EPA air standards

[Sarge]

I've lost faith in enviromental science

[spencea15]

Your question is hard to answer, Does the EPA have the right and should they, the answer is yes.  Should the epa set standards the can but be not be done at this point, or standards that reduce fuel mileage then no.

[Sarge]

Thanks for the feeback: I'm in a discussion that EPA regulations on diesel emissions is causing more problems technically then it is worth. Heath issues are still speculation.

[kenz]

Yes, but only to a degree. The idea behind emissions and fuel mileage ratings was to constantly improve air quality and vehicle mileage. Born out of the early/mid 70's when cars got 7 mpg and belched smog like crazy. And I agree it was a good thing. But to raise minimum standards past the point of technology is wrong. The reason there is DEF fluid now is because there is no technology to hit the minimum requirements without it. The industry right now has no idea how to hit the next level of requirements. They also don't have the technology yet to hit the 54mpg standard coming up in the future. Also a hefty amount of cash you pay for a new vehicle now is due to the massive amount of R&D needed to meet government standards.

I remember seeing a interview awhile back with Bob Lutz from GM in talking about the new Cruze/Malibu diesel car, states that everyone, including VW are offering diesel cars only because of a deferment from the federal government because no one can meet the next level emissions standards. Basically the government gives them lower standards to hit in 3 year 'permits'. He also stated that GM is entering the market only to be a player, and that there isn't much of any profit on the diesel powered cars. Ford makes a diesel focus that is hot in Europe. They say they would have to manufacture the motors in England, assemble the car in Mexico, then sell at least 100,000 units in the states to break even for the cost of making the motor emissions legal here. So the diesel focus isn't gonna happen.

Remember, even though the world sees us as a dirty, polluting country, or emissions standards on both diesel and gas are the most stringent in the world. That is why Europe is full of diesel cars and none of them are here. It is also the reason for the push for electric over diesel. Easier to meet emissions.

[Sarge]

Yes, but only to a degree. The idea behind emissions and fuel mileage ratings was to constantly improve air quality and vehicle mileage. Born out of the early/mid 70's when cars got 7 mpg and belched smog like crazy. And I agree it was a good thing. But to raise minimum standards past the point of technology is wrong. The reason there is DEF fluid now is because there is no technology to hit the minimum requirements without it. The industry right now has no idea how to hit the next level of requirements. They also don't have the technology yet to hit the 54mpg standard coming up in the future. Also a hefty amount of cash you pay for a new vehicle now is due to the massive amount of R&D needed to meet government standards.

I remember seeing a interview awhile back with Bob Lutz from GM in talking about the new Cruze/Malibu diesel car, states that everyone, including VW are offering diesel cars only because of a deferment from the federal government because no one can meet the next level emissions standards. Basically the government gives them lower standards to hit in 3 year 'permits'. He also stated that GM is entering the market only to be a player, and that there isn't much of any profit on the diesel powered cars. Ford makes a diesel focus that is hot in Europe. They say they would have to manufacture the motors in England, assemble the car in Mexico, then sell at least 100,000 units in the states to break even for the cost of making the motor emissions legal here. So the diesel focus isn't gonna happen.

Remember, even though the world sees us as a dirty, polluting country, or emissions standards on both diesel and gas are the most stringent in the world. That is why Europe is full of diesel cars and none of them are here. It is also the reason for the push for electric over diesel. Easier to meet emissions.

Kenz: I won't dipute what you've written I'm just trying to find out if there is a consensus that technology is not helping to save fuel. If I could convert my 08 to DEF for little cost I would. I have two Oscar Myer hotdogs  on the RV forum that paint doom and gloom of the diesel engine. we are all going to die if we don't do something!

[kenz]

Guess I went a little overboard..... 

Yes the technology has improved mileage greatly. But instead of looking at it in such a way as 'my 1980's econobox got 25mpg, my 2012 econobox should get 60 mpg', One should look at it as 'my 1980's econobox got 25mpg, now my 2012 full sized car gets 30mpg, at 300hp, is a lot cleaner emissions wise, will last 200k if taken care of, and easier and safer to drive'.

One needs to look at the total package technology wise. When I compare my old 1977 Impala to my 2012 Impala its unbelievable. Safer, better handling, cleaner running, and 3 times the mileage. In a nutshell technology in my opinion has saved fuel immensely.

As for doom and gloom over the diesel engine, I don't think so. The new 2013 offerings from the big three are many times cleaner than any of the older designs, a lot cleaner than anything running in Europe, and although not cost feasible yet, running straight bio-fuel or even synthetic fuels would in my opinion run pretty close to zero emissions. Heck, the new VW diesel gets 48mpg all day every day.

[Cumminalong]

As soon as they put DPF's on ocean going vessels, trains and make jet fuel in an ULS version, then I'll give a rats ass what the EPA likes.

One commercial jet, making one trip from the US to Europe uses as much fuel as my truck does in HALF A MILLION MILES and that jet fuel sure as hell is not ULS. Where #2 is generally .05% sulphur by mass, Jet A /A1 is .3% by mass.

So, that one flight to Europe can not only power one truck for approx 500,000 miles, it also pollutes more in those 10 - 13 hours than one truck does in 15,000 hrs of run time.

The EPA can get all over my nuts.

[Sarge]

As soon as they put DPF's on ocean going vessels, trains and make jet fuel in an ULS version, then I'll give a rats ass what the EPA likes.

One commercial jet, making one trip from the US to Europe uses as much fuel as my truck does in HALF A MILLION MILES and that jet fuel sure as hell is not ULS. Where #2 is generally .05% sulphur by mass, Jet A /A1 is .3% by mass.

So, that one flight to Europe can not only power one truck for approx 500,000 miles, it also pollutes more in those 10 - 13 hours than one truck does in 15,000 hrs of run time.

The EPA can get all over my nuts.

 

[kenz]

Yep I agree completely. The amount of fuel burned in automobiles pales in comparison to the amount burned in shipping or air flight. I can only imagine what the fuel usage of our military might be. And I can imagine that the amount of fuel used for things other than motor fuel is mind boggling.

[Jims1dodge]

Oh hell, In one of our Eastport 32's, it has a 184 gallon tank with a 300-350 mile range.

And its considered great economy for a boat...

[GreenF350]

As soon as they put DPF's on ocean going vessels, trains and make jet fuel in an ULS version, then I'll give a rats ass what the EPA likes.

One commercial jet, making one trip from the US to Europe uses as much fuel as my truck does in HALF A MILLION MILES and that jet fuel sure as hell is not ULS. Where #2 is generally .05% sulphur by mass, Jet A /A1 is .3% by mass.

So, that one flight to Europe can not only power one truck for approx 500,000 miles, it also pollutes more in those 10 - 13 hours than one truck does in 15,000 hrs of run time.

The EPA can get all over my nuts.

 

Well said sir. Forget the EPA. I just came back from overseas and while I was there I saw a commercial for the new Mazda CX5 (I think was the model). It is a small/mid size SUV. High 200 hp. Here with the gas engine it is raved about for getting 30 some mpg. The European model with a slightly less hp (but higher torque) diesel gets over 60mpg....IN AN SUV! WTF, and the Diesel Jetta here only gets 45-50mpg? I just don't think any of the benefits outweigh the cost.
-Aaron

[Austin The DieselTech]

Its all about kickbacks.  There has gotta be money changing hands somewhere.