Here they tested a golf and a focus diesels in real world driving. Golf was 4 times the lab NOx. at least 4 is better than 40. But wait, the focus is 5 times limit. Bugger. Results are skewed by golf being older model with euro 5 and focus euro 6, which is frustrating, but still raises interesting questions about viability of any diesels, and possibly that VW have been scapegoated. Before someone cries VW CHEATED YOU IDIOT, yes I know that. I'm wondering if they're alone now.
mm12345,
Oct 6, 1:03am
Yes. They even show a photo of one of the cars under test with PEMS fitted. All common rail diesels will probably fail. They need to test particulates from forced induction / stratified injection petrol engine cars too - if the portable particulate data test gear can measure nano-particulate count, I'm almost certain that all will exceed particle counts. TUV and other authorities have been warning about this. TSI direct injected engines need exhaust particle filters. The auto makers know this, and have been resisting it. Some data is suggesting that these particulates are much worse than the black soot from old stinky diesels, as they're so small that they pass through the lungs directly into the bloodstream.
intrade,
Oct 6, 1:44am
vw used illegal cheats the rest possibly the legal cheats . i posted one of loads of legal cheats on the other thread. Everyone cheats its impossibile to meet the ridicules rules the carb and epa pen pusher morons dream up. We even had to cheat emission tests in the late 80s early 90s to get emission tester data printouts matching the required specs. Usually co2 was out by evers secound car we had to test some had sky high HC levels you had to rev the living crap out of them to make the cats come to live so you could print out the pass on the emission testers. And mostly japanese cars where out of idle tagrets that was another friggen nightmare to try and get them to idle at the emission documents level. 750rpm +- 50 rpm whate ever it was printed in emission doc had to be on the emission tester printout matching its one huge joke and always has been.
intrade,
Oct 6, 1:49am
re*2 correct quote that these particulates are much worse than the black soot from old stinky diesels, as they're so small that they pass through the lungs directly into the bloodstream. quote end . This is why i said not to remove a dpf . or you remove the dpf and fit much larger nozzles and tune map so it makes larger particulets the black stuff you can see is not getting in your lungs and cause cancer its the nano particulates you cant see whom are deadly but whom is going to convince these moron pen pusher?
intrade,
Oct 6, 2:15am
re 1 i am glad you start doing some research and look for what is really going on. Only thing i have not figured out is why all car-makers are extreem resistant against electric vehicles, i wonder if the oil multis pay them billions in bonuses to do anything so consumers burn more fossile fuel . Or what the heck is going on there , i have not come behind it so far. apart from making a obvious assumption and i am not a fan of assumptions i like true facts better.
serf407,
Oct 6, 2:47pm
I think the car manufacturers are resistant against electric cars - cost of manufacturer (rare earth elements required at present), weight of batteries (Tesla Model S battery weighs 544 kg). The increased electrical load placed on the electrical grid. Japan - has reduced electrical output since Fukushima with the nuke stations shutdown. US - still reliant on too much coal generated power - more electrical power required for electric cars = more US coal to dig vs using Middle Eastern oil in a US petrol car. Japanese might be partly correct with Mirai etc fuel cell cars. Might work for NZ to take used Japanese fuel cell cars. - Electrolyse water with excess electricity to make hydrogen to have a hydrogen car fleet. It did not take that long to put in the CNG tanks in stations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-pressure_electrolysis
vtecintegra,
Oct 6, 4:00pm
It was 'up to 40' times the US limit, which is IIRC still stricter than Euro 6
mm12345,
Oct 6, 4:03pm
Lithium isn't a rare earth element. Neodymium (used in compact DC motors etc) is, but it's not used in the AC motors in Tesla. Both are recoverable/recyclable. Lithium is plentiful, even if cost of extraction may be high. Anti EV / pro-oil folks should be careful how they argue that one, as there's been plenty of argument that we're running out of oil, but increased demand has so far always been met by finding ways to increase production. The same will happen with lithium - there's plenty of it, and if we need it we'll get it. Much of the increased power demand would be off-peak (o/night charging). Energy conversion in EVs is high, vs very poor in ICE. Energy conversion in thermal power plants is higher than ICE, so even if all ICE cars were replaced with EVs in a market and all electricity was generated in thermal plants, then overall energy demand (incl "waste") would drop.
I think a main reason why established auto companies have been reluctant on (full) EVs is that once that cat's out of the bag, then everything changes. Tesla went from nothing to #1 position in US for sales of large luxury cars in a very short time. Compare that to how long it took Hyundai to become a serious player in ICE cars.
serf407,
Oct 6, 4:52pm
What Ford could build with GM. https://youtu.be/3-RpWnKk7ik All aluminium Ford experimental car with EV1 components.
haha an American friend posted this on Facebook the other day: "I feel like everyone is jumping up and down about VW TDI Deisel and I got this guy rolling coal in front of me in his dually"
cammey,
Mar 13, 1:07pm
Afghanistan has plentiful resources of rare earth metals.
Its a lucky co-incidence that we chased the Taliban there as we will be able to dig 'em up when we need them.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.