Tougher emission standardsWith the new DI turbocharged gasoline engine technology yielding incredible power and efficiency working in favor of the gasoline engine's future and the difficulties the diesel faces in meeting tougher emission standards I am beginning to wonder whether the diesel will survive.

Depends on how reasonable/realistic the ruling/regulatory class is with the rules I suspect.

I'm holding out for the V10 EcoBoost 600HP! on gasohol and/or E85...

And the real question might be if the diesel goes away what does that do for the 40+ ft motor homes and really huge 5th wheels?

With the new DI turbocharged gasoline engine technology yielding incredible powerSo how many of the new engines have over 700 ft lb of torque? Probably the least needed for a 40' and above MH.My twin turbo almost 5,000 lb toad has a claimed 365 HP and 350 ft lb torque from factory. Yet is only rated to pull 1,000 lb. :(Even the extra things $$$$ I have done to it, on a Dyno gives it 355 HP 380 ft lb. at the wheels. It will do the 1/8th mile in 8.5 seconds at 80 MPH but still rated to pull 1,000 lb.

Maybe in Canada, but the U.S EPA will be getting new direction. Diesel is a heavy mover.

Is the diesel going to end up going the way of the dinosaur?

FishOnOne
Nomad
Jan 24, 2017
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Huntindog wrote:
John & Angela wrote:
This is an argument that quickly gets heated usually between old school and new school thinking. However I doubt anyone can say with a straight face that returning to the way we did things thirty years ago with primarily coal produced power and little or no exhaust emmisions standards is better than what we will see in 10 years with a grid that produces a considerable portion of power from renewables and probably half of vehicles with zero emmisions. But we as a people need to stay focused on that and resist those who will tell us that it costs more to be environmentally friendly in how we do things. It might be cheaper at the moment but look three generations ahead and it will always be cheaper to do it right.

And on that note I'll leave the discussion.

Thank you Shiner for the correction. Interesting links.

John.
No matter what the endevour, the early progress will be pretty affordable and easy.

Getting a race car to 150 MPH cost "X" amount of dollars. Getting one to 300 MPH will cost many times more than twice that amount.

This formula is true for just about anything. Emissions is no different. We have pretty much slayed the dragoon here in the USA. Any further progress will be small and EXPENSIVE. We would be far better off bringing the high polluting countries up to our present standard... That would bring the total world pollution down much faster, and be better for the planet as well.
These things can be accomplished by other means that just throwing US dollars at the countries doing the polluting... Just let them know that access to our market is dependent on them cleaning up their pollution.... They will gripe a lot about the unfairness of it, but they will do it and be better off for it.

Great post! :)

X2... Sounds like a good negotiator. :W

Link
wilber1
Explorer
Jan 23, 2017
If every other country started consuming at the same per capita rate as us, we would still have a monster problem no matter how good their pollution controls are.
Turtle_n_Peeps
Explorer
Jan 23, 2017
Huntindog wrote:
John & Angela wrote:
This is an argument that quickly gets heated usually between old school and new school thinking. However I doubt anyone can say with a straight face that returning to the way we did things thirty years ago with primarily coal produced power and little or no exhaust emmisions standards is better than what we will see in 10 years with a grid that produces a considerable portion of power from renewables and probably half of vehicles with zero emmisions. But we as a people need to stay focused on that and resist those who will tell us that it costs more to be environmentally friendly in how we do things. It might be cheaper at the moment but look three generations ahead and it will always be cheaper to do it right.

And on that note I'll leave the discussion.

Thank you Shiner for the correction. Interesting links.

John.
No matter what the endevour, the early progress will be pretty affordable and easy.

Getting a race car to 150 MPH cost "X" amount of dollars. Getting one to 300 MPH will cost many times more than twice that amount.

This formula is true for just about anything. Emissions is no different. We have pretty much slayed the dragoon here in the USA. Any further progress will be small and EXPENSIVE. We would be far better off bringing the high polluting countries up to our present standard... That would bring the total world pollution down much faster, and be better for the planet as well.
These things can be accomplished by other means that just throwing US dollars at the countries doing the polluting... Just let them know that access to our market is dependent on them cleaning up their pollution.... They will gripe a lot about the unfairness of it, but they will do it and be better off for it.

Great post! :)
noteven
Explorer III
Jan 23, 2017
CO2 is an essential gas to green plant life...

