backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 232 comment(s) - last by BucDan.. on Feb 3 at 12:51 PM


Bugatti's Veyron produces an astonishing 1001 HP.

This Dodge Viper ACR produces 600 HP.

The Tesla Roadster adds lithium-ion batteries and an electric motor to a Lotus Elise-based chassis.

100 Chevy Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles are being distributed to lucky drivers in California, New York, and Washington.

Honda looks to succeed with diesel where the Accord Hybrid failed.
EPA official tells manufacturers to "chill" with the horsepower wars and focus on efficiency

Just a few years ago, 405 HP was seen as an enormous amount of power for a passenger car. That was the heady tally for Chevy's Corvette Z06. A scant eight years later, Dodge and Chevy are dancing around the 600 HP mark with their '08 Dodge Viper and '09 Chevy Corvette ZR-1 respectively. If 600 HP isn’t enough for you, there’s always the ultra-exotic Bugatti Veyron which produces an astonishing 1001 HP.

Despite the fact that vehicles like the Veyron, Viper and Corvette ZR-1 make up an insignificant portion of the millions of the vehicles sold each year, a top-ranking official for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants manufacturers to put an end to the horsepower wars. Instead of funneling money towards the development of vehicles that have the most chest-thumping horsepower and torque, the official suggests that manufacturers look at the opposite end of the spectrum and produce the most ultra-efficient, lowest-polluting vehicles on the planet.

"We must bring about an end to the horsepower arms race among auto makers and replace it with another different kind of a race, a race to produce the most affordable and desirable, low carbon-vehicle each year," said Margo Oge, the EPA director for the office of transportation and air quality.

"Smog-producing emissions from new vehicles are almost practically zero," Oge continued. "I believe the one set of product plans automotive engineers must [include] with every new model is, ‘How can I make this produce fewer greenhouse-gas emissions?’”

Oge suggest that automakers use all of their technological know-how along with a younger generation of Americans who are environmentally conscious to produce "greener" vehicles.

"[They] want to create an energy technology revolution," remarked Oge. "But it’s up to you to make those investments and push the technologies to create this kind of revolution. Carbon emissions must be reduced, and we must begin now. It can be done, and this country and Detroit can become the epicenter for the next great industrial revolution and engine for economic growth."

With the new CAFE regulations breathing down auto manufacturers' backs, Oge's pleas to the industry likely won't fall on deaf ears.

Ford and GM have announced their intentions to use smaller, turbocharged four and six cylinder engines to replace more fuel-hungry six and eight cylinder engines respectively. Turbocharging is not a new phenomenon in the U.S. auto market, but its use is not as widespread as in Europe where fuel prices soar into the stratosphere.

Diesel motors are making a comeback in the U.S. market as well. GM is bringing a 4.5 liter Duramax diesel to its half-ton pickups and Toyota will follow suit with a diesel of its own for the Tundra and Sequoia. Honda has diesels in store for its sedans, pickups and crossovers while Nissan will bring over a diesel engine for its next-generation Maxima mid-sized sedan.

Toyota already made the word "hybrid" a household name in the U.S. The company's Prius gasoline-electric hybrid went from a relatively small blip on American radar screens to a vehicle which found its way into 181,000 driveways in 2007.

Likewise, companies like GM, Ford, Honda and Nissan have all embraced hybrids to improve the fuel economy of their vehicles while at the same time decreasing emissions.

Looking towards the near future, there are vehicles like the Chevy Volt and Tesla Roadster which run solely on lithium-ion batteries and a powerful electric motor. And as DailyTech has already demonstrated, fuel cell vehicles are already here and could represent a major breakthrough in vehicle propulsion if the hydrogen infrastructure gets a boost in the U.S.

The new CAFE legislation that President Bush signed into law calls for auto manufacturers to increase average fuel economy from the current 25 MPG to 35 MPG by the year 2020. The move to more fuel efficient vehicles won’t happen overnight considering the wide variety of vehicles that many auto manufacturers include in their lineups. However, auto manufacturers have twelve years to figure out what technologies are in their best interest – and their customers’ best interest – in the strive for the 35 MPG goal.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Choice...
By Warren21 on 1/30/2008 12:08:40 AM , Rating: 4
I agree that we could use some more efficient vehicles in North America... Some more diesels like those in Europe enjoy for example.

'End the horsepower arms race' altogether however? I don't think that is completely necessary; a shift in focus to efficiency is a good call, but I don't think it's necessary to stop innovating in one area completely to achieve it.




RE: Choice...
By Bluestealth on 1/30/2008 12:18:23 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of cars already have way more power than the majority of people ever will use.
I agree in performance oriented vehicles that efficiency should come second though, however not all segments need to be in a horsepower war in which efficiency falls by the wayside.


RE: Choice...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/30/2008 12:20:44 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
A lot of cars already have way more power than the majority of people ever will use.


A 268 HP Camry just seems wrong to me ;)


RE: Choice...
By Samus on 1/30/2008 5:14:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
A 268 HP Camry just seems wrong to me ;)


Haha, the Maxima, a similar sized vehicle to the Camry, has had over 250HP for 10+ years.

That Nissan 3.5L V6 is world famous, and it should be. They don't put it in virtually every vehicle they sell (basically the Sentra is the only mainstream Nissan vehicle you CAN'T get that V6 in) because it sucks. It doesn't suck. It sips. My Dad's Altima 3.5L averages 25MPG city/highway. That ain't bad for 270HP or whatever it has. It's looney power for a front-wheel drive car.


RE: Choice...
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2008 6:51:27 AM , Rating: 2
Not knocking on the Altima but I hardly think a car thats EPA rated at best 19/27 is averaging barely below its highway rating. Unless your dad drives 90% on the highway.


RE: Choice...
By therealnickdanger on 1/30/2008 8:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
First, EPA numbers don't reflect real world conditions. They are getting better at it, but it's still only an estimate.

Second, not every car of the same make and model can achieve the same mileage. There are many factors ranging from tire pressure to altitude that affect each users results. I know that with my car (2005 Magnum R/T), I can get an average of 22MPG (40%hi/60%ci) on a tank in the summer if I'm driving Miss Daisy, but in the winter... more like 14MPG. (It was negative 18 degrees this morning with a wind chill of God-knows-what.) Without the engine being at prime operating temp, it really sucks the fuel. In the summer, with the engine at 210 degrees and the cruise at 65MPH, I can regularly get over the rated 24MPG hiway. I came close to 30MPG over 20 miles once. Of course, this is affected by hills...

