No more Diesel for US from VW

[tvmaster]

Sad news. We've lost the best cars VW produced due to unrealistic demands by our government.

yeah, great cars that have had $9,000 in failures by 80k miles. Wish I could share your romanticism for a wildly over-expensive repair mess.

On the other hand, if this is indeed arriving in diesel form by summer of 2017, Mazda better start ordering lots:

http://www.zoomzoommag.com/winter-2...medium=email&utm_campaign=groupone#!mazda-cx5

 

[turbovan+tdi]

Heard on the radio today that several large cities in europe will be banning all diesel vehicles in the next ten years because of emissions; specifically nitrous oxides and carbon particulates.

That's funny considering DI gas engines emit more particulates,

 

[oprn]

I went into the local Chev dealership for a GM part yesterday. On the way out I spoke to a salesman about the Cruze Diesel for '17. I told him VW is abandoning the Diesel car market in America and Chev should take up the slack. But according to him, none coming 'cause "No body wants a small car Diesel".

I said that's the same bull I've heard from car salesmen for the past 40 years.

Conversation ended at that point.

^^^ VW sold over 500,000 diesels between 09 and 15, so somebody wanted them

We are fed such a load of crap in North America. There are a whole bunch of us "no bodies" out there!

The truth of the matter is that the real "no bodies" are the American car companies. "No body" wants to sell a small fuel efficient, long lasting car. It would cut far too heavily into their bottom line. They have a vested interest in flogging the overpriced, over fuelled, over complicated money pits that they always have!

We spent some time in Argentina a year ago and that country is absolutely full of "no bodies". I would estimate that 90% of all cars down there come under the "no body wants" category and well over 2/3s of them are small diesels. That includes diesel car and 1/4 ton pickup offerings from GM and Ford that I did not know even existed!

Before we went down there I was pretty proud of the fact that we had 470,000km on our '04 TDI. Ha! That is a low miler down there! 150,000km is considered "trade in before it croaks" time here, 200,000km is auto salvage only! They would not even consider buying a car with that short of a life expectancy.

I am insanely jealous of the selection of small fuel efficient vehicles they enjoy there!

And by the way, I have never been in a city with air as clean as Buenos Aries and they move 14 million people about their business every day.

 

[South Coast Guy]

That's funny considering DI gas engines emit more particulates,

Sorry, I don't have the article to refer to for this response. I believe the problem with diesels (after additional scientific research) had to do with the size of the carbon particulates.

 

[wxman]

Well, particulates is a red herring excuse. With DPFs, there are no particulates. The Q5 I just bought has a much more foul smelling exhaust than my Passat, as does our 2005 Dodge 1500. NOx is debatable about its actual effects on the environments. In some areas it has been shown to actually improve the air by reducing other types of air contaminants. Wxman has more accurate information about that.

Perhaps the most comprehensive paper on NOx-ozone relationship is provided here

Also, damages from NOx emissions in two heavily populated counties in the U.S. (ostensibly Orange County, CA, and Cook County (Chicago), IL) are actually negative (i.e., marginal NOx emissions are beneficial) because damage from NO2 itself is more than offset by destruction of ozone by NOx there, according to a well-respected damage model ("APEEP").

NOx does cause damage in all other counties in the U.S., but it's generally less than most of the other regulated pollutants.

 

[Cseress]

Apparently Chevy are bring in a new diesel Cruze ... a wagon ... being made in Germany ... by ... VW.

 

[dmarsingill]

Perhaps the most comprehensive paper on NOx-ozone relationship is provided here

Also, damages from NOx emissions in two heavily populated counties in the U.S. (ostensibly Orange County, CA, and Cook County (Chicago), IL) are actually negative (i.e., marginal NOx emissions are beneficial) because damage from NO2 itself is more than offset by destruction of ozone by NOx there, according to a well-respected damage model ("APEEP").

NOx does cause damage in all other counties in the U.S., but it's generally less than most of the other regulated pollutants.

After studying this map, I still can't figure out how with all the diesel vehicles in Metro Atlanta......it isn't showing red.

Donald

 

[wxman]

That graphic was obtained from the APEEP model developer's web site (https://sites.google.com/site/nickmullershomepage/home). I presume the relatively low damages per ton of NOx in the Atlanta area is because the ozone destruction properties of NOx at least partially offset the damages from NO2 and nitrate PM there. Note that the graphic on the right-hand side of that page is NOx damages; the graphic on the left-hand side of that page is SOx damages.

A full suite of similar graphics is available on the web site (you just need to fill out a "data request form").

