6 ms·

I purchased a new car in 2014. Having a familiarity with Diesel engines, I wanted to buy a Diesel. Even better- one of the cars I was keen about was available

by MCRed 12y ago

I purchased a new car in 2014. Having a familiarity with Diesel engines, I wanted to buy a Diesel. Even better- one of the cars I was keen about was available in Diesel form.... but in the UK only. The american version seemed to get about half the gas milage! The reason we can't get Diesels is the environmentalist "anti-smog" campaigns of the 70s and 80s, produced emissions standards that prevent Mazda from just importing that car they sell freely in the UK. Mazda is has been trying to get their Mazda3 Diesel version imported to the USA for a couple years. It's becoming a bit of a joke because they keep thinking they are going to be able to do it and then not being able to get the permits. Environmentalists really hated diesels in the 70s and the 80s because "smog" and the particulate matter that diesels produce was the big scary thing. Now gas milage is the big desire but the emissions standards make that nearly impossible. When I was a kid I had a Toyota Tercel station wagon. That car got 40MPG Highway! And it wasn't an econobox- it was 4WD and a big old station wagon (well big for japanese standards.) Meanwhile, I just bought a 2014 RAV4--- 30 years newer with 30 years more advanced technology-- it's about the same size and weight, also with a 4 cylinder engine but much more efficient computer controlled shifting and the like-- yet it only gets 20mpg highway. MPG and emissions are a tradeoff-- and the regulatory demands of environmentalists don't seem to take this into account.

