Toyota FJ Cruiser Forum banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of September's Ride of the Month Challenge!
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,057 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The FedEx guy dropped by on his route to look at the Scorpion. He's a nice guy and having dropped off stuff and having watched me bolt stuff on, he (like the UPS man) are now friends of mine. They often stop if they have some slack in their schedule, share a Diet Coke and BS about off-road stuff, politics, etc.

I was washing the Scorpion at the time and mentioned that I wished that Toyota would offer a diesel engine option for the FJ.

He pointed to his FedEx truck and told me that FedEx was sending all of their diesel delivery trucks to other states and that they were buying new gasoline engine trucks for California.

:huh: huh?

He said that the diesel emissions standards in California were so tough that none of their trucks could meet them and they were getting tougher.

So I did some research: California Diesel Risk Reduction Program

"Following the identification of diesel particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) in 1998, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) developed a comprehensive strategy to control diesel PM emissions. The “Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles”—a document approved by ARB in September 2000—set goals to reduce diesel PM emissions in California by 75% by 2010 and 85% by 2020.

"This objective would be achieved by a combination of approaches (including emission regulations for new diesel engines and low sulfur fuel program). An important part of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan are measures for various categories of in-use on- and off-road diesel engines, which are generally based on the following types of controls:

"Retrofitting engines with emission control systems, such as diesel particulate filters or oxidation catalysts, replacement of existing engines with new technology diesel engines or natural gas engines, and restrictions placed on the operation of existing equipment.

"Tthe ARB regulations should not be confused with the rules by South Coast Air Quality Management District—adopted in 2000 and later invalidated by US Supreme Court—which attempted to ban the purchase of diesel vehicles, regardless of their PM emission level. (emphasis added)"


Maybe that explains Toyota's reluctance to sell diesel powered FJ's. Especially if they're somehow made ILLEGAL to operate in some US markets. You know that if California takes these air pollution measures, other urban areas will follow at some point.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,865 Posts
Thats sad!

I really hate CARB, they make no sense half the time.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,984 Posts
That sounds about right for our wonderful comrades in Sacramento. I knew the red star on the state flag meant something! I think the hammer and sickle will replace the bear in short order....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Hmmmmm. Would they stick with tradition, and then call it a BJ Cruiser? I just don't think I could drive around with that stuck on my car. :D


Sorry, it was there, I had to take a stab at it.....back to the more serious issue at hand.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,654 Posts
Maybe the diesel FJ will be exclusive to Canada!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,057 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Maybe the diesel FJ will be exclusive to Canada!
This is what I think - and I honestly don't know what goes on in the Mind-of-Toyota. I suspect Toyota Corporate is waiting until the diesel standards work themselves out before seeing what they can sell in the US. There have been moves (as quoted earlier) to outlaw all diesel engines in California. The Supreme Court shut them down, but nobody knows how repressive those rules will get.

I don't know what Toyota's design lead time is from concept to market, but it's got to be about 4-5 years minimum. Why spend the money when you don't know whether or not you can sell the product in 5 years?

:boohoo:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
As a diesel Super Duty driver I can relate and relay the mass hatred and scorn we diesel owners are spewing toward the Fed's and the emissions standard

They have just imparted a new ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel) standard for 2008 vehicles and an even tougher set of standards goes into effect January of 2010. The manufactures had one h ell of a time getting the motors to meet the current standard and the means by which they have done so means that where my 2003 F350 4x4 Crew got 22+mpg, my new 2008 F250 4x4 crew gets 13 (on a good day). Part of the new higher cost of diesel is “said” to be all the additional refining required to make the fuel meet this ULSD standard.

Part of the reason my new super duty is such a hog is the system that helps the motor meet the standards called a “DPF” (Diesel Particulate Filter). The filter itself adds some restrictions but it’s the method used to “self clean” the filter that eats fuel. When the filter gets “full” the computer injects diesel into it to “burn” away the particulate matter in a process called “Regeneration” which results in rolling white smoke, crappy performance and oh...the good part…half of my MPG being dumped straight into the exhaust system. So where I use to get cheaper fuel and 45% more MPG I now pay 20% more for fuel and get half the MPG. The whole environmental pendulum has swung to the insane! God help us when 2010 gets here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,446 Posts
how short sighted . . . that is really penny wise and pound foolish thinking on CA part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
You know, even though I’ve never owned a diesel car / truck, this is a very interesting topic. It seems as though these regulations are going to get so strict that diesel is going to be less efficient then gasoline!!

Perhaps it’s a good thing? Perhaps the burning of diesel is infact hazardous to our health and it is a good thing that regulations are becoming more stringent. Or perhaps it’s not as bad as they say and it’s a scheme to get more people to buy more gasoline at higher prices!

