Diesels by Renault, Nissan, Hyundai, Citroen, Fiat and Volvo over emmiters too !
  • Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 20 of 20
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By robmac
  • 2 Post By robmac
  • 1 Post By lion5

Thread: Diesels by Renault, Nissan, Hyundai, Citroen, Fiat and Volvo over emmiters too !

  1. #1
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    2,592

    Default Diesels by Renault, Nissan, Hyundai, Citroen, Fiat and Volvo over emmiters too !

    Hi
    To start another thread on this subject as the other one may have run its course. An article about some more realistic testing of current diesels in Europe and the results !!
    Jaahn

    Advertisement


    Wide range of cars emit more pollution in realistic driving tests, data shows | Environment | The Guardian

  2. #2
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    19,050

    Default

    Why am I not surprised?

    Make something super difficult and compliance will be tacit at best.

    In the real world cheaper manufacturing is the financial edge. And why try harder than necessary when all that is required is to marginally pass (a few financially inconvenient) tests to meet compliance?

    I pose another question when have you achieved the ADR specified manufacturers stated Fuel consumption in the real world? A very similar situation.
    Last edited by robmac; 11th October 2015 at 11:39 AM.
    JohnW likes this.

  3. #3
    Veni Vidi Posti 68 404's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    2,660

    Default

    1. The Guardian
    2. Alternative standard
    3. That isn't coming until 2017
    4. The Guardian....

    Dave
    2008 Renault Laguna 2.0 dCi break
    ​1997 BMW K1200RS

    IR655
    (George Bush Snr): "I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever, I don't care what the facts are."


  4. #4
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Philadelphia P.A. USA
    Posts
    4,251

    Default

    As consumers,(and Voters and youngsters and War Vets,and....)we've been LIED TO our WHOLE LIVES. Soooooo,why should any of this be ANY different?? I mean,come on now...

  5. #5
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    19,050

    Default

    1. The Guardian
    4. The Guardian....
    Here is original source of the tests. ADAC seem pretty reputable to me, a kind of alternative RACV if you will.

    https://www.adac.de/infotestrat/adac...rcePageId=6729

    Make sure Google Translate enabled for the above link: it's easier to read!

    The point was made that all vehicles tested DO comply with current regs.
    However in the real word the figures achieved do not come close to test figures.

    I can't see any problems with the manner in which the independent tests have been done nor the way the results are presented.
    Last edited by robmac; 11th October 2015 at 12:59 PM.
    lion5 and jaahn like this.

  6. #6
    1000+ Posts lion5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    1,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 68 404 View Post
    1. The Guardian
    2. Alternative standard
    3. That isn't coming until 2017
    4. The Guardian....

    Dave
    https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sour...esting&tbm=nws

    go here and chose from any of the other rubbish you regularly read from then

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    Here is original source of the tests. ADAC seem pretty reputable to me, a kind of alternative RACV if you will.


    I can't see any problems with the manner in which the independent tests have been done nor the way the results are presented.
    Quote Originally Posted by lion5 View Post

    go here and chose from any of the other rubbish you regularly read from then
    to emphasise the point, the problem with this article is here.

    Research compiled by Adac, Europe’s largest motoring organisation, shows that some of the diesel cars it examined released over 10 times more NOx than revealed by existing EU tests, using an alternative standard due to be introduced later this decade.

    Adac put the diesel cars through the EU’s existing lab-based regulatory test (NEDC) and then compared the results with a second, UN-developed test (WLTC) which, while still lab-based, is longer and is believed to better represent real driving conditions. The WLTC is currently due to be introduced by the EU in 2017.


    They are testing cars built to comply with a current test regime, against a future test regime for which said cars were not built to comply.. This is typical The Guardian reporting and not the first obfuscatory article it has published on this theme.

  8. #8
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    19,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexander View Post
    to emphasise the point, the problem with this article is here.

    Research compiled by Adac, Europe’s largest motoring organisation, shows that some of the diesel cars it examined released over 10 times more NOx than revealed by existing EU tests, using an alternative standard due to be introduced later this decade.

