Just finished reading today's NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/nyregion/12ELEC.html?ex=1006611011&ei=1&en=e8dad3e0f8472854) explaining how NY, VT and MA are about to bail on their backing for CA's plan to require that 2 percent of each car manufacturer's sales of MY2003 cars be ZEV (Zero Emissions Vehicles). A ZEV is, essentially, an electric car (battery, fuel cell, solar). Subaru's had plenty of chances this year to show off its new ZEV, most recently at the Frankfurt show this past September. So far, nothing. Instead, Subaru's R&D appears heavily weighted toward development of a 2-stroke gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine. Ugh.

Assuming there's no surprise Subaru electric vehicle announced in two months at the 2002 Detroit Auto Show, there's very little chance that Subaru can comply with the current CARB requirements for MY2003 vehicle mix. So, will Subaru pull out of the California market after this model year? Oh, and before you respond with a bucketful of tree-hugging whining along the lines of "But Subaru would never abandon California. We're, by far, Subaru's largest and best market...yada yada yada," be prepared to explain how penalties for non-compliance are calculated and assessed, and why the rest of the USA market should subsidize them.

But Subaru might have a way out. The fine print for next year's Subaru models just might read:.... MSRP. Excludes tax, title and $525 destination charge in continental US, except in California where MSRP excludes tax, title and $3525 destination charge.

Quick quiz for Californians:

IGNORANCE IS ....
A) NO EXCUSE
B) BLISS
C) NOT MY FAULT. I VOTED REPLUBLICAN.

OH MY GOD, that would be edit.... potty mouth if they dont have scoobys in cali. damnit, why is california so freaking stupid in some ways!!! well, i pray that cal. bails out on too.:o
if not ill just go to utah or somewhere around here and bring one back, is that legal??? is there a way to import it from another state if i just buy it there?


ANYWAY :monkey: california

LOL, no subies and no power plants

You have a typo. (B) should read...

B) BLISS - I VOTED REPLUBLICAN.

Well, we have all those freaking tree-huggers to thank for this if it happens. :mad: :( Can someone explain to me what this so called requirement is? I could see SOA pulling out of the Cali market if it is too strict and not cost effective... I am glad I don't live in California, but at the same time sad if this happens...


To the tree-huggers from all CA motor enthusiasts... :monkey:


JJ
www.imprezawrxsti.com
All STi, All The Time

I predict CA will amend or postpone the ZEV requirement. How many companies offer a ZEV now? Toyota has discontinued their program here, that leaves GM and Honda. And they can't give them away.

I don't think that ZEV law is going to fly the way it is now. Most car companys won't be able to meet to 2003 deadline.

It's a silly law anyway. Ford & GM will still be able to sell a zillion gas sucking SUVs and Trucks.

Why penalize companys like Subaru who already sell fuel efficient vechicles across their entire line.

California :monkey:

-Steve

In this post I took shots at people who haven't even posted in this thread. Apparently I have nothing better to do with my time then try to insult two particular people


Jon, knock that off, now.

Its hard to say what will come of all this ZEV nonsense. From what I read at the last meeting CA was sticking to the law. Of course I liked the editorial (I think it was in C&D) that pointed out that this could raise emissions if CA has more expensive cars people will keep driving their old beaters that produce way more emissions than new cars such as the impreza. They also pointed out the foolishness of a state wanting its cars to run on electricity when we don't have enough power to run our home A/C. Not to mention that pollution is usually made by power plants when they generate electricity. I think it is crazy that if your car is really old you don't have to pass smog check. Some of those old cars produce 50x as much emissions as new ULEV car. This may have to be settled by the courts. Sorry for my rant.

What will become of Subaru? Who knows.

:monkey: all the damn tree huggers, 2 percent zev's wont do crap!!!!!!! it wont change anything!!!!!!!!!


as for the motor enthusiasts, what can we do to help????:confused:
geez this is stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

ummm... elite cursing is not allowed here... speak intelligently or please dont post at all... thanks....

There were two previous "deadlines" that CARB recinded, so it is not without precident for them to change the law. However, they have repeatedly stated that this time they are serious, and the 2003 percentage will remain in effect. This, of course, despite no car company offering qualifing cars. The only cars out there in any nubmers at all are hybrids, and they aren't ZEVs. If CA goes through with this, there won't be a Subaru...of course, there won't be anyone else selling cars either.

And I suppose that's not very likely. CARB will see the ways of their errors, especially now that the other buddy states have pulled out.

And I thought the 2003 percentage was still fixed at 10% (the same as when the plan was originally unveiled a decade ago)?

How can a battery powered vehicle be "zero emissions" when they burn coal or oil at a power plant to generate the electricity to run said battery powered car?

:eek:

Lay off the tree huggers!!!

I happen to be one, but not one that agrees with zero emissions within the next two years. I happen to be one that believes that a number of viable options exist out there to reduce the amount of pollutants we pump into our atmosphere every day.

Why not follow honda and make most of your vehicles at least LEV or even ULEV? Or hybrid vehicles? Can you imagine if all cars got 40-70 MPG? We'd save two-fold on gas, first because we'd be using less and second because demand would drop and force oil companies to keep prices lower.

Now as far as zero emissions goes...maybe, repeat maybe in the future. But now? As someone mentioned in an earlier post, Ford gets to keep making gas guzzling SUV's and trucks, but environmentally conscious auto manufacturers like Subaru, Honda and Toyota will be penalized? How is that legal?

It would have to be an across the board requirement, every car manufacturer, every state... in order to be truly effective. But that technology although it may exist, is still in it's infancy.

Why not look at other fuel options? Natural gas, hybrid cars, or dare I say hemp? Yes that's right, believe it or not there is a diesel Mercedes that has been converted to burn hemp fuel, and has practically zero emissions (if I recall the article correctly).

So yes I am a tree hugger, but I also realize that consumer demand is going to drive R&D of cars. Think about this I had the choice of buying a Hybrid Honda or Toyota and bought a Legacy instead.

If they come up with a zero emmisions vehicle that performs like a gas powered car, now I'm interested...

Or, how about rewarding people who buy or manufacture low -zero emmisions vehicles? Now there is an incentive.

My two tree-hugging cents!

Oquipah:

Excellent post.

You mean not all "tree huggers" think alike? We're not all drones marching to a hippie drumbeat? Kinda funny (and sad) how stereotypes become reality to some people.

Originally posted by Jon
In this post I took shots at people who haven't even posted in this thread. Apparently I have nothing better to do with my time then try to insult two particular people


[i]Jon, knock that off, now.

Jon, how do you like them apples!
ahha

About the electric stuff, I was talking to a toyota dealer when we picked up the Prius and he said that Toyota was planning on making all of their cars electric as of 2004. SHould be interesting. Acutally..I really like my electric car..its no wrx, but its cool to drive and hear nothing but the tires contact with the pavement.
THere was also talk of a 300-400hp hybrid car...someone posted it about a month ago...I'msure it would cost an arm and a leg, but its interesting none the less.
Maybe down the road we will be talking about bigger compacitors instead of turbos?:)
keith

I don't think they'd make all their cars electric.

I mean they're losing money with only one electric car...they'd go broke quick if all of them were like that.

I've heard that each manufacturer will only need ONE electric within a couple years.

Maybe FHI can use their connection with GM to get around this?

.Ford gets to keep making gas guzzling SUV's and trucks, but environmentally conscious auto manufacturers like Subaru, Honda and Toyota will be penalized? How is that legal?

How is it legal that most japanese cars are made in america yet have to pay import taxes because their parent corporations are on foreign soil while ford, chevy, and all the other made in the usa car companies can make cars in canada and mexico but are still considered american cars and thus can avoid any penalties?

Anyway I agree with phasing out fossil fuel cars. I'm not a tree hugger but fossil fuels are a limited quantity resource. Besides I would love getting rid of americas dependance on middle eastern oil sources, probably could avoid all the crap thats going on right now with afghanistan and iraq.

I don't think they'd make all their cars electric
I don't think so either, but he insisted on it.
Either way..just as long as they can make fast electric cars...with awd.....and a turbo :) I'll be happy;)
Hey..you never know.
Keith

:D *hugs tree* :D

We are not dependent upon foreign oil, it's just cheaper.

We are not dependent upon foreign oil, it's just cheaper.

we produce 18% of the worlds oil annually but consume 40% of the worlds oil production. How can you say we are not dependant on foreign oil?

I wish I could dig up an article I read about 6 months ago, I may have found it on slashdot. It was a very well written article that took a look at just how clean electric cars are. Interestingly enough so called "ZEVs" pollute just as much as say, a Honda Civic. There's an extremely significant amount of loss just distributing power around the state. I believe there's something like a 25% loss just going over the high tension power lines (this doesn't even include step down transformers, etc.). And as someone else pointed out California does not have an adequate electrical grid. There's NO WAY it could currently support the additional load if 2% of all new cars sold were electric.

Cosidering the percentage of SUV's sold each year it would make MUCH more sense to increase emissions regulations for SUV's (hmmm... maybe they should be held to the same standards that cars are since most SUV drivers don't actually need a vehicle that large to pick up the kids from school and get groceries). Doing that would actually produce a MEASURABLE difference in the environment. I doubt that there would be any measurable difference if 2% of all new cars were ZEV's.

Cheers, Joe

i totally agree. make those stupid trucks and SUV's have the same emission requirements as cars, and there wouldn't be such a problem.

I think they should adopt a minimum MPG law for suvs. No commuter car should get 6-8 MPG period.

Wow. Such vitriol aimed at "tree huggers." I'm surprised, frankly. (soapbox mode on)

We all have to live in this world, along with our children, friends' children, and future generations. Anything that can be proven to help the environment, like lowering car emissions, is a good thing. What, oh what could the problem be with that?

(soapbox mode off, thinking gearhead mode on)

One fundamental problem with the emissions laws are the junkers, which contribute a staggering amount of pollution to the aggregate. But, the government can't simply say "You car sucks...gimme," because there are beautifully maintained older cars that don't pollute any more than the average mid-size SUV.

Tis a quandary.

