F U Porsche, Seat, & Skoda

[Econoline]

Just saving you the trouble of starting three more new threads, Dale!

[Guinevere]

Dont forget Bentley, Bugatti, and Lamborgini.

Guess I'm sticking with if I go back to German cars.

[dales]

The auto blogosphere is rife with other stories of automakers beating the system. Both here and in Europe.

Me thinks VW may be the tip of the iceberg.

[oldr_n_wsr]

The auto blogosphere is rife with other stories of automakers beating the system. Both here and in Europe.

Me thinks VW may be the tip of the iceberg.

I've heard that also.
There is a limit on how "clean" an internal combustion engine can be made.

[Crackpot]

Yeah it's called the laws of thermodynamics.

[Guinevere]

The auto blogosphere is rife with other stories of automakers beating the system. Both here and in Europe.

Me thinks VW may be the tip of the iceberg.

I've heard that also.
There is a limit on how "clean" an internal combustion engine can be made.

I'm quite sure all of the engineers and other scientists and analysts at EPA who were involved in setting the emissions standards know this, else, the various pollutant limits would be zero, right?

[oldr_n_wsr]

I'm quite sure all of the engineers and other scientists and analysts at EPA who were involved in setting the emissions standards know this, else, the various pollutant limits would be zero, right?

You give them too much credit. IF they were that good they could/would/might tell the industry "how" to do it. And IF they were that good they could make much more money working for the industry as they would have the solution for new standards.

[Guinevere]

I was agreeing with you -- there is a limit to how "clean" an internal combustion engine can be, and the engineers etc at EPA do know that, which is why the emission standard isn't zero -- it is what is actually possible.

And no need to slam them, lots of people work at the EPA because the kind of work they do matters. It's not always about the dollars.

[Crackpot]

The limits on how clean engines can be is unknown. That they can be "cleaner" is a given the problem is that comes with a cost be it in money or engine power or both. The issue is how you set your goals set them to low you fail to progress set them too high and you kill the industry. Set them just right you drive innovation. You Robles is you don't know where that line is.

[dales]

That time where Soichiro Honda got angry at GM over the dissing of his technological invention and proved them wrong



G Duncan is a former sales rep for America Honda, and he regaled a tale about Old Man Soichiro that even sent the editors at JNC scurrying for the books over who was the Baddest Japanese Car Company Preseident ever.

This part caught the attention of JNC:








In some ways this reminds me of Mr. Honda getting furious when he heard the chairman of GM making this dismissive remark about the CVCC engine (after both Ford and Chrysler had bought the rights to it in the summer of 1973): “Well, I have looked at this design, and while it might work on some little toy motorcycle engine…I see no potential for it on one of our GM car engines.”

When Mr. Honda heard this, he bought a 1973 V8 Impala, air-freighted it to Japan, designed and cast a set of CVCC heads for the Chevy engine, tested it in our own emission labs, then flew the car back to the EPA’s facility in Ann Arbor, and had it tested by them…where it passed the stringent 1975 emissions requirements. You didn’t mess with the old man…

Okay, before we get any further, a little primer. According to intro to the Wikipedia article on the CVCC:


CVCC is a trademark by the Honda Motor Company for an engine with reduced automotive emissions, which stood for "Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion". The first mention of Honda developed CVCC technology was done by Mr. Soichiro Honda on February 12, 1971, at the Federation of Economic Organizations Hall in Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo. Honda's engineers at the time, Mr. Date, conferred with Mr. Yagi and Mr. Nakagawa about the possibility of creating lean combustion via a prechamber, which some diesel engines utilized.The first engine to be installed with the CVCC approach for testing was the single-cylinder, 300 cc Honda EA engine used in the Honda N600 hatchback in January 1970.This technology allowed Honda's cars to meet United States emission standards in the 1970s without a catalytic converter. A type of stratified charge engine, it first appeared on the 1975 ED1 engine. As emission laws advanced and required more stringent admissible levels, Honda abandoned the CVCC method and introduced PGM-FI, or Programmed Fuel Injection on all Honda vehicles. Some vehicles in Japan had a combination of electronically controlled carburetors, called PGM-Carb on specific, transistitional Honda D, E and ZC engines.

The standards were a part of the 1970 Clean Air Act. Honda eventually signed agreements with GM, Ford and Isuzu to provide CVCC technology in due time for those automakers to be in compliance with the act by 1975.

But, how did someone at GM manage to piss off Soichiro-sama? Well, according to G Duncan, the bonehead GM guy said this:

“Well, I have looked at this design, and while it might work on some little toy motorcycle engine… I see no potential for it on one of our GM car engines.”

(Insert snarky comment about buying something eagerly and then badmouthing it behind people's backs)

Well somehow this comment reached back to Soichiro-sama and he sought to prove this GM guy wrong. The plan was simple: grab a car, ship it to Japan, perform the CVCC modifications, do the tests, and prove this guy wrong.

That time where Soichiro Honda got angry at GM over the dissing of his technological invention and proved them wrong

The car Soichiro-sama chose was the 1973 Chevrolet Impala. He had the car air-frieghted back to the Land of the Rising Sun and began to work. CVCC heads was designed and fitted to the engine of this car and then tested in Honda's own labs. Once done, it was shipped back and given to the Enviromenal Protection Agency and they did their own tests. The results?

It passed and met the 1975 requirements.

But there is a bittersweet tale to add to this. When it was time to see if the automakers would be in compliance to the Clean Air Act, only two companies made the cut.

Honda and Mazda.

It took a few more years before the Clean Air Act got off the ground and all the car makers were on board. Of course, there is one thing one can learn from this. Never piss-off Ojīsan. Especially when he has the mechanical chops to prove you wrong.

[Econoline]

Very cool story; I'd never heard it.

[Guinevere]

The lack of belief in their own technological capabilities of the American automakers never ceases to amaze me.

[Crackpot]

It's a small miracle they achieve what they do.

[dales]

The lack of belief in their own technological capabilities of the American automakers never ceases to amaze me.

Not so much their lack of belief in their technical prowess....more at corporate bean-counting that clouds their decisions and results many times in an inferior product.

[Crackpot]

It's not even that really. More semi competent management that can't identify when and where to spend money.

[rubato]

Yeah it's called the laws of thermodynamics.

No, the laws of thermodynamics govern the energy efficiency of a heat engine but I don't believe it limits the degree to which we can control emissions. We can improve emissions by improving fuel feedstocks and catalytic converters among other things. And there are some much more complicated games we can play with hybrids like this:




76 MPGe 300 mile range.

Pretty impressive for a very high-performance car.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

The lack of belief in their own technological capabilities of the American automakers never ceases to amaze me.

Well put.

Honda and Toyota both came out with hybrids at nearly the same time because they focussed their R&D departments on the problems posed by California's very stringent upcoming corporate MPG limits and just got it done.

Once they had shown it was possible all of the rest of the automotive world ( who all would like to sell cars in California ) copied their approaches because the Japanese had cut the balls of their "we just can't do that" excuse.

The US "big three" are known for making excuses rather than making cars. Although I have to say Ford has been very successful in Europe and elsewhere because they have developed platforms which worked in high fuel cost markets.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

You see a lot of Skodas in Paris.

Czech products were considered premium brands in the old iron curtain days because Czech manufacturing was higher quality.

yrs,
rubato