VW No Longer Approves Biodiesel for New Models

Status
Not open for further replies.

Geordi

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Location
Somewhere between Heaven and Hell. But it is reall
TDI
14 JSW DSG, 03 Wagon 01M, 400k and IPT performance auto!
And that has to do with Iraq exactly how?

Oh, that's right: You have your "intelligence" reports that say that there is NO LINK BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QUEDA (sp?) but those reports must be wrong, since only the entire CIA said it, but GW "Flightsuit" Bush said there was a link, that Saddam was a founding member and was enjoying a cuban cigar while sitting on a WMD while watching the attack happen, right?

Pull your head out of your arse. You are only proving to the rest of us that you are an idiot.

--Jim
 

RC

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 13, 2000
Location
Maryland`s Eastern Shore
TDI
Two White 96 B4 Wagons
So sorry about your friends who perrished in the WTC Frank. You know, Americans didn`t have to know someone who died on that tragic day to take it personally, we`re all outraged. All the more reason to seriously go after those who perpetrated this evil crime, and they aren`t to be found in Iraq. If we would`ve stayed in Afganistan full force and put some serious pressure on Pakistan, your buddy in the White House would be looking at 4 more years for sure but something in Iraq was worth the risk for him and his cronnies.....a place to set up military bases where petroleum runs outta the ground. It could be his undoing....and that of the rest of our nation too. This move will go down in history as one of our biggest blunders, just wait a few more years and see.
We burn biodiesel so we can attempt to disassociate ourselves personally from this Petroleum Madness, we want nothing to do with this deadly fiasco.

Hope you get to make it to our Berlin GTG, sure to have some good conversations.
 

Drivbiwire

Zehntes Jahr der Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 1998
Location
Boise, Idaho
TDI
2013 Passat TDI, Newmar Ventana 8.3L ISC 3945, 2016 E250 BT, 2000 Jetta TDI
Without sifting through 8 pages of ranting...

Biodiesel IS approved for the PD engines including the 2 valve and 4 valve PD powertrains. The New V10 Tourag also carries Biodiesel approval.

With that said it must meet European specs for alcohol and water.

DB
 

nh mike

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Location
NH
TDI
2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever. I have ten dead friends that were in the WTC. In my mind, There do not need to be WMD's. Whatever floats your boat.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, the fact that you knew ten people who died on 9/11 means that it doesn't matter whether a country we attack had ANYTHING to do with it, any ties to international terrorists, or posed any threat whatsoever? If Bush had us attack Canada next, under claims that they had WMDs and were arming terrorists, we invaded, lost hundreds of American soldiers, and found no evidence of any WMDs or terrorists - would you still say "it doesn't matter whether they had any WMDs, since I had friends die on 9/11"?

That's like saying that since Bob killed my friend Matt, there's nothing wrong with me beating up Larry, even though he didn't have anything at all to do with Matt's death. Make sense to you?

The issue about Iraq not having WMDs or ties to Al Quaeda is that Iraq posed NO threat to us whatsoever, and not only have Americans been dying there for a lie (that they posed a threat), and not only are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a lie - but it's also derailing the ACTUAL war on terror. There are terrorists out there that we should be going after - but instead, the bulk of our military efforts are focused on a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and posed us no threat at all. Tell me how THAT makes sense. That would have been equivalent to us, after Pearl Harbor, choosing to invade China rather than Japan and Germany. Sure, China was a dictatorship, but it would have completely diverted us from the ACTUAL threat - just as the war on Iraq has.

[ QUOTE ]
I work in NYC and was there that day. Were you? It's sickening. I went to twenty funerals in the span of 2 months. Whatever you want to think is fine with me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, so because I don't live in New York, I must not know anything about it - probably also must be anti-American.

Three friends and co-workers of my brother were killed in the Pentagon. Does that mean I should support invading anyone that Bush says we should invade, even though they had NOTHING to do with killing those people on 9/11? Maybe that's what "Texas justice" is? It doesn't matter if you kill the right person - as long as you kill someone?
 

nh mike

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Location
NH
TDI
2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
[ QUOTE ]
So sorry about your friends who perrished in the WTC Frank. You know, Americans didn`t have to know someone who died on that tragic day to take it personally, we`re all outraged. All the more reason to seriously go after those who perpetrated this evil crime, and they aren`t to be found in Iraq. If we would`ve stayed in Afganistan full force and put some serious pressure on Pakistan, your buddy in the White House would be looking at 4 more years for sure but something in Iraq was worth the risk for him and his cronnies.....a place to set up military bases where petroleum runs outta the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. I supported Bush fully right up until he decided to shift the focus of the military from Afghanistan to Iraq. I even wrote letters to local newspapers supporting him, etc. etc. - then he showed his true colors.

The only claim he can try to stick with now for the invasion of Iraq is that it's about spreading Democracy to the middle east (since his claims about Al Quaeda and WMDs were proven utterly false - as most CIA operatives had claimed prior to the war). The problem is - there is no country in the middle east that would be a worse choice to try to found a democracy in. The three factions within Iraq (Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis) essentially hate each other. That itself will make it nearly impossible for a democracy to last there - at least Bush I was smart enough to realize that - and knew that it was a safer choice to leave Saddam in power, and control him with sanctions and inspections (which worked perfectly well - no WMDs anywhere in the coutnry). If Bush's true goal were spreading democracy to the region, he should have given some substantial help to Yemen or Afghanistan, rather than essentially abandoning them (well, at least we're giving SOME help to Afghanistan, but a miniscule percentage of what's going to Iraq). Those countries have a FAR better chance of seeing democracy take hold due to the lack of warring factions within their countries.
 

BleachedBora

Vendor , w/Business number
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Location
Gresham, Oregon
TDI
'81 DMC-12, '15 GL350 CDI 275 hp/448 tq - '81 Caddy ALH, '05 E320 CDI 250hp/450 tq
I second that motion.
All in favor say "aye!"
We all have our opinions, many of us are so set on them that we won't change no matter the circumstances. Probably better to keep heated political debates to PM's or emails... /images/graemlins/smile.gif
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
Without sifting through 8 pages of ranting...

Biodiesel IS approved for the PD engines including the 2 valve and 4 valve PD powertrains. The New V10 Tourag also carries Biodiesel approval.

With that said it must meet European specs for alcohol and water.

DB

[/ QUOTE ]

Only for Euro III emissions.
Any Euro IV approved systems are not approved.
The V10 barely meets Euro III and is rated one of the worst polluters here in the U.S..


I find this thread very amusing! /images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

ikendu

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Iowa
TDI
2003 Golf Indigo Blue
BlackenedBora said: better to keep heated political debates to PM's or emails...

I like a good spirited discussion as much (or more) than anyone...but I agree. Fred's is a great technical forum and I'd like to keep it that way. I sometimes stray from the pure faith too. But most heated discussion is best carried on somewhere else.
 

jackbombay

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Location
Diesel knows best
TDI
A4 Jetta
[ QUOTE ]
Die thread, die.

Will someone PLEASE put this thread out of everyone's misery?

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is not supposed to be the place to look for information about war, democracy and politics, I like the political discussions. There are many very inteligent people here that follow politics more than I do and they can point out various hypocricies and truths very well that are often sidestepped by the media in general for fear of being un PC, I suppose. Now when the political discussions turn into name calling... that accomplishes nothing and is not worth reading.

-Jack
 

gredi

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
I too have gained a great deal of knowledge from this thread as well as the many others that have the same few people regurgitating the same viewpoints and information over and over.

It would be nice if all of the info presented on the biodiesel threads could be condensed into something that was useful. The current thread is 13 pages long. 13 pages laced with a very small group trading insults back and forth that helps absolutely no one. For the folks that are new to TDI's and diesels in general, it may serve to convince them not to try using BD or even buying a diesel at all.

I will ask again, please lock this thread. Perhaps all this very valuable info (links, documents etc.) could be included as a part of the TDIFAQ's. Having a never ending thread is not the answer.
 

RC

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 13, 2000
Location
Maryland`s Eastern Shore
TDI
Two White 96 B4 Wagons
Sorry for helping steer this thread a bit off course guys but when someone asks why I would be so stupid as to burn biodiesel I feel they deserve a clear response.

Guess you and I will serve this board well to continue this discussion in person Frank, hope you can make the GTG.
 

nh mike

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Location
NH
TDI
2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
On the issue of killing the thread - this is something I've never understood - if you don't find a thread interesting, think it has become too long, boring, tedious, whatever - why not just avoid reading it? So long as there is no outright name calling or other problems (i.e. plagiarism, making completely false claims, etc.), what is the problem?

[ QUOTE ]
We all have our opinions, many of us are so set on them that we won't change no matter the circumstances. Probably better to keep heated political debates to PM's or emails... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
True. But, since all of the political and international problems associated with petroleum are a large reason why many of us use biodiesel, when somebody makes a statement like:
[ QUOTE ]
Powerstroke:
Again, you can pour bio in your tank, and also at your own silly expense, but why? /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Should we not be allowed to answer it, since the answer will likely involve politics? The fact is, many of those who use biodiesel (including the US military! THe BIGGEST user of biodiesel in the US) do so because of a desire to rid us of our petroleum dependence - because of the associated economic issues, as well as the fact that being dependent on petroleum requires military interventions that would not otherwise be required. So, if somebody asks why anyone would use biodiesel (and asks it in a manner clearly intended to make it seem like anyone who does choose to use it is an idiot), should we not be allowed to answer?

