Gm: "it is easy to get our diesels fed approved"

[TDI2000Zim]

GM: "It Is Easy To Get Our Diesels FED Approved"

This is amazing, VW says that they can't make money from diesel, but GM says, "YES WE CAN!!!"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autoshow-diesel-idUSKBN14U2IY

How come???????????

Is GM cheating, or is GM teaching us that honesty pays?

I'm confused, I thought VW was doing all it could to make clean diesel technology.

 

[turbobrick240]

Good question. Apparently Fiat-Chrysler also resorted to cheat devices to get their diesels compliant. I would think GM saw the writing on the wall, and is not using cheat software on the newest GM small diesel engines.

 

[GoFaster]

Lessons have been learned over the past few years. The GM diesel is a new design, and includes what they've learned.

From the earliest days of emission controls in the 1970s, it has always taken a few years for the engineers to figure out how to deal with new emission standards, and you didn't want to own a vehicle that was built in the interim period. Once they have it figured out, the big headaches go away.

 

[vwtdi04]

it seems there is a problem with current emission standards , it just tells you that nobody can make emission compliant to what is required by EPA and CARB. I remember few years back when MK7 was introduced into the North America, VW engineers were saying that California is worst state to deal with regards to emissions, almost every vehicle needs to be compliant to that state, which is nuts to me.. Now every manufacturer has that problem too and more will come out soon, or you will have to start paying high premium for it that won't be worth it to buy it..

 

[TurnOne]

I love clean air. However, I really wish the EPA would regulate emissions PER MILE traveled. It's stupid for for some 12 mpg truck to be considered cleaner than my 44 (48) mpg TDI. Rating on per gallon burned keeps high mpg technology from coming to market since you still have to the same or more emission equipment on board. Slap HD label and no test at all from my understanding. How does that make sense?

I firmly believe every diesel made can't truly pass the test.

 

[GoFaster]

it seems there is a problem with current emission standards , it just tells you that nobody can make emission compliant to what is required by EPA and CARB.

What are you talking about? Lots of vehicles actually comply with the regulations. If you meant to specify "diesel" vehicles ... those have been subject to increased scrutiny since VW got in trouble, and lots of those actually comply with the regulations, too. The BMW X5 that was the companion vehicle to those tested by WVU/ICCT had no issues. The diesel version of the Canyon/Colorado was among the first to be subjected to increased scrutiny, and EPA and CARB had no issues with those.

I love clean air. However, I really wish the EPA would regulate emissions PER MILE traveled. It's stupid for for some 12 mpg truck to be considered cleaner than my 44 (48) mpg TDI. Rating on per gallon burned keeps high mpg technology from coming to market since you still have to the same or more emission equipment on board. Slap HD label and no test at all from my understanding. How does that make sense?

Ummmm, you don't know what you are talking about. All light-duty-vehicle emissions are regulated based on grams per mile of whatever the pollutant is ... just like what you say you are wishing for.

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100O9ZJ.pdf

 

[dropnosky]

GM has the advantage of less of an expectation of high mileage out of their diesels (the cruze diesel does not claim the VW mpg rating), less of an expectation of extreme efficiency combined with fun, and no manual options or an expectation that they should produce a manual transmission diesel, which makes emissions tougher to beat.

As much as I love rowing gears, it is easier for a manufacturer to control an emissions situation with an automatic transmission.

 

[GoFaster]

On high mileage (Better than VW has ever claimed based on post-2008 ratings methods):

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...ruze-diesel-may-get-epa-50-mpg-highway-rating

On manual availability: That same article, about halfway down the page.

No idea on "extreme efficiency combined with fun" yet ... historically, the Cruze has been pleasant, if unremarkable, to drive. The last VW that I had as a rental car (a current-body-style Beetle) didn't interest me all that much.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

regulations are based on some dubious logic and practicality. It is not small automobile diesels causing any significant pollution. Climate alarmist that tell us 0.8F raise in temp over 100 years is all man made or even bad, using sensational propaganda and deception to get these regulations passed. They don't tell you the whole story and contrary data. They made science a religion to push political agendas. I am 100% for clean cars, less pollution just because that is obviously good, but we have to be practical and put a practical time line on it, the whole world must comply, not just Europe, North America and Australia....

 

[I800C0LLECT]

Don't forget, the EPA allows defeat devices and practically every engine has them. However, an AECD is negotiated behind closed doors with the EPA; and they refuse to make any details public in order to protect the company's "trade secrets".

So companies pay the EPA for aecd routinely based on negotiations that are kept secret for an amount we'll never know. That sounds like extortion. Especially since AECD was created for first line responders...

VW messed up but I think this has turned into a pissing match because VW didn't get in line and pay for their AECD like everybody else.

 

[meerschm]

Interesting conversation in news yesterday from Bob Lutz. he made the point that the cost of effective emissions treatment hardware that is the challenge for a small car price point. much easier to put enough $$ into the emissions treatment system on a $50k truck than into a $25k small car.

 

[meerschm]

There is a lot more engineering put into these cars than a couple words on a forum.

 

[dmarsingill]

The BMW X5 that was the companion vehicle to those tested by WVU/ICCT had no issues. The diesel version of the Canyon/Colorado was among the first to be subjected to increased scrutiny, and EPA and CARB had no issues with those.

You seem to forget that the BMW was also over the allowed during the study. It was not as much as the VW, however.


Donald

 

[Rico567]

Interesting conversation in news yesterday from Bob Lutz. he made the point that the cost of effective emissions treatment hardware that is the challenge for a small car price point. much easier to put enough $$ into the emissions treatment system on a $50k truck than into a $25k small car.

Yes. And this point (a good one) has been made previously in this forum, referring to Mercedes & BMW in the same higher price ranges. A lot easier to incorporate whatever sorts of bells, whistles, and tech into a vehicle when it costs twice as much as we paid for our Passat.

 

[oilhammer]

Hmmmm.... makes you think how has GM successfully marketed a full line of passenger car and light duty truck diesels here for the last decade. Oh, wait....

 

[GoFaster]

You seem to forget that the BMW was also over the allowed during the study. It was not as much as the VW, however.

Not as much as the VW (nowhere near) and with no evidence of cheating (that we know of).

You can pick and choose operating conditions in which ALL cars will at least momentarily emit more than the regulatory limits. Cold start; full-throttle operation. Hopefully the manufacturers have properly declared their AECDs that allow this.

This is not a matter of "extortion" as someone above alleges. There's simply no way for a catalytic converter to be instantly at operating temperature at (i.e. prior to!) engine start-up. At least the first few seconds of operation will be with a catalytic converter that is below its light-up temperature. With most gasoline engine vehicles nowadays, the bulk of total emissions (i.e. momentarily non-compliant) is from the cold-start phase. There WILL be an AECD that allows this.

And, a catalytic converter that is compact enough and light enough and close enough to the engine to light-up quickly at cold start ... would probably melt down if exposed to full engine load for an extended period. That's why most gasoline engines are calibrated to run slightly rich near full load. Emissions will be higher when it's like this. But it's necessary to avoid melting the catalyst down - and pistons, and exhaust valves.

It's an engineering trade-off. It is not about "extortion". There is a wee bit of engineering going on behind the scenes here ...

 

[next717]

It seems to me that there may be fraud! I can not believe that simple!))
USPS Customer Service hours

 

[r_jojola]

I love clean air. However, I really wish the EPA would regulate emissions PER MILE traveled. It's stupid for for some 12 mpg truck to be considered cleaner than my 44 (48) mpg TDI. Rating on per gallon burned keeps high mpg technology from coming to market since you still have to the same or more emission equipment on board. Slap HD label and no test at all from my understanding. How does that make sense?

I firmly believe every diesel made can't truly pass the test.

TurnOne,
As it kind of makes sense of what you said in regards to emissions PER MILE, you also have to remember what those 12 mpg trucks are hauling. They are pulling over 50,000 pounds cars, food, cows, chickens,....whatever. Hook 50,000 pounds up to your 44mpg TDi and see what mpg's it gets...or even if its able to move. And if you are referring to the HD 2500 pick up trucks....they are getting 20mpg. And again look at how much they weigh vs the TDi. They are pretty much double the weight of our TDi...which then makes sense they get 20mpg.

 

[meerschm]

except when the ultimate behemoth is only carrying one person, perhaps with a little dog.

 

[I800C0LLECT]

Not as much as the VW (nowhere near) and with no evidence of cheating (that we know of).
You can pick and choose operating conditions in which ALL cars will at least momentarily emit more than the regulatory limits. Cold start; full-throttle operation. Hopefully the manufacturers have properly declared their AECDs that allow this.
This is not a matter of "extortion" as someone above alleges. There's simply no way for a catalytic converter to be instantly at operating temperature at (i.e. prior to!) engine start-up. At least the first few seconds of operation will be with a catalytic converter that is below its light-up temperature. With most gasoline engine vehicles nowadays, the bulk of total emissions (i.e. momentarily non-compliant) is from the cold-start phase. There WILL be an AECD that allows this.
And, a catalytic converter that is compact enough and light enough and close enough to the engine to light-up quickly at cold start ... would probably melt down if exposed to full engine load for an extended period. That's why most gasoline engines are calibrated to run slightly rich near full load. Emissions will be higher when it's like this. But it's necessary to avoid melting the catalyst down - and pistons, and exhaust valves.
It's an engineering trade-off. It is not about "extortion". There is a wee bit of engineering going on behind the scenes here ...

Then why do manufacturers have to negotiate the payment for their AECD up front? Why should they pay when there's enough evidence of specific circumstances that can't be met?