It is a mystery to me how parts per million of CO2 (I'm sorry..."carbon" as per propaganda) can affect the climate...

vs

clouds made of water vapour. Which can change the temperature low by 5 degrees over night...maybe water vapour is the real greenhouse gas...but how to tax and pillage water vapour? ...that is the question...
time2roll
Nomad
Jan 23, 2017
Me Again wrote:
Why do countries think it is good to export natural resources like oil and coal, when someday they may need them their selves?
Fossil fuel energy will be obsolete and provide nothing in the long run.
Huntindog
Explorer
Jan 23, 2017
John & Angela wrote:
This is an argument that quickly gets heated usually between old school and new school thinking. However I doubt anyone can say with a straight face that returning to the way we did things thirty years ago with primarily coal produced power and little or no exhaust emmisions standards is better than what we will see in 10 years with a grid that produces a considerable portion of power from renewables and probably half of vehicles with zero emmisions. But we as a people need to stay focused on that and resist those who will tell us that it costs more to be environmentally friendly in how we do things. It might be cheaper at the moment but look three generations ahead and it will always be cheaper to do it right.

And on that note I'll leave the discussion.

Thank you Shiner for the correction. Interesting links.

John.
No matter what the endevour, the early progress will be pretty affordable and easy.

Getting a race car to 150 MPH cost "X" amount of dollars. Getting one to 300 MPH will cost many times more than twice that amount.

This formula is true for just about anything. Emissions is no different. We have pretty much slayed the dragoon here in the USA. Any further progress will be small and EXPENSIVE. We would be far better off bringing the high polluting countries up to our present standard... That would bring the total world pollution down much faster, and be better for the planet as well.
These things can be accomplished by other means that just throwing US dollars at the countries doing the polluting... Just let them know that access to our market is dependent on them cleaning up their pollution.... They will gripe a lot about the unfairness of it, but they will do it and be better off for it.
Me_Again
Explorer III
Jan 23, 2017
wilber1 wrote:
We are the pigs of the planet when it comes to fossil fuel consumers and CO2 emitters. It's the progress we have made in reducing air pollution in spite of that consumption which allows us to go outside without wearing a mask. Is that progress about to be thrown in the dumpster?

As a 72 year old American I am very embarrassed to answer you ending question.

Isn't "clean coal" an oxymoron under current technology to burn it?

Why do countries think it is good to export natural resources like oil and coal, when someday they may need them their selves?
wilber1
Explorer
Jan 23, 2017
bid_time wrote:
wilber1 wrote:
We are the pigs of the planet when it comes to fossil fuel consumers and CO2 emitters. It's the progress we have made in reducing air pollution in spite of that consumption which allows us to go outside without wearing a mask. Is that progress about to be thrown in the dumpster?
That's a good question. The corollary to that is: Where do you draw the line? If you can increase fuel economy by 1 mpg but it cost you $10,000.00 is that a fair trade off? We have to have balance, and in my opinion, the pendulum has swung too far.

We don't know. The progress we have made so far was thought by many to be unobtainable and unaffordable and yet, here we are. My guess is, it will be neither and others will do it, even if we won't.
John___Angela
Explorer
Jan 23, 2017
This is an argument that quickly gets heated usually between old school and new school thinking. However I doubt anyone can say with a straight face that returning to the way we did things thirty years ago with primarily coal produced power and little or no exhaust emmisions standards is better than what we will see in 10 years with a grid that produces a considerable portion of power from renewables and probably half of vehicles with zero emmisions. But we as a people need to stay focused on that and resist those who will tell us that it costs more to be environmentally friendly in how we do things. It might be cheaper at the moment but look three generations ahead and it will always be cheaper to do it right.

And on that note I'll leave the discussion.

Thank you Shiner for the correction. Interesting links.

John.
bid_time
Nomad II
Jan 23, 2017
wilber1 wrote:
We are the pigs of the planet when it comes to fossil fuel consumers and CO2 emitters. It's the progress we have made in reducing air pollution in spite of that consumption which allows us to go outside without wearing a mask. Is that progress about to be thrown in the dumpster?
That's a good question. The corollary to that is: Where do you draw the line? If you can increase fuel economy by 1 mpg but it cost you $10,000.00 is that a fair trade off? We have to have balance, and in my opinion, the pendulum has swung too far.