New gas engines rated nearly pollution-free Sentra, Accord use a low-sulfur fuel

USA Today ^ | Sept 6,2002 | James R. Healey

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Gasoline engines now in production can be nearly pollution-free, a California university engineering laboratory reports after three years of study.

The finding suggests Americans can enjoy much cleaner air without the high price of electric cars.

''You won't get to zero (emissions), but you will get pretty close,'' says Joseph Norbeck, director of the facility that performed the challenging tests at the University of California-Riverside.

[doug from upland]

This article might be of interest -- CLICK. The Accord will come with a V-6 or the SULEV 4-cylinder. The 4-cylinder is standard and it looks like it hasn't added to the cost of the vehicle.

[mewzilla]

Thanks for the info. FWIW, I wouldn't mind paying an extra 5 or 6 cents/gal. for cleaner air.

[justshe]

Thanks, doug!

[Redcloak]

"You have to be practical."

Five words guaranteed to vapor-lock an environmentalist's brain.

[VOA]

Environmental Wackos will find some other reason to ban cars

Correction:
The Environmental Wackos will find a way to ban any car you want.
And will confiscate any car you like...so they will be the only ones to drive such cars.

[VOA]

After all, they want more than "clean air". They will still want our cars. Because what
they are really after is our freedom!

If Gore and any of the other envirowackos accidentally spoke the truth, this might slip out:

"First we'll take away their guns.
That'll make it easier to take away their cars."

[Looking for Diogenes]

Good news. It is great when engineering ability trumps the naysayers who promised it couldn't be done.

[snopercod]

While this car may not produce any emissions, it will still produce a profit for the manufacturer. THAT will make it unacceptable to the Greens. Destruction of capitalism is the goal. Eviromentalism is only the tool.

Bravo, but you didn't take your logic far enough.

They hate life itself. [Your life, not theirs]

[wcbtinman]

RE: swirl valve in inlet tract.

They are a little late on this one. Years ago, when Bill Elliot was terrorizing the NASCAR circuit, part of his advantage involved swirl technology involving parts of the entire inlet system. NASCAR eventually outlawed much of the technology from being used, due to the expense of the R&D required by the other teams to catch up.

Elliot (and the other FORD teams that were privey to the idea) was getting more power and significantly greater fuel mileage than his competitors. IIRC his relative, Ernie Elliot was the guy resonsible for this discovery, at least as it related to gasoline engines.

[Old Professer]

NASCAR used to be a "proving ground" for engine/chassis technology, now it is just a choreographed exercise in high-speed "bumper-cars."

[dalereed]

Consider me a nut!

I want the smog back that we had in the L.A. basin in the 40s and 50s!

[doug from upland]

I remember it in the '60s growing up, Dale. I played Little League baseball and after every afternoon practice or game my lungs hurt.

[dalereed]

Doan Spenser also ran a formula 1 in the 70s that he had an advancing cam in plus a whole bunch of other tricks in a 289 Ford that was getting almost 500 horspower.

The auto industry hasn't come up with anything that hasn't been done in racing at least 20 years prior.

[Cyber Liberty]

Hey cool. Unfortunately, I personally negated the advancement today by purchasing a gas lawnmower.

[wcbtinman]

NASCAR is still a proving ground, but since the rules have become very specific in terms of available/allowable design, the focus is shifting to materials technology that will allow greater temperatures (better brakes are one real benefit), increased durability and lighter weight components.

These guys still "innovate", and occasionally the tech inspectors (Gary Nelson is a genius) catch them at it.

[medved]

Near as I can tell, most of the cars which have been sold over the last ten years are nearly pollution free, and pollution has become a sort of a 90/10 proposition, with 10% of the vehicles causing 90% of the pollution. The biggest problem as I see it is the cost of newer cars; the best possible way to get the older cars off the road would be to have newer cars available for $5000 instead of $15000 or $25000. A basic good quality car like the Dodge Neon or Toyota Corolla, freed from government regulations for airbags and other unnecessary expenses, might could be sold for that.

[Long Cut]

Gee, if this can be applied to all types of engines (not just the rice burners), can we get big-block Mustangs and muscle cars back? The greenies used the same "pollution" crap to kill them the same way they're trying to kill SUV's now.

I'd love it if Ford could bring back the 429 SCJ Mustang, Chrysler the Hemi Charger, and Chevy the SS Chevelle.

Who'm I kidding...along with this, they'll MANDATE the use of 1.8 Ltr. ricers and STRICLY LIMIT the available ponies. Hell, Cali's already going in that direction.

I'd have no problem with this if they'd just leave it to the marketplace, but I fear that this is going to be one more thing they force down our throats.

SUV owners should have paid close attention back in the day when really fun, awesome machines were legislated away. The greenies just used the same tactics again. Far from shutting them up, Doug, I fear that this will give them another weapon.

GET 'EM WHILE YOU CAN!!!

[itsahoot]

Is low-sulfur gasoline more expensive to make?

Not my topic, but I will bet it costs more, even if it don't cost more.

[Tony in Hawaii]

I wondering if low-sulfur diesel fuel will be mandated as well. Mercedes-Benz has some truly sweet new diesels (like the S400CDI which is limited by its onboard computer to a top speed of 'only' 155 MPH) but they need low-sulfur diesel fuel.

[another cricket]

but I will bet it costs more, even if it don't cost more.

And they say I am a pessimist! ;^)

To give them the benefit of the doubt it could honestly cost more if they have to remove the sulfur. Then if they have to re-fit the refineries then that will cost as well. I don't suppose it will be much more costly or annoying then the change over from leaded to unleaded.

However it could result in a price drop in the long run if they only had to refine five or six kinds of fuel rather then the 18(?) that they do now.

a.cricket a.cricket