Friends (online and off) of mine with the same car often claim to get better and worse mileage. It's really all over the board.


RE: Choice...
By Blight AC on 1/30/2008 8:27:45 AM , Rating: 2
My Subaru Forester XT also gets some pretty decent gas milage compared to EPA rating, it's rated at:
MPG (city): 18
MPG (highway): 25

My standard driving is relatively mixed, mostly country roads, with about 30% of it going through towns, in hilly country (upstate NY).

I typically get between 23-24 MPG, and I race it a lot, love that Turbo whine, and when the acceleration kicks in, I just love giving it a little more. However, I did drive really conservatively for a full tank and got around 27 MPG. So yes, a properly maintained car can get above EPA ratings, it's only an estimate, not a limit.


RE: Choice...
By fic2 on 1/30/2008 11:55:42 AM , Rating: 3
I drive a '99 Forester non-turbo w/manual tranny and regularly average 27 mpg. Most of my driving is highway, though. Also, if I am driving in the city I tend to look at the stop lights ahead and if it is red take my foot off the gas. Even going in the mountains to snowboard (I live in Denver) I get 25+ mpg. I have nearly 100k miles on the car. Even driving in the moutains the 165HP is enough to be able to do 65-70 uphill without a strain.


RE: Choice...
By Samus on 1/31/2008 1:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
My Focus SVT is supposed to get 19/26 EPA rating (or something like that.)

Does anyone here think a Focus could possibly get 19MPG, no matter how hard you drive it? It's a 2.0L engine and it weighs 2600lbs (ZX3-platform)

I get 30MPG. It's a 15 gallon tank, and I've never gotten anything less than 350 miles on it, even in the coldest winters. The EPA numbers are worthless BS.


RE: Choice...
By ZipSpeed on 1/31/2008 3:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Forester XT myself. Problem is, I have lead foot and that really kills the fuel economy. :P Nothing like seeing the surprised look of people when a family wagon destroys some of the BMWs out there.


RE: Choice...
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 8:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
My wife drives a 2005 Altima V6. When we take it on long trips, I get 33-34 MPG at 75 MPH. Normal daily use averages about 26 MPG. Of course it also requires premium gas, but it's still a great fuel efficiency to HP rating.

There's a lot of people who spent a lot more on their car that get left in her wake off the line. The looks on their faces is priceless.

When it's cold here in MN (like it has been lately), the mileage drops considerably. She only sees about 22-23 MPG in daily use in the cold.


RE: Choice...
By BioHazardous on 1/30/2008 11:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
^5 diablo! Gas mileage rocks in MN when it's -20 degrees out. I remember reading the article the other day about focusing on putting turbos in cars for increased fuel effeciency. My '04 VW Jetta (1.8T) has been getting about 18mpg with this lovely weather. No I don't go and start my car and leave it run for 10 minutes before I drive it and no I don't race around like an idiot when it's this cold.

I miss my TDI.


RE: Choice...
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 12:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
I used to have a VR6 Jetta (2000, 5 spd manual). I liked driving the car and was happy with the fuel economy (about 25 in daily driving), but I couldn't stand the repair bills! It only had 50,000 miles on it and it had to go in to get some stupid thing (ie - passenger side power window motor, which went up and down maybe twice) fixed every month. It was such a money pit (for silly things) that I doubt I'll own another VW.


RE: Choice...
By BioHazardous on 1/30/2008 2:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I know the pain. My TDI was more reliable, and you got the 2000 which was the beginning of the fourth generation Jetta so you probably had a few more problems than the average Jetta owner. It's a fun car to drive while you have a warranty, but outside of that it makes you a little nervous to own it. I'm not sure what I'll switch to next time I get a new car, hopefully something not relying solely on an ICE.


RE: Choice...
By RamboZZo on 1/30/2008 10:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
Hah! I know exactly what you mean. I had a 96 Jetta GLX VR6 and that thing might as well have come with a credit card machine to just drain your account as you drove along. The power windows would never work for more than 4 - 6 months at a time. Each one was rebuilt at least 3 times. It had who knows how many electrical system failures, overheated on whim, blew gaskets like crazy and went through two full engine rebuilds. For every month on the road it spent a full month in the shop. It was a super fun car to drive, when it actually worked and the gas mileage wasn't too bad getting around 23-24 mpg. Got rid of it and bought a 2002 Subaru Impreza RS which drives like a dream. I've run it to 130K miles and required no more than oil changes and tires. I drive almost only highway and it gets a solid 26-27mpg and I can squeeze out 400 miles out of a full tank when I'm not in lead foot mode.


RE: Choice...
By othercents on 1/30/2008 12:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
Same here 3.5L Altima and I get 24mpg during summer and 22mpg during winter. I drive very aggressive (IE. red line every stoplight) and spend 80% of my drive time in the city and 20% on the highway. When taking long road trips at 80+mph I get around 30-32mpg. This engine is very efficient for the amount of power you get and for the size. Look at Toyota and Honda and you will find a bigger engine doing the same type of work with a lower full efficiency. I even drove one tank very mildly (IE less than 2,500 rpm) and average 27mpg in the city.

Granted who really cares how much MPG I get? If I want to spend my money on speed then I should be able too and you should be able to save your money by buying 55MPG cars. However the biggest thing that the EPA is concerned about is Greenhouse gas which effects everyone. This is why some (if not all) states have emissions standards and maybe these standards should be increased for the newer cars coming out.

The question that has not been answered is if the 600+HP cars actually help develop more efficient engines that produce less Greenhouse gas. From racing organizations I find that many new technologies are tested on the track before they are introduced for the public. Plus the new Tesla is all about HP I hope the EPA isn't up in arms about a non polluting car.

Other


RE: Choice...
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 12:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
No, I want both - power and fuel economy! And I think that market is bigger than the market for those who only want either.

I was using my wife's Altima as an example of a car that delivers both excellent power and good fuel economy.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 12:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is why some (if not all) states have emissions standards and maybe these standards should be increased for the newer cars coming out.
Actual harmful emissions from cars nowadays are damn near negligible. Out here in CA, we make jokes about how the air is cleaner coming out of the tailpipe of a car.


