http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Administrations+341+MPG+Standard+Saves+Money+Pollution+But+Costs+Lives/article16259.htm

Quote :

"The new standards will call for 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016. It also will put in place the nation's first tailpipe regulations for carbon emissions. The EPA lauds the plan, with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson saying that the plan will create the equivalent of taking 42 million cars off the road -- without removing many vehicles. The EPA estimates that between 2012 and 2016 950 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced, the average vehicle owner will save $3,000, and oil consumption will be cut by 1.8 billion barrels. "

The only thing I like about this is there will be less large consumer vehicles on the road. I think their conclusion about fatalities is flawed. I think they simply looked at the new proportion of small vehicles, and changed the proportion of fatalities accordingly.

9/16/2009 1:58:58 PM

what's the 0.1 about?

9/16/2009 2:00:29 PM

If we just went to fucking diesel we could reach that goal next year.

9/16/2009 2:11:25 PM

^ Truth

9/16/2009 2:49:56 PM

i wish i could find a relatively new and affordable diesel hatchback

9/16/2009 3:39:53 PM

Golf TDI?

9/16/2009 3:59:50 PM

diesel morons, diesel. at least for a short-term, quick impact maneuver.

or how about we put more resources into other energy forms + mutli-fuel source vehicles??

hydrogen
electric
biofuel

get off this fossil fuel shit

[Edited on September 16, 2009 at 5:21 PM. Reason : .]

9/16/2009 5:21:25 PM

Quote :

"If we just went to fucking diesel we could reach that goal next year."

Not likely.
Maybe if everybody drove a Jetta, but Americans in general buy much larger vehicles, SUVs, and trucks. Those aren't going to make 34 MPG (on average) today.
http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/diesel.shtml

9/16/2009 5:50:25 PM

i love the smell of unburned hydrocarbons

9/16/2009 5:52:42 PM

I don't get it. If we go this route its less oil burnt which means less oil bought which means more Jerbs taken away to cut cost. In my head I see everyone losing automotive jobs left and right.

9/16/2009 6:15:30 PM

With Diesel comes more NOx. Does not matter if you're burning dinosaur droppings or french fry grease.

9/16/2009 6:30:19 PM

who cares? they cant take my existing vehicles away, so this does not matter to me at all.

9/16/2009 6:54:52 PM

^^ yeah but even the current Tier 2 Bin 5 regulations essentially call for parity between gas and diesel in emissions. So that means more sophisticated control systems. The 6.0 Ford diesel engines for example have a crazy ass EGR system for NOx... EGR gas cooler, a set of throttle plates for introducing EGR, a backpressure butterfly valve in the turbo to heat up EGT's faster. But at this point though the emissions equipment on some of the latest diesels have been having reliability issues (particulate filters especially, on those that use regenerative systems).

Quote :

"The Tier 2 regulation introduced more stringent numerical emission limits relative to the previous Tier 1 requirements, and a number of additional changes that made the standards more stringent for larger vehicles. Under the Tier 2 regulation, the same emission standards apply to all vehicle weight categories, i.e., cars, minivans, light-duty trucks, and SUVs have the same emission limit."

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_t2.php

it's not so much that we can't get the Diesels there... it's just that the reliability isn't proven yet for the emissions technology. And all that crap like Urea injection ("Bluetec"), who wants to deal with a piss tank in their trunk? All that's going to hurt the marketability.

[Edited on September 17, 2009 at 12:22 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2009 12:18:08 AM

Quote :

"Golf TDI?"

i've yet to find one that's relatively new and affordable

but yeah, that's currently my favorite...my saturn is about to hit 140k and it's starting to make me nervous, hah

9/17/2009 7:54:17 AM

Quote :

"get off this fossil fuel shit "

Fuck that. There's plenty of it, and its not going away any time soon.

I'm worried about what cars in the near future are going to be like with all these BS regulations. Good thing there are a lot of great used cars out there!

9/17/2009 10:03:22 AM

The Toyota Aygo diesel gets 69.2 mpg highway.

Fuck the Prius. Get me an Aygo for $10,000.

9/17/2009 10:11:37 AM

Quote :

"2009 Model and Trim MSRP Premium 5-Yr Cost of Ownership Savings Volkswagen Jetta TDI $2,070 $6,210 Toyota Prius (vs. Camry) $1,805 $4,930 Saturn Aura Green Line $1,480 $2,185 Mercedes GL320 BlueTEC ($1,000) $4,645 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew Cab Hybrid 4WD $615 $3,821 Ford Escape Hybrid AWD $4,725 $2,123 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid $3,050 ($250) Cadillac Escalade Hybrid 4WD $8,400 ($2,265)"

http://www.intellichoice.com/press/hybrid_diesel_survey_2009

[Edited on September 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM. Reason : One that is an absolute bomb as a diesel and should be avoided is the Lexus LS 600 H. Over the first]

[Edited on September 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM. Reason : 5 years expect $25,000 loss in value.]

