USA vs. European Emissions Standards?

TDIMeister

Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
Joined
May 1, 1999
Location
Canada
TDI
TDI
I think it would only be fair to allow cars that get over say 40MPG to be emission exempt. Think about it, the cars that get such high mileage aren't polluting much due to the low fuel consumption and and manufactures would be compelled to make more fuel efficient if they don't have to go through rigorous EPA testing and compliance.
No, that logic is not always true. An early 80s VW Rabbit Diesel or late 80s Honda CRX HF might or Geo Metro might get amazing fuel economy but that does not make them clean. I know we're talking new cars as far as the EPA is concerned, but the principle here is that low fuel consumption does NOT generally equate to low levels of regulated pollutants -- HC, NOx, CO, particulates. If you have a problem with it, then regulating CO2 as well is a solution, and/or a carbon tax. Neither solution sit well with the many of the very same people who rant about this subject.

But we all know that the EPA/CARB hates diesel cars and are doing their best to keep them out.
Riiiiiiiiight... keep the conspiracy theories coming. :rolleyes: Electric cars represent a far larger threat to the unholy trinity of the EPA/Big-Auto/Big-Oil. But they're mostly swooning over them.
 

Scott_DeWitt

Vendor
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Location
Texas USA
TDI
2000 Audi A4 1.9TDI quattro
No, that logic is not always true. An early 80s VW Rabbit Diesel or late 80s Honda CRX HF might or Geo Metro might get amazing fuel economy but that does not make them clean. I know we're talking new cars as far as the EPA is concerned, but the principle here is that low fuel consumption does NOT generally equate to low levels of regulated pollutants -- HC, NOx, CO, particulates. If you have a problem with it, then regulating CO2 as well is a solution, and/or a carbon tax. Neither solution sit well with the many of the very same people who rant about this subject.
A better example would be the former Eastern Germany Trabant it did get great fuel economy (40-45mpg) however it's two stroke engine made wonderful mosquito foggers.
 

thebigarniedog

Master of the Obvious
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Location
Fail Command (Central Ohio)
TDI
1998 Jetta tdi
No, that logic is not always true. An early 80s VW Rabbit Diesel or late 80s Honda CRX HF might or Geo Metro might get amazing fuel economy but that does not make them clean. I know we're talking new cars as far as the EPA is concerned, but the principle here is that low fuel consumption does NOT generally equate to low levels of regulated pollutants -- HC, NOx, CO, particulates. If you have a problem with it, then regulating CO2 as well is a solution, and/or a carbon tax. Neither solution sit well with the many of the very same people who rant about this subject.

Riiiiiiiiight... keep the conspiracy theories coming. :rolleyes: Electric cars represent a far larger threat to the unholy trinity of the EPA/Big-Auto/Big-Oil. But they're mostly swooning over them.
Correct. My point of reference is the generation of cars from 2000 onward. The emissions of the banned mk4 tdi by CARB, whereas the allowance of the Hummer/expedition/explorer/pilot is lunacy.

The proper measure of emissions should be the amount of fuel burned and the emissions of that burned fuel by a vehicle over a constant time frame (i.e. the epa estimates yearly fuel used on the window sticker of a new car, as a for instance) added to the additional variable (i.e due to the location of the fuel an artificial constant would have to be chosen) for the measurement of emissions of equipment needed to drill/crack/transporting/refine/ship the fuel to your local gas station. Electric cars are a prime example of how counting only begins on delivery. Again, if one is serious then one needs to correctly measure the impact of a vehicle and not artificially exclude those facts that are inconvenient.

Until that type of measurement occurs, I believe it is fair to say that the unholy trinity of Big Oil, Big Government and the EPA/CARB has a bias against diesel including a financial interest in disposing of them (tax revenue and profit in keeping people in those Hummers (oops, we left out Big Auto :D which makes bigger profits on those suvs).

I could even take it another step. The people in the field will tell you the visual imagery of the cloud behind the bus is what they are seeking to prevent moreso then the content of that 1980s cloud imagery .....
 

Scott_DeWitt

Vendor
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Location
Texas USA
TDI
2000 Audi A4 1.9TDI quattro
I have a question, and perhaps someone on the list can answer it for me. Since I came from Europe, and my whole family is still there, getting a European diesel is the easy part, getting it over here is like trying to shoot pool with a rope. Having said that, I'd like to know how there are diesel Toyotas available here in the states, brought in from the UK and Australia, including with RH drive? I personally looked at several when I was looking for a diesel pick up, to augment my Golf TDI. These vehicles, Land Cruisers and Pick ups were definitly imported, and I was told "Are 100% legal". They had titles and tags, Washington and New York. can anyone explain it to me?
Thanks
In the USA there is a difference in state registration laws and federal emission, and safety laws, hence there is a large gray area. States do vehicle registrations, and the Feds do not.

