Wrong forum, I think.With current mods I am getting 38.8city/55hwy on B100
Even with his mods he is polluting less than the majority of the large displacement gas powered loophole SUVs and pickup trucks from the last 15 years.Totally wrong forum...Storx car is NOT street legal (heavily modified or removed exhaust emissions system)
He should be saying "and polluting at a rate significantly higher than legally allowed"...
Really? Do you believe all of this?Even with his mods he is polluting less than the majority of the large displacement gas powered loophole SUVs and pickup trucks from the last 15 years.
I don't care what anyone says a 6-10 mpg gas suv or pickup will always pollute more than a high tech extremely efficient 50-60 mpg TDI-CR diesel car even if all of the emissions are removed. And it isn't just at the tail pipe that counts, but all of the pollution that is that is produced by refining the gasoline they are wasting for no real reason compared to what is used by the fuel efficient diesel car.
There is a reason diesel autos essentially had no emissions on them until 1992 while gasoline engines have required all sorts of emissions controls going back to 1971. Because compared to all gassers any diesel is pretty clean even without any emissions after-treatment. Without any after-treatment diesels have low C0, low C02, and large PMs that essentially fall to ground in short order once produced.......Don't get me wrong, I like that they have figured out how to make the exhaust coming out of a diesel cleaner than the air going in. But come on is that really necessary???? I don't think so........
But WT! do I know......
We that drive diesels are still only in the 0.5-2 % range today across the US. and properly tuned diesel, opacity tested puts out a mi-nute amount of PM compared to what gasoline engines do today. If we still had the standard that was in effect pre-1992 how much pollution would the few of us across the US really be polluting??Really? Do you believe all of this?
Diesel Particulate Matter is one of the most invasive particles in the human lung. It is so small that it gets deep into the nodules and causing issues similar to black lung.
The reason is because diesels were such a SMALL percentage of the total cars. They focused on gasoline and the BIG wins first.
I don't disagree, but this statement implies that DPM is the only PM that's small enough to cause the health damages you mention. Actually, many studies have shown that under many common driving conditions (rapid acceleration, high speed/loads), particle number (PN) emissions from gasoline (SI) engines approach or even exceed the PN emissions of conventional (unfiltered) diesel engines. Here's a graphic taken from a CARB - *CARB* - publication (Appendix P, Lev III PM Technical Support Document, “Development Of Particulate Matter Mass Standards For Future Light-Duty Vehicles.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levappp.pdf (page P65))......Diesel Particulate Matter is one of the most invasive particles in the human lung. It is so small that it gets deep into the nodules and causing issues similar to black lung....
From the string you linked to in your above post, If I read this correctly:[FONT="]I actually at least partially agree with the emissions correlated to fuel consumption argument.
I give EPA and CARB all due credit for almost completely eliminating "tailpipe" emissions in the latest round of emission regs (Tier 2/LEV II). However, "tailpipe" emissions are not the whole story as far as total emissions are concerned ("tailpipe" emissions are becoming a less and less significant portion of the total overall emissions associated with vehicles).
A increasingly significant source of associated emissions now are in the "well-to-pump" (WTP) phase of the total emissions cycle. The WTP emissions are directly correlated to fuel consumption. Gasoline generally has higher emissions on an equivalent volume basis (e.g., per gallon) per ANLs' GREET model (v1.8 - which EPA approvingly cites in their "full-cycle" CO2 emissions calculations on fueleconomy.gov)...
Gasoline
Total VOC – 3.14 grams/gallon
Total CO – 1.6 grams/gallon
Total NOx – 5.05 grams/gallon
Total PM10 – 1.25 grams/gallon
Total PM2.5 – 0.5 grams/gallon
Total SOx – 2.45 grams/gallon
Diesel
Total VOC – 0.98 grams/gallon
Total CO – 1.6 grams/gallon
Total NOx – 5.02 grams/gallon
Total PM10 – 1.08 grams/gallon
Total PM2.5 – 0.42 grams/gallon
Total SOx – 2.35 grams/gallon
Of course, these are just model results, but as can be seen, a gasoline vehicle that gets relatively low fuel mileage will cause emissions in the WTP cycle that will swamp the "tailpipe" emissions required by Tier 2 or LEV II. So forcing diesel exhaust emissions of NOx to vanishingly small levels is somewhat silly if their much higher mileage figures result in lower NOx emissions in the WTP phase than even PZEV gasoline vehicles that achieve significantly lower fuel mileage.
Of course, there's also the "weekend effect" of decreasing NOx emissions relatively more than VOC emissions, but that's another story that's been discussed previously.
[/FONT]
Ok, from this I think if I am reading it correctly, from the figures you give:2006 Jetta TDI
(Grams/Mile)
Emission..................WTP.............PTW................WTW Total
HC/VOC...................0.029...........0.0194.............0.0484
CO...........................0.053...........0.04................0.093
NOx.........................0.169............0.31................0.479
PM2.5......................0.031...........0.046...............0.077
HC+NOx (US06)........0.198..........0.748................0.946
HC+NOx (SC03)........0.198..........0.748................0.946
CO (US06).................0.053..........0.05.................0.103
CO (SC03).................0.053..........0.05.................0.103
SOx..........................0.086...........0.02................0.106
2007 Cadillac Escalade
(Grams/Mile)
Emission..................WTP.............PTW................WTW Total
HC/VOC...................0.209...........0.067..............0.276
CO...........................0.126...........1.8.................1.93
NOx.........................0.393...........0.02...............0.413
PM2.5......................0.086............0...................0.086
HC+NOx (US06)........0.602..........0.069................0.671
HC+NOx (SC03)........0.602..........0.129................0.731
CO (US06).................0.126..........2.5.................2.63
CO (SC03).................0.126..........2.2.................2.33
SOx..........................0.21............0.006..............0.216
I did make some assumptions in the data...
The certified exhaust PM in PTW is actually total PM (TPM); I assumed it was all PM2.5. I also assumed the PTW PM emissions from the Escalade are zero, although that's almost certainly not the case (all we know from the cert sheet is that it's less than 0.01 g/mi).
Since WTP emission are a function of fuel mileage/consumption, I assumed the mileage was the same in each emission cycle (i.e., FTP75, US06, SC03). This is likely not the case, but I have no data for fuel consumption in the respective test cycles.
I used GREET's default values for PTW (exhaust) for SOx since that value is not given in the certified emissions data.
GREET is *supposed* to account for ALL emissions in the entire WTW cycle, emissions from diesel engines used to pump crude oil out of the ground, emissions from electricity used to refine the crude to gasoline/diesel fuel, emissions from diesel trucks used to transport the fuel to fuel stations, evaporative emissions during storage of the fuel, etc.
I included evaporative emissions from the Escalade based on the CARB certification data. That would include evaporative losses during refuleing (ORVR) plus evap emissions while the vehicle is "sitting", i.e., 3-day/2-day diurnal, and converting those emissions into a grams/mile equivalent.