Of interest in another of those graphics (NH3 - ammonia - which is not regulated from mobile sources) has far higher damage range than NOx (tops out at $302,000/ton vs. $5,300/ton for NOx). Modern gasoline vehicles with three-way catalysts have a much higher NH3 emission factor than diesels according to EPA itself because the TWC "over-reduces" NOx to NH3 (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/eiip_areasourcesnh3.pdf , Table III-3). In some large cities, including Atlanta, NH3 is far more damaging per unit mass than NOx. In those locations, a fully-compliant gasoline vehicle is likely causing more damage to public health and the environment than a non-complaint TDI just by converting one harmful form of a nitrogen compound (NOx) to another more harmful compound of nitrogen (NH3) (e.g., in Atlanta, max damage from NOx is $750/ton; minimum damage from NH3 is $50,000/ton according to those APEEP damage maps. At the EPA emission factor of 0.101 g/mile NH3 from modern gassers, a TDI would need to emit over 5 g/mile NOx to cause the same damage).

 

[turbobrick240]

Apparently Chevy are bring in a new diesel Cruze ... a wagon ... being made in Germany ... by ... VW.

That's old news. And it's definitely not made by VW. Probably not made in Germany, maybe Lordstown Ohio. It's essentially an Opel Astra. Engine made in Hungary. I don't think a wagon is offered either.

 

[South Coast Guy]

After owning and repairing TDI's for years, I can honestly say that the 09+ TDI's are absolute, total junk vehicles and deserve to be crushed. Never before have I seen a manufactured vehicle with so many major defects and recurrent problems. Balance shaft modules, HPFP failures, turbo failures, camshaft failures, injector issues, intake manifold flap issues, DPF failures, EGR failures, the list goes on and on. No amount of software fixes are going to fix the litany of issues with those vehicles. Anyone who thinks they're "saving money" by owning a TDI is turning a blind eye to reality. Anything one saves in fuel they'll spend many times that maintaining the vehicle.

I realize that I am just one owner and making a general statement, but I have had none of the problems with my '09 that you list. Actually, your list includes some I have never heard of before.

 

[South Coast Guy]

All I can experience personally about air pollution is the rate of increase in asthma rates:
http://www.aaaai.org/about-aaaai/newsroom/asthma-statistics

 

[turbovan+tdi]

Sorry, I don't have the article to refer to for this response. I believe the problem with diesels (after additional scientific research) had to do with the size of the carbon particulates.

It wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at that reply. It has been posted in other threads and articles that DI gas engines are worse for particulates.

 

[oprn]

Perhaps the most comprehensive paper on NOx-ozone relationship is provided here

Also, damages from NOx emissions in two heavily populated counties in the U.S. (ostensibly Orange County, CA, and Cook County (Chicago), IL) are actually negative (i.e., marginal NOx emissions are beneficial) because damage from NO2 itself is more than offset by destruction of ozone by NOx there, according to a well-respected damage model ("APEEP").

NOx does cause damage in all other counties in the U.S., but it's generally less than most of the other regulated pollutants.

Sorry to be sceptical but... as just a regular sort of guy I have no idea how they arrive at this stuff, how accurate it is, if it is real or just a government/industry sponsored make it look this way project. What I am totally confident of is that in a few years all this data will be outdated, invalid and the newest/greatest "science" will tell a different story. I have been around long enough to recognize the cycle.

Back in the late '60s and early '70s the "science" told us that the earth was getting colder every year and we were headed for another ice age due to the effects of humans activity. They had all the charts and scientific data to back it up. It was real!!

Here is what I do know:
Nearly every year here in Alberta we have forest fires that totally blanket our province in smoke that you can see, smell and taste for weeks at a time. It even shows up as far away as Florida and Europe depending on the prevailing winds. Where are the statistics on emissions on that? The chemical composition? The damage cost estimates? The carbon particulate size?

And above all, with the trend now toward carbon taxing, who is paying for all that carbon emissions?

I understand there is a similar case to be argued with active volcanoes too.

I am not saying that we don't need to reduce our emissions, just than emissions from the burning of carbon based fuel has been a part of the natural cycle on this earth for thousands of years and our part is pretty small.

Here is something else I know:
Back in the '70s when we changed over to unleaded gas I was working in the automotive industry and every time we started up a car on unleaded fuel with a catalytic converter to move it in the shop the stink was so bad we had to open the shop doors afterward. That rarely occurred previously.
That same stench is everywhere in our cities here and I can smell it every time a car passes me in the rural area. Like others have said, gasoline powered vehicles stink worse than our modern diesels!

 

[wxman]

Sorry to be sceptical but... as just a regular sort of guy I have no idea how they arrive at this stuff, how accurate it is, if it is real or just a government/industry sponsored make it look this way project....

