SaturnFans.com
what's new (beta) - classifieds - forums - photos


Go Back   SaturnFans.com Forums > Site Information > Community Center > Events
Register FAQ Members List Groups Calendar Chat Room Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-02-2018, 10:30 AM   #1
fdryer
Super Member
fdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond repute
 
fdryer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 41,174
 

2003 L-Series 3.0L Sedan
Default White House proposes weakening EPA and California emissions

Some members here may have read of my personal disdain of California superseding federal EPA emissions by deliberately raising the bar for tougher emissions with several states (NY included) following their lead. While this is my personal gripe, I do accept the fact that there are varying environmental issues unique to each state. California having smog as a result of mountainous terrain and weather patterns creating a unique dome of local emissions choking the population of never ending sun is the reason for raising the bar for stricter vehicle emissions. To California's credit and the disdain of vehicle manufacturers, we've been getting vehicles emitting less pollution. I have grudging respect for this. However, the present White House proposes to go against California's emissions legislation to reduce it with states already lining up for a fight against the present administration. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/02/...g-califor.html

At this point, I feel rolling back emissions is completely wrong as vehicle manufacturers still make money while engineering solutions. There was once a time not too long ago when muscle cars fell by the wayside as emissions strangled hp and catalytic converters were forced by EPA mandates. All of Detroit back then moaned. Well, a few decades later and we have muscle cars with several hundred hp, many well over 400, with every one of them is compliance with EPA emissions. That goes to demonstrate how engineering can evolve to meet challenges that were once claimed impossible decades ago. America sent men to the moon in the '60's using slide rules when computers were men and women manually calculating enormous mathematical issues back then. There is no valid reason to go backwards on emissions controls since manufacturers seem to have wrestled the issues to allow continued use of internal combustion engines for as long as needed. Perhaps this is a veiled attempt to fight the electric car revolution......

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to fdryer's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help fdryer reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
fdryer is online now   Reply With Quote
SaturnFans.com Sponsored Links
Old 08-02-2018, 11:57 AM   #2
satlite440
Senior Member
satlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud of
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: kent wa
Posts: 1,053

2001 SL2
Default Re: White House proposes weakening EPA and California emissions

no this is about the unrealistic café standerds..if you have never read the café standards and how the gov arrives at mpg I urge you to read the unrealistic conditions on how they judge mileage...and the 45mpg by 2025 will not be met..we are at the limit with todays sidi/vvt/ engine familys at gm so now we are adding gears.. the 8spd is going away now we have 9&10 spds and are exploring 12&14spd..

...
shure you can trust the government,just ask us indians all about it...

heavy line the final protective fire line of the dealership

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to satlite440's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help satlite440 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
satlite440 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2018, 11:59 AM   #3
fdryer
Super Member
fdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond repute
 
fdryer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 41,174
 

2003 L-Series 3.0L Sedan
Default Re: White House proposes weakening EPA and California emissions

And it's official. The White House is rolling back fuel economy standards; https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna896846 And the games continue.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to fdryer's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help fdryer reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
fdryer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2018, 10:34 AM   #4
mattwithcats
Senior Member
mattwithcats has a spectacular aura aboutmattwithcats has a spectacular aura about
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Portsmouth, Virginia
Posts: 1,447

2002 SL2
Default Re: White House proposes weakening EPA and California emissions

The regulations forced diesel particulate filters on small diesel engines, which require “burn off” cycles, at 80% throttle, and very expensive parts.

Gas engines were forced to use idle shutoff to achieve the required MPG, frustrating to the driver and wearing to the engine...

Your better off requiring existing fuel to contain 20% biodiesel and biogasoline (butanol) from algae (which is made using sewage)...

...
2002 Silver SL2, manual, 5th gear swap (.605), 80,000 miles, black badges,
205/60R15 "H" rated tires, 5mm spacers rear...
Pennzoil Ultra Platinum 5W-30, NAPA 41516...
NGK BKR6E-11 spark plugs

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to mattwithcats's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help mattwithcats reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
mattwithcats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2018, 12:19 PM   #5
fdryer
Super Member
fdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond repute
 
fdryer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 41,174
 

2003 L-Series 3.0L Sedan
Default Re: White House proposes weakening EPA and California emissions

satlite440, I haven't read the entirety of CAFE standards but I can highlight the beginning of it - The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are regulations in the United States, first enacted by the United States Congress in 1975, after the 1973–74 Arab Oil Embargo, to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) produced for sale in the United States ... This suggests that right after America's first oil shortage, Congress legislated motor vehicle manufacturers to engineer cars to improve overall company average fuel economy as a hedge against possible long term oil markets causing a national and national security issue with what can be described as freewheeling America's oil consumption without a care in the world. I agree when the oil embargos created gas shortages, I remember odd/even license plate days to shorten lines at gas stations didn't solve the oil crisis. Congress didn't enact CAFE standards unless most of America's drivers were behind it. Detroit didn't like it one bit and cried crocodile tears. My normally sceptical mind suspected something fishy. The reference to muscle cars falling by the wayside is about that time in the late '60's and '70's as muscle cars lost out as emissions were enacted to reduce pollution, increase fuel economy at the same time. We have come full circle with virtually every car made with huge horsepower meeting emissions. The balance of high horsepower cars with low fuel economy are balanced with *energy credits* and cars with high fuel economy is, if I'm correct, what each manufacturer uses to meet CAFE standards. If this isn't met then every manufacturer will sell what makes money first and ignore fuel economy. To juxtapose CAFE regulations, Tesla is slapping the car industry with zero emissions electric vehicles, throwing a gauntlet to the industry. Every car company is scrambling with their feeble hybrids, fast tracking their versions of ev cars. Funny but they're silent about complaining of meeting cafe standards when *energy credits* are given as compensation(?) for future goals as they fail to meet goals? I acknowledge that technology has come a long way from non catcon/non EFI systems belching pollution to no end to the most modern cars and every muscle car meeting emissions controls with EFI systems and catcons. It may have taken a decade or three but it was achieved. To balance these 'mystery' issues Detroit and other manufacturers have to contend with, America sent men to the moon and back with millions of men and women toiling away under government contract (meaning lowest bidder) to make a presidential promise come true. I ask anyone how can America send men to the moon, create and use the atomic bomb, create a preeminent nuclear power nation second to none and hear the car industry cannot meet cafe standards? One guess - politics. Money is the other force but again, America sent men to the moon on what is still considered paid by government salaries, NASA and every sub contractor. Car manufacturers aren't government paid employees and are driven by profits with a percentage of profits reinvested to r&d. Technology hasn't changed, utilizing the best and brightest in every discipline. Money doesn't buy genius/intelligence (Einstein). NASA proved beyond doubt how science and engineering come together to solve problems. Salaries and profits weren't motives.

Last edited by fdryer; 08-03-2018 at 12:27 PM..

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to fdryer's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help fdryer reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
fdryer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2018, 04:45 PM   #6
satlite440
Senior Member
satlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud ofsatlite440 has much to be proud of
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: kent wa
Posts: 1,053

2001 SL2
Default Re: White House proposes weakening EPA and California emissions

respectfuly I disagree..nasa funded by the government with an unlimited bank account was able to achive that.compared to say gm who yes has to turn a profit to stay alive something nasa does not have to do..the hubble feaco comes to mind..gm has spent tons of money or r&d..fun fact gm had to 300+fleet of hydrogen fuel cell powerd cars with in 7 yrs at the time of hitting the market depending on 2 issues left to solve1 being refueling infrastructure(making refulling the cell as simple as say a gas pump) and a hydrocarbon sensor able to discriminate accurately 100% of the time an onbord hydrogen leak or excess hydrocarbons from older vechials at say an intersection stop light...fun fact as a condition of the bailout the Obama administration required we scrap the fleets and research and devote thise resouces to electric vehical's that only a small segment want as the the current batt tech is to big and not power dense enough for longer ranges comparable to a gas vehical...not to mention we have a stadium size facilty full of spent batt we cant recycle as of yet as epa wont grant a permint to do in us and china is irrisponsable for the most part envoromentaly in their recycleing operations...

...
shure you can trust the government,just ask us indians all about it...

heavy line the final protective fire line of the dealership

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to satlite440's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help satlite440 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
satlite440 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2018, 07:04 PM   #7
fdryer
Super Member
fdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond repute
 
fdryer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 41,174
 

2003 L-Series 3.0L Sedan
Default Re: White House proposes weakening EPA and California emissions

The Hubble mistake was due to contractor error, measuring optics. What was found? Perkin-Elmer was the sub contractor tasked with manufacturing Hubble. NASA asked for final optical measurement with a cruder form of testing, refractive null corrector. P-E ignored NASA and used reflective null corrector, creating the one mm error making Hubble effectively myopic. Near sighted. NASA had it right, Perkin-Elmer had it wrong. There's a time for government oversight when its good and when its not. It's too easy to use hindsight and armchair quarterbacking to accuse NASA of poor oversight when its measuring system was ignored by a contactor that could have been corrected before Hubble was sent into space. Cooperation between government agencies and contractors sometimes fails with something as little as miscommunication. I think NASA is not at fault but no one has to believe me; https://www.newscientist.com/article...mirror-fiasco/. I'm as astonished for engineering bungling as anyone else.