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 12:38:30 PM , Rating: 3
> "Out here in CA, we make jokes about how the air is cleaner coming out of the tailpipe of a car"

Few people realize just how clean cars are today. A model from 1970 can easily put out 1000+ times the harmful emissions of a modern car -- more, if its not properly maintained.


RE: Choice...
By Azzr34l on 1/30/2008 6:02:16 PM , Rating: 1
And yet the genius politicians allow the older cars to be exempt from smog certs.


RE: Choice...
By rcc on 1/30/2008 6:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
And compared to 20 years ago, the LA air is much better than it was.

I used to drive to Azusa weekly, I'd been doing it for years before I actually realized that the San Gabriel mountains were practically in the back yard of the facility there, the smog was that bad. Now it's relitively clear, even on a bad day.


RE: Choice...
By crazydrummer4562 on 2/2/2008 1:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah. I live in Riverside County and I swear it's a smog bowl. The air sucks here so badly.


RE: Choice...
By Aikouka on 1/30/2008 8:53:42 AM , Rating: 2
My Altima 3.5SL gets between 23 and 27mpg. I estimate the norm is 24-25mpg. Of course this depends on speed, acceleration, etc. I don't speed, but sometimes I accelerate faster than normal (nothing excessive) and that cuts down a bit on the gas mileage. I do have a bit of city driving, although most of its use is driving to work where I drive on a state route (that has some stop lights and speed varies from 45-55 with varying inclines).

I kind of agree with what someone else said... I don't think it needs to end (slow down maybe?), but there's nothing wrong with exploring alternative solutions that have been available elsewhere (such as diesel in passenger cars). I wouldn't mind going with a diesel car as long as I don't have to plug it in :P. My father was a huge fan of diesel cars and I remember him having to plug it in on the cold mornings.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 9:06:08 AM , Rating: 2
Good news for you sir, no need to plug it since 1995 :)

The non-turbo diesel engines used in personnel cars pre 1995 (In Finland they were nicknamed "tractors" :) ) and modern turbodiesels are two different animals: the old one was a mule, the modern version is a horse. (Sorry for the metaphora :) )

The modern turbodiesel used in personnel cars has the speed, the strength and the acceleration.
For example
http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_...


RE: Choice...
By eye smite on 1/31/2008 12:09:17 AM , Rating: 2
YOu really lack experience with cars I see. I have a 93 Olds 88 with a V6 that gets 24 town and 30-31 hwy at 15 yrs old. They already make cars that get much higher mpg in europe, and I'm not talking about little car companies. Opel is a division of GM and they have cars that get 50mpg hwy and it's not a hybrid. If you don't believe me though, go to a rental car agency and get a buick lesabre with a 3.8L V6 and log your mpg town and hwy. We're not talking about rocket science here, we're talking about the big 3 pulling the wool over your eyes for decades now.


RE: Choice...
By kenji4life on 1/30/2008 6:53:23 AM , Rating: 3
If you go back 10 years, the 1998 Maxima (which included the same VQ30DE engine from 1995-1999) had 190hp and 210ft/lb torque.

It's probably good to check your facts before you present them as such.

On that note, my 1995 Maxima has more power than I need. That doesn't mean it has as much power as I want. But that's another story. I'd trade for an equivalent car with 10% less power and 10% better fuel economy, if given the option. I'd still be plenty satisfied with the performance.

P.S. In 2002 Nissan introduced the VQ35DE, and it wasn't until a couple of years ago that the Maxima crossed the 250 hp barrier. Now some Nissan Skyline's had a 2.5 and 2.6 liter turbocharged and twin-turbocharged engine which was nearer to 250 hp 10+ years ago, however that model was never sold in the USA.


RE: Choice...
By Shoal07 on 1/30/2008 9:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the Infiniti G35 sedan (aka Nissan Skyline V36/350GT in Japan) with 306 hp - based on the 3.5l V6 (The VQ35DE engine). I would say my G35x averages 18-22 mpg in real world driving, but that's also a AWD automatic - I'm sure the RWD manual, driven responsibly, does a little bit better. Of course, 306hp sedans are rarely driven responsibly - those people buy lexus :)


RE: Choice...
By s12033722 on 1/30/2008 12:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
I also drive a G35x, and I get about 19 MPG average. I also live at 7800 feet in Colorado.


RE: Choice...
By xti on 1/30/2008 12:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
06 35 here, 20-21ish mpg, driven pretty responsibly.

this EPA rant makes me ask 'Does the EPA think that none of the car makers are good enough to achieve 2 goals on opposite ends of the performance spectrum'... reminds me of the friend no one wants to have.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 1:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's almost as if the EPA considers GM to be one person, not a company full of thousands of people.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 12:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Pontiac Solstice GXP (direct injection turbo 4 cyl) and get 28 mpg on my mostly freeway commute. And that's with many full throttle blasts. If I drive like a grandma, then I can get 30-31 mpg. I also get 30+ mpg on longer freeway drives. My best is 33 mpg (only got it once on a Palm Springs trip). In city driving the mileage drops to 24 but only if there's a lot of stop and go AND I drive aggressively.


RE: Choice...
By Spoelie on 1/30/2008 5:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
I have a VAG 1.9TDI, and get 47mpg on my daily commute, mostly highway keeping to the speed limits (~75mph). My best is 56mpg, when driving behind trucks (60-65mph). If I drive on average 90-100mph on the highway, I do about 35mpg.

City driving (low speeds) do not change the figures all that much, only when standing still a lot at red lights.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 7:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
One thing I like about diesel cars is the massive range you get from a tank of gas. If I could drive to Phoenix (430 miles from my house) on one tank of gas that would be awesome. My present car requires one fill up there and one coming back (350 mile range).


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/31/2008 11:25:19 AM , Rating: 2
Piece of cake for modern turbodiesel. Ovet 700 miles per tank.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10509...


RE: Choice...
By theapparition on 1/30/2008 2:37:25 PM , Rating: 3
Since everyone is listing their real world experience......

7.0L LS7 supercharged Corvette Z06, 801rwhp/768rwt, close to 30mpg on the highway, average 25mpg.
That is, until I press the pedal down a little more ;-)


RE: Choice...
By Cullinaire on 1/30/2008 12:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
Ugh, all you guys with the latest Nissan V6s are making me jealous with the MPG figures! My '95 Nissan with the 2.4l KA24DE (read: 100hp less than your engines!) struggles to get 20mpg right now (granted most of it is city driving). Of course, the fact that she likes to blow out a nice cloud of blue smoke after each stoplight might have something to do with it...


RE: Choice...
By h8 on 1/30/2008 12:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
My old citroen Jumpy from 98 with 1,9L tdi 88hp is a van, like a smaller ford transit. One winter here in Scandinavia I went to Norway with an average speed of about 100km/h (60mph). One on single 68 liter (17,8 gallon) tank I went to norway and back, that was 1400km (875miles). I guess that means that that old lunchbox looking van has about 50mpg on the highway anyways (and the small crappy norweigan roads). But a friend of mine has a Volvo V70 D5 that has the same MPG.. Enough about disel cars, what I really want is the new Audi RS6 at 580hp.


RE: Choice...
By Arribajuan on 1/30/2008 3:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
Why wrong? it is so sporty :P


RE: Choice...
By TitusDes on 1/30/2008 3:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A lot of cars already have way more power than the majority of people ever will use.


I use quite a lot of my vehicle's HP. Not on a regular basis or anything, but it's nice to have. To me, it's like a good set of disc brakes. I've avoided many accidents by using the accelerator instead of the brake pedal.

That said, a good transmission is probably more critical in situations like that than the raw power your engine has.


RE: Choice...
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2008 6:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
Then don't buy that car. People like me though will use the power and we should be able to buy a car with it. Nearly every car out there has smaller engine options in addition to the higher output motors.


RE: Choice...
By GreenyMP on 1/30/2008 11:12:57 AM , Rating: 2
I am more accustomed to disagreeing with Fit. But I think that he is completely right on this one.

If you want to pretend like your prius is saving the planet, then good for you. If I want a monster truck or a Corvette Z06 then that is my right (in the United States of America (until Hillary gets elected)). I think the EPA does a great job at making recommendations, but lets not tell the auto makers that they have to ignore a large portion of their customer base.


RE: Choice...
By tdawg on 1/30/2008 12:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I want a monster truck or a Corvette Z06 then that is my right...


This has been covered before, but you buying or driving a certain vehicle is not a right, it's a privilege. The right to buy and drive any vehicle is not defined anywher in the Constitution.


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 12:57:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "The right to buy and drive any vehicle is not defined anywher in the Constitution. "

It most certainly is. Check the 9th and particularly the 10th Amendment for details.


RE: Choice...
By Cygni on 1/30/2008 6:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
The 9th and 10th amendments do not apply, in this case. The various agencies of the Federal government, including the FDA, FCC, EPA, and others, can and do limit the so called 'right to buy,' or more correctly in many cases, the right to produce/sell.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say you have any specific right to buy or drive any vehicle. Which is why I can't go out and buy a three-wheeler in the states. ;)


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 8:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "The 9th and 10th amendments do not apply, in this case."

They most certainly do; such laws are, in fact, the raison d'etre of the 10th Amendent. Unfortunately, however, most people seem to have forgotten it even exists, or what purpose it had.


RE: Choice...
By jmunjr on 1/31/2008 10:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
The Constitution doesn't necessarily define what OUR rights are, they define what powers the federal government has.

We do have a RIGHT to travel, and can do so via normal modes of transportation. A car is one such mode. It is unreasonable to restrict our free travel by requiring citizens to have "papers", registration, and arguably a license.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to require vehicle registrations, especially tied to our names. If the states insist that we "register" our vehicles then so be it, but make it anonymous. There isn't a good reason to have our name attached to it. We don't have to register our bodies, our clothing, or even our bicycles. Why cars?

It seems instead of having sensible laws about driving and reliable enforcement of those laws the states would rather just put extreme requirements on how the people can travel.

The most annoying thing for me is with all the restrictions and requirements, taxes, fees, licenses, etc, you'd think they'd only let people who actually knew how to drive on the roads. They let anyone, so long as they submit to all the ridiculous and privacy-infringing conditions(and fees). It's a joke. I give away so much and get so little in return, and share the roads with possibly the worst drivers in the world.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 1:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The right to buy and drive any vehicle is not defined anywher in the Constitution.
Obtaining a drivers license isn't a right but we do indeed have to right to buy a car or a house or clothing or HDTV's or high speed internet connections or computers or etc.


RE: Choice...
By mindless1 on 1/31/2008 11:46:27 AM , Rating: 1
How much power a car has is just an arbitrary standard. If the least powerful cars had as much as the most powerful do today, you'd just want more, and more.

You aren't actually entitled to have a more powerful car than anyone else, it's just a sign you have poor driving skills and no patience.

No matter how much you dare declare what you are entitled to, it's pretty damn selfish to insist you have the right to pollute more than others, while simultaneously taking advantage of the fact that the world you live in is less polluted during your lifetime than it will be after you're gone BECAUSE of your selfish decisions.

You don't actually have the right to leave the world dirtier than you found it. Clean up after yourself (which you can't reasonably do) or don't make the mess, children are the only ones that should expect mom to do that.


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/31/2008 12:49:18 PM , Rating: 3
Once again, you've confused car mileage (or worsr, horsepower) with total pollution generated. You've forgotten the fact that how far you drive is by far the largest factor in total consumption.

A person burning 10 gallons a week in a Civic is generating more emissions than the person burning 5 gallons a week in the Explorer.

> "You don't actually have the right to leave the world dirtier than you found it"

So from this are we to assume you do zero driving at all? Or is this more hypocrisy? The only "true" polluters are the people that pollute more than you do?


RE: Choice...
By mindless1 on 1/31/2008 11:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, I've definitely not confused the two. How far you drive is a function of where you need to go, or even when it is a choice, you still have the other choice of what to drive.

It's a nonsensical excuse to say the car MPG isn't more significant than how far you drive, because ultimately we do see that people with cars having worse efficiency don't just opt not to drive very often, it's actually the opposite when you see every third vehicle on the road is a minivan or SUV with only one occupant, the driver.

You know you have no reasonable argument, the person buring 5 gallons a week in the Explorer could scarcely even get to work and back and do basic things like go grocery shopping. We can make a reasonable assumption that someone who lives very near their workplace and stores might use that as a justification to buy a larger vehicle, but even then they could have bought the smaller one instead and burnt less gas!

