Joseph Oberlander wrote:

<snip>

> > According to vw.com, neither 1.9 TDI nor V10 TDI models are available in
> > CA, NY, MA, VT, or ME.
>
> Though, not due to government regulations. If the car is 50-state
> compliant, you can haul it in and drive it with a few hundred
> dollars in state-to-state transfer fees.

And that is just the thing, TDIs are not 50 state compliant. You could
haul a 2004 TDI to California and you could drive it there, but you can
not register it there as a new vehicle. This is not because diesels are
banned in CA or the other states mentioned, these states just hold
diesel cars to emission standards they can't meet, at least not with the
diesel fuel currently available.

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
> Mike Smith wrote:
>
>> Booker C. Bense wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>> In article > ,
>>> Larry > wrote:
>>>
>>>> No...you can't bring in a "new" TDI to Calif, as the car is not Calif
>>>> Emissions Certified.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _ That's nonsense. They were available in 2002. The reason they
>>> have largely disappeared from California lots is the Toureg and
>>> California's fleet pollution regulations. VW makes a lot more
>>> money on Touregs than TDI Golfs. But they can't sell both and
>>> meet the fleet polution standards, so very few TDI's if any are
>>> shipped to California.
>>
>>
>> According to vw.com, neither 1.9 TDI nor V10 TDI models are available in
>> CA, NY, MA, VT, or ME.
>
> Though, not due to government regulations. If the car is 50-state
> compliant, you can haul it in and drive it with a few hundred
> dollars in state-to-state transfer fees.
>
> Las Vegas is a good place to look - tons of used and new TDIs
> and a short drive to California.

There is no VW that is 50 state compliant. For those of us that live in
Calif or the NE states, there is a $150 emissions charge on any new VW model
or engine option. VW's meet federal emission standards, which is different
than 50 state emissions standards. I also believe that the reason the
diesels are not emissions certified, is that Calif and the NE states are
waiting for new regulations on diesel fuel quality to take effect in the
next year or so.

I don't know what the big deal is about diesel cars in these four
states.I guess they just want you to spend more money on overpriced
gasoline,and how many people buy diesel cars to actually claim it's a
hazard to the environment as they say.

> wrote in message
...
> I don't know what the big deal is about diesel cars in these four
> states.I guess they just want you to spend more money on overpriced
> gasoline,and how many people buy diesel cars to actually claim it's a
> hazard to the environment as they say.
>

Here in Ohio, diesel costs more anyway...Certain emmisions are better with
diesel, others arent, like actual carbon particulate, and I believe HC's are
much higher with diesels.

>I dunno about that. Even the biggest, thirstiest SUV made today is
>much, much cleaner than just about any car from the '70s or '80s. The
>problem isn't all the *new* cars, it's all the *old* ones.
>

While that's true, the new SUVs still aren't great. And because many of them
classify as trucks, not as cars, the emissions requirements aren't as strict.
The air quality has gotten better here since the early 1970s, partly because of
the new laws.
Steve Grauman

"Biz" > wrote in message
...
>You're missing a vital point he If they burn more fuel, they HAVE to
>emit more HC's, NOx, etc....for stoichiometry, you put more in you will get
>more out.

At the immediate exhaust ports at the engine, yes, but you also need to
count that what goes out is then processed by the catalytic converter.
There's more going on than just how much fuel is burned.

"Biz" > writes:
>"Mike Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> Steve Grauman wrote:
>>
>> >>Fuel economy does not appear to be a high priority among most vehicle
>> >>buyers in California

>> > True, and another reason why the seemingly silly emissions laws
>> > are in effect in such number here.

>> I dunno about that. Even the biggest, thirstiest SUV made today is
>> much, much cleaner than just about any car from the '70s or '80s. The
>> problem isn't all the *new* cars, it's all the *old* ones.

>You're missing a vital point he If they burn more fuel, they
>HAVE to emit more HC's, NOx, etc....for stoichiometry, you put more
>in you will get more out.

Doesn't hold for the diesel. Nor stratified-charge gasoline engine.

A diesel engine typically operates at lean to very lean mixture.
Power output is regulated by varying the quantity of fuel injected.
Air quantity at a given engine speed is constant.

Because diesels operate in excess air, there's the propensity
to generate more NOx, but much less HC and CO. Under low load
however, which is where the engines typically operate in a passenger
car, the vast amount of excess air keeps the combustion process
sufficiently-cool to keep NOx levels low, even without
post-combustion exhaust gas treatment.

Catalytic converters and even particulate filters are becoming more
common for diesel engines in passenger cars.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

Randolph wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>According to vw.com, neither 1.9 TDI nor V10 TDI models are available in
>>>CA, NY, MA, VT, or ME.
>>
>>Though, not due to government regulations. If the car is 50-state
>>compliant, you can haul it in and drive it with a few hundred
>>dollars in state-to-state transfer fees.
>
>
> And that is just the thing, TDIs are not 50 state compliant. You could
> haul a 2004 TDI to California and you could drive it there, but you can
> not register it there as a new vehicle. This is not because diesels are
> banned in CA or the other states mentioned, these states just hold
> diesel cars to emission standards they can't meet, at least not with the
> diesel fuel currently available.

But - California is poised to change fuels soon. Instant
compliance :)

Matt B. wrote:

> "Biz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You're missing a vital point he If they burn more fuel, they HAVE to
>>emit more HC's, NOx, etc....for stoichiometry, you put more in you will get
>>more out.
>
>
> At the immediate exhaust ports at the engine, yes, but you also need to
> count that what goes out is then processed by the catalytic converter.
> There's more going on than just how much fuel is burned.

The problem is they measure PPM and not PP*mile*. A car that
puts out 30 NOx and gets 15mpg isn't as clean as a one that
puts out 50 NOx and gets 35mpg. SUVs put out much more net
pollution than most small cars.

"Matt B." > wrote in message
news:OSCkd.98770$cJ3.93837@fed1read06...
> "Biz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >You're missing a vital point he If they burn more fuel, they HAVE to
> >emit more HC's, NOx, etc....for stoichiometry, you put more in you will
get
> >more out.
>
> At the immediate exhaust ports at the engine, yes, but you also need to
> count that what goes out is then processed by the catalytic converter.
> There's more going on than just how much fuel is burned.
>
>

And hence you validate my post, I was responding to a guy who said cats dont
matter, without that chemical reaction taking place in teh cat, much higher
emisson figures.