Citroën's new diesel lineup
Citroën announced yesterday that it was introducing two new diesel engines into its C8 people carrier vehicles. The C8 MPVs are already often powered by diesel engines, so this isn't exactly groundbreaking news, but it is good to hear that these new powerplants will be Euro IV compliant (they will emit less than 190g of CO2 per kilometer) and capable of running on up to 30 percent biodiesel. Citroën says the "range-topping 136hp 2.0HDi 16V unit returns 40 mpg on the combined cycle, CO2 emissions of 188g/km and is fitted with a Diesel Particulate Filter System that reduces particle emissions to virtually immeasurable levels." The 120hp 2.0HDi 16V models can get 41 mpg. Not bad for an eight-person vehicle. Not bad at all.[Source: Citroën]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Howard Lee Harkness 12:52PM (8/17/2006)
"capable of running on up to 30 percent biodiesel"
Huh? What's to keep it from running on 100% biodiesel?
Reply
Greg Pearson 2:11PM (8/17/2006)
There is a lot of automobile technology that is cleaner for the environment and reduces our dependency on foreign fuel that is being prohibited from being used in the US because of EPA and DOT regulations.
It strikes me as strange that the regulations that are supposed to make the air cleaner are, arguably making the cars on US highways more polluting.
The VW TDI technology is not being imported for 2007. It seems to me that all automakers that want to sell cars in the US should be encouraged to produce cars with similar technology. VW's TDI, Daimler Chrysler CDI and the most glaring example, Smart Cars, are all technologies that, if allowed to be considered on their merits as emissions reducers, and fossil fuel savers, would have a large share of the US market. The current lineup of hybrids does little to address the issue.
Tax incentives would not be necessary, though they would help. The economic benefits, clean air benefits and national fossil fuel dependence benefits are all strong enough for clean diesel technology to be economically viable without tax incentives.
Why are we keeping current regulations in place at the cost of clean air, economic independence and national security?
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 3:09PM (8/17/2006)
"Tax incentives would not be necessary, though they would help."
I strongly agree with the first part of that statement, and just as strongly disagree with the last part. Tax incentives merely mask the economic costs of Political Correctness, and are generally counterproductive, due to unintended consequences.
Reply
Charles S 6:18PM (8/17/2006)
Y'know, tax incentives and regulations are tools that government use to promote an agenda. Yes, I use the word agenda, but before people go crazy about that word, just think WHY we even have a governing body, if we do not allow it to exercise the tools we grant to it?
Incentives for cars is "social engineering" but yet not one wants to allow their legislature to repeal tax break for homes. You know, there are tax breaks for having kids too! Those evil Mommies!
Talking about "unintended consequences", let's take the spotlight off diesels and focus on Trucks and SUVs. There would not be an explosion sales if not for the loopholes we provide for the auto makers. We give gov't oversight over safety, yet trucks and SUVs get lax enforcement.
Is our gov't at fault, SURE! But does that mean we should just give up and get rid of all the other good things that came from our policies and regulations? Of course NOT!
All the political jargons are there just to distract people. Tax incentives is NOT the problem. The Government is NOT the problem. We just need to keep focus on the topic. I care little if they give breaks to hybrids or diesels, but if using and importing too much gas is an issue, then the government is the ONLY force we have in pushing an effective measure to steer our nation.
Reply