Bring this to the US

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

California in the past had banned all diesel cars regardless of their emissions. The only reason they are selling them now is the EPA under the Bush admin refused to approve their new regs for gas powered cars unless they they set no more stringent standards for diesels. I doubt this administration will prevent ludicrous zealots from setting arbitrary and ridiculous rules.

OK, so nothing firm, just speculation ATM? I recall the banning of diesels in CA, which triggered the need for DPFs and DEF, etc. Auto/engine manufacturers are already looking at the next gen diesels, which (combined with better quality diesel fuel) can eliminate the after-treatments. I think the biggest challenge for diesels is not the EPA but rather the improved efficiency of the gasoline engine (combined with electric) vs the greater cost of the Diesel engine.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

OK, so nothing firm, just speculation ATM? I recall the banning of diesels in CA, which triggered the need for DPFs and DEF, etc. Auto/engine manufacturers are already looking at the next gen diesels, which (combined with better quality diesel fuel) can eliminate the after-treatments. I think the biggest challenge for diesels is not the EPA but rather the improved efficiency of the gasoline engine (combined with electric) vs the greater cost of the Diesel engine.

DPF's started use in California in 1985 on passenger cars. Even after this introduction they banned all diesel cars regardless of how clean they were. This is why car companies are so cautious about bringing new diesels to the market in the US.

[Miller88]

Remember - lean burn Civic is a gross polluter as is a 50+MPG TDI. A V10 excursion is perfectly fine for the environment, though.

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by Miller88

Remember - lean burn Civic is a gross polluter as is a 50+MPG TDI. A V10 excursion is perfectly fine for the environment, though.

Just because an engine is smaller or burns less fuel does not necessarily mean that it burns cleaner than a larger engine.

As well, there is a huge difference in number of Excursions vs Civics. Honda typically sells more Civics in a month than Ford sells Excursions in a year (so more than 12x Civics vs Excursions). Selling even just 5x lean burn Civics which emit the same emissions as an Excursion could give us as much as 10x the CO and 25x the NOx emissions as we have today... that would not be good!

[cptsideways]

Quite a lot of emissions figures are % based which very much skews the real figures.

[pete c]

what ^^^^ said.

Regulations based solely on % are moronic. But, then again, a pretty fair percentage of regulations in general are moronic. It is all about being in control and shaping rules to favor the highest bidder.

[pete c]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

Just because an engine is smaller or burns less fuel does not necessarily mean that it burns cleaner than a larger engine.

As well, there is a huge difference in number of Excursions vs Civics. Honda typically sells more Civics in a month than Ford sells Excursions in a year (so more than 12x Civics vs Excursions). Selling even just 5x lean burn Civics which emit the same emissions as an Excursion could give us as much as 10x the CO and 25x the NOx emissions as we have today... that would not be good!

This analogy is ridiculous. You need to look at how much work is being done for a given amount of emissions. In general, the work done by the excursion is the same as that done by the civic (hauling around a butt or two). The % of pollutants in the exhaust mean nothing, once they leave the tailpipe. It is all about the total quantity of pollutants. So, when the excursion dumps 5X the exhaust into the air as the civic, so what if its pollutants are 1/2 as concentrated.

It is simple math. Trouble is, Big Auto makes money selling Excursions and Escalades and the more help they get keeping alternative vehicles off the road, the better for them. These emission rules along with safety regs keeps the little guys from having a chance to market alternative stuff.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by cptsideways

Quite a lot of emissions figures are % based which very much skews the real figures.

But certification NOx, CO, HC are based on emissions per mile, not exhaust gas %, and indeed the Civic HX is a gross polluter by that measure.

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by cptsideways

Quite a lot of emissions figures are % based which very much skews the real figures.

Not sure what "quite a lot" means, but federal emissions are grams/mile for every measure (CO, NOx, HC), as noted here: Light-Duty Vehicles and Trucks and Motorcycles | Emission Standards Reference Guide | US EPA.

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by pete c

This analogy is ridiculous. You need to look at how much work is being done for a given amount of emissions. In general, the work done by the excursion is the same as that done by the civic (hauling around a butt or two). The % of pollutants in the exhaust mean nothing, once they leave the tailpipe. It is all about the total quantity of pollutants. So, when the excursion dumps 5X the exhaust into the air as the civic, so what if its pollutants are 1/2 as concentrated.

It is simple math. Trouble is, Big Auto makes money selling Excursions and Escalades and the more help they get keeping alternative vehicles off the road, the better for them. These emission rules along with safety regs keeps the little guys from having a chance to market alternative stuff.

Yes, I agree that Excursions are sometimes used simply to carry a single person or two (though I don't know how to determine what % of time all existing Excursions are used for moving people only) and I agree that in such a case the emissions are much worse per-person than a Civic... no argument with that.

However, Excursions are also used for what they were designed to be used for, which is to haul huge travel trailers, large boats, etc. In that case, the amount of work that the Excursion does is much greater than what a Civic ever could do. We can argue that trailers so large that they require an 8500lb+ GVWR tow vehicle should only be used by commercial users, but that's besides the point (not that we're on the point of this thread anyway... heh).

I also agree that it is all about the total quantity of pollutants, which is why I pointed out that there are more than 12x Civics sold compared to Excursions. Generally, the 8500lb+ GVWR vehicles are relatively low volume (~16,000 Excursions in 2005). The huge volumes (and big money-makers for the automakers) are the light duty trucks, like the F150 (nearly a million sold in 2005 vs ~300,000 Civics) and the Escalade... Fortunately, the emissions are a bit more restrictive for these vs the Excursion. Not quite as restrictive as the Civic, so focus your ire on those rather than the Excursion.

For model year 2019, every vehicle that has a GVWR under 8500lbs will have to meet the same g/mi emissions... will be interesting to see what happens with the bigger light duty trucks then...