I was talking specifically about diesels. Since CA and the east coast states that follow CA emission laws represent such a big market share in the US, certifying and bringing diesels to the rest of the states just isn't worth it for foreign car makers.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

If you couple the east coast states, then I agree.

But, to exclude a vehicle from the entire US market based strictly on CA law makes absolutely no sense to me. The cost of building the special CA vehicle can never be recouped unless the sales price in CA is significantly higher.

Didn't MB actually decide to build a 45?? state version of the CDI?

And there you have an excellent lesson on what happens when you involve the government in things.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

I'm not sure what the lesson is............??

The government is in the business of regulation..........or would you just prefer to have vehicles with 1950's emissions? Without the regs, that's what you would have..........been to Mexico lately?

CA tends to take the Fed regs to a higher level. The option of the car maker is to simply say "no thanks".

I am not sure if it is currently true but when I worked on Porsche, Calif was the biggest market in the world. Wasek Polak by himself outsold lots of countries

__________________
Happy Benzing
Darryl, Hill
2005 SL55 AMG Kleemanized
1984 500 SEC
1967 W113 California Coupe
[SIGPIC]
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/myphotos

If it were financially viable for a car company to say to Ca., go pack sand then they would. Not one of them has. When a regulation is passed based upon hard scientific evidence then I have no problems. However, the lesson is that you have given regulatory control to Ca., (and by proxy to the rest of the country) without apparently any restraints against the regulator. Now, as shown by the ban on diesels in Ca. and de facto in the rest of the country, you have government regulation without fact to back up the reason - no logic. In fact, it is completly illogical as you've pointed out.

BTW, lead was phased out of gasoline beginning in the early 70's. It was done through manufacturer changes to emission systems and tax incentives. It wasn't banned until 1996 and it was the EPA that did so, not California. It is still not a complete ban on the use of lead in gasoline.

I'm not against regulation, per se. I'm against regulation based on stupidity. For example, I'd like to see a Federal law that says we can't import anything into this country unless the manufacture of said item was done in a manner equal to or greater than the laws imposed upon domestic manufacturers. Europe, the British Commonwealth countries, Japan and other Asian countries easily meet this standard.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Actually, M/B did tell about five states to go pound sand when they introduced the CDI. Clearly, the remainder of the market was quite profitable for them.

Other manufacturers should follow their lead if the regs become onerous.

Generally, without some type of regulation, the auto manufacturers would produce vehicles with seriously excessive emissions. The level of regulation is always a fight between opposing rivals..........cost.........and benefit.

There would be no CDI in this country if it wasn't for MB's plan to eventually have a 50-state legal version. The late CDI and current Bluetec are just a transition to that. Other diesel makers like VW and Honda are already on their way to ship us 50-state legal diesel cars, so apparently it's quite doable.

Without the government's regulations and CA's lead imagine how horrible emissions would still be. The government has also done a great job in making cars safer. Improvements in safety and emissions are usually not something car makers make voluntarily.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Yeah.......where Ralph Nader when we need him?

According to this site, CA purchased 32 million vehicles in 2005. That is nearly twice the next largest purchaser which was Texas.

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1006019

As goes CA, so goes the nation.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

That would be a neat trick...........since the entire industry sells about 13M cars per year in the entire US.

The table lists the total number of vehicles per state.

OK. Good point but since they have nearly 2 times the number of vehicles of any other state, no car manufacture can afford to ignore them.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Of course they can.

Take the aggregate of the other 49 states and compare it to CA. If the costs of certifying a special CA vehicle are prohibitively high, the manufacturer should just tell CA to pound sand. The other 49 states provide more than enough of a market.

If quite a few manufacturers took this approach.........how long do you think it might be before some citizens start booting some pols?