cratermoon 12y ago
To be fair to the car makers, diesel fuel in the US is allowed to have a much greater level of sulfur than in other countries, so the typical level of emissions for the same vehicle in the US is worse than in other countries. If the EPA were to mandate lower sulfur levels (not likely in this century) then our diesel cars would be better.
- MCRed 12y ago
  Or simply create another grade of Diesel- similar to what's sold in Europe and the UK. Then let the market decide. The cars can be sold specifically to use this type of Diesel (that they already use in Europe) If it makes sense the new fuel will replace the old one that the big trucks use now, or if not then both will be sold.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel#United_... The US sulfur limit is 15 ppm. In the EU it is 10 ppm (apparently the available fuel is often lower than that). I don't have any idea what the effective difference is between fuel with 15 ppm sulfur and 5 ppm sulfur, but I would guess it won't be enormous.
- ams6110 12y ago
  They have. For the last 5 years or so ULSD (ultra low sulfur diesel) has been mandatory for all new "highway" diesel engines, is required for the urea-catalytic emissions controls ("Blutec") on modern diesels, and it's what you will find at fuel stations, unless you specifically seek out off-road diesel. Europe's standard may still be higher, but it has improved here also.
- zzalpha 12y ago
  This is incorrect. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel#United_... As of September 2007, most on-highway diesel fuel sold at retail locations in the United States is ULSD.
zzalpha 12y ago
Environmentalists really hated diesels in the 70s and the 80s because "smog" and the particulate matter that diesels produce was the big scary thing. Yes, because during the 70s and 80s smog was a really scary thing. You know the problems China has today? Well, now you understand the direction California was headed in the 70s. Of course, it's pretty easy to look back, now, and deride the politicians of the day, but you also aren't experiencing lung cancer and birth defects because they headed off the issue by enacting laws that have protected you for the last 30 years. Now gas milage is the big desire but the emissions standards make that nearly impossible. That's BS. TDI diesels (edit: burning ULSD) are, today, every bit as clean as gasoline cars and significantly more fuel efficient, while operating in a wide range of climates.
- MCRed 12y ago
  80s Tercel got 40MPG 2014 Rav4 gets 20MPG Same gasoline, both 4 cylinder. The RAV4 is much more advanced. It's emissions that have killed gas milage.
  - chadgeidel 12y ago
    To compare a 1.3 or 1.5 liter engine making well under 90 HP to a 2.0 or 2.5 liter engine making 150-170 HP and saying "both 4 cylinder" like they are the same engine is disingenuous at best. Combine that with the fact that the modern car is probably 1000 pounds heavier (as well as much taller) it's very obvious where the fuel mileage has gone.
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    The 80s Tercel weighed something like 900 kg, while an RAV4 weighs 1150 kg. This also has an impact. And the RAV4 has many more goodies that eat electricity - and did the Tercel even have aircon? Yes, the catalyser burns some fuel, but it is not the only thing there. The biggest thing probably is that the RAV4 is much more powerful, and in the measurement cycle, the more power there is in the engine, the more of it is used, so the nominal consumption goes up. And to some extent this happens in real life as well. Modern cars are quite overpowered for the actual purposes of transport. Power is nice, because you can feel it when you kick the gas pedal. But that does eat fuel.
SamReidHughes 12y ago
This so-called "smog" is a real thing and it's the number one pollution problem in California. It's not environmentalists that have a problem with smog. It's most people that live in California.
chadgeidel 12y ago
UK/US mileage numbers are different because US gallons (3.8 liters) are smaller than Imperial gallons (4.5 liters). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon If you are looking at liters per 100KM then they should be equivalent.
morganvachon 12y ago
What kills me is the Honda I had back in the late 90s (a 1991 CRX HF) that got nearly 50mpg. Why can't they do that kind of fuel efficiency nowadays? Even the "Smart" Fortwo doesn't come close[1], and it's much smaller and lighter. I don't understand how we've gone backwards in fuel efficiency when we've made so many advances in other areas of automotive innovation. [1] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=7474&id=34460 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=7474&id... And yes, comparing a 25 year old Honda to a one year old Kei car is a bit apples and oranges, so here's the CRX HF's spiritual successor, which surprisingly gets about the same MPG as the diminutive "Smart" car despite being a hybrid: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=7474&id=34427 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=7474&id...
- korethr 12y ago
  Because that little Honda CRX was a tiny little thing that only required a small motor to be drivable. Compare size and all the creature comforts and nifty automatic systems in modern cars. Despite advancements in materials technology, all that stuff still comes with a weight cost, and that weight cost can swamp the efficiency gains of modern engines.
  - morganvachon 12y ago
    Except the 1991 CRX weighed 1967 lbs and had a 72HP engine, whereas the Smart Fortwo weighs 1653 lbs and has a 101HP engine. By your own theory, the lighter, more powerful car should get better, or at least equal MPG. But that's not the case.
    - chadgeidel 12y ago
      Manual transmission in the CRX vs an auto in the smart?
      - morganvachon 12y ago
        Clutchless manual in the Smart. I looked at getting one a few years back, but I couldn't justify $15k for a two-seater with almost no breathing room and storage space versus $12k for a Nissan Versa with nearly the same MPG and a huge back seat area/storage area. I simply don't understand how they can justify $15k for what boils down to $9k worth of car. It's all hype.

by MCRed 12y ago

cratermoon 12y ago

To be fair to the car makers, diesel fuel in the US is allowed to have a much greater level of sulfur than in other countries, so the typical level of emissions for the same vehicle in the US is worse than in other countries. If the EPA were to mandate lower sulfur levels (not likely in this century) then our diesel cars would be better.

MCRed 12y ago
Or simply create another grade of Diesel- similar to what's sold in Europe and the UK. Then let the market decide. The cars can be sold specifically to use this type of Diesel (that they already use in Europe) If it makes sense the new fuel will replace the old one that the big trucks use now, or if not then both will be sold.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel#United_... The US sulfur limit is 15 ppm. In the EU it is 10 ppm (apparently the available fuel is often lower than that). I don't have any idea what the effective difference is between fuel with 15 ppm sulfur and 5 ppm sulfur, but I would guess it won't be enormous.
ams6110 12y ago
They have. For the last 5 years or so ULSD (ultra low sulfur diesel) has been mandatory for all new "highway" diesel engines, is required for the urea-catalytic emissions controls ("Blutec") on modern diesels, and it's what you will find at fuel stations, unless you specifically seek out off-road diesel. Europe's standard may still be higher, but it has improved here also.
zzalpha 12y ago
This is incorrect. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel#United_... As of September 2007, most on-highway diesel fuel sold at retail locations in the United States is ULSD.

zzalpha 12y ago

Environmentalists really hated diesels in the 70s and the 80s because "smog" and the particulate matter that diesels produce was the big scary thing. Yes, because during the 70s and 80s smog was a really scary thing. You know the problems China has today? Well, now you understand the direction California was headed in the 70s. Of course, it's pretty easy to look back, now, and deride the politicians of the day, but you also aren't experiencing lung cancer and birth defects because they headed off the issue by enacting laws that have protected you for the last 30 years. Now gas milage is the big desire but the emissions standards make that nearly impossible. That's BS. TDI diesels (edit: burning ULSD) are, today, every bit as clean as gasoline cars and significantly more fuel efficient, while operating in a wide range of climates.

MCRed 12y ago
80s Tercel got 40MPG 2014 Rav4 gets 20MPG Same gasoline, both 4 cylinder. The RAV4 is much more advanced. It's emissions that have killed gas milage.
- chadgeidel 12y ago
  To compare a 1.3 or 1.5 liter engine making well under 90 HP to a 2.0 or 2.5 liter engine making 150-170 HP and saying "both 4 cylinder" like they are the same engine is disingenuous at best. Combine that with the fact that the modern car is probably 1000 pounds heavier (as well as much taller) it's very obvious where the fuel mileage has gone.
- ptaipale 12y ago
  The 80s Tercel weighed something like 900 kg, while an RAV4 weighs 1150 kg. This also has an impact. And the RAV4 has many more goodies that eat electricity - and did the Tercel even have aircon? Yes, the catalyser burns some fuel, but it is not the only thing there. The biggest thing probably is that the RAV4 is much more powerful, and in the measurement cycle, the more power there is in the engine, the more of it is used, so the nominal consumption goes up. And to some extent this happens in real life as well. Modern cars are quite overpowered for the actual purposes of transport. Power is nice, because you can feel it when you kick the gas pedal. But that does eat fuel.

SamReidHughes 12y ago

This so-called "smog" is a real thing and it's the number one pollution problem in California. It's not environmentalists that have a problem with smog. It's most people that live in California.

chadgeidel 12y ago

UK/US mileage numbers are different because US gallons (3.8 liters) are smaller than Imperial gallons (4.5 liters). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon If you are looking at liters per 100KM then they should be equivalent.

morganvachon 12y ago

What kills me is the Honda I had back in the late 90s (a 1991 CRX HF) that got nearly 50mpg. Why can't they do that kind of fuel efficiency nowadays? Even the "Smart" Fortwo doesn't come close[1], and it's much smaller and lighter. I don't understand how we've gone backwards in fuel efficiency when we've made so many advances in other areas of automotive innovation. [1] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=7474&id=34460 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=7474&id... And yes, comparing a 25 year old Honda to a one year old Kei car is a bit apples and oranges, so here's the CRX HF's spiritual successor, which surprisingly gets about the same MPG as the diminutive "Smart" car despite being a hybrid: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=7474&id=34427 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=7474&id...

korethr 12y ago
Because that little Honda CRX was a tiny little thing that only required a small motor to be drivable. Compare size and all the creature comforts and nifty automatic systems in modern cars. Despite advancements in materials technology, all that stuff still comes with a weight cost, and that weight cost can swamp the efficiency gains of modern engines.
- morganvachon 12y ago
  Except the 1991 CRX weighed 1967 lbs and had a 72HP engine, whereas the Smart Fortwo weighs 1653 lbs and has a 101HP engine. By your own theory, the lighter, more powerful car should get better, or at least equal MPG. But that's not the case.
  - chadgeidel 12y ago
    Manual transmission in the CRX vs an auto in the smart?
    - morganvachon 12y ago
      Clutchless manual in the Smart. I looked at getting one a few years back, but I couldn't justify $15k for a two-seater with almost no breathing room and storage space versus $12k for a Nissan Versa with nearly the same MPG and a huge back seat area/storage area. I simply don't understand how they can justify $15k for what boils down to $9k worth of car. It's all hype.