Here's a paper on the damage assessment process.

A Washington Post article is also available on damage assessment.

...What I am totally confident of is that in a few years all this data will be outdated, invalid and the newest/greatest "science" will tell a different story....

I agree this will probably change over the course of time.

...Here is what I do know:
Nearly every year here in Alberta we have forest fires that totally blanket our province in smoke that you can see, smell and taste for weeks at a time. It even shows up as far away as Florida and Europe depending on the prevailing winds. Where are the statistics on emissions on that? The chemical composition? The damage cost estimates? The carbon particulate size?...

The APEEP model only looks at anthropogenic emissions. However, natural emissions would have essentially the same effect on human health and the environment.

Carbon particle size from wildfires is mostly in the PM2.5 size category according to EPA.

...And above all, with the trend now toward carbon taxing, who is paying for all that carbon emissions?
I understand there is a similar case to be argued with active volcanoes too.
I am not saying that we don't need to reduce our emissions, just than emissions from the burning of carbon based fuel has been a part of the natural cycle on this earth for thousands of years and our part is pretty small.
Here is something else I know:
Back in the '70s when we changed over to unleaded gas I was working in the automotive industry and every time we started up a car on unleaded fuel with a catalytic converter to move it in the shop the stink was so bad we had to open the shop doors afterward. That rarely occurred previously.
That same stench is everywhere in our cities here and I can smell it every time a car passes me in the rural area. Like others have said, gasoline powered vehicles stink worse than our modern diesels!

I don't disagree with you here. That's really the point, emissions from diesel engines and the life-cycle emissions associated with that technology really aren't very significant in the grand scheme of thing, and if anything, modern gasoline vehicles cause somewhat more harm than modern diesel vehicles.

 

[tikal]

Apparently Chevy are bring in a new diesel Cruze ... a wagon ... being made in Germany ... by ... VW.

Ok how about if we call it a hatchback and not a wagon?

Sorry but the cargo space will be way too small in the Cruze to call it a wagon.

I wish we will get more wagons (such as a Mazda 6 wagon) but it is unlikely in my view due to American car preferences.

 

[turbovan+tdi]

Just think if we didn't have all this pollution and other things killing us off, we'd be over populated.

 

[jackbombay]

Just think if we didn't have all this pollution and other things killing us off, we'd be over populated.

We need more effective pollution, have you driven around Vancouver lately during rush hour? ;-)

 

[tvmaster]

Hey diesel heads, here's our chance...

Scroll to the bottom. There's a place to request more info, AND, a checkbox to let Mazda know you'd be interested when and if a diesel version becomes available - in North America! But we have to let them know.
I did.

https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/2017-cx-5

 

[tikal]

Scroll to the bottom. There's a place to request more info, AND, a checkbox to let Mazda know you'd be interested when and if a diesel version becomes available - in North America! But we have to let them know.
I did.
https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/2017-cx-5

I just did. Thanks!

 

[Mike_04GolfTDI]

Here's my alternative to a 2017 (or a 2015) TDI:

Just got it back after a transmission service, new injection pump seal, coolant line fixes, alignment, blower motor replacement. Runs smooth, tracks straight, silent at 75 MPH, and gets 32-34 MPG. Doesn't care about fuel quality. Only 196K on it and if I can keep it from rusting it'll go another 200K. Doesn't meet anyone's current emissions standards.

Before I bought my 2004 Golf TDI, I had a 1987 Mercedes 300D Turbo, with the inline six cylinder 3.0L engine. It had over 500,000km on it when I sold it. Absolutely indestructible car.

Unfortunately, mine had a head gasket leak (which I told the new owner about), so it boiled the coolant out whenever it was under heavy load. On the bright side, it could run indefinitely without coolant because of the gigantic oil cooler and 8L oil capacity. I once completed a 300km highway trip with basically no coolant and the temperature gauge pegged. A few times I pulled over and put some water from a stream in it, but it would cook that out every time I found a hill.

 

[turbovan+tdi]

We need more effective pollution, have you driven around Vancouver lately during rush hour? ;-)

LOL, good one.

I had to go from Langley to West Van a few weeks ago for a concert, left Langley at 6 pm, took me 2 friggin hours,

 

[jasonTDI]

After owning and repairing TDI's for years, I can honestly say that the 09+ TDI's are absolute, total junk vehicles and deserve to be crushed. Never before have I seen a manufactured vehicle with so many major defects and recurrent problems. Balance shaft modules, HPFP failures, turbo failures, camshaft failures, injector issues, intake manifold flap issues, DPF failures, EGR failures, the list goes on and on. No amount of software fixes are going to fix the litany of issues with those vehicles. Anyone who thinks they're "saving money" by owning a TDI is turning a blind eye to reality. Anything one saves in fuel they'll spend many times that maintaining the vehicle.

