 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / March 2007No Wonder...then what good is BioFuel?
Just read an article in the local paper, they're going to build a $6M BioDiesel plant in my hometown. Now, this is all very well and good, but one sentence later it said sales of new Diesel cars in Mass is not allowed. Huh? Sales of Diesel cars not allowed? NOPE! Because cars in Mass have to meet California standards (yet ANOTHER regulation forced down our throats by the COVES in the state) Diesel cars cannot be offered for sale in Mass. Trucks do not have to meet the same emissions requirements, so they are available new. But the cars are a different story. That's why, when someone comes up with a question about a Diesel Corolla I scratch my head and think, "I haven't seen a Diesel Corolla for sale here in about 20 years!" And I almost bought one 20 years ago! > Just read an article in the local paper, they're going to build a $6M > BioDiesel plant in my hometown. Now, this is all very well and good, but [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > emissions requirements, so they are available new. But the cars are a > different story. What are the EXACT reasons for diesel cars being banned in your state? > What are the EXACT reasons for diesel cars being banned in your state? Environuts demanding another symbolic head on a pike. >> What are the EXACT reasons for diesel cars being banned in your state? > > Environuts demanding another symbolic head on a pike. Next contestant. >>> What are the EXACT reasons for diesel cars being banned in your state? >> >> Environuts demanding another symbolic head on a pike. > > Next contestant. Actually, he pretty much hit the nial on the head. Diesels must not meet California emissions standards, and the Environutz got the state to follow Calif emissions standards. I was going to buy my next Toyota in Vermont, but by the time I was ready, they had gone to Calif Emissions, too. >>>> What are the EXACT reasons for diesel cars being banned in your state? >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I was going to buy my next Toyota in Vermont, but by the time I was ready, > they had gone to Calif Emissions, too. No content. Next contestant. >>>>> What are the EXACT reasons for diesel cars being banned in your >>>>> state? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No content. Next contestant. Well, suppose you enighten us then, JSB. My educated guess is the high amount of particulates emitted by Diesel engines. >>>>>> What are the EXACT reasons for diesel cars being banned in your >>>>>> state? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > My educated guess is the high amount of particulates emitted by Diesel > engines. I wanted YOU to enlighten ME, which you just did: Particulates. Related *********************** ****ONLY************ ********************** to issues of clean air as it relates to health, would you say that improving air quality is a good idea, or a bad idea? >>>>>>> What are the EXACT reasons for diesel cars being banned in your >>>>>>> state? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ********************** to issues of clean air as it relates to health, > would you say that improving air quality is a good idea, or a bad idea? Diesels have always emitted fewer pollutants than Gas engines. Just another example of the Great Minds that rule my state. You know, the same who provided health care for all Mass residents...by requiring they purchase Health Insurance, whether you can afford it or not... >>>>>>>> What are the EXACT reasons for diesel cars being banned in your >>>>>>>> state? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Diesels have always emitted fewer pollutants than Gas engines. > Just another example of the Great Minds that rule my state. Health care stuff deleted to help you keep from avoiding the issue you started. If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are diesel vehicles banned in your state? Permissible answers do not include opinions about the people who you imagine made the rules. Only facts. You jumped in this quicksand. Now, get yourself out. >> Diesels have always emitted fewer pollutants than Gas engines. Just >> another example of the Great Minds that rule my state. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You jumped in this quicksand. Now, get yourself out. Simple. I didn't say "Particulates". The particulates count is higher. >>> Diesels have always emitted fewer pollutants than Gas engines. Just >>> another example of the Great Minds that rule my state. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Simple. I didn't say "Particulates". The particulates count is higher. You know, if I didn't know better, I'd say JSB is a Masshole. But if I remember correctlly, he lives in the Peoples Soviet Socialist Respublik of Ohio. Now that we are required to only sell the cleaner burning diesel in the US as of last fall, a lot of diesels should be a lot closer to meeting emissions. But they still won't let them in. Can you imagine a Prius with a little bitty diesel engine? Charles of Schaumburg > You know, if I didn't know better, I'd say JSB is a Masshole. Lose the "M". >> You know, if I didn't know better, I'd say JSB is a Masshole. > > Lose the "M". So you're saying he badly needs a high colonic to clear out his thought processes? Charles of Schaumburg In message news:18qdncx3FeqyF53bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comcast.com, n5hsr sprach forth the following: >>> You know, if I didn't know better, I'd say JSB is a Masshole. >> >> Lose the "M". > > So you're saying he badly needs a high colonic to clear out his thought > processes? No, I'm saying none of his processes involve thought. >>>> Diesels have always emitted fewer pollutants than Gas engines. Just >>>> another example of the Great Minds that rule my state. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > emissions. But they still won't let them in. Can you imagine a Prius > with a little bitty diesel engine? Yes, I can... >>> Diesels have always emitted fewer pollutants than Gas engines. Just >>> another example of the Great Minds that rule my state. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Simple. I didn't say "Particulates". The particulates count is higher. Correct. I misread that. You said "fewer pollutants". Why are they banned? Certainly not just because some pols could get away with banning diesels. What are the real reasons? >>> If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are diesel >>> vehicles banned in your state? Permissible answers do not include [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What are the real reasons? Good question. It must be the particulate count they are looking at. Hey, we're talking a legislature here that requires all residents of the state to have healthcare, will penalize them on their taxes if they don't get coverage, and then offers them no good solution to the problem if they can't afford it. You made a very dangerous assumption: that they have brains... >>>> If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are diesel >>>> vehicles banned in your state? Permissible answers do not include [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You made a very dangerous assumption: that they have brains... Health care has nothing to do with this issue. And, I don't understand how you can make negative comments about something you understand not at all. >>>>> If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are diesel >>>>> vehicles banned in your state? Permissible answers do not include [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Health care has nothing to do with this issue. And, I don't understand how > you can make negative comments about something you understand not at all. A modern diesel engine can produce very little pollutants such as NOx and HC levels but depending on the fuel available to them they will still produce higher levels of particulates and SOx. It is the levels of SOx and Particulates that is the main reason for the cars not meeting California air laws. The SOx issues can be fixed by using low sulfur fuels ~15ppm S (where as the current STD in the US ~500ppm S if I remember correctly). The diesel particulate is 90% carbon like a very fine powder of activated carbon, however in the diesels case the particulates adsorb things like soluble hydrocarbons and PAH's. The PAH's are cancer causing compounds. The solution lies in the car manufactures and in the laws of the state. The cars need to be fitted with diesel catalytic converters and particle filters in the exhaust system very close to the motor, and the state need to set by law only the sale of ultra low sulfur fuels and well as mandated maintenance if the emissions system of the diesel cars. If done correctly there is no reason why the diesel car should not be available through out the US. >>>>>> If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are >>>>>> diesel [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > If done correctly there is no reason why the diesel car should not be > available through out the US. Thank you. >>>>>>> If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are >>>>>>> diesel [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Thank you. Hey, that's what I said when I said High Paritculates! I just wasn't as verbose as Nick! >>>>>>>> If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are >>>>>>>> diesel [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Hey, that's what I said when I said High Paritculates! > I just wasn't as verbose as Nick! You didn't say jack sh.t. >>>>>> If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are >>>>>> diesel vehicles banned in your state? Permissible answers do not [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > there is no reason why the diesel car should not be available through out > the US. Hey! That's what *I* said! Um, just not so many words! ;) (Thanks for explaining it better, Nick! ) >>>>>>> If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are >>>>>>> diesel vehicles banned in your state? Permissible answers do not [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > (Thanks for explaining it better, Nick! ) No probs, but I think I should point out that in a way it is a health care issue. Diesel Particulates are a known occupational health hazard and there is preliminary evidence to show that it can also affect the general population in areas where there are high concentrations of diesel engines. > Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >> >> (Thanks for explaining it better, Nick! ) > No probs, but I think I should point out that in a way it is a health care > issue. > Diesel Particulates are a known occupational health hazard and there is > preliminary evidence to show that it can also affect the general > population in areas where there are high concentrations of diesel engines. That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he never saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he never saw > this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. Um, where