    Adac put the diesel cars through the EU’s existing lab-based regulatory test (NEDC) and then compared the results with a second, UN-developed test (WLTC) which, while still lab-based, is longer and is believed to better represent real driving conditions. The WLTC is currently due to be introduced by the EU in 2017.


    They are testing cars built to comply with a current test regime, against a future test regime for which said cars were not built to comply.. This is typical The Guardian reporting and not the first obfuscatory article it has published on this theme.
    Apologies, I missed that small detail. In which case the report, is total bs. It destroys the credibility of both parties.

    It does however, emphasize how difficult compliance with the proposed standard will be for manufacturers , especially in view of that certain brands are already "cheating".

  9. #9
    Veni Vidi Posti 68 404's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Rome
    Posts
    2,660

    Default

    Apparently Renaults latest petrol engines don't pass emission standards that haven't been specified yet in a future standard due to be introduced in 2023.
    It must be true, it's in The Guardian.

    Dave
    2008 Renault Laguna 2.0 dCi break
    ​1997 BMW K1200RS

    IR655
    (George Bush Snr): "I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever, I don't care what the facts are."


  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    It does however, emphasize how difficult compliance with the proposed standard will be for manufacturers , especially in view of that certain brands are already "cheating".
    maybe, but dont forget that the VW cars in question did pass the California test, when tuned to do so. from that i conclude that they can pass the tests, but at the expense of performance. so one outcome might be that they all comply but with a drop in performance across the whole class of cars.

  11. #11
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    2,592

    Default Hmmm

    Quote Originally Posted by jaahn View Post
    Hi
    To start another thread on this subject as the other one may have run its course. An article about some more realistic testing of current diesels in Europe and the results !!
    Jaahn

    Wide range of cars emit more pollution in realistic driving tests, data shows | Environment | The Guardian
    Hi,
    Could I point out the sentence I put up there in the original post "An article about some more realistic testing of current diesels in Europe and the results !!" I did think we could have a discussion on the subject that was more constructive than the 'other one'.

    IMHO this will result in the standards being revised and some method of realworld testing. This will be required by thinking peoples who wish to live in better cities with less pollution. The car people will resist and scream 'cannot be done' etc as is usual. Started already actually. There will be a tussel of wills and money. The pollies will move in some direction which they think they can get re-elected from.

    Business as usual I guess However I do remember the 70s and the crap cars we drove then, and how the world was to come to an end because of the greenies and their silly ideas. Did not happen and car manufacturers were forced or coerced or came willingly to better solutions. Hence the vastly better cars we have now in so many ways. Hope it happens again

    Jaahn

  12. #12
    1000+ Posts lion5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    1,669

    Default

    The title of the article is
    Wide range of cars emit more pollution in realistic driving tests, data shows

    This is nothing 'guardian' related. As per the above google news linked everyone grabbed the latest study. The only reason it has gathered headlines because of the recent publications of this data only merely coincidental with the recent VW row, WLTC2.0 was proposed as early as 2009, but as with any standardization it takes a lot of time to formalize everything, the latest publications were appearing between the years of 2013 and 2015, I don't follow the automotive industry as seriously as some so the first I heard of it was during all this commotion, nor do I drive or want to drive a diesel guzzler.

    See the below pdf for the exact schedule.

    Read this for more info on WLTC: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/t...RPE-68-03e.pdf

    Because of the current VW controversy the market is slightly more malleable when it comes to appreciating what these tests all mean which is what I pointed out in TP. As soon as stuff like this happens there's typically an avalanche of information of what else is available that rides on the information wave since it is already on the tips of tongues of the masses who read the paper. It essentially means free clicks and a better spread of information.
    People who otherwise didn't know (me) or didn't give too much of a shit (me) will be better able to see what and how it all goes on. So the problem is that not only are there companies that are cheating the tests, but the tests themselves are *unrealistic.

