Is Diesel Being Villainized In AUS and NZ Like In The Rest Of The World?

technoweenie

New member
California does seem to be trying to kill them.
.
In 2013 they recently imposed an addition burden on diesel owners that gas owners dont have to deal with. Specifically CA typically collects an extra "smog abatement" fee on newly purchased vehicles for the first 6 years. That is, they dont have to smog because is believed that since everything is new and in working order it should operate properly for at least that long and therefore be clean, so they just charge you a fee, letting you skip having to go in and actually have it checked.
.
In 2013 CA eliminated this for diesels making them smog every 2 years no matter what. While the criteria for certifying a diesel obviously has to be different, different fuel different tests, fair enough. There's no reason that it should be assumed that new diesels emissions equipment wont operate properly for the first 6 years just as a new gas vehicles does. Seems an unfair burden to me to geared to making diesel ownership less desirable.

To be fair, it's the People's Republik of Kommifornia. They'll shaft anyone, given the chance.
 

Dalko43

Explorer
The funny thing about diesel in North America is that, in spite of its vilification, it has seen a drastic increase in road-going application over the last 5 years. Current vehicles with diesel engines: GM Colorado/Canyon; FCA Ram 1500 and Grand Cherokee; Nissan Titan XD; GM, Ford and FCA 3/4 tons. Upcoming diesel vehicles: Ford Ranger; Jeep Wrangler; GM Silverado 1500; Ford F-150; rumors of diesel Nissan Frontier. I'm think there are a few diesel offerings from BMW, Mercedes and Jaguar that I'm leaving out.

We have more diesel vehicles (mostly trucks and SUV's, where they make the most sense) than we did not only 5 years ago. So in spite of the bad publicity, domestic and foreign companies seem to recognize that diesels have a place in the North American market. The emissions regulations are strict here in North America, more so than the rest of the world, but the companies have put effort into developing and refining that technology, albeit with some growing pains.


Diesels overseas may start to be withdrawn from the passenger car segment. They cause a lot of PM and NOx emissions, and most countries outside of Canada and the US have been slow to adopt strict emissions regulations. Reliance on diesel and loose regulations has resulted in smoggy cities for many countries, even in Europe. I foresee the emissions regulations getting tighter and diesel engines being focused towards SUV's and trucks, where their torque and efficiency advantages make the most sense. They're definitely not going away anytime soon, despite all the bad PR they've gotten recently.
 
Last edited:

toylandcruiser

Expedition Leader
Regarding India,the guys need to keep their pecker in their pants. Overpopulation is the most underlying issue. The old diesels do need to be eliminated for sure.
Just two days ago I spotted a Hilux x-cab diesel, manual naturally, from Switzerland. It sported some kind of hardsided cabover. It sat up on some fairly narrow tires. I spoke to the passenger and said "Nice truck. Another rig we can't get here." It quietly putted out of the parking lot off for more adventures. I'm envious of the rig and the journey.

The world is far from being over populated.
 
To be fair, it's the People's Republik of Kommifornia. They'll shaft anyone, given the chance.

I dont disagree....one of the reasons im leaving, lol but that's another story. CA is important though because it sets precedent and that's bad for everyone.
 

plainjaneFJC

Deplorable
India is swearing to phase out diesel by 2030, the UK and Europe are swearing to phase out diesel even sooner. "Diesel is killing all of humanity!" is the cry of the um, elite. Granted, nitrogen oxide emissions ARE indeed a very bad smog and health problem in large European and Indian cities. Here in the USA and Canada (maybe Mexico, too?) diesel has never been as popular in passenger vehicles as it has been in Europe, India, Oz, and EnZed, although big pickup trucks and vans certainly are a popular market for diesel; thus the current trend for demonizing diesel automobiles is not so vociferous in North America.

From browsing online it seems to me there's still an appreciation for diesel in trucks and 4x4s Down Under and Down Under Down Under, including some companies that specialize in petrol-to-diesel conversions.

What's the current feeling for the future of diesel automobiles in Oz and EnZed?

India needs to work on indoor plumbing, that would save more lives than eliminating diesel.
 

comptiger5000

Adventurer
The 6 year vs 2 year thing in CA is interesting. But I'm not sure it really sets a bad precedent, as most states that have emissions testing don't have a 6 year grace period anyway. Most are in the 2 - 4 year range on a new vehicle from what I've seen.
 
Demonized is the word I think you're looking for. And yes, it is pretty much worldwide. Particulate matter-this fuel puts out a lot of it and it's bad for our health. https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/air-pollution-cars-affects-everyone-why-we-should-care

Ive never really researched the validity of the argument but I've heard it argued on various forums that the new diesel restrictions actually make exactly what this article claims worse.

The argument basically goes something like:

New diesel emissions restrictions...namely the addition of DPF systems actually make diesel exhaust more harmful. The logic employed is that previously particulate mater was larger and thus had a greater chance of being trapped by "in cabin" air filters and even the human body and thus expelled. The addition of DPF systems, yes makes the air look cleaner coming out the tailpipe but the particulate matter is now so fine that, as mentioned in the article, filters cant trap it and once inhaled can no longer be trapped and expelled by the human body but are now absorbed directly into the blood stream.


Anyone know how valid those concerns are?
 

BigSwede

The Credible Hulk
Ive never really researched the validity of the argument but I've heard it argued on various forums that the new diesel restrictions actually make exactly what this article claims worse.

The argument basically goes something like:

New diesel emissions restrictions...namely the addition of DPF systems actually make diesel exhaust more harmful. The logic employed is that previously particulate mater was larger and thus had a greater chance of being trapped by "in cabin" air filters and even the human body and thus expelled. The addition of DPF systems, yes makes the air look cleaner coming out the tailpipe but the particulate matter is now so fine that, as mentioned in the article, filters cant trap it and once inhaled can no longer be trapped and expelled by the human body but are now absorbed directly into the blood stream.


Anyone know how valid those concerns are?

In a general sense, there is definitely more concern over "respirable" particulate in industrial hygiene (worker exposure). Respirable particulates are small enough to be drawn into the gas-exchange region of the lungs. I have not looked into diesel particulate issues though.
 

nicholastanguma

Los Angeles, San Francisco
I know politicians usually want to sit at the UN cool kids lunch table, and so will just start parroting whatever is currently popular to say. In this case it's tirades about completely abolishing diesel passenger vehicles. In countries and cities where people are actually dying from massive smog levels I can't ethically fly the diesel flag, so I suppose diesel bans make sense in those locations.

However, in the North/South American markets, and the markets of Oz and EnZed, where people have money to spend on things like trucks, and where the smog levels aren't killing everyone, I'm pretty sure I still see a future for diesel passenger vehicles, and for diesel agricultural implements, too.

That is, unless the politicians in these places can be successful in joining the UN cool kids lunch table.

Am I right or wrong about being tentatively optimistic that North/South America, Oz, and Newzie will still be viable diesel markets in the future?
 

Buliwyf

Viking with a Hammer
The cities with thick smog problems should just ban all internal combustion engines with in the city. Frickin walk. Leave the rest of the world alone.

I don't need California emissions controls in mid-Ohio. It's California's stupid problem, let them fix it themselves.
 

DiploStrat

Expedition Leader
The cities with thick smog problems should just ban all internal combustion engines with in the city. Frickin walk. Leave the rest of the world alone.

I don't need California emissions controls in mid-Ohio. It's California's stupid problem, let them fix it themselves.

Not just California:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Mlk1HCSM1hkJ:https://www.wcpo.com/news/state/state-ohio/six-states-sue-epa-over-smog-from-ohio-kentucky-indiana-others+&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

Many people, perhaps those too young to remember smog, act as if smog is merely an annoyance; a cloudy day, if you will. It is much, much more.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16778604/london-great-smog-1952-death-in-the-air-pollution-book-review-john-reginald-christie

India actually does better with toilets than air: https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-to-very-poor-you-know-half-marathon-weather/
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,533
Messages
2,875,597
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top