Most Un-friendly Environmental Vehicles? Diesels?

http://greenercars.org/highlights_meanest.htm

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 11:39:39 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Didn't I see this post last week?

But in reverse order.

— Spectator (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 2:15:04 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Apparently people get deboosted for asking questions now.

The reverse order I was referring to was the "Greenest to Meanest" vs "Meanest to Greenest" in the title. Not which car belongs in which section.

— Spectator (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 2:44:23 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Spectator +1

It is the same article as last week, and it originally came out at least a month ago or so.

But to hybrid fans such as myself, y'all can just keep posting this one every week. :)

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 5:39:00 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2   

All the "bad" diesels one the list look like they are based off the same 3.2L diesel. Is this the Bluetec version or the previous generation diesel? If it's the latter it may explain a lot. Notice that the E320 Bluetec is not on the list.

The others on the list just have monster engines, that was to be expected they'd be on the list.

— jeffy210 (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 10:50:36 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5   

well, I convinced. This brief stub of an article has shown me the light. And the truth I will take away with me is that diesel technology make some people angry, for some reason.

— johannas (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 10:51:17 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -4   

Ummm youre forgetting the bluetec diesels, like the Mercedes Bluetec 2.2 BASHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER. Looks to me like a one sided article not worthy of my time.

— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 11:03:38 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5   

Since the Corolla is on there, and my car is essentially a Corolla frame and engine (Matrix), I am on the list, woohoo!

— Whelan (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 11:38:34 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

Its funny people care about this stuff.

— Obliv (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 12:36:34 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -4   

Spellchecker, I usually cant bear to respond to you drivel. But the misinformation you put out there, like dangling shiny keys, is so laughably wrong, that I feel the need to correct you. Not because I care one bit that you read it, but because god forbid someone new to this site reads your drivel and doesnt know you as someone who just talks out of his a**.

None of the Toy/Lex vehicles you listed would ever qualify for a meanest list. The hybrids you listed get superior gas mileage in their classes (with SULEV emissions). The trucks you listed get average gas mileage in their classes while still achieving T2B5 compliance.

Your miseducation on this topic is so evident. Get some real facts before you come back and play with the big boys. And deboosting, no matter how good it makes you all feel, does not change facts.

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 3/21/2008 11:05:41 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

Lexus LS600h
Lexus GS450h
Lexus RX400h

These cars are not green??????????????????????
Lay off the cheap glue. Please.

— zorbeeze (View Profile)

Posted on 3/22/2008 1:26:54 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

and i think they forgot to count all the 65 AMGs, 55s, 63s, S600, BMW V10s, V12s, Audi W12s, W12 diesels of the world.

European cars certainly dominate the lists of most un freindly enviornmental vehicles.

Not badi must say as they offer awesome power too but that's the truth. They are very environment-unfriendly.

JUGNU

— JUGNU (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 1:57:09 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -4   

October 15, 2007
Mercedes brings diesel back to California


"Mercedes-Benz announced today it is making a version of its E320 Bluetec diesel sedan available immediately to California customers through a special two-year/24,000 mile lease only program. The announcement was made on the runway at the opening of the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week at Smashbox Studios in Los Angeles."


"Diesels inherently burn less fuel than gasoline vehicles and they also produce significantly lower emissions of carbon dioxide (C02). Also, with Bluetc vehicles the particulate-what is commonly called "soot"-levels are reduced to levels comparable-or better than-that of gasoline-powered vehicles. Similarly, NOX emissions are reduced."


http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071015/FREE/71015006/1065

— TurboSpyder (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 4:49:06 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 7   

The Volkswagen Touareg is one fugly car..

— mpls (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 8:41:47 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -4   

"and i think they forgot to count all the 65 AMGs, 55s, 63s, S600, BMW V10s, V12s, Audi W12s, W12 diesels of the world."

W12 Diesel? I think not buddy. The w12 is a petrol engine and the only v12 diesel in the audi/vw group is in the Q7 which isn't out yet.

— DasAuto (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 9:02:47 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 6   

threepoint,
You make valid points about whether no Adblue should disable a car or not.

I have a question though. Hybrids don't create the pollution to begin with, therefore they don't need additives/whatever like Adblue. Why doesn't Mercedes simply NOT create pollution so they don't have to worry about where to hide it?

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 3/20/2008 11:11:12 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -6   

Clearly, these results do not speak of the environmentally friendlyness of diesels but rather the decision of these luxury makers to use diesel as a high performance lower mileage alternative to high-powered gasoline engines. Consequently, these diesels are not meant to sip at 35mpg rather they are meant to improve a 14mpg vehicle to 17mpg while still providing performance.
Yet again, another list that is taken out of context. They should be comparing diesel vehicles to their comparable gasoline counterparts. There is no point in comparing a Touareg 2 V10 TDI to a Honda Civic GX NGV, they are two completely different vehicles.

— MeanVulcan (View Profile)

Posted on 3/21/2008 8:21:39 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

All this list really shows is that large capacity vehicles use more fuel than small capacity vehicles. The worst vehicles are at least 2 to 3 times the engine size of the cleanest. That's not rocket science!!!!

— aussiemonster (View Profile)

Posted on 3/25/2008 7:56:40 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Just like I stated in last week's anti-diesel propaganda, there are three reasons why diesels score poorly. None of these scores reflect facts.

Number one, the emissions system used by the U.S. EPA will always disfavor diesels and favor gas power, even when the tier 2, bin 5 compliant diesels come out, because the EPA is more strict on diesel-type exhaust and go easy on the harmful substances emitted by gas power. To prove this, lets look at the limit allowed for CO, which has not changed since 1989 (3.4 grams per mile). Diesels generally fall well below this limit, but do not get extra credit for being extra clean; they score only as passing. This lax limit has been left alone because it is hard for gas-power technology to go well below that limit. The same is true for total HCs and there is not even a limit on CO2 in which diesels normally fall between 10 and 15 percent lower. With respect to NOx and PM, however, the limits have been reduced 95% since 1989 (.17 and .02 gram per mile respectively, tier 2, bin 5). Even when the compliant diesels come out, they will probably average lower in these two substances than gas-powered vehicles and our regulators will still call them dirty.

Number two. The diesels being tested today are not clean diesels. The technology is available, and has been for two years, but the EPA held up SCR technology to reduce NOx while trying to decide if they would allow auto makers to use SCR technology. When the EPA finally decided to allow it, they set out the parameters in which SCR could be applied. The auto makers then had to design systems within the EPAs regulations. This is the reason we do not have clean diesels even as we have had the technology and the clean fuel for a while.

Number three. All diesels are 100% renewable fuel capable without necessary modifications and do not lose substantial fuel economy when using any of the three renewable fuels they are capable of using. Biodiesel, renewable diesel, and green diesel are all made of bio-based sources and significantly reduce all harmful emissions and CO2, but regulators do not take this alternative-fuel capability into account when rating them on greenness or meanness. Unlike gas power, which must be specifically designed or modified to accept high blends of renewable fuel, and unlike gas-power which significantly lose fuel economy when using alternatives like ethanol or propane, all diesels can use any blend of these renewables and can use them without losing fuel economy.

— gregsfc (View Profile)

Posted on 3/26/2008 6:57:46 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

It's silly to compare the greenness of hybrids to diesels.

Diesel is a type of internal combustion engine called compression-ignition. What we commonly refer to as gas power is spark-ignition. And then there is an electric car that uses battery power and electric motor, but a hybrid is electric power added to an internal-combustion engine. Since a hybrid is not all electric, it makes no sense to state that it is better than a diesel or better than a gas-powered engine. Of course it is; it has two sources of propulsion.

What we could argue is that a hybrid is better than a non-hybrid, or a car that uses only internal combustion, or a car that uses only electric, but it makes no sense to argue hybrids over diesels without also stating that hybrids are better than other non-hybrid, cars. The reason folks are saying "clean diesel" is because diesels can now be made as clean burning as gas cars in every emission category, even in
California, which makes them much, much cleaner than ever before, but no one is saying they are as clean as a hybrid, since a hybrid can run part time without internal-combustion power. What diesel advocates are saying is that one can use less petroleum, meet very stringent emissions standards, and use renewable fuel without sacrifice by purchasing a conservatively-powered diesel automobile.

My point is that a diesel is better than a gasser. If you want to argue for hybrids, I'm all for it, but my hybrid would use a diesel engine as the internal-combustion part of the power train. Diesel power is better than gas power period. The process of compression-ignition provides more efficiency; more torque; better fuel economy; and the ability to use renewable fuel right out of the box without losing fuel economy. If you want to add in a electric motor, the diesel would still have these same advantages, but to add an electric motor to the gas car and not the diesel and then state that the gas-powered car is better makes no sense.

— gregsfc (View Profile)

Posted on 3/26/2008 7:22:57 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1