CAFE stds on the chopping block

wilber1 wrote:
US automakers are global players and the rest of the world isn't going to stop moving forward because of something a US president signs. They will continue to develop these vehicles or become uncompetitive in wold markets.

I tend to agree. Right now 1 out of every 2 people walking into a showroom in Norway are going into buy a BEV or PHEV. Since the new year 51 percent of all registrations have been electric vehicles. Although Norway is on the cutting edge of this wave, EV sales are doubling every year in most developed countries in the world. People who have driven electric vehicles like the experience and are buying them. Government incentives have helped to give them a boost but prices are almost competitive with ice vehicles. In 5 years they will be cheaper. In 10 years they will be much cheaper than ice vehicles and of course maintenance is a fraction of the cost.

Americans should be able to buy whatever they want. Americans companies should be able to build whatever they want. However, if they want to be able to sell anything to any first world nation in ten years they might want to try and keep up. They will find markets in developing countries or third world countries that don't have 1st world environmental standards but the market will get smaller for ice vehicles. Trucks and SUV's too but it will take longer. Putting trade barriers up to foreign EV's coming in will help for awhile and assuming TESLA is not run out of the US there will be an excellent domestic source of EV's but Americans will want variety and that will come from foreign manufacturers.

Both of our vehicles are electric. Contrary to what every one seems to think we (EV drivers) are not all liberals nor are we environmental nuts. However, like many, we find the driving experience superior to any ICE vehicle. Maintenance is low, fuel is cheap, they are fast, nimble, very stable (low centre of gravity) dead quiet, very reliable and convenient. They are not for everyone's needs yet and pickups and SUV's have their place in North American markets and society. But in my opinion, if North American manufacturing stops R and D in the EV market simply because they don't have to because of the lack if government smog regulations they would be making a mistake.

All just my humble opinion.

John

RobertRyan wrote:

Hannibal wrote:
I remember the smog in Tampa Fl back in the 60's. I wouldn't want to go back to that.

From my memory of Los Angeles in 2007, it was pretty awful. Disappearing Hills at 5pm :(

Just about in all areas of the country I have been in, they all have that brown line across the horizon.

Hannibal wrote:
I remember the smog in Tampa Fl back in the 60's. I wouldn't want to go back to that.

From my memory of Los Angeles in 2007, it was pretty awful. Disappearing Hills at 5pm :(

agesilaus wrote:

NJRVer wrote:
40 years ago the auto companies complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 30 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 20 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.


Guess what? They met them and they are still here.

Yes but do you think that auto manufacturers can continue to sell Pickups, especially HD Pickups and other large SUV type vehicles and still achieve a 54 miles per gallon fleet average.

It's not physically possible. They'd have to drop large vehicles from their product list. And how many small vehicles today come remotely close to 54 mpg? I think the diesel Rabbit was up there but did VW do it honestly?

VW Diesel defintely got those sort of numbers. Still do outside the US. Transporter Van gets 37mpg US

agesilaus wrote:

wilber1 wrote:
US automakers are global players and the rest of the world isn't going to stop moving forward because of something a US president signs. They will continue to develop these vehicles or become uncompetitive in wold markets.

The US car manufacturers cannot sell the high efficiency and small cars they make now. Americans want pickup trucks, SUVs and big cars. They are much safer if nothing else. I'm not saying that no one buys those small cars, we bought my wife a Corolla a month ago, but we have the F350 to go with it.

You can look overseas now and find lots of even small vehicles being sold over there. That is because of their outrageous fuel prices and in a lot of these places the road system has many very narrow and twisty roads left over from medieval times. Those manufacturers have occasionally tried to sell those very small vehicles here with little success. The mini-Cooper seems to be an exception.

I've driven several electric vehicles at work before I retired. Those were the vehicles taken last out of the car pool after all the gas powered vehicles were checked out or reserved. People didn't like to drive them, me included. Especially the Prius that they had.

They can sell them, just not in the US.

That is why they want to move production to countries which have better trade agreements because the US is not their market for these vehicles. Mexico for example which has agreements with 50 countries including the EU.

mtofell1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Very solid points. A good friend of mine were talking about this very same thing the other day with the 2010+ diesel regulations of .01 g/HP-hr PM and .2 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes to get there compared to the 2004 emissions regulations of .2 g/HP-hr PM and 2.5 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes for that.

I think I just realized I need smarter friends. All we talk about are wives, football and beer :?

Don't feel bad, it was a friend that I have worked with for many years. We have both been in the heavy/medium duty diesel truck industry in one form or another for decades and the conversation was after a meeting regarding emissions problems on a new unit. My normal friends and I still talk about wives, football, and beer among other things.

The DEF and catalyst system is a bit of a different thing. There is a body of environmental research that points to CO2 as a greenhouse gas but it's not a totally concluded argument. Is it really the demon we make it out to be? Only time will truly answer that question.
===================================================================

CO2 is certainly a greenhouse gas. That is easily shown to be the case. But it is a very weak greenhouse gas compared to many others. The greenhouse gas with the largest total affect is water vapor. Methane is another that is stronger.

The CO2 effect is best described by this analogy: imagine you have a room with a big window. You apply a coat of paint to it to block the light. But the one coat of paint doesn't block it all so you apply another. By the time you give that window the 4 or 5th coat all the light (aka infrared radiation for CO2 in certain bands) is absorbed and adding more coats of paint accomplishes little. CO2 works like that, as the concentration grows the effect gets smaller and smaller.

CO2 concentration has been going up for the last 15 years but temperatures have not.

Now that were are on this issue I predict the thread will quickly spiral out control and will be blocked by the moderator.

wilber1 wrote:
US automakers are global players and the rest of the world isn't going to stop moving forward because of something a US president signs. They will continue to develop these vehicles or become uncompetitive in wold markets.

The US car manufacturers cannot sell the high efficiency and small cars they make now. Americans want pickup trucks, SUVs and big cars. They are much safer if nothing else. I'm not saying that no one buys those small cars, we bought my wife a Corolla a month ago, but we have the F350 to go with it.

You can look overseas now and find lots of even small vehicles being sold over there. That is because of their outrageous fuel prices and in a lot of these places the road system has many very narrow and twisty roads left over from medieval times. Those manufacturers have occasionally tried to sell those very small vehicles here with little success. The mini-Cooper seems to be an exception.

I've driven several electric vehicles at work before I retired. Those were the vehicles taken last out of the car pool after all the gas powered vehicles were checked out or reserved. People didn't like to drive them, me included. Especially the Prius that they had.

ShinerBock wrote:
Very solid points. A good friend of mine were talking about this very same thing the other day with the 2010+ diesel regulations of .01 g/HP-hr PM and .2 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes to get there compared to the 2004 emissions regulations of .2 g/HP-hr PM and 2.5 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes for that.

We were debating whether the considerable drop in fuel economy in the truck itself, more fuel needing to be transported since more is being used, DEF manufacturing and transport logistics that come with it, the manufacturing of the plastic jugs for DEF along with their environmental impact, special catalysts that require more rare earth mining, and DPF's along with their cleaning equipment worth the difference in emissions standards. From what we gathered, it would probably be better to go back to the 2004 emissions standards, but that was based on what we know and not any hard data.

Definitely a reasonable debate, especially with the '07-'13 method of over-fueling in the exhaust cycle to burn off particulates in the DPF. That never made any sense to me.

The DEF and catalyst system is a bit of a different thing. There is a body of environmental research that points to CO2 as a greenhouse gas but it's not a totally concluded argument. Is it really the demon we make it out to be? Only time will truly answer that question.

However, there is significant research that has drawn pretty tight conclusions between negative health effects of NOx emissions and development of smog from NOx. A catalyzed reaction that converts NOx into N2 and H2O renders the harmful emissions inert. Is that a cost effective process considering the energy input to make and package DEF, transport it, make the systems in the trucks, and maintain them?? Probably not. But, this really isn't a question of efficiency but rather a process to remove something that is known to have direct negative effects.

I'm more in the camp that I don't mind the DEF system. I love the power of my diesel but I never cared for the older trucks with the diesel exhaust smell. In my truck I get the great power without the stink and noxious fumes. I'm okay with that one.

I would prefer it if the DEF suppliers would stop wrapping the bottles in cardboard. That's a total waste. Also, if the retailers would take back empty bottles for re-use that would be great too. Those two changes would help to minimize the impact.

KJ

ShinerBock wrote:

Very solid points. A good friend of mine were talking about this very same thing the other day with the 2010+ diesel regulations of .01 g/HP-hr PM and .2 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes to get there compared to the 2004 emissions regulations of .2 g/HP-hr PM and 2.5 g/HP-hr NOx and what it takes for that.

I think I just realized I need smarter friends. All we talk about are wives, football and beer :?