A Vigilante Fighting Engine Exhaust
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
And the answer is usually, "maybe." So many cars are just behind on the maintenance that one expensive checkup is all it takes before they pass and become slightly less noxious on the road.
The biggest, most infuriating thing for me however is professional drivers / truckers that insist upon idling because "WELL the sticker says its CALIFORNIA clean idle certified!" That doesnt mean people wont hate you for filling the streets with diesel fumes while you finish your lunch.
Why would they do that? Isn't that just a waste of fuel? I know some people do that in extremely cold climates because they won't get the engine to start again otherwise, but I would guess unless you're in Alaska that shouldn't be an issue.
Perhaps you are right about Alaska though, much colder there.
Newer vehicles usually only require the OBDII review and they will double check codes haven't been cleared recently and all sensors are in spec. No dyno or tailpipe measurements are required in CA on year 2000 and newer.
This is why smog shops offer $20-$40 for year 2000 and newer and $70+ for 1999 and older. It's more human time intensive to test year 1999 and older.
Post OBDII, codes not recently cleared is also reported by OBDII. It is just software, and the software can pretend what the programmer wants.
So I maintain my answer: always
Then I thought about how much of that junk is making its way into my lungs.
The city of Paris has only recently started to take any action on it. One was to ban trucks of a certain age. But now everyone is requesting waivers because they can't meet deliveries in the city.
With injection engines this simply isn't true any more.
> made a big mistake by adopting diesel
The small injection turbo diesel engines offered much higher efficiency and thus much lower CO2 emissions (~half) compared to contemporary gasoline engines (they still do). Other parts of the emissions profile (e.g. NOx) have almost exclusively to do with how efficient the engine is run, e.g. gas engines that are close to efficiency to diesel engines will produce similar amounts of NOx.
Broadly speaking, as more aspects of the combustion are externally, forcibly controlled, differences between diesel and gas engines become a lot less.
(The average German car has a 1.6 liter three or four cylinder engine doing something like 4.5l/100km ~ 50 mpg; basically no one is driving big cars with six or eight cylinder engines).
As you said, the high efficiency gasoline engines generate more NOx and particulates, but these engines cannot pass a CARB smog test. Most cars have separate US vs EU specs, (or simply aren't available in one market) and the EU specs always have better power and gas milage. For instance, the 1.0L engine in my 2014 Ford Fiesta is rated for 123hp, but the same 1.0L engine in the 2014 EU spec Ford Fiesta gets 140. (EPA vs EU gas milage ratings aren't directly comparable) This is a direct result of the fact that the US version runs at a lower temperature, which necessarily results in lower power and efficiency, but also results in less NOx.
Incidentally, this is a large part of why the US response to the VW emissions scandal was so different than the EU response. The affected VW engines broke EU regulations by a little, but broke CARB regulations by a lot. It's like going 70mph in a 55mph zone vs a 35mph zone.
We had some Dutch friends visiting when the scandal broke. Their BIG concern was the emissions tax they paid to register the car for the road -- whether they would need to pay back-fees, and an increase in tax for future registration.
Gasoline vs diesel feels a bit like fructose syrup vs table sugar, it's pretty clear in both the US and Europe that regulations have not kept up enough of a downward slope on emissions to prevent technological advancement from going into grotesque growths like the SUV instead of cleaning up the exhaust and reducing consumption further.
a) once a few were on the roads, you couldn't see the traffic ahead, unless you were also in an SUV which then allowed you to see through the front and rear windshield of the SUV ahead, and
b) stupid airbag regulations (you couldn't disable the passenger side airbag) meant that mothers couldn't put an infant in the front seat, because if the airbag went off it could crush the baby. Thus SUVs became more popular for use by mothers with children.
Personally, I don't believe my life is quite worth the money I'd have saved by driving a small sedan instead of the larger vehicle I drive.
(If it were, then I daresay my budget would be severely lopsided. Seriously; what kind of idiot would I have to be to spend more than 70% of my net income to car-related expenses?)
The semi-worst-case planning delusion is why we have convoys of 2.5 tonne SUVs doing the school run with two kids each. There doesn't seem to be any way to end the constant vehicle size escalation other than through legislation.
SUVs are at the upper limit of what most people are willing to tolerate in terms of unmaneuverability. Too big a vehicle, and you have trouble passing and weaving through the shitty commute traffic.
And if you try, and the vehicle is too slow for what you're doing, you'll probably crash. So it's a balance between being more survivable and being less likely to crash in the first place.
Also, bigger vehicles tend to be more expensive, non-size-related factors held equal.
This reasoning reminds me of the tragedy of the commons.
You bet I need some fancy footwork to avoid being forcibly detoured. And you bet that once I'm in the correct lane, I make a point of emulating the people far in front of me, by almost-tailgating the person directly in front of me.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-looks-to-electric-car...