(an aside - for anyone who thinks the notion that petroleum dependence requires military intervention every now and then is completely wrong, try to find a copy of the report prepared by the Congressional Research Service for the US Congress (specifically for the Committee on International Relations) back in 1975 entitled "Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study" (first session of the 94th congress, August 21, 1975, if it helps you find it)

Also read:
Multinational Oil Corporations and U.S. Foreign Policy - REPORT together with individual views, to the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, by the Subcommittee on Multinational Corporations; (Washington, January 2, 1975, US Government Printing Office).

Additionally, here is a very interesting report on the state of the worldwide oil industry, as prepared for the US Congress back in 1995. The report discusses the problem with worldwide demand rising, and worldwide supplies likely not being able to accomodate that increase in demand - with most of the increase in supply worldwide being in the middle east. A key problem they discuss is the sanctions on Iraq, which prevent them from fully developing their oil fields. Throughout the 90s, as this report demonstrates, there was much expectance that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be able to increase their output by a significant margin (around 30+ percent), to help deal with rising demand, and dwindling reserves in the rest of the world. Unfortunately, things didn't work out that way. Saudi Arabia has been discovering that their reserves, in fact, are not nearly as high as they had been predicting back in the 90s (actually, they may have known that, and just made those higher predictions for political reasons). Thus, around 2000, the emphasis in the oil community shifted from hoping that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be able to increase production to meet demand, to looking at Iraq's large undeveloped oil fields as the main potential solution. Throughout the 90s, the US was the main importer of oil from Iraq (under the sanctions). Around 2000 and shortly afterwards, various other countries (primarily France and Russia -actually companies within the countries, more so than the countries themselves) started working out deals with Iraq to develop their oil fields if/when sanctions were lifted. This was really the start of the tensions between the US and France/Russia (and Germany, to a lesser extent).

Consider also the old Afghan war in the 80s, when the USSR was seeking to take over Afghanistan, and we were determined to prevent that from happening. Why was the USSR so interested in that country, and why were we so set on preventing it from happening (sure, we could say it was about preventing the spread of communism, saving democracy, etc.. The problem with that is that once we beat back the USSR, we abandoned Afghanistan, as we didn't care at all about what type of government was established in the country. If we didn't care that the Taliban moved in and set up an extremely repressive religious dictatorship, how could our interest have been about democracy, preventing the spread of communism or dictatorships?). The USSR was interested in Afghanistan because of the plentiful natural gas wells (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html ) and as a route through which an oil pipeline could be run (and then likely through Pakistan) to get the plentiful oil in the Caspian Sea to the ocean, so it could be sold.

Petroleum has played a pivotal role in world politics for the past 60+ years - including MANY wars fought over it. When you look at the history over that time span, it's simply impossible to believe otherwise. When our government has readily stated on multiple occasions (particularly throughout the 70s) the potential to go to war specifically over oil, when we went to war in 1991 specifically over oil (because Iraq had invaded Kuwait over an oil-field dispute (Kuwait was slant drilling into oil fields in Iraq), etc., how can anyone believe that oil does NOT play a large role in many military conflicts throughout the world?
 

gredi

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
The thread title "VW no longer approves biodiesel for new models" indicates to me that a technical discussion is in order. The original post speaks of technical issues that VW apparently has with low quality biodiesel being used and causing problems. If there was some political message hidden in there, I didn't see it.

If someone wants to comment on the political implications of use/no use of biodiesel, great! My problem starts when the mud slinging overwhelms the technical content of a thread. As we all know, biodiesel threads usually end up that way.

It is my hope that some way can be found to seperate the wheat from the chaff. In other words, to seperate the political palaver (v)/personal attacks from the technical knowledge. Perhaps a seperate, clearly identified thread for the never ending discussion of the politics of biodiesel and petroleum?

No one here has a problem with people discussing politics. What a few don't care for is having the facts buried under pages and pages of rhetoric.

Is it too much to ask that the two topics be seperated?
 

Howler

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2000
Location
Planet Earth
TDI
'10 Touareg TDI
Ignorance will kill this thread, let me help...

I couldn't resist responding to BlackenedBora's request to kill this thread. Why kill the thread when we can just remain ignorant of each other's views?

Ignore Skypup
Ignore Autodiesel


[ QUOTE ]
ignore Ikendu
ignore RC
Ignore MITBeta
Ignore Jackbombay
Ignore H-towner
Ignore Geordi
Ignore geon
Ignore RoyalT3
Ignore Dieseldorf
Ignore nh_mike
Ignore Powerstroke
Ignore Sappington

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignore Skypup
Ignore Autodiesel


Hint: There's a pattern in this list. Gee, did i miss any trolls? Sorry if i did, just flame me to be added.
 

dieseldorf

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 11, 2000
Location
MA
TDI
ex- 1996 wagon, ex-2000 Jetta
Ignorance will kill this thread, let me help...

[ QUOTE ]
We cannot proceed.

You can't ignore yourself!

Please use your back button to return to the previous page.



[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

Howler

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2000
Location
Planet Earth
TDI
'10 Touareg TDI
Ignorance will kill this thread, let me help...

Yep, couldn't include a link to ignore myself for that very reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top