Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« Maine Dairy Switches Fleet to B20 Biodiesel; Largest Private Biodiesel Fleet in New England | Main | DaimlerChrysler and Volkswagen/Audi Launch BLUETEC Initiative »

Print this post

Chevrolet Europe Unwraps its First Diesel Compact Car: 49 MPG Lacetti TCDi

28 November 2006

Lacetti_tcdi_1
Chevrolet Lacetti TCDi diesel.

Chevrolet Europe will introduce its first diesel-engined compact car at this year’s Bologna Motor Show (7-17 December).

Set to go on sale in the first half of 2007, the new Lacetti TCDi comes with an all-new 2.0-liter common rail turbodiesel engine, developing 89 kW (120 hp) at 3,800rpm and 280 Nm (206 lb-ft) of torque at 2,000 rpm.

The new engine features a Bosch-developed 1,600-bar common-rail injection system and a lightweight alloy cylinder head and a balancer shaft help aid refinement and responsiveness.

The TCDi engine accelerates from 0-62 mph in 9.8 seconds and has a top speed of 117 mph, returning a combined fuel economy figure of 4.8 l/100km (49 mpg US) in the Lacetti five-door hatchback and 5.4 l/100km (44 mpg US) in the larger Lacetti Station Wagon.

The Euro-4 compliant unit emits 149 g CO2/km for the five-door hatch and 158g/km for the Wagon.

More than 160,000 of the gasoline version of the Lacetti have been sold across Europe since the model’s introduction in 2003.

November 28, 2006 in Diesel | Permalink | Comments (49) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d834ce8b7e53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chevrolet Europe Unwraps its First Diesel Compact Car: 49 MPG Lacetti TCDi:

Comments

Euro 4 comlaint

can this be sold in the us which has higher emisson standards ?

It does not appear as if it could with "only" Euro 4 emissions.

Just how did .05g/m NOx for light-duty diesel become the law of the land? So weve succeded in eliminating a viable fuel conserving engine option from the continent, while off-highway and marine diesels are allowed to burn high sulphur fuel, neutralizing any gains made.

Here in America there's a myopic view of tailpipe emissions. Everything but CO2 is demonized when it's arguably the CO2
that's most threatening to the biosphere. It's a sad, stubbornly stupid policy.

Why can't we get these cars in the US again?

Doesn't the Mercedes 3.0 diesel (C,M,R class in the USA) emit 0.06 g/m NOx?
They should allow rural areas (like the southern U.S. where I live) to have a slightly higher NOx limit so that we, who more often than not have to drive 30+ miles one way to get to a decent grocery store (I have to and I'm in the more developed part of central Alabama),can lower our fuel consumption. Hybrids won't do us much good since most of our driving is longer distances.

Here in America there's a myopic view of tailpipe emissions. Everything but CO2 is demonized when it's arguably the CO2 that's most threatening to the biosphere.

People are always going to be more concerned about their lungs than about a distant, slowly-evolving problem which may not even affect them directly. NOx matters because people care about smog - for good reason.

What I don't understand are people who dismiss that as being important.

What I don't understand are people who dismiss that as being important.

So do people in Europe not care about smog?

NOx matters because people care about smog - for good reason.

If smog is the concern, then reducing NOx is not the answer. Reductions in ambient NOx levels has the potential to increase ambient ozone levels (smog) in urban locations.

If smog is the concern, then reducing NOx is not the answer. Reductions in ambient NOx levels has the potential to increase ambient ozone levels (smog) in urban locations.

Not this again...

Right - let's put as much NOx in the air as possible -- then it will eventually be pure!

I hope you see the logical problem with "weekend effect" way of thinking.

Right - let's put as much NOx in the air as possible -- then it will eventually be pure!

I hope you see the logical problem with "weekend effect" way of thinking.

Actually, the logical problem is yours.

The implications of the Weekend Effect are that NOx reductions beyond a certain point will do more harm than good in terms of air quality, ergo the money that would otherwise be spent on that particular pollutant would best go elsewhere (VOCs, or even CO2, if you like).

Point of Diminishing Returns, see?

"Hybrids won't do us much good since most of our driving is longer distances."
Even in Alabama hybrids can certainly attain higher fuel economy with lower emissions than diesels (Prius is also avail. in CRIMSON red).

Actually, the logical problem is yours.

Great retort there. "I know you are..."

