backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 91 comment(s) - last by FoBoT.. on May 1 at 1:32 PM

Toyota's Prius is no match for Georgia's emissions tests
Georgia flunks the Prius

Toyota may be flying high in eco-friendliness with its Prius hybrid car, but Georgia emissions testing equipment doesn't see it that way. 2004 Toyota Prius hybrids are now being required to go through emissions testing to complete yearly registration procedures, but the each and every one fails the test.

The emissions test requires that a probe be placed in the vehicle's exhaust pipe to measure the particulates emitted while the engine is at idle or the use of OBD-II to test 1996 and newer vehicles. The problem is that the Prius doesn't exactly "idle." When the Prius is "on" and at a standstill, the internal combustion engine (ICE) is stopped. If the ICE is not running at a constant idle speed, the emission test cannot complete and the vehicle fails.

Owners must still pay the $25 testing fee for the aborted test even though all emissions tests centers across the state of Georgia know ahead of time that the vehicle will fail the test. Heather Abrams of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division says that the Prius must take the doomed test regardless so that the vehicle information can be put into the state's system. Owners must take their failed emissions certificate to a GCAF Waiver Center to get permission to receive a new tag or call in with the code number on the aborted test.

"We don't want the consumer to have to go any further than necessary to get their tag," said Abrams.

"I don't think it's right that I have to pay $25 if their system can't even accommodate my car," said Prius owner Rich Harrelson. "Why don't just exempt the Prius in general?"

Perhaps Chuck McClellan of MidTown Emissions says it best, "They say no good deed goes unpunished. I guess this is one of those deals."

And before you think that the state is just trying to milk Prius owners out of $25 for a failed test, the state only gets 95 cents from every emissions test. The state is currently in the process of updating its system so that 2005 model year Prius hybrids will be accommodated. There is no word, however, on how other hybrids like the Civic Hybrid and Toyota Highlander Hybrid fair in testing.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Makes me proud...
By maevinj on 4/16/2007 2:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
To be from Georgia. The only state that promotes gas guzzling SUV's and torments those trying to actually save fuel.




RE: Makes me proud...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me proud...
By GreenEnvt on 4/16/2007 2:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
That "Study" has also been trashed all over the internet. It's a worthless study based on very flawed assumptions.


RE: Makes me proud...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Makes me proud...
By redog on 4/16/2007 3:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
google is your friend:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hummer+vs+pri...

but for the lazy: http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48 has a decent mashup in the post and the comments.

That report that is cited so much was flawed from the beginning.

-R


RE: Makes me proud...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Makes me proud...
By NoSoftwarePatents on 4/16/2007 3:24:33 PM , Rating: 4
While hybrid vehicles may have some issues (they ARE relatively new to the automotive world still), this "study" is complete bullshit. No, I am not driving a hybrid at this time, and plan to get a Toyota Tacoma V6 as my next vehicle.

This "study" bashing the Prius and other hybrids has been throughly debunked on MANY discussion forums. You typically have an open mind, so I'll share this link for starters (it takes a while to read, so make sure you have time first).

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/...

Here's how it starts-with no answer from the original author:

An anonymous reader sends in a story from Central Connecticut State University, claiming that a Prius takes more energy to manufacture than a Hummer — 50% more. In addition, the article claims that the Prius costs $3.25 per mile over its expected lifespan of 100,000 miles compared to $1.95 per mile for the Hummer. The article gets its data from a study by CNW Marketing called Dust to Dust, which is an attempt to account for all the costs of vehicles, from manufacture through operation through repair and disposal. The $3.25/mile cost quoted for the Prius is the 2005 number; for 2006 it is $2.87. This improvement pulled the Prius below the straight industry average — all the other hybrids are still above that average. And the Hummer is not listed at all for 2006. Update: 03/21 00:44 GMT by J : You might want to take those figures with a grain of salt; I don't think anyone's seen the supporting data. Read on for details.

J adds:

The Prius's mediocre cost-per-mile is due mainly to CNW Research assigning the car a short expected lifetime: 109,000 miles. Nobody knows where this number comes from because CNW has not published details about its derivation. If a car will not last very long, then of course its energy cost per mile is high.

Back in July 2006, when CNW's study "Dust to Dust" had just been published (and which remains, unchanged, the original source for today's news), I emailed its president, Art Spinella:

Hello,

I'm with the tech news and discussion site Slashdot.org. One of our readers submitted a story about your Dust to Dust study.

According to Wikipedia, the Prius comes with a 150,000 mile warranty in California and a few other states; 100,000 elsewhere.

On p. 21 and p. 40 of your report I see that you estimate the average Prius will be "removed from the streets... and sent for disposal" at 109,000 miles. Can you explain how you arrived at this figure?

Thank you.

I did not receive a reply.

My question was about the the cost-per-mile denominator; here's another critique questioning the numerator.


RE: Makes me proud...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/16/2007 4:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "You typically have an open mind, so I'll share this link for starters (it takes a while to read, so make sure you have time first..."

Thanks, and I'm trying here. The objections seem to center around a single point of objection, the assignment of a 109,000 service life to early Prius models. I found this on the CNW site which might shed some light on their reasoning:

quote:
The Prius was amortized over 100,000-plus miles for a number of reasons. The 100,000 mile life expectancy for Prius is time as well as distance sensitive. The historical data shows early Prius models were driven an average of only 6,700 miles per year (rounded). At that rate, the vehicle would require 15 years to reach 100,000 miles. It was our determination that is highly unlikely the '05 or '06 Prius models would still be in active service...

Historically, vehicles that become obsolete have a shorter life span (in time) than existing or serviceable technology.

Second, competitive vehicles to Prius are being planned by virtually all automakers using either Prius-like dual-mode or plug-in hybrid technology (e.g. Chevrolet Volt). This competition, looking at the historic context which is all we can do, is likely to drive the value of older technology Prius models lower...

Can the Prius be driven more than 100,000 miles? Of course. The vehicle is superbly engineered. But this assumes the average Prius driver begins using the car more often. If the Prius were driven the American average of 13,000 miles per year, it would hit the 100,000 mile mark in 7.6 years, well within its attractive (financially and technologically) useful life span...
So in effect, the Prius is getting a high per-mile cost because its owners drive it so little. Were it driven as much as the average vehicle, its per-mile cost would drop by half, and wind up lower than the Hummer on their charts.


RE: Makes me proud...
By Keeir on 4/16/2007 5:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
Just to add a few details

#1. Prius also gets extremely high development costs. Due to all new technology with limited application and low model numbers.

#2. Prius is also rated with an extremely high "major" accident rate. I believe the author uses numbers that indicate a Prius will have 2x chance of a major accident in its useful life than a Hummer. (I find this interesting since the useful life is less than a Hummer's to start with...)

#3. The disposal and repair maintence costs for the Prius are also extremely high in comparison to other cars. Somewhat justified in one sense, but also a bit misguided since the cost currently for each of these items is significantly higher than if 6% of the market is hybrid.

The study is extremely flawed if the intent is to estimate with accuracy the relate energy costs to a perspective buyer of different automobiles or of a random buyer (the "average") of a car. The study is more about the energy costs of the auto's as currently used, with current overhead, and current disposal methods.


RE: Makes me proud...
By GI2K on 4/16/2007 5:48:43 PM , Rating: 5
"the Prius is getting a high per-mile cost because its owners drive it so little."
And if the Prius owners buy a Hummer instead?... it's not the car fault that people drive it less, the fact is that people will drive the car they have be it a Hummer or a Prius. I don’t see any reason to think that if the Prius owners had a Hummer instead they would make more miles and pollute less... the fact is that if the Hummer owners had a Prius instead and did the same miles they would pollute less and if the Prius owners had a Hummer instead they would pollute more.


RE: Makes me proud...
By hubajube on 4/16/2007 6:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
What's the purpose of owning these cars if they're not driven?


RE: Makes me proud...
By Oregonian2 on 4/16/2007 7:03:35 PM , Rating: 3
They're perhaps driven to go somewhere rather that just to drive around showing off the car?


RE: Makes me proud...
By hubajube on 4/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Makes me proud...
By typo101 on 4/17/2007 6:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
Ever spent time in on a urban street in the summer? Sit there for a half hour, $10 says a hummer drives by slowly with windows open and music blaring. I'm sure prius owners do it too, but I think the OP was just making a joke about what hummers are often used for.


RE: Makes me proud...
By jconan on 4/17/2007 1:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
On average in SoCal, most people drive > 12,000 miles per year more like 15,000 considering the great distance from point a to point b and the inefficiencies of public transportation.


RE: Makes me proud...
By chsh1ca on 4/16/2007 10:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So in effect, the Prius is getting a high per-mile cost because its owners drive it so little. Were it driven as much as the average vehicle, its per-mile cost would drop by half, and wind up lower than the Hummer on their charts.

If it's getting so high a per-mile cost due to its much lower usage, where is the offsetting energy cost in not making and buying a replacement vehicle? Any way you slice it if I buy a car that ends up having a high per-mile cost but less overall energy cost and lasts potentially two to fifteen times longer than the comparison vehicle, I'm using less energy.

Of course, it also begs the question as to why you'd buy a fuel efficient vehicle and not use it. Did Prius owners just upgrade from bicycles? Or did they actually substantially reduce their time spent driving?


RE: Makes me proud...
By wallijonn on 4/17/2007 11:02:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Historically, vehicles that become obsolete have a shorter life span (in time) than existing or serviceable technology.


Gee, and here I had a 1972 Toyota Celica that went over 340,000 miles, a friend had a VW Bug that went over 400,000 miles, and I'm presently working on a 1990 Miata which now has 140,000 miles and which I presently put on less than 5000 miles a year...

New or old, how long a car lasts depends on how well it is serviced during its lifetime.


RE: Makes me proud...
By mthambi on 4/16/2007 3:29:55 PM , Rating: 5
The basic math in this story is so awful it almost deserves framing.

Each year residential cars and light trucks travel over 2.5 trillion Miles. Using the CNW 'industry average' number of $2.25 energy cost per mile, that works out to 5.6 trillion dollars. The US GDP is 12 trillion. Over 1/3 of the economy goes into the energy costs of owning our cars? What about housing, schools, air travel, electricity, all other industries?

In fact, the total amount of energy expenditure in the us for 2002 was a 0.6 trillion dollars. (source: Energy Information Administration ) This covered gasoline, natural gas, coal,hydro, etc, etc. Only some fraction of this expenditure was for building, maintaining and disposing of cars (cars are the most successful recycling story in the world).

I think that the persons who wrote this report may think that they did an honest job, but the simple fact is that the report is total complete garbage.

If you download the report, they even have a few people in the report who point out these absurdities, and their answers to them are laughable.

Anything to get on CNN.

Tom Andersen


RE: Makes me proud...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/16/2007 4:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "Each year residential cars and light trucks travel over 2.5 trillion Miles. Using the CNW 'industry average' number of $2.25 energy cost per mile, that works out to 5.6 trillion dollars..."

The math above has a few serious flaws in it also. First and foremost is a misapplication of averages. The fleet per-mile average cost includes such monstrosities as the Maybach and the Phaeton ($11/mile each) as well as the Scion xB (0.47/mile). An average assigns equal weight to every member in the set-- but Maybachs are not as common as Scions. And even when they are on the road, they don't tend to be driven nearly as much.

Let me explain the error to you with an analogy. The average weight of an ant, a human, and an elephant is about 4000 lbs. But if you put 9,990 ants, 10 people, and 1 elephant in a room together, you don't have a total weight of 10,000 * 4000 = 40 million pounds, now do you?

Furthermore, the per-mile costs are calculated via worst-case costs for oil and other energies, not "average" costs. And end-of-life costs are calculated by subtracting the salvage value of the vehicle from total costs, though in the real world, vehicles are nearly always resold and used considerably longer.

I'm not supporting the study myself, but attempts to debunk it with such sophomoric math errors are out of place. The fact is, it doesn't even need to be debunked. A careful reading of the data shows that Priuses are only rated worse than Hummers because they're driven so little. Were they driven as much, they'd average a far lower TCOO.


RE: Makes me proud...
By mthambi on 4/16/2007 5:01:20 PM , Rating: 3
The industry average should be a weighted average (weighted by the number of miles driven). Regardless, even if we use the lowest number you mentioned (0.47/mile), it comes to 1.175 trillion dollars, way above the total energy expenditure (including home heating, industry etc. etc.) of 0.6 trillion dollars.

Further more, if the Prius costs $3.25/mile, then the total cost of running it for 100,000 miles should be $325000 over its lifetime. The only costs the consumer pays is about $28K ($25K for the car, 100000/(45 miles/gallon) * $3 for gas). Where does the rest of the money come from ? Unless the manufacturers take a massive loss of close to $300000 per car, this cannot happen.


RE: Makes me proud...
By porkpie on 4/16/2007 5:06:48 PM , Rating: 3
> "Where does the rest of the money come from ? Unless the manufacturers take a massive loss..."

I believe that's the assumption they use...they factored in the R&D budget of developing the Prius which, when amortized across those few Priuses sold by 2005, a pretty large net loss per vehicle. That methodology is rather suspect, of course, as it penalizes vehicles with new technology rather heavily.


RE: Makes me proud...
By mthambi on 4/16/2007 5:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
Anyway you look at it, the numbers in the study are laughably off.


RE: Makes me proud...
By hlper on 4/16/2007 3:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that's not really a study is it?

Masher, I know you are a savvy individual. However, the link is to an article that only mentions one study done by CNW Marketing (marketing?). I am sure the article is "fact checked" to make sure that someone actually said the things the article claims, but it is not exactly the same as a peer reviewed scientific study with real data and reported methods. It may or may not be correct, but it sounds to me like someone with an axe to grind.

I remain unconvinced that a HUMMER is somehow a more environmentally friendly option.


RE: Makes me proud...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/16/2007 3:18:57 PM , Rating: 1
> "I know you are a savvy individual. However, the link is to an article that only mentions one study done by CNW Marketing (marketing?)..."

CNW Marketing Research, actually. The full 450-page report is here. Whether you choose to accept the results is one thing (until I finish the report, I'm not accepting them either) but I imagine they have less of an axe to grind than the environmentalists trashing their conclusion.

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%...


RE: Makes me proud...
By hlper on 4/16/2007 4:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough.


RE: Makes me proud...
By Potem on 4/17/2007 2:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
I have two links that attempt to discredit the CNW study and the editorial by The Recorder.

The first reports to include Toyota’s response to the CNW Marketing Research. http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hu...
I found it particularly suspicious of the study if two models of a car with little differences would have such a large lifetime energy use difference.

The second http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/03/08/hummer-vs-... claims the plant so disparaged in the editorial has been cleaned up for more than a decade way before battery parts were produced for the Prius.

I have not attempted any fact checking of these two links.


RE: Makes me proud...
By rushfan2006 on 4/16/2007 4:29:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis....


LOL..true or not, just the thought of that statement I find hilarious......

Granted I hate the Prius (too wussy for my tastes) and the Hummer (too damn ugly)....but that would be something if that study is true.


RE: Makes me proud...
By Grast on 4/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: Makes me proud...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/16/2007 5:17:02 PM , Rating: 4
Well unfortunately, after reading the entire report I have to say the conclusion as expressed isn't correct. While Priuses may have a higher cost per mile of use (assuming the other data is correct), but thats due to lower average usage by their owners.

The total energy cost per vehicle is actually lower.


RE: Makes me proud...
By Gatt on 4/16/2007 9:48:21 PM , Rating: 3
It's not going to "Pollute" the earth, most of what we use for today's batteries doesn't even exist in an elemental state in nature. Lithium Ion for example, Lithium + H2O yields a fairly decent explosion. Not earth shattering mind you, but the Lithium doesn't hang around for very long and the hydrogen from the water combusts.

We're not in the days of Lead batteries anymore. Lithium, Zinc, Copper, they're not major pollutants, and generally end up just reacting with Rain forming a harmless substance, or at worst, a patch of acidic soil.

Regardless, in most cases today, the battery material can be reclaimed fairly easily. Again, we're a long ways away from lead batteries.


RE: Makes me proud...
By Grast on 4/17/2007 11:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
Gatt,

You are incorrect. While the energy cost and technology used to recycle nickel cadmium batteries is coming along. It is not as rosy as you portray. If all things were equal, all of these NiCAD batteries would be recylced using state of the art technoloy. This would minimize the polutants produced through the recycle process and maximize the amount of material recouped from the process.

HOWEVER, we have all seen how this rarely occures. It is much cheaper to just transport these batteries to countries with little to no evironmental laws. Mexico is a good example extrememly close to the U.S. These batteries would then be thrown into simply and dirty smelters in order to get some of the nickel and cadmium. These majority would go into the air and as you state react with the air causing acid rain. This rain would then only harm the poorest and less fortunate.

I find it hard to believe that a consirvative is more interested in ensuring we do not harm the poorest of the world than your standard environmentalist. I feel the use of hybrid technology is wrong. It is a stop gap/band-aid solution. The real solution is to start using other sources of power rather than oil. The debate about of nuclear, solar and ect.. is beyond this discussion.

later...


RE: Makes me proud...
By Potem on 4/17/2007 2:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
Post this link in another comment but Toyota does claim to have a "comprehensive" battery recycleing program.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hu...


RE: Makes me proud...
By Cobra Commander on 4/16/2007 2:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know what you mean by "promote gas-guzzling SUVs".?

It's an understandable technicality and providing the owner gets passed within 30 days they don't "lose" their $25, so it's no more or less expensive, just a hassle for ONE of the hybrids out there. It's not that significant.


RE: Makes me proud...
By lazyinjin on 4/16/2007 2:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
it won't pass because its designed not to idle, so owners will lose the $25


RE: Makes me proud...
By jay401 on 4/16/2007 2:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
This brings up a question: How do you "warm up the car" in a Prius? You know, when it's butt-cold outside and you want the car to idle on the gas engine until it starts to warm up a little so you can get warm air out of the vents to defrost windows or warm up the in-car temperature.

Is there a special "cold day" button in it you can push so it'll start the gas engine and idle it? :)


RE: Makes me proud...
By 16nm on 4/16/2007 3:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is there a special "cold day" button in it you can push so it'll start the gas engine and idle it?


Yes, look for the button labeled 'HEAT' and push it. It's near the button labeled 'A/C' (think 'hot day' button). And the right pedal is the gas, the middle pedal is to stop, the big circle before you changes your direction, etc. LOL.


RE: Makes me proud...
By jay401 on 4/16/2007 4:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
sorry, you've completely failed to understand my question in your haste to try to say something funny.


RE: Makes me proud...
By Hare on 4/16/2007 4:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know but I would quess that it uses a ceramic heater unit so that you can use electricity as well as engine heat to keep you warm.


RE: Makes me proud...
By bldckstark on 4/19/2007 12:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
The Prius uses electric heaters, so they start creating heat almost immediately after you turn on the heat. No 15 minute warm up period to use a heat transfer system from the engine cooling system. All of the emissions created in a vehicle that is idling just to heat up the interior before being driven is one of the worst contributors to vehicle based ecological impacts. Just like sitting in a drive through. You are going nowhere, but you are creating emissions. Personally, I put on a pair of gloves and drive the car until it warms up. I do, though, sit in drive throughs. Maybe drive throughs should be illegal for all people except those who drive hybrids that shut off at idle. (Then everyone would use golf carts to go to McDonalds!)


RE: Makes me proud...
By Fritzr on 4/22/2007 3:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
This is an old and long ago solved problem. Contact your local VW dealer and ask about heaters. You might also check NAPA, Schuck's & other aftermarket parts & accessories suppliers.

The backstory is that the heaters in VW aircooled vehicles couldn't deliver the heat so an aftermarket was created for addon passenger compartment heaters.


RE: Makes me proud...
By Cobra Commander on 4/16/2007 3:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
Are you from Georgia?
When you fail emissions you have 30 days to get it straightened out AT NO COST.


RE: Makes me proud...
By GoatMonkey on 4/16/2007 4:02:46 PM , Rating: 4
Toyota is going to have to come up with a software patch for taking the test at some point. It should force the engine to activate for the duration of the test. Just because it doesn't run all the time doesn't mean that when it is running that all of the emissions equipment is working correctly. It's just as likely to fail as any other car.


RE: Makes me proud...
By Martin Blank on 4/16/2007 6:43:51 PM , Rating: 3
Why should it be forced to idle? The point of the idle test is to find out the emissions level of the vehicle when it is at rest. The level is zero, and so that should be factored into the test. If any software needs updating, it's the testing software.


RE: Makes me proud...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/17/2007 7:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
> "The point of the idle test is to find out the emissions level of the vehicle when it is at rest"

More precisely, the point of the test is to determine emissions at some fixed point of comparison. Idling is merely the simplest method of doing that...but its a method that doesn't work for the Prius. If the engine is off, the test understates emissions; if the engine is on, it overstates them slightly.

Better would be a test using a special dynamometer to simulate a hill-climbing load, or even a range of tests..but don't hold your breath for this to ever happen.


RE: Makes me proud...
By 172pilot on 4/18/2007 3:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
No, the object of the test is to see how much pollution the combustion engine creates. I could turn off my Explorer while I'm not moving, and I would be "zero emissions" just like the prius, but the tester wont obviously let me do that. My engine is forced to waste precious horsepower and cost more money to provide for extreme environmental care - The Prius engine better darn well produce the same or less pollution per gallon of gas consumed..

BTW - I suspect, in the longrun, in our society, someday we'll see that indeed the Hybrids will get a pass on this, and wont have to get tested..


RE: Makes me proud...
By theapparition on 4/17/2007 7:35:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
so owners will lose the $25

No, Owners pay $25, just as they would for any other vehicule. It's just a guarranteed failure, for which they have to go another extra step, which is at no out-of-pocket cost.


RE: Makes me proud...
By goatfajitas on 4/21/2007 10:32:19 AM , Rating: 2
Burocrative deflection of obligations at its best.


RE: Makes me proud...
By goatfajitas on 4/21/2007 10:33:04 AM , Rating: 2
damn typos. Burocratic.


RE: Makes me proud...
By FoBoT on 5/1/2007 1:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
i almost bought the Saturn Vue hybrid, test drove it and really like it
if it wasn't for the 0% for 60 months sale they had on the V6, i would have bought the hybrid, i really liked driving it


Not as bad as it's being made to sound...
By tk109 on 4/16/2007 2:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously something needs to be ajusted. But it seems this is being made into a much bigger issue than it really is. Basicly everyone who has a car has to pay that $25 anyway, weather they fail or pass. The state already made provisions so that the hybrid can get through the system and be fine. The hybrid owners just have a little more work to do because they will have to now make an extra phone call and read off a code. And then they are on their merry way. Not that big of a deal really. I'm sure it will be streamlined better in the future. This just seems way to blown out of proportion here and made to sound disasterous in the headlines. But I guess that's about on par with media.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/16/2007 2:45:23 PM , Rating: 3
It shouldn't really be an issue at all. Every vehicle made today (1996+) has accommodations to make this a simple affair: an OBD-II port.

If Georgia simply adhered to OBD-II testing, this wouldn't even be an issue.


By TomZ on 4/16/2007 3:21:57 PM , Rating: 1
I don't really see your point - I assume the testing in Georgia analyzes the tailpipe emissions using sensors that are not present in the OBD system in the vehicle. All you can really get from OBD of interest would be air-fuel ratio, as well as system diagnostic status. But it won't tell you, e.g., how much NOx the car is putting out.


RE: Not as bad as it's being made to sound...
By gsellis on 4/16/2007 3:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... GA does use ODB-II testing. Our 2000 Expedition is just plugged in and not running to test it. Now that you mention it, this makes me think that either the Prius is not in compliance with ODB-II or the article is written by a NYT reporter.


RE: Not as bad as it's being made to sound...
By SigmaHyperion on 4/16/2007 4:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
OBD-II was replaced by CAN on many new cars several years ago and is spreading in utilization. Problem is that few testing facilities have the means to plug-in test CAN-bussed systems. So they have to run them on rollers or idle-test them, however the state does their testing.


By TomZ on 4/16/2007 6:03:57 PM , Rating: 1
Give it up - you don't know what you're talking about. CAN is used as the physical layer for current-generation OBD communications. It is replacing previous-generation "Class 2" (J1850) communications.


By hubajube on 4/16/2007 6:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
Guys, you CAN'T measure emissions from the engine computer module (OBDII or CAN port). You HAVE to measure it from the tailpipe because that's where the cars emissions comes from.


RE: Not as bad as it's being made to sound...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/16/2007 2:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
> "Basicly everyone who has a car has to pay that $25 anyway."

Just so. And everyone with a late-model car who takes it has a "predetermined outcome" anyway...unless you have something terribly wrong with your engine. If you have a Prius with a maladjusted engine, you're going to get a free pass from the test, so in a way, Prius owners are getting a benefit in exchange for having to go through an additional step in the process.


RE: Not as bad as it's being made to sound...
By BMFPitt on 4/16/2007 2:54:48 PM , Rating: 3
But at least there's a chance that those other cars will have something wrong with them to cause a legitimate failure. In this case the test itself is completely invalid, yet they go through the motions anyway. It's like giving a pregnancy test to a man because it's hospital policy.


RE: Not as bad as it's being made to sound...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/16/2007 3:44:18 PM , Rating: 1
> "It's like giving a pregnancy test to a man because it's hospital policy. "

True enough...but its not like this is a special "screw-you" for owners of a Prius. The State Legislature requires all cars to be tested...the DMV can't override that. All they can do is issue failure waivers...which they're doing for all Prius owners.

I'm sure the Legislature will close the gap soon enough, but with some outdated laws remaining on state books for 100+ years after the fact, is this all really so surprising?


By theapparition on 4/17/2007 7:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but its not like this is a special "screw-you" for owners of a Prius.

Agreed. The last paragraph makes it seem like GA is going out of its way to "tax" Prius owners.


By GoatMonkey on 4/17/2007 8:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
Prius is not a zero emissions vehicle.


Typical
By BMFPitt on 4/16/2007 2:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
So Georgia is making people take a test with a predetermined outcome that they will ignore anyway for a cost of $25 that they make less than a 4% profit on. Or in government terms "That's pretty efficient."




RE: Typical
By Cobra Commander on 4/16/2007 2:38:37 PM , Rating: 1
No, read my post.


RE: Typical
By BMFPitt on 4/16/2007 2:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to have completely missed the point.


RE: Typical
By Cobra Commander on 4/16/2007 3:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
I apparently have.


RE: Typical
By TomZ on 4/16/2007 3:10:53 PM , Rating: 1
Michigan had emissions testing for a few years - completely worthless - and was thankfully revoked.

The problem with most emissions testing programs is that older cars are exempted because the repair costs would be too burdensome on low-income families and individuals. So you end up testing mostly newer cars that have few problems. The only people who seem to benefit are the testing shops and testing equipment suppliers.

Georgia should get a clue and cancel their program.


RE: Typical
By Goty on 4/16/2007 3:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't a state-wide program. Many counties do no require you to have an emissions test done to acquire a license plate.


RE: Typical
By gsellis on 4/16/2007 3:38:28 PM , Rating: 3
Can't. The Federal Gov't is involved and GA has to do it to meet air quality guidelines from the EPA.


RE: Typical
By fic2 on 4/16/2007 6:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree that emissions testing is worthless. I live in Denver and they have been talking about getting rid of emmissions testing for the last few years. I think something like less than 1% fail and like the OP said those usually get exempt because it is too expensive to fix them. In the end a few million people pay $$ to catch maybe a few dozen. And I still see the occasional car belching out a cloud of smoke and nobody doing anything about it.

It is just a jobs program for the testing shops.


RE: Typical
By mxzrider2 on 4/17/2007 12:16:42 AM , Rating: 2
well thankfully emissions here in Colorado are gone. waste of money to find that 96 percent of registered cars are newer than 2000 model year and 98 percent newer than 1990 model year. and they have none or minimal problems.


RE: Typical
By inthell on 4/17/2007 7:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
ya but if we didnt have emissions testing than you would have the one douche bag who is like oh great no more emissions let me gut my catalytic converter and things like that. plus al gore would be pissed ;)


Prius Idle Test Mode
By tom95134 on 4/16/2007 3:29:19 PM , Rating: 5
This is a bogus story. The process for getting the Prius into an emissions test mode has been well published since early 2005.

To get the Prius to maintain a steady idle
(such as for emission testing) follow this procedure:

The following must be done within 60 seconds:

1)Ignition on (not READY mode)
2)Vehicle in Park
3)Step on accelerator pedal twice
4)Place vehicle in Neutral
5)Step on accelerator pedal twice
6)Place vehicle in Park
7)Step on accelerator pedal twice
8)Place car in READY mode.....ICE will run (see rpms below)

A warning icon on the MFD will be displayed.
With less than 60% throttle applied idle is 1500 RPM (approx)
With more than 60% throttle applied idle is 2250 RPM (approx)

Of course it does require that the person be able to read and follow the steps.




RE: Prius Idle Test Mode
By TomZ on 4/16/2007 3:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
The report was relative to MY2004 vehicles. Did they have this procedure?


RE: Prius Idle Test Mode
By Charley38 on 4/16/2007 5:22:47 PM , Rating: 3
I have a 2004 Prius. I tried the previously posted procedure to make the engine idle continuously. It works.

CR


RE: Prius Idle Test Mode
By TomZ on 4/16/2007 6:05:03 PM , Rating: 4
I guess someone should call the GA authorities and tell them the good news. "Problem solved by DT posters!"


RE: Prius Idle Test Mode
By werepossum on 4/16/2007 6:09:01 PM , Rating: 5
1)Ignition on (not READY mode)
2)Vehicle in Park
3)Step on accelerator pedal twice
4)Place vehicle in Neutral
5)Step on accelerator pedal twice
6)Place vehicle in Park
7)Step on accelerator pedal twice
8)Place car in READY mode.....ICE will run (see rpms below)

And presto! You're in Godmode with full fuel and ammo.


Why isn't anyone hacking the system?
By Flunk on 4/16/2007 3:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
If I lived in Georgia and owned a Prius I would be looking into hacking the onboard computer into forceing an idle, just for the test since there is absolutely no rule requiring that cars be 100% stock (could you imagine if there was?). That would show them.

There is actually a fair amount of people hacking the computer systems on cars. If you want details I suggest you google it.




RE: Why isn't anyone hacking the system?
By TomZ on 4/16/2007 3:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
It shouldn't be an end-user problem to solve. Georgia's testing makes an invalid assumption that all cars have the ability to idle. They have to accomodate the Prius in their testing methodology, or else exempt it. It's really that simple.


RE: Why isn't anyone hacking the system?
By SigmaHyperion on 4/16/2007 4:44:14 PM , Rating: 3
The state does accomodate them in their testing methodology.

When you fail the test -- actually you don't "fail" the test, you just are "unable to complete" (which is notably different than a 'fail') and gives you a code. You then take that sheet of paper to an office, or make a phone call with that code, and they send you your sticker in the mail.

The methodology works just fine. The consumer just has one added step of a phone call to make. There's nothing that says the methodology between 2 cars must be identical. In fact, it's not identical. Older cars are ran different than newer cars, which are ran different than brand-new CAN-bus cars. There's always different methodologies, this is just a different one for Hybrids that involves an incomplete test and a phone call.

The owners contention isn't that the methodology is faulted. It's why should they have to pay $25 for a test that they can't really do anyhow. It's like forcing illiterate kids to take the SAT, it's just kind of a waste.


RE: Why isn't anyone hacking the system?
By TomZ on 4/16/2007 6:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
I prefer the analogy another poster here made - about as sensible as giving a man a pregnancy test.


By LIGHTNIN on 4/16/2007 8:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well I might destroyed for this but a small family car such a diesel peugeot 207 or Renault Clio will get much better milage and will cost less in every way compared to a Prius. Since all Prius in Ireland and UK are shipped from the Japan and if you consider the cost in fuel to ship them from the other side of the world then a small/supermini from Europe seems like a better choice.That said all the celebs mightn`t be so happy turning up at a Hollywood premier in a French/German Supermini!


Just turn the heater on during the test
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 4/17/2007 11:26:55 AM , Rating: 2
Or the A/C. This will keep the motor in idle to finish the test.

In any event, it doesn't "fail" the test, as the headline teases, the test equipment was not made for this eventuality. So the test equipment fails to test PZEV vehcles. BFD. Next!




RE: Just turn the heater on during the test
By sdchurch on 4/17/2007 5:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
Why do people keep going after a working solution has been given? There is a way and it was spelled out step-by-step near the middle of this section.

Prius Idle Test Mode
By tom95134 on 4/16/07, Rating: 5
By tom95134 on 4/16/2007 3:29:19 PM , Rating: 5
This is a bogus story. The process for getting the Prius into an emissions test mode has been well published since early 2005.

To get the Prius to maintain a steady idle
(such as for emission testing) follow this procedure:

The following must be done within 60 seconds:

1)Ignition on (not READY mode)
2)Vehicle in Park
3)Step on accelerator pedal twice
4)Place vehicle in Neutral
5)Step on accelerator pedal twice
6)Place vehicle in Park
7)Step on accelerator pedal twice
8)Place car in READY mode.....ICE will run (see rpms below)

A warning icon on the MFD will be displayed.
With less than 60% throttle applied idle is 1500 RPM (approx)
With more than 60% throttle applied idle is 2250 RPM (approx)

Of course it does require that the person be able to read and follow the steps.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 4/18/2007 7:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
Being a Hybrid owner, I'll opt for just turning the fr#gg*n heater on.


Hehe
By Mclendo06 on 4/17/2007 2:40:26 AM , Rating: 2
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.




RE: Hehe
By bubbacub616 on 4/17/2007 8:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
thats great!


Misleading headline
By mkaresh on 4/16/2007 10:18:27 PM , Rating: 3
The headline should instead read:

"Georgia emissions test regulations fail to accomodate Prius."




surely
By otispunkmeyer on 4/17/2007 3:46:16 AM , Rating: 2
the prius can be made to run idle with its engine on, surely this can be done via tinkering with the ECU?

on a side not, a lexus RX400h passed by my house the otherday while i was outside. its surreal...didnt make a sound as it moved around.

then the big V6 kicks in an undoes all that electric motor green work




The real emissions issue
By hergieburbur on 4/20/2007 3:48:21 AM , Rating: 2
The way I see it, the most ironic thing about the whole car emissions issue is that most commercial vehicles such as Semis and Dump and such, are generally not required to adhere to similar standards. At least not in PA. Yes, there are a lot less of them on the road, but they put out a lot more harmful emissions than any other class of vehicle. Pay attention to all the Semis next time you are on an interstate, and then wonder why we have to pay for the test...




Honda
By Domicinator on 4/16/2007 11:22:02 PM , Rating: 1
I drive a Honda Civic Hybrid, and I bet it would have the same problem at the emissions test. When you come to a stop, the engine literally shuts off. However if you put the car in park, the engine turns back on again. I wonder if the Prius does that, because if it does, I would hope they would have thought to try that.

BTW, for anyone who's interested, though the Prius is the most well known hybrid out there, the Civic hybrid has supposedly had a lot less problems than the Prius. But the Prius gets a little better city mileage than the Civic.




who gives a toss?
By bubbacub616 on 4/17/2007 4:23:42 AM , Rating: 1
we all know hybrids are bloody awful cars to drive!




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki