Sixteen states tell the EPA: We'll see you in court

One of the reasons for the exclusion provision, I would guess, is that the US is working with the other major legislative bodies (EU, Japan, UN, Oceanic States) to move to World Harmonised Standards.

Whilst the WHS, when complete, would cover a wide range of subjects, it is likely that those dealing with vehicle emissions will be in the vanguard, simply because they are high in society's consciousness.

The US has released its 2010 on-road standards. The EU is working towards implementation of Euro 5 (pascar) and Euro V (Heavy Duty) legislation. The EU is determining its next stage - Euro VI - and one of the inputs to this is how to align it to the US2010 so that (they hope) Euro VII and US20XX will be the same.*

If individual states in the US act independently, it will make this process much harder. This will make the auto industry's job much harder, not necessarily in terms of the technologies to be incorporated in the vehicles, but in the gaining and retaining of multiple Type Approvals across several market places. One of the drivers (excuse the pun) for the move to WHS is that manufacturers would only have to Type Approve once to be able access all markets; with the increased levels of globalisation, this really does make sense.

This situation is such a shame, since California in particular has done so much good work in terms of air quality. If it could bring itself to come to the table with the rest of the world, we might get there so much quicker.

*Off-Road standards run on a different cycle - we're on Tier 4 at the moment. Generally, the advances happen first in PasCar, then HD and then off-road. This is purely a money thing, as most research money is in the PasCar field. However, the learning can be applied much more quickly in the later sectors, so Euro VI should be the same for PasCar and HD (only differences are between powertrain type). Off-Road should catch up by Tier 6/EuroVII, I guess - based on progress to date. There's a plan to reach the point where all vehicles meet the same limits; the bars to achieving this are (to some extent) technology levels and what the market will bear; but the detailed planning and limit setting is a way off yet.

English Rose;

You sound like you know what your talking about in regards to this issue.

I have always wondered if emissions were measured based on unit of effective work or unit volume of fuel.

Which one is it and why?

Thank You

Gavilan

Hi Gavilan.

Thats an easy one, the more fuel you use to travel say 10 miles the more you are poluting the atmosphere. We have cars here in Europe that use no more than one gallon of fuel per 45 or 50 miles, in fact a couple of cars can travel up to 60 miles on a gallon of fuel!!! Then there are SUVs, these use variously one gallon to travel just 12 to 15 miles, so therefore they polute more!

Spencer.

English Rose;

Thank You, not only for your willingness to share your knowledge on this issue; but also your thoughtful and effective means of communicating that knowledge.

In the per unit work (g/kWh) metric for transportation processes, how is regenerative braking capability normalized?

Example; a non-regenerative capable wheeled vehicle being used as an intercity commuter vehicle dumps the kinetic energy during braking through friction braking. Since a very significant amount of the total process energy may be expended by friction braking; would it make sense to factor the fundamental efficiency of regenerative capability into the metric? Wouldn't factoring this into the metric promote lower use of fossil fuel and better air quality?

Gavilan

Thanks Gavilan, glad to be of help.

With the question on regenerative braking you've found the edge of my knowledge on this one! Most of our business is with on-road vehicles and few of these have regenerative braking, so it's not something on which I've spent time.

You are right, of course, about its use being a good way to get more work from your fuel. The issue is how to incorporate it into all vehicles. Heavy Duty trucks include engine braking, where the throttling of the exhaust gases is used to load the engine and is used in addition to the standard air brakes which stop the wheels by the usual friction methods.

I believe that regenerative braking is designed into electric cars and is used, in the same was as it is on electric trains from where the technology was pinched, to charge the batteries during the braking cycle.

That is the crux of the matter: what do you do with (how do you store and use) the energy you recover? You can collect it as heat, or most sensibly as electrical energy. But how do you use this energy in a vehicle powered by an IC engine? The added complexities to use it through the alternator-battery system would make cost (purchase price) prohibitive since the control strategy would be very complex as the braking input is not predictable. The end gain to research input ratio is too low.*

I'm not knocking your assessment, just trying to see how it could be implemented in real vehicles. As electric vehicles become more widespread, then it will be used more. However, electric cars do not produce any emissions at point of use so the question is currently moot, until they decide to tax electric cars and will probably do so on the basis of kWh/km - i.e. how far you can go on a charge up!

*Too low at the moment. We may reach a situation when it becomes economic.

If you folks in the states paid over $2 a litre for your petrol, we wouldn't be having this argument!

HOW RIGHT YOU ARE!!!

I had a bit of an argument on CR4 recently with a Texan that believed he was doing great because both of his cars achieved 20 MPG!!!!! How far from the real world can you get?

My car can travel (legally here) almost twice as fast as he can in the states, at 100MPH I am doing OVER 30MPG!!!! On Diesel fuel!! My car is also heavy, almost 2 tons.....I am NOT trying to show off, just show that size and weight plus a good well designed engine can still achieve remarkable economy.....

Yeah right, physics says no to 100 mph, 4000 pound vehicle at 30 mpg.

we're getting there

Hi English Rose,

Good explanation, but I never hear anyone mentioning that most pascars are driven in heavily congested traffic areas where their engines cannot achieve anything like the efficiency they get on the test track. When I see a big gas guzzling 4x4 or Ferrari trundling along in stop-start urban traffic I despair. These vehicles are mostly 'status symbols' which could be manufactured with much smaller, more efficient engines, given their daily work-load and from the outside they would look exactly the same as any other 4x4 or Ferrari. You can't legally drive a Ferrari over 70mph on the open road anyway or safely use the acceleration! If people can afford an off-road 4x4 or sports saloon then they could probably leave them at the farm or track where they belong and use a smaller urban vehicle to commute.

Perhaps we should get a psychiatrist on the legislative panel to look at the underlying social reasons for vehicle usage. Please stop hammering the drivers who live out in the 'sticks' who need their, (usually energy efficient) vehicles to get in and out of civilisation.

Tom (nothing against Ferraris by the way - any high power car would do)

Tom, thanks for the reply - please register, it's free, it's fun and we're all nice normal...engineers! (Except maybe the squirrel)

Have a look at Post #5 for some more detail.

The emissions and efficiency figures are not measured on a test track. They are measured on an engine test bed (to give repeatability and reproduceability of results) in such a way as to mimic the driving conditions in three distinct phases of operation: urban, suburban and extra-urban (or town centre, suburban and open road). Most manufacturers quote figures for urban+suburban, extra-urban and combined in their literature. The legislators do work to specify tests that reflect real life (the noise test is under review for this very reason).

As to townies driving country working vehicles, there are lots of other ways being used to try to discourage this: the Road Fund License; Uncle Ken in London is specifically picking on them. In the EU, they already have fairly small engines (sub 3litres), much smaller and they simply wouldn't be driveable. The engines are usually diesel (I think); quite frankly if you buy a petrol powered one you really do have more money than sense.

For the little I know of the US market, the SUVs there have enormous (V8 and V12) petrol engines running in single to low teen fuel consumption figures. I remember being told that the best way to import an F150 was through a company who re-engine it with a Cummins B-series (truck/bus engine) to give you low 20s mpg.

I do like the idea of a Ferrari/Maseratti/Prosche body with a 1 litre Nova engine in it - or an electric power unit, perhaps!

The social usage surveys are already carried out. They form the basis of much of the social engineering and road building that go on.

PS guys, I really appreciate your kind comments. If you really mean it, you could use the Rate button at the bottom of my post to give me kudos too!

US SUV's have from 2.5 liter I4's to 6.2 liter V8's. The largest engine are 8.4 liter V10's and they were placed in 3/4 to 1 1/2 ton trucks. Most big truck owners have swicthed to a 5.7 to 6.6 liter V8 Turbo diesel.

All I can say, vicini is that engines of that gas-guzzling size, are not necessary, when a 3.4litre non-turbo diesel will do the job quite well.

Here we find a 2 Ton truck or 4WD SUV can do quite well on smaller, more efficient engines, thus using less that 50% fuel consumption of the larger motors you quote.

