EPA flexing their muscles

tikal said:

So basically light duty diesel engines smaller than 3.0L range are pretty much non-existent nowadays in North America and in the foreseeable future!

Click to expand...

Yup, with the exception of the 2.8 that GM uses in the Colorado/canyon. Not sure what size Mazda is using.

And the 2.5L Roxor, if you're willing to jump through some hoops to make it street legal. Arguably more of a Jeep than anything FCA makes today.

kjclow said:

Yup, with the exception of the 2.8 that GM uses in the Colorado/canyon. Not sure what size Mazda is using.

Click to expand...

I think it's a 2.1 or 2.2L Mazda's using.

And the EPA rating on it isn't that spectacular for a vehicle its size, though some early adopters have reported bettering the EPA numbers on the highway by 3-5 MPG.

GoFaster said:

...
And here's the emission control label...

Click to expand...

Does the 1.4TSI have the "feature" like some Kia and Ford DI motors I've observed that when you punch if after driving gently for a while, a huge cloud of brown gunk blows out the exhaust?

I never observed this on our room mate's 2.0 TSI Tiguan.

-J

oilhammer said:

Y'all haven't experienced anything until you've driven a diesel Vanagon (48hp)

Click to expand...

I figure I should drop this here (Yes, this is oilhammer's diesel Vanangon):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bueQy3mSnKg

I'm watching the speedo so close so I can see the shift marks!

-J

To be fair, the governor in the pump was stuck solid during that race... so it does run much better now. *Might* even win it!

compu_85 said:

Does the 1.4TSI have the "feature" like some Kia and Ford DI motors I've observed that when you punch if after driving gently for a while, a huge cloud of brown gunk blows out the exhaust?
I never observed this on our room mate's 2.0 TSI Tiguan.
-J

Click to expand...

The bugaboo with gasoline engines is controlling the temperature of everything post-combustion. Pistons, exhaust valves, catalysts. When running at stoichiometric (necessary for 3-way catalysts to function), exhaust temperature is very close to the highest it can be. The easy way to control it is to go rich under heavy load, and it's pretty obvious that the Ford Ecoboost engines do that. Even normally-aspirated engines can require meltdown protection under load, but nowadays it's usually well above what's seen in normal driving conditions, and frequently the engine controls contain an internal mathematical model, and only go into rich protection mode after a period of time at high load, i.e. not very often. Turbo engines can require rich protection mode much more frequently ... in the case of a friend's Ford Explorer Ecoboost, any time it has a trailer in tow. The exhaust pipe is very black inside.

Mazda and Toyota are addressing this via high compression and fast combustion (which lower EGT) ... and both Skyactiv and Dynamic Force were conceived as non-turbo engines, although market forces appear to be dictating that they install turbochargers anyhow.

A lot of newer gasoline engines have the exhaust manifold cast into the cylinder head. This allows cooling jackets to be completely around it, which clips the top off the EGT peaks (and also gets the engine to warm up faster, which is also better for emissions - and interior heating). The Chrysler Pentastar is like this and I know that at least some of the newer VW gasoline engines are like this. Doesn't help the exhaust valves but it does help with catalyst protection.

Honda V6s are like that too, except UNlike the Pentastar, I've never seen one burn an exhaust valve. And they do not eat catalysts, either. But Honda will be phasing those out soon in place of turbo fours, which are already proving fragile. Sad, Honda's V6s have always been VERY good engines. All of them, even back into the '80s (although I have done a few head gaskets some older ones).

This is why I get a chuckle out of the EV fan boys posting things about major manufacturers halting or cutting back ICE development, like that is a bad thing. No, it is a good thing. Some of them should have stopped a while ago (EA888, cough, hack, barf). Not much left, they are, or were, as good as they'll get within the confines of reasonable cost and durability. I do not feel there is ANY engine sold today that will last as long as some previous designs. And this is from any manufacturer.

oilhammer said:

I do not feel there is ANY engine sold today that will last as long as some previous designs. And this is from any manufacturer.

