×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

SULEV versus higher MPG

SULEV versus higher MPG

SULEV versus higher MPG

(OP)
Lets assume a marketing scenario:
A prominent auto manufacturer offers two models:
1) A vehicle which is SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle) certified, for sale at a $1000 USD premium over the standard ULEV vehicle;
2) A vehicle which obtains 4 MPG better economy than the standard vehicle, also for a $1000 USD premium.

Wonder which one the public would choose?

My personal feeling is that the higher MPG vehicle will outsell the SULEV vehicle by over 100:1, maybe as high as 1000:1.  My impromptu research says that the general public has little care about a vehicles emissions, but when fuel economy takes a back seat, they yell.  I attend and speak at many US Clean Cities conferences and hear the lip service, but when the rubber meets the road, the consumer always asks “How many miles per gallon does it get?, and NEVER have I been asked by the consumer “What is the certified emission level and what does it do for me?”!



Oh, they are the same vehicle, just marketed differently!

Franz

eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

Myself and most other consumers care about the pocket book.

Lean burn Hondas are cool.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

Various groups seem to get very concerned about diesel emissions, specifically the particulates.

I heard that the German manufacturers spent a lot of time calibrating their diesels so that they did not emit too many particulates, but that the French manufacturers just put particulate traps in. This has now blown up into a debacle - the popularity of diesels in Germany has forced them to RETROFIT particulate traps to the last two years of production.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

I guess it's so easy to get so involved with the evolution of a method, that you forget to look clearly at the desired result without adding extra qualifiers.

I would have thought that for SULEV, CO2 emissions should also be considered, and these are pretty well tied to fuel economy, so long as you count all the fuel, and neither nuclear power nor non combustion based renewable sources are not used to charge batteries or whatever.

Regards

eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

to get the vehicle to pass harder and harder emission standards, the catalyst gotta have higher cpi thus backpressure increases. Higher backpressure means relatively lower fuel efficiency. I think Franzh has a point here.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

I am sure Franz has a point here. He always does.

If the regulations call for more restrictive cats and that causes power losses that result in fuel economy losses, then for the same amount of work done, the CO2 emissions will increase and to some extent offset the reductions in unburnt hydrocarbons, CO and NOx.

Regards

eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

"....but when fuel economy takes a back seat, they yell..."

Driving around in Eastern Massachusetts I see PLENTY of mid-to-large sized SUVs.  I might be jumping to a conclusion, but I don't think they were crying about fuel economy, at least on the day they signed the lease papers.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

(OP)
Tmoose:
Agreed, but I guarantee that not one of them have any concern about emissions.  When their SUV's fuel cost per mile hits the sky, they will downsize.  GM has announced a layoff because of poor SUV sales because of increasing gasoline prices, so maybe it is already happening.  SUV's are a status symbol, just as the Prius is, but on the opposite spectrum.

Thanks Pat, I was trying to hit home a point on the public's perception of a vehicle.
Our new vehicle has a transparent sticker on the drivers door glass stating it is an "LEV" vehicle.  LEV is a definable rating, where if it stated that it is "20 MPG" is not.  I have no doubt it is rated at LEV, and it gets 20 mpg with regularity.  If my fuel mileage drops to 16 due to an engine condition, I can promise that the emissions will not be LEV.  Even though I am an individual that recognizes the importance of LEV and SULEV, it is still the pocket book that has the main impact on my driving.  LEV is just a bonus.
My 1966 Ford Mustang also gets 20 mpg, but try and test it for emissions and it will probably blow the bench!
Franz

eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

My point that still seems to have gone through to the keeper is that CO2 is an emission, and modifying an engine to reduce other emissions, but increasing the CO2 might have a net real world deficit while still passing a so called tighter test.

I guess I an questioning the logic of the details in the standard, even though I am only presuming what the standard is.

Am I hijacking the thread or is that a logical extension of the original subject.

Regards

eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

I raised that as an issue with the Australian Board of Interfering Whatsits when they were asking for comment on proposed emission standards.

All this emissions stuff has a DIRECT bearing on emissions and  efficiency, and, cost of ownership.

I'm not arguing that getting rid of the smog in LA in 1980-1990 was a good thing, but I question whether the same standard needs to be met by a vehicle that is used for trundling around Kansas nowadays (etc).

Does anyone know why CO got on the list?

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

Not only that, the crash test legislations nowadays cause the vehicle weight to increase significantly thus lowering the MPG or increasing the CO2 emission.

I know that myself and others are trying hard to increase the engine fuel efficiency, but we can increase it little by little and not really a quantum leap or revolution in IC technologies.

At the same time the vehicle crash test and emission regulations are active in offsetting the gain in engine efficiency.

I am thinking that there must be a point where crash test legislation plus emission legislation will someday cause the vehicle fuel consumption to increase instead of decreasing.

I hope that the legislators around the world know about this. The gas and petroleum reserves are definitely not increasing thus crash test and tailpipe emissions should only get stricter at reasonable rate.

