VW diesels personna-non-grata?

There's a big flap going on in Maine over the fact that VW models with their TDI diesels are not legal for sale here because of emission issues. They don't meet state mandated standards. Is this a problem in California or other states as well?

It isn't a problem here in Wisconsin.

They are clear her in AR, but then most anything is. Have they sorted the reliability issues yet?

A-OK here in Alberta to the best of my knowledge, but Alberta isn't known for tight vehicle restrictions.

Funny... I thought diesels these days were supposed to be good cars.

If there is an emissions test there, would they now fail any older diesel-powered car? And what about new (or old) diesel-powered trucks?

I though it was going to be related to the local fuel available in the northeast USA, which tends to be "sour" (high sulphur), causing some emission porblems. Apparently not.
The VW diesels are 49-state compliant. VW chose not to make them legal in California. Your state has recentley adopted the California emissions rules, so now Touaregs and Golfs can't be sold there.
But here's the kicker: if a person buys a new VW diesel in another state they can legally register it in Maine and drive it all they want. Apparently, this is something of a windfall for nearby NH dealers and that's where the real flap is coming from. More info:

https://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1050657/posts

I haven't heard that VW diesels were unreliable. The opposite, in fact....I believe that they have generally had a good reputation. There may be some issues with unreliable starting in very cold weather, but that affects all diesels and again,is usually a fuel issue.

An aside: One of my brothers though that he'd have to sell his faithful '95 Honda when he got his new job in Silicon Valley last year (or pay to have it modified for California specs). We all know that most California cars have "extra" emissions setups. As it turned out, his car had the "LEV" package ("LEV" is "Low Emissions Vehicles" and is normally an extra-cost option. He didn't order the car this way....it was a "leftover" that the dealer was selling cheap). Anyway, all LEV Hondas are Cal-spec, so he was able to bring it with him.

I believe its the non-diesels VWs that have a so-so reliability reputation. I've driven my father-inlaws TDI Golf and its a nice little car and not as slow as you'd think. If I had the cash I'd probably have one too.

Don'r know about elsewhere, but here in Indiana where 4 counties require emissions testing, all diesels are exempt.

Yes, as Nial said Maine uses California emissions standards. A while back there was a push to develop our own but then folks released that no car manufacturer would bother to certify their vehicles for Maine alone.

This has been a big "letters to the editor" topic in our local papers with most people writing that it's rediculous to ban this diesel while the heavier SUV's don't have to meet the same standards etc.

They've also been writing about the ability to buy a VW diesel out of state and register it immediately as a new car in Maine. (We don't check emissions during inspections).

Anyway, thanks for the replies re other states. I was just curious...

I may be off on my info, but I was looking at a TDI golf before the new beetle even came out, and Consumer Reports said they were having lots of trouble out of the new system.

Well, the original legislation which created emission standards for cars was penned by Maine's senator Muskie. Maine at the time had some of the most polluted rivers in the country, mainly from the paper industry, and pretty clean air.

I figure it is easier to try and fix some other state's problem in congress than your own state's problem. It might cost the industries that pay to keep them in office.

Alaska has that problem big time.

Not certain, but I think diesels are prohibited in NY as well. At 95 hp, they just about match my 'B' for horsepower, but I think the MG has more torque.

The VW TDi engine has 150 ft/lbs of torque at about 2000 rpm. They have some pickup at low gear, and are faster at around town speeds than the comparable 2.0 gas VW engine. They are more reliable than the 1.8T engine which has had huge recalls due to the bad ignition coils. Diesels have always been very reliable, and more popular in Europe. However, GMs ham fisted attempt at creating one for the US out of small block v-8s was a disaster and soured Americans on diesels. Now we also have emissions laws that favor SUVs over diesels. Go figure. Someone in TX is working on fitting VW TDi engines into the Focus chassis, which would be ideal. The VW engine is superior, and the Ford chassis is roomier and handles better. Maybe after I get the 250 on the road I will convert my Focus....

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by kindofblue:
. Someone in TX is working on fitting VW TDi engines into the Focus chassis, which would be ideal. ....<hr></blockquote>

The Euro-Focus has been available with a 1.8 diesel for some time. It's likely the more popular version in many parts of Europe.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> kindofblue said: ...However, GMs ham fisted attempt at creating one for the US out of small block v-8s was a disaster and soured Americans on diesels....
<hr></blockquote>

And the Chev Chevette diesel, Ford Escort diesel (North American model), Pontiac 6000 I believe... Little known fact to most people that all the above cars came with a diesel, I don't think hardly any of them sold so you probably won't see many ever! There was a guy back in Ontario who regularly posted in the province-wide classifieds listing his Escort diesel engine, whenever I saw that I kept asking myself "who would want that?"

Speaking of SUV's and diesel engines, I've always loved Toyota Land Cruisers, especially any of the 1970's models or for that matter just about any year until the "land yacht" sized models of the 1990's. I remember talking to a Land Cruiser enthusiast about the older models, and he mentioned that the best one to get was the diesel version especially for fuel mileage as the gas version had poor fuel mileage, I read recently that only Canada (and not the States) got the diesel engined Land Cruisers back in the 1970's, and that a revamped Land Cruiser BJ71 2-door model from 1985 to 1987 was only sold in Canada.