Click to expand...

I drove my '93 300D to work today and was thinking as it was quietly cruising up the freeway what a great trip car this would be, and how much more peace of mind I'd have driving it than a newer Mercedes, even a diesel, despite my car having almost 200K on it. I feel the same way driving my ALH on a road trip versus the GSW or BMW.

My 1972 Cadillac was that way as well. It would bankrupt you to take it on a trip today though. Very nice highway trip car though.

The spike in engine replacements, or at least, engines in need of replacement, that our shop sees, is pretty astounding. Granted, *most* of the time it stems from neglect, but it isn't like THAT is anything new. People have been neglecting cars as long as cars have been around.

It is the lack of resilience so many of the newer stuff has makes poor choices but more costly much more quickly. We've probably had 50+ GM engines through our shop this year that needed replacement. We do not sell all the jobs, since in many cases the owner cannot afford it, and/or the vehicle in question is a valueless turd that would only serve to lower the value of the new engine once installed. That 1.4L turbo engine GM has is one of the worst (Trax, optional in the Cruze and Sonic, as well as the Buick versions of those cars). Followed closely by the 2.4L DI Ecotec engine and that 3.6L V6 that GM cannot seem to figure out the chain drive (they are on the 6th or 7th revision now). And of course the truck V6s and V8s with that stupid cylinder deactivation nonsense and cam-in-a-cam phasing stuff that has zero tolerance for poor oil condition/level. We JUST did a 5.3L in a 2014 Silverado last week.

And Ford must've realized 20 weight oil is not any good in the trucks, because the 2016 F250 6.2L V8 we did a couple weeks ago (which spec'd 5w20) was replaced with a brand new updated version (seriously, updated... since 2016!?!?!?!) with an oil cap that showed 5w30, a different oil pan, dipstick, and dipstick tube, with a little note attached to it stating the change in oil requirements and the additional .75 q of capacity.

FCA did something similar with the Hemi V8s in their trucks, that now spec 0w40 instead of the 5w20 they were using.

I think this is why Honda is having so many problems with their turbo fours, they still spec a 0w20 in them. Most of the rest (Hyundai, Ford, GM) may spec a 5w20 or 0w20 in non-turbo engines, but still use 5w30 in the turbos. Which is why I fear for the new VAG engines with the 508/9 0w20. I regularly see EA888s chomp through 5w40 like a fat guy through donuts on cheat day, I can only imagine the perpetually dry dipsticks that will ensue with 0w20 in the crankcase.

What's the issue with the cylinder deactivation?

One company I worked for many years past provided their salespeople with company cars and coupons for service. I was sitting in the fleet managers office one day when she got the call from the leasing company wanting to know where to deliver this one car. Seems the salesman didn't know he was supposed to get the oil changed. He only had 35k on the original oil when the engine seized. I know that's not what got him fired, but it started the ball rolling.

kjclow said:

What's the issue with the cylinder deactivation?

.

Click to expand...

Under the intake, bolted to the top of the block in the lifter valley, is a valve body with a bunch of solenoids and passages running all over. These gunk up and quit working, causing lifter/cam/valve/piston and sometimes complete engine failure. The older engines didn't have this, so it wasn't even there to break.

oilhammer said:

...That 1.4L turbo engine GM has is one of the worst...

Click to expand...

I think that's the motor my ELR has (sans turbo). I suppose it's good it doesn't see much use

I changed the oil for the first time last month... actually super easy to do.

-J

Oil changes are easy. Changing turbos is easy. Changing valve covers is easy. Changing intake manifolds is easy. Changing the engine is easy. I've done them all, multiple times.

Whatever weirdness is going on over at the EPA, I think this initiative is for real. The clock is ticking on the availability of delete tunes for street driven tdi's, imo.

turbobrick240 said:

Whatever weirdness is going on over at the EPA, I think this initiative is for real. The clock is ticking on the availability of delete tunes for street driven tdi's, imo.

Click to expand...

