|
|
|
|
|
by danjayh
3883 days ago
|
|
> At what point does it become economical to just run gasoline instead of diesel then (that is, manufacturers selling gasoline models)? If we are talking about diesel still being economical instead of gasoline, but just not as economical as when it was allowed to be more polluting, I'm not sure I can muster much sympathy (but I'm fairly uneducated on the subject, so it may just a matter of not knowing enough). People run diesels due to durability. They run at lower RPM than similarly designed gas engines, and last longer between rebuilds. They also make more low-end torque, for the same reasons. Both of these factors are extremely important to the types of equipment that you see diesels in, probably even moreso than the problems caused by diesels. For many years, Diesel fuel was more expensive than gas, but people kept running them anyway in the applications for which they were most appropriate. For cars, yeah, we'll probably just see the death of diesel in that space. > Did the EPA make rules that required that, or did manufacturers mess up in their attempt to offer the same features as before? Did the EPA dictate this solution, or did the market respond with a poor solution to an EPA requirement on emissions? The market responded with the only solutions it could come up with. The EPA made standards that are impossible to meet using any available technology without causing some or all of the problems I mentioned. |
|
I think you're being hyperbolic here in saying that the standards are impossible to meet. What about urea injection? That works pretty well, right?
But even ignoring that, it's not like there's some god-given right to run diesel engines. Either the emissions standards are reasonable or they aren't. That's the only consideration here. If they are reasonable, and most diesels can't meet them, well then too bad, diesel is just an inferior technology. There's alternatives that don't find it impossible to meet environmental/health standards.