http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/31/business/31auto.html?ex=1108530000&en=07dd09683c41a845&ei=5070&pagewanted=all

ANN ARBOR, Mich., Jan. 30 - The Environmental Protection Agency has developed a prototype diesel engine that meets tough new emissions standards to be phased in over the next few years in the United States. On Friday, the Ford Motor Company said the technology was promising enough that it had reached agreement with the agency to try to develop it for use in its cars and trucks.

At a news conference at an E.P.A. research installation here, Gerhard Schmidt, Ford's vice president for research and advanced engineering, said, "We don't want to give the impression today that everything's solved and next year you will see several hundred thousand light-duty diesel vehicles on the road, but this is already a great start and has great promise."

Ford executives declined to discuss details of the agreement, saying only that the company would start trying to develop the E.P.A.'s approach for commercial use. The federal agency announced a similar agreement last year with International Truck and Engine for diesel engines in larger commercial trucks.

If the technology can be manufactured affordably and proves to be commercially viable, it would be an impressive achievement for the E.P.A. The agency has become more active in the last dozen years in developing technologies as well as writing regulations. Millions of vehicles are equipped with diesel engines worldwide, and devising ways to reduce their pollutants has been a focus of corporate research and development abroad.

About half the new cars sold in Europe use diesel fuel. But in the United States, obstacles, including memories of smoke-belching diesel vehicles from the early 1980's, have led automakers to restrict use of diesel fuel mostly to pickups and larger trucks.

Diesel has some favorable attributes. Because it is roughly 30 percent more fuel-efficient than gasoline, diesel-powered cars emit considerably less global-warming gas, and they can allow more travel between fill-ups.

Diesel fuel has given off far higher levels of harmful smog-forming pollutants than gasoline, but the difference has narrowed considerably as technology has improved in recent years. Tough new federal regulations will soon require diesel and gasoline-powered cars to reach the same emissions levels, making it harder for automakers to bring diesel vehicles to the United States.

The chief hurdle for the automakers in the new regulations will be to reach a low level of emissions for one pollutant, nitrogen oxide. Most companies say that filtration or treatment technologies to remove nitrogen oxide will be costly and complex.

The diesel engine developed by the E.P.A. does not require filtration because it uses a combustion temperature that is far lower than usual, preventing the creation of nitrogen oxide.

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

This may be a first: A useful product intentionally designed by the government to be a consumer product.

I have mixed feelings about that. Sometimes folks in gov have a good idea at work and the gov gets the patent, just like many other employers do. I'm generally okay with the gov exploring ideas that directly impact the health, safety and defense of the country.

But developing commercial products? That's infringing a bit on the rpivate sphere, IMO. What do you think?

the private sphere wasn't exactly buying into the idea. They're believe that private business is wrong and this is acheivable. In a way its refreshing that government is putting their money where their mouth is. Actually, I guess thats your money where their mouth is, but they've spent more frivolously haven't they?

Volvo has a small Diesel engine in Europe and Ford owns Volvo. Hmmm.

__________________
Regards

Warren

Currently 1965 220Sb, 2002 FORD Crown Vic Police Interceptor

Had 1965 220SEb, 1967 230S, 280SE 4.5, 300SE (W126), 420SEL

ENTER > = (HP RPN)

Not part of the in-crowd since 1952.

It is great that a company is adopting a well researched engine. Especially since it didn’t directly pay for the r&d. It offers a number of possibilities:

1) a main stay US company offering another diesel – both more fuel efficient than a comparable gasser and will have an aura of being cool because it’s gov endorsed. Plus it is low emissions.

2) Breathing new life into a vehicle’s engine as type as a fashion statement. We all know that diesel is the unsung hero in the auto world and while I don’t know the numbers there is probably over 1000 to 1 gas/diesel cars on the road. The gov sanctifying this engine will encourage folks to beat a path to their Ford dealer.

3) It opens the door to more government r&d in the auto world. Rather than handing down a mandate, gov for once offers a workable platform. This could create quite a stir in academic circles where almost nothing ever makes it out of the lab.

4) It almost guarantees appeal for the young'ns. Creates a better possibility of folks pursuing diesel engines throughout their lives, especially under the auspices of being ecologically friendly and showing progressive thinking.

Last but not least, diesels offer about 30% greater fuel economy. This is something for which we have desperate need. Anything to promote this technology can only help.

I wonder if folks will flock to diesels, find out that they can run on heating oil, and start a unparalleled loss in fuel tax revenue? The other side of this is that for no obvious reason, diesel fuel is now more costly than premium gas fuel. WTF?

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

Has anyone seen any technical information about this engine? I searched over at the EPA site and didn't find anything.

I dont know, but it sounds like it's some low compression engine (lower nitrogen oxide emissions) , that wouldn't bode too well for cold-starting methinks.

__________________
1985 CA 300D Turbo , 213K mi

I think it's GREAT to see the EPA (or ANY government agency, for that matter!) actually offering a viable, well-reserached SOLUTION to a problem, instead of just whining about the problem while creating an endless stream of legislation and paperwork, which is their usual modus operadi.

I'm not holding my breath, but I hope it's a sign of future trends for the EPA, and I hope the arrangement works out successfully and profitably for Ford.

Now they need to start working on a diesel/electic hybrid!......

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic