets 15MPG but a 50MPG TDI is illegal. Someone is stuck on stupid.
__________________
99.5 Black Jetta TDI; DLC1019 nozzles, G60/VR6, ASV .5mm pistons, EGR delete, ASR/EDL, bilstein TCs MFA cluster.. Beater car. 365K miles and climbing.
99.5 Red Jetta TDI. Saved from the crusher. 270K
04 Jetta TDI .MFA cluster, reverse light mod, bilstein TCs 200K.
turbocharged798 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2018, 13:28   #8
Rob Mayercik
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NJ, U.S.A.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tadawson View Post
Frankly, I think on a lot of this regulation, there is a fine line between reasonable and excessive. If you can get 97% of the benefit at, say, 25% of the cost and regulation, is the last 3% really worth it, or should they look at other sources of pollutants that are far larger? At some point, the result is so minimal that pursuing it becomes insane, and I think in a lot of cases (diesels being one) that that point has been crossed and things need to roll back a bit.
Exactly - any engineer will tell you that the first 80% of the job takes 20% of the money/time, but that last 20% will take the other 80%.

Want that last 20%? Set up some sort of X-Prize-style incentive, and then stand back and see what the Science! crowd comes up with that's cost-effective. Meanwhile, work toward getting 80% of everything to 80%....
__________________
2002 Jetta GLS TDI Automatic
Baltic Green/Beige Leather
Rob Mayercik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2018, 14:15   #9
ToxicDoc
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: US
TDI(s): 2001 Jetta
Default

Part of the issue is that manufacturers were holding back on newer technologies to maximize their profits. When the new CAFE standards when into effect, miraculously all these manufacturers were able to increase mileage significantly (DI engines, fuel management strategies, lighter materials). Previously they were just churning out old tech to avoid new research and tooling costs. Every engine already had an established foundry, etc.
ToxicDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2018, 14:22   #10
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

There is also what the consumer wants, and what they will tolerate.

Americans generally do not tend to go after high MPG vehicles, so there is little incentive for manufacturers to offer them here.

Ford (and others) are making talk about killing off even more passenger cars, and ramping up production of trucks, because that is what consumers want.

Not me, necessarily, but you cannot argue with sales figures. And if fuel prices remain low(ish), then nothing will change.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com
oilhammer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2018, 20:15   #11
john.jackson9213
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miramar, Ca. (Think Top Gun)
TDI(s): 1996 B4V
Default

Consumers are a fickle bunch. They changed with the time
. Auto makers have been very consistent over the years by insisting the car engine can not be improved since 1965. They patched together crappy solutions, claiming it was the fault of regulations and the 1975 emissions we're impossibly difficult. Then in 1973 Honda found a solution at a reasonable price. Other automakers followed, with Detroit bringing up the tail end. Same story for decades, it just is impossible to do anything better.
__________________
JJ
1996 B4V, Hella E-Codes, GLX leather, EuroTuning.cz 02A 6 speed conversion w/.71 5th and .588 6th gear, A4 shift linkage by Matt-98AHU. 11 mm pump by Oldpoopie. Now, GTC1549VZ turbo by Whitbread. TDtuning, 24 lbs. boost, 162 hp, 285 lb/ft tq. Smoke Free (9/18/15). Koni Yellows and Big Brake 5 lug conversion.
john.jackson9213 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2018, 22:18   #12
tadawson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lewisville, TX
Default

There is 'better', and there is 'at reasonable cost' and the latter appears to be a failure. Just because something is possible does not necessarily make it good overall . . . .
tadawson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2018, 05:10   #13
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

Detroit did lots of advanced things, people just didn't buy them, or didn't appreciate them, or they never got past the teething phase.

Chrysler had fuel injection in 1950.

Chevrolet had it in 1957.

Oldsmobile and Buick both had all aluminum alloy V8 engines in the early 1960s.

Ford had overhead cam V8s in the 1960s.

Pontiac had a belt driven OHC I6 in the 1960s.

Pontiac also had a rear mounted transaxle with IRS in the '60s.

The Corvair, despite its issues, was a really advanced car compared to others in its day, and even had an optional turbocharger.

NONE of the above sold well, because the consumers instead bought giant iron pushrod V8s instead. They were cheaper, less fragile, more powerful.

If all the current vehicles sold trended towards the higher end of MPG, while the gas hogs sat and gathered dust, they would change what they build. But that is not happening. Consumers are not buying the little Fiesta, so Ford is removing it from our lineup. Consumers are not buying the C-max, so Ford is removing it from our lineup. The Focus sales have been in decline since 2012... last year, down to 158k units. The Explorer in the same period has seen increasing sales, with a final tally of 271k units last year. By the end of the 2018 model year, it is predicted that Ford will be selling twice as many Explorers as Focuses. If the trend continues, which one do you think Ford will want to continue building?

Chevrolet Cruze: sales slipping since 2014, now down to 184k last year. Traverse? Climbing steadily, up to 123k last year, and the Equinox also climbing hit 290k last year, and is expected to top 300k by end of 2018. Of course, this is eclipsed by the Silverado, which sold a whopping 585k units in 2017. That is more than the total sales of the Spark (22k), Sonic (30k), Cruze (184k), and Malibu (185k) COMBINED.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com
oilhammer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2018, 08:48   #14
flee
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Chatsworth, CA
Fuel Economy: 40-ish
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tadawson View Post
There is 'better', and there is 'at reasonable cost' and the latter appears to be a failure. Just because something is possible does not necessarily make it good overall . . . .
The 'at reasonable cost' seems funny in this age of $60,000 pickups that sell like hotcakes.
__________________
2002 Jetta GLS TDI wagon
flee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2018, 09:01   #15
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flee View Post
The 'at reasonable cost' seems funny in this age of $60,000 pickups that sell like hotcakes.

...and struggle to break out of the teens MPG wise.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com
oilhammer is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Colorado Emissions Standards? JHands TDI 101 7 March 31st, 2016 15:21
USA vs. European Emissions Standards? efb91 TDI (Diesel) Emissions 57 August 26th, 2010 21:37
Faint "marble rolling in a tin" sound on accelerating passat130 TDI 101 9 April 21st, 2008 19:20
Question about 2008+ emissions standards stevehecht TDI (Diesel) Emissions 7 November 18th, 2006 08:26
Clinton sets new diesel emissions standards 98JettaTDI TDI (Diesel) Emissions 6 December 22nd, 2000 01:21


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
1996 - 2017, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.20874 seconds with 11 queries
[Output: 133.86 Kb. compressed to 112.42 Kb. by saving 21.43 Kb. (16.01%)]