Sorry but you're the one confused about reality, that if someone needs to go somewhere they're not going to limit themselves to X gallons of gas a week, if they cared about fuel consumption they wouldn't have bought the gas guzzler vehicle in the first place unless it was truely needed, and need may be a reasonable justification but gas conserving it is not.


RE: Choice...
By superflex on 1/30/2008 2:05:34 PM , Rating: 4
Wait untill the EPA tells nVidia that they should only produce GPUs that draw 35 watts or PSU manufacturers that they can only produce 330w power supplies.

Then we'll see you grand wizard dungeon masters rally from your mom's basement with usb sticks in hand chanting "overclocking and slaying dragons is my constitutional right"

Who cares how many horsepower the Bugati produces. How many are going to be sold worldwide?...10 or 20. Like that's going to have a huge impact on carbon emissions.



RE: Choice...
By theapparition on 1/30/2008 2:32:19 PM , Rating: 4
What I've been saying for ages.

Everyone thinks banning things are OK until it affects them. Most sports cars are a relatively minor impact on sales, and such, hardly affect any epa numbers. Now, if they focused thier attention on trucks, however........

Freedom of choice.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 3:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, if they focused thier attention on trucks, however........
The new CAFE standards are to include trucks and SUV's. Expect all the cars we now drive, except niche vehicles like sports and luxury cars, to drastically increase in price to accommodate the new CAFE standards. I see a burgeoning used car market in the future.


RE: Choice...
By theapparition on 1/30/2008 4:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
True.

Another thing to consider (and possibly invest in). The incredible growth of the aftermarket car part makers when people who are used to powerful cars get start adding things to get around the new regulations.

Happened in the 70's. Will happen again.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 5:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The incredible growth of the aftermarket car part makers
Considering the amount of turbo cars that will hitting the market in the next few years, I can see an even huger (word?) aftermarket than now.


RE: Choice...
By NullSubroutine on 1/30/2008 2:10:45 AM , Rating: 2
I live in the Midwest and it sucks driving a diesel in the coldest of winter. I dont want to have to add a bottle of anti-freeze fuel supplement every time I fill up. There just isnt enough outlets everywhere to plug your diesel in to stay warm.


RE: Choice...
By Spoelie on 1/30/2008 3:54:16 AM , Rating: 2
What diesel engine is that?? We've had a month of sub-zero temperatures here in europe and none of our diesel cars (1.8tdci ford, 1.9tdi VAG, biturbo 3.0d BMW) had any problems starting or running..


RE: Choice...
By Kazairl2 on 1/30/2008 4:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
Since you're from Europe, I'll assume you're talking about below 0C. Many parts in the upper Midwest of the US have cold snaps that go below 0F, or about -17.7 C. According to the refinery pages I looked up, standard winter diesel begins to cloud up with paraffin crystals below -8C. By -17C, there is so much solid in the fuel that it clogs the filter as the diesel turns to jelly.

As an example of an upper Midwest US winter, Minneapolis-St. Paul in Minnesora is the 15th largest metro area in the US (3.5 million people). The average January low temperature there is -16C, and the record low is -41C. Even Chicago has an average January low of -8C and a record low of -31C. There usually several times a year when inhabitants of the upper Midwest get reminded that they are effectively downwind from Siberia...


RE: Choice...
By Strunf on 1/30/2008 5:05:19 AM , Rating: 4
I don't doubt in North Europe they hit similar low temperatures... and trucks still drive there.

If I'm not mistaken Diesel mixture is slightly changed depending on the temperatures and region to help with cold starts.

Auto makers may also include electrical fuel heaters and other electronic components to detect the wax crystals and deal with it.

I think this is more of a myth than really a reality.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 5:06:12 AM , Rating: 3
There are no problems with diesel cars here in the Arctic Circle. (Finland, Northern Europe) I think you use different kind of diesel in the US (likewise in gasoline, you are using something like 91-92 octane, we are using 95 octane here in Europe.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

Our winter quality diesel works fine even down -40C.(About once per winter we enjoy that weather:) ) The gas stations change their diesel from summer quality to winter quality in October, when temperatures drop below 0 at night.

In Europe diesel is very much used in other vehicles than trucks, in France 70% of all automobiles use diesel. Modern TurboDiesel does not mean a stinking truck (like many people still think), but double torque and halved consumption.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/6/20/212325/307
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R10

People in North America should refresh their opinions about diesel vehicles to this century, the advancement in diesel engines has greatly outpaced gas engines in last 15 years.


RE: Choice...
By ChoadNamath on 1/30/2008 6:49:56 AM , Rating: 5
Kind of like nuclear power plants, a lot of Americans like to pretend that innovation was frozen when we stopped building them here. We tend to be a little myopic like that.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 7:56:59 AM , Rating: 3
Myopic--- a very good metaphora. :)

I checked my facts, you indeed have lower quality diesel in the US, only as lately as 2006 you got better quality. (Becomes mandatory 2010) Better later than not at all :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_fuel

In Europe the market share for American cars is about 5% (give or take a few percentage points), because the American cars are tought to be lower quality, old technology for the price of new (e.g. missing turbodiesel engine options, they are selling the same engine as 20 years ago, more or less, just a little bit bigger and more powerful every couple of years) and unsafe. Neutral safety comparisons: http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx

At 1997, when EuroNCAP became mandator for all new cars in Europe, e.g most Japanese cars got 2 or 3 stars out of five. All European and Japanese manufacturers had to increase safety and quality in their cars (and the cars became more expensive to manufacture). Nowadays new cars get 5 stars, because nobody would 3 or 4 star new car, when the competitor has a 5-star car for the same money.
But the American cars still get 2-3 stars.
(As a sidenote: they tested one large Chinese SUV with EuroNCAP tests, result: 0 stars. Test conclusion: a sure kill in an regular front accident, steering wheel moves thru the driver :( :) ).

Conclusion (the track record of last 20 years):

American car manufactures want to manufacture and sell their cars as cheaply as possible, using only their existing technology and production lines.

They don't invest in anything new, because they don't have to. Consumer buys what he/she can get at lowest price of the available products in the marketplace according to his/her needs.
So if he/she is in the market for SUV, he/she has to choose between the crappy SUV options available, and choose one. But hooray, he/she is happy after the buy, American car manufacturer is happy to accept the money, because the business and marketplace has always been like that and the consumer doesn't know that he/she could demand more.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 8:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
I apologize for typos and missing words. This is my second posting in Dailytech, so I am kind of new here. I really miss a edit-button :)

(And English is not my native language)


RE: Choice...
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2008 9:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
If you go to that site and look at the tests, American owned companies do very well. Sure they show POS's like the Chevy Aveo on there. But several European brands are owned by GM and Ford. And they are quite good cars.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 9:28:10 AM , Rating: 1
That is true.

