Our Bluetec is getting over 30 mpg in combination driving. On recent 75 mile trip to airport we got 40.2 in light freeway traffic. Got 37 on the way back home.

 

You, who have probably never been to the greatest state on earth are too damn quick to
run our fine state down for leading the way when it comes to automobile pollution.
Had you been here and seen the terrible smog that occured over Labor Day weekend in the mid fifties
that made the killer fogs of London seem like a clear day, you would appreciate the legislation
that has brought cleaner vehicles to not only California, but to the US and Canada as well.

Look at the progress in Europe.

We have cleaner diesel vehicles now that are not only cleaner, but more economical as well.
As far as not being as dependable, I will argue that they are indeed reliable.

If you want to drive a twenty five year old slow and smelly 240D with no power or pickup, be my guest.
But do not run down progress, as it is the wave, and to try and fight the future is simply plain stupid!

If it weren't for our state, there would still be road draft tubes, leaded gasoline, no cats, and we'd
still be driving big engined cars that get only ten miles per gallon on prem. leaded gasoline.

Do you think you could 100K miles on the original spark plugs back in the 1950s?
Followed an older car that is still in good shape but almost makes you
sick from the smell of what's coming out of the tailpipe lately?
And it is now running on unleaded. Can you imagine what it would smell like on the old leaded fuel?

I read everything you have written on these forums, and YOU love to pollute
with big clouds of BLACK SMOKE and SOOT. IS THAT BEING RESPONSIBLE?

Do you feel that Canada is "out-of-line" for banning two stroke outboards?
Why do you suppose they did that up there? Think about that for just one moment!

We here in N A cannot control what the people in China or India do now can we?
But WE CAN CONTROL WHAT WE SAY and DO HERE, can't we?

Think about what I have said. Reflect!

 

No doubt that for good or bad, California does drive emissions. I am all for using technology improve power and efficiency in our cars. I remember when everyone was screaming about catalytic converters and converting cars back to regular gas. Now, they're not even an issue. As Green E-300 noted, spend some time in Central America or Asia and try to take a deep breath, or walk around an hour without getting physically dirty.

 

Considering I've never driven 60 mph no matter which contry I am in, this is not too bothersome.

 

The CDIs in the US always had particulate filters, and our E220CDI across the pond also has one. The 2007 Bluetec has a much more complicated emissions control system, adding 3 catalytic converters (oxidising, DeNOx, and SCR) to the particulate filter that is already there.

 

I'm a lot more cynical when it comes to the emissions on diesels in the US. The reasons diesels now have to be cleaner than gasoline engines is US corporations can no longer keep them from coming here en masse.

Europe has had the 56mpg Honda Accord diesel, 78 mpg VW Lupo, 46 mpg 230 cdi, Braubus tt v8 CDIs etc. Hell, even Lambos are looking at pluging diesels into the Gallardo(sp), almost 600 ft\lbs of torque is hard to beat. The main reason we haven't gotten the cars here is there are a few people that would miss the fuel profits of SUVs etc if people started driving a wide range of vehicles that averaged 30 mpg city.

 

Simply thank General Motors' 5.7 V-8 diesel conversion for the lack of confidence and widespread public acceptance of diesels in the US.

 

I had both a '79 5.7L Oldsmobile V8 and an '82 4.3L Buick V6 diesel, so
I am more than aware of the many problems with those engines.

I had absolutely no problems at all with the Olds, probably parially because it was a Cutlass Cruiser
Wagon, and one of the two vehicles from GM that came factory with the TH350 transmission.
Can you imagine a 4400 pound Cadillac Seville with that puny TH200 transmission? My uncle had a 78' 98 Olds, but he was very easy on his cars and never had any tranny problems, but there were many others who did!

Now the Buick was a different story. Both the trans and the motor failed!
The transmission while I was many miles from home on vacation, but I still had first and third gears,
and it completed the 1000 miles back to California from Navajo country driving it like that!
But when the governor retainer ring failed on the Rossa-Master injection pump seven miles out of West Yellowstone (never saw such clouds of white smoke in my life!) that really was a different story.
We were able to limp back into town, and called the Buick Olds GMC etc dealer in Bozeman. The car was towed 90 miles to Bozeman and repaired under emission warranty "free of charge" and we were on our way again. Only lost about a half day on that failure. That towed ride was something to enjoy! 90 miles in only one hour! That Chev 3500 tow truck with a 454 didn't even know that the front wheel drive Buick was trailing along behind for the ride. The dealership was extra quick also and had it fixed gratis and 'out-the-door' in only two hours. No charge for anything including the towing.

