Diesel News: POST HERE
- Thread starter Scott Brady
- Start date
Wallache
Observer
Just a another example of someone chipping away my freedom to breath clean air......
Larry
Bigassgas Explorer
I wouldn’t be surprised if the EPA didn’t obtain Edge’s sales records and come after individual purchasers of DPF delete kits. About 12 years ago I had a friend in Detroit that purchased some type of cable TV scrambler dealeo to get free cable TV. The product worked great and he used it for many years in a Detroit suburb then later in Grand Rapids. Several years after he purchased this thing, one day out of the blue a letter from the company he purchased it from appeared in the mail stating they needed to buy it back which he chose to ignore. About a year later he got a letter from some government arm that turned into a big mess where he had to hire a lawyer and spend over $2000 to get out of. I could see this happening to the diesel bong fanboys that purchased DPF delete kits.
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it 100 times here on Expo….late model diesels are not worth owing. Fuel mileage is down, durability and reliability is down while inception cost and maintenance are at an all-time high. One must really need a diesel (tow at or near GVWR 80% of the time), turn over 70,000 miles per year or really want a diesel to even consider a 2007 or later diesel. Expo is the only automotive related site that I frequent where diesels are so much embraced. I don’t get the diesel engine fanfare but I work for a truck and diesel engine manufacturer that builds class 5 through 8 trucks and diesel engines from 2.0L to 13L and have no love for diesel engines. We also offer gasoline engines built by General Motors for certain North American vocations. The issues with emissions compliant diesels (2007 and later, 2010 and later are even worse) are out of this world while issues with gasoline are practically non-existent. We have customers begging for gasoline engines in GVWR ranges where gas is a good fit. Obviously, a Class 8 over-the-road tractor is not a good fit for a gas powertrain but a package delivery truck that brings boxes to your house or 25,000 lb. 24 ft rental moving truck is given the stringent diesel standards that we are all facing these days. I can sure sympathize with Edge. The EPA isn’t exactly a friend of the engine manufacturers either. Their $500,000 fine is peanuts compared to the fines we have paid over the past few years. I would not own a late model diesel!
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it 100 times here on Expo….late model diesels are not worth owing. Fuel mileage is down, durability and reliability is down while inception cost and maintenance are at an all-time high. One must really need a diesel (tow at or near GVWR 80% of the time), turn over 70,000 miles per year or really want a diesel to even consider a 2007 or later diesel. Expo is the only automotive related site that I frequent where diesels are so much embraced. I don’t get the diesel engine fanfare but I work for a truck and diesel engine manufacturer that builds class 5 through 8 trucks and diesel engines from 2.0L to 13L and have no love for diesel engines. We also offer gasoline engines built by General Motors for certain North American vocations. The issues with emissions compliant diesels (2007 and later, 2010 and later are even worse) are out of this world while issues with gasoline are practically non-existent. We have customers begging for gasoline engines in GVWR ranges where gas is a good fit. Obviously, a Class 8 over-the-road tractor is not a good fit for a gas powertrain but a package delivery truck that brings boxes to your house or 25,000 lb. 24 ft rental moving truck is given the stringent diesel standards that we are all facing these days. I can sure sympathize with Edge. The EPA isn’t exactly a friend of the engine manufacturers either. Their $500,000 fine is peanuts compared to the fines we have paid over the past few years. I would not own a late model diesel!
Regcabguy
Oil eater.
Why is it then that my neighbor who frequents Germany and rents VW TDI's speaks of 50+ mpg consistently. Better diesel?
Regcabguy
Oil eater.
I retired from a government agency and had the pleasure to drive a clean burning 1992 Hino cabover. 4cyl w/Allison non-electronic auto. I beat the caca out of that truck in city traffic for 240,000 miles. Total repairs : 1 headgasket,starter,ignition switch,door key cylinder,and brakes. I averaged 11-13 mpg out of that truck.