did I allude to that? I never mentioned a thing about health concerns from Diesels, only that their sale is forbidden in Mass. And, considering as Nick said in another post, there are far fewer health concerns from Biodiesel than regular diesel, it seems funny the state would allow a Biodiesel plant, but not the cars that would run on them... >>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > Um, where did I allude to that? I never mentioned a thing about health > concerns from Diesels, only that their sale is forbidden in Mass. You've implied that the reasons they're banned is because the people who banned them are politicians you don't like. Only at this point in the conversation have you begun to allude to the health reasons. > And, considering as Nick said in another post, there are far fewer health > concerns from Biodiesel than regular diesel, it seems funny the state > would allow a Biodiesel plant, but not the cars that would run on them... Actually, it's not funny that there's a biodiesel plant. It makes perfect sense. >>> That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he never >>> saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > banned them are politicians you don't like. Only at this point in the > conversation have you begun to allude to the health reasons. AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!! I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE "HEALTH" REASONS!!! >> And, considering as Nick said in another post, there are far fewer >> health concerns from Biodiesel than regular diesel, it seems funny the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Actually, it's not funny that there's a biodiesel plant. It makes perfect > sense. Making fuel for cars not to run on? OooooooK...Wait...put another K in front of that.... >>>> That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he never >>>> saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!! I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE "HEALTH" REASONS!!! Obviously. But, you can't make laws based on the opinions of 50-ish year old infants. Fortunately, there are smart people who DO care about the health aspects of dirty air. >>> And, considering as Nick said in another post, there are far fewer >>> health concerns from Biodiesel than regular diesel, it seems funny the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > OooooooK...Wait...put another K in front of that.... How about this: It makes sense to locate the fuel close to where there's an abundance of raw material, and then ship it to where it can be used. > How about this: It makes sense to locate the fuel close to where there's > an abundance of raw material, and then ship it to where it can be used. Correction: "locate the manufacturing facility" >>>>> That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he never >>>>> saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > How about this: It makes sense to locate the fuel close to where there's > an abundance of raw material, and then ship it to where it can be used. Where's the abundance of Raw Material? New England hasn't been noted for it's high output of Soybeans, last I checked. So that means they have to truck the raw materials in, and truck the finished product out (since last time I checked there wasn't a very large concentration of pipelines, either...) The more I think about it, the LESS sense it makes... >>>>>> That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he never >>>>>> saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > time I checked there wasn't a very large concentration of pipelines, > either...) I've heard about another crop that works, too. Before you crap on the newspapers, you should read them. > The more I think about it, the LESS sense it makes... You're describing an event that hasn't happened yet. >>>>>>> That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he >>>>>>> never saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I've heard about another crop that works, too. Before you crap on the > newspapers, you should read them. We aren't really big on sugar, either... >> The more I think about it, the LESS sense it makes... >> > You're describing an event that hasn't happened yet. And perhaps it shouldn't... >>>>>>>> That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he >>>>>>>> never saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > We aren't really big on sugar, either... Well, there must be SOME crop nearby, or investors wouldn't be building these facilities. I know the crop. You'll figure it out. It's only been in the news about 12,000 times in the past month. >>>>>>>>> That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he >>>>>>>>> never saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > these facilities. I know the crop. You'll figure it out. It's only been in > the news about 12,000 times in the past month. Most that's sold around here is for human consumption or feed (silage). If we have another year like the three previous to last year thay'll be trucking that in from the Midwest, too. Last year was the first good drowing year when the corn farmers WEREN'T crying in years! >>>>>>>>>> That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he >>>>>>>>>> never saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > trucking that in from the Midwest, too. Last year was the first good > drowing year when the corn farmers WEREN'T crying in years! Good luck with your endless quest for information. >>>>>>>>>>> That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he >>>>>>>>>>> never saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Good luck with your endless quest for information. Well, what in hell's name are you talking about? The only thing we raise a lot of here in Massachusetts is corn and drunk politicians. Gee, I'm the one that live here... If it ain't corn, then what the hell are you talking about? Quoahogs? >>>>>>>>>>>> That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he >>>>>>>>>>>> never saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > If it ain't corn, then what the hell are you talking about? Quoahogs? Sorry. I have little patience for people who don't care enough about their country to be aware of even the most basic information that's in the news constantly. Die, traitor. Die. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he >>>>>>>>>>>>> never saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > country to be aware of even the most basic information that's in the news > constantly. McDonald's Bugers? Well, yeah, we have 2 McDonald's in town. Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about, and beginning to wonder if you do, either... The two biggest sources of BioDiesel are Soy and Corn. Beyoud that, anything else isn't produced enough to provide a good return on investment. Perhaps you're thinking of Methanol? > Die, traitor. Die. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so >>>>>>>>>>>>> he never saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Die, traitor. Die. Maple Syrup is too expensive. Might as well just burn Everclear... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he never saw this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > Maple Syrup is too expensive. Might as well just burn Everclear... In reality, the traitor is Joe No Bedroom, who's sold himself to the Left and wishes to sell out this country to the Left as well. Charles >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he never saw > this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. Excuse me?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! I never saw it in "every friggin' newspaper in America" either as I live in a different continent. Were not you the one you said health care is not an issue. Have you changed you changed your mind or are you swapping sides so that you are not wrong? >>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > I never saw it in "every friggin' newspaper in America" either as I live > in a different continent. I was referring to Hooch, not you. > Were not you the one you said health care is not an issue. No, I was not the one. Hard to tell, though, since it took too damned many messages to get Hooch to admit that he was aware of the health issues surrounding diesel engines. >> Were not you the one you said health care is not an issue. > > No, I was not the one. Hard to tell, though, since it took too damned many > messages to get Hooch to admit that he was aware of the health issues > surrounding diesel engines. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE ISSUES OF DIESEL ENGINES!!!! They are no worse than the healthcare issues surrounding Gasoline engines! You breath the output of ANY engine, long term, and you're going to have health issues. What I was pointing out was the irony of a state trying to 'green up' by making fuel for cars that aren't even sold here!!!! ZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!! Didja get THAT one, Peanut?!?!?! http://www.stressfactory.com/comics/dunham.html >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > That's not new news, but Hach is allergic to information, so he never saw > this in EVERY FRIGGIN' NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA. And did I ever say I was in favor of Diesel cars? I looked at a Volkswagen Jetta in 1985...wife wanted Diesel because it was there, I had them ship a gas model from NJ. 2 years later, we were looking for a Corolla...wife wanted one of those weird looking 4-door hatchbacks (Sorry, Cathy...) with a Diesel engine, we bought a gas model from another dealer. I don't like Diesels, some do. I don't think my life is in any more danger from Diesels than from gas cars (there are certainly a very high percentage of THOSE around here...) but some people like them. If you're that paranoid, we can get you a bubble... >>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > And did I ever say I was in favor of Diesel cars? You have been making negative comments about the fact that they're banned. This was only 24 hours ago. Do you remember? >>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > You have been making negative comments about the fact that they're banned. > This was only 24 hours ago. Do you remember? That doesn't mean I WANT one! Some people like them. Their noisy, slow and they stink! And the ones that have been switched to run on friolator grease are noisy, slow, and stink like french fries, KFC and Arthur Treacher's. What my gripe is that those who WANT to buy a new one in Mass, CAN'T. Yet another freedom legislated out. >>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > What my gripe is that those who WANT to buy a new one in Mass, CAN'T. Yet > another freedom legislated out. Until every one of them can use biodiesel, there *should* be a law against increasing the numbers of these cars. You should be glad there's a law. >>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > Until every one of them can use biodiesel, there *should* be a law against > increasing the numbers of these cars. You should be glad there's a law. AHA! Here's the rub: they can run on Biodiesel No Problem. The Biodiesel sold at the pumps is 80% Diesel and 20% Bio (if you look, you may see BioDiesel20 and Biodiesel40.) The only difference is price. Bio20 is about 15% more expensive than straight Diesel, and Bio40 is about 30-50% more expensive. But a Diesel engine will run on Bio20 no problem. I don't know if any mods are needed to run Bio40. I know the place I was working switched, but I don't know if they had to prep the engines. I don't think so, because that would have meant shutting down, since we generated all our own power. >>>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > don't know if they had to prep the engines. I don't think so, because that > would have meant shutting down, since we generated all our own power. Too bad you're not as well versed on the health issues as you are on the fuels. >>>>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > Too bad you're not as well versed on the health issues as you are on the > fuels. I've been reading, eating, sleeping and breating cars since I was 5 years old. I only started becoming familiar with human bodies around 18 years old. A Baker's Dozen years head start is a lot. >>>>>>>> If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are >>>>>>>> diesel vehicles banned in your state? Permissible answers do not [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > preliminary evidence to show that it can also affect the general > population in areas where there are high concentrations of diesel engines. There is a very large hydro-electric project here in Mass. It's a 'pumped storage' operation, where they pump water up to the top of a mountain for storage at night, and they during the day when demand increases they release the water to turn turbines. I remember from a field trip there when I was a kid, the only vehicles allowed into the tunnels were Diesels, because they emitted much, much less CO than gas engines. Of course, now they find that inhaling diesel fumes can cause cancer, but they didn't know that then. >>>>>>>>> If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are >>>>>>>>> diesel vehicles banned in your state? Permissible answers do not [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > they find that inhaling diesel fumes can cause cancer, but they didn't > know that then. Everything can be a case of I didn't know that then, and that is a perfectly reasonable thing to occur. what is the point of the human race being sentient beings if we can't learn from the past and move on. I'm a chemist by trade and back in the 70's the average life span for a chemist was ~60 years old, now it not much worse than the general public. Why, because we don't do things like suck benzene, and straight acid into pipettes with our mouths any more. we know that benzene is bad for us now and getting a mouthful because you sucked too hard is not so good. >>>>>>>>>> If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are >>>>>>>>>> diesel vehicles banned in your state? Permissible answers do not [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > pipettes with our mouths any more. we know that benzene is bad for us now > and getting a mouthful because you sucked too hard is not so good. I don't know about Benzene, but I know petrol isn't a treat for the palette, either! ;) >>>>> If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are >>>>> diesel vehicles banned in your state? Permissible answers do not [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Health care has nothing to do with this issue. And, I don't understand how > you can make negative comments about something you understand not at all. No, but the same idiots that passed the mandatory health care laws also passed the no diesel cars sales laws. An idiot is an idiot, and this is what we have in charge here in Mass. That much I understand plenty. >>>>>> If diesels have always emitted fewer particulates, then why are >>>>>> diesel vehicles banned in your state? Permissible answers do not [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > passed the no diesel cars sales laws. An idiot is an idiot, and this is > what we have in charge here in Mass. That much I understand plenty. To paraphrase Douglas Adams. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into politics, should on no account be allowed to do the job. >> Next contestant. > > Actually, he pretty much hit the nial on the head. Diesels must not meet > California emissions standards, and the Environutz got the state to follow > Calif emissions standards. that's absurd. every car that meet the Euro 4 standard can meet evey other standard, since it's the most restrictive in the world. Evey carmaker that manufactures a car for the european market has such vehicle, included Ford, GM and Chevy. >>> Next contestant. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > manufactures a car for the european market has such vehicle, included > Ford, GM and Chevy. Sorry, but, you're kidding, right? Euro Automakers were lagging FAR behind the US as of 5 short years ago. And, this isn't US-Wide, it's a select group of states that have tightened standards to meet Californis requirements. Most automakers, including Toyota, said Screw It, and now make their models with "50 State Emissions Systems" (from the window sticker) meaning that instead of making cars to meet California standards, and another for the rest of the US, ALL their cars now meet Calif standards. > Sorry, but, you're kidding, right? Euro Automakers were lagging FAR behind > the US as of 5 short years ago. http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/ld.php let's laugh. >> Sorry, but, you're kidding, right? Euro Automakers were lagging FAR >> behind the US as of 5 short years ago. > > http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/ld.php > > let's laugh. Well, they've tightened up in the last 5 years! How does this compare iwth US standards? Do you have a chart for that, too? But, you can see by the numbers that 5 years ago they were more lax than they are now. > Well, they've tightened up in the last 5 years! How does this compare iwth > US standards? Do you have a chart for that, too? > > But, you can see by the numbers that 5 years ago they were more lax than > they are now. you're an idiot, I have the proofs now. >> Well, they've tightened up in the last 5 years! How does this compare >> iwth US standards? Do you have a chart for that, too? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > you're an idiot, I have the proofs now. Huh? Did you look at the charts YOU provided? I'm going to give you one more chance before I write you off as a moron troll. Go back and READ the charts, starting from the first year and progressing to the present, and look at the parameters presesnted. Europe lagged behind the US for DECADES in pollution controls; the charts you presented indicate that only recently they have decided to tighten up on emissions. In the 80's cars sold in Europe didn't even get outfitted with Catalytic Converters in a lot of models. Now, go do some research and come back. Only this time, make sure you know what you're talking about. > What are the EXACT reasons for diesel cars being banned in your state? Maybe we need to get the blind to lobby FOR diesel cars, since they're complaining about electric and hybrid cars for being too quiet. > Just read an article in the local paper, they're going to build a $6M > BioDiesel plant in my hometown. Now, this is all very well and good, but [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > And I almost bought one 20 years ago! You live in a small state with a lot of cars. Strict standards are a reasonable way of keeping the air clean. The Feds, thanks to the Ray-Guns and Bush-league administrations, have been dragging their feet over emissions controls for years. States with air quality problems have had to act on their own. Twenty years ago, the air in Boston tasted like gasoline. The last time I was there, the air quality - or at least the taste - had improved tremendously. Go thank an environut.  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com In message news:4600087f$0$16318$88260bb3@free.teranews.com, DH sprach forth the following: > Twenty years ago, the air in Boston tasted like gasoline. The last > time I was there, the air quality - or at least the taste - had > improved tremendously. It's all trapped in the Big Dig. Expect mutant rats to take over the city within 10 years. Oh wait - the voters already PUT mutant rats in charge. >> Twenty years ago, the air in Boston tasted like gasoline. The last time >> I was there, the air quality - or at least the taste - had improved >> tremendously. > > It's all trapped in the Big Dig. Expect mutant rats to take over the city > within 10 years. Oh wait - the voters already PUT mutant rats in charge. LOL! Again, Fred hits the nail on the head! And ya know something else? All the money that would have gone for road repairs got sunk with that tunnel. Our roads, esp in the Western part of the state are really getting bad. >>> Twenty years ago, the air in Boston tasted like gasoline. The last time >>> I was there, the air quality - or at least the taste - had improved [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > LOL! Again, Fred hits the nail on the head! Considering that he's about as smart as a bag of hammers, you've described about the only thing he's good for. > Just read an article in the local paper, they're going to build a $6M > BioDiesel plant in my hometown. Now, this is all very well and good, but [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And I almost bought one 20 years ago! BioDiesel is one of the cleaner fuels needed to allow diesel powers cars to pass the tight CARB regulations. Once there are enough sources of clean diesel fuel and the car makers have the correct pollution control devices installed, the diesel engine will be used. Nowhere have I seen where it states that all diesel cars are banned from sale, I believe that it says that cars have to meet the CARB standard to be allowed to be sold. It just means the the cars makes have not caught up yet to regulations. if they don't want to produce a car that meets the standards and runs on diesel then you will never see diesel cars sold where the CARB standards are used. Maybe you should ask the local newspaper to check it's sources. (in relation to " but one sentence later it said sales of new Diesel cars in Mass is not allowed.") >> Just read an article in the local paper, they're going to build a $6M >> BioDiesel plant in my hometown. Now, this is all very well and good, but [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > relation to " but one sentence later it said sales of new Diesel cars in > Mass is not allowed.") That's what it said! Funny thing is, BOTH companies that came up with "Greasecars" are based here in Mass. Check http://www.greasecar.com > Nowhere have I seen where it states that all diesel cars are banned from > sale, I believe that it says that cars have to meet the CARB standard to > be allowed to be sold. It just means the the cars makes have not caught > up yet to regulations. they already did: those models are just not sold here, but they exist already in different parts of the world. The question is why those models are not sold in the usa. IT seems to me that carmakers in the usa blatantly ignores the first dogma of business, all the time: give your clients what they want. In the usa the clients are left wanting more all the time, but I have no idea why. >> Nowhere have I seen where it states that all diesel cars are banned from >> sale, I believe that it says that cars have to meet the CARB standard to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > clients what they want. In the usa the clients are left wanting more all > the time, but I have no idea why. Well, first they have to meet safety standards, which not all Euro cars do. In the 80's htere was a 'grey market' for importing high-end Euro models not sold here, replacing the non-safety glass, addin Catlytic Converters, 5 MPH bumpers, etc. It usually added ~$12,000 to the cost of the car...and then importer's 50-60% markup for profit, of course. Then there's the issue of 'quality' (or, at least, perceived quality). Fiat pulled out of the American market because there cars just didn't seem to hold up too well over here, and parts were hard to get. Alfas are hard to find except in large urban areas (with the wealth to purchase them). Peugeot also left the American market for the same reason as Fiat. I know people who swore by Peugeots, and a lot more who swore at them. If the car doesn't sell, why bother? You missed the other dogma of business...the customer is always right. > Well, first they have to meet safety standards, which not all Euro cars > do. how many times do you need to be humiliated? http://www.euroncap.com/ We're talking about models sold here AND in europe, most of the times the only difference is the engine. > Hachiroku wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > We're talking about models sold here AND in europe, most of the times > the only difference is the engine. When have you humilated me? Have a good look in the mirror. YOU post the issues, I point up what YOU have posted. LOTS of European cars are NOT sold here basically because they are JUNK! I was trying to be a bit 'politically correct' about it, but I can see you're the type that needs to be hit over the head with the facts. Please note, especually, the number of Italian cars that are not sold here because they are so poorly built. Now, you wanna call me an idiot again and get your a.s handed to you yet once more, or call a truce and be done with it? For God's Sake, man, look at what you post! >> Hachiroku wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > have posted. LOTS of European cars are NOT sold here basically because > they are JUNK! Where do you live? You keep speaking out of your a.s, and I don't get it. The best cars sold in the US are Japanese and Europeans as widely accepted by everyone with a bit of taste. Of course there are european brands not exactly famous here, due to difference in the market, but technology-wise american cars are inferior. We can discuss for a week about the reason, but it's the reality, and you keep blabbering. The best was when you said that "5 years ago the rules were less restrictive in europe" about pollution. No sh.t! They are designed like that, and increasingly restrictive over time to force the car makers to slowly improve the fuel efficency and security of their car, not the "wait and leap" situation I see here. Did you ever tried an Alfa Romeo? or the last Croma from Fiat? Some french cars maybe? I's sadly obliged to drive the local product of the us and apart the horrible standard setup they're UGLY. Sorry, let's say the truth, they're badly designed and ugly as an a.s. I'm used to good design, I'm italian, have an "ethnical" eye for it. check this out http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=brera&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi why in the world anyone would want to spend money on the fugly corvette when you can buy that jewel? I was speaking with my wife, and noticed how the only sport car that looks half decent here is the new mustang: designed by Bertone in 1964, redesigned by his son... http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2006/11/28-ford-mustang-by-giugiaro/ and so on. So please, it's a lost battle for you: you don't know sh.t about cars, and the worst thing is that you know even less about the rest of the world. grow up, stupid teenager. >>> Hachiroku wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You keep speaking out of your a.s, and I don't get it. The best cars sold > in the US are Japanese This is correct. > and Europeans Most European cars sold in the US aren't worth the Sheet Metal they're made of. At one time in the 50's and 60's there were some European cars of merit, but most European manufacturing 'standards' are so slip-shod that reliability is not really available from European cars. The people who buy them love them, regardless of how many days a month they are in the shop, for things that wear or break 10 times more often than on a Japanese car. Most VWs sold in the US since the 80's have had recalls, defective parts (usually electronics, and usually in fuel management or engine controls) and reliability issues. Fiat is no longer sold here because no one was buying them, the same for Peugeot. Mercedes has slipped from number 1 in initial quality to something like 8th or 9th place. Jaguar is now a glorified Ford Taurus, but made with European parts. Ever hear of "Lucas Disease', or "Lucas, the Prince of Darkness"? Gee, there's a reason for that! > as widely accepted by everyone with a > bit of taste. Of course there are european brands not exactly famous here, > due to difference in the market, but technology-wise american cars are > inferior. We can discuss for a week about the reason, but it's the > reality, and you keep blabbering. I don't place European cars any higher than American cars, and this is from personal experience. The few European cars I have owned were nothing but Money Pits. After the last one I vowed NEVER to buy anything but Toyotas from then on. European cars are no better than American cars, but for some reason their snobbish owners are willing to put up with a lot more, I guess for the 'prestige' a European car brings. There are two things about European cars I have noticed since I began driving: The european makers have rested on the laurels they earned in the late 30's with their racing success, and the average driver of a European car shouldn't even have a license, they drive so poorly. The ONLY good thing about European cars is that they are made out of better steel than anything else on the road. > The best was when you said that "5 years ago the rules were less > restrictive in europe" about pollution. No sh.t! They are designed like > that, and increasingly restrictive over time to force the car makers to > slowly improve the fuel efficency and security of their car, not the "wait > and leap" situation I see here. You posted the chart. Europe has lagged far behind US emissions standards for years. I think the only thing that made them think of catching up was the fact that in order to sell cars in the US, they have to meet US emissions standards. The Japanese don't even bother anymore. Except for a few '3rd world' models such as the trucks with two stroke engines and some of the Diesels, they just make their cars to US standards. It's cheaper that way. In a lot of countries, the standards are NOT up to US in safety, such as glass, or emissions. Euopeans are FINALLY starting to move away from high-sulfer content fuel, long after they were mandated out of the US markets. In the US, the automakers didn't have the luxury of 'slowly' improving; the government mandated it. > Did you ever tried an Alfa Romeo? I was going to mention my experience with an Alfa Romeo. Convertible. I was going to drop the top on it, but I was afraid it was going to shake itself to pieces! Open up the dictionary and look up "Cowl Shake" and there's a picture of an Alfa. Go back in posts about 3 years to look up my original post about the Alfa. > or the last Croma from Fiat? I had a girlfriend that sold Fiats back in the early 80's. Her copmpany also sold BMWs. She couldn't WAIT to become a Senior Salesperson so she could get away from the Fiat "Shitboxes" (her words) and get a BMW (at least they're comfortable...her words). > Some french cars maybe? The only French car I would own would be a 1938 Traction Avant. Peugeot is no longer sold here, although there cars were probably the best of the lot. Even than friends who owned them called them Puke-Outs. I had a Volvo, a Volkswagen and a SAAB. The only one worth what I paid for it was the SAAB, cause it only cost me $150, and was a three-cylinder 2-stroke. I used to call it Purple Haze from the cloud it left at stop signs, since the Oil Indusction system was busted and I had to mix the gas and oil. > I's sadly obliged to drive the local product of the us and > apart the horrible standard setup they're UGLY. Sorry, let's say the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > about cars, and the worst thing is that you know even less about the rest > of the world. grow up, stupid teenager. I know plenty about autos, world autos, and the rest of the world. It's certainly not a lost battle for me. I knew more about cars around the world when I was 5 than you do now. So sorry, Charlie... But do come back again; I find you're trying to outwit me mildly amusing. I don't know where you get your information, but you need to study as much about the US as I have about European Automotive standards before you start flapping your gums. Most of my information comes from the Wall Street Journal, Car And Driver, and AutoWeek. That's where I 'pull it out of my a.s' from. Yours is clearly from studying your Used Toilet Paper... > Hachiroku wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.euroncap.com/ And these are NOT US Safety Standards. They are Euro standards, which are lower. > We're talking about models sold here AND in europe, most of the times > the only difference is the engine. And, if you want to play games, here is MORE info from the chart you posted. Please note how the Japanese cars (with the exception of the Nissans) blow most of the European cars away in the tests. The few exceptions are the Peugeot and the Audi, with few others. Now, what did I previously say about JUNK? And besides, these are Safety tests, not Durability or longevity. Most European cars are not built for durability, a couple of notable exceptions. My ex-wife had a Honda, except for getting in a couple accidents, No Problem. She traded it for a BMW (I told her they weren't really durable) and she calls me every two weeks with yet a different problem. The Jetta I bought her in 1985 was a piece of crap. Even Mercedes-Benz has fallen from it's place of Idyllic Superiority, and is now nothing but an expensive Also-Ran. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.