In reply to Boost_Crazy :
I didn't say this was great tech. Just the only stuff that works now for the duty cycles. Just sharing my experience.
I'm just sharing my experiences in test cells. If have better tech or better ideas go for it. No one is mandating the existing tech, but I will say it does run better when you run it harder. Driving a diesel pickup around town with no load is about the worst thing you can do the engine, turbo and emissions gear
cummmins did just announce its first ever gasoline inline 6. They're turning the 6.7 diesel into a turbo d gas engine. I'm sure thst would go well in a ram, probably Meet duty cycles and emissions. Probably do crap for mpg.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Yes, but is it unreasonable to expect the product to work at all duty cycles, especially when it did previously? And if a regulation changed that and led to a drastic decrease in reliability, shouldn't that be re-examined?
To be fair, if the USA is going to compete with China's manufacturing juggernaut and attract jobs back to the USA, it needs to compete on a level playing field. Not that we will be able to see any fields, but that is not the point.
As Kreb mentioned, we survived this once before, so we will probably survive it again.
In reply to NOHOME :
It's too bad that we only have two choices.
In reply to NOHOME :
Those of us who are old enough remember pre-emission controls days, when cars had minimal positive crankcase ventilation systems and every lane on the highway had a dark oily strip down the middle. I don't expect any relaxing of current regulations is going to return us to those days, but regardless of what the petroleum industry lobbyists are telling the current administration any step back is a not going to be a good idea for the planet.
When we first started trying to reduce emissions in the 70's we ended up with around a decade of cars that ran better and were more reliable when the emissions equipment was removed. Now gas engines are cleaner and more efficient than ever. Electronic fuel injection counts for no small part of that but things like EGR and exhaust catalyst have just gotten better due to continued refinement. I think we're experiencing the same thing with diesels now. Diesel after treatment systems are already improving but they obviously still have a ways to go. There's also going to be a period after they've improved before their reputation catches up.
As far as automotive emissions regulations go, I wish that the US and the Euros would come up with a standardized set of regulations.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Yes, but is it unreasonable to expect the product to work at all duty cycles, especially when it did previously? And if a regulation changed that and led to a drastic decrease in reliability, shouldn't that be re-examined?
The regulation requires 150k emissions reliability. That's more than it ever has been, so what regulation decreased reliability?
If it's the SRC system, that's totally up to the OEM's to choose, not the regulation. And directed at the OEM's, as well, no it's not unreasonable to expect the system to work at all duty cycles. But be reminded that previous technology isn't good enough to meet the standards. It's partially one reason the new large gas engines exist- those can make the required power for pretty straight forward technology.
madmrak351 said:As far as automotive emissions regulations go, I wish that the US and the Euros would come up with a standardized set of regulations.
So would OEMs. One key sticking point is that they previously let diesels have easier standards- but that changed after the VW thing. Let alone, their testing requirements are much more expensive, as they are done on road. It's rather nice that the EPA and CARB have figured out how the required lab testing extrapolates to the real world.
It would also be nice if China got into that same act. As it stood in 2022, they had the hardest of the hard requirements in the world. All there for a large city that's higher than 2500m.
Keith Tanner said:If I were a manufacturer, I would not count on this sticking. The US is proving to be very erratic and unpredictable, and it's quite possible there will be a complete u-turn in four years. The safe option is to keep building to the CA specs.
As an aftermarket shop, we'll probably take the same tack. In the past year, we've spent the equivalent of a new car on emissions testing to prove our stuff is clean and can be sold in CA. The latter isn't going to change, and in four years we may once again be happy to have those certifications.
I'm not looking forward to the celebratory coal rollers, though. I ride bicycles and drive convertibles.
All of this. Anyone who bases their plans on chaos is missing the point of a plan, and any business that does the same is run by fools
In reply to alfadriver :
I think the concept that the standard and the means to achieve the standard are seperste is very difficult for others to grasp
NY Nick said:I know it isn't always to see the benefit of regulations, some are really easy to see others are harder. But every time I roll down the road behind a pre 80's vehicle I am thankful for the EPA and vehicle emissions regulations. I know there were some dark times and some rules seem insignificant or burdensome but in the end we got efficient, powerful, long lasting cars. A lot of that goes back to innovations forced by emissions regulations.
another less known effect was that underhood temperatures increased from emissions equipment and forced hose makers to improve their game.
No, I think we've arguably.... already crossed the critical mass point for plug in hybrid vehicles, and we're getting closer to the one where EVs are the dominant player in the market.
I have no issues with wanting cleaner vehicles on the road, I do have an issue with regulating electric only. Maryland is going that direction, and the infrastructure is not there. At the moment Jeep dealers can only stock 4xe models, if you want a ICE only, you have to order it, or buy out of State. That's a bit much.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
That seems silly. I think we'll see full electric, hybrid and dino fuel in the near to mid term. Potentially hydrogen, but it's not super promissing.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
Can you link to the EV mandate that you are thinking of? All of the ones I'm aware of, hybrids are included in what is an EV. Even 48V mild hybrids.
Sure, ICE only is going to be tough, but a mild hybrid is 95% an ICE system, with an oversized alternator that is capable of driving the powertrain.
There are real people who are concerned about excess CO2 generation affecting things too much. Kinda have to deal with that.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
That's Jeep trying to meet emissions regulations, not an EV mandate. And 4xes don't require any special infrastructure.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1139972_stellantis-stops-stocking-non-hybrids-in-california-emissions-states
I just want to say how grateful I am that this forum is a place where conversations like this one are had without spiraling into the divisiveness I see so often. Really celebrating that!
Not only is it pleasant, I can actually learn something.
In reply to alfadriver :
The regulation requires 150k emissions reliability. That's more than it ever has been, so what regulation decreased reliability?
If it's the SRC system, that's totally up to the OEM's to choose, not the regulation. And directed at the OEM's, as well, no it's not unreasonable to expect the system to work at all duty cycles. But be reminded that previous technology isn't good enough to meet the standards. It's partially one reason the new large gas engines exist- those can make the required power for pretty straight forward technology.
We were discussing diesels. The person I was discussing it with is apparently in that field and acknowledged the decrease in reliability, but attributed much of it to driving them wrong. My brother in law has been a diesel mechanic for decades for everything from large fleets to Peterbilt dealerships. Current emissions equipment is responsible for putting trucks out of service for extended periods of time. Inconvenient and expensive for large fleets, business destroying for independent truckers.
Keith Tanner said:In reply to Steve_Jones :
That's Jeep trying to meet emissions regulations, not an EV mandate. And 4xes don't require any special infrastructure.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1139972_stellantis-stops-stocking-non-hybrids-in-california-emissions-states
They require a place to plug in. Here's a street view from a random townhouse listing in Baltimore County. Please point out where someone there can plug in. The homeowner does not own any parking spots, and townhouses like these are common.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
They don't require a place to plug in. They can operate as a mild hybrid as well.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Forcing someone to buy a plug in hybrid they can't plug in is somehow better than them buying that same vehicle without the weight and waste of the battery?
The entire purpose of it is so people plug them in. If it's ok for them to not plug them in (because it's not required) then why not let them buy a non e from the start?
A plug-in hybrid, not plugged in, is still more efficient than a pure ICE as it can recover braking energy and deploy it. It's just like most Priuses. Being able to plug in is a bonus that lets you run a higher percentage of battery use for the first few dozen miles.
The Jeep decision is not based on electrification requirements, it's because they need the hybrid system to meet emissions requirements. That's the purpose.
Keith Tanner said:A plug-in hybrid, not plugged in, is still more efficient than a pure ICE as it can recover braking energy and deploy it. It's just like most Priuses. Being able to plug in is a bonus that lets you run a higher percentage of battery use for the first few dozen miles.
The Jeep decision is not based on electrification requirements, it's because they need the hybrid system to meet emissions requirements. That's the purpose.
I don't know how Jeep berkeleyed this up so badly, but actually the PHEV without plugging in gets worse mileage than the standard Jeep.
I like clean air. I also like the smell if the race track. I prefer the smell of the racetrack stays there.
You'll need to log in to post.