    Some links for people who are actually interested as opposed to those who want to shit over any left leaning paper

    Comparison of various test cycles around the word:
    https://www.iea.org/media/workshops/...sworldwide.pdf
    Lots of good data here, it compares NEDC (the current one in europe) one in japan and one in USA.

    http://www.theicct.org/sites/default...h_09032015.pdf
    Also here's an example of Euro 6 cars tested against Euro 6 limits:
    Full Study: http://www.theicct.org/sites/default...s_20141010.pdf
    Summary ARticle: [Press release] New ICCT study shows real-world exhaust emissions from modern diesel cars seven times higher than EU, US regulatory limits | International Council on Clean Transportation

    While emissions have improved they are still a shit tonne higher than Euro X limits tested against cars programmed during Euro X limits.


    So yes: VW Cheated. Other car companies don't necessarily cheat, but someone somewhere approved the cars which would have most likely passed under NEDC testing routines (though it potentially opens up a can of worms for Japanese/USA and Indian (which use NEDC but a different version) testing standards.
    Last edited by lion5; 12th October 2015 at 09:41 PM.

  13. #13
    1000+ Posts Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    canberra...
    Posts
    8,747

    Default

    2016 Volkswagen Golf GTE First Drive [w/video]

    Bet they're glad they have this developed and in production!

    Its been common knowledge for years the "official" test is not representative and most if not all diesel and probably a lot of petrol cars fail to meet the standards in the "real" drive cycle the test is meant to represent. Its a spirit vs letter of the law thing and the two will align better sooner with a revised standard test. Which means current diesel vehicles in production will fail to meet current standards.

    The Guardian article is pretty clear and uses actual words to make the point quite clear that its a forthcoming test that produces the high readings. Not sure what your point is, but its a fairly straightforward article that simply points out the current test is not representative of real world driving. P

    erhaps its detractors would be better off reading award winning articles at Newscorp? They are pretty awesome, winning against the odds against a field of newscorp "journalists" Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
    Last edited by Haakon; 12th October 2015 at 08:28 PM.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lion5 View Post
    So yes: VW Cheated. Other car companies don't necessarily cheat, but someone somewhere approved the cars which would have most likely passed under NEDC testing routines (though it potentially opens up a can of worms for Japanese/USA and Indian (which use NEDC but a different version) testing standards.
    if the legislature sets a specific test, and manufacturers build cars which pass that test, there is no scope for complaining if they dont get the same results in other circumstances, fraud aside of course. the governments have all the power in the matter so it is entirely their fault if cars are approved which put out 'too much' of one emission or another.

    as laid out in detail in an article i linked in one of these threads, urban atmospheric concentrations of all noxious emissions has fallen quite a bit over the last decade, despite the number of diesel cars increasing dramatically. so alot of progress has been made, and despite all the scary looking numbers, tailpipe emissions are much lower than they used to be. so when you look at the actual problem being addressed, things are much better, but that tends to get lost in the noise of selling inflammatory news, and agenda driven posturing by various parties.

    Lion, i would like to suggest you refrain from using adjectives like a "shit tonne". you have shown in the past that you are very well read, and i am sure that stands you in good stead to choose other words from the english language which express the ideas more eloquently.

  15. #15
    1000+ Posts Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    canberra...
    Posts
    8,747

    Default

    i love it when neocons complain about agendas... cracks me up.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,301

    Default

    which pretty much guarantees it is an accurate estimation.

  17. #17
    1000+ Posts lion5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    1,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alexander View Post
    Lion, i would like to suggest you refrain from using adjectives like a "shit tonne"
    apologies, i have tried to rid myself of all wog dialects, what, when it comes to getting a job I can't imagine it'd be at all helpful for me, but sometimes emotions bring out the worse in me.

    If it's any consolation, i haven't said bro in about 12 years. I do say Ooof sarcastically, and I can imitate the phonetic flapped R which linguists call alveolar flapping [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_flap ]

    For example

    The sentence -
    "Watch out he can chuck 100 metres"
    (referenced off a soccer game I can never forget in u13s where we won something silly, i was center forward so I scored most of the goals, but one of our team mates had quite an arm so he was the go-to lad for throwins]

    would be pronounced as
    'Watch out he can chuck-a-hundRRed meRRaes"
    where for the sake of simplicity, the RR is a flapped and voiced R.