And yes it will get worse and worse. And I don't mean just for diesel or gasoline. Everything will get worse. We humans are simply overpopulating and I think it is the number one problem we will face in the very near future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,446 Posts
Diesel can burn cleaner than gas, study indicates
Source: Diesel can burn cleaner than gas, study indicates

Dec 3, 2002 12:00 PM
Exhaust emissions from natural gas school buses contain higher levels of air pollutants and toxic air contaminants than those in school buses powered by advanced-technology, low-emitting diesel engines.

That is the chief finding by an independent research laboratory under contract to International Truck and Engine Corporation, presented to the Society of Automotive Engineers conference. The research compares emissions from a popular model natural gas bus with emissions from diesel school buses.

"We now have a reliable basis for comparing the current relative toxicity of natural gas and diesel engine exhaust," said Dr. Charles A. Lapin, a toxicologist and co-author of a forthcoming SAE paper on the research. "The study shows that low-emitting diesel technology clearly has clean-air advantages over natural gas when it comes to school buses."

International Truck and Engine Corporation, which has begun selling a low-emitting diesel engine certified to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2007 particulate and hydrocarbon emission standards, sponsored the research along with ConocoPhillips, a producer of the ultra-low-sulfur fuel that enables the use of the new diesel technology.

The study raises questions about the basis for diesel exhaust regulation in California, the nation's leading state air pollution regulator, said Lapin.

Of the 41 toxic air contaminants (TACs) listed as present in diesel exhaust by the California ARB, tests did not find 21 of them in the exhaust of any of three tested power system configurations - conventional diesel, low-emitting diesel or natural gas.

"Special sampling provisions were used specifically to detect low levels of these contaminants," Lapin said. "The fact that the contaminants were missing casts doubt on previous statements about diesel toxicity."

The natural gas bus exhaust had higher levels of six of California's listed TACs than the exhaust from the low-emitting diesel bus. In the three tested bus configurations, the natural gas bus had the highest emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), nitrogen oxide (NO), total hydrocarbons, non-methane hydrocarbons, methane and carbon monoxide (CO), according to Lapin.

The low-emitting diesel bus was found to be higher than both natural gas and conventional diesel in two other emissions - nitrogen dioxide and carbon dioxide, but the low-emitting diesel had the lowest emissions of the four engine exhaust "criteria pollutants" regulated by EPA and the ARB: NOx, CO, particulate matter, and hydrocarbons.

The natural gas bus had lower emissions of carbon dioxide than the two diesel bus configurations, and lower emissions of nitrogen dioxide than the low-emitting diesel bus.

"The findings provide a serious challenge to assertions that natural gas buses are inherently cleaner than diesel," said Dr. William Bunn, chief medical officer and vice president of International.

The research is the first to provide comparable detail in testing the emissions profile of low-emitting diesel school bus technology alongside those of conventional diesel engines and natural gas engines used in school buses, according to International. The same diesel bus, an American Transportation Corporation rear-engine school bus powered by a 2001 model year International DT 530 engine, was tested in both the conventional and the Green Diesel Technology configurations. The use of the same bus minimized the effects of vehicle-to-vehicle variation. The low-emitting Green Diesel Technology bus used a catalyzed particulate filter and a low-NOx engine calibration, and was fueled with less than 15 parts per million sulfur content diesel fuel provided by ConocoPhillips.

An 8.1-Liter John Deere natural gas engine powered the second bus, a 2000 model year Blue Bird All-American, typical of natural gas school buses sold prior to 2002 and now in service. More recent-model natural gas buses may be purchased with an oxidation catalyst; testing of natural gas transit buses with oxidation catalysts is being conducted by the California ARB.

Both the diesel and the natural gas buses were in the same size category with approximately the same engine power rating, and were well within their warranted service lives. The research team ran three consecutive runs of a chassis dynamometer driving cycle representing school bus operation. Each test run covered about 21 miles and took about 85 minutes. An "emission value" was calculated using the average of the three test runs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,446 Posts
Some interesting info on Diesel fuel

DIESEL FUEL REFINED FROM OIL
Diesel is a petroleum fuel that contains energy. At refineries, crude oil is separated into different fuels including gasoline, jet fuel/kerosene, lubricating oil, heating oil, and diesel. Heating oil and diesel fuel are closely related products. The main difference between the two fuels is that diesel fuel contains less sulfur than heating oil. Approximately 7 gallons of diesel are produced from each 42-gallon barrel of crude oil. Diesel can only be used in a diesel engine, a type of internal combustion engine used in many cars, boats, trucks, trains, buses, and farm and construction vehicles.

HISTORY OF DIESEL
Rudolf Diesel originally designed the diesel engine to use coal dust as fuel, then experimented with vegetable oil (biodiesel) before the petroleum industry came out with the product now known as diesel fuel. The first diesel-engine automobile trip was completed on January 6, 1930. The trip was from Indianapolis to New York City, a distance of nearly 800 miles. This feat helped prove the usefulness of the diesel engine design. It has been used in millions of vehicles since that time.

USES OF DIESEL
Diesel fuel is important to America’s economy, quality of life and national security. As a transportation fuel, it offers a wide range of performance, efficiency and safety features. Diesel fuel contains between 18 and 30 percent more energy per gallon than gasoline. Diesel technology also offers a greater power density than other fuels, so it packs more power per volume.

Diesel fuel is used for many tasks. In agriculture, diesel fuels more than two-thirds of all farm equipment in the U.S., because diesel engines can perform demanding work. In addition, it is the most widely used fuel for public buses and school buses throughout the U.S.

America's construction industry depends on diesel's power. Diesel engines are able to do demanding construction work, like lifting steel beams, digging foundations and trenches, drilling wells, paving roads and moving soil - safely and efficiently. Diesel also powers the movement of America's freight in trucks, trains, boats and barges; 94 percent of our goods are shipped using diesel-powered vehicles. No other fuel can match diesel in its ability to move freight economically.

DIESEL AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL
When diesel fuel is used, carbon dioxide is a byproduct. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that is linked to global climate change. Diesel-powered cars achieve 20-40 percent better fuel economy than gasoline powered cars, especially in sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks, which now make up more than half of all new vehicle sales in the United States. Safety is another advantage of diesel fuel; it is less flammable than gasoline and other alternatives.

The major disadvantage of diesel fuel is its harmful emissions. Significant progress has been made in reducing emissions from diesel engines. With new clean diesel technologies, today's trucks and buses are eight times cleaner than those built just a dozen years ago. In the future, diesel engines must become even cleaner in order to meet tightening environmental standards.

New diesel fuels—some of which have lower sulfur content—can also help diesel vehicles achieve lower emissions. Ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel is highly refined for clean, complete combustion and low emissions. ULSD is necessary for new engine technologies to work properly, and will eventually replace regular diesel fuel. Using low sulfur diesel fuel and adding exhaust control systems can reduce particulate emissions by up to 90 percent and nitrogen compounds (NOx)by 25-50 percent.

Even with these advances, diesel still contributes significantly to air pollution in the United States. It will take a long time for the new cleaner burning diesel vehicles to replace older ones.

Last Revised: June 2006
Sources: National Energy Education Development Project, Alternative Fuels: What Car Will You Drive?, 2004-2005
Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Annual 2004, Volume , July 2005.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
Very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if that article is 100% true.

Unfortunately America runs on $$$$ (our money that is). Even if it means more pollution by using gasoline cars and trucks.

Hopefully one day the technologically improved diesel cars and trucks will be so efficient that the government cannot deny its benefits. Then we can get more miles with less amount of fuel!

Either that or somebody really smart needs to come up with a new fuel to burn which is just as efficient and less toxic to the environment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,057 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
how short sighted . . . that is really penny wise and pound foolish thinking on CA part.
I don't think that the EnviroNazis care one bit for efficiency.

However, they will fuel inflation so that I may have to leave California. Not that it's a bad thing. :jester:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,446 Posts
However, they will fuel inflation so that I may have to leave California. Not that it's a bad thing. :jester:
I'm a native CA, and, as much as it pains me, I can say that I too have been seriously thinking about this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,654 Posts
This is what I think - and I honestly don't know what goes on in the Mind-of-Toyota. I suspect Toyota Corporate is waiting until the diesel standards work themselves out before seeing what they can sell in the US. There have been moves (as quoted earlier) to outlaw all diesel engines in California. The Supreme Court shut them down, but nobody knows how repressive those rules will get.

I don't know what Toyota's design lead time is from concept to market, but it's got to be about 4-5 years minimum. Why spend the money when you don't know whether or not you can sell the product in 5 years?

:boohoo:

I think Toyota could have a large enough market right now for a diesel FJ excluding the US market. I'm also thinking they don't sell the FJ in other markets because it does not come with a diesel option.

I also think Toyota could go from prototype to production in as little as 2 years. They already have all the tools in their chest to make it happen, not like they are starting from scratch.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,984 Posts
I, too, have been toying with going out of state to finish my working years and enjoy my retirement years. I'm thinking Texas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
334 Posts
Why is it that with Europe's super restrictive emission standards they get diesels and we don't. :huh:
Dumb.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top