One poster asked what we can do, regards the whole Subaru in Cali, lowering emissions thang...

Well, we can stop pulling cats, and running straight exhausts, and other fun stuff like that in a quest for a few more horsepower. For this very reason, I put a Cobb cat-back on my car, and will do no more exhaust work. Those cats are fine, the car is plenty fast with them in line.

SUVs are here to stay, barring some bit of madness like $5 per gallon gas, or something like that. I live on the North Shore in the Chicago area, where Land Cruisers look small thanks to all the Yukons, Suburbans and Excursions being jockeyed about by wee Highland Park lasses. Everyone like the safety, high seating position and all that jazz, but nobody likes the low gas mileage and high emissions. This doesn't even get into carmakers and CAFE, where they want to sell little deelybobs like the Honda Impact (Insight?) to lower CAFE, so that the SUVs can go out the door.

So...is the rumor true about Subaru in California? Who knows. But we can be on this. The STi will have some major emissions stuff going on, that might make people long for the relatively unrestricted nature of the WRX 3-cat setup. Already, we're hearing rumors that Mitsubishi will use a different motor in the EVO because of California emissions. Interesting stuff.

Kevin

I just love the Peoples Republic of California and their interesting ways of thinking out things when it comes to automobiles.

Where do people get the idea that subaru makes super enviromentaly sound cars? Can anyone name a
compact that gets worse gas mileage than an impreza rs? Just because they don't sell suv's doesn't mean they produce fuel efficient cars.

I don't think that it's as much a gas mileage question as it is an emissions question. The WRX, for instance, is an LEV (low emissions vehicle) as it comes from the factory. Impressive for a car that hairy-chested.

I think that part of why Subarus get poor gas mileage is because the drivers are on the loud pedal. Our WRX gets excellent gas mileage when my wife drives it. She can drive downtown (from Highland Park..about 50 miles round trip) and the gas needle barely moves. Me, on the other hand...

Kevin

Meh... Even if the law goes into effect, I'm sure Subaru's will still be sold in 2003. It'll probably be tied up in the courts. Anyway - how do you force 2% of new car buyers in California to buy an electric car?

Back in January 1997, a law went into effect banning the sale of new 2 stroke ATV's, and motorcycles.. I own a 1999 (2 stroke) yamaha banshee, and It has a green sticker, registerd for use in California.

I'm not worried about it.

Theres no law that says people have to buy them, just that they need to be built.

Electric cars are not practical until two things happen:
1) There has to be a demand. Capitalism 101 says a company can't make money on a product for which demand is not strong enough to justify cost. I believe in capitalism as well as respecting the environment. I really like the way an electric engine pulls, but would not consider buying an electric vehicle unless it had more range and quicker refueling rate. I don't think I am alone on this one.
2) Electric cars need to generate their own electricity or you are simply changing the point source of the pollution.

How can a battery powered vehicle be "zero emissions" when they burn coal or oil at a power plant to generate the electricity to run said battery powered car?

Exactly my point. In the most efficient, modern power plants natural gas is converted to electrical energy at an efficiency of ~55%. As mentioned above, some of this energy is lost as heat given off of transformers and transmission lines. Then the power is used to charge a batterywhich also contributes to losses.
What if you used natural gas to power an internal combustion engine that converted the btu's directly into kinetic energy rather than deal with all of the above mentioned losses. Even if the natural gas engine is 40% efficient you're still burning less fuel for the same end result PLUS you've now got a product with range - something consumers want (see point #1).

My suggestions: In the near term provide incentives to convert vehicles to run on LNG. Long term solutions may include the use of fuel cells which run on natural gas or hydrogen. I predict this will be feasible within the next 50 years.


Let me just say that "tree hugger" is a loaded statement. I believe we can evolve to have less impact on our quality of life without *drastic* sacrifices in the creature comforts we've become used to over the last 100 years. I mountain bike in forests that logging companies have replanted and they are sublime. An outstanding example of sustainable living.
Cutting down old growth redwoods to build a house that will, at best, last 150 years is doing a huge disservice to generations to come.

wow, very well said.

and to make a note onto what you said... I've been waiting for forever, for a Hydrogen powered car to be out.

I know Mercedes tinkered with one, and I guess those fuel cells run off H, but there should be an internal combustion engine which combusts H. :)

yea yea yea, where are you going to store liquid Hydrogen? I dunno...but that's why I dropped out of my Engineering major! :)

Thinking more about this topic, sorry to the people who I offended by trying to corrall you into one stereotype. ;)

I think part of the problem we face as far as cars go, is SUV's and Trucks. They keep getting bigger and bigger, and the size of engine keeps going up and up. They should be forced to meet passenger car emissions standards. Sorry Ford, no more Excursion with the big V8.. :)

Alternative energy vehicles would be cool if at some point you could give them the performance that internal combustion cars have. Didn't Honda show off a real hot-rod hybrid at Tokyo?

I don't think that 2% of Subaru's sales will be ZEV's in 2003, and I don't think there are too many manufacturers that will meet that standard either. I think it will have to be postponed or amended.

It would be a damn shame if come next year, you can't get a new Subaru in California. :(

JJ
www.imprezawrxsti.com
All STi, All The Time

I think we also need to remember that at least part of the idea behind a 2% target for 2003 is to
get the auto manufacturers to invest in the technology. Remember that we wouldn't be seeing any of the fuel cell and electric technology we are seeing now if it weren't for laws like that. If car companies didn't believe that the regulations are going to change someday, they wouldn't have much incentive to develop those technologies.
Now, that's too bad for small manufacturers like subaru who don't have the resources to develop that technology, but do you really think they are going to be able to go on selling their relatively inefficient flat fours (ej22 excluded) and sixes forever?

It's unfortunate that an immediate fix to the fuel economy debate is not answered with diesel.

Hybrid/electric cars are still quite experimental, and, while they will get better, do not today fit the needs for most Americans.

Diesel, though, is ready now (at least in Europe), and is a very well proven technology that is light years beyond the crap diesels shoved on the US market in the early 80s. (Mercedes and VW diesels excepted from the "crap" rating).

If I had to get rid of my car tomorrow for one that gets ~twice the mileage, I'd make it a Golf 150hp PD TDI 6-speed, thank you very much!! :)

Of course, there's much more to this debate, just unfortunate that is not even recognized as an option by most of the establishment..

lb
www.trancelab.com

That really sucks that we mayu be missing out on the new subarus that will be coming overseas next year... :( I know that they want to try and clean keep the emisions under control, I do wonder why must the Californians and the 3 other states listed will have to watch the cars fly by to our other neighboring states. Oh well... I guess if I really wanted one, I could purchase it with my other family memebers outside CA and bring it back here.... Oh well... Let's hope CA will come to its senses, and If you do want to put restrictions on the real gas guzzlers. :D

Oh well... I done talking... Late all! -chris :p

I think that this is turning out to be a good thread, read up SOA!!

Although Subaru's in general are not exactly models for fuel efficiency, like other posts have stated the major polluters are the oversized SUV's and trucks. How can you sell a car that gets 12 MPG in a country that is supposedly trying to up the standards in pollution control?

There are plenty of examples of R&D in the "alternative fuel" driven vehicles. Although they are developing these cars, there are reasons that prevent these cars from being mass marketed.

1. Demand-How do you sell a hybrid, electric or alternative fuel car to someone when you have cars that people really "want" (insert a WRX here)?

2. There is no infrastructure to support new technologies. I recently watched a program on cars that ran on Natural gas. Better mileage and less pollution. However, have you ever seen a "natural gas station" anywhere during your travels? Of course not. Why not? There isn't enough demand for them to open. Why not?

See where I'm headed with this? Catch-22. Which comes first the chicken or the egg?

What California may be trying to acheive with their new, and ahead of it's time law, is to get the ball rolling.

Yes we all want a 400hp monster that trashes everything else on the road, well at least I would:D , and we aren't attracted to the hybrid vehicles because they lack the power...right now!

But, take a look at the first gas driven cars. Were they exactly powerhouses? Maybe in their time, but when you had the first car races, top speeds were around 55MPH and they spewed exhaust that would put the worst semi-trucks to shame.

But because demand was there, and R&D thrived, we now have cars that quadruple that speed and are less polluting.

I support the R&D of these alternative fuel or electric cars, who knows maybe someday we'll have an STI v. XXX that buries today's STI and doesn't pollute at all!

In the meantime, I'll take mine in Rally Blue thank you.

Peace,
Oqui

People will buy electric or alternative fuel cars when the price of gasoline becomes so high that it becomes a luxury to own a fossil fuel car. Bump up gas prices to $8-$10 a gallon and watch the EV-1s fly out the dealership.

Ok so as mentioned before in this extensive post, Electric vehicles are not ever true ZEV's are they... The electricity had to be created somewhere, transported, converted, stored, REconverted and finally used... I would love to see these ZEV's rated in Miles Per - Pound (of coal), Gallon (of water, hydroelectric, clean yes, but still not perfect), rad (referring to Nuclear Plants), or Gallon (Diesel since there are still deisel power plants in our world...).

It's great to think that these ZEV's are going to solve our problems, but we continue to look at the WHOLE picture... Why don't we look at some of these other countries. I spent a week in Hong Kong when I was in High School (pre-Chine rule, early 90's) and I would have to say that it was one of the most FOUL places I have ever been (excluding 3rd world places). Just prior to the week there I was in China itself for almost a month, you want to see filth in action. The largest mode of transport (outside of major, and I mean MAJOR, cities) are small 2-stroke gas engines, rigged to drive a small farm vehicle around. (Looking like a roto-tiller with a trailer!) The air was unbelieveable, add in the heat and humidity and LA smog has nothing on Bejing for example! And there are dozens of contries that are the same way. I understand that they may not have the standards, or incomes to clean up everything, but instead of us blowing all this money making BS laws for us, why not help them??? Hell send our OLD cars over there and they would run better, and cleaner in most instances!

Shall we even venture into alternative fuels? Someone mentioned earlier than various light gases could be used, and are for that matter. When was the last time you followed a school bus down the road? You can tell when it's a CNG bus as you can still breathe fairly freely right... I have to do everything in my power to avoid the deisels or spend the afternoon with a headache and coughing. What about Alcohol? My grandfather used to get up on his soapbox everytime one of the "tree-huggers" (his term, not mine) referring to his old truck that ran grain alcohol... Yes a very refined version of grain. But as a whole this country produces a large portion of the grains in the world! Why not put this to work?

Just my $.02, I'm sure i'll have more to say later, gotta run...

Mike
#25 (Stuck in CARB'd California!)

If the gasoline engine was invented tomorrow, it would be the technological wunderkind of the 21st century.

In response to the question of why not use hydrogen for fuel. After all it can be pulled out of water, and when burned, it will reunite with Oxygen to create water, and some other molecule. The same problem exists for hydrogen as does for electric cars. You have to get the hydrogen somehow, and at the moment, that requires using energy to separate the water into H2 and O. Which results in a loss of energy (the energy spent to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen is greater than the energy yielded by combusting the hydrogen gas).

For anyone that is interested, Car & Driver did an article on this a few months ago. I believe BMW is working on a car with a hydrogen combusting engine. The article discusses pretty much what I stated above.

If we all put our "two-cents" together we could buy a really big ULEV or CNG bus!! (Provided it's a Subaru)

Originally posted by Keith

I don't think so either, but he insisted on it.
Either way..just as long as they can make fast electric cars...with awd.....and a turbo :) I'll be happy;)
Hey..you never know.
Keith

Many Mfgs are looking at Power Hybrids as performance enhancements. I won't be surprised if they had a small electric motor for Passing and other silimar situations.
The Electric supercar was the Honda Dualnote. Its also a Hybrid with 400+ HP.

The nice thing about this is you can take the energy you used to slow the car down with to speed it back up.

I always thought it would be cool if you could buy this stuff aftermarket. Wouldn't it be neat if you could add this to your non-drive wheels in a 2WD car, and have an added 40-100HP and AWD when needed?


*Edit- because me cant spel

Guys,
Read the details of the law. It will not exclude Subaru from selling in CA for 2003. 2006 will be the first year that they will have to comply with the law.
Phant

The Honda dualnote idea sounds cool.http://ps2media.ign.com/media/news/image/gtcars/dualnote_1.jpg

The Honda Dualnote is a concept blending several new ideas about power and drivetrain into a remarkable 4WD sports car, mixing speed with efficiency, grip with stability, and performance with comfort. Surprisingly enough, it uses a hybrid power system, combining a 3.5-liter V6 engine with an electric motor assist on the front wheels. Honda calls this Integrated Motor Assist. The result is a powerplant that delivers 400HP while managing 18 kilometers to a liter of gas -- for those of you who don't want to do the math, that's about 43 miles to the gallon. The active suspension controls the torque split to all four wheels with the aid of the electric motors in front, allowing a remarkable degree of stability in corners and straights. Inside, the instrument panel features 3D displays, instrument consoles to the left and right of the driving position, and a small laptop-style information monitor for the navigation system and other computing features.

Honda calls this Integrated Motor Assist.

They are gonna need a better name when its available, something like "i-MAVCTRKtech"

Driving a truck or SUV should require a special license that is very expensive.

If you are going to legislate morality, then have the ^(&#$ to do it right.

Stracos

Oh, and


C

I just found the thread but I think I can be of some insight to this discussion. Credentials: I work for GM's Advanced Technology Vehicles division. We create hybrids/EVs/FCVs etc... and are tasked to comply with the CARB mandates. I have been building and testing hybrid vehicles for about 6 years now. Including electric only, fuel cells, diesel parallel, propane series..... (some of these were from my undergrad studies at Virginia Tech)

Anyway here's some bulleted responses in no particular order

- The CARB mandate is for Emissions not fuel economy. These are often connected but here they have nothing to do with the other. the legislation says a certain percentage of vehicles SOLD by an OEM must be ZEV. A ZEV is defined by zero TAILPIPE emissions, the upstream emission cost of the electricity will be covered later. Note the vehicle must be sold, not built as someone said. So not only do OEMs have to make these vehicles but we have to make the public buy them.

- The timeline for the CARB mandate begins in 03 but it ramps up. I don't remember the percentages of vehicles sold in CA that have to be ZEV. Originally it was 10% pure ZEVs but this number has been backed down and now includes credits for P-ZEVs.

- Partial ZEVs come in several flavors. These are vehicles that do produce tailpipe emissions but still earn credit under the mandate. One example that i'm familiar with would be a hybrid vehicle (a'la insight) that meets the following criteria 1) SULEV emissions 2) full OBDII monitoring 3) zero evaporative emissions 4) 150,000 mile lifespan for all the above

- SUVs are not the problem here. Older cars produce exponentially more emissions than any new car OR truck. A lawnmower gas can in your garage emits more emissions via evaporation than several Excursions per year. Furthermore the newest emission levels are ridiculously low compared to older mandates. There are only a handful of facilities in the world that can even measure the difference between ULEV AND SULEV.

