Emissions standards could close down Ford's Geelong plant

[deesun]

Oh it's a "Drive" article. PFFFT.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

A query, if I may:

You say the cold startup cycle of the I6 is its biggest downfall, in an emissions sense. Would the addition of an electric water pump, computer controlled to provide zero circulation on startup for the first, say, 50 seconds, help with this? So that the coolant heats up quicker and the motor isn't stuck in the warm up loop mode for as long...?

Euro 5 is not a problem, getting it into production cost effectively is more the problem as not only are the engines getting more expensive to make but R&D dollars don't go as far as they used too.

Fords new emmisions lab is a big advantage now.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Paxton

The I6 makes Euro IV, and has been rumored to have achieved the European Specification of Euro V. I don't think the I6 has any problems there. Look at Falc'man's profile for more information...

Brian told me.

[vztrt]

FCAI rejects fast track to Euro 5

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2576D20005D55F

Car industry warns emissions reform a threat to local engine plants, future models

23 February 2010

By TERRY MARTIN

THE Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) has urged the federal government to head “back to the drawing board” on its deliberations over future environmental regulations, warning that no decision be taken over confirming a start date for tougher Euro 5/6 standards until it considers implications such as viability of Australian engine plants.

Speaking to GoAuto this week, FCAI chief executive Andrew McKellar said the industry had “a very significant concern” about the government’s proposal to move to Euro 5 from 2012 and then Euro 6 from 2016.

Through federal transport minister Anthony Albanese, the government released a draft regulation impact statement (RIS) last month on moving to the tougher standards, calling for public and industry comment before March 1 ahead of its final decision.

Mr McKellar questioned the cost-benefit analysis done by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE), upon which the RIS is heavily based, and said it failed to properly consider the future model plans of car manufacturers as well as the impact on the engine plants of local manufacturers.

As GoAuto has reported, the fate of Toyota Australia’s engine plant is hanging in the balance as local management negotiates a fresh contract, while Ford Australia also recently revealed that engineering its Geelong-built six-cylinder engine to meet the Euro 5 standard would be difficult.

While the FCAI accepts that the Euro 5 and Euro 6 standards will eventually be applied in Australia, Mr McKellar said the proposed timetable “would be difficult to meet”.

The government believes the move to Euro 5/6 would cut emissions of all new passenger cars, 4WDs and utilities sold in Australia by as much as 90 per cent. The latter refers to particulate matter, while the cuts for oxides of nitrogen would be up to 70 per cent and hydrocarbons up to 50 per cent.

“The regulation impact statement for Euro 5 and Euro 6 has really just popped out of the woodwork – there’s been no real consultation with industry, and I think the analysis that was undertaken to support the RIS by the BITRE has been wholly inadequate,” Mr McKellar said.

“The process that has been undertaken to date for the regulation impact statement does leave us with very significant concern, and I think there will be a need to go back to the drawing board and ensure that the proper analysis is undertaken, looking at the product plans that the industry has in the pipeline and also evaluating the local industry impact.

“To date, that analysis has taken no account of the product cycle issue – future product plans that brands have in place – so there’s really been no evaluation of the proportion of vehicles that are coming to the market that will already be Euro 5-compliant.

“(And) there’s been no account taken of the local industry implications. For example, what are the future engine plant investment issues – and the timing of decisions in terms of that future investment by the local manufacturers.

“So from that point of view, we do have some major concerns with the evidence that has been looked at to date and the process that is underway.”

Significantly, tougher measures to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new vehicles in Australia are subject to a separate RIS.

The FCAI is negotiating on the proposed legislation with the government, and is confident a satisfactory outcome for the industry will be reached before the new regulations are announced around mid-year.

These could include a move from the current situation where the industry sets a voluntary CO2 target applied as a national average, to mandatory requirements applying to individual models.

It will also include setting a new short-term target – to 2015 – for CO2 emissions, while a longer-term outlook to 2020 is also under discussion.

Last week, the FCAI officially confirmed that the industry had met its 2010 target of 222g/km – set in 2005 and coinciding with the move to the Euro 3 standard – with 2009’s National Average Carbon Emission (NACE) figure announced as 218.5g/km.

While not divulging a specific new 2015 CO2 target, Mr McKellar indicated that the new figure would reflect the current improvements of between one and two per cent each year as well as the continued introduction of hybrid and diesel powertrains and the emergence of full-electric vehicles.

On that basis, the target under consideration will be less than 200g/km.

“From here to 2015, you would expect an underlying improvement of about a further 10 per cent, but I think the industry will be seeking to set a more ambitious target than that,” said Mr McKellar. “Precisely where that will end up remains to be seen.

The FCAI has also proposed that the government offer specific consumer incentives for purchasing low-carbon cars, with a benchmark of, say, 50g/km or less (for electric vehicles and range-extending hybrids, for example) and a second tier of around 120-130g/km (for more conventional vehicles).

“The one thing I would say is that the industry is very committed to achieving an ambitious outcome,” Mr McKellar said. "We all realise that this is one of the most significant challenges that the automotive industry faces, and equally it has to be recognised that individual brands are investing very significant amounts in bringing a whole range of new technologies and models into the Australian market which will radically improve the CO2 performance over coming years.

“We are committed to getting a very good outcome on this issue and the industry is very serious about living up to its responsibilities and being part of the broader solution on this issue.”

Having said that, Mr McKellar said it was “artificial” that there were separate RIS papers and proposed legislation affecting new-vehicle emissions, not to mention another regulatory reform process underway for vehicle fuel efficiency (including mandatory CO2 emissions) through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).

Under the direction of the federal transport and environment ministers, the fuel efficiency report was written by the Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Working Group, which includes members from the Australian Transport Council and the Environment Protection and Heritage Council.

“We think it is completely artificial to try and separate those issues,” Mr McKellar said. “You do need to look at them in an integrated fashion – and that’s one of the concerns we have. In each of them, there’s an attempt to sort of say, ‘Fuel quality is out of scope’ or ‘What’s happening on CO2, that’s out of scope’ or ‘What are we doing on Euro 5 or Euro 6, that’s also out of scope?’

“They all need to be brought together at some point, and they need to be looked at as related issues. Otherwise, we’re going to end up with some significant inadequacies in the decision-making process in the advice going to government.”

Australia adopted the Euro 4 emissions standard in July 2008, but it does not apply to all new vehicles sold here until July 2010.

[flappist]

Here is a question.

Why, in a country that is larger than any 4 european nations stuck together but with a population of only 22,000,000 should we be wasting our time and energy on stupid emission standards designed for high density communities.

NZ does not even have catalytic converters. Horrible smelly polluted place it is........

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by flappist

NZ does not even have catalytic converters. Horrible smelly polluted place it is........

Really? I thought all cars had cats these days.

[Iggypoppin']

Flappist sums it up:why should our automakers be forced to invest millions in monstrous upgrades to their tooling to meet standards of another part of the world? Who was it who decided Australian car manufacturers had to meet these standards? The lazy powers-that-be should have come up with a standard that suited our population and the automakers. Following euro standards just seems to put more pressure on automakers they don't need.

[aussie muscle]

why does the australian government insist on always shooting us in the foot? we always get the hot end of the poker when it comes to 'international' trade agreements and i'd say this is part of the explanation... it's so europe can export the cars to australia, once again screwing over local production.

i guess the pro-holden media want ford to switch to a crappy v6 so their engine doesn't seem so bad.

[nstg8a]

the only thing that worries is the weight of the taurus, with less torque, and the equivalent of two of 'the biggest loser's fatties sitting in the sucker means the xr6t will lose its performance edge.

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

the only thing that worries is the weight of the taurus, with less torque, and the equivalent of two of 'the biggest loser's fatties sitting in the sucker means the xr6t will lose its performance edge.

What does the Taurus have to do with the price of Tea in China?

Falcon isn't going anywhere. Is it that hard to get that through people's heads?

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by flappist

NZ does not even have catalytic converters. Horrible smelly polluted place it is........

yes it does.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

yes it does.

It appears you are right, they changed the rules recently.

So the no cat law only applies to maybe 99% of the cars there.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/legisla...s-and-Answers/

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by flappist

It appears you are right, they changed the rules recently.

So the no cat law only applies to maybe 99% of the cars there.

nz has had cats for years, it just wasnt enforced very heavily.

all jap imports had them, and it was always illegal to remove them, but no one ever worried about it, and it generally wasnt enforced at wof time.

[Falc'man]

Thanks vztrt.

Andrew, don't you mean sheep?

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Thanks vztrt.

Andrew, don't you mean sheep?

Unwashed Masses?

Bogans?

Where does it end?

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

why does the australian government insist on always shooting us in the foot?

Because shooting your own foot doesn't need brains.....it takes skill to hit a target in flight...and our pollies aren't clay pigeon shooters, lol.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

Flappist sums it up:why should our automakers be forced to invest millions in monstrous upgrades to their tooling to meet standards of another part of the world? Who was it who decided Australian car manufacturers had to meet these standards? The lazy powers-that-be should have come up with a standard that suited our population and the automakers. Following euro standards just seems to put more pressure on automakers they don't need.

It has been mentioned before. The Euro standards have been adopted pretty much everywhere except the US.
It provides us a way of standardizing emissions for our cars with the rest of the world without having to go through the trouble of establishing our own standards.
It also makes exporting a lot easier to other parts of the world when our cars conform to worldwide standards. It isn't the government to blame, it is the slow footed car makers that have only themselves to blame. Why should we be left behind the rest of the world?

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by flappist

Here is a question.

Why, in a country that is larger than any 4 european nations stuck together but with a population of only 22,000,000 should we be wasting our time and energy on stupid emission standards designed for high density communities.

Spot on! Euro emissions standards testing even require a cycle at 140 Kph. That would even make your avatar obsolete as well flappist!

[Iggypoppin']

wretched: Australia would be better off not adopting the Euro standards, because as flappist pointed out, with a population of less than 30million and a country big enough to hold the Chinese population, why adopt a set of standards clearly devised for countries with larger populations living in smaller areas? As for the other comment about exports..I can't rebutt as I know too little about it. I didn't know we exported all that many vehicles to euro countries though? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

wretched: Australia would be better off not adopting the Euro standards, because as flappist pointed out, with a population of less than 30million and a country big enough to hold the Chinese population, why adopt a set of standards clearly devised for countries with larger populations living in smaller areas? As for the other comment about exports..I can't rebutt as I know too little about it. I didn't know we exported all that many vehicles to euro countries though? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Because the Australian population mostly lives wedged between a small strip of land between the east coast and the great dividing range. And thanks to weather patterns it traps all the emissions in and suffers from the same polloution problems as LA etc. Ergo the argument of "sparse populace" is not to be entertained.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

Because the Australian population mostly lives wedged between a small strip of land between the east coast and the great dividing range. And thanks to weather patterns it traps all the emissions in and suffers from the same polloution problems as LA etc. Ergo the argument of "sparse populace" is not to be entertained.

So you think any Australian city is like Los Angles etc. with regard to air quality.

You should get out more......

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by flappist

So you think any Australian city is like Los Angles etc. with regard to air quality.

You should get out more......

No, however if we had the same population density as LA or if the bulk of registered vehicles were unrestricted (emissions wise) we would.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

No, however if we had the same population density as LA or if the bulk of registered vehicles were unrestricted (emissions wise) we would.

What if we all lived in igloos on top of Mt Everest and our cars ran on distilled yeti poo?

How about if we all lived in a shoebox in the middle of the road....

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

wretched: Australia would be better off not adopting the Euro standards, because as flappist pointed out, with a population of less than 30million and a country big enough to hold the Chinese population, why adopt a set of standards clearly devised for countries with larger populations living in smaller areas? As for the other comment about exports..I can't rebutt as I know too little about it. I didn't know we exported all that many vehicles to euro countries though? Correct me if I'm wrong.

What is wrong with adopting these standards? Why are you so inclined to isolate us from the rest of the world?

They are there to bring the most out of a vehicle, to improve efficiency and reduce the emissions from the tail pipe, taking the techology in vehicles a step further. What is so bad about doing that?

They are not new, they have been around for years and car makers are given sufficient time to adopt them. Ford and Holden especially would know what is required due to their European counterparts (Ford of Europe and Vauxhall, Opel, etc).

[Wally]

I thought Ford and Holden were ready to rock and roll with Euro5, so why the arguments?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Wretched

What is wrong with adopting these standards? Why are you so inclined to isolate us from the rest of the world?

They are there to bring the most out of a vehicle, to improve efficiency and reduce the emissions from the tail pipe, taking the techology in vehicles a step further. What is so bad about doing that?

They are not new, they have been around for years and car makers are given sufficient time to adopt them. Ford and Holden especially would know what is required due to their European counterparts (Ford of Europe and Vauxhall, Opel, etc).

Yes lets adopt the standards that the rest of the world use.

All future Falcons will be front wheel drive like all the other Ford passenger sedans.

Vehicles are to be speed and power limited and the penalty for modifying them is a custodial sentence.

All vehicles must be de-registered and recycled when they are 3 years old.

Registration increases every year as an "incentive" to replace your car with a new one. e.g. FG GT $500/year, XY GT $50,000 per year.

All these are standards for various other countries, which ones do you want here.......

[Iggypoppin']

I don't have much of a rebuttal, as I'm perhaps not well educated enough to do so. So, point taken, I only see euro standards as a set of rules for a country that could, theoretically, have it's own standards that will also be just as effective(if well thought out) and help keep Australia in the 21st century. Surely there could be standards better suited to our country? But, unfortunatly, as I said I'm not really cluey enough to keep going, so I'll leave it at that.

[TUF_302]

Originally Posted by davway

Im really getting sick of the media trying to bring down Ford at any cost.

B.S journalism should be put a stop to - its crap like this that does more harm than good.

Why the Media were never held accountable for the demise of Mitsubishi Australia is a joke.

It was sad to see what they did to Mitsubishi, lets hope they cant do the same to Ford

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yes lets adopt the standards that the rest of the world use.

All future Falcons will be front wheel drive like all the other Ford passenger sedans.

Vehicles are to be speed and power limited and the penalty for modifying them is a custodial sentence.

All vehicles must be de-registered and recycled when they are 3 years old.

Registration increases every year as an "incentive" to replace your car with a new one. e.g. FG GT $500/year, XY GT $50,000 per year.

All these are standards for various other countries, which ones do you want here.......

Wow you really know how to take it waaaaay out of context and completely off topic don't you? :togo:
We're here discussing Euro Emissions standards not a NAZI regime.

But if you want to be like that, how far backwards do you want us to go? Horse and cart or before the wheel?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Wow you really know how to take it waaaaay out of context and completely off topic don't you? :togo:
We're here discussing Euro Emissions standards not a NAZI regime.

But if you want to be like that, how far backwards do you want us to go? Horse and cart or before the wheel?

No Nazi

USA, Japan & Singapore....

None of these are really applicable to Australia, they are designed for different conditions.

So adopting them just to be the same as everyone else is not really a good idea is it?