    Till this day I recall this story with my brother who was watching me smash the team into bits and was closest to the player from the Guildford team who gave the warning cry. Why I stopped playing wogball, I don't know.

    Though in fairness flapped Rs are quite common in Australian Standard English though with slightly more restrictions on where they apply. For example: I cannot stand the full /t/ being pronounced in words such as Ladder, and Beautiful which is quite rare in ASE but comes up, I haven't traced which area use it the most but it's definitely not the hills or the west i'll say that much. No offence to anyone here, it's just a pet peeve of mine, but boy how I want to punch someone in the face when that /t/ is pronounced with the fragrance and patient care as one does when passing wind in full knowledge of their solitude, as if by doing so they cherish every cubic volume of air that is released without restraining the sphincter, perhaps even if lunch was good they might go on to take a whiff of it, going on to ranking it with all the preceding farts of bygone days of adolescent flatulence - I digress. If you were to add up all the microseconds wasted over the hundreds of years of careful pronunciation in these two worlds alone and instead spent it on, say, practising an extra fact the world would be a better place, acoustically and intellectually.


    As for the rest of the post
    the governments have all the power in the matter so it is entirely their fault if cars are approved which put out 'too much' of one emission or another.
    will be interesting to see what the real cause is. Whatever it is it's suss as fk
    Last edited by lion5; 12th October 2015 at 09:39 PM.
    jaahn likes this.

  18. #18
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    11,777

    Default Putting the cart of pollution in front of the horse -unscientific approach ?

    Quote Originally Posted by jaahn View Post
    Hi
    To start another thread on this subject as the other one may have run its course. An article about some more realistic testing of current diesels in Europe and the results !!
    Jaahn

    Wide range of cars emit more pollution in realistic driving tests, data shows | Environment | The Guardian
    I am always surprised when an article is put up and within the article there is a claim like this.

    The failure of the regulatory tests is the main cause of illegal levels of NO2 in many cities, according to a recent UK government document. “It has had an absolutely enormous effect,” said Prof Alistair Lewis, an air pollution expert at the University of York. “The costs will be in thousands of deaths and billions of pounds, all passed on to the taxpayer.”
    This is the usual authority quote, that drives the reasoning that such tests and stringent regulations are required and if similar authority statements are repeated often enough, those that use authority statements as an absolute fact just keep quoting them without any effort to look at the data, to identify the thousands of deaths claimed or to do the most simple fact check. This annoys health professionals who are aware of studies that effectively refute the claims, mainly because it is almost impossible to provide the causal connection that is implied in the authority statements.
    Thousands of people do die each year, but how do you separate and categorize the cause of death? An almost impossible task unless you add an element of belief and confirm that belief bias to make the connection. That is not science, the why is it so? line of questioning of the belief is missing.

    Not only that there are studies that point this inconvenience out. This one for instance from 2012

    Criticism of Draft 2012 South Coast Air Quality Management District
    Air Quality Management Plan Appendix I Health Effects
    and
    Request for California Health and Safety Code Section 40471 (b) Hearing on
    Health Impacts of Particulate Matter Air Pollution in South Coast Air Basin
    James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H.
    UCLA School of Public Health
    Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772
    [email protected]
    (310) 825-2048
    August 30, 2012
    This is a Physician pointing out the difficulties in applying a validated causal link to an attributed death.

    As a physician, I am intrigued, if not put off, by the EPA concept of “premature deaths.” How am I to know that that unfortunate patient, who has just died, died prematurely? If asked, he would undoubtedly claim that he had died before his time, no matter the actual cause. All deaths are “premature” when viewed subjectively. The answer lies within the all-knowing, EPA-sponsored computers, as in “health assessment methodology” that claim the ability to define who died before their time.

    When independent epidemiological researchers examine real-world patients, real-world hospital admissions, and real-world medical records, the EPA health claims are not validated. In smoggy central California, such a study reported:

    “Average ground-level ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) measurements were not correlated with 19,327 patient admissions for asthma at the University of California-Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) during 2010-2012.” Another study concluded: “Overwhelming epidemiologic evidence now indicates that there is no relationship in California between PM and total mortality [also known as ‘premature deaths.’]” Yet another study: “[T]he empirical evidence is that current levels of air quality, ozone and PM2.5, are not causally related to acute deaths for California. An empirical and logical case can be made air quality is not causally related to acute deaths for the rest of the United States.”
    The same physician points to a worst case pollution smog city for comparison where you might expect Premature death, if that wide ranging criterion could be applied to confirm a causal link.

    "Surely smoggy air must be unhealthy. It must be, because it looks so bad. The poster child for such smoggy air is Shanghai, China, where newspaper pictures depict a yellow haze obscuring the visibility of buildings. However, the average lifespan there is 82.5 years, bettering the reported lifespan in any major U.S. city."
    . Now that is a bit inconvenient?

    Of course photo synthesis does react with emissions, even when nature is the source of the natural emissions and like in the cities it forms smog an entirely similar process, similarly other pollution and ozone has natural rather that man made or vehicle emissions, but no one alleges premature deaths, it would be hard to prove a causal link.

    "Surely pristine nature would be the place to avoid smoggy air. Millions visit the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, in spite of the off-putting name. When it is nature, it is smoky; when man-made, it is smog. Yet the basic chemical process is the same. Native conifers emit organic compounds known as terpenes, which interact with sunlight to produce…smog. Few park visitors are reported being victims of “premature death” secondary to breathing polluted air."
    These are but small examples that show the difficulty that the person who is making such an authority statement, that is then given the aura of fact and endlessly repeated, surely the authority expert should produce data and research to reinforce the validity of such a statement, but it just does not happen, the authority becomes just another media sound byte and the sad part is, when asked to debate the science that underpins the statement, no one seems to want debate, and the more public the request, or belief based, the less likely those authority statement users will engage in any scientific discussion with similarly qualified but sceptical scientists.

    In this thread like many other threads no one questions the credibility of the claims of premature death which at best is an amorphous moving target that just can't provide the definitive causal link.

    This should be the objective of any regulatory body to properly establish the base truth BEFORE regulatory levels are set, or at least a strong probability that the causal link justifies the action, especially when nature can impact more than man.

    Hell at least ask questions and challenge authority statements,

    I personally like a smoke free environment and nice clean air and who can say that I will live longer when cause of death is finally established? In some cases exposure to levels of irritants and allergens can build immunity levels, maybe that is why the Shanghai average life span is 82.5 years, or maybe be not, as you believe -

    Ken

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    sydney, australia
    Posts
    11,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenfuego View Post

    I personally like a smoke free environment and nice clean air and who can say that I will live longer when cause of death is finally established?

    Ken
    answer: a combination of science and statisticians, who have done so convincingly that only cranks on general interest forums dispute that petrochemical smog causes premature deaths. quotes from some anonymous "physician" certainly have zero bearing on this, or any other, issue.

  20. #20
    1000+ Posts
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Victoria
    Posts
    11,777

    Icon10 Ah alexander's usual abusive reply. I invite him to also look in the Mirror.....

    Quote Originally Posted by alexander View Post
    answer: a combination of science and statisticians, who have done so convincingly that only cranks on general interest forums dispute that petrochemical smog causes premature deaths. quotes from some anonymous "physician" certainly have zero bearing on this, or any other, issue.
    In short that includes cranks like you who dispute health professionals, statisticians and scientific studies and scientists who point out that such claims are not as absolute, certain or factual as you, (as a well credentialed "crank" and misquoter on this forum) claim. If you insist on stooping to abuse, then expect your own defects exposed, but then you wear that cap so well.

    Regards

    Ken

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •