GM Sees Record 100,000 Sales of "30 mpg or Better" Vehicles

Agree with you that diesel fuel costs more than RUG, which is a disincentive for diesels in the USA, but the price has actually narrowed to about $0.15/gal locally, and about $0.20/gal nationally (Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update).

U.S. Tier 2 Bin 5 is stricter with respect to NOx emissions, but all other regulated emissions are either roughly the same or actually more strict in Europe (different test cycles preclude a direct comparison). I'm sure you're aware that Euro 5b has set a particle number (PN) emission limit (6X10**11 particles/km) on diesel vehicles in Europe, and a limit of 6X10**12 particles/km has been proposed for petrol vehicles for 2014 - 2017 because many petrol vehicles can't currently meet the diesel limit, especially GDI, and apparently need an order-of-magnitude relaxation of the PN standards initially.

Also, agree that diesel vehicles tend to have much higher NOx emissions than petrol, but they also tend to have lower HC and CO emissions, both of which are also ozone precursors (ozone is the primary constituent of "smog"), especially if you take into account the much higher upstream VOC emissions of petrol due to the highly volatile nature of gasoline.

At least in the USA, reducing NOx emissions generally does not have as great an impact in reducing ambient ozone levels as HC/VOC reductions in urban areas. NOx can be either "smog-forming" or "smog destroying" depending on the local ambient conditions.

 

Agree with the anti lutz attitude, but higher cafe standards are easier for say toyota than gm. Toyota can use some of the car credit for truck deficit without paying a fine. Hyundai because it doesn't build many inefficient trucks is in the best shape. But, and there is a big but, the drive to not increase fuel efficiency at gm led to the sales decline. Lutz was looking at short term profits and not what americans actually wanted to buy. That is the sick part, a higher cafe standard would have helped gm not go bankrupt. They fought against their customers and the government then asked for a bailout because somehow the market went against them.

 

There are some benefits to diesel. But you come to a European city and take a great big deep breath and then tell me diesel isn't dreadful and polluting.

I remember all the diesel cars I've had would look clean on visible emissions in the day but you floor it at night with a car following you and you could see swirls of crud coming out behind you. Do that in a petrol car and you can't see a thing. I'm aware that's not very scientific but if I can see the crud it can't be good.

I have also read elsewhere that the emission control equipment on diesel cars is next to useless in real world driving. They're ok on idle but foor your foot down and you may as well turn the emission clock back 30 years.

 

I'm not disputing that older diesel vehicles (pre-Euro 4) had relatively high PM and NOx emissions. I'm sure there are still many older diesel vehicles running in Europe. I was referring to the new "clean diesels" that are now in production in both the U.S. and Europe (Euro 5/6).

Do you have any specific reference to the emission equipment on diesels being virtually useless in the real world? Here's a graphic of emissions from a 2009 US-spec Jetta TDI as measured by Argonne National Laboratory...




http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicle...010/thursday/presentations/deer10_shaburg.pdf (slide #9)


The purpose of the study was to compare emissions of synthetic diesel fuels, but PM emissions are extremely low in all test cycles on all test fuels; none were measured in a couple of the test cycles using ULSD. Even NOx was extremely low in these tests in most cases.

I have a 2010 U.S.-spec diesel car, and I've never seen any visible emissions in the headlights of any cars following me.

 

Are you refering to the Euro 5 diesels sold in both Europe AND the US as these appear cleaner than the average Euro 5 European diesel.

To add balance an ex colleague of mine had a new Passat diesel with the latest emission strapped on and the inside of his tail pipe was clean as a whistle, even after thousands of miles of taxi use.

But, there are many other new diesel cars that apparantly comply with Euro 5 which kick out more smoke under acceleration than an old lawn mower! Perhaps it depends on what emission equipment is used. It's difficult to compare as US and Euro emission specs are so different and measured over km and miles, lbs and grammes.

Just looked at your link and it seems to have much lower emissions that the official stats for the Euro UK version;

Select a search : Directgov - Car fuel data, CO2 and vehicle tax tools

Nox 0.149 g/km Euro 5 but the US limit under tier 2 bin 5 Nox 0.05 g/MILE which is more on a par with the petrol version here in Europe.

I really could be reading it wrong but it seems the US versions are much cleaner than the Euro5 version sold here.

 

GC, are these numbers the allowable limits, or the actual emissions of the cars ?

 

"relatively high" compared to what ? Is that the PC way of saying "dirtier than everything else ?"

I'd like to hear about SULEV+ diesels; until then they are far from clean, they are just "less dirty" than earlier cars. I would also like to see good references that these SUVEL+ cars stay so at 250k+ miles.

 

Actual tested emissions of that individual model - which was the European version of the Jetta diesel.

Scroll to the bottom of that link and select 'search', then select the top option "Find fuel consumption and emissions informati...." and then probably easier to select 'new' and search away. You don't always have to enter all the details, so VW, Jetta, diesel and search away.

 

Modern diesels are 'less dirty' then earlier cars only when new and as long as the post-engine emissions control equipment is functioning correctly and as long as the owner cares to invest in correcting / replacing malfunctioning control equipment.

Diesel engines (even the modern ones) are inherently dirty.

 

It's the same old "do the minimum" problem we saw prior to the bankruptcy. In fact, the auto task-force raised a "too little, too slowly" concern about the bankruptcy recovery plans. And sure enough, that's the problem being faced now.

All that highway-only advertising paints a disappointing picture of what to expect. They're proud of selling 100,000 cars that offer "30 mpg or Better". But when you look up the MPG for city, you quickly realize real-world efficiency is going to be must lower than that highway value.

Look that the 2013 Malibu eAssist. No level of "percentage improvement" spin can hide the reality that it only gets 29 MPG combined.

They've lowered expectations and hoped no one would notice. Remember how 40 MPG use to be the goal? Now it's only 30. Why should people settle for that, especially when you've got Toyota & Ford making that their minimum, on hybrid platforms with will support plug augmentation. Hyundai & Honda are working hard to offer that too.

Here we go again with the GM trouble. Read posts about Volt from supporters. There are some who post comments that aren't the slightest bit constructive with little resistance from their colleagues. That's a bad sign. It's the same thing we saw years ago.
.

 

What is the mod community like over there? It isn't a rare occurance here for to modify a diesel for power or economy by circumventing the emission controls to some degree. There was some disappointment express by the tuner crowd when Ford made that harder on the diesels in the new F250+.

The same can be said of gasoline engines too. They just have three decades worth of improving emission control technology pressured by toughening standards. In the early eighties and late seventies, the snow on the side of the road would literally became black. While there were more diesel car offerings then, the vast majority were gasoline.

Ultra low sulfur diesel only came to market in 2006. Until then, emission controls for diesels were limited. DPFs came on the seen before then, but ULSD produces less particles so they can work with less regens and less fuel wasted now. With the knowledged gained from the 30 years of cleaner gasoline engines, and increasing standards, diesels will get cleaner. Gas cars might need particle filters in the future for the same reasons.

 

What lutz really said is that with 2 dollar gasoline people will still want bigger cars. He was right. Until you hit Americans in the pocketbook they will continue to want large vehicles. I'll bet in Texas at least 60% of all vehicles on the road are vans, SUVs, and pick-up trucks.

If gas is at 5 dollars, but you can give an American an suv that gets 25-30 mpg without losing its current size they will be top sellers. Why? Because it's all about the family budget. Having an suv that gets 30 mpg at $5 a gallon is the same as having an suv getting 15mpg at 2.50. People are already accustomed to that level. There is no pain so habits will not change. That's why gas needs to go to $7-9 per gallon, or keep gasoline at current prices and charge a 30% tax on all new vehicles that get less than 35 mpg.

 

Uhm... I didn't mention Imperial gallons. That some countries fail to use standard units doesn't touch the fact that a 30mpg (US) vehicle is far from a fuel sipper.

 

No, they aren't fuel sippers. They are an improvement over what was offered and sold in the past. Larger improvements would be best, but small ones over a large number of sales is still good.

 

But they are very, very proud with statements like "(...) and we have more new fuel-economy leaders on the way, including the Chevrolet Spark, Cadillac ATS and the Buick Encore."

In Europe the fuel economy of the 2012 Chevrolet Spark (1.0 and 1.2) is currently lagging behind Fiat 500, Fiat Picanto, Kia Rio, Nissan Micra, Seat/Skoda/Volkswagen Up triplets, Citroen/Peugeot/Toyota Aygo triplets, Nissan Pixo and Suzuku Splash - and that is in its own A-segment.
In the US, the "sub-compacts" include B-segment and city cars, where Spark again is trailing behind all city cars and all modern B-segment cars.

.

 

And the Aveo it is replacing got worse than the Cobalt which is replaced by the Cruze.

The Smart and the iQ only come with the largest available engine here. It is rare for a manufacturer here to offer a choice of engine in this segment, and most people would find the smaller one's performance unacceptable.