Small super efficient diesels: why not here?

[Balog]

Ok, so I know that in Europe cars with small very fuel efficient diesels are popular. I also know that they aren't practical to sell here because of .gov regulations. My question is; what regs? I've seen people refer to them, but I'm in a debate with someone now and I'd like to be able to cite the actual laws and their effects instead of just saying "Durrrr, well the .gov don't allow it."

Is it because they need a type of diesel we don't sell, or are they not able to pass emissions requirements to be imported, or......

[K Frame]

I believe that it is emissions related issues, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

Which, in the long run, is ludicrous, because these small diesels have the potential to drive fuel economy of some small cars as high as 65 mpg on the highway, and diesel is far less of a concern regarding smog than is gasoline.

[Nick1911]

I have not researched this in detail, but a good place to start is likely wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low_sulfur_diesel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_emission_standards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not-To-Exceed_(NTE)

[Harold Tuttle]

THe new low sulfur Diesel standard in the US will help get the TDIs into the states

VW took a loss on the VW TDI just to establish a beach head
The high Sulfur US Diesel of the last decades required extra effort on the emissions & caused drivability issues with european TDIs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low_sulfur_diesel

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=119327

[AJ Dual]

I can't remember which was which, but the U.S. and Europe have different emission standards. We allow more Carbon Monoxide, and Europe allows more Sulfur Dioxide, or vice-versa. (Which would make sense though, with what the others are saying about low-sulfur diesel...)

The TDI's really aren't any "dirtier" when the exhaust is taken as a whole, just the allowable fractions in the U.S. and Europe are different.

What I'd love to see eventually is an in-line hybrid with all-electric drivetrain just like the Chevy Volt, but with an optimized TDI generator, that produces electricity directly when needed, and it would be "green" AND have a kick-ass 0-60, then go back to trickle-charging the battery for cruising etc.

With motor-in-wheels, and the ability to position the TDI anywhere, because it's connected with a wire, not a transmission or transaxle, the CG could be insanely low and it would corner like a dream. Your average grocery-getter would handle more like a Subaru WRX...

[never_retreat]

Would love to see them here also, why should foreign countries get all the good stuff.
I'm a big diesel fan, from the simplicity of the motors to the durability. And essential flexible fuels as long as there isn't too much crap attached to the motor.
I drive a 02 F250 with the 7.3L diesel. Great engine not bad millage (double of a gas motor) considering the almost 8k pound weight. The MPG's did drop off when they came out with this low sulfur crap.
I have a jeep also the gets crappy gas millage and the motor is pretty shot. I'm half tempted to stuff a 4bt cummins turbo diesel in it.
Guys are pushing them up to 40-60 mpg. But the project just may be a bit over my head in my skills.

[roo_ster]

I drive a 02 F250 with the 7.3L diesel. Great engine not bad millage (double of a gas motor) considering the almost 8k pound weight. The MPG's did drop off when they came out with this low sulfur crap.

A little bird told me that if you pour in a some motor oil or 2 cycle engine oil, the millage on the older, pre-ULSD engine picks right back up and smooths out their operation.

Don't do it with the new made-for-ULSD engines, though, it will foul up their emissions equipment.

[zahc]

Which, in the long run, is ludicrous, because these small diesels have the potential to drive fuel economy of some small cars as high as 65 mpg on the highway, and diesel is far less of a concern regarding smog than is gasoline.

This situation mirrors that of the semi-trucks. In the last 5...10....whatever years the EPA has passed so many regulations that require particle filters, exhaust gas recirculation, and other tricks to meet, so the engines of today are getting far less mpg/hp than those of old. Lots of people don't understand why it's good for the environment to burn more diesel, but I'm sure our overlords at the EPA know what's best for the environment better than we do.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

This situation mirrors that of the semi-trucks. In the last 5...10....whatever years the EPA has passed so many regulations that require particle filters, exhaust gas recirculation, and other tricks to meet, so the engines of today are getting far less mpg/hp than those of old. Lots of people don't understand why it's good for the environment to burn more diesel, but I'm sure our overlords at the EPA know what's best for the environment better than we do.

the folks from the gov here to help are consistent.. in the late 70's they made us remove all wood cutting boards in the name of fighting bacteria.  the plastic ones are a worse vector than the wood ones were

[Balog]

the folks from the gov here to help are consistent.. in the late 70's they made us remove all wood cutting boards in the name of fighting bacteria.  the plastic ones are a worse vector than the wood ones were

How do you figure? Seems like plastic would be easier to clean.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i thought so too  turns out the wood has a natural antibacterial property  there was a very embarassing study done after tons of money had been wasted

[mtnbkr]

Got a link?  That's the first I've heard of that.

Chris

[Balog]

i thought so too  turns out the wood has a natural antibacterial property  there was a very embarassing study done after tons of money had been wasted

I'd like to see this study.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://whatscookingamerica.net/CuttingBoards/AllAbout.htm

heres a reference i'm going to dinner will dig up the origuinal if i can  its from the 80's and i wanna say was done at duke but i might misremember that  i didn't quit getting stoned till early 90's so some of 80's is fuzzy

[Marnoot]

Got a link?  That's the first I've heard of that.

Chris

http://faculty.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/faculty/docliver/Research/cuttingboard.htm

[drewtam]

I think other posters pointed out the main parts, but to summarize.

US EPA regulations are different than EU emissions regs. To meet US regs requires a diesel with more sophisticated emissions controls. Which aren't really possible without ULSD (ultra low sulphur diesel) which is recently introduced. In the end, to meet US regs fuel consumption goes up, and engine cost goes up; which makes the economics not work out for the diesel powered car. To add insult to injury, diesel fuel in the US is more expensive than EU. In the US, fuel prices are cheap, because we don't have crazy taxes like EU. Therefore, there is not an incentive to pay more for better fuel economy.

Economic Numbers
Gasoline fuel cost per year
15k mi/yr / 20mpg x $2.15/gal = $1613
Diesel Fuel cost per year
15k mi/yr / 25mpg x $2.50/gal = $1500

Savings with diesel:
$113/yr
Increased purchase price of vehicle:
~$1000 or more

It might take 10yrs of ownership to make it worth it.

The real question is "why does the EU consumer buy diesels?"
1. They are allowed more emissions of the kind diesels produce. So the emissions controls equipment is not as complicated.
1a, this avoids engine cost

2. The various gov'ts create a fuel tax structure to encourage diesels
2a, all fuel prices are high from extreme taxes (~$4-$8/gal), so it is REALLY important to get good fuel economy
2b, some countries tax diesel at lower rates than gasoline

3, Secondary effects
3a, France and Germany uses taxes to encourage diesel purchase
3a, England buys diesels because so many are made for Fr and Gr that mass production makes it cheap enough

[Iain]

Diesel is more expensive per litre here.

Mazda 6 1.9 petrol (147bhp) - 37mpg - £18,708
Mazda 6 2.2 diesel (161bhp) - 51mpg - £20,500