VW deisel?? wtf...

Forum Sponsor
You fail to realize that MPGs are different than Emissions...

In mid 90's the Civic VX was getting 55mpg using lean burn cruise. Which it turns out raises NOx emissions so it was nixed.

All we have been hearing for the last decade has been CO2, CO2 CO2!!! and how we'll be all living in floating cities due to melting polar ice ala Waterworld.

well hate to break it to you but the only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to lower amount of fuel burned per km. Simple as that. Diesels do that. While they may emit more NOx due to the way their combustion works, they also emit less CO2. This witch hunt is getting tiresome.

Unless you pedal to work, all your products are sourced locally, you need to STFU. Because ONE semi truck bringing your latest gadget from a sea port burning 30 LITERS per 100km is doing a **** load more pollution than a diesel family sedan. News flash...you think those semi's have cleaner emissions? The entire North American infrastructure relies on hundreds of thousands of trucks covering thousands of km's each day so that our society can have bananas from Central America, Coffee from South America, iphones from Asia etc etc.

So right now this whole VW thing sounds like a guy with a fire extinguisher putting out a kitchen fire while the entire block around him burns to the ground.
 
Red_Liner740 said:
You fail to realize that MPGs are different than Emissions...

In mid 90's the Civic VX was getting 55mpg using lean burn cruise. Which it turns out raises NOx emissions so it was nixed.

All we have been hearing for the last decade has been CO2, CO2 CO2!!! and how we'll be all living in floating cities due to melting polar ice ala Waterworld.

well hate to break it to you but the only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to lower amount of fuel burned per km. Simple as that. Diesels do that. While they may emit more NOx due to the way their combustion works, they also emit less CO2. This witch hunt is getting tiresome.

Unless you pedal to work, all your products are sourced locally, you need to STFU. Because ONE semi truck bringing your latest gadget from a sea port burning 30 LITERS per 100km is doing a **** load more pollution than a diesel family sedan. News flash...you think those semi's have cleaner emissions? The entire North American infrastructure relies on hundreds of thousands of trucks covering thousands of km's each day so that our society can have bananas from Central America, Coffee from South America, iphones from Asia etc etc.

So right now this whole VW thing sounds like a guy with a fire extinguisher putting out a kitchen fire while the entire block around him burns to the ground.
Click to expand...

Well said.

And just for the fun of it a bit of an aside on CO2 emissions.....

http://dcgazette.com/gotcha-math-discovery-in-the-climate-change-models-will-change-everything/
 
griff2 said:
To listen to the automakers, we have reached the emission "wall" several times already, yet they continue to find ways to climb that wall time and time again, most without having to cheat. They were doing it back in teh day when my old LTD with the 7.7 litre V8 was getting 12 mpg highway on a good day, and sometimes half that in City traffic. Good thing it had an auxilliary fuel tank factory-mounted in the truck.

CAFE allows for comparative gas guzzlers in the marketplace, hence the "corporate average fleet economy" in CAFE. They adjust pricing a bit to encourage more sales of high-efficiency models relative to the performance models, and that way there is room in the stable for all.

The upcoming standard for 2016 is 34.1 and the 54.5 mpg requirement won't come until 2025. Even then that 54.5 isn;t the same as the fuel economy number on the window sticker. http://www.forbes.com/sites/micheli...y-standards-arent-as-high-as-you-might-think/
Click to expand...

Yes, CAFE got watered down and it will probably still be further watered down by adding more loopholes. The current automotive fleet average is nowhere near the future CAFE requirements and aside from considerable electrification (vehicles that consumers so far haven't been buying in droves), the only hope for meeting the future requirements is either by only selling vehicles akin to the Prius ... or by gaming the system. And that ... has already begun.

It's not as simple as 54.5 mpg fleet average. For trucks there is a complicated relationship that has to do with the vehicle's "footprint" - basically, its wheelbase multiplied by its track width. Bigger truck is allowed to use more fuel. There is a connection with the GVWR, also. (It is a mess)

So ... No more regular cab trucks. No more compact trucks. Only the huge extended and crew cab full size models ... because their "footprint" is bigger, even though they still punch the same-sized hole through the air, so it's easier to meet the requirements. The consequence of tightening CAFE, but with the "footprint" loophole, is bigger and bigger trucks and SUVs that use even MORE fuel in the real world!

Then there's the GVWR situation ... If it's over 8500 lbs then a different set of rules apply. Consequence: GM cancelled the "1500" series of their full-sized vans, because their GVWR wasn't high enough. I have a Ram ProMaster full-sized van as a bike hauler. This is the same vehicle as a Fiat Ducato in Europe, which has been around for quite a while over there. But ... They beefed up the suspension for the North American model so that even for the "1500" model (traditionally a "half ton") the GVWR is just a hair over 8500 lbs - the load capacity is nearly two tons inside the van!

So, bring on the F250 and F350 and GM/Ram 2500 and 3500 great big trucks with huge GVWR just to haul one person to the grocery store or back and forth to work!