But my point being, what's wrong with a diesel in a smaller SUV or truck? There are still a few 1980's diesel Toyota or Datsun pickups hanging around up here in Canada, but that diesel option for North America is long gone.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sherlock:


And the Chev Chevette diesel, Ford Escort diesel <snip>
But my point being, what's wrong with a diesel in a smaller SUV or truck? There are still a few 1980's diesel Toyota or Datsun pickups hanging around up here in Canada, but that diesel option for North America is long gone.<hr></blockquote>

I knew about the diesel Escort, but they are almost as hard to find as the all-wheel drive version.

The problem in NA is one of perception. They are making headway in the larger trucks, but I have been on the recieving end of one of 2 of those old, converted GM V8's and it wasn't pleasant. The GM Pickup ate transmissions, and the Oldsmobubble 88 just ate everything. I think memories like this make it hard to sell diesels in the US. That being said, The Ford Ranger (and its SUV variants) would really tempt me with a good torque heavy diesel inline 6.

MattP

I remember driving a gm v8 turbocharged diesel hmvv in the army. it didn't seem like the army had reliability issues with that set up at the time (late '80's)

The Jeep Liberty is supposed to get a largish (for a 4 cyl.) turbo diesel soon. The numbers (power and economy) look pretty impressive.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by philman:
I remember driving a gm v8 turbocharged diesel hmvv in the army. it didn't seem like the army had reliability issues with that set up at the time (late '80's)<hr></blockquote>

I think that was a different, better sorted out diesel engine. These were from the early eighties when diesel was cheaper than gasoline. That was why my parents thought they would be a good idea. It started with the Olds and it behaved for about 6 mo, so Dad replaced his PU with a diesel one. It went out first. But the Olds quickly caught up. They both went bye-bye pretty quick.

OK, here we go with my disertation on GM diesel engines.

The 5.7L diesel of about 1981 & 1982 in GM light trucks was used in cars, notably Oldsmobiles, Cadillacs and Pontiacs, perhaps others, after the trucks stopped using them. This was nothing more than a converted gasoline engine with modifications made for diesel, but not enough modifications. They were famous (infamous?) for blowing head gaskets and generally being maintenance nightmares.

However, I have seen several cars that were meticulously maintained that worked well for a long time. One I personally saw was an Olds 98 ('83 I think) that had over 520,000 miles on a non-rebuilt engine. That is far from the norm. I would venture that most, if not all of these cars that are still on the road had a gas "Target" motor installed withing 5 years of when it was built.

This 5.7L hurt the reputations of diesels in this country in a way that is almost mythical. Obviously everyone understands that. GM also did us no favors by introducing the 4.3L diesel, another converted gas engine, to drive the front wheels of GM A body cars, usually (if not exclusively) the Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera. Take a relatively rough 90 degree V6, and then add the clatter of diesel....you can see why virtually no one bought the car. That is the only reason the diesel 4.3L is not viewed as the worst diesel ever, it was much worse than the 5.7L. The problem was, too many bought the 5.7L.

In 1983, GM light trucks began using the 6.2L diesel engine. This was not a converted gas engine, but a purpose built diesel engine built by expert Detroit Diesel. This was not an overly powerful engine, but was quite torquey. The engine was quite robust, with a single glaring fault...if you ran the engine with too little fuel in the tank or let it run dry, the injection pump would wear out quite quickly.

"Who would do such a thing?" you ask? Well, most of these 6.2Ls (not all) were sold with dual tanks and a manual switch between them. See the problem? Switch at 1/4 tank and the pump would last a good long time. Wait till it sputters before you switch and kiss the pump goodbye at 60,000 to 80,000 miles.

The second problem was not the engine at all, but the transmission it was often paired with. Heavy 3/4 ton trucks and 1 tons would have a T-400. Those were no problem. However, the 1/2 ton and most 3/4 tons (the bulk of all diesels sold) had the early 700R4. This is now a fine transmission, and with a name change and few modifications lives on in both light and heavy versions in GM trucks today (the 60L and 80L). Early on, though, second gear and other components had a tendency to explode under high torque. Tell me class, what does even a 150hp diesel V8 produce alot of? TORQUE.

Now, the 6.2L with the 700R4 could do a nice job, especially at turning in good mileage numbers. Try over 20mpg in a full size truck with a moderate to light load. The problem was, by '86 or so when the problems were corrected, the reputation was ruined and Dodge was on the cusp of releasing the legendary Cummins, and with Ford having the well regarded International Harvester engine, GM lost out in the diesel war, though it went on to offer a 6.5L diesel, and finally a 6.5L TD which were both based off the 6.2L Detroit.

True. The military Hummer used the Detroit engine as well. Originally the 6.2L, then the 6.5L. I do not believe they used the turbo version in the military, though....but I could be wrong. I wasn't a transpo. guy, I was a dirty leg.

How's that for useless information?

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by lawguy:
OK, here we go with my disertation on GM diesel engines.


This 5.7L hurt the reputations of diesels in this country in a way that is almost mythical.
<hr></blockquote>


Very well said. I can't tell you how many times I find myself explaining the GM debacle the same way you did when I tell people I am a big fan of diesels in cars. Funny, no one considers how many miles trucks and buses get out of diesel engines......