Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Ye Olde Rocket Forum (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/index.php)
-   FreeForAll (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   VW Diesel "Scandal" (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showthread.php?t=15466)

ghrocketman 09-30-2015 11:17 PM

VW Diesel "Scandal"
 
This VW Diesel Exhaust Emissions supposed "Scandal" is a fargin' joke.
I for one hope (but know it won't) VW gives the US EPA the big EFF-YOO !
Quite frankly, I don't agree with having ANY environmental/emission regulations on non-commercial vehicles under 10,000 lbs. Should be ZERO regs regarding this.
If an individual wants to save their own little piece of the environment, so be it. If one conversely makes the INDIVIDUAL CHOICE to RUIN a little piece, that should be a LEGITIMATE LEGAL choice as well.
Regulate large power plants and factories along with COMMERCIAL vehicles over 10K lbs ONLY.
I agree with virtually ZERO of the gov't forced safety mandates on automobiles as well.
I can agree with forcing a lot of it to be available as OPTIONAL equipment to be purchased at consumer discretion, but NOT mandatory inclusion. Drives the vehicle cost WAY too high.
About the only safety devices that should be standard are seat belts for all seats (of which the use should ALWAYS be an OPTIONAL personal choice) and a single airbag for the front driver and passenger. All other devices/controls should be purchaser discretion.

sandman 10-01-2015 09:21 AM

I had a Jetta Turbo diesel I finally sold at 485,000 miles on the odometer.
The odometer hadn't worked in 2 or 3 years so I don't know how many miles it had on it.

I only got rid of it 'cause it was soooo rusted out after 18 Michigan winters.

I ran mine on home heating oil (no road tax :rolleyes: )

Obviously I really didn't care about what came out the tail pipe.

Except when someone tail gated me.

I could step on it, the turbo would wind up and all kinds of nasty black stuff chased the tail gater away.

And get 50 mpg doing it!

I really miss that car.

Joe Wooten 10-01-2015 10:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman

I ran mine on home heating oil (no road tax :rolleyes: )



No one ever inspected your tank for the red dye? I know in Illinois once had an Ag dept inspector come by to make sue I was not diverting heating oil to run a vehicle, and occasionally in the rural areas the highway patrol would shine a light down t tanks of diesel vehicles to look for it to. big-as fines f you wee caught.

ghrocketman 10-01-2015 11:21 AM

In Michigan, non-commercial vehicles are NOT subject to DOT inspection, EVER.
Hence, they CANNOT legally check your fuel to make sure it is non-dyed.
Only COMMERCIAL vehicles here are subject to those checks.
They could ask to check but u can refuse.

Jerry Irvine 10-01-2015 11:51 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman
And get 50 mpg doing it!

I really miss that car.
Ditto. Jetta diesel, Rabbit diesel. The Jetta had an extra tank giving it an 800 mile range. I drove to Danville, IL from CA. A couple times.

Doug Sams 10-01-2015 01:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghrocketman
This VW Diesel Exhaust Emissions supposed "Scandal" is a fargin' joke.
I for one hope (but know it won't) VW gives the US EPA the big EFF-YOO !
Quite frankly, I don't agree with having ANY environmental/emission regulations on non-commercial vehicles under 10,000 lbs. Should be ZERO regs regarding this.
If an individual wants to save their own little piece of the environment, so be it. If one conversely makes the INDIVIDUAL CHOICE to RUIN a little piece, that should be a LEGITIMATE LEGAL choice as well.
Regulate large power plants and factories along with COMMERCIAL vehicles over 10K lbs ONLY.
I agree with virtually ZERO of the gov't forced safety mandates on automobiles as well.
I can agree with forcing a lot of it to be available as OPTIONAL equipment to be purchased at consumer discretion, but NOT mandatory inclusion. Drives the vehicle cost WAY too high.
About the only safety devices that should be standard are seat belts for all seats (of which the use should ALWAYS be an OPTIONAL personal choice) and a single airbag for the front driver and passenger. All other devices/controls should be purchaser discretion.
I've been reading about this with great interest. There are several good articles I've seen on the EETimes website. Here's one: http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp..._msgpage=1#msgs

This could have a huge impact on the car business. VW could get hit really hard. And I imagine several other car makers have some engineers holding a tight @$$, wondering whether anybody's gonna figure out their cheats :)

Doug

.

Jerry Irvine 10-01-2015 09:19 PM

EPA standards are silly on small diesel engines, which are among the most fuel efficient on the planet.

The effort to make diesel cleaner misses two points. Most diesel is used on commercial trucks, trains, ships and barges. VW's are literally trivial. This is a shake down for fines. The regulations are made up rules to try to force manufacturers into unhelpful and counterproductive engineering efforts.

Yes I know VW did this on purpose, but based on the former GM CEO comments they couldn't match VW's released products in diesel, so VW got a major market advantage for realizing the standards were literally impossible to meet while still maintaining the platform advantages.

Jerry

mycrofte 10-02-2015 06:23 AM

Uhh... They used to say diesel was only about 10% as polluting as a gasoline engine.So why is this a big deal?

Let alone they all do this. I used to work for Caterpillar and they had drivers that knew how to get a lower emission test.
_________________________________________________

Jerry Irvine 10-02-2015 07:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mycrofte
Uhh... They used to say diesel was only about 10% as polluting as a gasoline engine.So why is this a big deal?
EPA has expanded what they consider pollutants so they can regulate them. (Read compel, fine, mandate).

It is largely about sulfur in diesel being targeted by EPA for reduction. The biggest and most practical change was reformulating diesel at the refinery level. All the vehicle based mandates are because EPA can, not because there is a cost benefit tradeoff.

cites:

http://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/orig189.html

http://publicaccess.supportportal.c...rity-Pollutants

http://www.enviroprolabs.com/epa-pr...pollutant-list/

luke strawwalker 10-02-2015 07:26 AM

Agree... this is just a shakedown for money, nothing more...

The biggest gripe with diesels has been carbon particulates... supposedly causes cancer... (what the h3ll doesn't??) Thing is, they've pretty much had that problem licked for decades already-- delayed throttle so it doesn't dump more fuel in the cylinder than it can efficiently burn... IOW, delay the throttle until the engine revs up enough to burn more fuel.

The Tier 4 standards have RUINED diesel engines... these new DEF burning catalytic converter equipped diesels are no good... Used to be, guys would buy diesel pickups for the additional towing capability, and the fact that a good diesel pickup would get about 22-26 mpg... where a similarly capable gas burning pickup with a Ford 460 cubic inch or Chevy 454 ci engine would be getting about MAYBE 12-14 mpg... AT MOST. Less fuel burned equals less pollution, plain and simple. I was reading on the hay talk forum, that today's diesels are already pumping cleaner air out the tailpipe than it's pulling in the intake, so how clean do they want it??

Modern tractors have SIX computers on them, and the engines don't run right, randomly derate or go into "limp home mode" with no warning, and leave you sitting. Farmers can ill afford the downtime, especially when you're buying new machinery specifically to AVOID downtime, and what's more troubling is even factory trained techs often cannot fix the problems. This guy on hay talk is a factory trained expert technician working on diesel semi's, and was commenting that the regulations on diesels have become so onerous that a lot of manufacturers were looking at dumping diesel fuel altogether and switching their engines over to alternative fuels. Problem is, there's not any good alternatives, basically. Diesel is extremely energy-dense, for a given volume. They've looked at and experimented with hydrogen and compressed natural gas (CNG) but for over-the-road trucks, it's a nonstarter-- they'd need a bank of high-pressure (several thousand PSI) "welding gas" cylinders hanging all over the sides and back of the truck cab, all manifolded together, to hold enough fuel to get any decent range, and would require specially trained fueling attendants and equipment, and would take a LOT longer to refuel due to the extreme pressures involved. CNG works good for city buses not driving very far, very fast, or hauling any significant loads, but OTR trucking is a whole different animal. In addition, he was commenting that the new diesel semi's, with their million mile overhauls and a typical truck running through several short or long block replacements over a several million mile typical lifetime, is a thing of the past... these modern diesels simply won't hold up for anything like that... typically the lifetime will be less than half of previous trucks... they've been experiencing lifetimes of 1/4 to 1/3 that of previous trucks... and the cost has doubled...

Same thing with farm equipment... that's why the prices for older machinery, pre-emissions, has gone through the ROOF... NOBODY wants the new emissions Tier 4 engines-- they're crap, and the cost is MUCH higher...

Anyway, it's a mess... don't know where it's all going to end up... well, yeah, I do... higher prices for EVERYTHING...

Later! OL JR :)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:41 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.