New national standards to cut emissions and increase mileage

AZ CRD · **Posted:** Wed May 20, 2009 10:16 pm

I like how all of these lapel flag wearing neocon idiots decry socialism and Marxism as they endorse sending trillions of dollars to the middle east to support their addiction. No wonder. They are of the same ilk as the Taliban.

vtdog & bugnout speak truth.

nescosmo · **Joined:** Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:17 pm **Posts:** 202

I do not know if you all seen that allmost all the gas station have diesel now a days, that means that the diesel is coming very strong. The future is diesel and biodiesel and the country is going for it. They do not tell you but that is what the plan is.

linewarbr · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 8:51 am

AZ CRD wrote:

I like how all of these lapel flag wearing neocon idiots decry socialism and Marxism as they endorse sending trillions of dollars to the middle east to support their addiction. No wonder. They are of the same ilk as the Taliban.

vtdog & bugnout speak truth.

I don't think it's THEIR addiction. I'm sure that not every vehicle on the road in the U.S. today that is running on petroleum fuel has a neocon behind the wheel, or else our political landscape would look much, much, different.

We are living in amazing times, in the midst of a cultural shift. I don't remember who, but there was a guy on the TDIclub forums that had something like this in his sig line:

"'This has never happened before in the global economy.'
A true statement ever since there has been a global economy."

The world is constantly in flux, it just seems to be happening muy rapido ahora.

litton · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 9:24 am

I don't particularly mind the 35 mpg avg, but I'm not clear on the dividing line for a "light" truck. How would that affect most 1/2 T pickups? For example my Tundra is 7200 gvwr? I'm thinking of us that pull TT's. and need a good 17 mpg gas engine. No diesels are available.

JL Rockies · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 1:04 pm

AZ CRD wrote:

I like how all of these lapel flag wearing neocon idiots decry socialism and Marxism as they endorse sending trillions of dollars to the middle east to support their addiction. No wonder. They are of the same ilk as the Taliban.

vtdog & bugnout speak truth.

You sir are a dumba$$ Do you know what a neocon even is? It actually has it's roots in describing Jews that dared cross party lines (liberals coined this phrase). So when you and you're ilk complained about Neocons running the government, you're actually talking about Jews.... So do the KKK so do the Nazis..... and the Taliban.

I thinks racist posts and those who post them should be banned.

geordi · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 3:41 pm

Sorry JL, but you are incorrect. Without descending into petty namecalling that should get the offender banned, the term neocon has been most recently used to refer to the New Conservatives that have been trying to redirect the focus of the Republican party more to the right. These are the people that believe not in the separation of church and state, but in the tighter melding of the two. The current use of a term is more important than the original root. Would it surprise you to know that the people who were the MOST rabble-rousing protectionist of the American way of life (the ones that wanted to NOT be giving business or taxes to King George of England) were in fact called Republicans? That the DEMOCRATS of that day were the ones that wanted to STAY with the plan of sending all their profits to England as a business move? Yea... Those terms have completely reversed. Things change.

Witness the "faith based initiatives" of the previous administration. How about the "New American Century" goals of forcing the creation of a democracy in the middle east. Hmm, sound familiar? These goals are NOT in line with the broad base of the Republicans, who believe strongly in limited government (similar to the Libertarians - common defense and treaties only) and state's rights. Instead, the Neocon philosophy is one of nation-building, globalization for corporate growth, and corporate welfare in opposition to the will of the capitalist system. Yea, bailouts. Those were STARTED by the previous administration, not by the Democrats. Witness the stupidity of listening to the idea of "give massive money to a BANK, so that they will lend more... Without us requiring what they do with the money" Yea... Voluntary compliance NEVER WORKS for exactly the reasons that Vtdog and Bugnout stated. Big shocker that all that money has evaporated, or been used for bank acquisitions OVERSEAS.

Would the classic Republicans want the taxpayer to pay for that? I don't think so, and neither would the Democrats. It is not "Socialist" to want to ensure the enhancement of EVERYONE'S lives. Investing within this country is NOT "Protectionist" it is GOOD BUSINESS. But the Neocons don't see that. Trying to redirect the focus toward racism is just being incendiary. For that, I would suggest that YOU need to be banned.

litton · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 4:16 pm

I for one, am somewhat disturbed at the direction this thread has taken. It would seem that political rhetoric would best be reserved for a forum where the others give a S**t.

nursecosmo · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 4:23 pm

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 5:49 pm

...so they can attempt to motivate what they think is their political base.
Both political parties, their bloggers and talk show hosts pull this stunt over and over.
The job of the news media is to attract advertising dollars with ratings, higher ratings=more money.
Lies, distortion, Political favoritism, double standards, and covering up the unwanted story, are standard operating procedure; ratings rule.
The objective of business is to sell, make money and advertising is a means to do so.

