7 ms·

"Despite the discrepancies, a fix shouldn't involve major changes. "It could be something very small," said Carder, who's the interim director of West Virginia

by hoopism 11y ago

"Despite the discrepancies, a fix shouldn't involve major changes. "It could be something very small," said Carder, who's the interim director of West Virginia University's Center for Alternative Fuels.... "It can simply be a change in the fuel injection strategy. What might be realized is a penalty in fuel economy in order to get these systems more active, to lower the emissions levels." Fix is likely not that big of a deal... but what about the impact on the consumers who paid for a car with a certain performance level and are now left with a diminished product? I have several colleagues who have VW TDIs that are distraught. Many of them are very well informed consumers who took pride in purchasing a more environmentally friendly car at a higher premium. The car might be able to meet those environmental standards but the price tag no longer seems justifiable.

happyscrappy 11y ago
Are diesel vehicles actually more environmentally friendly? It sure doesn't seem that way driving behind one.
- seren 11y ago
  They emit less CO2 per kilometer but much more particulates (this is why they have a filter), which is worse health wise.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    "Despite lower carbon dioxide emissions, diesel cars may promote more global warming than gasoline cars. Laws that favor the use of diesel, rather than gasoline, engines in cars may actually encourage global warming, according to a new study. Although diesel cars obtain 25 to 35 percent better mileage and emit less carbon dioxide than similar gasoline cars, they can emit 25 to 400 times more mass of particulate black carbon and associated organic matter ("soot") per kilometer [mile]. The warming due to soot may more than offset the cooling due to reduced carbon dioxide emissions over several decades, according to Mark Z. Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University." http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jacobsonJGR1023.html http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jacobsonJGR1023.html
    - paulmd 11y ago
      That release is from 2002, which predates the introduction of Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel in the US (Cali switched in '06, the rest of the US switched in '10). This drops the allowable particulate concentration from 500 ppm to 15 ppm, which as you would expect greatly reduces soot as well as emissions of all kind. The diesel we were running back then was garbage. It really had more in common with something like heating oil than the diesel the rest of the world uses, and is the reason why the US has a perception of diesel engines being dirty. It also created huge problems for porting small diesels over from Europe - they run at a much higher compression, but at those pressures the particulates in the fuel become abrasive and eat away the fuel injectors. Now we can use the same engine designs they are. It's win-win for everyone (except the oil companies I guess). Also, biodiesel reduces soot and other emissions even further. The only downside is that it has a higher gel point than fossil diesel. In southern states you can get away with running straight B100, in more northerly states you need to mix in 15% fossil diesel to get the gel point back down (B85 fuel).
      - happyscrappy 11y ago
        The 500ppm to 15 ppm is Sulfur not particulates and Europe is now trying to move away from diesel because of their air pollution problems. Paris wants to ban them altogether by 2020. Biodiesel does not have the same problems. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11878435/Europe-must-now-come-clean-on-diesel.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11878435/E...
        paulmd 11y ago
        The sulfur content of the diesel is the primary driver of particulate emissions. > The impact of diesel fuel sulfur reduction on directly-emitted and secondary atmospheric particulate is evaluated by experiment and analysis. Experimental evidence shows that fuel sulfur conversion rate to particulate sulfate is linear down to zero sulfur level. > Analysis shows that sulfur-derived particulate accounts for the vast majority of atmospheric particulate from diesel engines. Consequently, fuel sulfur reduction would have a far greater impact in reducing atmospheric particulate burden than any other diesel engine particulate control strategy. http://papers.sae.org/872139/ http://papers.sae.org/872139/ Sorry, this one's paywalled, but it's a finding that has been repeatedly reproduced in the literature. I completely agree about biodiesel. ULSD is a big step forward but biodiesel is even better in terms of emissions profile. It's also got a number of other things going for it - it can be run in conventional un-modified diesel engines that don't produce high-tech waste, and there's several factors that make its production more desirable than other biofuels.
- rjsw 11y ago
  Part of the sales pitch is the better fuel economy of diesel cars. One problem in Europe is that sales of diesel cars have become so high that we are not making good use of all the distillation fractions of the oil.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  more a result of the co2 craze. then they discovered diesel contains helluvalot of particulate compared to standard fuels (ops!) and to reduce it you have to burn at higher temperatures (and now you have NOX) at which point it was too late, at least in Europe, where diesel is usually 10% cheaper to buy and overall 20% cheaper to run, so demand is high enough to keep it alive.
- ipsin 11y ago
  For about the last ten years, most of the diesel fuel in the US has been ULSD (Ultra-Low Sulfur), and in 2007 the EPA tightened emissions standards for new vehicles. If the VW vehicles made after 2009 met those emission goals, they would be much cleaner than the smoke-belching cars and trucks you may be thinking of. http://www3.epa.gov/cleandiesel/technologies/index.htm http://www3.epa.gov/cleandiesel/technologies/index.htm
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    I think part of the problem in the US is "off-road diesel" is taxed far less and therefore much cheaper encouraging people to use it on road, and it is terrible. By the way does anyone know of a good way to test for diesel particulates? I swear Boston commuter rails are leaking diesel fumes into the passenger cabins.
    - mfb 11y ago
      The device for measuring particulate concentration is called an aethalometer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aethalometer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aethalometer
    - organsnyder 11y ago
      Is "off-road" diesel actually formulated any differently? My understanding is that it's taxed differently because it's only legal to use it in machines that aren't road-legal (farm & construction equipment, for instance), since much of fuel taxes goes toward road maintenance. I thought that the only real different is the presence/absence of a dye used to prove that you're using the correct type.
      - happyscrappy 11y ago
        Apparently they used to have higher sulfur but as of 12/2010 are all supposed to be Ultra Low Sulfur, although diesels will run on heating oil.
      - LordKano 11y ago
        As I understand it, it's legal to use it in other vehicles but only if those vehicles are used off of the public roadways. For example, if you have a large site and must move material internally to that site, you can use untaxed diesel while the vehicles are moving material on site.
- Agustus 11y ago
  Yes, they are among one of the four items identified in improving fuel economy: Aluminum frames (carbon fiber is better but cost prohibitive at this time), diesel, streamlining (read shrink), and the other that I am currently blanking on. a. Diesel engines get 33% better fuel economy. [1] b. Have a lower total cost of ownership. [2] c. They are better than petrol gasoline on three out of five emission items, the one that is noticeable to the naked eye, particulates, is what causes concern. [3]The caveat is that petrol gas emits particulates at a smaller micron level, unnoticeable to the naked eye, and may actually be of greater concern to the general public. 1. http://www.carsdirect.com/car-buying/diesel-fuel-vs-unleaded-gasoline-understand-the-pros-and-cons http://www.carsdirect.com/car-buying/diesel-fuel-vs-unleaded... 2. http://www.dieselforum.org/files/dmfile/20130311_CD_UMTRITCOFinalReport_dd2017.pdf http://www.dieselforum.org/files/dmfile/20130311_CD_UMTRITCO... 3. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060926082929AA4DvqB https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200609260829...
  - mhurron 11y ago
    Does all of this include Hybrid engines or just more traditional gasoline engines?
    - paulmd 11y ago