Your core theoretical claims may be true, but this specific example was not the fact revealed by the emissions scandal. VW had to cheat on NOx emissions numbers to get their diesel engines to match gasoline efficiency and performance.
The SCR system is an after-treatment for exhaust gasses and does not significantly affect fuel economy or performance.
This suggests that prior to Euro 6c, some petrol engines were getting away with higher particulate emissions than would have been allowed for diesels.
0: http://berkeleyearth.org/air-pollution-and-cigarette-equival...
PurpleAir San Francisco: https://www.purpleair.com/map?&zoom=12&lat=37.7&lng=-122.4
It still sucks, but clearly the car manufacturers and law makers did a decent job. I'm so ready for electric cars taking over the cities though.
(I'm never going to win)
> The actual programmer & designer of the software is the supplier of the engine control units (ECUs), in most cases Bosch. The software that they supply actually already contains these cheating routines. These routines are delivered as a part of the software packages, and can be turned on/off with some flags.
It is up to the auto company how to set these flags.
Deisel may be 10x worse than petrol for particulates, but not in other emissions modes: CO2, NOx, SOx, CO, partially combusted hydrocarbons, etc.
You've got to specify details if you care to be accurate.
Second worst is the noise pollution by the constant use of the horn. I swear it should cost money every time someone uses it.
I've been told it's to keep the air conditioning on, but I see people idling with their windows rolled down, in the summer and winter alike. I've been told it's to play the radio, but most of the time I can't hear any radio and in any case, come on- you got a phone right?
There's no good reason that applies in most situations and that makes it even harder to understand. Because it means people just ...don't turn their engine off when they're only stopped for a while. Because. I don't know. It costs action points?
The answer is quite simple: They're bad drivers.
Is it common for the car to need to be running to listen to the radio?
Lead does irreversible brain and organ damage to developing children. Carbon, at worst, may increase your chances for respiratory disease or lung cancer.
There's a lot of evidence that it's not just the current generation, it's the future generations after the soot exposure ends that are harmed if there is in-utero exposure.
A truck carrying concrete has to keep the drum rotating to keep the concrete mixed. To do that it has to have its engine running.
Compare this to a trained law enforcement officer who doesn't personally make money on every fine who will take the whole situation into account, rather than just trying to make a buck.
This make work out fine at this small scale, but we should be cautious when it comes to creating untrained citizen bounty hunters.
It's sad, but I think we need do need this. Too many people are uncaring and ignorant, and will behave badly if they don't think there are consequences. We shouldn't just turn a blind eye to anti-social behavior.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421105344.h...
"The study made on-the-spot measurements of 100,000 vehicles as they drove past air-sampling probes of the main laboratory on College Street, one of Toronto's many major roadways."
Also interesting was their findings of how pollution from roads permeates the surround areas, and the complex ways pollution from multiple roads produces additive exposure.
According to the article, in about 18 months, his 25% cut of the fines amounted to roughly $5,000. Assuming you could hire city employees to do it, you'd probably want to cover their salaries with the fines. Let's say city's overhead from prosecuting these cases is 25% (Judges need to get paid, too), so that's $15,000 in 18 months, or $10,000 in 12, if they spend as much time at it as this guy. He's obviously motivated, and keeping an eye out whenever he's on the streets, so let's assume a full timer can only manage about 10x as much vigilant time as him. That's $100,000/yr. Assuming you want to cover both salary and benefits, that might not be enough in NYC.
And, assuming the program were at all successful, then you'd expect revenues from it to drop rapidly as every commercial operator in the city starts warning their employees.
Outsourcing law enforcement has its own negative externalities. Do you want to live in a society where you have to worry that any minor violation of law will be reported by whoever sees it? Sounds a lot like 1984 to me.
In every car with stop-start I've ever driven, the stop-start system automatically disables if there is any question about the health of the battery (low state of charge, etc), if the vehicle is stopped on a steep incline, if the air conditioning is on, etc.
Besides, there is also a button to disable stop-start if you really had a problem with it.
> Many manufacturers work in solutions to prevent the auto-shutoff if the charge isn't within correct margins, but when it doesn't go according to plan it is quite frustrating.
I know it's not a massive number, but I have personally replaced about five regulators on cars that have had this exact problem now.
Alternatively electrics only really turn all the way on when accelerating so something with at least an electric drive system is going to be the medium range solution.
Plus more than once I've had to watch my rear view mirror for someone about to slide into the back of my car. A second to get out of the way to too long in some situations. Sometimes just being able to quickly move 30cm is enough to prevent major damage and injury.
Note: The system only operates when the engine is warm and the outside temperature is between 0ºC (32ºF) and 30ºC (86ºF)
The person 20 cars behind, who is threatening to waste several more minutes of my time if the two of us don't get through the green light? Unlikely.
For some reason this starting is WAY faster than the I Italia time the car on start. I’m guessing firmware loading more than engine starting reasons.
