Give americans what they want, never mind what makes sense

I'm still waiting for you to give me an example of a "loophole vehicle" that puts out "60-70" times the pollution that my 2003 Jetta TDI does. You continue to claim that light-duty diesels are so much cleaner than these "loophole" vehicles but so far haven't backed an of those claims up with any facts.

You also have failed to tell us what percentage of the vehicle fleet are made up of these loophole vehicles. Your basic claim is that these "loophole" vehicles are so dirty that if we illuminate their sales we can replace a large percentage of the light duty fleet with diesels rolled back to 2000 emission spec and still have cleaner air. That is a huge claim to make without any proof.

Let's see the math that backs up your claims.

 

closed minds make very poor sponges

You can't even quote the facts I gave you the way I gave them to you ..........So Why should I bother to give you any more ????????

You don't believe me , you prove that what I've given you is wrong .........I've given you plenty to start with if you really want to know the facts , which from your statements don't really seem to matter .

Not my job to do research for you . :rockon: if you think you already know all you need to know .................

But if you don't you can find out how lax the heavy vehicle loophole rules really have been over the last 26 years & how stringent light duty diesel emissions have been in the US over the last 13 years if you wish . But after a couple of conversations with you I really don't care if you do or don't . So peace ......

I stand behind what I've written , if you want cleaner air go after loophole SUVs & pickups that fill the roads today in 65-75 % of what is on US roads today . You can do your own mental survey next time your in traffic , just look around and do the math .

Here's a fact for you ;

The average full size V8 gasoline powered loophole SUV or Pickup achieves single digit to mid 10s mpgs real world . These vehicles put out tons of ultra fine PMs ( that lead directly to respitory issues & to brown clouds hanging over cities ) and tons of CO & CO2 . A side effect of loophole pollution is ozone at ground level from the devices used to treat their exhaust and from filling gasoline powered vehicles . Using/wasting 5-7 times or more oil to be driven belches out many more pollutants than a car with a light duty diesel driving it .

A 96-03 Jetta TDI w/5 spd man trans achieves high 40s to mid 50s mpgs over the same routes . PMs that come out fall the round in short order , CO & CO2 emissions are low off the scale compared to the above . And NOx compounds that come out which are regulated help to disperse ozone clouds .

04-06 are even cleaner on all respects ....but pay a slight price on overall mpgs .

Before the energy crunch last year the prominence of pollution spewing loophole vehicles on US roads had lead to the worst pollution across the US in many cities sense the 70s , they peaked in numbers of the US fleet in ~2003 . Since oil prices spiked last year the miles traveled in these oil wasting pollution spewing beasts has dropped helping reduce pollution issues in many places . I drove in several cities across the US last year at the peak of oil prices and the fewer numbers of oil wasting loophole was impossible to miss . These facts speak for themselves .

Light duty diesels that haven't been sold here for the most part over the last 24-25 years from 0-<3 % of total US fleet over this time aren't the best place to look for clean air ......from over regulations of their emissions rules .

 

False. A car I've sometimes driven over in the EU is the Toyota Yaris. You can get one with a variety of diesel and gasoline engines.

Toyota New Cars, Scrappage Scheme, Used Cars, Test Drive

A Yaris with the 1.33 litre petrol motor, stick shift, has an average fuel economy rating of 5.1 litres per 100 km, or 55 miles per Imperial gallon.

The same car with the 1.4 D4D diesel and stick shift is rated 4.1 litre per 100 km, or 68 miles per Imperial gallon. An impressive 24% higher. Not twice as high. Care to back up with facts, the car model that gets twice the fuel economy running a diesel?

Oh, and let's play fair by being realistic. If a car has a variety of performance petrol motors, say V6 and V8, don't compare that to a base 4 cylinder diesel

No, you suggested tinkering with LD emissions, a move I fully reject. There are folks who want to remove hd engine emissions, a move I also fully reject

Care to cite sources? Let's try this one:

Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements | Federal Register Environmental Documents | USEPA

You have to scroll quite far down to come across the interim Bin table standards. Where is this glaring loophole you speak of? Especially compared to 1980 car specs?

See above

No, see above.

For further comparison to the rapidly tightening EU specs, look at this article:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/dieseldilemma_fullreport.pdf

The table on document page 16.

