Diesel cars produce more toxic emissions than trucks and buses, EU study says

Post by hx87 » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 10:44 PM UTC

scrumper wrote: post #99

bluead wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only partly a jobs program. Really, the jobs are mostly a side effect. Jersey people love their full service stations and are very protective of it. In and out, don't get out of the car, don't mess up your precious hair and hands dealing with the elements or the pump, back on the road. I don't identify with the attitude at all, but it's a real part of the culture. I've been chased back into my car by attendants…

I can understand not bothering to drive to Jersey just to get gas (though it is cheaper), but spending more to fill up before crossing the border solely to avoid the experience of someone else pumping gas for you seems a little extreme. Is there more to your dislike of NJ gas stations? Whatever the reason, I respect you for having the courage of your convictions, especially this time of year!

Post by hx87 » Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 10:48 PM UTC

jsz0 wrote: post #90

CydeWeys wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However it does consume more AdBlue and/or produces less power the cleaner it is This is why it's more costly. In order to design a diesel car that meets the exact same specifications, they either need to add an entire urea system (costs more money to manufacture, plus ongoing AdBlue costs to the consumer) or add a larger less efficient engine to meet the same performance target (costs more money to manufacture, pl…

> if diesel as a technology turns out to not be that practical anymore for small cars, then so be it. This is tricky because, in the US market at least, one of the major appeals of small diesel cars was their performance / low end torque. There aren't really any other options on the market right now that can offer the same mix of performance/efficiency. Diesel cars are definitely on their way out in the US but I'm no…

Post by Gibbon1 » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 2:46 AM UTC

jsz0 wrote: post #90

CydeWeys wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However it does consume more AdBlue and/or produces less power the cleaner it is This is why it's more costly. In order to design a diesel car that meets the exact same specifications, they either need to add an entire urea system (costs more money to manufacture, plus ongoing AdBlue costs to the consumer) or add a larger less efficient engine to meet the same performance target (costs more money to manufacture, pl…

> if diesel as a technology turns out to not be that practical anymore for small cars, then so be it. This is tricky because, in the US market at least, one of the major appeals of small diesel cars was their performance / low end torque. There aren't really any other options on the market right now that can offer the same mix of performance/efficiency. Diesel cars are definitely on their way out in the US but I'm no…

Post by Dylan16807 » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 3:05 AM UTC

bluead wrote: post #75

derefr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they could mandate another additive to diesel that gives it a very apparent coloured plume in its exhaust; and then another additive to AdBlue that oxidizes/reduces that additive. Then you just tell police to pull over anyone with black fumes coming from their cars.

There's no need for any of this. DEF diesel engines already go into limp mode not long after the fluid runs dry (after ignoring many warnings). There are sensors such that just replacing with any arbitrary diesel-compatible fluid won't fool it (thought that would be stupid to do). And most states have annual inspections that include emissions, you would not pass with a dry Adblue tank. No need for dramatic exhaust; t…

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 3:12 AM UTC

08-15 wrote: post #96

> Nitrogen oxides cause tens of thousands of early deaths in Europe Complete bullshit. There isn't a single death certificate in the world that lists "NOx poisoning" as cause of death, unless it was an industrial accident. These numbers come from assuming that some high dose of NOx will kill you, therefore 1% of that dose kills one in a hundred. So, at least for regulatory purposes to scare people, we can take a tiny…