Are the Days of Diesel numbered?

[embee]

As said there's been a huge amount of journalistic misunderstanding demonstrated.


I started work in the auto industry in 1979, and worked for manufacturers whose biggest market has always been the USA. They have always effectively led the car emission standards, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for the 49 states, and CARB (Californian Air Resources Board). California has always had peculiar issues, primarily due to geography and climate in Los Angeles for example.


Right from the star we were instructed to avoid "Defeat Device" territory, it was drilled into us. I suspect VW has been victim of a new generation of engineers who think they're better than everyone else. Why they thought they could get away with it is beyond me, but the worst aspect is the willingness to go that route, it's simply unethical.


The term Defeat Device is a legal term, it doesn't mean a stand-alone device or "special" software as described by the press, it means any method or means by which the vehicle departs significantly from the "spirit" of the emission standards, any deliberate or known characteristic of the system which may result in the emissions being substantially higher than necessary outside the certification test cycle. The Defeat Device clause has been in force ever since I've been involved in the business, it's nothing new, and it was there specifically because it was recognised that manufacturers could potentially do such things.


The press have described VW as "cheating the emission tests". No they haven't, the cars pass the emission tests. What they've done is ignore the Defeat Device clause and mapped the cars in a way that they grossly exceed the spirit of the regulations.


We've seen folk doing tests driving cars outside of the emission cert cycle and saying NOx levels are so many times the standard. Well yes, it can be, that's why the Cert test is used to give a standardised test. It's like saying a car doing 40mph is exceeding a 30mph speed limit, well duh, yes it is, but drive the car at 30mph and it complies. The cert tests are intended to demonstrate that the emissions are controlled adequately, not that under all conditions the car will meet the emission rate in gm/km as specified in the test, that is just for the test.


There is definitely an issue with the Cert cycles not being adequately representative of real world, and in-use compliance and testing for Defeat Device features has probably been too lenient.


The big problem in cities today is that so many vehicles are of old technology, cars last so much longer these days, the fleet average age must be something like 10yrs now, so it takes a long time for new standards to work through and show any real world effect.


Politicians have always been slow in understanding the issues, and most simply don't understand the technical aspects of the subject. The industry reps will usually be able to hoodwink them too easily, politicians will never like to admit that they don't understand so they'll go along with what the "experts" tell them, and then they fully understand the subject, yes?


Diesel cars still have a future. The politicians thought they knew best, but didn't. They didn't understand what they were doing.

[Viney]

Phew I don't have to swap my BMW 123D in for a Kia Piccanto. Thanks Embee

Bikes even have a 'dip' on their map. I remember watching my bike several times on the dyno and with standard can etc, a definitive dip in the rpm at around 4k. I think that this was more for noise emissions than anything else

[dizzyblonde]

Originally Posted by Bibio

last week the Diesel was 2p a ltr cheaper than the petrol at my local.

Diesel has been a few pence cheaper than petrol for quite some weeks now, and here is the reason why....


*puts on tin hat*


They knew exactly what would happen months ago with VW, and knew the sale of diesel cars would plummet considerably, as well as them having to remove cars from sale until they sorted out the illegal issues. What better way of pulling the wool over the public eye by firstly reducing the cost of diesel, so any Joe looking to buy a new car thinks, 'hey diesel is cheap and economical too', lots of cars bought whilst diesel is going cheap at the pumps....ooops drop big clanger all of a sudden by magical surprise, oh well, at least we got rid, and made lots of money before theres a big hooo haaa. Then it will all get hopefully swept under the carpet by swearing VW et al will be very very good in future and all their cars pass emissions tests. Diesel goes back up slowly without anyone battering an eyelid


The End.
Did I tell you I love my PETROL Nissan Note in Blue Rinse colour?

[Wideboy]

The price of wholesale diesel dropped globally as new refineries opened in Saudi Arabia, the price of a barrel of oil plummeted, Iranian oil entered the market and not to mention over the passed few years refineries have been greatly increasing their capacity to produce diesel and at cheaper costs, yet failed to pass on the cost reductions to the consumer. Something that only came about because of organisations protesting for pump prices to reflect wholesale price drops.

I couldn't get a rats behind if they doubled the tax on my 5 series, goes like **** off a shovel and still returns 55 mpg at 90mph. If I don't use the indicators I get an extra 5mpg and it ****es people off, win win situation.

[L3nny]

Yep!

[ophic]

Originally Posted by Viney

Bikes even have a 'dip' on their map.

Pretty sure the Suzuki PAIR valve is primarily an emission test cheat.

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by ophic

Pretty sure the Suzuki PAIR valve is primarily an emission test cheat.

This and viney's point are different to the VW case. These are permanent devices on all the time and clear to the emissions bodies of all countries. Yes they are there to meet noise / pollutant emissions standards, but are part of the bikes systems being tested. VW have a Defeat Device (see Embee's post for definition) fitted to some of their diesels so they meet emissions when tested, but do not operate in 'normal driving' - very different.

I have heard, but perhaps EmBee will be able to clarify/correct, but most European emissions standards reflect emissions per mile, whereas US standards as based on emissions per unit of fuel burnt. So the VAG diesels, and presumably a number of other manufacturers, with the more efficient diesel engines struggle more than the ridiculous 7l cummins diesels because they are simple not burning enough fuel to cover the rest of their emissions.

I found out about this 3rd hand from my brother who was buying a VW golf in the States about 5 years ago. Having had diesels here he basically wanted the same over there only to be told the above and that they don't sell the GT TDI (or GTD as they have become) in the US and to get the GTI instead.

[NTECUK]

There's ways aplenty to reduce NOx .
Next month's headlines
"Diesels go from strength to strength".''

"..NOx-trap technology, containing platinum-rhodium catalyst and originally developed for gasoline direct injection (GDI) applications, is being considered for diesel engines (5). The low sulfur tolerance and the need for a rich spike to regenerate the trap has always been a drawback, but some promising materials are now emerging. A NOx-trap incorporated into a particle filter seems to offer a solution as the trap removes the particles generated during the rich spike. Ultra low sulfur fuels are essential for this technology (, and oil companies are working towards a World standard for diesel fuel."....

[embee]

Originally Posted by ClunkintheUK

I have heard, but perhaps EmBee will be able to clarify/correct, but most European emissions standards reflect emissions per mile, whereas US standards as based on emissions per unit of fuel burnt......................

It's complicated.


I think what you're referring to is possibly a confusion between the emission certification testing and standards for regulated pollutants (basically NOx, CO, and various hydrocarbons, non-methane organic gas NMOG, total hydrocarbons THC, fomaldehyde etc), and the fuel economy ratings (i.e. CO2), or it might be a reference to static tailpipe check like our MOT tests where it is a concentration (parts per million ppm or % depending on the pollutant).


Static tailpipe tests only really indicate whether emission control systems are functioning or not, it is a very crude test, it won't tell you whether a vehicle would satisfy test cycle emissions standards, but of course it doesn't need any sort of rolling road facility.


Regulated pollutants are toxic stuff, and are given in values of mass/distance over the specified test cycle, in the US they still use miles so it's gm/mi (they do use grammes), in the EC it's in gm/km, that's per km of the test cycle. Those standards apply to the test cycle, not to any other driving condition.


CO2 is just fuel economy by another name, and as such is NOT a regulated pollutant, it is a taxation tool, though it is being considered whether a maximum should be applied.


The US cert standards are very complex, as a taster read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...sion_standards and http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/standards/l...uty/ld-cff.htm


EEC standards are a little more straightforward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...sion_standards