97% of all modern diesel cars fail to meet NOx emissions standards in real-world conditions - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Ninety-seven percent of all modern diesel cars emit more toxic nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution on the road than the official limit, according to the most comprehensive set of data yet published, with a quarter producing at least six times more than the limit. Surprisingly, the tiny number of models that did not exceed the standard were mostly Volkswagens, the carmaker whose cheating of diesel emissions tests which emerged last year sparked the scandal. Experts said the new results show that clean diesel cars can be made but that virtually all manufacturers have failed to do so. The new data, from testing industry leader Emissions Analytics (EA), follows the publication this week by the Department for Transport of emissions results for 37 vehicles, all of which emitted more NOx on the road than the official limit. But the new data covers more than 250 vehicles in more stringently standardised road conditions. EA found that just one of 201 Euro 5 diesels, the EU standard from 2009, did not exceed the limit, while only seven of 62 Euro 6 diesels, the stricter standard since 2014, did so. Diesel cars must meet an official EU limit for NOx but are only tested in a laboratory under fixed conditions. All vehicles sold pass this regulation but, when taken out on to real roads, almost all emit far more pollution. There is no suggestion that any of the cars tested broke the law on emissions limits or used any cheat devices. ... NOx is at illegally high levels in many British cities and the government estimates this pollution is responsible for 23,500 premature deaths a year. The government lost a supreme court challenge in 2015 over the adequacy of its plans to tackle the crisis and is facing a fresh challenge over its new strategy. ... Sir Malcolm Green, a professor of respiratory medicine who founded the British Lung Foundation, said the revelations showed “appalling behaviour” by many major car firms. “This is a massive failure of public trust by these companies,” he said. “It is well established that current levels of pollution are shortening people’s lives, on a population basis,” Green said. “This is a massive and deliberate deceit. It’s appalling behaviour by the car manufacturers involved. ... Unlike other parts of the world, European nations incentivised the use of diesel vehicles over the last 20 years because they emit less carbon dioxide per mile than petrol cars. Governments thought stricter regulation would sharply reduce NOx emissions, but carmakers found ways around the rules and governments failed to clamp down on the practices. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/23/diesel-cars-pollution-limits-nox-emissions"]Source[/URL] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Editorialized Title." - Bradyns))[/highlight]

Nice alarmist title my dude [quote]Ninety-seven percent of all modern diesel cars[/quote] e: old title: "97% of vehicles fail to meet NOx emissions standards in real-world conditions"

The subforum is called Sensationalist Headlines as a joke. It does not mean post actual sensationalist headlines.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50195266]Nice alarmist title my dude[/QUOTE] Well we are talking about NOx here, so it's obvious that we are talking about diesels. Does modern even need stating? I just copied part of the sub headline anyway. It is also [I]sensationalist headlines[/I].

[QUOTE=Morgen;50195286]Well we are talking about NOx here, so it's obvious that we are talking about diesels. Does modern even need stating? I just copied part of the sub headline anyway. It is also [I]sensationalist headlines[/I].[/QUOTE] a) people who don't know much about cars aren't going to realize it's inherently a bigger problem with diesels (petrol cars produce NOx too but not as much) b) "sensationalist headlines" is a joke and not an excuse to post shitty alarmist titles

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50195305]a) people who don't know much about cars aren't going to realize it's inherently a problem with diesels b) "it's sensationalist headlines" is a joke and not an excuse to post shitty alarmist titles[/QUOTE] Well it is explained in the first sentence of the OP.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50195286]Well we are talking about NOx here, so it's obvious that we are talking about diesels. Does modern even need stating? I just copied part of the sub headline anyway. It is also [I]sensationalist headlines[/I].[/QUOTE] Petrol cars release NOx too.

[QUOTE=download;50195315]Petrol cars release NOx too.[/QUOTE] Yes but very little as combustion occurs at a significantly lower temperate.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50195322]Yes but very little as combustion occurs at a significantly lower temperate.[/QUOTE] It has little to do with temperature. Diesels emit loads of NOx because they run very lean compared to a petrol car.

This is really interesting because diesel cars are generally the ones that run the longest and the furthest, correct? Which would mean that the cars that drive the furthest emit the largest amount of this particular greenhouse gas.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50195322]Yes but very little as combustion occurs at a significantly lower temperate.[/QUOTE] Modern petrol engines run extremely lean, which means much, much higher temperatures.

I personally enjoy sensationalist headlines in sensationalist headlines :v: Always fun to go "wtf?!" only to end up realizing in the first sentences that the title was for a laugh. Obviously some aren't as clever as others but this was fine.

