Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
Detroit, 4:31 PM
Sun Nov 29
11 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jalopnik.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | Email | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler | Email
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin | Email
Associate Editor - Houston:
Matt Hardigree
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Ben Wojdyla
Editor-at-Large:
Mike Spinelli
Contributors:
Mark Arnold
John Krewson | Email
Andy Didorosi
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/31/09
08/31/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
According to whom?
Unless your breathing directly out the tailpipe there is no risk, remember "dilution is a solution."
Who are you quoting here with the statement "("I like it when people get respiratory diseases and die young")"? I don’t remember anyone saying that.
09/01/09
Not quoting anyone in particular, just saying that tampering with diesel emissions control systems is not necessarily victimless (since the great-grandparent post referred to cutting off the catalysts.)
09/01/09
I bet the report does not in any way speak of the millions of lives that are vastly improved by the burning of diesel fuel.
09/01/09
09/01/09
I can guarantee you that if the agencies budget were based on reducing regulations, there would be no regulations at all.
09/01/09
Hate to poke holes in the study but it's fundamentally flawed with only one of the conclusions drawn in the first few lines. It mentions PORT facility. As in ships. Ships (most) run on No. 6 or No. 5 diesel, as in RFO, which is basically asphalt (without the sand and rock) or tar. This stuff /does/ leave some nasty ash behind as to which anyone who leaves their auto in a car park in Rotterdam can attest. No.2 which is used in autos has a much lower particulate count and a much lower sulphur count in specific. Cutting a long pet-chem lecture short, any auto diesel newer than Euro II spec (pretty much anything used where leaded petrol is NOT sold) is quite clean and is not a particulate problem as days of old. The big particulate problem is ships and trains, and yes, there are laws on the books going into play to address those issues.
09/01/09
09/01/09
Also the study paper uses a lot of terms like "may" and "suspect". In my branch of the sciences, a study holds much more water when terms such as "most probable [cause]" or "confirmed [through evidence cited]" or the like. For the sake of comparison of studies, compare this study in read with an US NTSB or UK AAIB air crash investigation.
The bottom line is that diesel 'soot' is much better than coal 'soot' and that our forefathers would have died exclusively of lung cancer in their 20's from coal fired 'everything' in the industrial revolution if soot were as dangerous as it was made out to be. Either that, or somehow diesel 'soot' is inherently more dangerous in North America.
Thanks for an interesting read!
09/02/09
It’s much easier when one looks to the source and its history of deceit and dismiss it as a bucketful of lies, than actually reading the thing. Sadly with most of the major news outlets and many studies paid for with taxes, this policy of mine can be used very successfully.
Thanks for reading it though.
08/31/09
08/31/09
I prefer the rattle from one large mechanical injector.
I'm going with injection.
08/31/09
(Pretty sure there isn't one injector for the entire engine.)
08/31/09
08/31/09
09/01/09
I should also remember how diesel engines work and have always had injectors...
08/31/09
Wow.
Out of context, that sounds really dirty.
...or fun...
08/31/09
It was a mid-to-late '80's Taurus which was beat-to-hell.
I've since heard a VW, and it's even quieter than that heap-O-Taurus.
08/31/09