GM and Ford have bought some parts of European auto industry.

In the global economy the companies are truly global too, it is hard to say how American (or-insert-our-country-here) GM or Ford is, because the shares are constanly bought/selled in NYSE. For comparison Nokia used to be 100% Finnish company, nowadays under 10% of the shares are in Finnish hands. The HQ still is here and Nokia pays it's corporate taxes here.

When I said American cars, I meant cars manufactured in the US (and Mexico ;) ) or models only available in the US.


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 9:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
> "When I said American cars, I meant cars manufactured in the US"

Those models meet the most stringent emissions and safety standards in the world, significantly above those in European countries. For cars sold both overseas and in America, the domestic version is always considerably more expensive. I don't know where you get the idea that American cars are "cheap crap", but it couldn't be further from the truth.

Interestingly enough, even though the primary European models sold in the US are in the luxury segment (and thus one would expect to be in the highest quality segment), European models score worse than American on consumer quality surveys (Japanese models score highest of all).

(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950... par. 10)


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 10:38:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Those models meet the most stringent emissions and safety standards in the world, significantly above those in European countries


What really makes you say that? EuroNCAP is tighter than NCAP. 2min googling
http://detnews.com/2004/specialreport/0404/13/a09-...
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?...
http://www.whatcar.co.uk/news-article.aspx?NA=2188...

California is getting close to EuroIII emission standards in the future,in Europe we are at tighter EuroIV already.
We are considering US emission standards as a joke here. Well, if 25mpg is considered good over there, rest of the world considers 50mpg to be good. Do the maths for the emissions.

The US domestic versions are more expensive than the same model names in Europe, because in the US 2,5 or 3,0 petrol motor, automatic gearbox ans so on are included the standard model. In Europe people choose smaller engines (and nowadays turbodiesels) and manual gear box. If the consumer wants something different, he/she pays extra.

It is the same here, Japanese manufactures get the best consumer satisfaction. (The Japanese companies have many car factories in Europe, 80% of the cars sold here are manufactured on the continent, too.)

[BTW; here is a video of EuroNCAP test to a Chinese SUV, scoring full 0 points. Sure death to the driver
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/122530/land_wind_eur...
"

[note: your NYTimes link doesn't work]


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 11:01:02 AM , Rating: 5
> "California is getting close to EuroIII emission standards "

Where do people get this stuff? California requires 0.4 g/mile for NOx-- EuroIII is 0.5 per km -- over twice as high. CA particulates are 0.08 g/m, EuroIII is 0.083 g/m.

CA limits non-methane hydrocarbons to 0.25 g/m. EuroIII has no limit at all. CA requires a fleet portion of LEV/ULEV vehicles with non-methane organic compound (NMOG) limits. EuroIII does not. CA limits Formaldehyde. Euro III does not. The single case where EuroIII exceeds CA requirements is in CO output.

Diesel requirements are stiffer, which explains why, of all the hundreds of diesel models sold in Europe, only *one* meets the Tier 2 Bin 5 requirements for sale in the USA -- the Mercedes Bluetec E320.


RE: Choice...
By PlasmaBomb on 1/30/2008 11:36:51 AM , Rating: 2
It's not worth comparing Euro III with anything since it's outdated. Euro IV emissions standards have been in place for 3 years so we should really be discussing them. Euro V sound good in that they prevent heavy SUVs being classed as light commercial (or they are supposed to when they come in).

For the record Euro III does limit hydrocarbon and NOx emissions to 0.56 g/km, with NOx limits being 0.5g/km. Assuming you know what a vehicles NOx output is you can work out what the limit is for its HC output i.e. NOx output 0.25g/km, then HC has to be < 0.31g/km to be within spec (for diesel). For petrol the hydrocarbon output limit is 0.2g/km.

Mike has there been any claims of US car manufacturers engaging in cycle beating? That is designing their engines or mapping their ECU to reduce pollutants during emission test cycles?


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 11:59:31 AM , Rating: 2
> "Mike has there been any claims of US car manufacturers engaging in cycle beating?"

That's a good question. I haven't heard of any myself, but that certainly doesn't mean none exist.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 12:10:21 PM , Rating: 1
Staying OT:

Ok, I stand corrected. California is doing stricter than EuroIII. I am not so up-to-date on Californian legislation :)
I am sorry for all the harm done.

In Europe all passenger cars have been using much stricter EuroIV since January 05, in the US you are still putting into effect TierII, which is more relaxed than EuroIV, getting it done by 2009. By that time, Europe has already stricter EuroV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_I_%28emission_st...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_sta...

And the turbodiesel version pollutes less than the petrol version:
[Example, 2008 Toyota Camry/Avensis, same car different name other side of the pond)

2.0l turbodiesel 130 bhp torque 300 Nm, max speed 127 mph, acceleration to 62 mph in 11.1 seconds, fuel economy on the combined cycle 51.4 mpg, CO2 emissions 146 g/km.

2.0 l VVT-i petrol 145 bhp, torque 196 Nm, max speed 130 mph, acceleration to 62 mph in just 9.4 seconds, fuel economy on the combined cycle nearly 35 mpg, CO2 emissions 191 g/km.

In the US Camry with the smallest engine (2,4l petrol, no turbodiesel available, no indication of emissions.)

2.4-l VVT-i 158 hp 161 lb.-ft., 21/31MPG

I just wonder why you Americans buy cars with 21/31MPG, when for the same money you would get 51,4 MPG and more torque (real power, more important than bhp).

I just wonder.

[If you really need more power and acceleration under 9 secs, ???, there are more powerful turbodiesels available, 400nm torque and still MPG over 40)


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 12:26:36 PM , Rating: 3
> "I just wonder why you Americans buy cars with 21/31MPG, when for the same money you would get 51,4 MPG and more torque"

The reasons are numerous. First of all, per-capita GDP is higher in the US than nearly all of Europe, which means people are more interested in comfort and power than saving money. Secondly, fuel prices are far lower...which means the actual savings is smaller still.

Third, there are historical reasons on emissions. Most diesels have never been able to meet tightening American air standards, which didn't exist in Europe. Remember the original Euro I didn't even exist until the early 1990s.

Europe kept using the smelly, noisy, hard-starting, badly-polluting diesels of the 70s and 80s because, quite frankly, they couldn't afford gas engines. Now that diesel technology has vastly improved and the focus is on CO2 output, they'd like you to think it was part of their master plan all along. Nothing could be further from the truth.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 12:52:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
First of all, per-capita GDP is higher in the US than nearly all of Europe,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

:) Well, you are number 9 on the planet, 7 European countries ahead of you. 2006 you were (in average) whopping $682 ahead of me. Let's see what happens in 2007, shall we?

EuroI came in the early 90's, before that there were national laws (some stricter, some loose than the US), not a European Union wide law (EU got more power from the national parliaments) , like the EuroI, EuroII and so on laws.

quote:
Europe kept using the smelly, noisy, hard-starting, badly-polluting diesels of the 70s and 80s because, quite frankly, they couldn't afford gas engines


"What ever makes you happy"


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 1:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
> ":) Well, you are number 9 on the planet, 7 European countries ahead of you"

Oops -- the dangers of rampant Googling have bit you again. You've referenced the wrong list. In comparing purchasing power, you want the PPP-adjusted GDP per capita list. It's here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

That puts the US 4th by the IMF data. Take out tiny Luxembourg, and the US is in an effective tie for first place.

But even that is a bit misleading. The Euro has done remarkably well the past few years, and the dollar badly. But the auto market moves far slower than the currency market. If one looks at historical trends, the US led all major European nations by a huge margin for the past several decades. High income and low gas prices = people who care more about large, comfortable, powerful cars, rather than saving pennies on fuel costs.

And THAT, sir, is the historical basis between the auto purchasing trends in the two regions.


RE: Choice...
By Ringold on 1/30/2008 6:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's see what happens in 2007, shall we?


Masher already pointed out the useless nature of nominal GDP, I'll also add those European countries are extremely small. If you broke off Staten Island it'd probably put them all to shame.

As for what happens in 2008 (which is what I assume you meant), yes, lets see indeed. The Eurozone is already starting to falter after a lackluster expansion. The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate; growth and price stability. The European Central Bank has only one primary directive: price stability. Growth is secondary. Given more rigid labor markets and an economy that ranks as "less free" all around I wouldn't be so cocky.


RE: Choice...
By Hoser McMoose on 1/30/2008 7:10:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
in the US you are still putting into effect TierII, which is more relaxed than EuroIV, getting it done by 2009. By that time, Europe has already stricter EuroV.

Read your numbers a bit closer, the U.S. Tier 2 regulations are definitely more stringent than Euro IV and more or less in line with Euro V.

Keep in mind that the U.S. numbers measure in g/mile while the European ones measure in g/km. You need to divide the U.S. values by 1.6 to get a comparison.

Also Tier 2 was 100% implemented for cars for 2007 model year and light trucks (pick-ups, SUVs, etc.) for 2008 model year vehicles. The only part still being phased in is the regulations for commercial trucks.

Euro V isn't expected to come into effect until Sept. 2009, about a good 3 years after Tier 2 started (mid to late 2006 for the '2007 model year' vehicles). Like Tier 2 in the U.S. the Euro V guidelines will be phased in over some period of time.
quote:
2008 Toyota Camry/Avensis, same car different name other side of the pond

The Camry and Avensis are most certainly not the same vehicle. The N.A. Camry is 16cm longer and 10cm wider with a 7.5cm longer wheel base. The curb weight is also higher, though part of that is the different engine options.

As for your mileage, first off you're comparing miles to the Imperial gallon vs. miles to the U.S. gallon, so immediately you're off by a factor of 1.2. But beyond that you're comparing the U.K. mileage test to the new EPA test.

Just as a point of comparison, the Toyota Prius is rated for 65mpg in the U.K. while it's rated for 45mpg in the U.S. for the EXACT same vehicle. That works out to a difference of 10mpg difference for imperial vs. U.S. gallons and a further 10mpg for U.K. vs. U.S. testing methodology.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 8:39:33 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you for your reply!

I chose Toyota as an example of a medium size vehicle because Toyota is the world's biggest car manufacturer, Camry is very common in the US, and Toyota has factories on every continent. I really thought that Camry is almost identical with Avensis, but I did miss 16cm difference. (I am not a Toyota fan boy, I don't even own one). I chose the Toyota UK site for it's English language. And because Toyota uses the same engines worldwide.

And no, I didn't know the differences between UK mpg and US mpg.
So now on I stick to facts I know for sure.

http://www.toyota.fi/cars/new_cars/avensis/specs.a...
(and welcome to abroad :)and enjoy the exotic language)

You can choose three different engine options from the drop down lists

I chose
(1)2,4l petrol automatic, (2) 2,2l 177bhp turbodiesel manual and (3) 2,0l turbodiesel manual

The Official European Union combined fuel usage:
1: 9,6l/100km CO2:228 g/km NOx: 0.03 g/km CO: 0.26 HC:0.06 g/km
2: 6,2l/100km CO2:161 g/km NOx: 0.11 g/km CO: 0.11 HC:-
3: 5,7l/100km CO2:155 g/km NOx: 0.20 g/km CO: 0.17 HC:-

One tankful is 60 litres, so
(1) travels 625km per tank (388miles)
(2) travels 967km per tank (600miles)
(3) travels 1052km per tank (653miles)
in combined usage.

In road usage (European union standard) 100 kilometres is still 62 miles :)

(1) 7.3l/100km, 821km/tank = 510 miles
(2) 5.3l/100km, 1132km/tank = 703 miles
(3) 5.1l/100km, 1176km/tank = 730 miles

I am not an auto engineer, I just wanted to tell how much more advanced diesel engines are at the moment than petrol engines. 1,4 times more mileage per tank, almost twice the torque. I think it's a pity and a shame that they are not used more in personnel vehicles in NA.


RE: Choice...
By Hoser McMoose on 1/30/2008 9:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
There are many reasons why diesel vehicles haven't been used in North America as much as Europe, but here are a few that come to mind:

1. Cheap gas. Gasoline (petrol) in the U.S. is half the price or less of the same stuff in Europe (difference being almost entirely made up of higher fuel taxes in Europe). Given that diesel vehicles are slightly more expensive (especially when comparing a turbo diesel vs. naturally aspirated petrol, as is the norm) the pay-back period is much longer here vs. Europe. Even now it's still only about 0.50-0.55euro/liter for gas in the U.S. and a tiny bit more for diesel.