      The thing to remember is that hybrids and electrics tend to moderately trade off emissions for an increase in toxic waste from production. Neodymium for motors, tantalum for capacitors, lithium for batteries - all of those are bad news bears for the environment. Even stuff like copper isn't particularly awesome to produce. All other things being equal (mileage, emissions, etc), you should prefer the vehicle with a simple aluminum frame and engine over the high-tech wundercar because the impact of producing and disposing of it is lower. To the actual question - yeah, diesels running on biodiesel actually produce less GHG emissions than even hybrids. Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel is pretty close but just a bit above hybrids. The National Academy of Sciences published a study back in 2010 on the topic. The report itself is paywalled but there's a copy on the Arkansas state website. I snapped an image of the chart for ease of viewing. Note that ULSD was only introduced in the US in 2010 (2006 for Cali). The Euros have had it for quite a bit longer. So when you're reading studies, if it predates 2010 and it doesn't specifically say ULSD or Biodiesel then you should disregard it, because the new fuels are vastly cleaner and the playing field has shifted dramatically as a result. Biodiesel is often notated as something like B100, B85, or BD20 denoting the percentage of biodiesel in a mixture with fossil diesel. Pure B100 has a fairly high gel point and can cause problems starting in cold areas, so these mixtures include a fraction of ULSD to lower the gel point. http://imgur.com/FEOo1zB http://imgur.com/FEOo1zB http://1.usa.gov/1gO9jPL http://1.usa.gov/1gO9jPL
- jhayward 11y ago
  > Are diesel vehicles actually more environmentally friendly? Yes (legal) diesel passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the US since [edit: 2007] are significantly cleaner in all respects than their gasoline equivalents, although that difference goes away soon as the gas regulations catch up. It's very unlikely you could detect whether the vehicle in front of you is gas or diesel just by looking at it or smelling the exhaust. That said, there are a lot of pre-2005s out there, showing smoke and smelling bad. Also the heavy trucks are just now getting the emissions requirements that lighter vehicles have had for the last 10 years. I have a 2012 heavy-duty diesel pickup. Except for the logo on it and maybe the sound of the engine, you'd never know it was diesel.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    The sound of the engine is usually the giveaway to me. Clatterclatterclatter... I sometimes have to roll up my window when I am at a stoplight next to a heavy-duty diesel.
    - ubercore 11y ago
      Our now-maligned cheater TDI really doesn't sound any different than other 4 cylinder engines of its size and power. The exhaust does smell different, I prefer it to gasoline exhaust (don't _like_ it, but find it less offensive).
    - jhayward 11y ago
      Even the sound of the newer engines is reduced. Common-rail fuel injection reduces injector noise, which is most of that rattle you hear. The emissions equipment muffles the exhaust a bit. Even valve noise is reduced because they need to control things to finer tolerances. But a big diesel will always sound a bit beefy I think. The smaller 4-cylinders shouldn't be discernable from gas at all.
      - sbalea 11y ago
        My 2.0L turbo diesel engine (on non-VW variety) sounds very different than its 2.0L gas sibling. And I definitely like it :)
alkonaut 11y ago
In Europe a large fraction of new cars are sold as employee leasning cars. The tax regulations e.g. in Sweden mean that it's only viable to pick an environmentally friendly car, which is basically a CO2 emissions value. As an example the treshold in Sweden is 120g/km. Almost every manufacturer have 2 liter disel models that (just) barely come in under 120g/km, including several VW models such as the Passat. So while a slight increase in fuel consumption might not be much, it could be a huge blow to european sales: if a Passat jumps just a tiny bit in consumptions, CO2 emissions are likely to stray above 120g/km meaning sales will effectively be cut in half (assuming half the buyers of new cars are those who need to get under 120g/km) To illustrate how tight the margins are, the current model of Volvo V70 with the 2 liter "D4" diesel has offer a special 120g version with 16" wheels in because the standard 17" wheels would be an inch wider, and the resulting increase in drag makes the CO2 emission value 121g/km!
- masklinn 11y ago
  The issue at hand is NOx not CO.
  - xvf33 11y ago
    Yes but to lower NOx the CO2 goes up if they lower temps.
    - kale 11y ago
      Yep. Lowering temps by adding excess fuel per cycle to lower combustion temps by thermal mass and heat of vaporization. The fuel doesn't ignite because of careful regulation of the throttle plate (and in turbocharging engines, wastegate/sizing) management. My naturally-aspirated gasoline engine has a third-party flash that lets the throttle plate open much more quickly when you step on the gas. It feels much snappier, but opening the throttle plate too quickly allows excess oxygen to burn the extra fuel, not leaving any for heat reduction, which means there are steep increases in NOx and temperatures during acceleration.
