WI is forcing ethanol and dropping emmission tests for pre 97


#1

I have not been convinced ethanol with decreased MPG and repercussions of higher food prices is worth it. I think it would be the pre 97 cars are the most likely candidates for bad emissions and have heard it referred to as a waste of state budget to test only newer cars and not the older ones.


#2

Is WI going to an OBDII download instead of tailpipe testing? When NH did that we dropped pre-1996 cars because the OBDII system wasn’t required before 1996.

My personal belief is that any more testing for emissions on newer vehicles is a waste until Desels are required to meet the clean air act requirements. Trying to squeeze an extra tiny fraction of a percentage of emissions reduction out of personal vehicles that are already extremely clean and only run a few hours a day at most while diesel trucks freely pump enormous amounts of NOx, CO, and unburned HC into the air continuously all day long is just plain wrong IMHO.

Okay, I’ll get down off my pedestal.


#3

stay on the pedestal, your correct!

maico


#4

Just to clarify, what most states are doing is using ethanol blends instead of MTBE, which is a very nasty groundwater pollutant, to increase the octane of the fuel. Smaller ethanol blends also reduce some particulate emissions. Use of 10% or less ethanol blends doesn’t create too much of a mileage hit and doesn’t create nearly the strain on food supplies as using ethanol as the primary component.

As for your smog statement, probably what’s happening is that they’re discontinuing the actual stick-the-probe-in-the-tailpipe type testing and instead relying on the OBDII computer to report problems-- since only newer vehicles have OBDII, they’re the only ones that they can do this on. I will note that most fuel injected cars that are running okay have no problems passing emissions tests, as opposed to carbureted cars which would often run and drive just fine (or better) with broken emissions equipment. Since the newest carbureted cars are reaching the 20-year mark in which most states stop testing, I suspect that many states are seeing a great reduction in failures and that many will be revamping their emissions tests.


#5

Today’s diesels are cleaner than ever. So clean that it’s a detriment to the engine and the owner forking over the expense to maintain them and purchase them.

Fuel formulation has changed twice since 2000. First we had Low Sulfur diesel and diesel prices went up 15 cents a gallon for it while mileage went down because the fuel has less BTU’s in it. Now we have Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and the price is 50 cents a gallon higher supposedly because of it and mileage has went down yet again.

2007 and beyond diesel engines have an incredible package of junk on the supposedly to prevent pollution. The average diesel owner and user only knows it costs an additional $6000 to pay for the pollution package not to mention the maintenance increases caused by this garbage like the $1800 particulate filter. Ford’s first attempt at a clean diesel engine cost the company over $500,000,000 in warranty claims in the first 2 years, after that it cost every owner of one of those pieces of junk tens of thousands of dollars in either repair or premature putting out to pasture of trucks that wouldn’t run.

Right now the trucking industry is faced with a lot of problems. High fuel prices in part due to Ultra Low Sulfur diesel and no doubt enhanced by oil company greed. That’s only part of it. In the coming years, terminals are going to stop allowing trucks to load there that have not changed engines to one of the newer clean diesels, so everyone is looking at having to buy engines or buy trucks to stay in business.

As one who personally lost about $35,000 thanks to Ford and their clean diesel road test experiment, I’m darn glad I managed to get a pre experiment Dodge to replace it with.

Oh, for what it’s worth, this clean ultra low sulfur diesel has less heat in it, thus it burns more fuel requiring drilling more oil, transporting more fuel and generally burning more fuel. As a side issue, it doesn’t raise the EGT’s in the engine high enough to burn out more of the soot. So, soot accumulates in the engine, turbo, and exhaust until the engine choaks down and the driver ends up standing on it to blow the soot out the back in a big black cloud.

My exhaust might smell like fish frying in peanut oil now, but things sure seemed a lot cheaper and better when it smelled like diesel.

Skip


#6

“Use of 10% or less ethanol blends doesn’t create too much of a mileage hit and doesn’t create nearly the strain on food supplies as using ethanol as the primary component.”

I think it does create an enormous hit to the food supply. If ethanol was not used when MTBE was the only octane increaser, then this is all new use. The USA used 140 billion gallons of gasoline in 2005. That means coming up with around 14 billion gallons of ethanol to replace the MTBE.


#7

I agree that testing a one or two-year-old car for emissions is unnecessary. However, how many 2002 cars, for example, are out there with their “check engine” lights on? I would bet that there are thousands. Also, states that have stopped emissions testing have also stopped inspecting cars for safety. This is a mistake. Here in Florida I see cars every day that have burned out brake lights and some with no brake lights at all. Police are not going to adequately enforce what inspections should be handling. So if you 86 emissions testing, please, PLEASE, keep vehicle inspections going. Thank you for your support.


#8

“First we had Low Sulfur diesel and diesel prices went up 15 cents a gallon for it while mileage went down because the fuel has less BTU’s in it. Now we have Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and the price is 50 cents a gallon higher supposedly because of it and mileage has went down yet again.”

Well my mileage has not changed a bit with the ULSD, nor has it caused any of the problems that so many were worrying about. Many owners have reported cleaner running and no additional wear. As for prices, I suspect that while the oil companies make such claims, If you were to do some auditing I would bet you will find that most of the increase is due to corporate profit and crude prices (another form of corporate profit)


#9

I know that my 96 F250 dropped 2 mpg when they changed to Low Sulfur and my 07 Dodge dropped about 1 mpg. On the Dodge, I tested it pretty good on a long run once. Ran into several stations that hadn’t switched over yet and I could always get 1 mpg or better off the low than the ultra low.

That said, I believe a lot of the problems I experienced on the 04 Ford were from the emmissions equipment. In fact, I know that to be the case. Reburning diesel exhaust can’t possibly be good for the engine or turbo. It amazed me that Ford put a $105 air filter on that truck then turned the exhaust back into the intake.

I agree on the Corporate profit being a big part of the price problem, that said, the change was an excuse used.

Skip


#10

I seen an old 80s Monte Carlo/Regal/cutlass the other day with something along the lines of 20"+ rims on it with tires being not much more than sprayed on. It was almost as bad as looking at a ricer car, and I couldn’t help but feel sorry for that poor car with a nice burple paint job and some box(http://www.cardomain.com/features/donks) rims. Too bad they don’t do inspections for that kinda crap everywhere.

Help control the ricer population, make your teen buy their own stuff for their car


#11

Not necessarily accurate, my friend. NH has tested for safety for as long as I can remember, yet emissions testing was being done a few years back only in specific counties.