If you were paying the present true cost of Petrol, at round US$44.00+ you would be using more efficient prime movers.

Kind Regards....

Hello Guest, Tom,

"If people can afford an off-road 4x4 or sports saloon then they could probably leave them at the farm or track where they belong and use a smaller urban vehicle to commute."

While that may look fine in theory, there are some folks who cannot actually enter a "small car" and drive safely.

These "small cars" are designed for the Mr & Mrs Tiny, from Asia or South America, who have genetically small skeletal frames.

There are many who are 6ft 5inches tall, like my own self in the morning, and shrink by ^{only 3}/₄inch during the day's efforts.

So, what is a person like myself to do, cut off my legs, and hunch down in the seat, so I can actually see out the top 2 inches of the windscreen?

Don't be ridiculous please, think about the statement you made in your Post.

Another thing to consider is that not all are commuters either, we don't all work in Air-conditioned offices.

Nay, Sir/Madam Guest, Tom, and other readers, some of us actually get out and do a days useful work, and have to do that carrying of tools and equipment to a variety of places.

Not me now, because I'm retired, but I do not intend to kill myself, by cramming myself into some mini car, just to satisfy Politicians, Bankers and Military.

Remember each engine in a high-flying jet consumes 4 tons of elemental Ozone each second, by those planes travelled in by the wealthy.

I cannot afford to use one, and if I did, I cannot sit behind a seat, because the plane companies have installed extra seats into the floor racking, and pushed all forward to accommodate another dozen rows, once again, for the so-called and mythical "standard person".

Status Symbol, driving a 4WD, you are joking, I hope.

So, here I now sit, behind a keyboard and monitor, what else can I do, except travel in my large 4WD, especially built by a Japanese Company, for folks just like me.

Kind Regards....

4WD consumes extra fuel, why do you need 4WD in your vehicle of choice?

Hello Andy Germany

I'm glad you asked that question.

I need a 4WD to go fishing and hunting, and use the free-wheel hubs whenever not actually requiring 4WD.

I also drive up braided gravel riverbeds (see picture) to collect driftwood trees, and cut them up for firewood, for use in a low-emission wood-burner in my home.

Apart from that, there is no 2WD car available which I can comfortably fit in, and drive, (read the earlier post http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/163911/Re-Sixteen-states-tell-the-EPA-We-ll-see-you-in-court please).

So, a horse is a possibility, and a cart behind, but because I live in a City, on a small piece of land, there is no room for a horse, and local Council health rules mean I could not house a horse in the City in which I live.

If you lived where I live, you may well understand the local situation.

The 4WD I use is large enough for me to sit behind the wheel, and have a comfortable drive.

Some of the 2WD cars I can comfortably sit in, and drive, include the Ford Model A, an old Hupmobile, a 1927 Austin 7, and the like, when they made cars for real men, not the mythical "Standard Person".

But all those cars are now far too expensive for me, being vintage or veteran cars, and my diesel-powered 4WD is far more fuel efficient than any of those earlier cars.

I regularly used a Ford Model A some 40 years ago, as a builder, and could easily tow a trailer behind, 3 tons of building materials on the trailer, 65+ miles per hour up a slope of 1 in 40, the average slope upwards of the Canterbury plain from Christchurch towards the Southern Alps.

We did plan on making the Model A into a 4WD one, but there were problems not easily overcome - had we succeeded, it would have been almost unstoppable.

Kind Regards....

So for the half dozen trips a year (if that), you have 4wd all the year round!!!For mountain climbing (the picture) there are not even many 4wd vehicles that can do it and the damage done to the mountains (see Switzerland) is enormous! Even from just Skiing on the snow! by the way, I hope the fish have their climbing boots on!!

I am also a Fisherman of well over 50 years, I have NEVER needed to have 4 wheel drive, the good fishing spots would soon be empty if everyone drove there!!! We walk as quietly as possible so as not to scare the fish away either.....from where we parked our car....

Also I have fished in Colorado many, many times, in the high lakes of the Rockies, everywhere, the last few miles were always a hike for the good ones!!! But most are accessible with trails that a normal car, if driven correctly (done it!) can handle......perhaps one should consider the exceptionally remote spots as not being needed to visit because of environmental considerations soon.....

By the way, your wood burner issues large quantities of fine (nano) particles and will soon need a "scrubber" to remove them if the governments of the world have their way eventually......its probably part of the reason that for 1000s of years people died far earlier than they generally do today.....by the way, pellet Burners do NOT emit such particles......if that helps.....

A tip, if you can see "smoke" that is the fine particles in a large quantity!!! Many do not know that. A study in Austria has proved that ONE house in a valley, burning wood, can ruin the atmosphere completely for everyone!!!!! It means that if you even smell woodsmoke, you are being poisoned!!!Slowly!! You heard it first on CR4!!

By the way, many car manufacturers make cars that even you can fit in, without resorting to 4wd to drag you with it.

Wait up, when you are paying $8 a gallon for fuel and your gas guzzler is worth nothing in resale, many people will suddenly find out that they do not need 4wd and square vehicles, consumption will be more important, or better said, the lack of it!!

The USA (and Canada & Australia) only very recently finally signed up to cut global warming! Eg CO2 to be cut. It is this high handed attitude with the environment that nobody outside of those countries likes......I would hope that you support such things as a reduction of global warming too.....have a great day in spite of me....

Hello again Andy Germany

We actually use free-wheel hubs when not requiring 4WD, so mostly in 2WD, same as a car.

Damage done here driving up a riverbed over a mile wide, is far less than the damage from a rising river, you would need to understand the ecology of braided shingle rivers in geologically young country to understand that driving a 4WD up a riverbed here does no damage at all, providing one does not damage the bank groynes.

We also get earthquakes, hundreds of them each year, which do alter the landscape markedly, after all, their energy has made the world's longest onshore slip-transform fault along the Southern Alps, some 700+ miles of it.

While you have been a fisherman for well over 50 years, I have been one for well over 60 years, and a member of various fish and game organisations for much of that time.

The Colorado landscape is quite unlike the local landscape here.

Road surfaces in most areas of New Zealand are tar-seal, because of the continual crustal movements, concrete road surfaces crack quite quickly, - we were not called "the Shaky Isles" in the early days without reason.

Pellet fires do emit particulate matter, as has been well proven in NZ and elsewhere - if hot gas is emitted, there are particulates out of that chimney.

If you like to advise cars which I can sit in comfortably, and drive without bother, within my limited budget, please do so, as I use second-hand Japanese imported vehicles, like most folks here, thus re-using what would otherwise be expensive scrap in Japan.

You might say that we are accepting their throw-away vehicles, because that's what we do.

You refer to $8 per gallon for fuel, and we actually have done so here, for some years now, and petrol is currently some $8.12 per gallon.

New Zealand was an original signatory nation to the Kyoto Protocol, which is only a Political scam, anyway.

The "Global Warming" we are presently experiencing, does not seem to have arrived here yet, and is mostly from increased solar radiation, about which we can do not much, moreso as it cycles through more and less intense periods.

I do not intend to offend you.

Kind Regards to you and yours, from far away land....

The 4 wheel drive is not on all the time, you can switch it in and out of use.

Well, we had 8 feet of snow in my town this winter.

These "small cars" are designed for the Mr & Mrs Tiny, from Asia or South America, who have genetically small skeletal frames.

After a generation in this country (USA) thier frames are not so small anymore.

guess thats not political correct.

maximum posted speed limit in US is 80 mph.

It is a consumer issue, not California being more green issue. If those states go ahead after winning a lawsuit, the consumers will lose in the long run. We already know what happens when 1 state has a different set of laws that punish the consumers, they will go elsewhere to get what they want. The adjoining states will sell them the cars they want.

Back to winning the lawsuit. Those states will have to get a waiver from the constitution's interstate commerce clauses. They cannot force rules on interstate commerce, only the federal govenment has the power to do that.