Why is it like this ... Because the 54.5 mpg CAFE automotive standard is unachievable with the types of cars people want to buy and with the powertrains that people want to buy on average. So the system gets "gamed" ... and people end up in trucks, probably in many cases even bigger and heavier and thirstier than they would naturally buy if they had a choice in the matter.

Want a 4 cylinder regular cab Ford Ranger? You can't have one. (Not a new one, anyhow. I know several GTAMmers that use a 4 cylinder Ford Ranger as a bike hauler ... but you can't buy a new one ...)
 
inreb said:
Lol, you should see how things are in construction with a dedicated safety man hiding in the bushes
Click to expand...

This reminds me of that ticket I got earlier this year... Between the cops and your safety men, I wonder who's taking pointers from who.
 
I knew the CAFE rules were unrealistic, I didn't know they were so counterproductive
 
Brian P said:
Then there's the GVWR situation ... If it's over 8500 lbs then a different set of rules apply. Consequence: GM cancelled the "1500" series of their full-sized vans, because their GVWR wasn't high enough.
Click to expand...

According to C & D, the 1500 vans were cancelled because they were dragging down GM's company average fuel economy. I guess GM didn't want to beef up the suspension.

http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...s-benz-sprinter-ram-promaster-comparison-test


P.S. check out the absolute lambasting the Promaster gets in this test.....
 
Last edited:
Yeah. They're full of crap as usual. 18,000 km of mostly bike hauling with mine, it has been great.
 
Brian P said:
Yeah. They're full of crap as usual. 18,000 km of mostly bike hauling with mine, it has been great.
Click to expand...

But car and driver said it sucks! Plus it's not even a honda, can't possibly be good.
 
I don't own any Sunny S approved vehicles. In fact, I don't think I ever have, and I don't think the next one will be, either. Know what ... I'm OK with that. My current two non-Sunny S approved and generally non-journalist-approved 4 wheeled contraptions have both been good.

I also don't give a whit to what the so-called professional journalists think. There's a fair amount of evidence that the general car buying public has largely stopped paying attention to them, too.
 
TwistedKestrel said:
I knew the CAFE rules were unrealistic, I didn't know they were so counterproductive
Click to expand...
The massive growth of pickups and SUVs in the 80s happened right after the original CAFE rules. The argument is that light trucks had a lower CAFE requirement which made them cheaper and better performing than cars. I think there's a lot of merit in that argument and the concern that the same situation could re-occur is valid, however a few things change the dynamics of the situation today.

First, cars are generally roomier than they were back then. Also gas is much more expensive. Finally, the size of the light trucks that benefit from these new lower fuel economy standards probably wouldn't fit in most people's garages. The middle ground truck size (half ton or so) has sort of been killed off as Brian suggested. It's clunky rulemaking, as all rules inevitably are, but the need for work trucks (which will necessarily pollute more) is real and must be accommodated somehow.

It remains to be seen how many people will be happy to commute with F-250s and Ram 2500s instead of Fusions and Accords, but it probably won't be a lot.
 
The 1/2 ton has definitely not been killed off however the small trucks like the Ford ranger, Chevy s-10/older canyon, and dodge Dakota have. Once the 1/2 ton market has more diesel options you may see less 3/4 ton trucks as well because currently that's the only size that gives you brand options.
 
dricked said:
The 1/2 ton has definitely not been killed off however the small trucks like the Ford ranger, Chevy s-10/older canyon, and dodge Dakota have. Once the 1/2 ton market has more diesel options you may see less 3/4 ton trucks as well because currently that's the only size that gives you brand options.
Click to expand...

When I first saw the new Canyon/Colorado I went onto the GM website and priced one out. May as well buy a 1/2 ton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's almost as big, too. And no regular cab. (I like the new Canyon/Colorado. But for the folks looking for a replacement for their Ford Ranger 4 cylinder, it's big.) It has been getting very good initial reviews.
 
caboose56 said:
Having 0, 1 or 2 kids is fine. If everyone stuck to that ideology we would a decline in population and move towards a more sustainable population.
Click to expand...
19 kids and counting, bro.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk
 
caboose56 said:
When I first saw the new Canyon/Colorado I went onto the GM website and priced one out. May as well buy a 1/2 ton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

A new 3/4 ton isn't much more expensive then a 1/2 ton if you stick with a gas engine. The size of the canyon has gotten to be as big if not bigger then an older 1/2 ton before those exploded into being almost the same size as a 3/4 ton.
 
dricked said:
A new 3/4 ton isn't much more expensive then a 1/2 ton if you stick with a gas engine. The size of the canyon has gotten to be as big if not bigger then an older 1/2 ton before those exploded into being almost the same size as a 3/4 ton.
Click to expand...

Today's "1/2 tons" come with load capacities of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds or more.

My "3/4 ton" has a load capacity of 3,200 pounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom