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 April 11th, 2018, 09:14   #16
tikal
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southeast Texas
Fuel Economy: 37 MPG (~ 45% city)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbocharged798 View Post
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.
That's one way to look at it. On the other hand the potentially 50 MPG Chevrolet Cruze diesel is legal and it has been so for some time now.
tikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2018, 09:20   #17
tadawson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lewisville, TX
Default

The vehicle has to be desirable, and pickups appear to be. If it was not desirable, it needs to be cheap, and a $30K car with a $20K EPA political penalty emission system atop it isn't going far . . . Not everyone puts mileage and tree hugger agendas first . . . we still have freedom of choice . . . I try to balance both, but refuse to stuff myself into a tiny uncomfortable impractical tin can just so I can gloat about how great I am environmentally. For me, the Passat is about the dividing line . . . Others mileage may vary . . .
tadawson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2018, 09:36   #18
tikal
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southeast Texas
Fuel Economy: 37 MPG (~ 45% city)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by john.jackson9213 View Post
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.
Ok, maybe there's some of this 'consumer fickleness' but as OH and others have pointed out repeatedly is that Americans want mostly large to medium SUVs and if they get a raise an even better choice would be a truck. This combined with relatively lower fuel prices and you have the 'perfect storm' to keep the national non-commercial fleet average fuel economy as close to 20 MPG as possible for decades. You cannot fool the laws of physics. You prefer an SUV to a mid-size wagon and there is going to be a substantial fuel economy penalty, no matter what engine you put in it.

A car such as the Mazda 5 (Volkswagen Touran would be another example) or various types of wagons are mostly absent in North America precisely because the consumer does not want it. Let's not blame the manufacturers for this please. Frankly it is getting old this excuse, sorry for putting it more bluntly.
tikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2018, 09:46   #19
ToxicDoc
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: US
TDI(s): 2001 Jetta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oilhammer View Post
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.

Agreed, but that's cutting edge technology as opposed to incremental increase. Direct injection, for example, was ready to go a long time ago but not implemented.

Consumers, I believe, would pick a vehicle with significantly increased power and mileage at minimal cost increase compared to the one with less. One example that I recall: the Mustang (2010 through 2012) had an increase of 100 hp in the V8 and 1 more mpg (admittedly not much, but still an increase despite the 30+ % increase in power). Price increase was about $1,300 more and by 2012 total sales figures went up almost 20%.

Last edited by ToxicDoc; April 11th, 2018 at 09:47. Reason: grammar edit
ToxicDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2018, 09:48   #20
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

The problem is, most of the better technology, of both gasoline and diesel, has been eaten up by bigger, bloated, heavier, and more [needless] power.

If we were content to drive an A1 Golf, we'd be able to buy a new 70 MPG car for probably $12k. But we've legislated our way right out of even having that be an option.

BTW, a Fox body Mustang, in the late '80s, with the standard 2.3L and 5sp manual gearbox, could tag 30 on the highway. I know, I had one. And it was pretty peppy, too. So again, the "new" Mustang, with what is probably an engine with thrice the HP, does not go thrice the distance on the same amount of fuel.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com

Last edited by oilhammer; April 11th, 2018 at 09:59.
oilhammer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2018, 10:31   #21
ToxicDoc
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: US
TDI(s): 2001 Jetta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oilhammer View Post
The problem is, most of the better technology, of both gasoline and diesel, has been eaten up by bigger, bloated, heavier, and more [needless] power.

If we were content to drive an A1 Golf, we'd be able to buy a new 70 MPG car for probably $12k. But we've legislated our way right out of even having that be an option.

BTW, a Fox body Mustang, in the late '80s, with the standard 2.3L and 5sp manual gearbox, could tag 30 on the highway. I know, I had one. And it was pretty peppy, too. So again, the "new" Mustang, with what is probably an engine with thrice the HP, does not go thrice the distance on the same amount of fuel.
Dumb Americans are victims of their own greed - more power - I need MOAR POWR lol. I imagine if they used that tech they could've had 250 hp and perhaps doubled mileage.
ToxicDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2018, 10:40   #22
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

Just a case study, for fun, poll a few of your friends and family members to see what if any changes to their primary vehicles have resulted in a change for the positive in fuel economy in recent years.

I can tell you that ALL four of my remaining siblings, and their spouses, are currently driving vehicles that consume more fuel (in a couple cases, a LOT more) than they once did. And nothing else changed that would have been cause to suddenly decide being wasteful is OK. I certainly don't like getting into discussions about it with family, but I quietly just sit and shake my head. And they ALL complain about money.

I have a lot of friends and friends of friends that are the same way. It is just a wasteful American attitude, and if it is cheap or convenient to be wasteful, then all the better!

And for those who live in the city, who could actually benefit from an EV, they look at me like I am nuts for even mentioning it. My brother just bought V8 #2, a giant Tundra, that he doesn't need, parked next to the Sequoia that his wife drives, in the driveway of a house they cannot afford. THAT is the "typical" American consumer, and THAT is who the manufacturers are building for. Given the profitability of giant trucks, it is easy to see why.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com

Last edited by oilhammer; April 11th, 2018 at 10:44.
oilhammer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2018, 11:48   #23
ToxicDoc
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: US
TDI(s): 2001 Jetta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oilhammer View Post
Just a case study, for fun, poll a few of your friends and family members to see what if any changes to their primary vehicles have resulted in a change for the positive in fuel economy in recent years.

I can tell you that ALL four of my remaining siblings, and their spouses, are currently driving vehicles that consume more fuel (in a couple cases, a LOT more) than they once did. And nothing else changed that would have been cause to suddenly decide being wasteful is OK. I certainly don't like getting into discussions about it with family, but I quietly just sit and shake my head. And they ALL complain about money.

I have a lot of friends and friends of friends that are the same way. It is just a wasteful American attitude, and if it is cheap or convenient to be wasteful, then all the better!

And for those who live in the city, who could actually benefit from an EV, they look at me like I am nuts for even mentioning it. My brother just bought V8 #2, a giant Tundra, that he doesn't need, parked next to the Sequoia that his wife drives, in the driveway of a house they cannot afford. THAT is the "typical" American consumer, and THAT is who the manufacturers are building for. Given the profitability of giant trucks, it is easy to see why.
My close friends - all for the better (VW TDI until the emissions issue, a Toyota hybrid, etc), but then I hang around with practical types.
My wife no change. My sister no change. They should've had an improvement but took a major HP increase instead.
ToxicDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2018, 12:42   #24
tadawson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lewisville, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oilhammer View Post
Just a case study, for fun, poll a few of your friends and family members to see what if any changes to their primary vehicles have resulted in a change for the positive in fuel economy in recent years.

I can tell you that ALL four of my remaining siblings, and their spouses, are currently driving vehicles that consume more fuel (in a couple cases, a LOT more) than they once did. And nothing else changed that would have been cause to suddenly decide being wasteful is OK. I certainly don't like getting into discussions about it with family, but I quietly just sit and shake my head. And they ALL complain about money.

I have a lot of friends and friends of friends that are the same way. It is just a wasteful American attitude, and if it is cheap or convenient to be wasteful, then all the better!

And for those who live in the city, who could actually benefit from an EV, they look at me like I am nuts for even mentioning it. My brother just bought V8 #2, a giant Tundra, that he doesn't need, parked next to the Sequoia that his wife drives, in the driveway of a house they cannot afford. THAT is the "typical" American consumer, and THAT is who the manufacturers are building for. Given the profitability of giant trucks, it is easy to see why.
Myself: Passat TDI
Wife: Passat TDI
Daughter: Golf TDI (had a Passat, thought it was "too big" . . . )
Mid Daughter: Gas Jetta (local driver)
Youngest Daughter: Currently getting a TDI (Likely a CPO 2015 Jetta)
Son: Modest Toyo gasser.

And yes, I do have a Diesel pickup for my business, but it's not a daily driver . . .

But no, nobody wants anything to do with an e-turd. Just too impractical . . .
tadawson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2018, 07:33   #25
GreenLantern_TDI
Veteran Member
 
GreenLantern_TDI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Iowa
Fuel Economy: Mid 40s
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oilhammer View Post
The problem is, most of the better technology, of both gasoline and diesel, has been eaten up by bigger, bloated, heavier, and more [needless] power.

If we were content to drive an A1 Golf, we'd be able to buy a new 70 MPG car for probably $12k. But we've legislated our way right out of even having that be an option.