The implications of the Weekend Effect are that NOx reductions beyond a certain point will do more harm than good in terms of air quality, ergo the money that would otherwise be spent on that particular pollutant would best go elsewhere (VOCs, or even CO2, if you like).

Uh huh. Where exactly is that "certain point"? Spell it out in detail. What's the precise level?

Point of Diminishing Returns, see?

No, I see you latching onto unproven science, yet don't apply the same standard to your position on climate change. To claim "diminishing returns", you'd need to have a detailed cost/benefit analysis, plus projections in increased emissions due to population and VMT increases. That's all assuming that one can accept that human life has a dollar value.

fyi CO2:
I don't doubt the fuel economy of a Prius (or any hybrid for that matter), I'm just saying that for those of us who live in the boonies (and that's a lot of folks) a small diesel would probably yield better economy because of our need for longer trips and the virtual lack of stop-and-go in most cases. Also, I was on the side giving the thumb to Bama on the 18th. The color crimson has no appeal to me. :)

Have concurrent reductions of VOCs and NOX been effective only on weekdays?

No. Concurrent reductions of VOCs and NOX have been effective at reducing ozone levels on all days of the week, including weekends. Figure 1 shows trends for weekdays and for weekends at three locations in the SoCAB. Both weekdays and weekends show substantial improvements at all three locations. On average however, ozone concentrations have declined slightly more slowly on weekends than on weekdays. The trends for other sites in the SoCAB show similar results.

Are NOX emission reductions only relevant to ozone?

No. Secondary products of NOX emissions contribute to ambient levels of several pollutants in addition to ozone. Some of these pollutants, such as fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitric acid, peroxyacetylnitrates (PANs), and some mutagenic nitro-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are known to be detrimental to human beings, to the environment, or to both.

For some of these compounds, data are scarce and specific changes attributable to reductions in NOX emissions are difficult to identify. However, routine measurements of NO2 show that annual maximum concentrations at 15 sites in the SoCAB were reduced by 32% to 64% from 1980 to 1998. The Basin did not attain the federal annual average air quality standard for NO2 until the mid-1990s. In addition to NO2, particulate nitrate, nitric acid, PAN, and other secondary products of NOX emissions have declined in the last 20 years in the SoCAB.

Because multiple pollutants are affected by NOX reductions, they must be considered as part of an overall strategy for attaining all air quality standards and reducing air toxics exposures. Nevertheless, the remainder of this summary primarily considers the ozone weekend effect and its relevance to NOX reductions as an ozone control measure.

more here:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/weekendeffect/arb-final/web-executive-summary.pdf

I hope you see the logical problem with "weekend effect" way of thinking.

Guess I don’t. NO (the primary form of NOx that comes from diesel engines) destroys ozone. That’s fundamental atmospheric chemistry and is non-controversial.

Actually, in urban locations, increasing NOx emissions would likely lower ozone levels. Problem is, you’d likely increase ozone levels in downwind NOx-limited regimes (rural areas), and be in danger of exceeding the NO2 NAAQS in urban locations.

I’m not advocating increasing NOx emissions, so you’re putting words in my mouth. The logical solution is to reduce VOC and CO emissions relatively much more than NOx, exactly inverse of what the current regs do.

Pizmo:

I don't have exact numbers, no. But the Weekend Effect was acknowledged at the DEER 2005 Conference. (PDF file, see Implications and Questions) This presentation includes future emissions projections. A Google search for DEER 2005 Weekend Effect will bring up some other relevant sites. And there's this article as well.

If this study is correct further NOx reductions won't actually do any good, unless the other smog precursors (like VOCs) can be reduced also.

And my position on climate change angers people on both sides of the political aisle. I'm used to that by now.

“My recommendation is that the 2010 mandatory NOx emissions reductions should be postponed until the inevitable HC emissions reductions bring ozone so far into compliance that the disbenefits of NOx reduction will be unimportant.”


(The Weekend Effect: the science suggests that we are embarking on an expensive policy which will harm the environment; Donald H. Stedman, University of Denver, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry)

Guess I don’t.

Well, then I can't help you. You take your approach to its logical end, then you must keep increasing pollution to get cleaner air, and progressively decreasing pollution makes the air dirtier. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I’m not advocating increasing NOx emissions, so you’re putting words in my mouth. The logical solution is to reduce VOC and CO emissions relatively much more than NOx, exactly inverse of what the current regs do.

If it's so logical, why do CARB and the EPA disagree with you?

Donald H. Stedman

Never heard of him.

