Diesel Bashing in the local newspaper (12/28) - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

LV202 · #16 12-29-2003, 09:45 PM

You just made my point.

To bring all this up over a little discussion seems silly.

I love how you throw around "brainwashing". People have different opinions and outlooks on life. We make choices to hold something as a truth or not. So I think it's possible for our children and their fragile little minds to make it through college without being "brainwashed".

You went to college right? And you seem like you are able to form your own opinions just fine. So there you go.

DieselAddict · #17 12-30-2003, 02:24 AM

If it wasn't for the sentence "Diesel engines pollute worse than gasoline engines, yet they are not made to conform to the same stringent environmental rules as gasoline engines", I would say I agree with that guy. I think school buses and other heavy-duty vehicles could be subject to stricter emission standards. But that sentence shows the guy is totally misinformed. Gasoline engines produce significantly more CO, CO2 and hydrocarbons, so installing a gasoline engine in a bus isn't the answer. The answer is better maintenance to reduce soot emissions, like changing the air & fuel filters and adjusting valves if applicable, and maybe introducing new engine technology to deliver more precise fuel amounts. When I bought my cars they smoked a lot more than now (now they're almost smoke-free with near 0% smoke opacity) because I put a lot of effort into maintenance. Diesels are great if they're well maintained.

H-townbenzoboy · #18 12-30-2003, 02:40 AM

Let me go on and quote TheVirginiaDude a couple of times.

Quote:

"Sounds like the result of being brainwashed by some left wing lunatic professor in college making him believe that stuff."

I think he came to conclusion by seeing black smoke, and thinking pollutants. Partisan lines are irrevelant here I think. I know people on both sides coming to their OWN conclusions that diesel engines cause pollution.

Quote:

I mean were else do people like that reporter dream this stuff up.

He was not a reporter, just a misinformed citizen.

Quote:

Sorry, but I am seriously biassed against anything that comes out of California, or from most liberals. You never know when they are telling the truth.

Hey, you never know, some of the best diesel advice you may have ever gotten may have come from a Californian, or liberal, and they were telling the truth.
I'll just end by saying this, when it comes to discussing diesels, I think that we should put partisan lines and state lines aside. And as the starter of this thread, I would like to say, that any conservative vs. liberal stuff should be taken to the open forum where it belongs, instead of here, where political preferences should be the last of diesel aficionados worries.
-Joe

DieselAddict · #19 12-30-2003, 12:34 PM

One thing I don't understand about the People's Republic of California

is that they're very strict about new diesel emissions but they don't require smog tests on older diesels. That makes no bloody sense. BTW here in Nevada all diesels require a smoke opacity test which I think is a good idea.

crash9 · #20 12-30-2003, 12:56 PM

For the TheVirginiaDude

Please read one thread a day until you feel better

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?threadid=80921

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?threadid=79156

Rush Limbaugh

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?threadid=75529

TedG · #21 12-30-2003, 01:54 PM

Getting back to one of the original premises that started this thread (that "Diesel" is so much more "dirty" than "gas"), I make the following observations:
a) The terms defining the argument are way too broad and general. It's classic apples to papayas meaningless arguing. Diesels are (GENERALLY) inherently higher in NOx and PM emissions. Gas is (GENERALLY) inherently higher in emitting CO and HC. You can't simply "regulate them all the same". And you need Diesel to do certain applications and gas others, just as you don't hammer nails with a screwdriver.Remove the politics and we could use more efficient Diesels in more applications (like economy cars, as in Europe). But I'll take a gas engine in my next sporting car, thank you.
b) They've got us playing their game; they are pitting motorheads against each other. Why do we accept that automotive air pollution is a serious health threat, and that the bad guy has to be gas or Diesel power? I'm convinced that the air is getting "cleaner" (admittedly a broad and unqualified/unquantifiable premise, but my nose remembers Detroit ca. 1963 very well) and will continue to do so if we just leave EPA regs as they are now, despite the incresing #s of vehicles. Bottom line: even if the air is getting "dirtier", we are living healthier and longer lives - there is no disputing it.
c) Where is the (scientific) cost/benefit analysis for any proposed crackdown? We're already paying way too much for emission technology on our cars and trucks.

omegabenz · #22 12-30-2003, 02:10 PM

The most important thing is to make sure our environment will be safe for our future generations.

It is unfortunate that we have to burn fossil fuels, but we do in america because our transportation system does not fuction to what it should be.

I drive everywhere because I have to, riding a bike to school for me is too far.

Just remember that not everything out of california is bad, it has 25% of the cars in the united states so of course they will have stricter rules. I am waiting for them to make sure all of our diesel is low sulfur so they will bring over the G400 which I would absolutely love to have, it would be the only truck I will ever need.

My mom's new TDI jetta burns it great with that extremely high pressure direct injection system.

Political views have nothing to do with the cleanliness of diesel. Burning diesel is burning diesel, so lets try to keep our cars tuned up so they can burn it the best. Everyone can take their part.

omegabenz · #23 12-30-2003, 02:52 PM

True, I cant afford a G400 now, but if they bring them over, when someone is tired of it I can buy it and fix it up. =)

A new Dodge crew cab dually, diesel is about 50k says my dad. He was looking at one. I told him to wait because soon enough they will have mercedes motors.

omegabenz · #24 12-30-2003, 03:22 PM

My friends dad has a 2000 I think dodge diesel, it has an I6 diesel. He has a boost controler, bigger injectors, and he reciently had his turbo housing hollowed out to put in bigger impellers, It really moves. Mercedes can beat almost anything for quickness, but with the reliablity factor, just look at their newer cars.

TedG · #25 01-02-2004, 06:42 PM

Indeed those who want to complain about "polluted air" in North America you should first visit the 3rd world. When I worked for a major Diesel engine mfr. a colleague spent a month in India. He came back and said he had decided that to force US companies to GIVE thousands of current engines and power plants or even 1995-level product to India and China would be way cheaper and far more effective than the coming very stringent North American Diesel regulations. Of course that wouldn't be fair either, but his point was well taken.
He spent 12 hours in a non-air conditioned taxi, far from major cities, and he was on the verge of vomiting from the coal and Diesel smoke.
Another thing: When fingers are pointed at North American "consumption of resources", emissions contribution, waste products, etc., no consideration is ever given to the amount of productive work done here, both for this country and the rest of the world. When you develop much of the world's technology and practically feed the rest of the world, it stands to reason that you will consume more, and emit more.
A big van with 12 people on their way to work consumes and emits more than a Toyota Prius with one California enviro-political activist on her way to a peace rally.