Honda, the car maker that floored the world in the 1970s with the first gasoline engine to meet U.S. clean air guidelines without a catalytic converter, said it has developed a new and simple diesel power train that is as clean as gasoline-fueled cars. Full Article
"Tier II Bin 5" is simply the new measurement standard beginning in 2007. That's it. This is just more diesel propaganda. In other words, they will be offering technology that allows diesel to be clean enough to meet minimum criteria, so they can be sold in all 50 states. That emission rating of LEV is much dirtier than the PZEV that Prius delivers. Though it's much better than in the past, it isn't at all competitive. Carefully question articles like this. If they never mention SULEV or PZEV, the technology being touted probably isn't actually that clean.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Sep 25 2006, 03:07 PM) [snapback]324794[/snapback]</div> Diesel (currently) emits more NOx per mile than an equivalent gasoline engine, but less CO2. In deciding which is 'cleaner' it all depends on which pollutant you think causes bigger problems. In the USA the EPA seems to be chasing NOx emissions, but in Europe we see CO2 emissions as being worse. More than 50% of our new vehicles are diesel, and we don't have the smog problems that LA does.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Sep 28 2006, 07:26 AM) [snapback]324991[/snapback]</div> Why must we decide? *BOTH* types of emissions should be reduced. Hybrids (like Prius & Camry) offer reduction of both CO2 and NOx. Diesel increases emissions of NOx. No improvement is one thing. But to allow them to be worse (than current gasoline non-hybrids) is bad idea, a step in the wrong direction... hence the benefit of the SULEV & PZEV ratings. That is proof of improvement.
the average auto owner pay's for the minimum of servicing on their car/truck so what happens when they don't bother to add the ammonia to the cat system? Unlike a gasoline powered vehicle where the cat's need minimum attention the diesel will start putting out way more pollution both CO2 and NOx. Next question how long before the cat is plugged and not repairable?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Sep 28 2006, 08:26 AM) [snapback]324991[/snapback]</div> As John said, we shouldn't be forced to choose which pollutant is worse. Technically, the US isn't chasing NOx emissions. Both NOx and CO2 are considered as a part of the emission standards in the US, and all cars need to meet certain criteria for ULEV, SULEV, and PZEV ratings.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Sep 28 2006, 05:26 AM) [snapback]324991[/snapback]</div> there are few locations in the world where you have a large population base and prevailing westerly winds and a mountain range to the east. Vancouver is one and on warm summer day's we have a smog problem similar to LA. Very light westerly winds and they carrry the smog out to the east end of the valley. When you fly your plane from the interior of the province, you climb up over the rocks, aim the nose at the big brown blob and it will guide you right to Vancouver. I just wished we had the pollution requirements that California does, we'd have much better air quality as it'd restrict the diesel powered vehicles that seem to get past our useless emmision checks on them.
I also didn't see any mention of particulates. Most of what I've read lately points to particulate emissions as being as bad as NOx in terms of its deleterious effects on humans. Reducing particulates in diesels may be more difficult than reducing NOx levels. One estimate that I read said that using traditional means (some sort of filter material) to remove particulates from diesel exhaust would decrease its efficiency by 10-20%. This would mean no improvement over gasoline engines when all things were taken into account.