[QUOTE=Amplar;50195348]Modern petrol engines run extremely lean, which means much, much higher temperatures.[/QUOTE] which in turn burns the fuel faster, right?

[QUOTE=Morgen;50195286] It is also [I]sensationalist headlines[/I].[/QUOTE] Hi, this is not an excuse for sensationalist headlines. Rather, it makes fun of people who MAKE sensationalist headlines.

[QUOTE=Amplar;50195348]Modern petrol engines run extremely lean, which means much, much higher temperatures.[/QUOTE] Actually, modern gas engines run on the rich side to avoid running lean. If a gas engine runs lean, it runs hotter, heading the combustion chamber, increasing the risk of pre-detonation which can bend and snap connecting rods and shatter pistons. Automakers have been trying to push for higher octane fuels. This would allow them to increase compression ratios without the risk of detonation, which means they could burn fuel more efficiently, giving better fuel mileage and less CO2 emissions (helping them meet regulations), but it would raise NOx emissions.

[QUOTE=download;50195329]It has little to do with temperature. Diesels emit loads of NOx because they run very lean compared to a petrol car.[/QUOTE] Actually temperature is extremely important to the formation of NOx. Excess air inside the combustion chamber is heated to a much higher point in a diesel as diesels have a much higher compression ratio, and use it to ignite the fuel. We have a significant amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere, so in the engine the excess air is mostly Oxygen and Nitrogen. Oxygen and Nitrogen will react with each other at high temperatures which will form NOX. Petrol engines don't have very much excess air since they work in a different way.

Clean, efficient, affordable. Pick two. [IMG]http://roa.h-cdn.co/assets/15/41/1444402123-screen-shot-2015-10-09-at-104821-am.png[/IMG] Also, I believe about [url=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/09/mercedes-honda-mazda-mitsubishi-diesel-emissions-row?CMP=twt_gu][I]7 months ago[/I][/url] The Guardian reported similar info, albeit not directly in that article. More so in this [url=http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/news/a26980/report-diesel-emissions-cheating-everyone-does-it/]Road & Track article[/url] that cites them. It seems it hasn't been a super dark and hidden fact for probably at least a decade or two (that diesels aren't clean in short), but now that we've discovered blatant disregard to current emissions standards, it's all become sort of a mess. It points towards how ineffective emissions testing is, regardless of country. Of course, car manufacturers could invest in cleaner engines too, but I think the focus should be on alternative fuels still. Yes, we still have to deal with the current emissions issues at hand, but I'd hate to see the issues overshadow true progress. And I still think some sort of synthetic fuel that would hopefully be highly compatible with existing combustion engines is a better alternative than electric or anything else that requires new technology. Half the battle of the car emissions issue is centered around money if you think of it like this; if only a small percentage of people can afford to purchase and invest in vastly different technology, then the rest will hard pressed to leave what already works for them unless something drastic happens (insane gas prices for example - but even then, that would just hurt a lot people as well). I mean new tech always as high early adoption cost, but I'm thinking even down the road like just 4-8 years, where could we be with alternatives? I've still really only heard of E-Benzene and Blue Crude from Global Bioenergies in terms of synthetic, clean fuels (that work with ICEs). I think EVs and Hydrogen are still viable, but just barely. I think they aren't enough for rapid conversion.

Wait I don't get what's so editorialized about the title

[QUOTE=Kylel999;50195498]Wait I don't get what's so editorialized about the title[/QUOTE] Used to say 97% of all vehicles period

[QUOTE=Morgen;50195409] Petrol engines don't have very much excess air since they work in a different way.[/QUOTE] Which is what I said :rolleyes: [editline]25th April 2016[/editline] Anyway, I think we focus far too much on NOx emissions. Highly efficient engines are going to have to operate at higher temperatures and pressures, and operate very lean. All of those things will reduce CO2 emissions, reduce fuel consumption but increase NOx emissions. [editline]25th April 2016[/editline] Also, plants love NOx. NOx chemicals go on to form nitrates which plants love.

[QUOTE=download;50195723]Which is what I said :rolleyes: [editline]25th April 2016[/editline] Anyway, I think we focus far too much on NOx emissions. Highly efficient engines are going to have to operate at higher temperatures and pressures, and operate very lean. All of those things will reduce CO2 emissions, reduce fuel consumption but increase NOx emissions. [editline]25th April 2016[/editline] Also, plants love NOx. NOx chemicals go on to form nitrates which plants love.[/QUOTE] It also forms ozone in the atmosphere, so, that's pretty awesome. It actually causes global cooling!

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50195408]Actually, modern gas engines run on the rich side to avoid running lean. If a gas engine runs lean, it runs hotter, heading the combustion chamber, increasing the risk of pre-detonation which can bend and snap connecting rods and shatter pistons. Automakers have been trying to push for higher octane fuels. This would allow them to increase compression ratios without the risk of detonation, which means they could burn fuel more efficiently, giving better fuel mileage and less CO2 emissions (helping them meet regulations), but it would raise NOx emissions.[/QUOTE] Running lean is more efficient, at the cost of exhaust gas temperatures. Higher EGTs means more emissions are burnt before hitting the catalytic converters, ergo, less harmful gasses. Compared to cars thirty years ago, modern engines run very lean, because fuel purity is more consistent and higher compression ratios more viable now that we have things like variable timing, sensory management, very precise injectors, and better quality alloys.

[QUOTE=Apollo2947;50195940]It also forms ozone in the atmosphere, so, that's pretty awesome. It actually causes global cooling![/QUOTE] Ozone in the lower atmosphere isn't actually a good thing IIRC. We only really want it in the upper atmosphere.

The enormous fetish Europe has with diesel cars came from pressure from car manufacturers (particularly French and German ones, who were already hugely invested in diesel because of the economy figures which sell them to the fleet market) for governments to reduce fuel taxes on diesel. Back in the early nineties in the UK diesel cars were something of a rarity, and a lot of a joke; they represented a fraction of the market, as a young, perm-sporting Jeremy Clarkson will explain: [video=youtube;sEZEEbAqgfc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEZEEbAqgfc[/video] Now it's twenty years later and ~50% of new cars sold here are diesel, but the wheels are starting to come off the wagon as everyone's realising that not only are diesel cars clattery and rough and awful, they pollute worse than petrol cars do. Nitrous oxide has an insulating greenhouse effect 300 times worse than carbon dioxide, and the only reason diesel is so much more attractive than petrol is because the fuel tax we pay on both is astronomical. Honestly, if petrol engines had had the same amount of money spent developing them as diesel engines have over the last 15-20 years they'd be able to wank you off on the drive home from work by now.

[QUOTE=Strike 86;50197352]The enormous fetish Europe has with diesel cars came from pressure from car manufacturers (particularly French and German ones, who were already hugely invested in diesel because of the economy figures which sell them to the fleet market) for governments to reduce fuel taxes on diesel. Back in the early nineties in the UK diesel cars were something of a rarity, and a lot of a joke; they represented a fraction of the market, as a young, perm-sporting Jeremy Clarkson will explain: [video=youtube;sEZEEbAqgfc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEZEEbAqgfc[/video] Now it's twenty years later and ~50% of new cars sold here are diesel, but the wheels are starting to come off the wagon as everyone's realising that not only are diesel cars clattery and rough and awful, they pollute worse than petrol cars do. Nitrous oxide has an insulating greenhouse effect 300 times worse than carbon dioxide, and the only reason diesel is so much more attractive than petrol is because the fuel tax we pay on both is astronomical. Honestly, if petrol engines had had the same amount of money spent developing them as diesel engines have over the last 15-20 years they'd be able to wank you off on the drive home from work by now.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't drive a diesel if fuel wasn't so cheap. For a comparison, diesel prices sometimes goes as low as less than a euro per litre, aka you can sometimes get more than 20 litres with just 20 euros. Assuming I DO get 20 litres though, with that, I can do 300km, or more, especially if I ration it. Meanwhile, petrol prices are NEVER below 1.2XXX euros. With 20 euros, you get not even 17 litres. On top of that, if I DO get 20 litres, that won't give me the same mileage as the diesel, most likely. Even if the petrol engine has a smaller displacement. On top of that, you can make diesels even cheaper to run with reprogrammings, making them output more if you step on it, or save EVEN MORE if you feather it. It sucks that diesel cars are much cheaper to run here, because there are a good few cars with petrol only engines that, if gas weren't so expensive, they'd be the most fun thing ever to own.

[QUOTE=download;50195723]Which is what I said :rolleyes: [editline]25th April 2016[/editline] Anyway, I think we focus far too much on NOx emissions. Highly efficient engines are going to have to operate at higher temperatures and pressures, and operate very lean. All of those things will reduce CO2 emissions, reduce fuel consumption but increase NOx emissions. [editline]25th April 2016[/editline] Also, plants love NOx. NOx chemicals go on to form nitrates which plants love.[/QUOTE] Sure, that's what you said when you remove everything else when quoting me. Petrol engines running richer than a diesel is part of why a diesel will emit more NOx yes but it's a massive oversimplification to say that's the only thing causing it. Okay so engines might run at a higher temperature now however we do have methods of removing the majority of NOx from the exhaust emissions. They might have some downsides, but this list proves that some cars can do a clean and efficient diesel just fine. Plant's don't love NOx. NOx contributes to the formation of acid rain which will deteriorate water quality, negatively impact fish, and will have a negative impact on a lot of plants. [QUOTE=Apollo2947;50195940]It also forms ozone in the atmosphere, so, that's pretty awesome. It actually causes global cooling![/QUOTE] Ozone is good in the upper atmosphere, however in the lower atmosphere it doesn't really offer anything beneficial. If you breathe Ozone in it will fuck up your lungs and throat. In the UK alone according to the OP we have tens of thousands of human deaths every year attributed to this already. Ozone can also have a negative effect on plant life. [QUOTE=Amplar;50196921]Running lean is more efficient, at the cost of exhaust gas temperatures. Higher EGTs means more emissions are burnt before hitting the catalytic converters, ergo, less harmful gasses. Compared to cars thirty years ago, modern engines run very lean, because fuel purity is more consistent and higher compression ratios more viable now that we have things like variable timing, sensory management, very precise injectors, and better quality alloys.[/QUOTE] Higher temperature burns more soot from diesels, however it leads to an increased production of NOx. Modern diesel cars have exhaust gas recirculation valves (or some similar system) that will try and use the excess air for combustion again, to leave less excess air.

[QUOTE=Strike 86;50197352] but the wheels are starting to come off the wagon as everyone's realising that not only are diesel cars clattery and rough and awful [/QUOTE] I own a Mitsubishi Outlander 2007 with 2.0 TDI, and I just can't call it "rough, clattery and awful". I measured it up to go from 0 to 100 / 0 to 60 mph in less than 10 seconds. The official time is a bit above 10 seconds, but I really pushed it. Where did that stigma of "rough diesel engines and slow jittery" come from in modern cars? Diesel engines have long evolved to be of very stable and decent performance compared to pre-2004 diesels. You won't use diesel on a race car, but you can definitely use it in everyday use with perfect comfort.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50198173]Sure, that's what you said when you remove everything else when quoting me.[/quote] Oxygen is far more likely to react with hydrogen and carbon than nitrogen if it's available. It's the most crucial aspect there. You get very little NOx when there's no excess oxygen. [quote]petrol engines running richer than a diesel is part of why a diesel will emit more NOx yes but it's a massive oversimplification to say that's the only thing causing it. Okay so engines might run at a higher temperature now however we do have methods of removing the majority of NOx from the exhaust emissions. They might have some downsides, but this list proves that some cars can do a clean and efficient diesel just fine. Plant's don't love NOx. NOx contributes to the formation of acid rain which will deteriorate water quality, negatively impact fish, and will have a negative impact on a lot of plants.[/QUOTE] Plants can't convert Nitrogen oxides into a form they can use by themselves; naturally they're reliant on things like lightning and some types of bacteria to form it. Nitrogen oxides -> Nitric acid -> nitrates. They're the critical building blocks of plant growth; plants love any extra sources of nitrogen. Why do you think farmers use so much ammonium nitrate on their plants? [editline]25th April 2016[/editline] Also, the plants don't give a damn about fish.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;50198193]I own a Mitsubishi Outlander 2007 with 2.0 TDI, and I just can't call it "rough, clattery and awful". I measured it up to go from 0 to 100 / 0 to 60 mph in less than 10 seconds. Where did that stigma of "rough diesel engines and slow jittery" come from in modern cars? Diesel engines have long evolved to be of very stable and decent performance compared to pre-2004 diesels. You won't use diesel on a race car, but you can definitely use it in everyday use with perfect comfort.[/QUOTE] er, even old diesels aren't necessarily rough, clattery, or awful. I've started up 60 year old Detroits that have run like watches. 70s and 80s Merc diesels are smooth as butter in good condition.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50198200]er, even old diesels aren't necessarily rough, clattery, or awful. I've started up 60 year old Detroits that have run like watches. 70s and 80s Merc diesels are smooth as butter in good condition.[/QUOTE] Exactly. It's almost like people believe that diesel cars mean that they are as slow as trucks employing diesel engines? Although, my father did own an '99 Nissan Patrol GR, that shit was so fucking slow as hell, but I later found out it was due to my father deliberately cutting down power on the engine to reduce fuel consumption. And it was heavy as well. A fucking tank of a car, it never had any issues and in 5 years of service for my dad, he only changed clutch twice and that's it. Only after buying the mentioned Outlander did it start falling apart - it seems poor bastard couldn't stand the fact he was being replaced :v:.