I agree, the fuel economy testing is mostly a fantasy, and any attempt to regulate them a double fantasy, eg an acid trip. Let the price of fuel determine what vehicle is sold. No unfair tax advantages for diesel fuel, like the Europeans did until recently

Pretty clean compared to what?

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/documents/420f03022.pdf

While the Europeans are tightening LDV diesel emissions standards, and the EPA is doing away with exemptions for diesel vs gasoline, you want to turn that back

I furthermore support stringent gasoline motor PM standards.

Reread the comments I posted above

Of course, you have a clue. I guess thats why I'm the engineer and you work on motors

The Europeans no longer agree with that, and are tightening the loopholes for LDV diesel engines.

I posted the relavent data above. We appear to have a contradiction

Still waiting for you to cite verifiable sources, not just out-the-butt claims.

Oh, I had the tact not to mention dioxin emissions from diesel engines

 

Re: closed minds make very poor sponges

You haven't given any facts, you have given your opinion unsupported by any facts. Lay it on me. Show me a EPA or CARB certification of a 2003 TDI and then a certification of a "loophole vehicle" with 70 times the pollution. You won't do it because you can't.


Here are CARB emission certifications for:

• 2003 Jetta TDI: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2003/volkswagen_pc_a0070228_1d9_1_diesel.pdf
• 2009 Jetta 2.5L: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2009/volkswagen_pc_a0070273_2d5_pz.pdf
• 2009 Chevy Suburban 1500 (6.0L Gas): http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2009/gm_ldt_a0061555_6d0_l2.pdf
• 2009 Chevy 3500 (6.0L Gas): http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2009/gm_mdev_a0061575r2_6d0_0d70-0d01.pdf
• 2009 Chevy 3500 (6.6L Diesel): http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2009/gm_mdev_a0061579_6d6_1d3-0d01_diesel.pdf

------------ TDI ------ 2.5L ------ 6.0L (LDV) --- 6.0L (MDV) ----- 6.6L
HC -------- 0.02 ---- 0.004 -------- 0.042 ------------ 0.08 --------- 0.04
CO -------- 0.20 ---- 0.300 -------- 0.900 ------------ 6.80 --------- 0.40
NOx ------ 0.70 ---- 0.000 -------- 0.020 ------------ 0.53 --------- 1.13
PM ------- 0.05 ------ N/A ---------- N/A ------------- N/A -------- 0.000
Total ----- 0.97 ----- 0.304 ------- 0.962 ------------- 7.41 -------- 1.54

A couple of things are readily obvious:

• You are off by a factor of 10 on how much dirtier a MDV gasoline engine is than a 2003 TDI
• A 2003 TDI puts out 3 times more pollution than the 2009 2.5L gas engine
• A 2003 TDI puts out the same amount of pollution as a 6.0L Suburban
• Diesel MDV's put out less total pollution but twice the amount of smog forming emissions as gasoline MDV's
• Diesel MDV's aren't blowing a cloud of black smoke because they have DPF's that you want removed

The items listed above are examples of facts supported by documentation. When you start referencing facts to support your opinions people might take you a little more seriously.

 

Your reading things into what I said I didn't

The argument for smaller displacement options holds no water here as none are sold here . On US roads today big displacement V6 & V8 engines make up the majority of what people drive . So what should they be compared to ?? The current smaller diesel offerings in Europe today are as much as twice as efficient as these offerings . The minute car makers start to sell smaller gas engines then we get back to this one .

And I don't disagree that 1.0-1.5 L gas engine powered with a manual trans would be a great option if they were sold here . I've driven both 1.0 & 1.3 L Toyota's in Asia and down under . I think a small displacement engine coupled to a manual trans makes much sense than a hybrid drivetran when costs & saving are considered . Also doesn't help that Americans are addicted to 0-60 number , even here in Prius land that seems to matter . Give me a small car with either a low displacement gas or diesel and I'd be ok with that for the most part . But I'd prefer the diesel option as it would be able to achieve at least 30-40 % better over all mpgs .

But in the US where most don't even have a clue how to row their own gears we don't have this option . The smallest engine offered by Toyota or anyone for that matter today in the US is a 1.8 or 2.0 L . 2.4 L or higher 4s with more 3.0L or higher V6s with plenty of loophole vehicles being pushed along by 4.5 L & bigger V8s today here . There was one 1.5 L which I believe they no longer offer . I'm all for cars being sold with smaller gas & diesel engines under the hood .

