NY Times: Cruze "Fossil fuel milage champ"; hybrids still win city, burbs

The reason newer common rail diesels are quieter is because the the injectors have multiple injections (4-5) per stroke, instead of one per stroke. Does a great job of quieting down the combustion noise.

 

Ya the city mpg is pretty poor.

SCH-I535 ? 2

 

Then there must be mounds of proof for this then.

I know American makes had poor reliability in the past, but everybody, AFAIK, that tracks this reports that they have improved. Anything from the past decade on GM using parts that die after the warranty expires?

We know Toyota put fewer cooling channels into their engine blocks at the beginning of the 2000s to save a buck, and it lead to oil sludging.
chevy captiva - Google Search

Which is why Toyota only certifies their vehicles to bin 5 in federal states, to save a buck. Even the Prius drops to a bin3 in those states.

The Chevy cars all have the same level of emission rating of bin4/ULEV regardless of state. The Impala drops to a bin4 in federal, but is PZEV in CARB, and not just a split, double rating. Same engine code, so it can called PZEV all over. Of course, GM sells heavy duty(class 3) trucks and vans, and they may benefit from the higher fed rating for the fleet average. Regardless of the reason, they have to budget for warranty work at that level.

The warranty might be more important because that is where the most cost is to the manufacturer. The Federal is a 2yr/24k mile 'bumper to bumper' to fix anything that makes the car out of its rating spec, and a 8yr/80k mile for the catalytic convertor and a few other components. Except for some select components on some select models, the CARB is only different in having a 7yr/70k mile on more components than the federal 8yr/80k one.
California Emissions Warranty | Federal Emissions Warranty - SmogTips.com. Don't pay for replacing or fixing emissions related automotive parts which are covered under the California emission warranty or Federal emission warranty.

I've only had cars tested in Pa and NJ. In pa, testing is done by private dealers and garages. Never had a pre-1996 car here. A sniff test might required for them. The inspection does cost more. OBD II cars might just be plugged into a special scanner, but the stations complained about the money they had to spend for the new equipment. Never actually watched the inspection. I'll try to remember to ask what exactly the procedure is. It's annual. Vehicles driven under 5000 miles and diesels are exempt from emissions. New diesels are probably exempt because of the stations not wanting to buy the equipment.

NJ has state inspection stations. An inspection was required every year when I was living there, but it is now every other year. Brand new cars might get 3 to 4 years off before their first inspection. The inspection uses a sniff test, so actually measures the exhaust. We had cars go over 100k growing up, and I don't remember them being exempt from emissions.

 

The texas tests would seem to be fine for any regulatory information. The california tests also had all this information. The question is what is the point. If a new vehicle A is SULEV and B has higher pollution, and A starts polluting more than SULEV, do we yank its inspection even if it pollutes a fraction of B? Neither texas or california seem to look at the purchased rating on the test. I don't know why they would force you to fix a lower polluting car. They could however fine manufacturers whose vehicles failed classification for the pollution and use some of that money to clean up other pollution. The warranty simply has costs passed onto buyers, making lower polluting cars cost more, for the sake of regulation. The waranty requirements for hybrid batteries seem to slow inovation, and that appears to be the intent as the automakers and carb wanted to favor BEV and FCV above hybrids at the time the laws were passed. It is strange that they give a waiver to drop from 15 years to 10 years on this warranty.

 

Interesting idea on fining the companies, but wouldn't the companies just pass the fine costs onto their customers? Or at least the costs of avoiding fines? Which will probably be around the cost for the mandatory warranty.

I can reasons why might want to fix a car out of spec with it's rating. Other issues might crop up or already be in effect with it, like drivability and fuel economy drop. As to forcing the fix, I think the state has a valid reason to do so when there are perks, like HOV access, tied to it. Then there is also effect of numbers with letting an out of spec SULEV slide while still being cleaner than a LEV. A SULEV means cleaner air for all. If it drops to ULEV, then it means slightly dirtier air. Fining the company, instead of having it fixed means the air is still dirtier than it should have been.

Then there is the affect on the company's fleet emissions. Retro actively adjusting a car's rating down can be problematic, if there cars on the road that benefited from HOV passes and tax breaks because of the original certification.

 

No costs would be lower. Very few of these systems get out of spec. If we get a rogue manufacturer, and the fines were high enough, they would be compelled to fix the cars for free. With honda and the battery waranty, it did not seem to help consumers at all.

