Renault in emissions scandal?

[Syndrome]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...emission-tests

[russellw]

Quite possible (even probable) that the bulk of them were at it using one method or another given that they have all achieved uncannily similar emission / economy / performance goals from their turbo diesels over the last few years.

Cheers
Russ

[OzriderXR8]

I'm sure they all do it, I watched an old episode of 5th Gear recently and they were doing performance testing. They pointed out then that the computers are smart enough to pick up the 'standard' rolling road program used by emission testers on the dyno and change the engine mapping to give best results.

[Syndrome]

Originally Posted by russellw

Quite possible (even probable) that the bulk of them were at it using one method or another given that they have all achieved uncannily similar emission / economy / performance goals from their turbo diesels over the last few years.

Cheers
Russ

Does that mean the companies were unable to meet the emissions requirements or were these requirements extremely detrimental to the performance of the engines/vehicles?

[russellw]

Fundamentally when it comes to Diesel engines, you can achieve no better than two of the three but not all three. Achieving the triumvirate has been the Holy Grail of diesel engineers since the 1970's.

You can have performance and economy but not be environmentally friendly.

You can be environmentally friendly but at the expense of both performance and economy (although you could choose to sacrifice only one of those naturally).

Cheers
Russ

[castellan]

Should test the ADR 27a HX Holdens and Fords now and see how many truly pass that test ?

I believe the latest euro has gone too far in reality.

We have fools claiming VW is pumping out such a danger to all, fact is that is a load of hog wash, it's very very clean, but they have problems with meting the latest euro and that standard is getting beyond a joke.

A lab test is just that, it's not everything.

[FPV GTHO]

I doubt Renault would have dug their way back into F1 given VW's issues if they too were doing the dirty.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by castellan

Should test the ADR 27a HX Holdens and Fords now and see how many truly pass that test ?

I believe the latest euro has gone too far in reality.

We have fools claiming VW is pumping out such a danger to all, fact is that is a load of hog wash, it's very very clean, but they have problems with meting the latest euro and that standard is getting beyond a joke.

A lab test is just that, it's not everything.

You can make any diesel clean enough to pass Euro 6, yet it just costs money.
Fact is various makers chose to cheat the system just to save a few hundred dollars per car. (by not installing an SCR system)

Nitrogen Oxide is a known carcinagen and diesels emit it in far greater amounts than a petrol engine. Also diesels emit a large amount of particulate matter which contribute to smog and acid rain.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by castellan

fact is that is a load of hog wash, .

it might seem low value here in "clean australia", but some euro, asian and american countries have big issues with pollution.

[bernbo]

Isn't Paris banning diesels in the next few years due to how many they have and how much they contribute to smog and cancer in humans? Big deal for a french company; I would think they would not develop the diesels due to this.

[bernbo]

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/no-...-hate-diesels/

[castellan]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

it might seem low value here in "clean australia", but some euro, asian and american countries have big issues with pollution.

The thing is how far can we go before it becomes a joke.

The new diesels are clean as.

It's all the old rubbish getting around that's a big problem, but no one complains about them and the QLD Government sure don't care at all, as to all the rubbish diesels you can see blowing smoke in SEQ not to mention all the petrol crappy 4 cyl vans that reek badly of blowby fumes for some reason, boy do they stink.

[msman]

its a double edge sword.
new cars must be as 'celan' as possible.
newer models must improve on previous not only in terms of what the consumer sees and desires but also what is best for the community as a whole.

what do you do with all the old stuff?
can't take it off, everyone cannot afford a new car.
govco buyback's or incentives would work to get people into new but would create alot of waste to be scrapped and would the energy/pollution required to do this and build new benefit compared to someone using their old? within reason offcourse.

most car companies would be doing it.
think of the hundreds of millions $$$ of profits to be had, development cost/engineering/build and so on.
they may just not be to the same degree as vw

[bernbo]

Actually if your truly thinking about the environment you would be keeping as many old cars on the road as possible. Making a car uses more resources and creates more pollution than will ever go through its exhaust. For a long time a Prius had a bigger carbon footprint than a ranger rover due to how much the lithium has to be processed and transported around the world even before it gets in the car as a battery. So its consumerism not what's best for the community that the manufacturers are building to.
New diesels are only clean when it comes to carbon, they are actually worse for all the other pollutants and is also carcinogenic.

Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk

[XR Martin]

But in saying that, those two stroke bikes and tuk tuks getting around India and SE Asia pollute something like over 10x that of a modern small car.

[Davehoos]

Originally Posted by bernbo

Isn't Paris banning diesels in the next few years due to how many they have and how much they contribute to smog and cancer in humans? Big deal for a french company; I would think they would not develop the diesels due to this.

diesel busses over 15-25 year old in some larger cities. Due to the lack of maintanence on their older fleets. you have to read the whole storey not the headlines quoted by some.

One of the crazy items in Europe was that they ban certain vehicles from being used in certain regions and wont allow you to modify the vehicle-retrofitting latter model engines so that you can axcess these town or regions.

however in Europe they can remanufacture a retro vehicle that becomes a modern vehicle.

[bernbo]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

But in saying that, those two stroke bikes and tuk tuks getting around India and SE Asia pollute something like over 10x that of a modern small car.

The main difference between us and them is they get fifty years out of their vehicles. They don't upgrade like some people do every three years or less. The pollution coming out of the exhaust is only one part of the vehicle whole polluting life. A modern small car will never last long enough to save enough fuel or pollution to offset the pollution via energy and conversion of raw materials that it cost to make it. The only positive reason to buy new vehicles are safety and features. I know people that have sold their 5yr old car to get a new one so they can save petrol. They have lost more money in depreciation then they would spend on the extra fuel and have created more pollution then they would save by buying a new car. Both cars have 5 star safety but they sleep well at night thinking they have done a good thing, even though really they have been hoodwinked by clever marketing and the push to keep up with the joneses.

[Davehoos]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

But in saying that, those two stroke bikes and tuk tuks getting around India and SE Asia pollute something like over 10x that of a modern small car.

Certain counties have government plans to replace 2 strokes with electric, The reason quoted is the hard currency needed to purchase imported fuel and the heavy losses in the distribution system.

different issues in the larger economies of india and china.

[castellan]

The main object is health.

Big cities need to deal with the health side first and foremost, so cars and trucks that are below a level of tolerance have to go, regardless.

One can't just disregard something that is a hazard, what some think is ok to drive about with blowby or blowing smoke maybe ok out in the country but not in the city, they should have there cars or trucks destroyed like they do to the hoons cars. so as to wake people up that it's not ok at all.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by castellan

The thing is how far can we go before it becomes a joke.

The new diesels are clean as.

It's all the old rubbish getting around that's a big problem, but no one complains about them and the QLD Government sure don't care at all, as to all the rubbish diesels you can see blowing smoke in SEQ not to mention all the petrol crappy 4 cyl vans that reek badly of blowby fumes for some reason, boy do they stink.

The emission policy is from the Federal government.

Enforcement on someones car would be a state thing. But the state won't bother.....mind you have a loud exhaust and watch what happens.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by vztrt

The emission policy is from the Federal government.

Enforcement on someones car would be a state thing. But the state won't bother.....mind you have a loud exhaust and watch what happens.

That must be NSW or VIC for the loud exhaust, because a hell of a lot of loud cars here in QLD not to mention bikes.

[mik]

Theres an awful lot of pollution sources around aside from cars , especially in the big smoke(pun intended ),
one suburb of melbourne years ago used to have 9 or 10 tips dotted around it , i did a stretch as a bin truck/compactor driver so i used to use some of them .
if you go for a night ride on the cycle with powerful led head light you would be frightened to see the amount of dust and crap in air crossing the beam of your light, you dont realize how much crap your inhaling into your lungs that you do not see.
i dunno what the answer is here , perhaps find a nice rainy area with not many humans and live there ...... country tassy perhaps ?
It would be interesting to see epa air quality figures around the big citys .......before and afterwards if we put diesel cars and trucks off the road for a month, and then did the same for petrol cars .

[JC]

So does this mean that Ford may also be caught up given the LR 2.7 diesel used in the territory was jointly developed along with peugot/citroen?

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by castellan

The thing is how far can we go before it becomes a joke.

The new diesels are clean as.

It's all the old rubbish getting around that's a big problem, but no one complains about them and the QLD Government sure don't care at all, as to all the rubbish diesels you can see blowing smoke in SEQ not to mention all the petrol crappy 4 cyl vans that reek badly of blowby fumes for some reason, boy do they stink.

This is not 'just' pollution. Many people think that the word pollution refers to 'dirty' air, i.e. sooty air & photochemical smog etc. These VWs are pretty clean in that dept.

The nasty that these modern Diesels produces is oxides of nitrogen. Apparently the VWs are not just ' a bit' over the limit, they emit over 60 times the limit !!

So it's not a small cheat, it is massive cheat.

Dr Terry

[2011G6E]

Said it about VW and I'll repeat it about Renault...

"Does it get good economy and produce good power and torque?"

If "Yes", then no one cares about emissions. Honestly, has even one person taken careful considered notice of the "CO2" emissions figures on the window sticker on a new car? No sane person has anyway...you worry about how it drives and the fuel economy.

Probably just the Yanks wanting to keep lumbering about in oversized trucks with 7 liter V8's while complaining about efficient Euro hatchbacks and sedans...

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by JC

So does this mean that Ford may also be caught up given the LR 2.7 diesel used in the territory was jointly developed along with peugot/citroen?

Which engines are meant to effected? Euro 4 might not be effected.

The new Navara motor might be under the spotlight if this is found to be true.

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by JC

So does this mean that Ford may also be caught up given the LR 2.7 diesel used in the territory was jointly developed along with peugot/citroen?

Even though they are all French, Renault is not related to the Govt. owned Peugeot/Citroen group.

Dr Terry

[vztrt]

Cleared:

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/r...17-gm7xge.html

[castellan]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

This is not 'just' pollution. Many people think that the word pollution refers to 'dirty' air, i.e. sooty air & photochemical smog etc. These VWs are pretty clean in that dept.

The nasty that these modern Diesels produces is oxides of nitrogen. Apparently the VWs are not just ' a bit' over the limit, they emit over 60 times the limit !!

So it's not a small cheat, it is massive cheat.

Dr Terry

But how could it be more than the last euro before the one they have now, don't they pass the one before the new.

They lower the oxides of nitrogen buy using EGR to lower the combustion temp that mainly causes this.

One could say 60% but what does that mean in reality, 60% of from what ?
One could think that it's anything, if one had a turbo intercooled engine with no ADR at all, what would we be looking at in regards to what such could produce as to all the factors in regard to pollution.

60% could mean a lot or bugger all in reality.

If one looks into our history from ADR27 on, we could refer to the % reduced with each new law that came along, so as to get a handle on what they are truly saying.

Thing is people think that the latest VW is just as bad if not worst that some old 1960's engine and they nearly faint at the thought and then start running around as if the sky is going to fall.

[castellan]

Now what is it that the plus 60% represents ?

On a petrol car plus 60% would pass Hydro Carbons Euro 4.

And with Carbon Monoxide it would better Euro 3 by about 30%.

And with Oxides of nitrogen plus 60% more would be at ADR37.00 standard that's our 1986 standard.

We need real figures here so we know what is going on.