Focus PZEV

[Catalepsy]

Interesting write up about good old Focus.

 

http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/articles/8793647.html

 

...California Air Resources Board noted that not all hybrids meet the PZEV standards while some nonhybrids, such as the Focus, are cleaner....Grilling one hamburger emits more hydrocarbon emissions than a Focus PZEV would on a three-hour drive (about 180 miles)....

[Arniect]

Ford should be proud of the PZEV vehicles being produced. For some reason they are a huge secret.

 

Special badges and even some special paint schemes would seem to be a good idea to promote them. We all know the reason for the success of the Prius: "look at me I am a greenie"

 

For a gear head, green does not mean a lot. For a lot of people especially in the liberal states Being badged as Green is a good thing. The louder the badging the better as far as that type is concerned.

 

Kinda like the Roush 'outlaw" package on the Mustang, only for greenies.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

There was a period a few years ago where you could get a PZEV Focus, and it had the 2.3L engine paired with an automatic transmission. IT had more HP and torque then the regular Focus autos and was a nicer performer all around. You could only get it in the 5 CARB states that existed at the time. ITs a shame that they didn't offer it in all 50 states with an option for the ST suspension improvements.

 

Now the PZEV is down to the 2.0L engine, but still performs well.

[Mustang_Marty]

...California Air Resources Board noted that not all hybrids meet the PZEV standards while some nonhybrids, such as the Focus, are cleaner....Grilling one hamburger emits more hydrocarbon emissions than a Focus PZEV would on a three-hour drive (about 180 miles)....

 

Can I swap my carbon footpint for BigMacs?

[RichardJensen]

Grilling one hamburger emits more hydrocarbon emissions than a Focus PZEV would on a three-hour drive (about 180 miles)

 

Coming next: An exposé about Burger King and air pollution.

 

Reality is for all the expensive bits bolted onto a car to reduce its pollution, there are virtually no limits on this kind of pollution.

 

No wonder they keep tightening the screws on cars, but the air don't get any cleaner out in LA.

[jpd80]

Coming next: An exposé about Burger King and air pollution.

 

Mmmmmmmmmm, Hot Fat!

 

[one2gamble]

Coming next: An exposé about Burger King and air pollution.

 

Reality is for all the expensive bits bolted onto a car to reduce its pollution, there are virtually no limits on this kind of pollution.

 

No wonder they keep tightening the screws on cars, but the air don't get any cleaner out in LA.

 

The cleanest the air ever gets over LA is when the airlines are grounded

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Its sad really, the jets burn what is essentially keroseen and are only have their engines running a fraction of the time that they are there. Also, given how efficiently the combustion takes place in a jet engine, its hard to believe that there is much in the way of active pollutants left in the exhaust stream save for fully combusted fuel and its base byproducts.

 

If you don't think that jet engines have come a long way, just compare the exhaust soot in an older 737 (the -100 -200 s with the early JT8s the long skinny jet engines) compared with the 777 which has modern ultra high bypass turbofans. Even though the 777 has roughly 8 times the total thrust available from its engines, the exhaust plume is visibly cleaner (and is also measurably cleaner).

 

Trust me when I say this, 9-11 and the follow on oil price escalation has done more to modernize and clean up the US airline fleet than any government program ever would have.

[Blueblood]

The clearest I've ever seen it here in L.A. was 3 days after 9-11 when all the planes were still grounded, I was walking down the street in L.A. and I saw the mountains, normally you can't even see them, and they looked like they were a mile away, amazingly clear. It was pretty obvious it was because all the planes weren't pumping tons of crap into the air..

[RichardJensen]

The clearest I've ever seen it here in L.A. was 3 days after 9-11 when all the planes were still grounded, I was walking down the street in L.A. and I saw the mountains, normally you can't even see them, and they looked like they were a mile away, amazingly clear. It was pretty obvious it was because all the planes weren't pumping tons of crap into the air..

There is a real irony in the extent to which CARB has regulated automobile exhaust, and the lack of significant improvement in air quality in certain California cities.

 

When the fleet goes Tier 2 Bin 3/SULEV II, cars will be emitting exhaust -cleaner- than the air in most cities, and yet air quality will not improve substantially.

 

So what will CARB do?

 

Attempt to regulate -more- automobile emissions.

 

You ask me (and of course, you didn't), CARB should be lobbying to regulate -more- sources of -local- pollution (e.g. restaurants, farms, power plants, and yes, even airplanes) instead of trying for some pie-in-the-sky CO2 regulation.

 

Thing is, all these enviro-nuts are too young to remember LA without smog. Heck most people period don't remember it. The only insight I've got is from Raymond Chandler novels.

 

Therefore, elimination of smog is a non-starter. They'd rather try and fix the whole planet, as if what CARB does, in the end, is anything other than an empty gesture.

 

No sir, we are not going to have practical regulation, we're going to have symbolic regulation, and hang the expense involved!

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Why would they regulate local sources? And sacrifice their own economy? Heaven forbid it! They'll push the cost onto a large enough group of people in an attempt to hide their protection of their local industry. If they decided to require every resteraunt to put an air cleaner set on their grill exhaust vent; If they required their own heavy lawn equipment to meet the same emissions standards as the cars; If they required every source of local air polution to clean it up; how much would that cost the local LA economy? How much business would be driven away? How much would just move to the outskirts of town and pollute just as much as they did before?

 

As for the airline shutdown post 9/11, how many cars weren't stuck in traffic jams trying to get to and from the airport? How many taxis were sitting, idling waiting for fares? How much ground equipment that is classified as off-road construction equipment and not required to meet emissions regs was running to service the constant stream of incoming and outgoing aircraft? How many restaraunts were grilling away in the concourses to supply the constant stream of travellers going to and fro?

 

When an airport shuts down, there are a whole h*ll of a lot of pollution sources that curtail their operations as their services just aren't needed as much. It seems simple to blame the aircraft as they have the largest engines out there, but, in reality, their engines run for about 5% of the time that they are actually at the airport. For most of that time, they are just barely running, using just enough fuel to keep the compression cycle going.

 

How do I know this? I'm an airline brat. My dad worked for a major US carrier for 33 years. I grew up living near an airport, flying all over the place, and having my dad explain how everything there worked. I remember reading maintenance manuals that my dad would bring home to study for his various aircraft maintnenace responsibilities. I used to quiz him on stuff that he was required to memorize for a few tests that he needed to take.

 

If you want to point to a benifit of 9/11 to the environment and local polution levels, you are going to have to dig around and come up with only a few key points.

 

1) Early generation turbojets are almost a thing of the past now. The were inefficient by modern standards (though they blew piston engines away). The Early and mid generation JT8 series that was so very popular (they were attached to almost every 727, early 737, and DC-9, MD-80 and 88 that ever flew) was not especially clean or quiet. IT was reliable, very reliable, but it did produce a noticeable exhaust plume of soot and unburned fuel. Almost all of those aircraft have been put out to pasture. The remaining ones have recieved engine and wing upgrades that have made them more efficient and less polluting. They got those upgrades as a result of economic neccessity following rising post 9/11 operating costs and fuel prices.

 

2) The increased operating costs have led many airlines to discontinue routes that were not profitable. This has resulted in lower proportional flight volumes at many airports.

 

3) Aircraft purchases were even more driven by low opeating costs achieved by increasing efficiency. This has led to Boeing developing the 787 dreamliner and Airbus answering with the currently significantly behind A350.

 

4) Increased operating costs have led to more economical use of ground equipment, more efficient ground equipment being purchased, and less total opeations in and around airports.

 

5) Added time to clear security has resulted in travelers having less time to patronize the regular restaraunts at airports, resulting in less food services activities.