I'm not trying to defend VW... I'm just bringing up the clear issue that EPA decides when an AECD is OK and that negotiating the fine up front IS extortion. The red flag is that the negotiations aren't allowed to be recorded or notes published. There's ZERO record available. Where's the check and balance?

 

[MrSprdSheet]

Then why do manufacturers have to negotiate the payment for their AECD up front? Why should they pay when there's enough evidence of specific circumstances that can't be met?
I'm not trying to defend VW... I'm just bringing up the clear issue that EPA decides when an AECD is OK and that negotiating the fine up front IS extortion. The red flag is that the negotiations aren't allowed to be recorded or notes published. There's ZERO record available. Where's the check and balance?

While I agree it's circumstantial, Chrysler seems to have dialed down the filtration/catalyst under specific sustained high speed driving. If true, that isn't "cold start", or "hill" or those times where EPA should be expected to be more forgiving. With FCA, it may be another instance of not wanting to clog filters and/or run out of urea any faster than customer will tolerate.

I think there's been a lot of "everyone does it" conflation. Its a matter of degrees of violation, where and what's legal depending upon where you are.

I never heard of the "Clean Cherokee" slogan, either.

 

[I800C0LLECT]

Well I'm not really concerned with those who break the rules. I'm concerned about how the EPA likes to regulate and interprete. There needs to be a check and balance

 

[GoFaster]

Then why do manufacturers have to negotiate the payment for their AECD up front?

Where did you get the idea that the manufacturers PAY for having an AECD in their programming?

"Negotiation" doesn't imply "payment", if that's what you are thinking.

 

[chadbag]

Good question. Apparently Fiat-Chrysler also resorted to cheat devices to get their diesels compliant. I would think GM saw the writing on the wall, and is not using cheat software on the newest GM small diesel engines.

This is conjecture. A lot of analysts think this is not cheat devices on FCA, but rather non-disclosed functionality (or not-disclosed-enough functionality), i.e., normal operating SW that was not fully disclosed to the EPA. Not purposeful SW cheat devices to get around testing.

 

[TurnOne]

All light-duty-vehicle emissions are regulated based on grams per mile of whatever the pollutant is ... just like what you say you are wishing for.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100O9ZJ.pdf

Thanks for straitening me out and the link. I did not know and hate when I spread misinformation.
Chris

 

[oregon_rider]

The diesel engine in the cruze and equinox is the "whisper quiet" diesel engine that has been in use in europe for a year or two (opel, etc.)

It was developed to meet the new, tighter euro emissions standards. So the statement about it being easy to meet u.s standards should be taken in this context. e.g. " it already met new and tight euro standards - so getting it to meet u.s. standards wasn't a large step."

The GM diesel is a 1.5 liter - the Mazda diesel is larger - 2.0 or 2.2 liter (I forget which). Both have been produced and sold in other markets (e.g. europe and australia) - so they are not completely new designs. The bigger, more powerful mazda motor sounds better to me right now.

This factors in my decision to consider them - I am less likely to have first year production issues on either the mazda or gm diesel powerplant if I go with either 2018 equinox diesel or 2017 mazda cx-5 diesel...

jeff

 

[MrSprdSheet]

Well I'm not really concerned with those who break the rules. I'm concerned about how the EPA likes to regulate and interprete. There needs to be a check and balance

EPA "likes" to regulate nitrogen oxides (smog). The check and balance process takes place between proposal and final rule. That is where commercially available technologies that can do the job, come down to brass tax.

I think the more electrification happens, or shares roles with ICE, the more of it we can expect. It's a viable way to reduce NOx, or get the NOx over to a technology (electric generation) where fighting these types of emissions has been going on for a long time (SCR / SNCR). An EV (3mi/KWh) in a ~30% coal (2lbs/MWh) mix emits about the same NOx as a Tier 2 bin 5 compliant diesel (<.07gr/mi). The numbers for ICE to PowerPlant are more challenging for NOx, than they are CO2. So, if you want to see that as a "check" on how strict EPA is being with diesels, that's one way to look at it.

 

[pdq import repair]

We can all trust GM, the company that soured a whole generation on diesel powered vehicles.

 

[rotarykid]

I do not believe anyone meets bench test standards in the real world 100% of time!

I love clean air. However, I really wish the EPA would regulate emissions PER MILE traveled. It's stupid for for some 12 mpg truck to be considered cleaner than my 44 (48) mpg TDI. Rating on per gallon burned keeps high mpg technology from coming to market since you still have to the same or more emission equipment on board. Slap HD label and no test at all from my understanding. How does that make sense?

I firmly believe every diesel made can't truly pass the test.

A fact that all of those whining that VWAG has ruined their lives seem to be incapable of understanding....I do not believe any make meets emissions standards they passed in bench testing in the real world, and until someone proves this not to be case I will continue to believe this!

I also believe that every make, gasoline & diesel to some extent has been forced to do these things to make a car that is reliable and meets the bench test the EPA & CARB force them all to pass..