ipsin 11y ago
Also a TDI owner (2009 Jetta), and I'm pretty sure that this patch is going to be mandatory to pass smog, and it's going to suck the fun out of the car. I feel complicit in tax fraud for taking the credit these vehicles got, and I'm pretty sure the patch is going to result in "loss of enjoyment", with worse performance and/or fuel economy. I'm honestly wondering if I have any realistic legal recourse, beyond sitting around and waiting for the "$500 off your next VW" class action fiasco.
- wyldfire 11y ago
  > I'm honestly wondering if I have any realistic legal recourse, beyond sitting around and waiting for the "$500 off your next VW" class action fiasco. As long as you opt-out of the class (or don't opt-in?), you could probably sue them yourself. Maybe you could do small claims in the jurisdiction of your local dealer and have simple headlines and these papers as the evidence.
- mzs 11y ago
  It's not necessary that you will have a bad result from any class action. I have been in two regarding cars I have owned: My warranty was extended out 100K miles, any repairs I had paid related prior were to be reimbursed, if I could not find sufficiently detailed records like receipts about $700 would be paid back to me (a repair that typically was around $1200) instead. This was for gearbox. My warranty was extended out 200K miles, any repairs I had paid related prior were to be reimbursed, I did need to provide records like receipts, but the repairs were much less in this case. This was for electronic throttle. Additionally I have had a car bought back - which ended-up being a replacement. I honestly had more hassle with the bank switching the collateral on the loan than with the car company in the process.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  oh get over yourself. I have had both a 2010 and 2013 TDI and don't feel one shred of guilt. Why would I? I did nothing wrong and guilt by association is so yesterday. There is likely to be some loss of MPG but all that will mean is the cars will be closer to their EPA estimates. Yet EPA estimates don't take into account how many people drive and mileage conscious people tend to drive differently. I have had only one car in the last dozen years where I could not consistently beat the EPA (my current, a 2012 Z4 averages 32 and hit peaks of 40 on long interstate runs by far exceeding the EPA numbers of that four cylinder) Now would I buy another one? Likely not a VW but a diesel isn't out of the question. Similar to how I really don't plan on buying any GM products because of their purposeful deceit with the ignition switches. I really would love to buy the upcoming Bolt but I don't see either company as honest and that is a requirement for me to do business. But to feel guilt for something you have no possibility of knowing is just ridiculous. You bought their product in good faith, should people who buy Subway sandwiches feel dirty because the company spokesman got busted for kiddie porn?
hueving 11y ago
>who took pride in purchasing a more environmentally friendly car at a higher premium. People that take pride in this are really irritating. If they have that much money to blow they would do orders of magnitude better for the environment if they just relocated closer to their place of employment and walked or biked. Or instead they should figure out how to carpool or take public transit. It's like a billionaire bragging about his new eco-friendly private jet that uses 5% less fuel.
- mhurron 11y ago
  > If they have that much money to blow A Jetta is 'money to blow?'
  - hueving 11y ago
    For the majority of the US, sadly yes.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  in Europe its very advantageous from both tax and cost to run diesel
- adaml_623 11y ago
  You're totally missing the point of the comment and twisting it in your brain. People go out of their way to buy a car that is environmentally friendly. I don't use a car to commute but would still look at emissions when picking a car that I might require for non commute purposes.
- dalke 11y ago
  I hear where you're coming from, but you can't make that blanket statement. If you are a social care worker for people in rural areas, or you have a job in the city (roving IT support for schools, private house appraiser, Meals on Wheels volunteer, etc.) then you cannot relocate closer, you cannot walk, and cannot easily do any of the other options you suggested. The infrastructure is such that buying a more efficient vehicle is an affordable stop-gap remedy, and doable now. Changing to another way of living is much harder, and takes a lot longer.

