This is GreenGopher's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following GreenGopher's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
The cost of lean NOx aftertreatment capable of meeting U.S. Tier 3/CARB LEVIII emissions will ensure that this never makes it to the U.S.
35 kW-hr pack - would have been a good effort maybe about 3-4 years ago.
VMT is a better metric than number of HD trucks on the road for indicating environmental impact. According to DOT and EPA estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), 2010 and later trucks subject to the 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx and 10 mg/bhp-hr PM standards accounted for 55% of U.S. heavy-duty truck VMT in 2016. As trucks in the fleet age, their VMT goes down. This is particularly true in Class 8 (which accounts for over 80% of HD truck VMT), as trucks used in long-haul fleets rotate into shorter haul and lower VMT secondary roles. So the U.S. has already surpassed a point where half of the heavy-duty VMT is equipped with catalytic NOx emissions controls (primarily urea-SCR) and DPFs.
Weight-based and footprint-based attributes are significantly different. Ito's study was based on Japanese regulations with weight-based vehicle attributes. It is fairly easy to change curb weight of a vehicle without either a redesign or new production tooling. Simply changing vehicle content can result in a curb weight change. Any significant change in track and wheelbase would necessitate a new vehicle design and changes to production tooling. Production cycles on many vehicle designs are often at least five years. Instead of studying a mass-based regulation and extrapolating results to a footprint-based regulations, why not study a footprint-based regulation directly? One has been in place in the U.S. for the past six years. Any such study would also need to take into account fuel prices. The split between car and truck sales in the U.S. (and thus footprint) is very closely related to the price of gasoline.
I'm assuming this is for EU and Asian markets, but not North America?
Not for the U.S., however. Ford is withdrawing from automobile production in the U.S. and is planning an all-truck (CUV, SUV, pickup) lineup with the sole exception of the Mustang.
Unfortunately this engine is not available in North America at least through the 2019 model year and there is no announced date for introduction. The 2019 Jetta soldiers on with the older 1.4L TSI EA211.
I agree with Peter. EIVC with boost is typically called Miller Cycle. There is also an LIVC variant, which VW also investigated during development according to their published papers on the topic. Atkinson Cycle (unboosted) appears to always be LIVC. Budack has even referred to it as Miller Cycle in papers that he co-authored. VW's particular twist seems to be how they combine this with cam-shifting.
If it is not specifically calibrated with the engine/vehicle, I would be concerned about ammonia break-through. High ammonia emissions can increase ambient concentrations of nitrate particulate matter.
Interesting. The glider standards in that regulation actually had little to do with GHG. They were put into place to close a loophole that allowed companies to separately manufacture "gliders" or brand new trucks built without engines, then remanufacturer older engines that do not meet current heavy-duty emissions standards, and finally join the two together into brand-new trucks with "new-old" engines that do not comply with the 2010 heavy-duty emissions standards for NOx and PM emissions.
Even at Euro 6, diesel NOx standards are 30 to 50% higher for diesel cars, CUVs, and MPVs. The U.S. has had fuel-neutral emission standards for diesel and gasoline cars and trucks since 2004. If the EC had taken this approach instead of incentivizing diesel, NO2 and ozone levels in the UK and continental Europe would probably already be in compliance with WHO guidelines.
The article is using the wrong ASTM number. It is ASTM D8076-17, not D8067-17. Here is the link at ASTM:
“We don’t belong to a class of criminals,” he said. “We’re not trying to break the bloody law.” Perhaps Marchionne should have a chat with his attorneys. Failing to identify 8 different AECDs at time of U.S. Certification is a violation of the Clean Air Act, regardless of whether or not these are eventually determined to be defeat devices by EPA and/or CARB. As for auto executives belonging to a class of criminals, a VW executive is currently cooling his heals in a holding cell after having the hubris of vacationing in Florida and 5 others have been indicted. I guess judgement should be reserved until after the upcoming plea bargains and criminal trials in the U.S. and in Europe.