2. The emission regulations I mentioned. The U.S. has always had stricter air pollution regulations than Europe, going back to the very first rules in the 1970s. Many European diesels couldn't be sold in North America over the years. This is especially true for the 2007 and 2008 model years where only ONE company (Mercedes) had a car that could be sold here. Europe has been more focused on reducing greenhouse gases (for which diesel is better) while the U.S. has been more focused on reducing air pollution (for which gasoline is better).

3. Up until 2006 North America had weak sulfur restrictions on diesel fuel. Many European engines wouldn't work without modifications over here. It also presented something of a double-whammy with the above stricter emissions controls. This is (fortunately) fixed now.

4. Most early attempts at diesel engines here STANK, both figuratively and literally! They were especially bad in some of the cold weather winters that many North Americans experience (Finland is about the only country in Europe to get as cold in the winter as most of the U.S. east coast). Again this is fixed now, but people have LONG memories with vehicles, those that were burned with unreliable diesel engines in the 80's are going to be slow to be convinced that they're better now.

As for the efficiency of diesel vs. petrol engines, generally speaking a good diesel will manage about 35% more distance/volume fuel for reasonably similar performance levels (note that in the vehicles you're comparing the 2.4L petrol probably loses a bit of fuel economy due to it's automatic transmission). The torque and power curves will be rather different so it's often tough to get an apples to apples comparison, but as a rule of thumb 35% is close.

Now, where does that difference come from? Two things. First diesel fuel simply contains more potential energy. About 15% more to be specific. For those concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, this 15% more energy also translates into 15% more CO2 released per volume of fuel. The second reason is that diesel's are able to operate closer to their stoichiometric peak more of the time. This basically means less energy wasted as heat.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/31/2008 9:55:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Cheap gas. Gasoline (petrol) in the U.S. is half the price or less of the same stuff in Europe (difference being almost entirely made up of higher fuel taxes in Europe). Given that diesel vehicles are slightly more expensive (especially when comparing a turbo diesel vs. naturally aspirated petrol, as is the norm) the pay-back period is much longer here vs. Europe. Even now it's still only about 0.50-0.55euro/liter for gas in the U.S. and a tiny bit more for diesel.


Almost so. Yes, the price of fuel is very much a taxes policy thing here in Europe (For example, our dear neighbor Norway (World's richest country), a big exporter of oil, they don't import at all, has the highest fuel prices in Europe, about 1,50 per petrol liter), at the moment petrol is something like 1,30e per liter, diesel 1,15e/l in Finland. That's one big difference, diesel is always cheaper than petrol in Europe. So the payback time for the more advanced and expensive engine is much shorter here.

Reply to 2 and 3:

Well, that totally makes sense. The low quality of your diesel fuel (seems to be closer to fuel oil we use in the countryside to warm up houses than the diesel we use in personnel cars) contributes by definition more emissions. And so Mercedes-Benz developed an advanced and expensive filter to reduce emissions originating from the bad quality fuel. And modern turbodiesel engines couldn't handle the thick stuff, so they had to be modified when exported to the US.

Well, the CO2 vs NOx. The rest of world agreed 1997 that CO2 emissions are the worst emissions, the priority. Your government disagreed, so they had to something to show to you citizens . They chose to reduce NOx (in co-operation of you car industry) in their new standards late 90's , early 2000 and nowadays. So you are on your own, there. No, you are with Afghanistan, Zimbabwe :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/.wiki/Image:Kyoto_Protocol...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#United...

The NOx levels are decreasing in Europe, too. (Of course)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_sta...
in diesel EuroIII(2000): 0,50, in EuroIV(2005):0,25 in EuroV(2009):0.18 and in EuroVI(2014):0.08 g/km

In France, 80% of cars run on diesel. There seems to no evidence, that NOx levels in Paris, Marseille or Toulouse or any other big city cause major (or even minor) problems. Please, guide me to the facts, if there is something. I haven't heard any problems in any European countries with diesel running personnel vehicles.

The 2,4l petrol motor A: CO2:228 g/km NOx: 0.03 g/km CO: 0.26 HC:0.06 g/km, CO: 0.26

The 2,0l turbodiesel M:5,7l/100km CO2:155 g/km NOx: 0.20 g/km CO: 0.17 HC:- CO: 0.17

(In other countries turbodiesel is available with automatic transmission, too. In Finland we prefer manual transmission, so the automatic version oh the turbodiesel is not yet exported here. Maybe if the demand grows.)

So let's see: in 100km (=62 miles):
petrol: 22800g of CO2, 3g of NOx, 6g of HC, 26g of CO
turbodiesel: 15500g of CO2, 20g of NOx, 0g of HC, 17g of CO

Turbodiesel vs petrol in 62miles: CO2: -7300g, +17g of NOx, -6g of HC, -9g of CO

Well, 1970's are quite a way back.... ;)
The world has changed, Zed, the world has changed...


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/31/2008 10:25:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The low quality of your diesel fuel (seems to be closer to fuel oil we use in the countryside to warm up houses...modern turbodiesel engines couldn't handle the thick stuff, so they had to be modified when exported to the US.
Once again, your rabid desire to believe the worst about America leads you astray. There is (and was) no difference in viscosity or any other "quality" degree between US and European diesel, and any and all diesel engines could easily run on both.

The sole difference was the sulfur content only. The EU mandated 50 ppm in 2005 -- the US mandated that level in 2007. Sulfur affects particulate output, but from the perspective of the engine, ultra-low sulfur diesel is actually a bit *worse*. It lubricates less well, and it has a bit less energy...both minor factors, however,

ULSD was sold in some European nations even earlier. That's to be expected. Europe has far more diesels, and thus the quality of their air depends much more on diesel emissions.

> "There seems to no evidence, that NOx levels in Paris, Marseille or Toulouse or any other big city cause major (or even minor) problems"

So why is the EU continually lowering the NOx emissions standards on car? They just like wasting people's money?

In any case, I see you've rather clumsily switched gears, from your earlier chortling that "our standards are better than yours!", to a grumbling, "our air is clean enough, lay off."