Now, Lexus Fires Up Diesel Owners

What percentage of the fleet in those cities meet today's SULEV? ULEV? LEV?

Older personal vehicles contribute more emissions than what their percent of the fleet implies. How does increasingly stricter emission requirements on the cleanest new cars reduce the emissions of these older ones? The few Euro6 diesels becoming available weren't the major contributer to Paris' smog recently. It was the older, pre-DPF ones still being driven around in scores.

Perhaps the minimum emittance levels need to higher for some areas. Heavy duty, sub-comercial trucks do need to have their levels tightened. Reducing the limits for the cleanest bin a few percentage points at greater equipment cost isn't the answer to the pollution from older vehicles. You need to address them directly.

My numbers were per year for a car driven 10909 miles a year. I know, that is under what most are driven, but 11yr/120,000mi is the point at limits for worn emission equipment and engines take affect. The numbers are also a maximum level that the car can emit in order to meet the 11yr/120k mi limit. The actual levels will be lower because; a) the manufacturer will target a lower value to ensure compliance, and b) I ignored the first 5yr/50k miles when the car's emissions have to be 37% to 40% lower.

 

My two insights are rated ULEV and SULEV respectively. The difference? The first one uses lean-burn (25:1 air:fuel ratio) and generates a lot of NOx. The second has the lean-burn turned off and less NOx (also lower MPG). California established these two levels to reduce smog.

The WHO also says we should not be higher than BMI==25 (or 23 per Japan's HO) but you don't appear to be listening to their advice. Bottom Line: A modern EPA Tier 2 or Euro 6 diesel is actually cleaner (thanks to NOx/soot neutralization) than the original Prius sedan or 2002 Civic hybrid. It's also cleaner than the new Direct Injection gasoline engines (which have no soot filters).

For me the ideal diesel would be a 1.2 liter Lupo or Polo or A2 married to a Prius-style hybrid drive.
- 90mpg on the highway (EU rating)
- and almost as good in the urban cycle
The cost would be around $28000 but I'd still buy it. I like getting very high numbers from my cars & the GREET analysis shows a diesel-electric is the most efficient form of vehicle (from well-to-wheel).

 

The U.S. Constitution forbids ex post facto laws (as do nearly-all the Member State constitutions). You cannot pass a law forcing owners of older cars & trucks to spend $1000 or more upgrading their TLEV-I or LEV-I vehicles to meet the new, stricter LEV-II minimum. (Note: One of those vehicles would be the original Prius Sedan which was only LEV-I qualified in the 49 non-california states.) Such a law would not only place a huge burden on working citizens, but would also be nullified by the State supreme courts or the US court.

 

The old cars cannot today be deemed illegal, but we sure could legislate a pollution tax.

 

EPA-mandated yearly "sniff" tests do that...or, they were SUPPOSED to do that (wink,wink).

But, even these/those only apply to model year 1972 and later vehicles!

 

You misrepresent ex post facto. There is no constitutional prohibition on forcing owners to upgrade before future use. It only prevents retroactively creating or increasing penalties for past use.

They sure can, if they so legislate. A couple of my cars had to start undergoing emission tests that didn't exist when I bought them. Some old buildings (nursing homes, certain hotels and apartments) have been forced to install fire sprinklers as a condition of continued operation. Many old buildings had to install external fire escape ladders under the same principle.

 

Wonder what BMW/Merc/Audi could say about Lexus and their holy-grail fuel cell.....

1. Observe low-fuel warning light.
2. Search for fuel cell... oh, drive to LA.
3. Search for fuel cell... oh, you need to drive to LA.
4. Ask everyone where to find fuel cell. Answer, what is a fuel cell?
5. Fuel up in LA after driving 8 hours from San Francisco.
6. Drop jaw over the time spent just refueling.
7. Waste a full tank driving back to San Francisco.
8. Call a tow-truck to haul back to LA.
9. Put up For Sale sign.

 

I feel like I'm reading Rush Limbaugh (or Ed Schultz): Two guys who speak a lot but rarely understand WHY things are the way they are (I remember when hybrids first came out, he said they can't go any faster than 60... completely wrong... like your post).

LEV dates back to the 1980s, because EPA standards were too lenient. California had a major smog problem with younger & older people barely able to breathe, so California instituted LEV which (at the time) was the cleanest standard in the world. Later when LEV was proven not good enough (the smog still existed) California had to invent the new category of "ultra-low". You say it's stupid but who cares about ___ing lexicon when your citizens are plagued with sickness? I think it was highly intelligent that a state acted to make its cars the cleanest-running in the world.