The Yaris in the US doesn't come with that 1.3 L engine , be nice if it was an option . It only comes with a much bigger more wasteful engine and an automatic trans mainly .

Compare what we actually get here and that doubling of mpgs becomes easily seen . Not alot automatics anywhere else in the world where oil has been expensive for decades now . Many of the most fuel efficient options sold around the world aren't even offered with an automatic which really hurts what is sold here . It just seems stupid to me to go to a smaller more fuel efficient model then stick a larger engine in with an automatic trans . The rest of the world seems to agree , Only in America I guess ........

And as I said we should adopt EU standards which means at some point going to todays more stringent standard again when it stops blocking us from an array of options offered over there today .

I'm also an engineer and a mechanic that has been working on all sorts of engines for some 37 years at this point . But you still seemed to miss the point on the fact that heavy duty loophole diesels have squat to do with light duty diesels . Light duty diesels are built for maximum mpgs and loophole diesels are built to pull a trailer & boat , ect............... . See the difference .............

On the loophole of emissions , the worst years were when these monsters were sold in the highest numbers in the early 00's. We will be stuck with this junk on our roads for the next 10 years at least .

Todays down turn and the coming more stringent regs on loophole vehicles and dieing off of the big three is helping to solve this problem today but these things will not disappear overnight . If oil spikes back up to $150 a barrel this will happen sooner than later , that would be a good thing . And older loophole vehicles could be forced off the road sooner than later by a real energy policy if we had one . That is what should be concentrated on .

Find auto standards for ~1980 on larger gasoline powered cars then compare it to the standards that were in effect in the early 00's on loophole vehicles and they match up pretty close . The loophole rules were written in 1982 and that is the standard they used .


Again I'm not against at some point equalizing light duty diesel & gas engine emissions , but not today . In as little as 5 years it will much more practical than it is today . We should sync our standards up with the EU standard as I have suggested . I still see nothing gained from our over regulated emissions today on cars that haven't been sold here since 1986 by most .

 

Re: closed minds make very poor sponges

Again, what do you consider a "loophole vehicle"? It is all trucks, SUV's and vans or just medium duty vehicles with a MGVW over 8,500 pounds?

 

Your reading things into what I said I didn't

The argument for smaller displacement options holds no water here as none are sold here . With larger displacement V6s & V8s making up the majority of what is on the road today , what should I compare diesel mpgs to ??? How about when some of these gasoline powered options are actually sold here , not likely ever we can use them to compare to .

And I don't disagree that they would be a great option if they were sold here . I've driven 1.0 -1.3 L engine & manual trans Toyota's in Asia and down under , low to mid 40s mpgUS were easy to achieve . I think a small displacement engine couple to a manual trans makes much sense than a hybrid drivetran when costs & saving are considered . But in the US where 0-60 matters more than 0-1,000 miles on a tank the Prius is a better fit . But at a cost compared to what we could have . A trip to Toyota NZ web site has small gas & diesel options along with the Prius at a much higher cost . It would be nice to see how well the Prius would sell here if it had to go head to head with smaller displacement gas & diesel optioned car @ 1/3-1/2 the price . I'm betting not so good ............

In the US where most don't have a clue how to row their own gears we don't have this option . Here where Americans care next to nothing about fuel efficiency only concentrating on fast take off speeds the smallest engine offered by Toyota or anyone today in the US ~1.8 L . There was the 1.5 L which I believe they no longer offer . I'm all for cars being sold with smaller gas & diesel engines under the hood , the more tha marrier .

The Yaris in the US doesn't come with that 1.3 L engine be nice if it did , I believe it's engine is a 1.8 or 2.0 today . With the much bigger more wasteful engine and an automatic trans mainly it's what should be compared to if your going to compare mpgs .

Not a lot automatics anywhere else in the world where oil has been expensive for decades now . And most of the most efficient options are manual only and have long 0-62 times not likely to ever see any of these here .

And as I said we should adopt EU standards which means at some point going to todays more stringent standard again when it stops blocking us from an array of options offered over there today .

I'm also an engineer and a mechanic that has been working on all sorts of engines for some 37 years at this point . But you still seemed to miss the point on the fact that heavy duty loophole diesels have squat to do with light duty diesels . Light duty diesels are built for maximum mpgs and loophole diesels are built to pull a trailer & boat , ect............... . See the difference .............

On the loophole of emissions , the worst years were when these monsters were sold in the highest numbers . Again I'm not against at some point equalizing diesel & gas engine emissions , but not today . In as little as 5 years it will much more practical than it is today .

When the heavy industrial vehicle loophole was created in 1982 it used ~1980 pollution controls levels as a template . If you compare loophole specs before they finally started to reigned in(~2007 or so) to ~1980 gas engine car they line up pretty close .

And Loophole vehicles are all vehicles that are exempt from car/passenger vehicle rules , CAFE ( GGT ) & emissions . Medium duty vehicles are passenger vehicles that are exempt from car/passenger vehicle rules just as HGVW are . So everything exempt from passenger vehicle rules like the GGT tax for mpgs that low below where it takes effect on cars in within the Loophole .

HGVW are completely exempt from both , no fuel consumption rating even given & have very little emissions controls even under the recently passed updated rules . While medium duty are only have limited exemption with mpg rating given they still pollute well above passenger vehicle levels . So they are exempted none the less from passenger car/vehicle rules ( CAFE & emissions rules ) .

Only when they are unless used only for the industrial purposes only are they actually being used within the rules set down under the loophole . This was the reason the loophole exemption was given in the first place . And this issue still hasn't been fixed even with the coming changes in emissions and CAFE .

 

Loophole vehicles are many today , hopefully less tomorrow

Loophole vehicles are the vehicles that were split off from CAFE in 1983 to create the emissions and CAFE loophole . What that means is before this time everything sold by an auto maker had to be tested and figured in to give a real pic of CAFE .

After the loophole was created these heavier lower mpg vehicles were removed from the companies total CAFE numbers . As I said above the CAFE & emissions loophole includes tested & untested vehicles ( Heavy Gross Vehicle Weight vehicles are exempt from both ) .

And the tested ones within the loophole have their own emissions & CAFE , barely . I can't recall the weight threshold off hand but it includes pretty much all truck based SUVs , Vans & 3/4 ton and up pickup trucks . Lighter car based SUVs & smaller pickups can fall under one or the other ( loophole rules or passenger rules ) depending on GVW . Many auto makers increased the weight of their smaller offering to avoid having to meet passenger rules and built larger models to make it into the HGVW area . Entire classes of passenger vehicles larger SUVs & pickups abused both sections of the loophole over the last 26 years . Every attempt in congress to address this issue was blocked until 07 . In the late 90s the congress blocked the EPA 4 times from dealing with this . Under Bush with the republicans in control no attempt was made to deal with this .

 

Lets compare these two:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2003/volkswagen_pc_a0070228_1d9_1_diesel.pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2007/toyota_pc_a0140560_1d5_pz_hevge.pdf

------------ TDI(03) ------Prius(07)
HC -------- 0.02 ---- 0.009(NMOG)
CO -------- 0.20 ---- 0.10
NOx ------ 0.70 ---- 0.01
PM ------- 0.05 ------ N/A
Total ----- 0.97 ----- 0.119

.97 / .119 = 8.1 times as much smog.

 

Two things : I never compared the 03 TDI to the 07 Prius , both are very clean compared to many 03 or 07 loophole vehicles . Again they both are serving a purpose today , helping to reduce light duty transport energy waste . I've been really careful not to criticize or compare the Prius in any way to make my points .

Something I do notice is the PMs aren't measured on the Prius . Even though they are ultra fine they are still there but not listed . And HCs & CO are pretty close to each other's levels . And there are more than a few studies today that show NOx not to be the demon that has been claimed for so many years .

The other thing is I said 40-50 TDI units per one for the 03 , 60-70 was for the 04-06 TDI-PDs . If want a useful comparison use 03-05 or older loophole figures as these are the ones that would be replaced if EU standards on light duty diesels were to be adopted . The ones from the late 90s give a much better impact of the loophole vehicles to our air .

I could really care less of what they have finally done to 2009 loophole crap on their lots today they can't give away . That is about as useful as closing the barn door after the horse has left

Much of this 2009 stuff , loophole junk going unsold today from the big three is likely to never have any real impact on the US fleet long term .

Anyone else here live through the oil price spike of the 70s ?? The time when they couldn't give away AMC , Chrysler , GM & Ford over weight cars low mpg cars , too bad the survivors of this didn't learn a lesson . Many of their low mpg crap produced during this time went unsold & untitled for years . I saw many 75-78 MY years big 4 cars at auction in 1978-79 never titled that sold for 1/3rd or less of sticker . This could happen again with Chrysler & GM closing so many dealerships to all their useless loophole crap , I can dream .

 

If I were a fight doctor, I would stop this one...

Tom

 

Re: Loophole vehicles are many today , hopefully less tomorrow

OK, so you consider every light-duty truck a "loophole vehicle" Vehicles such as the PT Cruiser, HHR, Forester, Caliber are also loophole vehicles since they are classified as light trucks for CAFE.
It might help people understand what you mean if you used the official term used by CARB, EPA, and CAFE regulations instead of your own term.

This also makes me think you are classifying all light-duty trucks as loophole vehicles. Of course even if you did combine both of these categories they are nowhere near 65-75% of the vehicles on US roads. (They may be in your area but since you don't tell us where you live that isn't much help) Nationally, light-duty trucks make up ~ 50% of the total vehicle fleet.

This makes me think that you only classify light-duty trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 - 10,000 lbs as loophole vehicles. However, if that is your classification that it doesn't match your assertion that 65-75% of the vehicles on the road are loophole vehicles. Trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 to 10,000 lbs are a small fraction of the total vehicle fleet.

From the CAFE FAQ page C A F E Overview

Are any vehicles exempted from CAFE standards?

Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) do not have to comply with CAFE standards. These vehicles include pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and large vans.

A study prepared for the Department of Energy, in February 2002, by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that 521,000 trucks with GVWR from 8,500 to 10,000 lbs were sold in calendar year 1999. The vast majority (82%) of these trucks are pickups and a significant number (24%) were diesel. At the end of 1999, there were 5.8 million of these trucks on the road accounting for 8% of the annual miles driven by light trucks, and 9% of light truck fuel use.

More recently the EPA has created a new classification for MY2004 called Medium Duty Passenger Vehicle. That included passenger vans and SUV's greater than 8500 pounds but excludes cargo vans and trucks. Vehicles like the Suburban 2500, Excursion, and Hummer H2 fit into this new classification.


SO AGAIN, can you clarify based on GVWR what you mean by a loophole vehicle?

 

Re: closed minds make very poor sponges

Thank you for having the time and patience to put the raw data into a nice table

 

Re: Your reading things into what I said I didn't

I'm sure Toyota has done plenty of market research to determine what would sell in North America. There might be a hassle getting the 1.4 D4D approved here, but the 1 and 1.33 petrol motors would be easy to approve here

Care to wager how well a 1 litre or 1.33 litre petrol Yaris would sell? If you recall, Geo/Suzuki sold a Metro with a 3 cylinder gas motor. It never had astounding sales and was dropped for the 4 banger

This is where your arguement becomes very confusing. It's almost as if you're suggesting that the evil guvmint is keeping all these engine choices away from us.

Recall that even in the EU, the VW Lupo 3L wasn't exactly a runaway best hit for sales

The primary reason fuel prices compared to the EU are low in the US, and somewhat lower in Canada, is due to taxation differences. When fuel skyrocketed last summer, sales of pick-em-up trucks and suv's tanked badly

I have no doubt that when fuel skyrockets again, folks will favor smaller vehicles. However, for most folks, if you put a choice of many motors in front of them, they will probably shy away from the smaller motors

Another thing to keep in mind is that in most EU countries, insurance and vehicle registration levies are tied directly to engine displacement. Which is why for a long time, 1.5 litres was the tipping point

Let's not forget Canada. It's difficult to even find a stick shift new car

The same EU ACEA standards that are calling for increasingly stringent diesel emissions control?

http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/aq/EURO5.pdf

For whatever reason, the Europeans are resisting further tightening of gasoline engine emissions, with the exception of PM for direct injection gasoline motors. Their primary objective is CO2 emissions.

However, this brief also counters your claim about the timeframe of diesel and gasoline emissions.

The choice was made in the marketplace, not due to those dreaded emissions controls. Especially up here at -40, not too many want to deal with a diesel engine

What a coincidence, so am I (Chemical Engineer). I always thought "engineers" cited sources and references. Must just be a picky thing I do

I believe JSH already covered the emissions aspect of your claim. With high fuel prices, those land barges are being driven much less than they used to be

Oh, I agree with that one. Where is this "energy policy" that Administrations since Carter have promised? Just as the ACEA in Europe takes the position to defend their home-turf car builders, the various Administrations here defend their home-turf builders too

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf

The actual test standards have changed over the years. Some current tests, eg NMOG and HCHO, were not performed in the early 80's. Also, the requirement for the emissions controls to last 100,000-120,000 miles, vs 50,000 miles for early 80's

Let's directly compare NOx, CO, and PM of a current T2B5 vehicle

NOx: 0.07
CO: 4.2
PM: 0.01

An early 00's LDV, say an 03 Tahoe, would fall under either Federal LEV or CARB ULEV. Under LEV

NOx: 0.3
CO: 4.2
PM: 0.08

Now let's compare to an early 80's car standard, say 1983

NOx: 1.0
CO: 3.4
PM: 0.6

I would like to see the Europeans synch their standards with our standards. They didn't even require catalytic converters on cars until 1993, and cars could still run on leaded gas

I'm all for having more engine choices. The primary reason the EU markets had traditionally 40-50% diesel ldv fleets was due to diesel fuel being taxed at a fraction of what petrol was being taxed at

Now that the difference between diesel and petrol has shrunk, motorists are naturally considering petrol motors

In our market, put three identical stick shift Yaris models on a Toyota lot. One will have the current 1.5 petrol, the other a 1.0 petrol, and the last one a 1.4 diesel

Guess which one will sell better? I'd probably consider the 1.0, but I'd be a statistical outlier

 

Not all is as it appears at first glance at some specs

A couple of things , CARB & EPA regs from the 90s to mid 00s are in no way similar , I sure you already knew this but for some reason left it out ?????. This is the time frame when the most of the these things were sold . Many heavy & lighter loophole vehicles were sold 49 state that were EPA reg not CARB so couldn't be sold new in a CARB state . And these are pollution spewers to the extreme compared to the light duty diesels of that era . And don't discount for a second all the 49-45 state EPA spec models that have been imported into CARB areas when figuring in their pollution impact . All that is required to register these in a CARB area is 7,500 miles on the clock , as per DOT & interstate commerce rules . And they sell quite well in CARB regions due to the fact they have much more power and can be made more powerful compared to CARB spec models .

In the late 90s several eastern states sued the federal government over how lax the rules were on loophole vehicles . Shortly after this time 4 states joined CARB to protest the lax pollution rules on SUVs & pickup trucks .

And in the mid west , southern and the mountain west of the US where I spend a lot of time the ratio of heavy vehicles in the upper class of the loophole is as much as 75 % of what is on the road today . I was in a parking lot in the mountain west last week and the ratio was over that of what was around me , it was more like 80-85 % of what was on the lot . A random count in these region always yields that 65-75 % count of large SUVs & heavy pickups to cars . And when you include the light SUVs & trucks that are within the loophole ( CAFE & emissions ) the ratio is higher .

 

during warm up time EPA figures and CARB figures mean squat

And the extreme pollution these loophole vehicles spew while warming up can't discounted . Many spend a lot of time in this time over their life when regulations mean squat as they are pretty much unregulated during warm up period . And the bigger the engine and the heavier the vehicle the more pollution they spew while in this time that in many parts of the US can last as long 20 mins . During this time they can spew as much as 100 times the pollution of light duty cars gas or diesel powered .

 

Re: Not all is as it appears at first glance at some specs

Unlike you, I patiently provided specific EPA website links to documents that outline that very thing. Even the exact cutoff on the tiers

Care to provide a specific example? As CARB requirements were first tightened on LD and HD vehicles, including stationary power, the market was such it made no sense to provide a handful of vehicles that had less emissions equipment, when the majority of vehicles required the emissions

As an example was the LD trucks assembled in Canada. Up until around 1984 you could buy a brand new Ford half ton pickup with no catalytic converter, no EGR, no AIR pump, and a wide mouth filler neck to accept the leaded fuel nozzles still used in Canada.

The majority of LD trucks assembled in Canada were for the American market, they required the emissions controls. After 84/85, the LD trucks made here also had the same US Federal emissions, as it cost *more* to make them with OUT the emissions for the very small Canadian market

But I would love to see specific examples if you'd care to cite sources

I tried to find any information about HD equipment being waived from ARB emissions. All I could find is a waiver on the bar code

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/mso0206/mso0206.pdf

Care to point me in the right direction?? Because if it really is that easy to get around ARB regulation of HD vehicles, then almost every HD vehicle in California would be purchased used, out of state

Compared to cars from the early 80's, they were cleaner. As I tried to point out with EPA website data in previous posts. Now with T2B5 regulations, there are no excuses whether an Escalade or a Camry

 

Re: during warm up time EPA figures and CARB figures mean squat

Up until recently, many vehicles including cars put out many times the cold start emissions as warmed up. I went to the CARB site and found this

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/hdvidle/ftp.pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/cleandoc/78-03label_levhdg02_clean_11-14.pdf

At the EPA, found this

Final Report | Innovative Catalytic NOx Control System for Reducing Mobile Source Cold Start Emissions| Research Project Database | NCER | ORD | US EPA

Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Regulations Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Req

This led to the current crop of low lightoff catalysts

Innovative Catalytic NOx Control System for Reducing Mobile Source Cold Start Emissions| Research Project Database | NCER | ORD | US EPA

As an example, the Prius uses the thermos storage tank to greatly reduce cold start emissions. All the engine makers are mandating reduced cold start emissions

To suggest that LD diesel engines are somehow immune from increased cold start emissions is a bit odd

 

there you go again trying to change the subject with what might come , not what is on the road today

Again I'm talking about what is on the road today , if you missed that ........

I know what the coming regs say and don't really care as I'm talking about what is on the road today !!!!!!!!!!!!!

On data collected on Tier I EPA there isn't much as most were emissions exempt , pollute & waste fuel/gas at unregulated levels for Tier I . Most of these weren't tested or even rated for pollution . Not until the coming 2010 standard will most of these even be tested . So little if any data is available to how much oil they waste or to show how dirty they really are . And on warm up pollution there is even less data available but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue . Uncollected or unavailable data doesn't make anything I'm saying is wrong . These rules didn't change for the EPA until 04 I believe so not much if any data exist before that point .

Again all my arguments are on replacing the EPA loophole crap on the road today , not what is coming ..........I guess your still missing that one..........You really want clean air focus on getting the worst polluters off the road now and replacing them fuel efficient option like diesels .

You can link all you want but doesn't change the deleterious impact of EPA spec not CARB loophole vehicles today . The majority of what is on the road today was EPA spec stuff sold in the late 90s to mid 00s have to our security and air . And if you still missed this , the one's on the road today are what I'm discussing as being dirty !!!!!! ........not ones that might be sold tomorrow ..And I did know about the coming regs that were only passed once the republicans were kicked out of power . And I never compared emissions of older light duty diesels to these fantasy vehicles of the future at this point . Who knows if any of these even will be made or sold a this point with GM & Chrysler being broke with plants shut down , my crystal ball is out of service at this time ....

If you want to do some searching how about some data from the late 90s-mid 00s on Tier I EPA SUVs & pickups along with other loophole junk of the era and include the pollution they spew while warming up . All your data you find & link to is useless unless it includes that the warm up pollution levels . That is where the dirty air they spew can easily be found , but not so well documented . And the not so well documented part was on purpose , to keep it from becoming widely known how dirty these things really are . Just as was the over regulation of non-existent light duty diesel that haven't been sold here since 1986 .

Compared to the real pollution loophole vehicles spew , the ones on the road today the early 00s light duty diesel emissions are nothing . Not a fantasy of what is coming or what might be coming .

The average loophole SUV or pickup on the road still today from that era puts out tons more emissions than a light duty diesel of that era when warm up emissions are included . Funny how none of your links even talk about this issue from these vehicles that fill our roads today . Many of which spend most if not all of their life only running in that warm up cycle on city only loops .

 

I don't even know what argument you are trying to win at this point.