One concern I have is my wife's subaru has an I mode and an S mode. I mode is supposed to be the fuel efficient mode, yet I have never gotten better mileage in I than S. It feels to me this mode must have something to do with smog/emissions rather than fuel economy.
Where I live in CA, people object to diesel idling more due to noise than anything else.
How does that system work for honking between intersections?
https://radiichina.com/beijing-installs-car-horn-detectors-t...
https://www.shine.cn/archive/district/jing-an/Crackdown-on-h...
A whole pilot program about pedestrian safety improvements in Downtown Brooklyn, including lots of comments about accommodation for some of the unusual habits pedestrians in the city tend to have.
In most _US_ cities, perhaps?
(I actually have more experience with Canada, but point taken.)
In -20 degree weather you won't accomplish much idling and should purchase an engine block heater if concerned.
Interesting article confirming what I am saying:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/29/the-b...
Again, twenty years of turning the car on, going inside for 15 mins, and coming out and sliding into a warm car.
I'm not anywhere near knowledgeable enough to explain the details. I am fairly certain however that I was not hallucinating this throughout my entire childhood and young adult years.
You can wipe condensation off, but I've always found it has a tendency to reappear quickly. Perhaps I'm wiping wrongly, but the only solution I ever found to work reliably is to leave the aircon and windscreen heater running until the inside of the windscreen has warmed enough to prevent immediate reoccurrence.
That's meant idling the engine in every car I've owned. Cabin heating never seems to run at full blast unless the engine is powering it...
No. The engine, and thus the water, will heat faster under a driving load.
It's absolute hell on the engine though. Don't do this with vehicles that you are responsible for. This is mostly only applicable for leased vehicles.
Most modern cars are a lot more tolerant thanks to advancements in oil technology. But it is to a greater or lesser extent better to warm your car up, even if it's not immediately / apparently necessary to you.
It's a different story if you're pulling a heavy load and can't do anything about it. Then letting her warm up makes some sense. Most people don't do that.
The benefits to slow driving is that it also brings the drivetrain up to operating temps as well - it's no good if the engine's at a good oil temperature but the differential and gearbox is still icy. But even letting the car idle for 10-20 seconds so it can push oil around the block, fill the galleries and start filling the lifters/head will help extend the lifespan of an engine, and then combined with a slow initial drive to allow everything to come up to temperature you should be able to give the car a bit more life.
Modern cars, to a greater or lesser extent, aren't too bad with running on fresh startup due to modern oil technologies.
BUT. This is not a universal case. Large diesels like to idle up before operating. Performance cars (especially turbocharged cars) will live longer if you allow the fluids to warm up correctly. My race car will absolutely shit the bed if you don't warm it up before operating.
And to be fair, as far as mechanical sympathy goes, it always pays to warm up your car. It'll be the difference between the car going 100,000miles or 150,000 miles in a lot of cases.
Unless you've got a booming system with several large subwoofers, you aren't going to excessively drain your battery by listening to the radio with the ignition in the accessory position.
For A/C, take the kids inside. For dogs, park in shade and get an accessory window fan. On all but the hottest days (L.A., Phoenix, and similar places excepted) they'll be quite comfortable.
I leave my dogs in the car all the time. They're in the shade with great ventilation. They're unstressed and content in a space they consider home.
People freak out when a dog is contentedly sitting in a car on a 60F day. Don't be one of those people.
However, many vehicles are such configured that in order to have any amount of power available, you need to also power up the daylight running lights, fuel pump, internal computer and other consumers that quickly add up and can indeed drain a battery in a few hours. There needs to be more awareness from the car builders about the need for an eco, long lasting ignition option that you can safely use without risking battery discharge.
On almost all cars the aircon compressor is driven by the engine, not an electric motor, so the motor needs to be running to cool the air.
The fan that blows the air through the vents is electric, but the air coming out will only be ambient temperature if the motor isn't running.
I wish we could go past idling and start mandating some serious emissions controls, especially on diesel truck and heavy equipment engines in urban areas, but also on all the rest of the emitters.
Every time I see one, I just want to drop a softball-sized lump of silly-putty down there.
The goal of protecting the environment is so that it can better serve us in the future. The environment is not an end in itself. Idling regulations are far too great of an inconvenience compared to the tiny benefit. I hope this war on cars is just a fad.
That's weird. Why not just go inside to eat?
As for the dogs, I'm sure the judges are happy to make exceptions for exceptional circumstances. It sounds like the law is targeted at the largest groups of offenders: commercial vehicles idling unnecessarily, and parents who (bizarrely, IMO) insist on waiting in a long line of cars to pick up their kid after school.
The alternative is to constantly drive around, which is worse in terns of road safety and emissions.
Have you ever driven in Georgia during, well, basically this exact time of year?
Maybe to you. Most Americans disagree: http://www.michaelpnelson.com/Publications_files/Bruskotter%...
81% believe nature has intrinsic value.