California also created the ZEV standard in the 90s to encourage development of zero emission vehicles. Member States of this union have that power. When the federal government drops the ball, then the states can enact their own laws in order to answer the grievances of their citizens (1st, 9th and 10th amendments). As for Partial ZEV, it's really the result of a federal court ruling. GM, Toyota, etc filed a lawsuit to eliminate the ZEV/electric car mandate. After a few years of battle, the disputing parties agreed to modify the ZEV standard to "Partial ZEV" which allowed carmakers to get 1/10th credit towards the electric car mandate. It's the messy result of a messy lawsuit.

Summary: The EPA emissions standards of the 70s, 80s, and 90s were weak & too dirty. California invented new terms (LEV, ULEV, ZEV) in order to clean-up their air. Standards that were far stricter than the EPA's standards. They really had no choice. They had to solve the smog problem.

 

Well perhaps, but I still don't think it would hold up in the courts. Imagine if the Congress or EPA suddenly declared "On January 1 2015, all cars must pass LEV-II standards as a bare minimum." --- In my case it would outlaw the use of my 2006 Beetle (TLEV), my 2003 Civic Hybrid (LEV-I), and my 1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse (TLEV). It would outlaw the use of my mom's 1987 Plymouth (only 30,000 miles on it), my dad's 1995 Chevy truck, and my brother's 2005 Jeep (LEV-I). Plus all those antique cars.

No more going to Bob's Big Boy on Fridays to see the classic cars, because they would be banned from use. It would also outlaw the use of anybody driving 2003 or older Priuses. The California ones would be okay, but the 49 state versions are only LEV-I qualified. Outlawing the use of a person's property violates the "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" clause. Plus it would make the Congess/EPA look like supreme assholes to effectively outlaw all cars/trucks older than 10 or 15 years of age.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Many people think "liberty" and "rights" and "limited government" are outdated concepts & the citizens should be ordered about like brainless cattle. Go here. Do this. Junk your 1-to-2 decade old car because it fails the new LEV-II standard.

The corporations of course would love the idea. They get to build whole new cars to replace the ones the Congress or EPA outlawed. Imagine the impact on the environment of all those still-working cars being junked & replaced with new ones (just because they don't meet the new LEV-II or upcoming 2016 LEV-III standard.)

 

The 328d technically meets SULEV emission requirements per CARB certification results...


2014 328d (Certified Emissions (FTP @ 120,000 miles) vs. SULEV Standard)
(Grams/Mile)

Emission.........................Cert....................SULEV Standard

NMHC……......................0.008.....................0.010 (meets)
CO...................................0.1.........................1.0 (meets)
NOx.................................0.01.......................0.02 (meets)
NOx Hwy........................0.01.......................0.03 (meets)
PM…................................0.001.....................0.01 (meets)
NMHC+NOx (US06)…..0.12......................0.14 (meets)
NMHC+NOx (SC03).....0.01.......................0.20 (meets)
CO (US06)......................0.02.......................8.0 (meets)
CO (SC03)......................0.02.......................2.7 (meets)


The 328d is "only" certified ULEV, but that's only because BMW chose to certify it as such for reasons only known to BMW. The recently-announced 2015 X3 28d also technically meets SULEV requirements but is also only certified ULEV.

 

Is this table correct ? The mentioned SULEV "NMHC+NOx (SC03) of 0.2 is so much higher than just adding the NMHC and NOx = 0.01+0.02 = 0.03

Second, I think you reported the Bin 2 Tier 5 standard, not the SULEV (Tier 3) level. If I am reading this stuff correctly, the 328d does not come close to SULEV based on (NMHC+NOx). From 2015, LEV III has two SULEV categories based on combined (NMHC+NOx). The easier SULEV30 requires no more than 30 mg/mile of combined (NMHC+NOx) on the FTP cycle, but I am not sure if the US06 is used and what the emissions thresholds are.

 

In isn't done because it is political suicide, and wouldn't hold up on the next Election Day.

It isn't inherently unconstitutional.

 

Not understanding your objection. Since I don't listen to Rush or Ed Schultz, I am assuming you are trying to insult me, but tell me what you object to in my post?

Umm ok. Why label the vehicles with the most pollutants as low emission. Were the 80s a time where it was a good idea to write oxymorons into the law. I prefer regulations that are understandable. I don't really understand why a longer warranty or a smaller gas tank reduces pollution. Its 2014. We have vehicle pollution testing and telematics. If a 10 year old prius pollutes more than one with a new battery who f*ing cares, if it pollutes a lot less than the average new car. I mean if I have an ultra low emissions car isn't that clean enough, the name seems to say so. Only 22% of new light vehicles selling california pollute worse than ultra low emissions, but I would hardly understand that from the name.

