Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, I am harmed by CA's standards and have no recourse - I can't vote in CA state elections because I don't live in CA. You aren't harmed by California's standards by any stretch of the imagination: You can't show any actual harm by not being able to purchase specific diesel engines. > Meanwhile, up to 29% of SF Bay Area smog is from China (I found different quoted numbers ranging from 20 to 29%)... which has nothi…
My point is that people in the other 49 states are harmed by CA's action and have no representation to fix it due to CA's veto power over diesels. If a 320d is MORE efficient than a Prius, even though it doesn't have batteries, wouldn't you want it to be sold in the USA? EDIT to add: it seems that the latest gen of the 320d is sold in the USA, as the 328d. The previous generation was not, which is what my comments we…
I know that's your point. But your point is without merit. You aren't being harmed because you aren't showing harm. California isn't vetoing diesels. They are regulating their environment and businesses are responding by not producing vehicles that meet the smog requirements.
You keep talking about efficiency, it's not about that. It's about pollution. You aren't being harmed, even had you been more informed about the 328d.