9/17/2009 10:32:49 AM

Quote :

"The Toyota Aygo diesel gets 69.2 mpg highway. Fuck the Prius. Get me an Aygo for $10,000."

hell, the gasoline version gets 3mpg better in the city and only 6mpg less combined (though 11mpg less on the highway)

9/17/2009 10:56:55 AM

Quote :

"Fuck that. There's plenty of it, and its not going away any time soon. I'm worried about what cars in the near future are going to be like with all these BS regulations. Good thing there are a lot of great used cars out there!"

who said anything about how much oil is left and when it will run out? i'd rather this country (read government) actually be proactive for once and base their decisions on facts. oil will not last forever. burning fossil fuels is a major source of pollution. we have the technology and money to push other technologies yet our government and large oil companies aren't pushing any of this. not to mention purchasing oil from our enemies is pretty fucking stupid.

[Edited on September 17, 2009 at 10:58 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2009 10:57:30 AM

as my old professor was fond of saying: "pay me now or pay me later, but one way or another, you're going to pay"

i agree that we should be developing better (cheaper, smaller, more robust, less polluting) small-energy-source devices...not because we HAVE to right now, but BECAUSE we DON'T have to

9/17/2009 11:02:09 AM

^exactly

9/17/2009 11:17:22 AM

Look at it long term wise... When they run out, where are they going to get oil from? If we dry out everyone else's oil wells while leaving ours full, our enemies will be fucked (assuming they haven't already moved onto other sources of energy). Plus, inflation and prices will only go up, especially as oil becomes more and more "rare." Therefore, we are holding onto our share until prices go up even more, then we start selling.... $Profit.

That's just one take on that situation. I'm not saying I support or oppose this line of thinking though.

[Edited on September 17, 2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2009 11:38:35 AM

lol. then the rest of the world hates us more and it's on to WWXI

9/17/2009 11:42:21 AM

we're not going to just wake up one day and oil has just disappeared. Supply will slowly tighten as our oil sources become increasingly inaccessible and more expensive to recover and process.

9/17/2009 11:46:44 AM

Quote :

"lol. then the rest of the world hates us more and it's on to WWXI"

At least we don't have to worry about pearl harbor next time...

[Edited on September 17, 2009 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2009 11:58:09 AM

doh!

9/17/2009 12:06:14 PM

^^^bingo.

Quote :

"burning fossil fuels is a major source of pollution"

Coal burning power plants? Sure. Automobiles? Not so much. 99.9% of cars on the road achieve perfect combustion and their catalytic converters take care of the rest.

There's a lot of oil out there, as well as a pretty solid theory that oil is produced deep down in the core, not just from dead dinos.

9/17/2009 12:32:34 PM

Quote :

" At least we don't have to worry about pearl harbor next time..."

is that some kind of a joke?

9/17/2009 1:30:20 PM

Quote :

"burning fossil fuels is a major source of pollution"

Quote :

"Coal burning power plants? Sure. Automobiles? Not so much. 99.9% of cars on the road achieve perfect combustion and their catalytic converters take care of the rest."

the rest of WHAT?

the US EPA seems to think that the entirety of on-road vehicles in this country contribute more than 25% of the CFCs, more than 30% of the NOx, more than 30% of the CO2, more than 50% of the CO, more than 30% of the VOCs, and more than 10% of the particulate matter

they also seem to think that the entirety of off-road vehicles (farming and construction equipment, for example) contribute 25% of CO, more than 20% of the NOx, more than 18% the hydrocarbons, and more than 18% of the particulate matter

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/

so vehicles alone are contributing more than 50% of the NOx and more 75% of the CO in the united states...that's a pretty hefty portion of the US air pollution and certainly enough to be considered a "major" source

9/17/2009 1:35:31 PM

Quote :

"99.9% of cars on the road achieve perfect combustion"

got a source to back that up?

and "perfect combustion" doesn't mean there aren't emissions.

[Edited on September 17, 2009 at 1:53 PM. Reason : a]

9/17/2009 1:52:11 PM

THIS JUST IN!

GAS POWERED VEHICLES EMIT VIRTUALLY NO POLLUTION! WHODATHUNK?

9/17/2009 1:59:48 PM

Quote :

"99.9% of cars on the road achieve perfect combustion"

yeah, this is horsepucky

perfect combustion is:
fuel (hydrocarbons) + air (oxygen/nitrogen) + combustion = CO2 + water + nitrogen

typical combustion is:
fuel + air + combustion = unburned hydrocarbons + NOx + CO + CO2 + water

i'd love to see evidence of ANY traditional car (let alone 99.9% of them) achieve PERFECT combustion...it's virtually impossible

[Edited on September 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2009 2:12:50 PM

typical stupid ass comments from 'Teg. He's getting to be almost as bad as Ragged

9/17/2009 2:36:00 PM

Quote :

"99.9% of cars on the road achieve perfect combustion"

FUCK. I'm in the 0.1 percentile then! I know my Porsche ain't getting perfect combustion with that exhaust leak, otherwise it wouldn't be backfiring worse than an RX7 right now

9/17/2009 3:20:17 PM

I run richer than Uncle Scrooge in the wee mornings.

9/17/2009 3:33:22 PM

Audi A3 TDI later this year?

9/17/2009 10:46:44 PM

None of Ya'll mentioned the metro. I'm getting a cool 48 mpg city.

its like a mini cooper, only, not.

9/18/2009 1:06:57 AM

While catalytic converters are now very efficient and last longer than ever, some of the largest sources of emissions are from fuel vapor or from cold starts where catalytic converters have not reached operating temperatures. There have been a number of strides in improving these. Complicated self-diagnosing evaporative emissions systems reduce the amount of raw fuel vapors escaping into the atmosphere. That's why you get a check engine light if your gas cap is loose. Returnless fuel systems reduce the amount of fuel vapor produced in the first place because you don't have hot fuel from the engine compartment coming back to the tank. Under high temperature conditions less fuel vapor in the main fuel lines improves startability as well.

Catalytic converters are now placed as close to the engine as possible (or precats are used). That's why modern transversely mounted 4 cylinder engines have the exhaust manifold in the rear, so that there is shorter distance to the main cat. Also, direct injection systems reduce the amount of fuel droplets that stick to the walls of the head and intake manifold. These droplets would otherwise be pulled into the exhaust stream during cranking and proceed out the tailpipe mostly unburned. I've got an SAE paper on my computer here that discusses some of the different cold start emissions control strategies that control modules are using now.

NOx emissions have also been reduced in gas engines by the use of variable valve timing. Advancing the intake cam or retarding the exhaust cam can intentionally create overlap between intake and exhaust stroke. During certain driving conditions this creates an EGR effect to cool combustion temperatures and reduce NOx, without using unreliable EGR valves.

[Edited on September 18, 2009 at 2:01 AM. Reason : .]

9/18/2009 1:51:33 AM

0.1!!!!!!!!!!

9/18/2009 8:50:39 AM

^^Thank you. Also I'm aware of this. A lot of new cars expel air out of the tailpipe that is cleaner than what goes in.

quagmire02, this is the same EPA that posts outlandishly inaccurate fuel mileage ratings and the same EPA that claims that CO2 is a "pollutant", something that is absolutely ridiculous and just plain dumb.

Also, you claim that your V6 Mustang once got 40+mpg at speeds over 80mph. lol.

ScHpEnXeL, that hurt. Why the hate?

[Edited on September 20, 2009 at 11:44 PM. Reason : k]

9/20/2009 11:44:03 PM

Audi/VW TDI FTMFW!

They are the only company I trust who've gotten the diesel engineering down. Heck look at the R10/R15.

Don't forget the $1150-$1300 tax credit:
http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxLeanburn.shtml

9/21/2009 1:05:19 PM

^MB and BMW have also gotten it down. Although I don't think they are as popular in the US. But in Germany they're all over the place. You can even get your MB fitted to operate on natural gas instead.

Also, I'd like to say that if you've ever been to Europe you know that the EPA is a joke and the United States does not give a damn about the environment, pollution, or recycling. Its just a facade to win some votes.

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2009 1:13:01 PM

Fiat multijets are the engines that I'd like to have.....

9/21/2009 1:37:04 PM

Because the EPA isn't the reason European diesels have problems meeting standards for importation...

9/21/2009 1:38:07 PM

Quote :

"quagmire02, this is the same EPA that posts outlandishly inaccurate fuel mileage ratings and the same EPA that claims that CO2 is a "pollutant", something that is absolutely ridiculous and just plain dumb. Also, you claim that your V6 Mustang once got 40+mpg at speeds over 80mph. lol."

way to refute my evidence...your opinion is definitely more than a match for decades of statistics and actual lab evidence

go back to your cave, would you? your posts contribute nothing of value and you're wasting TWW database space

9/21/2009 2:15:58 PM

9/21/2009 2:20:34 PM

Quote :

"Because the EPA isn't the reason European diesels have problems meeting standards for importation..."

lol what? EPA is a joke. Cars manufactured in Germany for US destinations that meet this so called standard DO NOT meet standards in europe and are a hassle to get imported back.

9/21/2009 2:22:18 PM

^^^yeah, those fuel mileage ratings are great. They don't even drive the car to come up with them! They run the car on a dyno inside a building. And that's only 15% of new cars sold every year. The rest they just trust what the manufacturers tell them. GG

All hail Lisa Jackson! She's just a damn bureacrat, but listen to her when she tells you the CO2 you exhale is harmful to life on Earth and must be regulated!

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM. Reason : k]

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM. Reason : k]

9/21/2009 2:34:43 PM

^ i'll tell you what...i'll give your opinions more weight when you can come up with ANY evidence supporting your ignorant and utterly retarded claim:

Quote :

"99.9% of cars on the road achieve perfect combustion"

you know how i can tell you don't know jack SHIT about what you're talking about? this is how...your delusion that you have ANYTHING of value to contribute to this thread is hilarious, because as soon as i saw this i realized that my asshole puts out more useful shit

9/21/2009 4:29:37 PM

I confess I was off a bit, but it's a lot better (esp. with the cats) than you'd like to admit...or possibly know.

[Edited on September 21, 2009 at 10:44 PM. Reason : your statement about your Mustang shows with cars you dont' know your ass from a hole int he ground.]

9/21/2009 10:43:36 PM