If a cat gets 1% out of spec its not going to affect fuel economy. That waranty requirement got honda to decrease fuel economy. It just does not help. The waranty requirements add costs to cleaner cars. If a car gets too low for HOV access, kick it out. I always found it tenuous that hybrids which pollute less got hov access moving cars to burn more gas and pollute more. When HOV access was removed for hybrids in california sales actually went up There isn't much doubt that hov access is driving some of the plug-in sales in california, but again, I don't think its helping pollution scores. The waranty requirement doesn't mean it gets fixed if it gets out of spec. I doubt most people read the reports past pass or fail. If it passes, and it out of line a car owner needs to go to the dealer and ask for a waranty repair. Nothing in the reports say a SULEV is now ULEV today. I don't think anyone goes to the dealership today asking for a repair for a passing car. Its just a way for the regulators to feel smug.

Right now with the system in place, the most polluting cars in california are allowed to stay polluting. The added costs to new cars, may help them stay on the road. Lower the cost of new cars would likely help. The system to buy back polluting cars appears to be working, but why aren't say the worst 10% taxed higher to get the owners to get them off the road. This worst 10% causes 70% of the pollution. SULEV getting out of line isn't even measurable.

Today's HOV cars in california, do not need to do more than pass the test, and I think most of them were exempted from even emissions testing, so no this change would strengthen not weaken enforcement of emissions. Again waranty requirements should not be used for tax breaks and HOV access. This is just some foolish CARB dream. Do you think that if the prius had a 8 year waranty instead of 10 on batteries that it would have made much of a difference in the cleanliness of the air? I don't think you could measure it. I don't think car owners are going to drive a lot of miles with a dead hybrid battery. There was a different political agenda going on, and we should not allow this to be the national agenda.

 

I agree these systems will not go out of spec in most cars. In which case, the budget for warranty work in the car price should reflect that.

If the test is to some standard that doesn't correspond to the vehicles' emission rating, then a SULEV isn't going to fail if it's pollutant levels fall out of spec. In NJ, LEV for CARB seems to be the standard. It will only fail with visible smoking or a check engine light. Both of which mean the owner needs to have the car looked at. A lean condition might not put the NOX to fail the sniff test, but the higher combustion heat could lead to expensive engine damage.


The current system holds the car companies and the car owners responsible for maintaining air quality standards. Getting rid of the warranty and going with a fine for the company removes responsibility from the owner if they don't have to repair the car. Since aftermarket modification could lead to reducing the effectiveness of the emission controls, and some people actively bypass them, owners need to be held to some level of responsibility for maintaining their car. We, realisticly, wouldn't blame a tire company for someone driving on bald tires.

Besides, if the tests' pass/fail limit has no bearing to a cars' emission rating, the owner isn't going to be forced to make a repair if their SULEV car slips into ULEV emission levels, and all the other checks passed.

Moving to get the dirtier cars off the car is a good idea. The issue the arises is that these are mostly older vehicles, which are mostly driven by poorer people. If there isn't the public transit available to them, it puts an undo burden on them. The affluent will just pay the tax on what is likely a spare or hobby car that doesn't see regular daily use.

 

Agreed

 

I think you are not understanding the current system or what I am proposing.

When these warranty requirements came into place, it was because the regulator - CARB - thought some owners would not fix the parts if they broke and they had to pay for them. CARB at the same time they instituted emissions testing, allowed owners to continue driving polluting cars if repairs cost too much. To which my head kind of explodes. The logic of this is beyond me. THe claim is everyone should have to pay for cleaner air with requirements, but pulling the failing cars off the road is wrong. I do not know todays requirements, but do know pre 1976 gasoline cars are still exempt and newer diesels because there is no way they could pass, so CARB gave them an exemption. There is an easy way to pull cars off the road that make the air dirty, get rid of the its to expensive exceptions. I don't know if they have fixed the law for newer failing cars.

Now the next thing, the thing I think is totally stupid, is in order to qualify for higher levels of air cleanliness things like a hybrid battery warranty, not emissions equipment in any way I understand, were required to be longer. Now these were not longer as other requirements but given a special length of time. If you want that 1995 mustang with improperly working pollution controls on the road, and yes I had a friend there with an old mustang that was registered because he had paid enough, and had spent enough money, why would you not want a hybrid with a 8 year battery warranty? Waranty levels to be less polluting just don't make sense.

Which means no, the system that I lived under in California did not get many of the problems solved, but it sure was convoluted. This may be part of the reason 8 of the 10 cities in the US with the highest air pollution are in California. Carb's solution, longer battery warranties on hybrids, that will fix it. I mean everyone knows if a guy with a prius with an 8 year waranty in other states are bigger polluters.

Waranties are part of consumer protection not environmental protection. Having pollution laws that allow polluting objects to stay out there because they are expensive to repair, doesn't make much sense to me. Its the same reason 70 year old coal plants are allowed to pollute much more than 10 year old ones, poor regulation.

 

I have no idea what AG is trying to say, but longer warranties for the hybrid drivetrain seem to obviously have two benefits:

1. Increased consumer uptake. The consumer value of the item increases
2. Compliance regulation is shifted to the manufacturer. While the battery per se is not a polluter, it is part of the system that is. This would be analogous to saying that the pipe leading up to the catalytic converter is also warrantied.

Letting old heavy polluters continue to operate is a separate issue, and in general I think falls under the category of avoiding future jeopardy. I don't agree with the policy when it is open ended time-wise, but that surely is a separate discussion.

 

Yes, I am unfamiliar California's system, and didn't realize you were arguing against it specifically, but the entire emission warranty system. The federal warranty requirements do not seem to be a heavy burden on manufacturers. The 2yr/24k one falls within nearly everyone's base bumper to bumper. The 8yr/80k one covers just the catalytic convertor, which should easily last the normal life of the car, and some of the computer control modules. If they were going to fail, it would be more likely sooner than later.

If there isn't a means testing for hardship, just letting a dirty car pass because of expensive repairs is, well, silly. Though appears that in Ca there is means testing. SmogTips.com - California Smog Check Waiver. Register your car WITHOUT a Smog Certificate. Smog check exemption. Smog Exempt. No smog check. smog waiver. smog check waiver.Failed smog check. Did your car fail the smog test. Smog Check spending limit. California vehicle registration, vehicle registration,Smog Checks,DMV register. DMV Tags. Registration tags. tags. dmv stickers. registration stickers. dmv sticker. Smog Check Tips,smog test waiver. smog test exemption. smog check exemption. Test Only Centers,Smog Stations - Did you know you can register you car without a smog certificate? Registration tag.The State offer smog exemptions for vehicle owners who qualify. It also seems to not be an exemption, but more an extension until the next required inspection to get the repairs done. Considering the state of public transit in most of the country, a waiver program seems fair for those of less means to not lose their possible only ride to work/school/etc.

I can understand putting a hybrid battery under emission controls. Limiting the amount of gas burned is going to limit the amount of pollution produced. A Honda type hybrid with a dead pack is going to burn more gas. It's the same reason the transmission control module is covered. I know there isn't a direct correlation between the amount of fuel used and the various pollutants considering the variables in control systems. The EPA tests for fuel economy are the tests for emission ratings though.

The CARB battery warranty is excessive now considering how long hybrids have been on the road with few failures. It did play a part along with the tax and other incentives in getting hesitant people into hybrids. Scaling back to the federal level 8yr/100k should be fine.

 

I think you are only describing a part of the whole thing. The idea of all the CARB regulations was to lower the average emissions per car, as well as the total emissions. Requiring compliance, even in hardship cases, probably wasn't politically on the table so I imagine there were some exemptions allowed. In addition, CARB found that a very small percentage of the dirtiest cars (<1%, maybe) were responsible for, something like 20% of emissions in cities.The entire program included funds for buying these cars and crushing them (~10-15 years ago).

The air in LA is still smoggy, but far less than in the past and even more so than it would have been.

How Los Angeles Began to Put its Smoggy Days Behind | Laws That Shaped LA | Land of Sunshine | KCET

Mike

 

All I was saying, and again this is pretty straightforward, there is no reason in 2013 to have 2 sets of ratings. If california numbers are the ones we need, that is fine, but it is asinine to include warranty requirements in different ratings. Texas has some pretty ridiculous laws and I would not want those thrust upon the country. Pheonix, Pittsburgh, Houston, don't really need different emissions regulations than LA, but there is no reason to give one state extra power because it has been the worst polluter in the past, and today is still the worst.

There is no reason at all that when california knew it was failing at ZEV for them to create a partial zero oxymoron rating that included higher warranty ratings. I would think if you actually cared about the pollution, and had some mystical reason for having multiple warranty requirements, it would be on the higher polluting cars, becasue they are the most likely ones to fail the test, and the owners most likely not willing to pay for it.

So yes, I would strip the california ratings of their special super duper extra spectacular low emissions (or pzev) warranty. The evaporation emissions that are at a higher level are fine. That california feels that a hybrid needs one warranty, but a fuel cell car needs a different shorter one, makes no sense at all.

Here is the federal waranty. Tell me if you think the california one actually makes air cleaner. I just looked it up, california has now exempted pre 1998 diesel cars from even getting checked, so they never are forced to become cleaner. The mechanism to assure clean air is the inspection, not the waraty.

http://www.epa.gov/obd/pubs/420f09048.pdf

But honda to keep the battery from being a waranty cost, changed the software to burn more gas. That was perfectly fine in california. No one really wants to drive with a dead pack. A pack losing capacity or with software changes is what you are talking about. Now will said honda pollute more than those diesels that california exempted from inspection? No! What you are talking about is consumer protection on mileage claims, and yes many hybrids fail here, but that is not about emissions. If the pollutants get high they can catch them in inspections. I don't even think california emissions tests hybrids. If they were actually concerned with that pollution they would. Its an excuse, and if its not why grant waivers for 10 years instead of 15? 15 is what the carb regulation says.

I do not know if they changed the rules, but if pollution is really a problem, then they need to account for all the cars, not simply attempt to make new ones better. I do not understand how the extra long waranties helps replace old polluting cars with new cars. It raises the cost of new vehicles. It does stifle innovation. It appears that was the intention from the way the pzev requirements were written. It made it difficult for modifications and slowed advancements in lithium in hybrids. This protects the biggest richest companies and push for bev and fuel cells. At the time the law was written that was gm, which didn't like hybrids very much at the time. It does not make the air in california any cleaner.

Some University of Colorado professors found that out, and advocated pulling more off instead of the botique blends.

Say CARB had setting their own rules in 1995, and did more to take the highest polluting cars off the road. Would the air be more dirty?

I don't really understand why people stick up for these strange extra requirements for hybrids and plug ins, the newest is BEVx, where the gas tank range has to be lower than the battery range. Sure that really makes the air more clear, and gets high polluting cars off the road.

 

I'm fine with one standard. We only have two because of history. California started regulating car emissions before the Feds. With a quarter of the national fleet falling under CARB regs, it appears the manufacturers are just building to the stricter one already for most models. Might as well make it official.

Extended warranty requirements for certain emission ratings is silly. If the hybrid battery pack is a vital part to emission control, then the warranty should apply regardless of of emission rating.

I don't think the 7yr/70k CARB warranty really adds any benefit to what the federal already provides.

In PA, all light diesel vehicles are exempt from emissions. Even the new clean ones. I couldn't find an answer as to why, but I suspect it's for technical and logistic reasons. Pre-OBD2 vehicles require a sniff test. Without a DPF, the particulates will get into the test equipment. Perhaps even damage it. Since inspects are done by private businesses that pay for the equipment, and diesels are a small number of the fleet(likely less than hybrids), forcing them to buy extra equipment for diesels may not have been politically possible. That doesn't explain why OBD2 diesels are exempt. But Suburbans and Expeditions are classified as station wagons and cheaper the register here than a compact pick up, so I guess sense isn't needed.

I said Honda type because I didn't want to get into the differences between hybrids that can or cannot be driven with a dead pack.



Hybrids seem to be exempt from emissions in several states. Since most states don't provide free emission testing like NJ, it is merely another incentive to get people to buy them. Since nearly all hybrids have an emission rating above the fail floor the state tests at, I'm not worried about a hybrid that would fail the test getting a free pass.

I agree Ca's hybrid warranty is excessive. The federal one can probably drop to 8yr/80k. But with the FUD and people's uncertainity of new things, they served as another incentive for sales. Eventually, they, and testing exemptions, should be phased out, but when is a different discussion.

How much of the CARB regulations does another state have to adopt if they decide to go that route? Pa is one, but it has some differences, like some counties being exempt from any emission testing for residents.

 

I definitely remember GM had a program of incentivized cost cutting in the production line after the car design was passed to manufacturing. I'm straining my brain trying to remember what book described this and the name of that program, but alas, I have too many on the bookshelf to sort through. The reason for mentioning it in the book was how insidious it was at rewarding only decisions that reduced quality. So while there was never an intentional program to cause GM cars to have parts expire at the warranty end, they sure had a lot of parts that had too many corners cut during that phase of GM leadership.

 

I cannot get upset by the CARB 150k warranty mile for PZEV, although I agree that the rationale is less than obvious and may not be consistent with their other rule making. That does not make it bad, just perhaps an exception.

We should not forget that CA has adopted hybrids with open arms, so maybe CARB did something right after all. If TX had been the leader in hybrid adoption I'd be more forgiving of their state rules. My latest guesss why PZEV has an extended warranty, beyond customer confidence in the tech, is that CARB gave partial ZEV credits for the cars (thus the 'P'ZEV.) I can imagine them wanting to insure ZEV like emissions for the life of the car.

Lastly, this incessant banter from AG of wanting only one ring to rule them all ignores the obvious; that fed regulations through the years have been the result of CARB rulings. So either give CARB national authority, or let CARB keep it's preferred status. The country needs CARB leadership, flawed though it can be.

Addendum: CARB's LEV III now requires 120k miles for certification, IIRC, of ULEV and higher. And once again, the feds are copying CARB into the federal requirements as the proposed Tier III. So the 150k mile requirement of PZEV can be viewed as the precursor to a general durability improvement in emissions across the board. Sneaky sneaky CARB.