According to Federal laws, vehicles must be made to conform to federal safety and emission standards, plain and simple cut and dry. There are a few temporary clauses that allow certain individuals to import non complying vehicles, such as US military in temporary orders, Foreign military on temporary orders, diplomats, foreign visitors traveling the USA, companies doing research on said vehicles etc. These are all however temporary and require vehicle destruction, exportation, or renewal after the temporary period. However many vehicles slip through the cracks in this system.

For example a diplomat brings over his tdi t4 syncro. He gets the proper paperwork to operate the vehicle for 2 years. Before he leaves he sells the vehicle instead of destroying it or exporting it. New owner registers the vehicle and goes on his merry way. Mind you it's against federal law to sell the vehicle and the diplomat has committed a felony, however since he has diplomatic immunity and it likely never going to return to the USA he's Scott free. But the owner of the new vehicle is operating a vehicle that doesn't not conform to USA standards and could possibly be fined $10,000 per day of operation, even though he thought all was good. The feds can seize said vehicle and mandate the new owner either federalize, destroy or export the vehicle. So unless a vehicle has been federalized it is not legal, and the owner will be held liable.

Locally a Mexican spec Nissan sunny go for sale at a police auction and knew the owner of said vehicle. He was able to title it in Texas (legally) and it was seized by US Marshals a couple years later and presumably destroyed after he failed to comply with the federalization process.

So quick answer is yes there are loop holes around the system, but it opens the owner up to a world of hurt if discovered.
 

manual_tranny

Smyth Performance- Intern
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Location
New Bedford, MA
TDI
2001 Golf @182K; 2000 Jetta @290K
A better example would be the former Eastern Germany Trabant it did get great fuel economy (40-45mpg) however it's two stroke engine made wonderful mosquito foggers.
You took the words out of my mouth. I remember reading in an environmental biology textbook that a 2-stroke Jet-ski or snowmobile would put out nearly equivalent emmissions in one day of use as an automobile would put out in about 100,000 miles. (This was published in the late 90's I believe)

High-speed 2-stroke weed-whackers and chainsaws are great for a good power to weight ratio, but they dump so much more into the atmosphere than 4-stroke engines 20 times their size with proper emissions equipment.
 

rme

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Location
Georgia
TDI
Jetta
At this moment, the USA diesel regs are the strictest in the world and that's the reason the exhaust aftertreatment on cars sold here is unique to the USA/Can;)
I don't know about the gassers, Euro vs. NAmerica.

Thnx!!!!
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
[FONT=&quot]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]
 

KILL CARB and the US EPA

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Location
da Bronx
TDI
2011 Golf 2.0 tdi CR 6 spd

KILL CARB and the US EPA

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Location
da Bronx
TDI
2011 Golf 2.0 tdi CR 6 spd
[FONT=&quot]I actually at least partially agree with the emissions correlated to fuel consumption argument.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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)...[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Gasoline[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Total VOC – 3.14 grams/gallon[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Total CO – 1.6 grams/gallon[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Total NOx – 5.05 grams/gallon[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Total PM10 – 1.25 grams/gallon[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Total PM2.5 – 0.5 grams/gallon[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Total SOx – 2.45 grams/gallon[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Diesel[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Total VOC – 0.98 grams/gallon [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Total CO – 1.6 grams/gallon[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Total NOx – 5.02 grams/gallon[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Total PM10 – 1.08 grams/gallon[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Total PM2.5 – 0.42 grams/gallon[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Total SOx – 2.35 grams/gallon[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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]
wxman- i like the idea of rating autos by the amount of fuel burned in their usable life (say 10 years using the NE US as an example average age of autos out there), why for years could you buy and register some gasoline powered fuel barge yet Regs would not allow the VW diesel through, just an observation, sometimes for fun I look at the bio's of the morons on these boards who set policy a strategy for these oppressive gov't agencies and I get mad as hell, in the 90's emmisions hurdles did more for Diesel engine R+D than anyone had done in 50 years, although there was some fudging that went on and a few Co.s paid big fines. Again refer to my screen name, they are killing the vocation I love!
 

turbocharged798

Veteran Member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Location
Ellenville, NY
TDI
99.5 black ALH Jetta;09 Gasser Jetta
wxman- i like the idea of rating autos by the amount of fuel burned in their usable life (say 10 years using the NE US as an example average age of autos out there), why for years could you buy and register some gasoline powered fuel barge yet Regs would not allow the VW diesel through, just an observation, sometimes for fun I look at the bio's of the morons on these boards who set policy a strategy for these oppressive gov't agencies and I get mad as hell, in the 90's emmisions hurdles did more for Diesel engine R+D than anyone had done in 50 years, although there was some fudging that went on and a few Co.s paid big fines. Again refer to my screen name, they are killing the vocation I love!
I complety agree. I am not against being green and I am not against clean air. But I do not like how CARB/EPA is being run and how they set the US emission standards.They need to account the entire pollution the vehicle creates, not just what comes out the tailpipe.