You take your approach to its logical end, then you must keep increasing pollution to get cleaner air, and progressively decreasing pollution makes the air dirtier. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I'll try again. Based on these studies, you need to REDUCE VOCs and CO relatively more than you REDUCE NOx. In other words, you can't go willy-nilly reducing these ozone precursor emissions. CARB/EPA apparently lumps all "ozone precursors" into one and expects that arbitrary reductions will equate to less "smog". The mechanisms of ozone formation of VOCs and NOx are COMPLETELY different.

If it's so logical, why do CARB and the EPA disagree with you?

I've been in the environmental field long enough (over 20 years) to know that CARB/EPA frequently come out with illogical regulations.

Never heard of him.

So?

In other words, you can't go willy-nilly reducing these ozone precursor emissions

Their regulations are "willy nilly"? Is that even remotely accurate?

CARB/EPA apparently lumps all "ozone precursors" into one and expects that arbitrary reductions will equate to less "smog". The mechanisms of ozone formation of VOCs and NOx are COMPLETELY different.

They "apparently" do? And are you claiming that EPA and CARB scientists don't understand the mechanisms of ozone formation?

I've been in the environmental field long enough (over 20 years) to know that CARB/EPA frequently come out with illogical regulations.

That's what is known as a glib generality. What we're discussing are policies which have been developed over an extensive period of time by scientists responsible for air quality, particularly putting limits on mobile emissions in order to reduce air pollution. The question comes down to why you and they disagree. What's the reason?

So?

His name means nothing to me, so an attempt to legitimize your argument by appealing to some random PhD doesn't really mean anything.

You keep speaking of logic, but I fail to see the how it is logical that both the EPA and CARB would agree on some aspects of emissions regulations and somehow that is counter to what really works, especially when those regulations are becoming progressively stricter. The inverse is possible to explain (especially at the federal level), but fails to make sense in the direction of more stringency.

Gosh! I get to comment amidst a flame war, so no one will read my acerbic comment except the combatants.

It would seem that GM actually is implementing a 1950s plan that got reworked with the 1970s oil crisis.

Meanwhile, the X Prize remain up for grabs and the plug on the BioSaab is still glued shut. Look at it as a metaphor.

Pizmo is Joseph Willemsen. I believe he has banned under this name. He comes back as Pizmo. I may be wrong, but I relativly sure of this. If not, then Joseph Willemsen has spawned a prodigy. He failed with his Cogo thing, now he is bitter and vehimently anti-diesel. He is also anti-anyone who goes against his reality, regardess of facts they might produce.

Carl, give him no attention.

Their regulations are "willy nilly"? Is that even remotely accurate?

You be the judge - the CARB LEV II and EPA Tier 2 regs mandate nearly an order-of-magnitude reduction in NOx emissions and essentially ZERO reductions in CO emissions (http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html), yet there are still areas of the U.S. that are in "serious" non-attainment with the CO NAAQS (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/mapco.html).

Does that sound like an effective regulation to you?

The question comes down to why you and they disagree. What's the reason?

Well, besides the weekend effect implications, what I learned in grad school.

Here's a quote from a textbook used in one of my grad courses:

"…The atomic oxygen produced by the photolysis of NO2 is very reactive and readily combines with O2 in the air to form O3. In the presence of NO, however, the O3 will immediately decompose, regenerating the nitrogen dioxide. This nitrogen dioxide photolytic cycle is summarized in the following three reactions.


NO2 + hv --> NO + O

O + O2 --> O3

O3 + NO --> NO2 + O2

Hence, while the presence of NO2 is required to form O3, the nitrogen dioxide photolytic cycle by itself does not generate net ozone, and cannot explain ozone accumulation….

...ROG [VOC] reductions (with constant NOx) always lead to a slowing of the ozone production process and lower peak ozone concentrations. NOx reductions (with constant ROG) can lead to a speeding up of the ozone process, and can increase or decrease peak ozone values depending on the ROG-to-NOx ratio.

Thus, whereas ROG control is never detrimental, NOx control can be detrimental, particularly in the central cores of urban areas...."

Source: Air Pollution Control, A Design Approach; Cooper, D. C.; Alley, F. C.; Third Edition, pages 595 and 600

I actually have a great deal of respect for EPA scientists, but the regs aren't written by them - they're written by regulation writers. It's my concern that a lot of politics gets involved at that point and "dilutes" the science.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2014 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group