Political correctness is a polarizing subject that throws fuel on the fire and divides people into opposite camps.

Obsessing over someones choice of name used to refer to the Elitist Elected Officials (both sides) who think we are all stupid idiots incapable of making our own decisions on what we chose to drive.
Is like p!$$!ng in the wind during a blizzard or hurricane.
We should use the Political Wisdom of the NRA and support those who support our common views.
Like some NRA members who discuss which round is best to use on a terrorist, we should discuss which Jeep modifications provide desired results and why.
Then when some Elitist Elected Officials (both sides) who thinks we are all stupid idiots incapable of making our own decisions, proposes legislation that will take away what we all want, "Responsible Freedom with our Jeeps", we should come down on them with no mercy.

nursecosmo · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 6:22 pm

nescosmo · **Joined:** Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:17 pm **Posts:** 202

STOP trying to fix the world and see what is coming. You are all blind. \ VW for the first time is putting a TV add for Diesel CARs. That is the future... :lol:

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Sat May 23, 2009 9:53 am

nescosmo wrote:

STOP trying to fix the world and see what is coming. You are all blind. \ VW for the first time is putting a TV add for Diesel CARs. That is the future... :lol:

...some political organizations and companies who produce what we want have conflicting views.

The POs pull the same stunt salesmen do when selling equipment, they try to write their version of the specifications so they sell their product.
With the proposed specifications being handed down by the Elitist Elected officials will tend to help out Blue Tech Diesels in the MPG part of the spec.
When it comes to the so called emission free Electric and Hydrogen vehicles they are over looking the big picture we have all pointed out.
Charge the batteries with what, power from Coal Fired Power plants.
How is that going to reduce Green House Gasses?
It won't!
Crack natural gas to make Hydrogen with CO2 as a by product will not reduce Green House Gasses since all of the CO2 will goe into the atmosphere.
The hydrogen will emit water vapor just like any other combustion process.
All that is left is have Nuclear, wind, and solar battery chargers, but wait what about all the emissions from producing all this equipment?
Yup, you can't get away from it.
The best solution is to do what Bosch has preached which VW, BMW, and Mercedes have listened to, produce more efficient engines.
Another action that needs to be taken is develop plants which grow fast produce products we need and in doing so strip more CO2 out of the air.
Providing government grants to do needed science developments instead of playing with flawed computer models predicting doom and gloom which only provide rationalization tharapy to deranged pessimists.
But again, POs are like salesmen who want to write the specifications for their widget so they sell their widget.
What do I want, a Diesel that runs well and a safe widget in my bottle or can of Gunniss.

litton · **Posted:** Sat May 23, 2009 9:57 am

I'm wondering who will come up with a deseil hybrid and what the downside is comparted to a gasser.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Sat May 23, 2009 10:17 am

litton wrote:

I'm wondering who will come up with a deseil hybrid and what the downside is comparted to a gasser.

...will be the Diesel Haters.
They are like the salesmen who want to write the specifications to sell their product.
Government regulations = specifications.
If you are a Diesel Hating PO you propose legislation to $crew over Diesels.
Diesel Hybrid included.

Remember the, "Art of War is the Art of Deception" . (Sun Tzu)

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sat May 23, 2009 4:36 pm

$1300 increase my rear - I wouldn't be surprised if the final tally is closer to adding another zero to that number, more likely somewhere toward the middle at least.

My first new car was a '79 Mustang hatchback, nearly all the bells and whistles, cost $6500 brand new. 3 years later, after all the legislation enacted by the Carter administration (initial CAFE standards, emissions, etc), that same vehicle with the same options cost over $13,000. I'm looking for the same thing to happen this go round as well.

On Class 8 trucks, the 2007 emissions requirements added over $20,000 per truck MANUFACTURER costs - you can hazard a guess what the customers ended up getting charged. Caterpillar simply dropped out of the Class 8 engine market - it became too expensive to try and meet constantly changing emissions standards. It cost Detroit Diesel and MB over a billion dollars to develop an engine that could meet 2010 standards and try to recover some of the lost fuel economy.

That's also the reason, besides slave labor wages, that Daimler/Freightliner moved their production south of the border - by building and registering the trucks in Mexico, they don't have to bother with the added cost of the emissions hardware, getting a free pass on the emissions regulations because it's not a U.S. registered vehicle.

And you're quite right, CARB is already brewing up even tighter diesel emissions regulations before the 2010 round has even took effect. And by 2011 they're going to require all OTR ttrucks to be retrofitted to 2010 standards - I've already seen the ads by companies selling retrofit kits - to be paid for with federal grants (read everyone else's tax money) to meet a CA state requirement.

To make the OEM's happy, so they didn't have to build for two different markets - the CARB states ,and the other 40-some-odd states - they've decided to impose CA's stupidity on the entire nation.

The EPA did do some good back in the day when it was first formed, claning up the air, land, and waterways, as prior to that there had been no regulation. But now, they don't seem to realize that there comes a point of diminishing returns, when the overall effect of new regulations does more harm than good to the country as a whole - driving the cost of doing business up to the point that companies move overseas, to countires with no environmental standards whatsoever, and having the net effect of INCREASING pollution.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Sat May 23, 2009 7:00 pm

retmil46 wrote:

The EPA did do some good back in the day when it was first formed, claning up the air, land, and waterways, as prior to that there had been no regulation. But now, they don't seem to realize that there comes a point of diminishing returns, when the overall effect of new regulations does more harm than good to the country as a whole - driving the cost of doing business up to the point that companies move overseas, to countires with no environmental standards whatsoever, and having the net effect of INCREASING pollution.

Well said

kskj · **Posted:** Sat May 23, 2009 7:59 pm

x2!!!

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sat May 23, 2009 11:42 pm

Speaking of new regulations, in 2011 new emissions regs are going into effect for stationary diesel engines - ie, large generators.

At my new job, we have a 3 1/2 megawatt DeLaval Enterprise diesel generator that they run during the summer to cut down on electrical costs from CPS and power some of the 1500 ton A/C units. It's a dual fuel unit, and once warmed up it's switched over to natural gas.

Even with running on natural gas, the new emissions regs are so strict that it's going to cost well over 1 1/2 million dollars to do the upgrades necessary to meet the new regs. That comes out of the company's bottom line, which most likely means no significant payraise for us for quite some time.

tjkj2002 · **Posted:** Sat May 23, 2009 11:58 pm

litton wrote:

I don't particularly mind the 35 mpg avg, but I'm not clear on the dividing line for a "light" truck. How would that affect most 1/2 T pickups? For example my Tundra is 7200 gvwr? I'm thinking of us that pull TT's. and need a good 17 mpg gas engine. No diesels are available.

Your 35mpg+ little vehicles have there place but trying to rid the market of the big gas/diesel guzzling pickups with them is not very smart.You just will not see 1/4 of the mpg's with a little 1/4ton diesel pickup trying to tow 10,000lbs when the market for the bigger 3/4 and 1ton diesel/gas pickups vanishes and they stop producing them,then the market will demand them back.A 8000lbs pickup that can tow 25,000lbs is not going to get good mpg's,never will either until a advance power source that is not yet produced is produced.

litton · **Posted:** Sun May 24, 2009 10:30 am

tjkj2002 wrote:

litton wrote:

I don't particularly mind the 35 mpg avg, but I'm not clear on the dividing line for a "light" truck. How would that affect most 1/2 T pickups? For example my Tundra is 7200 gvwr? I'm thinking of us that pull TT's. and need a good 17 mpg gas engine. No diesels are available.

Your 35mpg+ little vehicles have there place but trying to rid the market of the big gas/diesel guzzling pickups with them is not very smart.You just will not see 1/4 of the mpg's with a little 1/4ton diesel pickup trying to tow 10,000lbs when the market for the bigger 3/4 and 1ton diesel/gas pickups vanishes and they stop producing them,then the market will demand them back.A 8000lbs pickup that can tow 25,000lbs is not going to get good mpg's,never will either until a advance power source that is not yet produced is produced.

I'm still trying to understand what a "light truck" is for the purpose of computing the 35 mpg fleet avg. I suspect that anything over ~6800 lbs GVWR is exempt from that regulation but not sure. If so, then none of the current fleet of 1/2 t on over will not be affected. At least, I sure hope that's the case. Now emmision regualtions are another story but at least we would still have large V8, high output engines available.

New national standards to cut emissions and increase mileage

Who is online