Huh....That's strange. Maybe they abuse the cars or short trip them.

I have been fixing TDI's since 01' and the new cars have proven VERY reliable. They all need the intake flap repair at some point. Only seen 3 cars grenade the fuel pump but they were all miss-fueled (some several times before issue). Never seen a BSM issue or a cam issue for that matter. A few DSG Mechatronic units, a random door harness and a handful of cracked DPF's. I was servicing about 50 of them a month until the buyback was announced. MANY with 300K on them. They have proven to be VERY reliable. Much more so than a BRM engine car.

 

[RNDDUDE]

Here is what I do know:
I am not saying that we don't need to reduce our emissions, just than emissions from the burning of carbon based fuel has been a part of the natural cycle on this earth for thousands of years and our part is pretty small.

"pretty small"???? Worldwide oil consumption right now is right around 100 million barrels a day! (42 gallons per barrel). Some is used in plastics manufacturing, but the vast majority is burned, and even dismissing the emissions, that is a HUGE amount of heat being released into our ecosphere.

 

[panthers89fan90]

.

Not needed by any means, and it makes drivers dumber for it. At least years ago, drivers had to drive, now they just play on their phones or whatever. Car's don't need all these options.
Look at pickup trucks, back in the 80/90's, you could get a fully loaded truck, lol, meaning power windows, a/c and cruise for around $25,000 and it was fine to drive, now, the same truck is $80-$100,000, W T F?

That's a tad bit harsh. I don't think it makes drivers dumber. I mean self driving cars aren't out yet, so somebody still has to maneuver the vehicle unless you drive a Tesla. And my new car(not a VW) is a 6-speed, so that keeps me busy. They don't need all these options, but it makes for one comfortable ride.

I do agree with prices though. Trucks have the luxury interior of a luxury sedan, but the ruggedness of a truck. Combine that and you get a $50k+ truck. Honestly though, I would get a new/newish car and just get an old pick up beater for hauling, trail riding, etc. But that's just me.

 

[ApriliaNut]

At lease Chevy will have a few Diesels to pick from. I'm waiting on the Equinox with the 1.6 Diesel for 2018 ! and it looks like it will be nice as well 40 MPG for an SUV ...Im in.

I can't see 40MPG in the Equinox . Almost 4000 pounds. But what do I know LOL!?! I know it's a Compact SUV but still....

 

[tikal]

I can't see 40MPG in the Equinox . Almost 4000 pounds. But what do I know LOL!?! I know it's a Compact SUV but still....

If we agree that the GM Equinox turbo diesel with a 1.6 engine is relatively similar to the Mazda CX-5 diesel being sold worldwide (except in North America I guess) then we should expect an average of around 32 MPG based on data in Fuelly with option 'L4 DIESEL' (24 entries). Total miles is 380,623 in four years (2012-16 with 2015 having no data). Nothing to brag about in terms of 'data abundance' but something to get a realistic ball park estimate.

 

[Big Poppa Pump]

Scroll to the bottom. There's a place to request more info, AND, a checkbox to let Mazda know you'd be interested when and if a diesel version becomes available - in North America! But we have to let them know.
I did.

https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/2017-cx-5

Done. Thanks.

 

[ApriliaNut]

Scroll to the bottom. There's a place to request more info, AND, a checkbox to let Mazda know you'd be interested when and if a diesel version becomes available - in North America! But we have to let them know.
I did.

https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/2017-cx-5

Are you talking about "Stay Informed"??? I don't see where the checkbox is about giving them feedback regarding a diesel version in that area.
Moreover, I am reluctant to give them my information b/c of all the hacking happening.
Thanks.

 

[16vjohn]

Here's my alternative to a 2017 (or a 2015) TDI:

Just got it back after a transmission service, new injection pump seal, coolant line fixes, alignment, blower motor replacement. Runs smooth, tracks straight, silent at 75 MPH, and gets 32-34 MPG. Doesn't care about fuel quality. Only 196K on it and if I can keep it from rusting it'll go another 200K. Doesn't meet anyone's current emissions standards.

You're getting 34mpg on a OM602? I put 80k on a 602 and had a lifetime average of 26, which included mostly highway. That, and 602's seem to eat cams. Neat car though. Probably the last real diesel MB.

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

I only have about 16K in Fuelly, but my average is 32.4 MPG. I've only seen under 30 a couple of times. And my son, who's a notoriously conservative driver, sees 36. Cam looks fine at 196K.