The EPA and CARB mandated that the "filthy,polluting" older diesels including all of our buses be replaced with dpf and egr choked models. Results were predictable: way lower fuel economy and reliability. Educated idiots.
oldestof11
Observer
Smaller engines. They have a 1.0L diesel.
SSF556
SE Expedition Society
Chrysler will offer the new 3.0L diesel engine in a Ram 1500 this year....
The coming truck, which will arrive in the third quarter of this year as a 2014 model, will have a 3.0-liter V6 called the EcoDiesel, and an eight-speed TorqueFlite automatic transmission. Chrysler said it expects this powertrain combination to give the vehicle best-in-class fuel economy.
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2013/02/14/chrysler-to-offer-ram-1500-diesel-this-year/
The coming truck, which will arrive in the third quarter of this year as a 2014 model, will have a 3.0-liter V6 called the EcoDiesel, and an eight-speed TorqueFlite automatic transmission. Chrysler said it expects this powertrain combination to give the vehicle best-in-class fuel economy.
http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2013/02/14/chrysler-to-offer-ram-1500-diesel-this-year/
nickw
Adventurer
Confused
I'm confused by some of the comments on here. The EPA is doing what it is supposed to, protect the environment. I may be naive in thinking that the new particulate filters and technology is offsetting the reduced gas mileage/reliability, but we can't keep doing the same ol' thing. It may get in the way of our 'dream' vehicle, but cmon, SOMEBODY has to limit the amount of pollution.
I remember being pissed as a kid, growing up in California, that I couldn't ride my dirtbike down the beach like I used too. Or that I couldn't roam around the dunes wherever I wanted like my dad did in the 70's. At the time it didn't make sense, but looking back, imagine if there were no regulations.
If anybody should be crucified it should be the auto manuf's or more directly the end user. The manuf's need to step up their game and make the systems MORE reliable. Or maybe produce a vehicle that is more 'real' world sized, aka Hilux. Increase reliability so we are not forced to buy a new rig every 6 years. There are a lot of things the manuf's could do to help, but like everything, they are driven by demand for large high hp rigs by the consumer/end user.
The EPA are just pawns in the grand scheme of things.
I'm confused by some of the comments on here. The EPA is doing what it is supposed to, protect the environment. I may be naive in thinking that the new particulate filters and technology is offsetting the reduced gas mileage/reliability, but we can't keep doing the same ol' thing. It may get in the way of our 'dream' vehicle, but cmon, SOMEBODY has to limit the amount of pollution.
I remember being pissed as a kid, growing up in California, that I couldn't ride my dirtbike down the beach like I used too. Or that I couldn't roam around the dunes wherever I wanted like my dad did in the 70's. At the time it didn't make sense, but looking back, imagine if there were no regulations.
If anybody should be crucified it should be the auto manuf's or more directly the end user. The manuf's need to step up their game and make the systems MORE reliable. Or maybe produce a vehicle that is more 'real' world sized, aka Hilux. Increase reliability so we are not forced to buy a new rig every 6 years. There are a lot of things the manuf's could do to help, but like everything, they are driven by demand for large high hp rigs by the consumer/end user.
The EPA are just pawns in the grand scheme of things.
SSF556
SE Expedition Society
It is a double edged sword whenever the "gov't" decides what is good for the people. Where does the "what is good for you" stop?
nickw
Adventurer
Agreed - but I think it's safe to say that keeping vehicles from polluting is a GOOD thing with minimal drawbacks. The car manuf's need to catch up and start coming up with more reliable solutions to the problems. If most people are honest with themselves, they only reason they don't want stricter emissions comes down to vanity.
We could turn the clocks back a few years when people were up in arms about not being able to dump your oil/antifreeze on the ground, rip around the beaches on dirtbikes, cut down all the redwoods and clearcut forests without protecting streams. I would imagine most people would agree that these are considered 'bad' by today's standards.
I feel like sometimes the same people complaining about the regulations are the same ones who benefit from the positive attributes, aka fishing, hunting, enjoying quiet beaches, clean places for kids to play, etc.
Last edited:
Jr_Explorer
Explorer
First... Some regulation is good. Excess regulation is costly and oppressive. Regulating and getting emissions reduced 80%-85% (hypothetical number for discussions sake) is no big deal. But when the EPA or CARB then thinks their mission is to tighten those regulations every year or few years THAT is where things get costly. That next 5% or 10% reduction means that the emissions requirements start driving the design of the car at the expense of milage/performance. IMHO milage reductions are a big deal since we are SO dependent on foreign oil (I have a whole other discusion on biodiesel saving the USA).
When catalytic converters were mandated in Calif in the early 70's car performance dropped. But by the 80's the performance and reliability was back to nominal. But answer this... If the EPA REALLY wanted to "clean the air" why is it that the Federal smog laws are not as strict as California's? Had the EPA said, "O.K. ALL 50 states will adopt the California law the air would be MUCH cleaner. My proposal is to role smog regulations back to 2006 levels and apply them to all 50 states. That would net a cleaner global environment AND higher milage/reliability vehicles.
Dan Grec
Expedition Leader
Now that Chrysler have a diesel in the Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Dodge RAM 1500, it looks like they're aiming for the Wrangler.
http://www.egmcartech.com/2013/02/1...ext-target-after-grand-cherokee-diesel-in-us/
Mike Manley told TheDetroitFreePress that demand for a Wrangler diesel is high: “Wrangler customers really want a diesel. It’s a target vehicle for a diesel once we see the reaction to the Grand Cherokee [diesel].”
This is good. Very good.
-Dan
http://www.egmcartech.com/2013/02/1...ext-target-after-grand-cherokee-diesel-in-us/
Mike Manley told TheDetroitFreePress that demand for a Wrangler diesel is high: “Wrangler customers really want a diesel. It’s a target vehicle for a diesel once we see the reaction to the Grand Cherokee [diesel].”
This is good. Very good.
-Dan
2014 looks to be a good year for diesels in smaller sedans. Manufacturers that have announced diesel models are listed below. All will use diesel emissions fluid (urea) injection. All will meet emissions rules in 50 states.
2014 BMW 328D
2.0L, 8 speed automatic, 280 ft-lb
estimated 45 mpg
AWD available
Spring 2014 VW / Audi
2.0L, six speed auto, 280 ft-lb
theoretically 50 mpg
2014 Mercedes E250 Bluetec
2.1L diesel, 7 speed auto, 369 ft-lb
estimated 39 mpg (E-series is bigger and heavier than others listed here)
4Matic AWD available
2014 Mazda6
2.2L, six speed automatic, 280 ft lb
estimated 45 mpg
sedan and wagon
maybe Mazda CX-5 SUV later
2014 Chevrolet Cruze diesel
2.0L, six speed auto, 258 ft-lb
estimated 42 mpg highway
2014 BMW 328D
2.0L, 8 speed automatic, 280 ft-lb
estimated 45 mpg
AWD available
Spring 2014 VW / Audi
2.0L, six speed auto, 280 ft-lb
theoretically 50 mpg
2014 Mercedes E250 Bluetec
2.1L diesel, 7 speed auto, 369 ft-lb
estimated 39 mpg (E-series is bigger and heavier than others listed here)
4Matic AWD available
2014 Mazda6
2.2L, six speed automatic, 280 ft lb
estimated 45 mpg
sedan and wagon
maybe Mazda CX-5 SUV later
2014 Chevrolet Cruze diesel
2.0L, six speed auto, 258 ft-lb
estimated 42 mpg highway
Regcabguy
Oil eater.
Everyone's for cleaner emissions. I just don't see the gain when fuel economy drops 20%+. You're emitting less crap per mile,but burning more fuel in order to go the same distance. Where's the gain? I hope diesel emissions control is in it's infancy like gassers were acouple of decades ago.
blue dog
Adventurer
Agreed, and the newer heavy duty models need DEF fluid, an additional user cost.