I'm not saying it's a personal choice. I understand that there are laws on the books that require certain emissions equipment to be in place on a vehicle, and I have NEVER in my life violated those laws.

I just wonder at the logic of requiring diesel vehicles to carry a DPF when it increases the amount of fuel being consumed. It's not just CO2. There's also nitrogen oxides, to go along with the soot.

Reduction of soot is great and all, but when you have to burn more fuel and produce more greenhouse gas and other toxic fumes to reduce that soot, is it really the best idea? Maybe I'm anti-legislation, but it seems like the biggest swipe is being taken at the soot because it is VISIBLE, whereas carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides are invisible. Then, periodically, that DPF has to do a regeneration cycle, where even more fuel is consumed in order to burn off the captured soot.

I don't know, I just can't stand the "green" movement and how they are trying to choke the life out of the auto industry. I don't like their noise and their way of using their own lobby power to try to force the government to provide incentives for hybrids and other electric derivative vehicles, and punishing everyone else who has other needs. I mean, what's the logic of allowing a Prius to use a HOV lane during rush hour, when an older Metro or Civic that gets the same fuel mileage can't? Why does the Harley-Davidson that gets 34 MPG but is occupied by one rider get the benefit of the HOV lane, when a Ford Focus, that gets 35 MPG is forbidden unless they're carrying two?

I know I'm getting a little off-topic here, but it seems that the green movement is playing favorites. After all, my 6.0 Powerstroke diesel Excursion that I drive, that gets 24 MPG on the highway, when loaded with 8 adults gets the equivalent of 192 MPG when compared to driving 8 diesel Excursions with one person on board. Does that make my 8 passenger Excursion more eco-friendly when fully loaded than all of the single-occupant Priuses that I see on the road? It sure does! But where are my incentives for driving my Excursion? Oh wait...there aren't any, because it's perceived as being a gluttonous beast of a vehicle, even though the fuel mileage isn't much worse around town than most cars (I get 17 city MPG, which is comparable to a V-8 Mustang that weighs half of what my truck weighs, and is similar also to even compact SUVs that are perceived as being eco-friendly). In fact, my wife's X5 4.8i is lucky to get even close to the mileage that my Excursion gets. But she doesn't get hate-filled stares while driving her car. I do, on the other hand, because my truck is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the auto industry in this country...or at least that's what people think.

My truck isn't equipped with a DPF. Why? Because it's a 2005, and DPF wasn't required on my truck in that year, didn't even come equipped with one. Nobody would be able to tell the difference anyway. Why? Because unless I run at full throttle on my truck, my exhaust is clean and clear. And at WOT, there is only a slightly hazy gray smoke that kicks out behind me. Sure, people should be stopped from "rolling coal" on their diesels. But legislation has an unfortunate effect of causing people to thumb their noses at it, while they do their own thing with their own cars.

Sorry for the long post, but there are things within the whole green movement that drive me crazy.

__________________
2007 BMW X5 4.8i - Sport Package, Wife's Car

2001 BMW 325i - My Car.

2005 Ford Excursion Limited 4x4, 6.0 Powerstroke Diesel. My first "grown up" car.