|
Maximum speed 105 Km/H on old used trucks?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TO guy |
http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bi...ssion2/b115.pdf
check that out. I can't believe this. From my interpretation they are trying to enforce that all vehicles made after 1995, when sold as a used vehicle, have a device that ensures that they cannot be driven above 105 Km/H.
Wow. Passed second reading... looks like it will be enacted. Who is this Ms Scott?
Laurie Scott
Haliburton--Victoria--Brock
Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario |
|
|
| Platipus |
for vehicles exceeding 11,000 kgs i.e. Trucks
I fail to see how reducing truck speeds will Improve Air Quality. so know we can slow the trucks down on the hills, thus backing up the entire Highway and Increase car emissions.. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by TO guy
http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bi...ssion2/b115.pdf
check that out. I can't believe this. From my interpretation they are trying to enforce that all vehicles made after 1995, when sold as a used vehicle, have a device that ensures that they cannot be driven above 105 Km/H.
|
You missed the most important part
S. 4(c) has a total gross weight of greater than 11,000kilograms.
This would pertain only to heavy commercial vehicles, perticularly Highway tractors. Most US jurisdictions have such legislation already and most large transport fleets have been doing this of their own accord for the past 15-20 years (fuel economy reasons). |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Platipus
for vehicles exceeding 11,000 kgs i.e. Trucks
I fail to see how reducing truck speeds will Improve Air Quality. so know we can slow the trucks down on the hills, thus backing up the entire Highway and Increase car emissions.. |
Lower vehical speeds = lower engine speed, and lower fuel consumption/KM, therefore improved air quality. |
|
|
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
You missed the most important part
S. 4(c) has a total gross weight of greater than 11,000kilograms.
|
ahhh yes, just scanned it, makes a bit more sense now. |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
The only significant increase to the air quality we'll ever see is if all diesel trucks are fitted with common-rail injection diesel engines with NOx filters that run on the new low-sulfur diesel.
As it stands now, the sulfur in the diesel fuel that is sold in North America works as a lubricant for these engines, and they are going to have some fun working around that.
Modern diesel tech is so much cleaner than gasoline, and it horrifies me that we aren't using it here. People hate diesels because of these trucks because those engines are smelly, dirty, and sound like a skeleton masturbating in a filing cabinet.
Result from paper towel pressed up against the exhaust of 2 running Mercedes E-Class cars, otherwise identical except for the fact that the black one is diesel and the silver one is gasoline. You can plainly see that with low-sulfur diesel fuel, proper filters and perhaps even urea-injection units installed in the engine (which we likely won't see, as it was a stop-gap measure in Europe), the diesel is immensely cleaner.
Here's what I'm pretty happy about, Mercedes' BLUETEC clean diesel tech. It'll be here soon.
 |
|
|
| adi26 |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
The only significant increase to the air quality we'll ever see is if all diesel trucks are fitted with common-rail injection diesel engines with NOx filters that run on the new low-sulfur diesel.
As it stands now, the sulfur in the diesel fuel that is sold in North America works as a lubricant for these engines, and they are going to have some fun working around that.
Modern diesel tech is so much cleaner than gasoline, and it horrifies me that we aren't using it here. People hate diesels because of these trucks because those engines are smelly, dirty, and sound like a skeleton masturbating in a filing cabinet.
Result from paper towel pressed up against the exhaust of 2 running Mercedes E-Class cars, otherwise identical except for the fact that the black one is diesel and the silver one is gasoline. You can plainly see that with low-sulfur diesel fuel, proper filters and perhaps even urea-injection units installed in the engine (which we likely won't see, as it was a stop-gap measure in Europe), the diesel is immensely cleaner.
Here's what I'm pretty happy about, Mercedes' BLUETEC clean diesel tech. It'll be here soon.
|
OMG Cale...
So you have a fetish for cars....:) |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
Diesels man, diesels.
I would kill for a BMW 535d Touring. |
|
|
| itikia |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
Lower vehical speeds = lower engine speed, and lower fuel consumption/KM, therefore improved air quality. |
The big problem is that as vehicle speed increases (linearly) the drag or frictional forces increase exponentially... |
|
|
| itikia |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
|
This only shows a reduction in particulate matter, or straight carbon emissions at idle, I would assume. I doubt when doing this test did they accelerate both engines. The majority of the particulate matter is emitted from a diesel engine when they are under load / accelerating (ever been behind a bus when it accelerates?). When running at idle they emit very small quantities.
Diesel engines are notorius for their high NOx production and the only way they can reduce this is by using reduction catalytic converters. The only problem is that their tendency to produce large amounts of particulate matter under load tends to reduce the life of the catalytic converters (due to clogging).
Newer diesel engine technology is definitely looking promising, but I would guess that we are many years away from retrofitting all heavy duty vehicle engines with this fancy new technology. |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by itikia
This only shows a reduction in particulate matter, or straight carbon emissions at idle, I would assume. I doubt when doing this test did they accelerate both engines. The majority of the particulate matter is emitted from a diesel engine when they are under load / accelerating (ever been behind a bus when it accelerates?). When running at idle they emit very small quantities. |
That's correct. Idle indeed, but it's still just to give you an idea of the difference between diesel and gas.
| quote: | Originally posted by itikia
Diesel engines are notorius for their high NOx production and the only way they can reduce this is by using reduction catalytic converters. The only problem is that their tendency to produce large amounts of particulate matter under load tends to reduce the life of the catalytic converters (due to clogging). |
True as well, but the lifespan of these filters and catalytic converters can be increased to the life of one used on a gasoline engine through the addition of Mercedes' AdBlue tech, which is just carbamide injection into the exhaust gasses straight from the engine before it hits anywhere else, as in that diagram I posted earlier. BLUETEC will be the clean diesel savior! :haha:
| quote: | Originally posted by itikia
Newer diesel engine technology is definitely looking promising, but I would guess that we are many years away from retrofitting all heavy duty vehicle engines with this fancy new technology. |
It won't happen in heavy commercial vehicles here in North America for a long time, but passenger vehicles sporting this fancypants gear will be here in a year or two, now that we've got low-sulfur diesel coming here by mid '07. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| Old german cars are the smelliest to drive behind of... especially Jettas and Golfs. |
|
|
|
|