- Other technologies - FCVs: eventually I believe hyrdrogen powered fuel cell vehicles will replace the ICE. I have done extensive research on fuel cells and really believe in the technology. However viable FCVs are years away. Fuel cells take hyrdrogen and oxygen and create water and electricity through a chemical process. Think electrolasys (sp?) in reverse. But H2 storage is a problem. Its so light that gaseous storage is inefficient. Current laws only allow a 3600 psi tank. Liquid storage is heavy and costly since you have to keep the H2 in a cryrogenic state. Solid hyrdogen sulfides has also been explored but its very inefficient. FCVs will not be a viable option until the H2 infrastructure exists. GM has recently announced a FCV with a gasoline reformer on board. Gas goes in, gets converted to hyrdrogen, H2 to the fuel cell stack.

- Other tecs - diesel: diesels are more fuel efficient thermodynamcially but they don't produce better emissions. At least not the kind we measure here in the states. Since they use less fuel per distance they produce less emissions in that sense (greenhouse gas emissions: CO2) but here in the states we use a diesel fuel hi in sulfur compared to euro diesel. So it emits higher concentrations os SOx. Also diesels emit unburnt hyrdocarbons, called particulates, this is the black cloud from diesel trucks.

- other tecs - alcohol: Alcohol burns a little bit cleaner and slower than gas so you can use a higher compression engine. E85 (ethanol denatured with 15% gasoline) is out there but its expensive. Many OEMs including GM and Ford have flexible fuel E85/gas vehicles. These were built for CAFE credits but also benefit lower emissions. However since E85 is 2 or 3 times more expensive than gas you don't see ppl going out of their way to fill up with it. The process of converting bio-matter to alcohol is just more expensive that gasoline reformation

- Speaking of reformation. Electricity produced for the grid is MUCH cleaner than any tailpipe emitting vehicle. The EPA has been very diligent in cleaning up the electric power plants here in the states. Even coal power plants are cleaner per kW than a car. This has all been taken into account before by several studies. The most accepted 'Well to Wheel' study was done by Argonne National Labs in the developement of the GREET model. The GREET model is a free downloadable tool that can calculate the well to wheel emissions created by nearly any type of vehicle.

- Hydrogen used for FCVs is created from natural gas for the most part. Splitting water with elecricity does create O2 and H2 but this process is inefficient and since FCVs do basically the same process in reverse and given that you cannot create energy from nothingness, you get a net work of zero or worse.

Ok to pull this back to CARB. CARB is trying to mandate emissions through a high profile attack on OEMs. By making us pull ahead technology that doesn't exist, CARB hopes to solve its own problems while making it appear that they can make the auto industry bend to its will. This tactic also makes the OEMs carry the load of R&D and marketing of ZEVs. GM is the ONLY OEM to make a legal stand to CARB that this mandate is stupid. GM has offered several alternatives that will do more to help CA's air than produce vehicles ppl don't want to buy. (the gas can thing being one) But CARB has so far stuck to its guns. GM has argued that the public does not want these vehicles and making it law that they must buy them is bad policy. GM produced the EV1 for 3 years but most ppl could care less, even though it is/was a technical marvel. Forcing OEMs to sell ZEVs to an unresponsive public will do nothing but cost the OEMs billions. GM has also asked CARB to change the law such that public demand justify the numbers of vehicles sold but that was shot down.

I could go on and on on this subject but the fact is CARB is probably not going to budge and unless GM wins its suit all OEMs will have to comply. I'm sure all the OEMs are creating plans to comply with the mandate like we are but this will only detract much need money from producing vehicles the public does want.

Ryan

*the above is my own personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion or corporate strategy of General Motors*

Thank you Ryan. You have put many Urban Rumours to rest.

Originally posted by silverbullit
.

How is it legal that most japanese cars are made in america yet have to pay import taxes because their parent corporations are on foreign soil while ford, chevy, and all the other made in the usa car companies can make cars in canada and mexico but are still considered american cars and thus can avoid any penalties?

I believe this has to do with NAFTA. Because of this, anything made anywhere on our fair continent is free from import tariff. the reason we have to pay import tax on our cars is because they come from a company in Japan. Technically, they export the parts to america and have it assembled. Also, if we allowed free trade with other countries, our GNP would severely decrease. The only reason they allow this with Canada and Mexico is to help our own economy by helping theirs.
--Adam

Someone said something about comparing a natural gas power plant to a CNG vehicle. Very different things here. A power plant uses the NG to produce heat for a boiler which is then used in a turbine. CNG vehicles are just combusing the natural gas in a a modified Otto cycle. Otto cycles are at most 30 something % thermodynamcally effcient. (Diesel cycles can get near 40%). These are theoretical numbers. You will NEVER see a ICE vehicle get anywhere near that kind of thermal effciency, too many variables and transients. I don't know about a 55% efficient gas turbine cycle, that sounds a little high. But at any rate a closely controlled gas-turbine will easily be more efficient than any kind of ICE cycle on a mobile platform.

Electric cars can be very sporty. Back in school we made a modified Neon that could smoke ANY production vehicle up to about 40mph. Nothing like 100% torque from 0-4000 rpm. (You want a piece of me viper boy?!) Ultimate stoplight sleeper. Talk about some dumbfounded guys.