As to hydrogen fuel cell power adapted to vehicles, my personal thoughts are that its a no-brainer. Hydrogen fuel cells are million dollar toys that never left the r&d labs because the technology cannot be scaled down to costs the average consumer can afford. Its a multimillion dollar energy design that's perfectly suited to outer space environments, not down here on planet Earth. My thoughts are this was/is purely a publicity stunt with absolutely no real applications hence there aren't any hydrogen fuel cell vehicles anywhere on this planet sold and used as daily drivers. Its strictly an experiment, a lab rat. Why GM and other manufacturers developed it is a mystery and since it went away quietly, the less said/discussed the better all around. This brings up the ethanol program. Another real fiasco that has proven nothing but supporting the corn growers to literally turn food into fuel. There is no such thing as ethanol being renewable as touted by the corn industry. Corn is converted to ethanol and burned, period. To make more ethanol require growing more corn. Ethanol is burned and cannot be recycled back to corn so the lies in politics and the corn industry promoting renewable resources is a veiled attempt to have 'greenies' lie about renewable resources. Corn turned into ethanol is burned and nowhere is it renewable.

No one addressed the huge infrastructure to create high pressurized liquid hydrogen (think/view any American rocket explosion when separate liquid hydrogen and oxygen tanks and a spark source come together when something goes wrong). Since GM or any other manufacturer isn't required to address how to create a liquid hydrogen fueling infrastructure, this well hidden failure to address the entire hydrogen fuel cell program is another nail in the coffin to bring hydrogen fuel cells for car power. It ain't gonna happen and the oil companies are quietly laughing at anyone seriously considering hydrogen fuel cells.

And you're mistaken about electric vehicles. Tesla has overcome 'range anxiety' with a carefully designed lithium battery pack. Every model, S/X/3 has established range equivalent to most ice cars. Very few drivers use their vehicles for cross country drives and the fuel infrastructure long ago ensures gasoline is everywhere and in the eventuality of running out of gas? A call will bring a wrecker with an expensive 5 or 10 gallon can. Elon Musk simply studied car use with the majority never driving outside either a 25 or 50 mile radius. An electric vehicle with between 250-300 mile battery range meets 90% of daily drivers. Tesla has several hundred if not a few thousand recharging stations dotting the USA to assure drivers of fast charging. These charging stations are less than ten years old, something Elon addressed without counting on private entities to establish electric charging stations. A portable slow charger is included in Teslas that requires overnight charging but range is no longer a concern with lithium battery packs. The latest Model 3 has a 300 mile range, more than enough for 90% of daily drivers.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to fdryer's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help fdryer reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
fdryer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2018, 04:00 PM   #8
fdryer
Super Member
fdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond reputefdryer has a reputation beyond repute
 
fdryer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 41,174
 

2003 L-Series 3.0L Sedan
Default Re: White House proposes weakening EPA and California emissions

And If anyone is even slightly inquisitive, here are the facts of compressed hydrogen gas (stored as a liquid) used in fuel cell vehicles and compressed natural gas (CNG used in conventional engines converted to dual gas/cng use).

Compressed hydrogen in hydrogen tanks at 350 bar (5,000 psi) and 700 bar (10,000 psi) is used for mobile hydrogen storage in hydrogen vehicles. It is used as a fuel gas.

CNG is made by compressing natural gas (which is mainly composed of methane, CH4), to less than 1 percent of the volume it occupies at standard atmospheric pressure. It is stored and distributed in hard containers at a pressure of 20–25 MPa (2,900–3,600 psi), usually in cylindrical or spherical shapes.

While not wholly familiar with farm operations, farmers using cng usually have large tanks for storing diesel and cng. Diesel for heavy duty farm equipment, cng for home heating. Resourceful farmers may buy equipment to convert their pickup trucks for dual fuel use, gasoline or cng. A space for a separate cng tank takes up some space in pickup trucks to allow refueling at home from their large cng tanks. Same for diesel if a farm has a large diesel storage tank to allow refueling on premises. In theses cases, each family owned business would be making personal decisions on the costs of infrastructure to examine the cost benefits of adding cng equipment to pickup trucks to take advantage of low cost cng. Recouping investment costs are considered in these personal choices.

As anyone can readily see, extreme high pressures are part of either compressed hydrogen or natural gas. CNG is already established in many parts of the country. Hydrogen gas is used in manufacturing processes not associated with the auto 'industry. If I'm not mistaken, outside of less than a handful of auto manufacturers experimenting with hydrogen fuel cells, the infrastructure isn't there. Each manufacturer conceals how and where they acquire compressed hydrogen where it would be another massive infrastructure to build for vehicle owners to have ready access to compressed hydrogen fuel. The hazards of yahoos crashing hydrogen fueled vehicles aren't addressed while very few if any farmers using cng are reckless drivers.

If there's an argument, no one has brought up cng for car use over and above hydrogen fuel cells. Cleaner burning, easier conversion for dual use, and costs less than gasoline per gallon. The few problems; with cng refueling stations not setup like gas stations and more space is needed to carry a cng tank (negating small cars).

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to fdryer's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help fdryer reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
fdryer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2018, 12:06 AM   #9
Francophile50
Member
Francophile50 is on a distinguished road
 
Francophile50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Concord CA
Posts: 100

2004 L-Series 2.2L Wagon
2001 L-Series 3.0L Wagon
Default Re: White House proposes weakening EPA and California emissions

I have mixed feelings. One one hand it is a good to try to improve pollution standards by slowly making products cleaner but to me what I don't like is trying to force me into a product that you want me to buy because you know better. I don't want a electric car or one powered by CNG. Now all American car companies are elimanating all vehicles except SUVs, sports cars, and trucks. What this will do is force buyers to foreign car German and Japanese which make compact vehicles and traditional sedans which people still want. I'm out if the new car market. I will buy used Saturns until the supply runs out or I die whichever comes first. Scott

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to Francophile50's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help Francophile50 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
Francophile50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2018, 09:40 AM   #10
Jaegweir1259
Junior Member
Jaegweir1259 will become famous soon enough
 
Jaegweir1259's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Central Wisconsin
Posts: 25
 

2002 SC1
Default Re: White House proposes weakening EPA and California emissions

https://wtvr.com/2018/07/02/air-poll...s-in-one-year/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorn.../#670c5aab5a67

there is a reason why certain people like the poorly educated, now they find an easier way . sad!

...
2002 Saturn SC1, Orange, 1.9L L4 MPFI 201,052 miles and counting

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to Jaegweir1259's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help Jaegweir1259 reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
Jaegweir1259 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2018, 03:56 PM   #11
alordofchaos
Super Member
alordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud ofalordofchaos has much to be proud of
 
alordofchaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Central MI
Posts: 11,882
 

2002 SC2
1998 SL2
Default Re: White House proposes weakening EPA and California emissions

Quote:
Originally Posted by fdryer View Post
The few problems; with cng refueling stations not setup like gas stations and more space is needed to carry a cng tank (negating small cars).
I'd read about Honda making a CNG version of the Civic - CNG tank took up the trunk, I believe. Discontinued in 2015. Range comparable or better than equivalent electric cars of the day.

Quote:
independent tests have found lower ranges of 180–200 miles . . . There were improvements in the 2012 EPA fuel economy as the range increased to 225 ~ 250 miles.
The original article I read was that it was somewhat popular in CO, where there are many CNG stations. Out of curiosity, I googled and found several CNG stations near me and many throughout lower MI. Seems like it could have been a contender here in MI - a little less convenient than regular gas, but viable.

...
I'm not worthy to grovel in the shadow of Signmaster's wisdom

11/2016 red 2002 5 spd SC2 124k DD
7/2010 Craigslist white 1997 SC2 project
12/2008 eBay silver 1998 SL2 5 spd 102k, now 201k+ miles

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Add to alordofchaos's Reputation
Rate the quality of this post and help alordofchaos reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!
alordofchaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
California Emissions ? pfdnothing S-Series Tech 3 01-28-2011 12:00 AM
White House Gives GM 60 Days to Restructure Charlie General Saturn Discussion 24 04-02-2009 07:49 AM
Report: GM Might Not Need Funding Beyond $17.4B from White House Charlie General Saturn Discussion 0 01-07-2009 10:21 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 PM.

Advanced Forum Search | Advanced Photo Search


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SaturnFans.com. The Saturn Enthusiasts Site.