Now I do know and acknowledge that many others did have all kinds of problems with the GM diesels.
Blown headgaskets, camshaft failures, broken conrods, piston problems.
I forgot the time when I had my wife leave the Buick at the dealer while she was out of the country and could do without the car. It had terrible piston slap, especially when it was first started in the morning. They replaced the front two pistons, and after having pulled out all six pistons, proceeded to put the other four back into the block USING the SAME ORIGINAL RINGS. I didn't know that was possible, but there were no problems.

The Olds diesl was what I and many others referred to as a "half-breed."
That meaning that it was a 'converted gasoline motor' and not designed from the beginning as a diesel motor.
I think that the 4.3L V6 Buick motor was designed from the beginning to be a diesel.
(Six cylinder head hold-down bolts instead of the customary four being an example.)

The bestest problem with the GM diesels was and is the General Motors ongoing
habit of placing the product into the customers' hands to 'prove it up!'
Once they do correct all those problems which always are discovered and the public
has suffered and the vehicle is finally built correctly, they will then discontinue it.
And they wonder why they are in trouble.

 

I kind of got that message reading between the lines when old 'Bushkins' stood there that time
in the Rose Garden and declared that we needed to improve our fuel economy straight accross
by twenty (20) percent and then proceeded to plug ethanol (E-85) as the 'way to go.'

We have diesel powered cars here and now that get thirty (30) percent better fuel
economy and he is only asking for twenty (20) percent, but he ignores that little fact.
I wonder why?

He could have talked diesels without all the hidden expenses involved with producing
ethanol which does not get as good fuel economy as straight regular unleaded.

Do you suppose he's 'pro-business?'

 

That is his sister. Not a fan of the show, but I am a fan of her!

I'll keep this one brief.

One need not be a far-leftie to accept the findings of science.

 

I feel like Borat Cohen seeing Pamela Anderson Lee. Sanjaya (whoever she is) is even better, younger and bouncier!

Sicko Moore should have been dead a long time ago with his body mass index.

Pity.

 

I am a closet tree-hugger and open Anti-Hypocrite League of North America member. I do not want to die from inhaling noxious substances but at the same time I do not want to be dictated to by any white pubic haired non-inhaling non ejaculating president and his present wife either.

I am an old school Libertarian (not one of those Commies that hijacked the name) that believe in the great late Milton Friedman. The market is the best in dictating what is acceptable to us, what we can tolerate and for us diesel heads, what we drive. E85 engines are nuts. 25% less economical in mileage. No pumps. Food resources are diverted to cars resulting in higher food prices. Diesels are great. Yet California is bickering about NXO and carbon monoxide emissions (I think Europeans are cleaner with one and NA the other) and decided to ban diesel engines in there existing form.

In Toronto our Harvard educated, British born and very left-wing mayor, his Worship David Millar is proposing to ban all lawn mawers and leaf blowers by 2010!

If you are careful down south Mr. Green, you will pay through your nose for basic requirements if ***** quality politicians have their ways.

 

Valid points across the board here, some points to consider coming from someone who lives in Germany & California, two very resrtictive places to own a car, with entirely different restrictions.

The major difference between these two places is that California simply limits your personal freedom in a misguided effort to save the environment, while in Germany the costs are factored in so that you want to, but still have the choice.

Example: here, fuel is cheap but instead we have hilarious speed limits [that I almost universally ignore (school and residential areas excepted)], and horribly inefficient cars with little restriction on modification even to the point that is becomes dangerous. Think of the giant SUVs being driven by women not 5 feet tall and spoilers and $5 body kits coming off the crappy cars they are duckt taped to. While in Germany there is much less speed restriction but fuel is expensive, and modification is highly prohibited. Also, there are extensive automotive inspections to make sure your car is running properly.

So, here we drive inefficient poorly running cars slowly, while there there are much more efficient, properly running cars that can be driven as fast as the drivers want, with the understanding they will pay for their consumption at the pump.

My point, fuel is too cheap here for anyone to care about saving it. Why tune up your car or change your air filter. Need 24s on your suburban, sure! Gasoline is cheaper than good water here, people are not paying for the damage to the environment.

All that being said, I am not left wing in the least, but I do have a concern for the environment. I maintain my cars to the highest possible level, but I love to drive quickly, so I consider that an indulgence I conciously pay for.

 

An interesting little tidbit to answer the original question...

Apparently the US Department of Energy will be revising the EPA fuel economy listings on all cars as of 2008 to better fit the real world driving habits of todays drivers. The current standards were set in the 60s. I saw it on this weeks MotorWeek TV.

You can actually go to the DOEs web site and compare the EPA mileage listing of what the window sticker says versus what the new rating is on the web for vehicles from 2008 back to 1985...

Here is the link...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

As for the 2007 E320 Bluetec, the revised mileage is now listed at 23 city, 32 Highway, 26 Combined. You will find that ALL cars revised numbers are lower.

The old numbers were based on driving at no more than 60 MPH with the A/C off etc. Now the numbers are based on up to 80 MPH... I bet if you cruise your E320 on a flat freeway at 60 MPH with the A/C turned off and the windows up you will probably see 37 MPG from the original estimates... Give it a try! I can get 27 MPG out of my 2007 GL 320 CDI by doing this, even though the window sticker says 25 Hwy... But if I cruise at 75 MPH on the free way with the A/C blasting, I get about 23.5 MPG

 

You are absolutely bang on !
Your observations of the differences in attitude between Germany and the USA are so true !
Imagine if sales of clean diesel cars in NA rose to the same level as Europe !
The US would no longer have to import any oil from the Middle East.
Geopolitics would never be the same.
Consumers would save billions of $$ and the environmental benefits would be considerable.

 

No more so than that to which I was responding.

Oh, I'd say at about the time that there is irrefutable evidence that the science is on the mark....for example, it used to be acceptable to dump mercury into streams. In Japan, this was done widely. You can view the results of this here:

Then, as now, scientists reached a "consensus", that mercury causes birth defects. Then, as now, there was emperical, measurable evidence that they were right. Should the politicians have disregarded the evidence then?

Or what about cigarette smoking? Even though recently released (via court cases, not voluntarily, mind you) documents clearly show that the tobacco were aware back in the '50's that cigarettes were health hazards, tobacco companies bought a bunch of scientists to claim that cigarettes were safe, to obfuscate the science and slow government intervention. It worked, for a time, until the scientific and medical communities prevailed.

Um, no, not really, as a quick perusal of every major scientific journal related to the topic will tell you, as would a visit to NOAA's website, or NASA's website,, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or Science Magazine, or the Department of Defense, The American Meterological Society, The National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, etc, etc...

Actually, you originally wrote it's like gravity, not "candy corn" (which frankly makes no sense at all ), and as someone else pointed out, we do know how it (gravity) works, and we do all have a direct effect on it, as we all have mass, and any mass has an affect on any other mass, regardless of size differences. You have a gravitational affect upon the earth, just as it has one on you; the difference is, its greater mass affects you a lot more than you affect it.

A few salient points:

1) this was not done by the BBC, it was done on Channel 4, different animal entirely. If you'd like to know what the BBC has to say about climate change, click here and here:

2) the show to which you refer was immediately called out in the British press for numerous inaccurate, false claims; in fact, scientists whose work was cited in the piece went on record as saying that the producers of the piece altered their data:
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece
Here is a letter to the producers of the film, and to Channel 4, from Carl Wunsch. Dr. Wunsch is an MIT Professor who was interviewed in the film and presented as being a "global warming skeptic". He states, flat out, that the producers of this film deliberately misrepresented his statements. With reference to his letter, he writes: In the letter itself, Dr. Wunsch writes of the film "The Global Warming Swindle.": So two of the "skeptical" scientists featured in the film are on record as saying that the film either falsified their data or misrepresented their views, or both.

I'll pass.

Here's another piece from the British press detailing the major errors of the piece:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...cle2355956.ece

More rebuttals:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...40542976216573
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...032575,00.html
http://www.chase-it.com/climate/The_...A_Rebuttal.pdf

Another piece which used cherry picking, misrepresentation, and distortions to obfuscate the issue, using the same debunked arguments from the above listed piece.

No, it isn't (also click here for Science Magazine's debunking of the "no consensus" canard), but you keep right on believing what vested interests are paying people to tell you what to think. I find it humorous that the Scientists who work in this field and who back up their findings with measurement evidence are assailed as "biased", but a tiny minority of scientists who are funded by oil companies are The Word, The Truth, and The Light, with no hint of bias despite a clear financial conflict of interest.

Just a few days ago, it was reported that Greenland is melting at a rate three times faster than predicted by scientists, and this comes on the heels of a similar report released last month which reported that the Artic ice cap is *also* melting three times faster than predicted.

Lastly, here is a compilation of the most prevalent myths propagated and the research debunking them:
http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...uration%3Along

 

The Canadian Dollar is now almost at parity with the US Dollar (0.94) due to the crude, Crown Victorias and Impalas cop cars we ship south.

 

I agree with almost everything you said and I am meticulous with maintenance too (for performance and longevity of my cars). America is a free and vast country while Germany is tiny. There are lots of oil in NA and none in Germany. In fact there is no need to buy oil from the Muslim chieftains that hate us so much. There is simply no political will to tap these NA reserves.

I love the simple big block push rod overhead valve V-8s that enable ordinary American "salarymen" to enjoy 8 cylinders without skimping on their weekend steaks and beer. I have never been to Germany but in the UK ordinary people drive tiny cars with shockingly small engines (1,200 cc to 1,600 cc) with stick shifts to save fuel. Cost of living is high and income lower than the USA. Their gasoline is the highest in Europe.

I like it the way it is in North America. I like Pamela and Sanjaya.

 

I agree with you on E85, which was nothing more than a quasi-Socialist handout to the farmers imo (not only less economical in the cars themselves, but it may well require more energy to produce it than it saves).

But California has damn good reasons to regulate air quality, and they are not regulating just for the sake of regulating. If you go back and review the data from those days where leaded gasoline was widely available and there were no pollution controls on cars, it quickly becomes apparent why action was required (and if you review present-day data about air pollution, you can see why it is still required: three of the top ten most polluted cities in the USA are in California, and Los Angeles is the worst city in the nation).

And the market wasn't going to regulate in that case, because 1) unleaded gasoline was more expensive to produce than leaded, which would make consumers less likely to switch willingly; 2) emission controls cost money to add, which would make it less likely that the auto manufacturers would add it of their own free will (hell, they fought seat belts tooth and nail!); and 3) there was, and still is, a clear public health hazard.

Now look at the benefits: there is no lead in gasoline, which, if you have small children, you can very quickly find reason to be thankful for; the air is cleaner (cars today are something like 1/50th as polluting as the cars of yesteryear); we get fantastic performance with reasonable fuel economy. The sky didn't fall, automotive and gasoline manufacturers and retailers are still profitable (provided they actually make and sell cars that people want to purchase, that is), and we all breathe cleaner air.

Similarly, next year the Bluetec will be 50-state certified, meaning that it will provide the same level of performance, etc., yet produce less pollution.

What's the harm with that, exactly??

What a nice little xenophobic rant....and he is doing this, of course, solely because he likes to regulate, not because of their pollution, right? Two stroke motors pollute like *****, and if these devices can be replaced by electric-powered devices with a huge dropoff in pollution, gasoline useage, and cost, why not?

I am all for stopping unnecessary regulation, but in cases where there is a clear public health benefit involved, I cannot see how one could argue that allowing the pollution to continue unchecked is a good thing for the public--unless your sole concern is economic, ignoring all health risks.

With this mindset, we could simply start allowing companies to start dumping pollutants, unflitered, into streams and waterways, because it is expensive for them to (gasp) not pollute. Rubbish. There are other concerns besides economic ones to include in this equation.

 

Well Said

Sounds like you might have been here, but not necessarily like I was from the more or less beginning.

I remember one terrible smog attack period in the fifties when
I worked in a gas station at PCH and El Segundo Blvd.

The Smog was so think that you could not see half way accross LAX towards Century Blvd, a
distance of only one mile. The temperatures for four days straight was in the 110 range.

You couldn't begin to breath properly.
It was impossible to catch a good breath without causing yourself to cough.

Can you imagine what it would be like by now without unleaded fuel and cat. convertors
and given the even larger numbers of vehicles now on the road?

I think California now has over 25 Million registered cars and trucks.

 

The problem is that at this point the regulation is so misguided. The idea that trucks weighing over 5000 pounds can be completely written off one's taxes makes people care very little about getting 8 mpg. I recently had an American rental car (brand new) that supposedly got 27 or 29 mpg highway, yet driving 90% highway I got 19.5. The cars we can legally drive burn so much fuel, while giving HOV stickers to hybrids (completely eliminating any benefit they could provide) makes me believe that cleanliness is not the reason we cannot drive the CDI/Bluetec models in Ca yet. I cannot fathom that the World Green Car is dirtier than all the garbage on the roads here, and not clean enough for our use.

Arnold personally endorsed the Bluetec days before changing regulations that prevent is from being sold here. The hybrid producing manufacturers have very active lobbyists that are quite focused on making diesels slow (or not) in coming, fully aware that they will (hopefully) lose market share.

A note on hybrids, why does nobody ever consider the environmental impact of those batteries, both producing and disposing of them? I'm waiting until the first lot of hybrids becomes 10 years old and we have to deal with a serious hybrid disposal problem.

 

[QUOTE=Untertürkheim;2277854]The problem is that at this point the regulation is so misguided. The idea that trucks weighing over 5000 pounds can be completely written off one's taxes makes people care very little about getting 8 mpg. I recently had an American rental car (brand new) that supposedly got 27 or 29 mpg highway, yet driving 90% highway I got 19.5. The cars we can legally drive burn so much fuel, while giving HOV stickers to hybrids (completely eliminating any benefit they could provide) makes me believe that cleanliness is not the reason we cannot drive the CDI/Bluetec models in Ca yet. I cannot fathom that the World Green Car is dirtier than all the garbage on the roads here, and not clean enough for our use.

Arnold personally endorsed the Bluetec days before changing regulations that prevent is from being sold here. The hybrid producing manufacturers have very active lobbyists that are quite focused on making diesels slow (or not) in coming, fully aware that they will (hopefully) lose market share.

Honda just stopped making its Accord hybrid. It is powerful and good on fuel. It does not sell. NA buyers have spoken loud and clear. No battery cars.

I agree lobbyists use tree-hugging enthusiasts to achieve their goals. NA car makers do not have a viable alternative to good European diesels. Honda and Toyota sell diesels in Europe and all over the world. These engines are cleaner in some way (I think it is CO2 emissions) than is required in the USA. If they are good enough for the rest of the world and most states what is wrong with the 3 states?

 

The Accord Hybrid was canceled for two reasons: (1) It didn't get great mileage; the electric motor only providing more power. It was not capable of running on electric power alone like Toyota/Nissan and Ford hybrids. (2) The entire Accord line is being replaced in a matter of months anyway. There will be a diesel in the US line-up instead of a hybrid.

Americans do like hybrids, by the way...they are breaking sales records.

 

I cannot say if you are right about the Honda Accord hybrid not being able to run on electric power alone. The only car like that is a hybrid made by GM with an Ecotec 2.4 liter engine. Besides, Honda still makes smaller hybrids (Civic size). The real test comes when oil is back to US$50 per barrel. If hybrids still sells without all the government rebates then Americans must like hybrids. Jimmy Carter's oil crisis disappeared with Ronald Reagan in the White House. The first sign of life for the motor car was the arrival of the last carburetted 210 horse 302 cubic inch motor.

Hybrids work best in tiny tinny dinky cars totally unsuitable for big Americans.

Most Toyota hybrid buyers only want to make a statement, some celebrities like Cameron Diaz and Canada's hippie David Sue-Sue-Kee.

 

The Honda hybrid system must work in conjunction with the engine.

It really is a shame that many of the more mainstream hybrid cars went in the wrong direction. Instead of producing hybrids with eqivalent power to their gasoline counterparts and huge increases in efficiency, many have (and are going) the way of the Accord and producing a 250 - 300 hp equivalent car with substantial increased cost and only modest economy gains. The new Lexus LS600h is only supposed to get about 20 mpg. If it was 'only' as powerful as the LS450 and got in the 30s, then they'd have something. Same with the Lexus GS and Rx hybrids. GM is able to get 25% better fuel economy with their hybrid Tahoe despite using the 350hp engine from the Escalade and 2500 series trucks. My '04 with the 5.3 has plenty of power for a big, ponderous truck; if I could have the same space, towing, and power with 40% better economy, I'd seriously consider it. They should be able to accomplish this with a 6 cylinder, not the largest engine they have.