Ryan

Well done Ryan,

I applaud you for your effort in the two posts you made on this subject. I hope that anyone arguing on this topic will take the time to thoroughly read them.
Unfortunately I feel that organizations like CARB are destined to grow throughout the rest of the country and hold us under their iron thumbs. They will be run be know it all polititions who think that they know where all of our troubles are coming from, and they like to point their fingers at the large corporations, and the automotive performance lifestyle. But when presented with the hard facts about the real problems, they suddenly go deaf blind and dumb (and I don't mean they stop talking.)
But If we want something to be done about it, then those of us whose lifestyles are threatened need to take an active role now.
I am not in California, but if you want to know how you can take an active role. Pic up some of the more recent issues of Sport Compact Car and read Josh Jacquot's articles on CARB. He tells you how to get involved.
The rest of the country should contact there local state and federal representatives, find out there feelings. Look into the formation of groups that will begin to mandate these things. And most importantly, learn about the issues and VOTE!

Sincerely,

Kent Burgess

Except...the buddy states CARB was hoping to count on (NY, CT, one or two others) in their "fight for clean air" against the car companies have pulled out. They are not attempting to enact similar legislation to CARB. So it's possible CARB-esque agencies (blind political enviro organizations) may not rise so dramatically, especially when there's no public support. We can all hope.

I'm all for clean air and clean cars, but 98% clean compared to 1966 vehicles is pretty good. I agree with GM's alternative offers to CARB, and believe that those would do a lot more good for our air than what CARB is proposing/mandating.

Thanks subytech and templar! Hey its not too offen I can contribute to this board about something I really know about. And no I was not at work when I wrote that epic post. I'm on vacation this week :D

- CARB eventually wants 10% EVs on the roads, ok that MAY be doable in the future but what about NY, MA, NH, and the rest of the 'me too' states. These states get cold! EVs are nearly useless in cold weather. The battery capacity goes all to hell and most EVs currently produced don't have cabin heaters. You have to have a big resistive element, burn a lil diesel burner, or create a heat pump to get heat in an EV. All the above suck battery power OR produce emissions!

- CARB wants to see more ZEVs which currently mean Fuel Cells (no infrastructure) or EVs (no demand). Ok picture if CARB gets what it wants. 10% of vehicles sold in CA are EVs. I have no idea how big that number is but let's say its 50,000 vehicles per year. EVs get power from the grid. Last time I checked CA didn't have an abundance of grid power. Can we say more brownouts kids?

- CARB is the defacto ruler of national emission standards. The fed generally goes along with what CARB says. When I have to check with a legislative body to see if my vehicle is going to make 'X'-LEV, its CARB not the fed I have to get the nod from. Wierd but true.

I'm with Julian, todays vehicles are soooo much better than ones made just 10 years ago. As for hybrids, I work on these vehicles because I want to help the environment and reduce our dependence on petroleum. I guess you got to start somewhere but until then I'll own my WRX because its kicks AWD arse, is fairly efficient, has a LEV rating, and has five doors. That's a real hybrid.

Ryan

*the above is my own personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion or corporate strategy of General Motors*

Good info Ryan!;) I have a question for ya tho. In your years of R&D have yall looked at using CRV (Centrifugal Rotory Valve) heads? I have seen these on a 351 powered mustang that had a bullit proof bottom end and with just the eddition of these heads produced 120 more HP from stock. :eek: Also gass milage actually went up since there is no more pushrod valve train and no need to cool the engine with water!;) And the only thing that limits this engine is the RPM the Bottom end could take and the sealing of the valves. i am sure with more research the sealing problem could be fixed. But when you see a V8 spin up to 15,000 RPM!! :eek: :D And still get 25 MPG its impresive. This could be the answer to performance Vs fuel economy/emisions. You could still get great gas milage and have a lighter car (no water for cooling) with the power!;) I have talked to them several times and have asked why this technology has not showed up yet? There reply is best summed up with "I dont know" :confused: Can ya shed some light on this technology? The tech guys at Coates only give so much info.;) :lol: Thanks again Ryan

Duh I forgot the Url! http://www.coatesengine.com/

Jay
87 MC SS 6 speed with a cup holder!:p
Forever 3

Hello? :) Why is it everytime I mention this technology on any mesage board the thread stops?:lol: Its like a conspiracy or somthin!;) :lol: :lol:


Jay
87 MC SS 6 speed with a cup holder!:p
Forever 3

Jay I can't speak for everyone else but I'm on vacation this week and haven't been online much. Anyway... I've looked at the webpage but can't quite figure out how the valves work. How do you control the opening and closing? At anyrate I didn't see any evidence that substantiates a 120hp increase by just changing the heads. To get that kind of increase you have to be doing something besides letting the air/fuel mixture enter and exit the cylinder. Just my .02 though.