Proposals for lev III that carb has are 6 bins instead of 3, and combining nmog and nox = nmog+nox so that its a lower amount but less costly for manufacturers. So we will get 3 other strange names like ulev50. Not a problem if they make it understandable to the public buying the cars, but shouldn't they at least make it clear that low emissions pollute the most, and ultra low emissions vehicles sold today can pollute more than the average new vehicle?

They were actually given the power from the clean air act, because california had by far the most polluted air in the nation. It is the only state so singled out. After all these years they have made good progress, but still have the most polluted air of any state in the nation. ARB does not derive power from any of the amendments in the bill of rights. I would be more of a fan of zev if it actually had a chance to make the air in california less polluted.

excuses for funky names meant to mislead and ofuscate.

I don't think the names really helped clean the air, now do you? California is consistantly out of attainments of the EPA standards. It has special problems. They are not helped when they ofuscate the language or make it hard to understand the regulations. There doesn't need to be a term for what california calls low emissions. Every light vehicle sold in the state is low emissions. Low emissions means it pollutes much more than the aveage new car in the counry.

Here is a list of the non-attainment areas
Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants | Green Book | US EPA
california has 18. Next highest is montana with 12. For reference texas has 3.

 

Not sure if this is your point, but I'm using LEV II SULEV standards, not LEV III or Tier 3. The SULEV (LEV II) standards are available at Emission Standards: USA: Cars and Light-Duty Trucks—California and the supplemental FTP (SFTP - US06 and SC03) standards are available at Emission Standards: USA: Cars and Light-Duty Trucks—Tier 2 if you want to verify.

LEV II and Tier 2 standards are similar but not identical. Tier 2 has 8 certification "bins", while LEV II has only 3 certification categories (LEV, ULEV, SULEV). Tier 3 and LEV III are new standards which will be phased in by 2017.

 

From Wxman for the 328d:
Emission.........................Cert.......................Standard

NMHC……......................0.008.....................0.010 (meets)
CO...................................0.1.........................1.0 (meets)
NOx.................................0.01.......................0.02 (meets)
NOx Hwy........................0.01.......................0.03 (meets)
PM…................................0.001.....................0.01 (meets)
NMHC+NOx (US06)…..0.12......................0.14 (meets)
NMHC+NOx (SC03).....0.01.......................0.20 (meets)
CO (US06)......................0.02.......................8.0 (meets)
CO (SC03)......................0.02.......................2.7 (meets)

And a Prius Vagon, data from the EPA


I *think* this data is the FTP cycle, but the differences remain huge. The 'clean' diesel emits 13.3 times more (NMHC+NOx) in its OS06 cycle. Obviously not a strict comparison; I'll have to track down the Prius US06 emissions profile.

Addendum: Found it. The US06 Prius Vagon combined (NMHC+NOx) is 11 mg/mile

 

The FTP, US06, and SC03 are the three test duty cycles that EPA/CARB uses to certify vehicles. The FTP is the "base" test cycle, supposed to simulate urban stop-and-go driving. The US06 test cycle is a test cycle which supposedly simulates "aggressive" driving. The SC03 test cycle is essentially the same at the FTP test cycle, except that it simulates air conditioning use and does not include the cold-start phase of the FTP. This is the reason the standards (e.g., FTP NMHC+ NOx and the US06 NMHC+ NOx standards) are dissimilar.

My point was not to compare the certified emissions of the Prius or any other SULEV/PZEV vehicle, only to note that the 328d technically meets SULEV based on the certified emissions.

 

I know; my point is that 'clean' diesel remains an oxymoron compared to a Prius.

I cannot find combined (NMHC+NOx) for LEV II SULEV certification. Link ? In any case, the 328d does not come close to SULEV cert by LEV III, at least in part due to the combined (NMHC+NOx) on the US-06 cycle. I haven't looked to see where else it fails.

This is an informative link
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/leviii/meetings/030210/lev_iii_discussion_paper_2-10.pdf
discussing LEV III. I think the final regs are close if not exactly the same as proposed except where uncertainty is noted. SFT2 requires the US06 cycle to be as strict as the FTP cycle.

 

The irony is there are 'diesel advocates' who think it is fun to show off how they can make a big noise and cloud of black smoke. The last one I saw was a pickup with lifted suspension and chromed pipes. The 'kid' thought to impress someone, certainly not me, by blasting out a huge cloud of soot in rush hour traffic. Instead, all he did was re-enforce the diesel-is-a-bully, stereotype. In effect, he unsold diesel to more people than he or his sales critter could imagine. Folks who won't even look at a diesel because of that childish, prick, trick.

Bob Wilson

 

I culled the 328d out of a database of all vehicles courtesy of the EPA, and placed them in a Google Doc:

328d Emissions

 

Did you expect him to go home to fart ?