This Is Your Air Without CARB

It should be noted that a well-respected model ("APEEP" - used by the National Academy of Sciences in a report they did for estimating automobile emission damages) clearly shows that VOCs are much more damaging in Southern California than NOx (I've already contacted the developer of the APEEP model, and was told in no uncertain terms that marginal NOx emissions in Southern California are less damaging than marginal VOC emissions because of the ozone-destruction properties of NOx):






Source: https://sites.google.com/site/nickmullershomepage/home


Again, a policy that reduces one emission (NOx) at the expense of higher emissions of virtually all other regulated and unregulated emissions is a dubious one from a strictly air quality perspective.

Mike in Anchorage said:

I'm guessing you haven't been nearby for volcanic activity or large forest fires. Intense winds on dry river beds can also make a mess. Dream on.

Click to expand...

The point is that we won't be here to see the effects of the earth's ecological systems and who would be here to say that those activities you mention will be something other than normal occurrences for the planet?

It's only humans that "decide" what's right or wrong for activities that influence the life forms on the planet.

One more thing to remember. All of us here are diesel enthusiasts. We all bring that "point of view" to this discussion. Most of us want to "modify" our cars and we do bristle at what we "think" are unnecessary impediments to our "rights and desires" to modify our cars.

That strongly held point of view clearly colors our reasoning and perceptions. It also colors our personal cost/benefit analysis. Like it or not, we do tend to cherry pick our bullet points.

California has clearly pushed the world's auto industry in a direction they would never have gone alone. The result? Engines that are half the size of 60's 427 cubic inches and produce 50% or more additional power by being much more efficient at burning fuel.

I think fuel prices are the biggest driver of efficient vehicle purchases. If we had to pay what the Europeans do for fuel, there would be a lot less v8 SUV's on the road. And cars like the dodge hellcat would never get the green light for production. We saw an influx of small, efficient vehicles after the OPEC crisis in '79. When fuel prices dropped in the eighties it was back to business as usual.

turbobrick240 said:

I think fuel prices are the biggest driver of efficient vehicle purchases. If we had to pay what the Europeans do for fuel, there would be a lot less v8 SUV's on the road. And cars like the dodge hellcat would never get the green light for production. We saw an influx of small, efficient vehicles after the OPEC crisis in '79. When fuel prices dropped in the eighties it was back to business as usual.

Click to expand...

Very much truth to this statement.

john.jackson9213 said:

One more thing to remember. All of us here are diesel enthusiasts. We all bring that "point of view" to this discussion. Most of us want to "modify" our cars and we do bristle at what we "think" are unnecessary impediments to our "rights and desires" to modify our cars.

That strongly held point of view clearly colors our reasoning and perceptions. It also colors our personal cost/benefit analysis. Like it or not, we do tend to cherry pick our bullet points.

California has clearly pushed the world's auto industry in a direction they would never have gone alone. The result? Engines that are half the size of 60's 427 cubic inches and produce 50% or more additional power by being much more efficient at burning fuel.

Click to expand...

Ok to a certain degree. Fuel costs in California (and other states) also give incentives to buying more efficient cars.

Regardless of our love for diesel engines we have to recognize that a current legal light duty diesel engine (see data on complete life cycle pollution on BMW X5 diesel vs gasoline and gasoline-hybrid vehicles) is clearly ahead environmentally than an equivalent gasser and/or gasoline-hybrid.

Why CARB did not mandate gasoline particulate filters (GPF) in 2007 timeframe in sync with the diesel engines requirements knowing well the very negative impacts of gasoline particulate matter and VOC on the health of the inhabitants of cities such as Los Angeles and San Jose?

I thought, in 2007, it wasn't known that GDI engines had such high PM emissions, both in mass and in count?

In any case, CARB nearly did enact PN emissions standards, which would have effectively required GPFs on most GDI engines, but for some reason backed down on them. I wouldn't be surprised if part of it was the durability issues seen with DPFs (diesels needing a DPF to meet the particulate matter standards that gassers meet without one, but once they have it, they beat the standard by a lot), and part of it may have been a feeling that reverting to port injected naturally aspirated gassers would hurt progress towards fuel economy targets. (Remember, just two years ago, downsize and turbocharge was still all the rage.) And, seeing as electric technology's not quite there yet for mass adoption (it's getting closer, though), they may have been leery of effectively banning ICE too early, or increasing CO2 emissions too much.