I've never heard of GM donig anything like this but I don't work for GM powertrain either though. If I was to speculate I would say that this process is not nearly robust enough for a production vehicle. GMPT put millions of dyno miles on an engine before it ever gets out of the alpha mule stage, 150,000mi doesn't really impress me much. Production vehicles require the technology to be absolutely bulletproof with a large margin a safety. Also it seems the only applications for this technology is hot rodding and the like which doesn't account for emissions, NVH, or warranty.

I assume if it work as well as Coates says they would've shopped it around and try to get an OEM to license it. That's what Delphi or Tower automotive does when they come up with something new and useful. The fact that it doesn't exist in an OEM yet would make me think the process is either doesn't work as advertised, is risky, costly or some combination of the above.

In general (not GM specific) what I've seen from SAE papers and what not, most of the camless valvetrain designs use electro-magnetically controlled valves. Also coming out soon and already demonstated by mitsu is direct gasoline injection eleviating the need for intake valves altogether.

hope this helps

Ryan

Thats cool. its just funny on other Mesage boards when I mention these heads the thread stops for some resone/:lol: But I am glad you responded.:)

the 120 increase came from no valve train drag and cooler head temps with higher compresion (13:1 I think?)
The valves rotate and are directly conected to the crankshaft thew a belt or chain. If you E-mail them they will send ya a pic.

I know they have a few mustangs running around with these heads on them. The gains are very good since you can raise the compresion ratio and a destroked light bottom end can take advatage of the High RPM limit. I caint see why GM or Ford for that matter hasent tried to develop this more? It works. It just needs some heavy R&D and a 1,000,000 mile test;) I just seems like a viable idea.


Coates has shoped it around as far as I know and most there funding is comming from over seas (Honda and toyota most likely).

Yea I have seen the Direct injection. That Idea is alot closer than coates. One of my favorites is the Saab (GM) Variable compression engine. :D I wish this stuff would hurry up an develope.
:D


Jay
87 MC SS 6 speed with a cup holder!:p
Forever 3

I've read about this.

I think the hp comes mostly from the increased revs (And the high er CR)

the reduced temps and vibration and mechanical moving parts contribute to the ability to rev higher.

I don't know about the increased mileage though. I would think constantly reving to 14000 rpm would use a lot of gas.


What kind heads to Formula 1 cars use? I heard there are gonna move to magnetically controlled heads to possibly rev to like 20000

Does anyone know how close one of the electrodmagnetic valve systems are to production. Seems like eveyone is working on a system. Talk about your variable timing. It could be a tuners best dream and worst nightmare all in one.

So you replace a rocker arm assembly with a series of chains on the crank, how does that increase efficiency? You're just taking away crank torque via a different method, not elleviating it. And as for not having to liquid cool the engine is a real head scratcher. The need to cool generally comes from the heat of the cylinder not any type of friction losses from the valve train. Raising the compression will just make the engine hotter too. Since pressure and Temperature vary directly. Not doubting that the technology works but I've seen a lot of wonder-components for cars that don't always work the way they're supposed to.

As for EM valvetrains... I know, but I can't say. :D

Ryan

Originally posted by HokieEngr


As for EM valvetrains... I know, but I can't say. :D

Ryan

OK, that's down right cruel....

Can you say if its a version of the SAAB type that was shown at a SAE show a couple of years back? Or is it something that hasn't been seen yet?

Originally posted by mh_WRX


OK, that's down right cruel....

Can you say if its a version of the SAAB type that was shown at a SAE show a couple of years back? Or is it something that hasn't been seen yet?

Sorry, though I'd love to leave SE Michigan, I'd rather keep my job. I can only speak in terms of released information or pure technology. You never know when someone in the automotive press will pick up some info and run with it, whether its true or not. If I was to speculate (personal opinion here) I would say Mercedes will release EM valvetrains first. I don't know when though.

Ryan

I've heard that the first application would most likely be a Desiel because of lower RPMs.

Do you work out of Ann Harbor? Just curious.

I work in Troy, MI. AA is where UofMI is but that's about 45 min away.

Right now I'm just north of your area. I flew into RDU last weekend to visit my folks.

Ryan

That's cool. I hope you have a good visit. Enjoy the warmer weather while you can.

To all tree huggers ... trees thrive on carbon dioxide and nitrogen rich fertilizers ... so we fossil fuel burners are helping you political correct folks out. Hell, the fossil fuel we burn today was once plant matter and will again become fossil fuel in the future. Geez, it it that so tough of a concept to grasp? Electricity comes from somewhere ... usually from burning acid rain producing low-grade coal or ... gasp ! ... nuclear power! Well, that doesn't work for me either. The only real ZEV alternative that has a chance to work in the near future is burning hydrogen fuel. (Someone on the political far left will complain that the water coming out the tail pipe is an environmental threat to the Sub-Saharan sand flea or some drivel like that!) But, for now, we do not have a safe method of storing hydrogen, so Californians can either burn fossil fuel or pedal a bicycle (slim chance of that for people who must drive to their mail boxes! Hey, I grew up in SoCAl, I've seen it!).

Auto companies will have to give ZEV's away at the expense of overcharging the rest of us for subsidizing "voodoo" ecology. Who are the Democratic volunteers who will buy those ZEV's... please step forward.?:p