I just want to have comments from others, with the current reduction rate of roughly 50% reduction in tailpipe emissions (for example Euro 3 to Euro 4) in every 3 years, do you guys think that we will someday see an increase in fuel consumption?

I am thinking that we will someday hit the saturation point for improvement in IC technologies in reducing the fuel consumption. Thanks in advance

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

(OP)
My whole point is not to discuss the importance of CO2 (which it in itself is a byproduct of combustion and warrants controls, but for which there are none yet for the automotive application) but to point that the publics concern is NOT for advertised emissions but for fuel economy, but that they are attainable in the save vehicle.

My 2002 Ford Explorer SUV is LEV, weights 4200 lbs (!) and gets 20 mpg regularly, never worse than 18 mpg, with all accessories.  I bought it for the economy, the fact that it is LEV is of no real DIRECT benefit to me, more to Ford.  Long term, and to the surrounding local, reduced emissions and improved air quality are of benefit.  30 years ago, a 4200 lb vehicle would be lucky to get 12 mpg, and fry any emission bench.  Thank you very much for the electronics!

Have we really seen any improvement in the air quality in the last 30 years?  Ours was just designated an air action area (I live in Central Texas) because of increasingly poor air qualtiy.

Franz

eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

Many of the cities that I visited have signs that the air qualities are getting worse.

However, air qualities for cities in Germany, Switzerland and Japan that I visited can still be considered as good even though the cities have registered steady increase in vehicle ownerships. There was no sign of smog, etc.

With many EURO 4 cars moving around, I heard that the cars would actually generate cleaner exhaust gases if compared to the inducted air.

There has also been a report that someone did not succeed in commiting suicide when he directed the EURO 4 car exhaust pipe into the passanger compartment for hours.

Anyhow, my comment on your original topic is C02, MPG and tailpipe emission should all improve at the same time without one actually causing other to get worse.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

Re: air quality-
Even though the cars are getting better and lasting longer, the yearly miles driven per person seems to be increasing.
Also, some other pollution sources aren't controlled nearly as well as cars are.
(heavy trucks, buses, locomotives, etc.)
Many places (like here in Southern California) corrosion isn't a factor and cars are sometimes driven until they die (or fail smog test).
Smog test 'was' every two years on license renewal-
I'm notified that my '89 Aerostar must be smogged this year, even though it passed last year. I guess they're tightening up again...

Jay Maechtlen
http://home.covad.net/~jmaechtlen/

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

Getting back to the original question...

I drive a 1989 Volvo.  New enough to have fuel injection, old enough to not have a CAT.  A perfect compromise in my mind.  SULEV servicing is F expensive - why would anyone want to pay more for servicing unless it came with a tangibly better car?

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

I realize that this is only anecdotal support for franz's initial hypothesis, but the ONLY time that I hear anybody talk (or post) about emissions performance is either before a smog test is due (and they're perhaps worried a little about passing it) or immediately after (and the discussion revolves about some failure).

I don't think that I've EVER heard emissions performance discussed as part of the pre-purchase/lease decision process, one way or the other.  But if the ability to maintain SULEV limits were to involve a greater amount of presumably more expensive maintenance, and that maintaining same were to become an emissions testing requirement (vs meeting whatever the standard car requirements might be), SULEV wouldn't need a $1000 price premium as additional disincentive.

Norm

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

Azmio wrote:
to get the vehicle to pass harder and harder emission standards, the catalyst gotta have higher cpi thus backpressure increases. Higher backpressure means relatively lower fuel efficiency.

I'm not sure this follows. My limited experience with modern metal substrate cats is that they have no significant back pressure.  I ran a highly turbocharged VW engine on a superflow dyno and made 560hp with an open pipe.  I added metal substrate cat which approximates the one on a VW 6 cylinder model and made...560HP.

I would also expect that since max fuel economy is achieved at cruise on the highway, when only a small total of available horsepower is being used, that the cat isn't an issue at all. (I'm sure some of the engineers on here can quantify how much HP it takes to push various cars/suvs down the road)
 

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

'89 without a cat converter?
here in SoCal, the few '89 vehicles I've owned or inpected have cats...
Even the non-Calif spec Buick I had.

ref: sales importance of low emissions: nil except in certain very limited socio-economic niches.
(tree huggers with money)
Cheers
Jay

Jay Maechtlen
http://home.covad.net/~jmaechtlen/

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

Azmio wrote:
to get the vehicle to pass harder and harder emission standards, the catalyst gotta have higher cpi thus backpressure increases. Higher backpressure means relatively lower fuel efficiency.

The main problem with a three-way-cat is that it requires stoichiometric combustion, which completely rules out any efficiency gains that can be had from lean-burn technology.  You can make the substrate as unobtrusive as you like, but you're still stuck with the fixed stoichiometric AFR.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

JayMaechtlen wrote:

'89 without a cat converter?
here in SoCal, the few '89 vehicles I've owned or inpected have cats...
Even the non-Calif spec Buick I had.
 

Yep, a 1989 F-reg Volvo 740 GLE.  Right-hand drive, UK spec.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

Bob

There is nothing special about how catalytic converter works. It's all about increasing the surface area of the coated metalic or ceramic substrate. The more surface area available in the catalytic converter the more efficient the catcon gonna be in turning harmful exhaust gases into harmless ones.

For your information, there is an article about EURO4 catalyst, the writer claimed that the total surface area of the catalyst unit is as big as a soccer field. It's hard for me to believe but it's a fact.

Anyhow, EURO4 catalyst can have as much as 950 cell per square inch (cpsi). This much of cell density causes a lot of backpressure.

To make it worse, EURO4 requires the catalyst to function as soon as possible therefore after cold start, to avoid having to use electric heater or secondary air, the catalyst has to be located as close as possible to the exhaust ports. There goes most of your tuning effect that can gain you extra torque and horse.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

Somptingguy

There are ways to go around that problem. You can fit in NOx storage catalyst to enable the engine to run lean without emitting too much NOx tailpipe emission. The ECU must be configured to run rich in every 2 minutes to regenerate the storage catalyst.

Another option is to use as much EGR as possible without causing any combustion instability. Some GDI engines can run with as much as 60% of EGR.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

Azmio:
  
Somptingguy

There are ways to go around that problem. You can fit in NOx storage catalyst to enable the engine to run lean without emitting too much NOx tailpipe emission. The ECU must be configured to run rich in every 2 minutes to regenerate the storage catalyst.

Sounds real cheap.   I must buy one of those!

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

Facinating debate, it's worth the extra legislation just to get good threads like this:)

Once we've got to the stage that the catalyst has to be working <1 min after start at normal ambient temps (LEV, LEVII, EU4) going any further is frankly rediculus. As it is catalyst heating for EU4 costs at least 1l/100km on the emissions cycle (sorry guys I'm a child of a new age and struggle with units like mpg (especially when a US gallon is different to an EU one)) and in real terms has very little tangible benefit to the customer.

We're forgetting one crucial point in this though, who said any of it had to make sense? When does government policy have to have any ryhme or reason? My feeling is it all started off with the right intentions as pre fuel injection cars do belch out a lot of s"#t (forget g/km, you can see it running out of the exhaust!!). However in the meantime it's become a monster that's out of control (OEMs and customers spend 10s millions $£ etc.. achieving and maintaining these standards), have any of you guys had the pleasure of dealing with CARB?

In saying all of that I have to admit that it keeps me in gainful employment and has genuinely moved the whole automotive industry a long way in the last 30 years so it can't all be bad. It is probably time to move onto to something else though (vehicle weight is completely out of control, the latest Land Rover Discover is 2700kg!!).

Anyway like I said at the start, great thread.

Engine_ad

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

enginead:

(sorry guys I'm a child of a new age and struggle with units like mpg (especially when a US gallon is different to an EU one))


Why not use an area unit, since that is what volume/distance boils down to.  For example, 6l/100km is equivalent to 0.06 mm2.  If there was a practical method to pick fuel up from an infinitely long trough as a vehicle moves, the hose/hoop/whatever would need a cross-sectional area of 0.06mm2 to keep the car moving.  It's not very big when you think about it.

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

SomptingGuy:

Would it be good for emissions though?

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

I’m pretty sure that customers don’t care about emissions. Here in Portugal until five years ago 4 wheels drive cars (SUV included) had 50% discount on taxes, which can account for 50% of the retail price (when the law was written 4 wheels drive cars were used mainly by farmers). 4 wheel drive cars with Diesel engines sales jumped and no one seemed to be worried about kiotto protocol or local emissions. I wrote an article on a mainstream newspaper about this problem and (although not because of it) a few months latter taxes were increased. I’m moderating the only Portuguese forum about LPG and no one asks a single question about emissions. They just want to know how many kilometres before recovering their investment and how to minimize power loss or fuel consumption. For instance they often prefer to install a venturi-mixer with stepper-motor on a catalysed  car with sequential multiport gasoline injection instead of a multiport LPG injection, even when they know that this increase emissions(emission reduction is the reason why LPG has a very low taxation compared to gasoline and Diesel) that were supposed to lower with LPG . They just want to save money or drive a bigger car with the same money. Conclusion. Customers care about:
1)Status
2)Money(on fuel and maintenance)
3)Reliability
4)Safety
5)Emissions just when they want to lobby to avoid increased taxation of their cars fuel(There’s a “war” going on between gasoline and Diesel owners).

RE: SULEV versus higher MPG

Emissions need to be looked at similar to the “Well to Wheel” study done by GM and others. For emissions, it should be based on passenger or freight weight per kilometer. This test should be for mass transit systems, trucks as well as cars. For mass transit, it would have to include emissions for those who commute to work via car as well as constructing and maintaining the road or tracks. For cars and trucks, the road maintenance would be divided by usage.
Another method of determining efficiency I have looked at is measuring the torque and rpm at the wheel in relation to the fuel burnt to find the thermal efficiency in relation to the work done.
These types of values would provide a better net picture of the total energy used in travel.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources