backtop


Print 64 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Mar 12 at 6:24 PM

The goal is to help automakers meet new emissions standards, increase vehicle performance and improve public health

Gasoline is about to get a whole lot cleaner as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) looks to reduce the amount of sulfur in fuel with a new regulation. 
 
According to the EPA, it's finalizing new rules that will cut the amount of sulfur in gasoline by two-thirds starting in 2017. The goal is to help automakers meet new emissions standards, increase vehicle performance and improve public health.
 
A vehicle's catalytic converter primarily controls emissions, but over time, sulfur in fuel can disable auto technologies that work to eliminate emissions. 
 
Sulfur took a massive hit in 2000 when the EPA required the amount be lowered from an average of 300 ppm (parts per million) to 30 ppm. When these new rules are finalized, that number will drop further to 10ppm nationwide by 2017. 
 
The EPA estimates an 80 percent reduction in emissions for cars and trucks from today’s fleet average, and a 60 percent reduction for heavy-duty vehicles.


[SOURCE: Automobile Magazine]

"These standards are a win for public health, a win for our environment, and a win for our pocketbooks," said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. "By working with the auto industry, health groups, and other stakeholders, we're continuing to build on the Obama Administration's broader clean fuels and vehicles efforts that cut carbon pollution, clean the air we breathe, and save families money at the pump."
 
Automakers like the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers -- a trade group representing Detroit’s Big Three automakers, Toyota Motor Corp., Volkswagen AG and others -- have welcomed the rules because it lowers the cost of technologies needed to improve fuel economy and meet emissions standards. The auto industry will spend about $200 billion to double the efficiency of the fleet by 2025 to 54.5 MPG.
 
The program is estimated to cost less than a penny per gallon of gasoline, and about $72 per vehicle. The annual cost of the overall program in 2030 is estimated to be about $1.5 billion. 
 
Putting these new rules in place would also improve public health. According to the EPA, the rules will annually prevent up to 30,000 cases of respiratory ailments in children; 2,200 hospital admissions and asthma-related emergency room visits; 2,000 premature deaths, and 1.4 million lost school days and work days. 
 
Total health-related benefits in 2030 are estimated to be between $8 billion and $23 billion annually.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Dr of crap on 3/5/2014 8:45:21 AM , Rating: 3
Where did you get this? -

"You're supposed to replace the converter every so often anyway"

There is no PM on a converter, or a change interval.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By spamreader1 on 3/5/2014 9:59:12 AM , Rating: 3
No but they do have an average expected life of 100k to 150k miles. Granted they can last longer than that, the only way to tell is to have your emissions tested like many larger counties, and some states require.

The precious metals that are used as catalyzers do eventually break down over time from other contaminants.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Nutzo on 3/5/2014 12:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they do have an average expected life of 100k to 150k miles


Even less if you spend most your time driving in heavy/slow city traffic. If you live in a state that requires smog checks, and you keep your cars for a long time, look at the results over 5-10 years. You will see a gradual increase in the emissions, and eventually you will fail.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Dr of crap on 3/5/2014 3:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
So glad we don't have to get inspected any longer.

And I've not heard of needing a new converter after 100k. Wouldn't that still be under warranty?

Usually they need replacing after they get plugged up, but not failing after so many miles. Not that I couldn't see that happening.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By pandemonium on 3/8/2014 6:19:49 AM , Rating: 2
Do the warranty companies get subsidies from the government for replacing catalytic converters? No.

Warranties don't cover wearable parts. Catalytic converters are wearable.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By donxvi on 3/9/2014 5:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
Catalytic converters are considered emissions components and are covered under your emissions warranty. Depending on model year and emissions certification, that warranty is required to last typically something like 8 years/80,000 miles.
http://www.ford.com/cars/fusion/2013/warranty/emis...


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By FITCamaro on 3/5/2014 1:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
As another already pointed out. Cats don't last forever. You have to replace it eventually just like anything else. Same goes for mufflers.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Reclaimer77 on 3/5/2014 4:09:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You have to replace it eventually just like anything else.


Well WE don't Fit :) Now that our state got rid of that stupid inspection scam BS.

Yeah that's right Mint. One of my cars has a catless exhaust. Suck my sulfur, tool!! MUhahahaha!


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By FITCamaro on 3/6/2014 8:04:18 AM , Rating: 2
Well yeah my first car I ran without cats as well. But I try to comply with stuff when and where I can. Besides your exhaust note is a lot raspier without cats on the car. A good high flow cat ultimately only costs you a few horsepower.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By Reclaimer77 on 3/6/2014 8:23:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Besides your exhaust note is a lot raspier without cats on the car.


Not on a Boxer engine with unequal-length headers. Oh man, it sounds sweet! Not like those fart can muffler Honda ricer kids.

Plus you gotta use an exhaust system designed for catless use. A lot of guys just take their existing one and remove the cat, yeah, that sounds bad.


RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
By EricMartello on 3/9/2014 5:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
Back in the day I had a C5 vette, and I removed the stock cats as part of an exhaust upgrade. It made the car smell like an 80s beater with strong exhaust fumes in the cabin and around pthe car. I Probably would not have minded if it was just a car I took out on the weekends but I used it quite often, so I went with a pair of 3" cats made by magnaflow. The end result was no more exhaust fumes and only a slight reduction in power...I was able to retain about 75% of the gains I saw with no cats.

You can get around the power loss of cats by going with ones that have a higher diameter than your exhaust piping, assuming you can fit them. If you had 2.5 inch piping you could go with 3 inch cats, and if you 3 inch piping you could go with 3.5 to 4 inch cats.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive











botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki