Fairly sure they don't have rear wheel steer, most of the ones that I've seen use advanced technology like solid rear axles!
Must be similar to drive to a bus, but narrower? Now if it was the same length as one of those American fire trucks with the driver in the back as well as the front....
Gareth
|
|
|
I would be willing to bet that the limo did meet emissions standards so no problem there. If you are refering to the 12 mpg, well with petrol costing about 20p per litre, it is simply a non-issue.
I think you miss the point, as I understand it at least.
USA love of large petrol engines with SUV's and the limousiine nonsense is well documented.
Yet if you look at the legislation they have now and forthcoming on heavy duty diesel engines, aka HGV's to you and me, then they have far tighter standards than in Europe. They are already at Euro IV standards, well there or thereabouts. Legislation, standards and dates already set for something that could be loosely described as equivalent to Euro V whatever that will be.
I mean today we are talking EGR, possibly in the future SCR with urea injection, particulate filters & traps. USA legislators don't like urea injection btw.
There was a huge surge in new USA truck registrations in 2003 as operators bought early to avoid having to buy trucks which met 2004 requirements. Once reason cited was that they were afraid that all the emission controls, in particular EGR, would reduce the operating life of the vehicle or at least increased maintenance costs.
To put this information in alongside the US love of gas guzzlers is somewhat bizarre in my opinion.
I'm sure Dizzy will be along to correct if I have understood the point he was trying to make.
FiF
|
sorry that should say "misunderstood the point...."
oh for an edit button !!!
|
|
So would you suggest it better for the US government to relax the emission standards or ban large gas guzzling engines?. I am not really sure what you are getting at proving that I really have missed/misunderstood *both* points.
|
trancer,
I guess Dizzy has in part answered your question. It really is a case of culture change together with left hand and right hand knowing what they are doing, or to put it another way joined up Government.
The punitive anti heavy diesel legislation (personal opinion there in describing it as punitive) to some extent results as I understand from a situation where certain engine manufacturers were found to be operating to the letter of the rules rather than the spirit. To whit US Government found out that the engines had been specially tuned so that they met the standards at the test points of the approval programme. But in real life use away from these specific points the engines did not meet the emission standards by a long way. Bit like the old days when European manufacturers tuned their vehicles to be extremely fuel efficient at a steady 56 mph say, but away from that.....
This has resulted in heavy diesel clean air legislation which is right at the leading edge of what is possible today.
Yet we have real life behaviour of US citizens which results in the following observed on more than one occasion. Hot day, driver parks 6litre V10 SUV outside Wal-Mart, leaves engine running while shopping so aircon keeps cab cooled. !!
That last behaviour is a result of the ability to buy fuel @ 20p / litre, plus USA citizens having more disposable income perhaps.
What would I do?
Cannot answer that without going off topic and getting political I'm afraid, so will try and keep it short and as on topic as possible.
If (and I do stress the if) you believe in global warming as a result of man made CO2 emissions then surely the US culture has to be changed by a) increasing fuel prices b) legislating SUV/designer truck emissions. (Personally I'm not convinced about global warming and its cause / effects but that really is not for discussion on this site)
If US farmers etc need a tax break then there are other ways of doing it. But then we get into other social aspects eg people scratching a living from the middle of the Nevada desert (insert any other rural area you want) who have to travel long distances to do almost anything to survive. An increase in fuel prices would hit them hard, just like it would hit our own rural communities, difficult call to make that one.
But is it sensible to have a culture so wasteful of petroleum products, considering that for the first time the known reserves of crude oil are being consumed faster than new reserves are being discovered or becoming recoverable?
So in answer to your question relax the emission standards or ban gas guzzlers? Considering I was specifically talking about heavy duty diesel standards then its perhaps a combination of both, ie use some common sense and stop applying double standards.
In answer to your later question 1.4 diesel vs 3.0 petrol? Not as easy as that, it really does all depend on so many other factors.
|
|
Regarding the 1.4 vs 3.0 question, I was only trying to determine how many people choose engine size based on fuel economy/taxes as opposed to emissions/environmental concerns.
|
|
|
|
FiF, that was indeed the point I was trying to make. I have another example of the damaging effect of the latest US emission regulations, similar to the point you made about operators buying trucks early ...
One of the UK's leading diesel engine producers has had to drop a superb engine because it cannot economically be adapted to meet the 2004 US emission regulations.
All the stops were pulled during the last few months to get as many of these engines as possible built and onto US territory before the end of 2003. At least one supplying company to the engine manufacturer took on extra workers for this but now they, and some of the regular workers, are for the chop.
This would be justified if the US were truly serious about reducing pollution but I think I'm right in saying that they remain the world's largest polluters. It is sometimes said that the US pollutes more than all the other countries of the world put together and I suspect that can't be far off the truth.
In my (admittedly limited) experience, if a group of five people in the UK need to travel a few miles down the road they will probably pile into one fairly economical car, possibly a diesel, whereas our US friends will take three or four gas guzzlers. It stands to reason that the latter will be by far the higher polluter whatever the current regulated emissions limit. They need a severe culture change themselves before dictating to the rest of the world!
Sorry to have taken this thread a bit off-topic.
|
I was also under the impression that many states have passed laws that simply look at the average fuel consumption/emission standards for all of the cars sold by each manufacturer.
Deals were then done to take most SUV's out of the calculation, so more maufacturers built and promoted them. That is why they became so popular.
|
SUVs are classed as "trucks" no matter how many seats or doors they have and trucks historically have been mainly used by farmers and other small business so to give those users some aid they were exempted from many transportaion regulations such as safety and emissions, and in certain cases, tax credits were available to the buyer. Naturally, manufacturers and consumers saw the advantages of building/buying "trucks" and that was also one of the main reasons for the popularity of them. Moving upmarket into luxury car territory certainly didn't hurt either.
As for car-pooling, I think both sides of the pond are just as guilty of not doing it. Granted over here cars are more economical, but I see just as many single occupant cars on the road as I did in the US. What I have found here is that more people walk than drive everywhere, but I suspect that has more to do with the close proximity of shops to residential areas etc than environmental concerns. I certainly do more walking since moving here, simply because it is more convienient than trying to find and pay for parking in town.
Mind if I ask the backroomers an honest question?. If petrol cost 20p per litre and there was no emission based (or any other kind) company car tax, how many of you would be bothered about the fuel economy of your cars?. Given the choice of a 1.4 diesel 4 cyl or a 3.0 petrol V6, which would you rather have?.
|
In an honest answer to your question, I would have the one with the greatest range on a single tank. If the 3 litre had such a huge fuel tank that it could go further without refilling, I would happily pay for the extra fuel. I hate petrol stations; they are the dullest places on Earth.
|
|
FIF, you mention urea injection. What is it, how's it work and where they get it from? Do you have to take a piddle into the fuel tank at every fill up?:)
|
"FIF, you mention urea injection. What is it, how's it work and where they get it from? Do you have to take a piddle into the fuel tank at every fill up?:) "
OP !
Not quite, but not that far off actually ;)
This is basically all about reduction of NOx emissions.
Hitherto exhaust gas recirculation has been and still is used. The purpose is to reduce peak combustion temperatures by recycling a certain amount of exhaust gas back into the cylinders.
This of course reduces power and efficiency plus gives the problem that various nasties such as particulates acids and so on are contained in the exhaust gas giving the engine oil a harder job.
Now as emission limits are lowered further there is a bit of a debate. Can the new lower limits be met by increased control of the engine itself, or is it better to keep the engine operating as efficiently as possible and rely on exhaust after treatment.
Urea injection is one way of doing this. Does one have to piddle into the tank? Well not quite but not that far off. Basically an aqueous 32.5% solution of urea is injected into the exhaust gas stream, the urea decomposes to form ammonia which then reacts with the NOx to form N2 (nitrogen) and water.
Ammonia could be used but is difficult to store, deliver and is toxic. Urea is non toxic and apart from certain easily solved corrosion issues in the delivery, storage and pipework systems, is readily handled.
Of course what this means is that a separate small tank has to be added to the vehicle, and there needs to be an infrastructure to enable operators to refill the urea tank at refuelling time.
The USA Government actively dislikes SCR and urea injection because it does not trust the operators to keep it topped up and operational. However the position in Europe is that SCR & urea injection is the way things will go.
For more info see this position paper from ACEA > tinyurl.com/yr6eo
You also might like to read this > tinyurl.com/2wg7f
Hope that answers your question,
FiF
|
|
|
|
