New thread because I couldn't bttt the old one.

Peugot just unveiled 2 prototypes that get about 69 mpg.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/psa_peugeot_cit.html

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 12:59 AM. Reason : 2]

2/7/2006 12:56:38 AM

i'm queer

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 9:31 AM. Reason : .]

2/7/2006 1:00:10 AM

obligatory "You musta cared enough to respond to this thread" reply

ps I'd like to see more diesel cars in the US. Solving the emissions problems inherent with diesel engines is the key to this happening.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 1:05 AM. Reason : 2]

2/7/2006 1:04:09 AM

i suck dick in the garage

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 9:31 AM. Reason : .]

2/7/2006 1:16:54 AM

i don't think he can read thread titles cause he gets all pissy when he looks at something he didn't want to when it was spelled out pretty well in the name of the thread.

2/7/2006 1:21:40 AM

^^Wow, you suck at trolling.

and punctuation.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 1:22 AM. Reason : 2]

2/7/2006 1:21:44 AM

Quote :

"Solving the emissions problems inherent with diesel engines is the key to this happening."

uh, no. do more research.

2/7/2006 1:27:06 AM

You can't buy a diesel car in California because they don't pass smog tests.

2/7/2006 1:29:13 AM

well it's not the engine's fault. if we got decent fuel here, emissions wouldn't be much of an issue. this summer will being an improvement, but not as good as it could be.

that's partially true about cars in CA. it only affects vehicles 2004 and newer. by 2009 at the latest, it will no longer be an issue thanks to new regulations for fuel and engines. i doubt it will even take that long, that's just the cutoff year.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 1:37 AM. Reason : .]

2/7/2006 1:36:58 AM

It sounds a lot like you are agreeing with my statement that lowering emissions is the key to getting more diesels on the roads.

One step towards reducing emissions is to develop ultra-efficient engines with advanced PM traps, etc. (yes, I know they are on the road in Europe already)

Another is to force fuel suppliers to produce low sulfur diesel.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 1:49 AM. Reason : 2]

2/7/2006 1:48:12 AM

most of the US will be on low-sulfur diesel by year end.

and Prawn Star you dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

2/7/2006 1:48:19 AM

please enlighten me then.

2/7/2006 1:49:35 AM

^no, i'm disagreeing with you. like Noen mentioned, it's the lack of low sulfer diesel offered here that's the main problem, not any inherent design of current diesel motors. we get some absolute shit for diesel compared to other countrys (europe). the second key (and really the main one as far as manufacturers are concerned) is there being a market for more diesels. simply put, most people just don't want one. the market isn't there like it is in other countrys. i think it will eventually start growing though.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 1:57 AM. Reason : .]

2/7/2006 1:54:23 AM

the ONLY reason we don't have the efficient euro diesels in the US is because we are still using high sulfur diesel. That is changing, and as soon as the good stuff is available, there is going to be a MASSIVE influx of diesel options to the US.

GM / VW / Mercedes are all just waiting in the wings. Ford and Toyota aren't far behind.

It has nothing to do with the engines being "dirty".

Quote :

"One step towards reducing emissions is to develop ultra-efficient engines with advanced PM traps, etc. (yes, I know they are on the road in Europe already)"

GM and Ford have been developing ultra-efficient diesels for 10-15 years already. So what in the hell are you talking about?

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 1:59 AM. Reason : .]

2/7/2006 1:57:07 AM

Yes, I know all about the difference between US diesel and EU diesel.

I fucking homebrew biodiesel for christ's sake.

Even with ultra-low sulfur diesel, most European diesel cars wouldn't pass smog tests in California.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 2:03 AM. Reason : edited because there are a few exceptions]

2/7/2006 2:01:03 AM

you obviously don't know much about it if you're making claims like this

Quote :

"Solving the emissions problems inherent with diesel engines"

Quote :

"I fucking homebrew biodiesel for christ's sake"

so what? that makes you an authority? making biodiesel doesn't require any real skill.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 2:04 AM. Reason : .]

2/7/2006 2:02:59 AM

You do realize that even with low sulfur diesel, diesel NOx emissions are much higher than gasoline, right? Same with PM emissions.

That has everything to do with the engines, and the diesel combustion process.

2/7/2006 2:06:27 AM

There are fuel additives to lower the NOx emissions, retrofitted PM traps are already available from most manufacturers, and are built in to nearly every newly produced mass market diesel car.

You do realize that Diesels will ALWAYS have higher NOx emissions right? Do you understand why?

And adding a trap to the exhaust isnt exactly revolutionary, nor does it require any kind of development.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 2:10 AM. Reason : .]

2/7/2006 2:09:56 AM

Its a big thing because most new diesel cars can't pass smog tests. A diesel Jetta is classified by the California EPA as "too dirty to drive", even with ultra-low sulphur diesel.

Quote :

"It has nothing to do with the engines being "dirty"."

It has a lot to do with the engines being "dirty". Other factors are priorities and politics at play in setting emissions guidelines and the obvious fuel discrepancies.

Quote :

"do you know why?"

Yeah, as I stated before, its inherent to the combustion process of diesel engines. That doesn't mean that the engines cannot be designed to emit less NOx, however. Read up on CDC technology.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 2:21 AM. Reason : edit]

2/7/2006 2:14:06 AM

dude.

Seriously. If you "fix" the engines with lower NOx and PM emissions, they aren't going to be as fuel efficient, nor as powerful. Basically you will be removing the advantages of diesel.

The solution to the NOx problem is at-the-pump additives that are ALREADY IN USE. The solution to the PM problem are traps that are ALREADY IN USE.

The other helpful solution is a 5-8% biodiesel mix, which will also be coming to the pump by 09 in many places.

I'm a big advocate of diesel hybrids, but you are being a complete idiot about this.

2/7/2006 2:18:55 AM

biodiesel will help with PM emissions, but it actually raises NOx emissions.

As I said in my edit, I recommend that you read up on CDC technology, hold your pride in check, and admit that you were wrong.

2/7/2006 2:24:21 AM

uh CDC works by lowering the combustion temperature as well as relying on a turbo/supercharger for boost assistance.

Lowering the combustion temperature REDUCES THE FUCKING EFFICIENCY. The EPA freely admits to it. They are using the added power of the turbocharger to make up for the lost efficiency in combustion. Basically.

So please, continue to tell me things that reinforce my point. The diesel process has inherent emissions flaws. They need to be addressed in the fuels, and after combustion, not in the engine.

2/7/2006 2:40:22 AM

what I said:

Quote :

"Solving the emissions problems inherent with diesel engines is the key to this happening"

your response:

Quote :

"Prawn Star you dont know what the fuck you are talking about."

What you are now saying:

Quote :

"The diesel process has inherent emissions flaws. "

Which is pretty much exactly what I said.


Prawn Star

Quote :

"One step towards reducing emissions is to develop ultra-efficient engines with advanced PM traps, etc. (yes, I know they are on the road in Europe already) Another is to force fuel suppliers to produce low sulfur diesel."

Noen

Quote :

"They need to be addressed in the fuels, and after combustion, not in the engine."

Ok so what's the disagreement, then? That I suggested diesel engines could be designed more efficiently to comply with strict US smog and ghg regulations? I think that is a pretty accurate statement, considering that the EPA agrees with me.



Yes, I do know what the fuck I'm talking about.


OK my work is done here.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 3:00 AM. Reason : 2]

2/7/2006 2:58:06 AM

No, that in designing them to meet those regulations, they lose their inherent benefits. AKA more torque/displacement and better overall fuel efficiency.

Both of which, if you read about CDC at least, cause a loss of overall efficiency and power.

I don't know what the hell you are smoking dude.

2/7/2006 3:05:38 AM

The EPA's CDC research showed that lower cylinder temperatures combined with a blower could reduce NOx emissions by a factor of 10 or more, with only a slight hit in fuel economy and power.

I think that is a very viable alternative to putting additives in every gallon of diesel fuel. Several major automakers seem to as well.

2/7/2006 3:31:13 AM

the problem is they are saying that an NA diesel is ~equivalent to a turbodiesel + CDC. Which is true. The PROBLEM is, every fucking diesel on the market that anyone cares about is already using a blower of some sort. And the difference in performance between a NA and a turbo diesel is night and day.

Without a blower, diesels are not viable engines for most automobiles. How do you NOT see this as a major issue?

2/7/2006 6:00:19 AM

if you've ever been in a country with a lot of diesel cars you will realize why people are against them when you start blowing black boogers out of your nose

how much will low sulfer help that?

2/7/2006 10:48:10 AM

that's more because of the industrial trucks. which is what most of this clean air cdc technology is aiming at. the big baller diesel trucks and machinery are what give you the black boogers.

2/7/2006 1:28:58 PM

where i was had mostly small cars and trucks, i think it was more a product of cars that haven't been maintained well. i have no doubt the new diesels will be clean, i just wonder about in 10 or 20 years when they are old and still being driven

2/7/2006 2:25:04 PM

they dont deteriorate like gas engines. Diesels will last millions of miles if properly cared for. It's more a product of them being ancient designs probably, like the ghastly GM diesels 30 years ago.

2/7/2006 2:45:57 PM

Quote :

"Even with ultra-low sulfur diesel, most European diesel cars wouldn't pass smog tests in California."

F#$K california. I don't care if a diesel throws out 8 times the smog, if it gets over twice the fuel mileage go with it. Ca can go buy a bunch of sharper image air purifiers for all i care

2/7/2006 5:26:07 PM

you guys are basically saying the same thing and you're now arguing over who gets to say they were right

2/8/2006 9:49:45 AM