BTW, a Fox body Mustang, in the late '80s, with the standard 2.3L and 5sp manual gearbox, could tag 30 on the highway. I know, I had one. And it was pretty peppy, too. So again, the "new" Mustang, with what is probably an engine with thrice the HP, does not go thrice the distance on the same amount of fuel.
This. And nowadays car manufacturers are like look at us we broke the 30mpg mile mark. Please thats 30 years ago with less BS on the car and way more practical, easier to work on and maintain. More mpgs in every car means less emissions. People sadly are just as ignorant as ever and continue in that trend. The movie Idiocracy isnt a fiction comedy its a glimpse into the future.
__________________
2015 Golf SEL. Frost Heater. Ares Skid Plate. Fumoto Valve. PentoIII.
GreenLantern_TDI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2018, 09:57   #26
tadawson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lewisville, TX
Default

Part of the problem is that they beat the 30MPG mark (whenever) not necessarily by improving engine and powerplant technology, but by reducing body integrity by using what amounts to foil where much more metal used to be used, and by producing plethoras of clown cars. Heck, run the same engines from back in the 70's, and that same strategy would still give decent gains . . . What is needed is actual powerplant improvements and *NOT* just reducing vehicle size and mass . . .

So, I'd love to see a comparison of similar size and weight from current to 1970's or so . . . I don't think the gains will be what a lot of folks think they are.
tadawson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2018, 10:38   #27
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

Lots of things increase the curb weight. The safety systems alone add a bunch of weight. 6+ airbags, seat belt pretensioners, and all the sensors, wiring, and control units to work it all.

ABS/ESP... the unit alone can make for double the weight of the hydraulics of a non-ABS car.

Energy absorbing bumpers we need add weight. And the heavier the car, the more those will weight.

Then they are so heavy, along with the giant wheels and tires we need, means power steering and brakes are needed, even on small cars.

10 speakers, amplifiers, 11ty way seat adjustments (seriously, you should feel how heavy some of the SEATS are now ).

I am not saying a lot of these items haven't made for a better car in terms of creature comforts, safety, and certainly power, but it has come at a cost when it comes to fuel economy. So it really should not come as a surprise that the average fuel consumption overall has stagnated. But, like I said, it does not seem to be very high on the American consumers' list of things to worry about. Passing laws to force manufacturers to stop making something the people want will backfire. At least in the short term. Long term likely won't matter much, as more and more people will eventually become less wasteful because they have to be to survive, not because some gov't that can barely run itself tells them to. You put the stops to ANY big V8 behemoth, and rednecks will just be yanking dead ones out of yards and weeds and resurrecting them.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com
oilhammer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2018, 10:59   #28
ToxicDoc
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: US
TDI(s): 2001 Jetta
Default

The solution would be what is done is Europe - increase vehicle fuel taxes. When RUG went up to $4/gallon a few years ago everyone was more mindful of what they drove.
ToxicDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2018, 11:11   #29
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

I don't think that will happen here. Every time it even gets mentioned, people start to go bananas. (I don't, I laugh... but I'm not driving a pig either).

In this country, we instead reward people for bad choices: case in point, Cash for Clunkers. People who bought a pig, that lost value quickly, and didn't take care of it, got a nice cash payout. People like me, who bought an efficient car that held its value and took care of it... got nothing beyond what I granted myself for making a wise choice in the first place. And my tax dollars went to pay for the idiots who made poor decisions.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com
oilhammer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2018, 11:29   #30
ToxicDoc
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: US
TDI(s): 2001 Jetta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oilhammer View Post
I don't think that will happen here. Every time it even gets mentioned, people start to go bananas. (I don't, I laugh... but I'm not driving a pig either).

In this country, we instead reward people for bad choices: case in point, Cash for Clunkers. People who bought a pig, that lost value quickly, and didn't take care of it, got a nice cash payout. People like me, who bought an efficient car that held its value and took care of it... got nothing beyond what I granted myself for making a wise choice in the first place. And my tax dollars went to pay for the idiots who made poor decisions.
Welcome to life. You don't smoke, drink, and you exercise. You get to live longer and pay taxes on the idiots who end up on disability dying from lung and liver disease.
ToxicDoc is offline   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 05:47.


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 0.19899 seconds with 11 queries
[Output: 141.50 Kb. compressed to 120.02 Kb. by saving 21.47 Kb. (15.18%)]