by hoopism 11y ago

happyscrappy 11y ago

Are diesel vehicles actually more environmentally friendly? It sure doesn't seem that way driving behind one.

seren 11y ago
They emit less CO2 per kilometer but much more particulates (this is why they have a filter), which is worse health wise.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  "Despite lower carbon dioxide emissions, diesel cars may promote more global warming than gasoline cars. Laws that favor the use of diesel, rather than gasoline, engines in cars may actually encourage global warming, according to a new study. Although diesel cars obtain 25 to 35 percent better mileage and emit less carbon dioxide than similar gasoline cars, they can emit 25 to 400 times more mass of particulate black carbon and associated organic matter ("soot") per kilometer [mile]. The warming due to soot may more than offset the cooling due to reduced carbon dioxide emissions over several decades, according to Mark Z. Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University." http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jacobsonJGR1023.html http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jacobsonJGR1023.html
  - paulmd 11y ago
    That release is from 2002, which predates the introduction of Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel in the US (Cali switched in '06, the rest of the US switched in '10). This drops the allowable particulate concentration from 500 ppm to 15 ppm, which as you would expect greatly reduces soot as well as emissions of all kind. The diesel we were running back then was garbage. It really had more in common with something like heating oil than the diesel the rest of the world uses, and is the reason why the US has a perception of diesel engines being dirty. It also created huge problems for porting small diesels over from Europe - they run at a much higher compression, but at those pressures the particulates in the fuel become abrasive and eat away the fuel injectors. Now we can use the same engine designs they are. It's win-win for everyone (except the oil companies I guess). Also, biodiesel reduces soot and other emissions even further. The only downside is that it has a higher gel point than fossil diesel. In southern states you can get away with running straight B100, in more northerly states you need to mix in 15% fossil diesel to get the gel point back down (B85 fuel).
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      The 500ppm to 15 ppm is Sulfur not particulates and Europe is now trying to move away from diesel because of their air pollution problems. Paris wants to ban them altogether by 2020. Biodiesel does not have the same problems. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11878435/Europe-must-now-come-clean-on-diesel.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11878435/E...
      - paulmd 11y ago
        The sulfur content of the diesel is the primary driver of particulate emissions. > The impact of diesel fuel sulfur reduction on directly-emitted and secondary atmospheric particulate is evaluated by experiment and analysis. Experimental evidence shows that fuel sulfur conversion rate to particulate sulfate is linear down to zero sulfur level. > Analysis shows that sulfur-derived particulate accounts for the vast majority of atmospheric particulate from diesel engines. Consequently, fuel sulfur reduction would have a far greater impact in reducing atmospheric particulate burden than any other diesel engine particulate control strategy. http://papers.sae.org/872139/ http://papers.sae.org/872139/ Sorry, this one's paywalled, but it's a finding that has been repeatedly reproduced in the literature. I completely agree about biodiesel. ULSD is a big step forward but biodiesel is even better in terms of emissions profile. It's also got a number of other things going for it - it can be run in conventional un-modified diesel engines that don't produce high-tech waste, and there's several factors that make its production more desirable than other biofuels.
rjsw 11y ago
Part of the sales pitch is the better fuel economy of diesel cars. One problem in Europe is that sales of diesel cars have become so high that we are not making good use of all the distillation fractions of the oil.
LoSboccacc 11y ago
more a result of the co2 craze. then they discovered diesel contains helluvalot of particulate compared to standard fuels (ops!) and to reduce it you have to burn at higher temperatures (and now you have NOX) at which point it was too late, at least in Europe, where diesel is usually 10% cheaper to buy and overall 20% cheaper to run, so demand is high enough to keep it alive.
ipsin 11y ago
For about the last ten years, most of the diesel fuel in the US has been ULSD (Ultra-Low Sulfur), and in 2007 the EPA tightened emissions standards for new vehicles. If the VW vehicles made after 2009 met those emission goals, they would be much cleaner than the smoke-belching cars and trucks you may be thinking of. http://www3.epa.gov/cleandiesel/technologies/index.htm http://www3.epa.gov/cleandiesel/technologies/index.htm
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  I think part of the problem in the US is "off-road diesel" is taxed far less and therefore much cheaper encouraging people to use it on road, and it is terrible. By the way does anyone know of a good way to test for diesel particulates? I swear Boston commuter rails are leaking diesel fumes into the passenger cabins.
  - mfb 11y ago
    The device for measuring particulate concentration is called an aethalometer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aethalometer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aethalometer
  - organsnyder 11y ago
    Is "off-road" diesel actually formulated any differently? My understanding is that it's taxed differently because it's only legal to use it in machines that aren't road-legal (farm & construction equipment, for instance), since much of fuel taxes goes toward road maintenance. I thought that the only real different is the presence/absence of a dye used to prove that you're using the correct type.
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      Apparently they used to have higher sulfur but as of 12/2010 are all supposed to be Ultra Low Sulfur, although diesels will run on heating oil.
    - LordKano 11y ago
      As I understand it, it's legal to use it in other vehicles but only if those vehicles are used off of the public roadways. For example, if you have a large site and must move material internally to that site, you can use untaxed diesel while the vehicles are moving material on site.
Agustus 11y ago
Yes, they are among one of the four items identified in improving fuel economy: Aluminum frames (carbon fiber is better but cost prohibitive at this time), diesel, streamlining (read shrink), and the other that I am currently blanking on. a. Diesel engines get 33% better fuel economy. [1] b. Have a lower total cost of ownership. [2] c. They are better than petrol gasoline on three out of five emission items, the one that is noticeable to the naked eye, particulates, is what causes concern. [3]The caveat is that petrol gas emits particulates at a smaller micron level, unnoticeable to the naked eye, and may actually be of greater concern to the general public. 1. http://www.carsdirect.com/car-buying/diesel-fuel-vs-unleaded-gasoline-understand-the-pros-and-cons http://www.carsdirect.com/car-buying/diesel-fuel-vs-unleaded... 2. http://www.dieselforum.org/files/dmfile/20130311_CD_UMTRITCOFinalReport_dd2017.pdf http://www.dieselforum.org/files/dmfile/20130311_CD_UMTRITCO... 3. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060926082929AA4DvqB https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200609260829...
- mhurron 11y ago
  Does all of this include Hybrid engines or just more traditional gasoline engines?
  - paulmd 11y ago
    The thing to remember is that hybrids and electrics tend to moderately trade off emissions for an increase in toxic waste from production. Neodymium for motors, tantalum for capacitors, lithium for batteries - all of those are bad news bears for the environment. Even stuff like copper isn't particularly awesome to produce. All other things being equal (mileage, emissions, etc), you should prefer the vehicle with a simple aluminum frame and engine over the high-tech wundercar because the impact of producing and disposing of it is lower. To the actual question - yeah, diesels running on biodiesel actually produce less GHG emissions than even hybrids. Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel is pretty close but just a bit above hybrids. The National Academy of Sciences published a study back in 2010 on the topic. The report itself is paywalled but there's a copy on the Arkansas state website. I snapped an image of the chart for ease of viewing. Note that ULSD was only introduced in the US in 2010 (2006 for Cali). The Euros have had it for quite a bit longer. So when you're reading studies, if it predates 2010 and it doesn't specifically say ULSD or Biodiesel then you should disregard it, because the new fuels are vastly cleaner and the playing field has shifted dramatically as a result. Biodiesel is often notated as something like B100, B85, or BD20 denoting the percentage of biodiesel in a mixture with fossil diesel. Pure B100 has a fairly high gel point and can cause problems starting in cold areas, so these mixtures include a fraction of ULSD to lower the gel point. http://imgur.com/FEOo1zB http://imgur.com/FEOo1zB http://1.usa.gov/1gO9jPL http://1.usa.gov/1gO9jPL
jhayward 11y ago
> Are diesel vehicles actually more environmentally friendly? Yes (legal) diesel passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the US since [edit: 2007] are significantly cleaner in all respects than their gasoline equivalents, although that difference goes away soon as the gas regulations catch up. It's very unlikely you could detect whether the vehicle in front of you is gas or diesel just by looking at it or smelling the exhaust. That said, there are a lot of pre-2005s out there, showing smoke and smelling bad. Also the heavy trucks are just now getting the emissions requirements that lighter vehicles have had for the last 10 years. I have a 2012 heavy-duty diesel pickup. Except for the logo on it and maybe the sound of the engine, you'd never know it was diesel.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  The sound of the engine is usually the giveaway to me. Clatterclatterclatter... I sometimes have to roll up my window when I am at a stoplight next to a heavy-duty diesel.
  - ubercore 11y ago
    Our now-maligned cheater TDI really doesn't sound any different than other 4 cylinder engines of its size and power. The exhaust does smell different, I prefer it to gasoline exhaust (don't _like_ it, but find it less offensive).
  - jhayward 11y ago
    Even the sound of the newer engines is reduced. Common-rail fuel injection reduces injector noise, which is most of that rattle you hear. The emissions equipment muffles the exhaust a bit. Even valve noise is reduced because they need to control things to finer tolerances. But a big diesel will always sound a bit beefy I think. The smaller 4-cylinders shouldn't be discernable from gas at all.
    - sbalea 11y ago
      My 2.0L turbo diesel engine (on non-VW variety) sounds very different than its 2.0L gas sibling. And I definitely like it :)