However, given that the second most fuel efficient petroleum-fueled car (even measuring on raw MPG, let alone MPGe) ever sold in the US market, the Gen 4 Prius Eco, uses port injection, at 56 MPG combined on regular... And technically, it's actually the most fuel efficient one until next week, when the Ioniq (with a direct injection, but still naturally aspirated, engine - interestingly, German reviews have noticed that it had higher emissions than the Prius) comes out, and the Blue trim beats it at 58 MPG combined. (For comparison, the best diesel is the 1984 Nissan Sentra with a 4-speed manual, which has been re-rated at 41 MPG combined. In MPG gasoline equivalent, that'll be something like 36.)

bhtooefr said:

...In any case, CARB nearly did enact PN emissions standards, which would have effectively required GPFs on most GDI engines, but for some reason backed down on them....

Click to expand...

Don't remember where I saw it, but CARB demonstrated a reasonably good correlation between particle mass and particle number for gasoline engines, so the CARB staff recommended that a PN standard would not be necessary.

Still probably a good bet that generally GDI will require GPF when the PM standard is reduced to 1 mg/mile in 2025.

In post # 66 I was attempting to discuss the environmental impact of using gasoline vs diesel in passenger cars beyond tailpipe emissions. I would presume that refining/transporting gasoline near an urban area also contributes more to air pollution as compared to diesel fuels.

Wouldn't CARB be concerned with environmental impacts of gasoline vehicles to the air of Los Angeles and the like beyond tailpipe emissions as elucidated by the Argonne National Lab GREET model?

I heard on npr tonight that CARB projects that small off road engines (lawn mowers, trimmers, blowers, etc.) will surpass autos in contributing to overall air pollution in California around 2020.

CARB dictating transportation choices for the entire country is absurd. Much of California is inhabited by millions of people crowded into an arid environment and exceeding the carrying capacity of the environment. Survival requires raping the Colorado River and importing electricity from coal fired power plants. Of course that pollution is A-OK because it's downwind. Oh what could have been in 2010 when Honda was set to launch a sweet V6 aluminum diesel in the MDX and other models, but the plan was abandoned. Would have been nice if Honda, VW and others had found a way to tell CARB to get screwed.

RabbitGTI said:

Survival requires <snip> importing electricity from coal fired power plants.

Click to expand...

Uh.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html

That sure as hell doesn't look like survival requires importing coal electricity. Even if 100% of the "unspecified sources" is coal, it would be possible to deploy more non-coal in-state, and import more renewables and natural gas instead of coal. (Natural gas has its problems, of course, but importantly, it's not coal.)

This is our air without CARB:

^^^With the nice plus of not having mountains surround you

john.jackson9213 said:

California has clearly pushed the world's auto industry in a direction they would never have gone alone. The result? Engines that are half the size of 60's 427 cubic inches and produce 50% or more additional power by being much more efficient at burning fuel.

Click to expand...

Since the displacement of modern engines is no longer measured in cubic inches, lets convert that 427 to 7.0L.

Your example proposes that a modern engine in the range of 3.5L (half of 7.0) will have 150% of the power of a 427. A 1960's 427ci engine (lets assume a Chevy big block) was crank rated at 400+hp. Most will actually dyno in the 250-260hp range. 150% of 250hp is 375hp.

Accounting for a reasonable 15% drivetrain loss, that brings the modern engine to 440hp.

turbobrick240 said:

SoCal really needs a well thought out mass transit system. Maybe Elon will get around to it in his spare time. All those cars sitting in traffic, spewing emissions- no thanks.

Click to expand...

Well, there is the High Speed rail project that is starting somewhere in the San Joaquin Valley. They hope to have the first section done in 2020: a massive 25 miles. The section shouldn't cost more than $2.254 billion (the World Bank has projected costs of $56 million per kilometer. 25 miles = 40.25 km).

john.jackson9213 said:

Respectfully, Southern California has a well planned mass transit system. It transports more people on a Sunday afternoon than the entire population of Maine. It has been continuously upgraded every single year since it first opened in 1939. It also delivers people from door to door, no matter where they want/need to go. We call it our freeway system. Seriously, L.A. scrapped it's light rail system in the 1950's.

Click to expand...

Yep, the Red Cars were done in by a cabal of oil companies and highway construction contractors.

Mind you, HSR isn't the same thing as local mass transit.

HSR is for traveling between metropolises, whereas local mass transit is for traveling within one.

bhtooefr said:

Mind you, HSR isn't the same thing as local mass transit.

HSR is for traveling between metropolises, whereas local mass transit is for traveling within one.

Click to expand...

I don't think Madera or Fresno meet the criteria to be considered a metropolis!

Laserface said:

Since the displacement of modern engines is no longer measured in cubic inches, lets convert that 427 to 7.0L.
Your example proposes that a modern engine in the range of 3.5L (half of 7.0) will have 150% of the power of a 427. A 1960's 427ci engine (lets assume a Chevy big block) was crank rated at 400+hp. Most will actually dyno in the 250-260hp range. 150% of 250hp is 375hp.
Accounting for a reasonable 15% drivetrain loss, that brings the modern engine to 440hp.

Click to expand...

Yep, amazing isn't it? Heck, you can buy a 3.8L engine today with over 500hp!

But just like in the 1960s where not everyone needed or wanted some giant powerful engine (and possibly couldn't afford it anyway), today not everyone needs or wants a super powerful engine let alone be able to afford one.

Having recently driven one of the above mentioned beasts... it is quite a thrill. But completely crazy useless in the real world. When you only need the first two gears to touch triple digit speeds and have four more left....

Very true. 500hp is unnecessary while sitting in traffic or going to get groceries. I occasionally like to wind out the engine every now and then, but roads are so crowded and I don't need an expensive speeding ticket. My buddy has a new M5, but he can't really do anything with it.

RebelTDI said:

My buddy has a new M5, but he can't really do anything with it.

Click to expand...

They look pretty sweet on the open road in the TV commercials though.

RebelTDI said:

Very true. 500hp is unnecessary while sitting in traffic or going to get groceries. I occasionally like to wind out the engine every now and then, but roads are so crowded and I don't need an expensive speeding ticket. My buddy has a new M5, but he can't really do anything with it.

Click to expand...

No worries about your 600 hp car getting you a speeding ticket on the L.A. Freeways in rush hours!

Even 600 hp will not get you past the 10,000 cars in front of you (in EACH lane).

If you have an M5 or some other high performance car, join the local sports car club and do lapping days at the closest track or tracks. Even if you have a regular car it's a lot of fun and will sharpen up your driving skills.

As long as you can afford to wreck a $100K car and not get insurance. Or pay several hundred dollars a day for track day insurance.

I read an article recently that BMW is having oil consumption problems in their high performance V8 engines. Reason: they're so powerful that owners never get them on full boost or cylinder pressure during normal driving, and the rings never seat properly. BMW feels it's beneath their owners' dignity to have to add oil, so their solution is to shorten the oil change interval so owners won't get a low oil warning.

Oh trust me, it isn't just BMW owners that cannot be bothered with checking their oil.

We are on our fifth engine job so far this year thanks to that.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

As long as you can afford to wreck a $100K car and not get insurance. Or pay several hundred dollars a day for track day insurance.

I read an article recently that BMW is having oil consumption problems in their high performance V8 engines. Reason: they're so powerful that owners never get them on full boost or cylinder pressure during normal driving, and the rings never seat properly. BMW feels it's beneath their owners' dignity to have to add oil, so their solution is to shorten the oil change interval so owners won't get a low oil warning.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. I helped run autocross, high speed lapping and ice racing series. The insurance we bought had "caps" on speed and specified it was not a "wheel to wheel race" and it was defined as a "driver education". You have to check with your insurance company, but in many cases you are covered at "driver education" events. At one autocross we had a novice moron over driving the car on a drying track. He hooked a patch of dry pavement and was pulled into a pole. Totaled car was covered by insurance. At an ice race there was a channel and thin ice way off course. The area was coned off and everyone was warned not to drive over there. A new guy with a new Subaru takes off right at the thin ice and drowned the car. His insurance paid it because it was not a race and it is legal to drive on a lake. That said if your BMW pukes, I guess that is a totally different issue.

I think most track day events, even though organizers are very careful not to use the word "race" are not covered by insurance, although it may vary somewhat by state. I know that my insurance would not cover the track day events and time trials I was doing.

My approach is that you should only drive a car on the track that you can afford to and tolerate writing off. I thought about getting a new GTI or Golf R for track events but it didn't meet that criteria. And I stopped tracking IBW because I didn't want to lose it in a wreck, even though its insurance value is minimal. I watched a guy punt a new Cayman into the wall at NHMS once and thought, "that's expensive."

I spoke to a kid with a new Evo at one event who was paying $350 for track day insurance for a two day event. That on top of fuel, registration fees, tires, etc., makes it expensive. But if you have to ask...

IndigoBlueWagon said:

I read an article recently that BMW is having oil consumption problems in their high performance V8 engines. Reason: they're so powerful that owners never get them on full boost or cylinder pressure during normal driving, and the rings never seat properly.

Click to expand...

Heh, funny what problems can show up when you have too much horse power.

romad said:

Yep, the Red Cars were done in by a cabal of oil companies and highway construction contractors.

Click to expand...

General Motors purchased, and put out of business a number of Trolly companies in Southern California in the 1930's/1940's
GM was sued by the Federal Govt., and lost the case. GM was fined five thousand dollars for virtually destroying the SoCal transportation network.
http://moderntransit.org/ctc/ctc06.html