3 ms·
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, beca
by 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 ago80s 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 agoTo 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 agoThe 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.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- tertius 12y agoIn the U.S. the major benefit to Diesel is torque. You should try comparing diesel and gas models as equally equipped as possible and see what the cost per mile is. I just bought a 2.5L Subaru Outback, if we had the 2.0L diesel version I would save about $500 over 100,000 miles. That's not great in my book. Would I buy a diesel Tacoma if one was available? Yes. So I'm a diesel fanboy, but the economics are closer than we think.
- Aloisius 12y ago> 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. That is simply untrue. Even modern diesel engines today produce a ton of extremely fine particulates (PM0.1 or <= 100nm) which are exceptionally carcinogenic. PM0.1 will happily lodge deeply into your lungs, pass through cell membranes, and lodge into your organs and brain. They've been shown to trigger heart attacks, cause asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, birth defects and more. Then there is the huge amount of NOx produced by diesel which causes smog and ground level ozone. Neither is particularly good to breathe. There is a reason why many cities in Europe like Paris are in the process of or thinking about banning diesel cars from their roads. This does not happen with petrol.