alkonaut 11y ago

In Europe a large fraction of new cars are sold as employee leasning cars. The tax regulations e.g. in Sweden mean that it's only viable to pick an environmentally friendly car, which is basically a CO2 emissions value. As an example the treshold in Sweden is 120g/km. Almost every manufacturer have 2 liter disel models that (just) barely come in under 120g/km, including several VW models such as the Passat. So while a slight increase in fuel consumption might not be much, it could be a huge blow to european sales: if a Passat jumps just a tiny bit in consumptions, CO2 emissions are likely to stray above 120g/km meaning sales will effectively be cut in half (assuming half the buyers of new cars are those who need to get under 120g/km) To illustrate how tight the margins are, the current model of Volvo V70 with the 2 liter "D4" diesel has offer a special 120g version with 16" wheels in because the standard 17" wheels would be an inch wider, and the resulting increase in drag makes the CO2 emission value 121g/km!

masklinn 11y ago
The issue at hand is NOx not CO.
- xvf33 11y ago
  Yes but to lower NOx the CO2 goes up if they lower temps.
  - kale 11y ago
    Yep. Lowering temps by adding excess fuel per cycle to lower combustion temps by thermal mass and heat of vaporization. The fuel doesn't ignite because of careful regulation of the throttle plate (and in turbocharging engines, wastegate/sizing) management. My naturally-aspirated gasoline engine has a third-party flash that lets the throttle plate open much more quickly when you step on the gas. It feels much snappier, but opening the throttle plate too quickly allows excess oxygen to burn the extra fuel, not leaving any for heat reduction, which means there are steep increases in NOx and temperatures during acceleration.

ipsin 11y ago

Also a TDI owner (2009 Jetta), and I'm pretty sure that this patch is going to be mandatory to pass smog, and it's going to suck the fun out of the car. I feel complicit in tax fraud for taking the credit these vehicles got, and I'm pretty sure the patch is going to result in "loss of enjoyment", with worse performance and/or fuel economy. I'm honestly wondering if I have any realistic legal recourse, beyond sitting around and waiting for the "$500 off your next VW" class action fiasco.

wyldfire 11y ago
> I'm honestly wondering if I have any realistic legal recourse, beyond sitting around and waiting for the "$500 off your next VW" class action fiasco. As long as you opt-out of the class (or don't opt-in?), you could probably sue them yourself. Maybe you could do small claims in the jurisdiction of your local dealer and have simple headlines and these papers as the evidence.
mzs 11y ago
It's not necessary that you will have a bad result from any class action. I have been in two regarding cars I have owned: My warranty was extended out 100K miles, any repairs I had paid related prior were to be reimbursed, if I could not find sufficiently detailed records like receipts about $700 would be paid back to me (a repair that typically was around $1200) instead. This was for gearbox. My warranty was extended out 200K miles, any repairs I had paid related prior were to be reimbursed, I did need to provide records like receipts, but the repairs were much less in this case. This was for electronic throttle. Additionally I have had a car bought back - which ended-up being a replacement. I honestly had more hassle with the bank switching the collateral on the loan than with the car company in the process.
Shivetya 11y ago
oh get over yourself. I have had both a 2010 and 2013 TDI and don't feel one shred of guilt. Why would I? I did nothing wrong and guilt by association is so yesterday. There is likely to be some loss of MPG but all that will mean is the cars will be closer to their EPA estimates. Yet EPA estimates don't take into account how many people drive and mileage conscious people tend to drive differently. I have had only one car in the last dozen years where I could not consistently beat the EPA (my current, a 2012 Z4 averages 32 and hit peaks of 40 on long interstate runs by far exceeding the EPA numbers of that four cylinder) Now would I buy another one? Likely not a VW but a diesel isn't out of the question. Similar to how I really don't plan on buying any GM products because of their purposeful deceit with the ignition switches. I really would love to buy the upcoming Bolt but I don't see either company as honest and that is a requirement for me to do business. But to feel guilt for something you have no possibility of knowing is just ridiculous. You bought their product in good faith, should people who buy Subway sandwiches feel dirty because the company spokesman got busted for kiddie porn?

hueving 11y ago

>who took pride in purchasing a more environmentally friendly car at a higher premium. People that take pride in this are really irritating. If they have that much money to blow they would do orders of magnitude better for the environment if they just relocated closer to their place of employment and walked or biked. Or instead they should figure out how to carpool or take public transit. It's like a billionaire bragging about his new eco-friendly private jet that uses 5% less fuel.

mhurron 11y ago
> If they have that much money to blow A Jetta is 'money to blow?'
- hueving 11y ago
  For the majority of the US, sadly yes.
spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
in Europe its very advantageous from both tax and cost to run diesel
adaml_623 11y ago
You're totally missing the point of the comment and twisting it in your brain. People go out of their way to buy a car that is environmentally friendly. I don't use a car to commute but would still look at emissions when picking a car that I might require for non commute purposes.
dalke 11y ago
I hear where you're coming from, but you can't make that blanket statement. If you are a social care worker for people in rural areas, or you have a job in the city (roving IT support for schools, private house appraiser, Meals on Wheels volunteer, etc.) then you cannot relocate closer, you cannot walk, and cannot easily do any of the other options you suggested. The infrastructure is such that buying a more efficient vehicle is an affordable stop-gap remedy, and doable now. Changing to another way of living is much harder, and takes a lot longer.