Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke

Posted by James2 on January 27, 2005 at 19:21:42 from (207.179.239.76):

In Reply to: O/T New EPA standards is a joke posted by john in la on January 27, 2005 at 10:54:45:

You hit a giant nerve when you bring up EPA emissions standards. I am relatively new to the board so I don't know what has been said in the past but here is my response which requires a little history. The original EPA emissions covered just gasoline cars, light trucks and later heavier trucks. Eventually diesel engines were in the EPA's cross hairs. These diesel regulations are partially your own fault. They would have evolved eventually, but they came earlier and more restrictive, because drivers/operators disabled the air-fuel ratio control. The result was slightly improved engine response, and a whale of a lot of black smoke. By doing so you drew attention, the motorists complained, and the EPA reacted with nrw diesel engine regulations! The on-highway truck engine requlations include a transient emissions and smoke cycles. Theortically three urban city cycles were combined to form one basic cycle. However, from what I have seen it pretty much simulates Los Angeles driving conditions. In contrast the off-highway emissions cycle is steady-state operation but they do have to meet a similar transient smoke cycle.
Now I don't want to devolve into a combustion development discussion, but one basic principle needs to be discussed. A diesel engine has two basic emissions problems, particulates and NOX. I'll focus on NOX. The amount of NOX generated is related to the heat/pressure during combustion. The higher the heat/pressure the more NOX. Unfortunately fuel economy is also related to these factors and in the opposite direction. Less heat/pressure lower fuel economy. Retarding timing has been a primary method to lower NOX, and it has a devastating effect on fuel consumption. There are others, such as lowering inlet air temperature using air-to-air cooling (which remarkably helped fuel consumption and emissions), but injection timing and fuel delivery still are the main variables. Now enter more advanced electronics in the 1980's. The OEM's were espressly prevented by the EPA from developing a electronics system which would allow the engine to "sense" and run a clean transient cycle, but on the road would run free. This was done by not allowing the OEM's to sense time and thereby determine the engine was on the emissions cycle. However with a little initiative, the OEM's did develop an electronics package which would sense fuel system position and advance injection timing when it was stable. For example, when you were barreling down the open road at a constant horsepower, the electronics would advance the injection timing giving much better fuel economy. The longer at steady state the further advanced the timing became (up to a certain point). The OEM's told the EPA they were working on this, however the attitude was it is OK as long as you don't directly measure time. In reality, it worked great because in the urban areas with constant throttle and speed changes, emissions would be low. On the open road where emissions are not such a big issue, fuel ecomony would be much better. However, all hell broke loose when a major off-highway engine/machine OEM wanted to offer enginees that would meet on=highway emissions. This manufacturer knew that off-highway emissions were eventually going to be almost as tough as on-highway, so they decided that they might as well jump in and develop the technology. Also a major objective was to improve sales volumes to spread the enormous development cost. Now the problem, this OEM tested their engines against the products available, and found their new engine's fuel economy sucked. They were no dummies and eventually found the reason. They confronted the EPA. In response the EPA back pedaled at about three times light speed, and big Janet Reno threw down the gauntlet. Basically the "offending" OEM's did not have to admit any guilt but had to agree to some fines and very unpalatable emissions requirements. These goals are so tough that fuel ecomony had to take a distant back seat to meeting the emissions standards while concurrently trying to maintain acceptable engine durability/reliability. The OEM's really didn't have a choice. You don't mess with the EPA when thy have you in the cross hairs.
The end result is that we need to buy more scarce oil, refine it and transport it. On top of this, the rest of the world wants the USA to sign the Koyto Protocol which states that unless we reduce carbon dioxide emissions we have to pay a significant penalty/tax. Nothing like shooting ourselves in the foot with these fuel gozzling engines. I propose a better solution would be to optimize fuel consumption while maintaing reasonable emissions. Send this optimized technology to the third world, and improve their currently uncontrolled engines. The end result would be better for all mankind. Alas this will not be done. The EPA and reigning vocal consevationists have decided the diesel engine will eventually be replaced by fuel cells, and nothing will change this path. That's why most diesel OEM's are doing/supporting some fuel cell research.

Follow Ups:

• Re: O/T New EPA standards is a joke Mark - IN. 05:48:22 01/28/05 (0)

Post a Followup Name: E-Mail: Subject: Comments: Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL: Email Notification: If you check this box, email will be sent to you whenever someone replies to this message. Your email address must be entered above to receive notification. This notification will be cancelled automatically after 2 weeks.

TRACTOR PARTS	TRACTOR MANUALS

We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]