50MPG from Chevy Cruze Diesel

In Europe the standards are IMO equally stringent, gasoline more CO permissive, and diesel more NOx and HC+NOx permissive.

European emission standards - Wikipedia

Being Europe the largest market for diesel fueled passenger cars...I can't see why diesel engines had to be cheated here also...

 

What diesels does Toyota sell in the US? I can't find any. Tundra diesel is not available.

If you are talking about Europe, where Toyota does sell diesels, diesels still only have to pass the unrealistic, easily gamed NEDC tests. Furthermore, the NOx limit for Euro6 diesel cars is 80 mg/km while the NOx limit for gas cars is 60 mg/km. In real world testing of 33 Euro6 cars, DUH found that 30 exceeded even that 80 mg/km limit by factors up to 17 times. Fords, Renaults, Fiats, Opels, BMWs, Mercedes, Toyotas...
http://www.duh.de/fileadmin/user_upload/download/Projektinformation/Verkehr/dieselgate/EKI/2017-01-10_Tabelle_PEMS-Messungen_Ergebnisse_Maerz-Dezember_2016.pdf

Even in the US, I don't believe that real world emission testing is required. I'm sure the authorities are carefully looking for cycle beating "defeat devices" in new diesels but a diesel can still get away with higher emissions under conditions not covered by the test cycle, for example colder ambient temperatures.

I totally agree that VW/Audi/Porsche/Seat/Skoda is a "terrible company with crap cars", but they did account for most of the diesel car sales in the US. And they were cheating. According to DUH testing, even new diesels are violating at least the spirit, if not the letter of the European emissions regulations. Meanwhile, hybrids like the Prius, emit much less than the allowed limits.

If diesels really did have emissions as low as gasoline powered cars with hybrid power trains in real world driving scenarios, then, sure, it would make sense for them to continue to be developed, promoted and sold. As far as I can see, they don't.

 

Do note that due to energy density and carbon content differences, 50 MPG-Diesel is equivalent to only about 44 MPG-gasoline.

Has Troy Heagy been resurrected?

 

Check under the bridge.
.

 

that's what i figured, but too obvious? also, tried to find @troyheagy, but no luck. i thought you couldn't delete an account?

 

Mods can, & have, & will again.
.

 

It isn't deleted. Just put the correct name in the 'Posted by Member:' field when Searching, and you can find all the old posts. But you must provide the exact spelling, as it was disabled from the search suggestions when the mods locked out the account.

 

whats the name? i tried troy heagy and troyheagy.

 

Hey folks,

We need to cool it with skepticism about GM's Chevy Cruze diesel. We really want him (them) to buy one. In fact, we want to encourage every Chevy Cruze diesel advocate to spend their money on that 'wonder car' . . . even in other forums. Yes, let's encourage them to 'do the experiment.'

Bob Wilson

ps. We'll catch them when or after the 'reality training.' . . . Sad to say.

 

The former is correct. No search suggestions ever pop up to confirm your choice. But click the 'Search' button, and it should be successful.

 

it worked, thanks! funny, his last post ripped into me for not plugging into a 120v outlet in a hotel garage uninvited.

 

While the pollutant limits for Euro 6 are close to EPA, I think the test cycles are lighter loads on the engine, and further from real world operations. Then the rules have some gaping holes for diesels, like Mercedes disabling emission controls, because it is "too cold" out.

EPA has an anti-diesel bias when it comes to cars. Otherwise, there would be a separate limit table for them as in Europe, instead having to pass harder gasoline one.

They cheated over there, because they could, and knew the country governments would protect the domestic companies.

 

Perhaps but would we need a separate species with diesel tolerant lungs?

Bob Wilson

 

Maybe that's why Elon Musk thought it best to incorporate the bioweapon defense filtration in his cars ... Save a bunch of Europeans & US folk from respiratory failure

.

 

How is the NOx and carbon monoxide coming out of a diesel different than those coming out of a gasoline car? All what having different emission tables for each does is acknowledge the different technologies have a tougher time with the different pollutant.

With DPF being required on diesels for a decade now, we are breathing in more particles from gasoline cars.

 

GDI has some pretty significant emissions and real-world efficiency impacts, too, though, especially with downsized and turbocharged engines like the Fiesta/Focus EcoBoost. (The Mirage is port injection, though, so the following comments don't apply to it. It seems like a rather efficient and simple car, although not a very )

GDI has the same mixture control issues that diesel has - you're injecting it right before ignition, giving less time for proper mixture of air and fuel. This increases both NOx (lean spots) and soot formation (rich spots).

In addition, downsized and turbocharged engines often have to enrichen their air/fuel mixture significantly at high load, to the point that at those high loads, they're actually less efficient than their larger displacement counterparts, and spewing very high amounts of soot. However, because most automakers aren't going as far with that technology in the US as they are in Europe, they apply for waivers for that emissions impact.

Ultimately, it'll be driving experience - comparing to a naturally aspirated base model engine, the diesel will typically feel like a much larger displacement, although lower-revving, alternative, but it still feels fairly conventional.

Ever since the EPA and CARB sent VW the Notice of Violation, all EPA certifications of diesel vehicles have included real-world driving to test for defeat devices. This has actually delayed certification of many MY2017 models significantly (and FCA was caught cheating, at least to an extent (it doesn't look as bad as VW's cheat though, so far) by this process on the 3.0 V6 diesels, when certifying the MY2017 models), to the point that, as far as I'm aware, automakers are starting to skip the 2017 model year, and certify as 2018 instead.

That's fine if your goal is to ensure that specific technologies remain in the market, but that shouldn't be the goal of environmental regulation. The goal of environmental regulation should be to protect the environment, and that requires minimizing emissions that are harmful to the environment while minimizing undue harm that the regulations cause to the people, regardless of whether that means that certain technologies are functionally banned or untenable to operate. If your technology can't meet the standards, make it better or use a different technology.

Of course, there's also the difference between port injected NA engines, and direct injected turbocharged engines, for particulate emissions - the latter being far, far worse than the former. And, also, some of the problem is particulate number rather than sheer mass, which hasn't in the past been a problem and therefore wasn't regulated - PN regulation would help with the turbocharged GDI emissions problems. (In reality, given the other real-world performance issues of turbocharged GDI engines, the industry is moving back towards less turbocharging, so I wouldn't be surprised to see if that's the ultimate solution.)

 

The "separate limit table" is the problem. I have no problem with a universal set of limits regardless of the engine/motor/drive train. I just don't like a diesel-table versus gas-table versus CNG-table, e.t.c. If we need to, apply the same to the source of the EV power IF it has significant pollutant loads.

Bob Wilson

 

Mind you, I'd be fine with, if certain emissions are related, having combined limits (ala the combination of NMOG and NOx limits in Tier 3 emissions, which allows low NMOG emission vehicles more NOx, and vice versa) or equivalency factors...