That's pretty much the bottom line on how I feel.
 
Last edited:

KILL CARB and the US EPA

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Location
da Bronx
TDI
2011 Golf 2.0 tdi CR 6 spd
hey i already admitted i was wrong what else do you want, a confession in front of a parish priest:confused:

give me 5 hail marys, 10 our fathers and no candy for 2 weeks and next time u better have the act of contrition memorized son now get out of my church... ahhh the memories of my youth...
 

Ski in NC

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Location
Wilmington, NC USA
TDI
2001 Jetta ALH 5sp stock
Here is what I heard regarding Cat on-road engines: They put all their eggs in the ACERT basket as far as meeting NOx and other regs. They refused to license other technologies. Once on the road, the ACERT engines either did not meet the NOx limits, or BSFC was bad or both. At that point other engine builders had exclusive licenses to the technologies that worked (CR, SCR, DPF) leaving cat in a tough spot. Since they make most of their money on off road machines, they bailed on the truck market.

Cat does not like buying injection systems from others. They like making their own.

That's the scuttlebutt from around the docks. Any truth there?

ACERT: Another Cat Engine Removed Today. Heard that and had to crack a smile.

Still love big old Cat engines.
 
Last edited:

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
...They need to account the entire pollution the vehicle creates, not just what comes out the tailpipe....
Just for the heck of it, I calculated the "well-to-wheels" (WTW) emissions of a 2006 Jetta TDI and a 2007 Cadillac Escalade. I based the "well-to-pump" emissions on the GREET 1.8 model using all of its defaults and the "fuelconomy.com" combined fuel mileage since the emissions are a function of fuel consumption in the WTP phase. I added in the certified vehicle emissions ("tank-to-wheels") to the WTP emissions as calculated by GREET.

The results...


Vehicle 1

HC+NOx (FTP75) = 0.527 g/mi WTW
HC+NOx (US06) = 0.946 g/mi WTW
HC+NOx (SC03) = 0.946 g/mi WTW
CO (FTP 75) = 0.093
CO (US06) = 0.103 g/mi WTW
CO (US06) = 0.103 g/mi WTW
PM = 0.077 g/mi WTW
SOx = 0.109 g/mi WTW


Vehicle 2

HC+NOx (FTP75) = 0.689 g/mi WTW
HC+NOx (US06) = 0.671 g/mi WTW
HC+NOx (SC03) = 0.731 g/mi WTW
CO (FTP75) = 1.93 g/mi WTW
CO (US06) = 2.6 g/mi WTW
CO (US06) = 2.3 g/mi WTW
PM = 0.086 g/mi WTW
SOx = 0.216 g/mi WTW


Anyone want to guess which one is the Jetta TDI (which was effectively banned in the U.S. in 2007 since Bin 10 was phased out) and which one is the Escalade (which was available for sale in all 50 states in 2007)?
 

TDIMeister

Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
Joined
May 1, 1999
Location
Canada
TDI
TDI
By virtue of the CO values it's clear that Vehicle 2 is the gasser and hence the Escalade. As a constructive suggestion, it would help the reader to place the raw non-WTW numbers beside those that are, just so that we can view data unblemished from the variation between gas/Diesel fuel and the GREET model.
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
By virtue of the CO values it's clear that Vehicle 2 is the gasser and hence the Escalade. As a constructive suggestion, it would help the reader to place the raw non-WTW numbers beside those that are, just so that we can view data unblemished from the variation between gas/Diesel fuel and the GREET model.
You're absolutely correct!

And as suggested...


WTP emissions per GREET (2006 Jetta TDI @ 34 mpg combined)

Total VOC = 0.029 g/mi
Total CO = 0.053 g/mi
Total NOx = 0.169 g/mi
Total PM10 = 0.031 g/mi
Total SOx = 0.086 g/mi


WTP emissions per GREET (2007 Escalade @ 15 mpg combined)

Total VOC = 0.209 g/mi
Total CO = 0.126 g/mi
Total NOx = 0.393 g/mi
Total PM10 = 0.086 g/mi
Total SOx = 0.21 g/mi


Certified 2006 TDI PTW emissions ( http://www.epa.gov/oms/crttst.htm )

HC = 0.0194 g/mi
CO = 0.04 g/mi
NOx = 0.31 g/mi
PM = 0.046 g/mi
HC+NOx (US06) = 0.748 g/mi
HC+NOx (SC03) = 0.748 g/mi
CO (US06) = 0.05 g/mi
CO (SC03) = 0.05 g/mi


Certified 2007 Escalade PTW emissions ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2007/gm_ldt_a0061403_6d2_l2.pdf )

HC = 0.58 g/mi
CO = 1.8 g/mi
NOx = 0.02 g/mi
PM = ----
HC+NOx (US06) = 0.06 g/mi
HC+NOx (SC03) = 0.12 g/mi
CO (US06) = 2.5 g/mi
CO (SC03) = 2.2 g/mi
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
By the way, the GHG emissions in the WTP phase per GREET are 62 g/mi for the TDI; 149 g/mi for the Escalade.

Petroleum used in the WTP phase is 281 g/mi for the TDI; 732 g/mi for the Escalade.
 
Last edited:

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
...As a constructive suggestion, it would help the reader to place the raw non-WTW numbers beside those that are, just so that we can view data unblemished from the variation between gas/Diesel fuel and the GREET model.
This is graphically depicted for a generic "midsized" vehicle of various selected vehicle technologies/fuel pathways @ http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Environment/EnvironmentalHealthRT/WangGREETPresentationtoInstituteofMedicine1107REVISED.ashx slides 21-26 (although this is based on the previous version of GREET (v1.7)).
 
Last edited:

TDIMeister

Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
Joined
May 1, 1999
Location
Canada
TDI
TDI
I would have liked to see separate well-to-pump and tank-to-wheel numbers side-by-side specifically for the 2006 Jetta TDI and 2007 Escalade as per your original comparison above that went into the summation for the total WTW number. No need for fancy graphs, just the numbers :)

Great work though! One observation/question: do your/GREET's calculations also take into account evaporative losses while filling-up as well as normal vehicular evap losses?
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
I would have liked to see separate well-to-pump and tank-to-wheel numbers side-by-side specifically for the 2006 Jetta TDI and 2007 Escalade as per your original comparison above that went into the summation for the total WTW number. No need for fancy graphs, just the numbers :)
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.


Great work though! One observation/question: do your/GREET's calculations also take into account evaporative losses while filling-up as well as normal vehicular evap losses?
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.
 
Last edited:

TDIMeister

Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
Joined
May 1, 1999
Location
Canada
TDI
TDI
You should publish in a peer-reviewed journal, or better, present your findings at a high-level conference. :)
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
:)

I think this does serve to illustrate the "law of unintended consequences" and inherent dangers of promulgating emission regulations "compartmentally". Exhaust emissions represent only a portion of the overall emissions associated with vehicles.

If anyone is interested, the GREET model is available for download free-of-charge on the ANL web page ( http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/ ).

I see they just released the latest version (v1.8d.1) today. I hope it doesn't invalidate everything I just posted! :eek:
 

eddie_1

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Location
Hannover, Germany formerly Toronto & NY
TDI
Jetta Wagon 2003 TDI tuned to 170HP, A6 Wagon 2008 TDI 2.7L tuned to 340HP
wxman, Thanks for the insight into Total Cradle to Grave Environmental impact. 'Comparmentalization' conjures up images of an Apartheid system for Vehicles based on energy source and other artificial categorizations. As an atmospheric scientist what is your take on reversing the steady increase in C02 levels? Do you feel alternative energy is the solution or an overall reduction in energy use on an individual basis (as in TDI) or both in terms of returning to 300 ppm CO2?
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
Probably will be a monumental task to stop the increase in CO2 levels, never mind reversing it.

Based again on GREET, it appears running diesel engines on BTL (biomass-to-liquids) has the potential to have a net UPTAKE of GHG emissions (see slide #17 in http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Environment/EnvironmentalHealthRT/WangGREETPresentationtoInstituteofMedicine1107REVISED.ashx ). Actually, biomass-based DME (dimethyl ether) used in the default diesel vehicle has the greatest net uptake of CO2 per GREET than any other fuel/technology pathways that I've tried in the model, including EVs or fuel cells.

Of course, sufficient supply of BTL or bio-DME is another issue.
 
Last edited:

Ski in NC

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Location
Wilmington, NC USA
TDI
2001 Jetta ALH 5sp stock
Wxman- Do you think GHG regs will become reality in the states? That would be a game-changer when comparing the tdi vs escalade. I sense there is not the political will to go very far in that direction.
 

wxman

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Location
East TN, USA
TDI
Other Diesel
Probably not, although I don't have any special insight. Appears it's less politically risky to increase CAFE instead.

Even then, I don't see how even the 2016 CAFE will be met without hybrids and/or diesels, at least not without significantly downsized vehicles/engines.
 

TurbinePower

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Location
Upstate SC
TDI
None
Even then, I don't see how even the 2016 CAFE will be met without hybrids and/or diesels, at least not without significantly downsized vehicles/engines.
I don't see this as a bad thing.

Bring on the 1.4 TSI! Heck, go one step further and bring on the 1.0 TSI! :D
 
Top