May be right.

Of course, if the emissions equipment didn't give so many reliability headaches there'd be a lot fewer people deleting them anyway, especially in the VW world where for most people, they're just damn good commuters.

Truck bros who want to spew soot to get attention are a different crowd altogether... Though, at the same time, given that most of the tuned and deleted TDI crowd usually are not severe smoke emitters and that they're much smaller numbers than the diesel truck crowd, it's possible they may skate by with minimal attention paid to them.

Being in California, I won't be testing my luck and I was saying that long before the crackdown began... and before the emissions scandal.

Once upon a time I lived in Michigan and had the downpipe on my mk3 rust out in front of the cat converter. IndigoBlueWagon was coming to town for one of our early Detroit Auto Show GTGs (2008ish?) and I had him bring a downpipe with him... with cat.

I didn't appreciate the smell without it and never noticed a significant enough performance difference to justify putting up with the scent. I got weird looks being in a state that doesn't do emissions testing yet opting to fix it up right instead of straight piping it. Just my personal preference in the car I daily.

Of course, when I did get to California (2010), they didn't approve of it being an aftermarket cat so I had to go and buy an OE downpipe and catalyst anyway All because Magnaflow doesn't want to play the game of submitting a diesel oxidation cat to CARB for testing and approval to receive a CARB E.O.. That costs money... it's definitely a pay to play system.

Playing by the rules from then on so as to not incur the wrath of the state government here.

Maybe another year here, explore the cool stuff I can within that timeframe, then move on. We'll see.

Well, be glad you're not in Germany. You practically need TUV approval just to wax your car over there. I guess that's the tradeoff for no speed limits on stretches of autobahn.

Speaking of "the truck crowd", while the small penis syndrome folks are certainly well represented within that group, there are also lots of commercial vehicles that the company just needs the equipment to be reliable and durable, and better fuel economy certainly helps. One of our commercial accounts had repeated issues with their F550 with the 6.4L diesel they finally gave up and took it somewhere in Illinois and had a "false" DPF/catalyst installed. It looks just like the original, just no innards. And of course the software was altered. I noticed it when they brought it in for state inspection (we do not service this particular truck) and it had sooty tailpipes and clearly smelled like a non-DPF non-catalyst diesel. But it has not broken down since, runs better, and uses less fuel. So....

And they use it for its intended purpose. Moving VERY heavy loads (rooftop A/C units) and towing their scissor lift and other equipment. It is a small business, and this is the only truck of its type they have. None of the rest of their vehicles (E-vans, and now Transits (which are already broken)...) can do what this beast stake bed truck can do. They depend on it. THEIR customers depend on it. This truck was so unreliable before the owner was actually looking for a 7.3L truck to refurbish for a little birdie told him about fixing the 6.4L truck permanently.

oilhammer said:

Speaking of "the truck crowd", while the small penis syndrome folks are certainly well represented within that group, there are also lots of commercial vehicles that the company just needs the equipment to be reliable and durable, and better fuel economy certainly helps. One of our commercial accounts had repeated issues with their F550 with the 6.4L diesel they finally gave up and took it somewhere in Illinois and had a "false" DPF/catalyst installed. It looks just like the original, just no innards. And of course the software was altered. I noticed it when they brought it in for state inspection (we do not service this particular truck) and it had sooty tailpipes and clearly smelled like a non-DPF non-catalyst diesel. But it has not broken down since, runs better, and uses less fuel. So....
And they use it for its intended purpose. Moving VERY heavy loads (rooftop A/C units) and towing their scissor lift and other equipment. It is a small business, and this is the only truck of its type they have. None of the rest of their vehicles (E-vans, and now Transits (which are already broken)...) can do what this beast stake bed truck can do. They depend on it. THEIR customers depend on it. This truck was so unreliable before the owner was actually looking for a 7.3L truck to refurbish for a little birdie told him about fixing the 6.4L truck permanently.

Click to expand...

While California is relatively lenient to the passenger car/light truck crowd, they've been horrible for commercial truck and bus owners.

They've been requiring DPF retrofits to vehicles that never had them in the first place and eventually will start requiring that those vehicles be outright replaced with more modern units with the latest and greatest emissions tech.

Fortunately, when it comes to private vehicle ownership, they do no such retroactive BS like that. But I'd be pretty incensed as a commercial truck operator here. Pushing technology that hasn't yet been fully made reliable, forcing retrofits and/or buying vehicles that has the tech that is still being figured out. It's been a headache to say the least.

They put big incentives on CNG powered trucks for port duties awhile back too, and those have just as many problems if not more than the clean diesels, and were usually most costly to operate and underpowered.

I could not imagine the level of anger owners must feel over having their hands forced to buy unreliable products that they rely on for their business to operate, and then have to deal with more downtime on top of the added expense of the vehicle purchase and now repair costs too. I'd be fuming.

That is why they move away.

Metro here had awful experiences with CNG buses, too. That had to be rescued almost daily by: a diesel powered service truck, or, if that was unable to provide in-the-field repairs, a diesel powered tow truck to take them back to the garage. And, of course, another bus had to be dispatched immediately to pick up the stranded passengers, which, was usually a diesel.

I’ve never been an automatic rule follower but hearing some of these stories, especially the ones associated with incorporated businesses, actually makes me less sympathetic to the deleters. Isn’t there a question of fairness? What about the business with the big truck that’s trying to comply? For every Catch-22 there is an Escape Clause-33: “that rule doesn’t apply to me because ____(whine)___.” It’s not much different than taxes. When somebody cheats they tell themselves there is no victim; but every one else of us is paying to make up for the free ride that guy felt entitled to.

Last I checked not liking or agreeing with a law was not a valid reason for not obeying it. Or we learned nothing from dieselgate.

Oh I learned a lot from Dieselgate. I learned that the rules regarding NOx simply became too drastic too quickly, and I learned I must take better care of the older cars I already have since I evidently won't be buying anything new ever again.

It is like they said "OK, the are lowering the speed limits on the Interstate, from 70 to 60, to save fuel (they've done this before). Only we REALLY want to save fuel, so we are just gonna drop it to 40 MPH". Actually, and Matt knows the figures better than I do, it would probably be more like 5 MPH. The cut was THAT MUCH, that fast.

And then VAG, MB, and BMW were "accused", likely with Bosch involved of course, of stifling new technology. Well, the reason for that was because unlike the EPA, the car companies actually know a thing or two about cars, and know a thing or two about their buying demographic. And they knew that they simply could not make this stuff available at a price point anyone could realistically afford let alone make it be reasonably reliable for the duration of the new car buyer's intended average tenure of ownership.

This dovetails in with the fact that something happened a few years ago that seemed to have gone quietly unnoticed: the gov't mandated 8 year, 80k mile, emissions compliance warranty lost much of its coverage. Why? Because when the gov't kept pushing for "cleaner", the manufacturers (all of them, there was not a single one that didn't) pushed back. They essentially said "OK, if you want us to do this, we can, but we cannot be responsible for its functioning as intended for this long period of time". So, overnight, much of that warranty coverage went away.

Ever think why warranties on new cars haven't kept going UP along with everything else, but in some cases have actually gone DOWN? Because even the manufacturers are losing faith in what they are having to build.

Volkswagen used to have a 10 year, 100k mile powertrain warranty here. Anyone remember that? I do. The 01M single handedly killed that, but today, they'd go double plus broke over epic failures like the EA888 engines and gosh-knows-what bank account emptying things on stuff like the T'reg and now that Atlas.

I've never quite squared the circle of how cars that can deliver more fuel efficiency (like the ALH) are dirtier overall than, say, an F150. I have to think that if I'm getting 50 MPG it's got to have some benefit over a truck or SUV delivering 15. I think it's a matter of what we decide to measure as pollutants. I feel we should measure CO2 and tax cars that deliver a lot of it. That would penalize larger vehicles more appropriately in my opinion.

I agree, and that is what Europe has done. However, that resulted in a higher concentration of diesel sales, and now they are pointing fingers.

But, here, it is almost going to be a non-issue. Maybe in some dense city areas, but not where I live. We've NEVER had any NOx problems here. We do not even have the problems we used to have (despite THAT being directly linked to weather and not exclusively vehicle emissions), so much so they've relaxed the OBD testing slightly, and did away with all emissions testing on 1995 and older cars.

Sadly, unrelated, but worth noting, they've also relaxed our safety program. So now, we see every day cars through our shop that *would* fail an inspection but since they no longer need it, they are able to share our roads just the same.

As I wrote earlier, it’s an interesting conversation. I root for the automobile owner holding on to their older vehicle. I can even get my mind around someone deleting emissions on their personal vehicle, tho the folks “rolling coal” seem like overgrown babies and/or self-styled “deplorables.” In short, doofuses and show-offs.

When you take this into the realm of businesses is when I have the problem. Fitzgerald kept framing the issue in reference to the employment he was providing (I personally know one of his employees here in TN so this is not abstract to me), but he was not that generous an employer whether in terms of wages or benefits. Behind the smokescreen, what he was so sanctimonious about was his right to make gobs of money and to rig the rules in his favor, because business is always better than government. He feels he is a little hero, sticking up for the “Merican” way against the evil and stupid government types. Probably with a conspiracy theory thrown in there for good measure.

At this point, I’m sure you are catching my drift. It is wrong for business (small and big) to be an ethical slippery slope—or worse, race to the bottom. It is especially unfair for the competitor who is trying to follow the rules, but it is actually unfair for everyone, either directly or indirectly.

Do the stricter regulations cause the ethical decay, or does the ethical decay cause the stricter regulations? I think we only tend to hear one side of this story.

FWIW, I despise stinky smoky diesels. Or gassers, for that matter. So I absolutely want technology that limits or reduces that. However, I also NEED it to be reliable and long lasting. And there is, somewhere, a suitable for most circumstances common ground. VAG found it, exploited it, and it was found to be in the wrong. Yes, the cars with no smell, white glove clean tail pipes, and stellar fuel economy while also delivering lively performance, were found to be dirty and illegal.

I have some tolerance for maintaining these expensive and often fragile technologies, but it has its limits.

Last night I got home from a road trip (Michigan and Wisconsin), and was looking at the over the road trucks I passed, thinking about Fitzgerald. I agree that they are working a loophole in the regulations, perhaps, if you believe some folks here, that are a result of some good old lobbying. But I also feel that emissions regs for all diesels got ahead of the technology. My partner at IDParts (Corey) has three new diesels (Mercedes R-Class and GMC Canyon) and both have rejection stickers because he has trouble getting them to show readiness on a reliable basis. Meantime I drive my '02 with nearly 400K on it 2,500 miles over 5 days and it doesn't miss a beat. I bet truckers get tired of dealing with persistent issues, and for them it's money, not just inconvenience.

So violating the regs isn't cool, I agree. But they need to be rationalized, or technology needs to catch up. We had the same issues with gasoline powered cars in the 70s. We got past it. But it sounds like gasser regs are about to leapfrog technology again. Manufacturers are already having problems with direct injection.

oilhammer said:

...We've NEVER had any NOx problems here....

Click to expand...

True, in fact, no areas in the USA exceed the NO2 NAAQS, or are even close to the NAAQS NO2 limit (53 ppb).

The last area of the USA in violation of the NO2 NAAQS was Los Angeles, and that area technically achieved attainment in 1992 (officially achieved attainment in 1998), when gasoline passenger cars were pumping out NOx emissions at the rate of 2.2 g/mi on average according to EPA (the worst of the TDIs averaged 1.5 g/mi in the WVU/ICCT study).

Yes, but I wonder if this is like Canada saying they don't have a problem with acid rain. Because it all blows south to the US.