History of Australian automotive emissions laws

[Resurrection]

Does anybody know the history of this subject? I know ADR27a was introduced in the mid 1970s. And in the last decade Euro II, III and IV have become requirements. But what were the emissions requirements prior to ADR27a? And what about the 80s and 90s?

Thanks in advance.

[Sprint XR8]

Summary of Emission Requirements for New Petrol Passenger Cars In Australia 1972 - 2010
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa.../emission.aspx

[Resurrection]

Originally Posted by CoupeXB

Summary of Emission Requirements for New Petrol Passenger Cars In Australia 1972 - 2010
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa.../emission.aspx

Wow, that was quick! Thanks.

[Gavin Thomas]

This is not a straight forward question because the answers are varied and many....

The ADR rules relate to the requirements of design standards as set by the Australian government - and sometimes were even different between states.
These Australian Design Rules had to be met by all vehicle manufactures to allow the vehicle to be compliant for registration / insurance purposes. So they really relate to saftey standards rather than emmission regulations.

The emmission laws are different again, and have varied over the decades for different states and countries. IE - the state of California had some of the first & strictest emmission laws / compliance from way back in the late 60's / early 70's. Also they had switched to unleaded petrol a very long time before we did in 1986. The euro laws are now a standard set by many developed countries in a group effort to reduce harmfull emmisions that effect the climate and also obviously our health.

I believe Fords first step in controling & reducing emmissions was mid way through the XW series - by deleteing the external crankcase vent tube and running the PCV hose back into the air intake. ( Positive Crankcase Vent / valve ).
This was on the 221 / 188ci 6 cylinder engines. Although i don't think any of the manufactures were required to by law until the start of the 70's. By then the breather for the fuel tank vapours / fumes was required to be directed into the engine intake system as well - via a "charcoal canister", then to be drawn into the engine to be "burnt".

Anyway i'm not sure what the actual ADR codes are for these emmission requirements, or the exact dates - but i believe that the PCV was one of the very first requirments that manufactures had to meet by law ?...

One thing i do know for sure is that the largest amount of "climate changing" pollution is created in the actual making of all new cars - many times more than it will emit though-out it's average life span. (Also more than any old classic has ever spewed out of it's exhaust over it's decades of exsistance / use. )

Anyway, i suppose the main point i am making is that the ADR & Euro emmission rules are two different things as far as the world wide stage is concerned. Also i'm sure some of our well educated & informed fellow members here will be able to shed some more light on the exact rules and relevent years of introduction.

Cheers....

[Gavin Thomas]

There you go - in the time it took me to type my reply XBcoupe has come up with some good info via a handy link.

( Also seems that the latest ADR's are incorperated with the Euro rules as well... I suppose that makes sense in the global effort to reduce emmissions ).

[mik]

if memory serves, the xc falcon/te cortina had the first real pollution crud on them ,6 cyl complete with egr valve (exhaust gas recirculation), from memory they had to make some improvements in the head to stop from losing power , re change from the old log head to the crossflow head, i think they actually gained a tad,
v8`s had the emission carter thermoqaud carburettor, ignition timing altered with anti dieseling solenoid, thats my best recollection.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by mik

emission carter thermoqaud carburettor....

I used to have two of them......to hold my crab pot's down...........

[mik]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

I used to have two of them......to hold my crab pot's down...........

hahhaha , the old thermoqaud not the most loved peice of equiptment , actually i still have one lurking around the shed somewhere, do you want another for the crab pots?, i remember a speed shop owner friend that had one , he could`nt get the bloody thing to run right, he took it off poured a heap of fuel on it and watched it melt into the pavement

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Gavin Thomas

I believe Fords first step in controling & reducing emmissions was mid way through the XW series - by deleteing the external crankcase vent tube and running the PCV hose back into the air intake. ( Positive Crankcase Vent / valve ).

Not sure why they did this in the XWs, the XY, XA and early XB V8s and GTs went back to venting externally. There were NO emmission laws at the time of releasing these models.

1974 XBs were the first to have emission laws imposed on them. Hence 1974 onwards GTs are somewhat less "desireable" than their early counterparts.

[2011G6E]

1976 was the dreaded introduction of ADR27-A.
It hammered fuel economy and destroyed performance. If you want a hint of what it was like, go and find some old Wheels or Motor magazines from before and after 1976, and look in the big listing in the back of all new cars on sale in the country...before that date, they used to always have horsepower figures, after, they wouldn't print power figures at all in the list, because it just looked bad.

Let me tell you, back in the day the first thing you did upon buying a second hand car from the post-ADR27A period was spend a weekend liberally peppering your back yard with the emissions hoses and crap you pulled off before taking it somewhere for a proper tune up.

My Toyota Celica, built in 1982, has the 21R-C engine...2 liter, with the "C" standing for "California spec" emissions controls, in other words, the toughest standard in the world at the time.
I've removed most of it and have a Weber carb off an old pre-emissions-controls 2 liter Escort waiting to go on.
I've weighed all the stuff I've removed from the engine so far (yards of piping, valves, EGR metal piping, EGR valves, a massive metal air cleaner, heating shielding from the exhaust to vent warm air into the air cleaner, vacuum hoses and associated valving and mounts (but not the air pump itself yet as its pulley does double duty as the air con belt tensioner), and a series of piped valves from the firewall which "richen the mixture when driving above 5000 feet altitude...like that'll happen in QLD), and it all weighs around 15kg so far...once the hopeless carby is replaced and the mount I got from a fuel injected 22R for the air con compressor is fitted (doing away with the large air pump), the total should be over 20kg of crap gone from under the bonnet...

[jpd80]

Everyone jumped up and down about EGR or Exhaust gas recirculation but it was used on part throttle
to prevent excess Oxides of Nitrogen forming from the very lean mixtures used to reduce Hydro carbons
and was mostly inactive during full throttle due to the richer mixtures used for full power.

The air cleaners had pick ups off the exhaust manifold to improve drive ability while the engine
was cold and on the choke, once the air cleaner bimetal sensor warmed up the flap switched to cold air.

It was so funny to watch guys pulling hoses off everywhere trying to improve performance,
we went through my XD 5.8 and set every carburettor adjustment to what Ford said in their
thick manual, something like 13 adjustments, the final kick was to adjust the step up rods
another half a turn rich and lighten the secondary opening valve tension a touch and then...
man oh man, did she ever fly after that....

Just after 1986 , New South wales had very strong penalties for people caught deactivating
or removing catalytic converters, it was something like $1,000 fine and $100/day until you
provided an emission compliant car, some people found it cheaper to de-register their car
and reapply for registration with full emission gear at a later date.

[JG34JA]

Great replies so far, learning heaps. It was said that one way past the ADR27A was for the hoses to remain attached, but ball bearings judiciously placed inside them to block and hopefully "stop" them sapping the power. As kids we avoided the ADR27A 202 sixes like the plague. I thought the XC 'cross flow' motor was designed to beat this regulation, and that the 4.0L Hemi six got through with very little change as it was a great design. Love to hear more.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by Gavin Thomas

One thing i do know for sure is that the largest amount of "climate changing" pollution is created in the actual making of all new cars - many times more than it will emit though-out it's average life span. (Also more than any old classic has ever spewed out of it's exhaust over it's decades of exsistance / use. )
.

True, and if you really are 'earth aware' you'd keep the car you bought new until the end of it's life to get maximum value and use out of the entire car. The emissions is an easy target for those wanting to clean up the air. i wonder if California's air is any better today than it was in the 70s?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

True, and if you really are 'earth aware' you'd keep the car you bought new until the end of it's life to get maximum value and use out of the entire car. The emissions is an easy target for those wanting to clean up the air. i wonder if California's air is any better today than it was in the 70s?

It sure is by a long stretch, they had a really bad smog problem there in the late 1960s and early 1970s
but the data on emission reductions suggest that the bulk of it was achieved by pre-1980s emission levels.


I read recently that the carbon foot print for making a Camry in Australia was approximately 8.7 tonnes
but in it's whole life of burning fuel, that amount will barely add up to one tonne of carbon....

Honestly when it comes to cars, so much can be achieved by educating people to drive their cars
more efficiently than trying to legislate for better fuel economy.

The biggest CO2 emitters are power generators and Mining/processing operations for export
so before we get all fired up about the piddling amount of CO2 produced by cars we should look
at how we make power and the income we generate from mining and exports and ask ourselves
how much a carbon tax is really going to cost when US, Japan and China won't take up cap and trade.

Not meaning to get political but we need to fully understand the cost of championing a cause
before committing all the ordinary folks to potential hardship for decades due to false economic logic.

[2011G6E]

Hmm...my little 1957 Morris Minor has been continuously registered since it was built, and used as a family car (usually a second one) by most owners from what I've been able to track down.

My 1982 Toyota Celica has had one previous owner, and is still used as an everyday car by us now.

I wonder how much evil greenhouse gases have been saved by people using these vehicles continuously for a combined total of 83 years of road use instead of owners scrapping them every couple of years and buying brand new cars instead...?

[Bobman]

Australia lags well behind Europe with regards to the Euro laws. They're usually 1 or 2 numbers above here (we only just got to Euro 4).

I've heard that the emissions stuff on new trucks can cause performance issues when cold too.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bobman

Australia lags well behind Europe with regards to the Euro laws. They're usually 1 or 2 numbers above here (we only just got to Euro 4).

I've heard that the emissions stuff on new trucks can cause performance issues when cold too.

Austraila has always lagged the USA and Europe for very good reasons, to allow technology time
to mature and for the costs of compliance equipment to be be amortized by other larger markets.

Euro 3 to Euro 4 was the big leap in emissions reductions while E5 and 6 go further,
they are more like extensions of the regulations in terms of tighter NOX control on diesels
and guaranteeing emission compliance for up to 160,000 km instead of 100,000km.

In our region, a lot of Asian and Indian countries have either adopted Euro 4 or parallel legislation
that achieves similar emission control levels. I would expect that Asia and India will evolve in
terms of emission alignment and progress to "Euro 5 and 6" at a more conservative
pace than Europe or even the USA's EPA reduction strategy, allowing the technology time
to mature and Australia joins China and a lot of Asian countries now adopting Euro 4,
even India's emission laws now reflect similar levels levels to Euro 4.

I would expect than in future that the Asian, India and Australia block would take a unified
progression in adopting tighter emission regulations, even if that means a four year lag to Europe.

[Gavin Thomas]

Originally Posted by Stefan

....Not sure why they did this in the XWs, the XY, XA and early XB V8s and GTs went back to venting externally......

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wrong sorry mate - the Falcon's engines never went back to the old external vent tubes. They deleted them mid way thru XW and went to the PCV system.

The crank case venting tube i'm talking about was the type that you will see on the 60's Falcon 6 cylinders that comes out from the front top left of the engine block and then turns down along the outside of the engine and exits / vents along side the lower sump directly to the atmosphere. The XY & onwards had the vent tube removed and then had the fumes directed back into the air intake via a hose from the top of the rocker cover. ( which has the one way PCV valve in-line on the hose ).

While i'm not 100% sure on the V8 engines, it was / is definately the case with the 6's. And in fact i could never re-call seeing a external crank case vent tube on the Ford V8's from the 70's ? I always remembered the V8's having the PCV hose from the oil filler cap to the air intake at the base of the carby ? ( In any case - as i've just mentioned - i can't remember ever seeing a external vent tube for the V8 as they had on the old 6 cyl's ).

Maybe the early GT V8's were different and never had the PCV valve ? Could of been the case as it was not an ADR enforced regulation until the early / mid 70's.....But, with-out a PCV system - did they run some sort of oil catch can set-up to capture the expelled flammable materials ? If they did vent the crank fumes to the atmosphere it could have been a real fire hazzard with all those fumes, oil residue and un-burn't fuel vapours / blow-by past the rings under the constant high reving race conditions

Cheers guys.

[aussiblue]

The history of the PCV system is interesting and its pre-ADR implementation in Australia may have been as much about increasing engine longevity by more effectively preventing a build up of destructive blow by gases in the oil and crankcase than as a voluntary pollution reduction device.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crankca...ilation_system

From the late 19th century through the early 20th, blow-by gases were allowed to find their own way out past seals and gaskets. It was considered normal for oil to be found both inside and outside an engine, and for oil to drip to the ground in small but constant amounts. This had also been true for steam engines and steam locomotives in the decades before. Even bearing and valve designs generally made little to no provision for keeping oil or waste gases contained. Sealed bearings and valve covers were for special applications only. For example, oilers kept the locomotives and rolling stock of railroads continually supplied with oil both inside and out. Although it was applied sparingly to oil cups and oil holes, it was not expected to stay hermetically sealed off from dripping and leaking to the wider environment. Gaskets and shaft seals were meant to limit loss of oil, but they were usually not expected to entirely prevent it. On internal combustion engines, the hydrocarbon-rich blow-by gases would diffuse through the oil in the seals and gaskets into the atmosphere. Engines with high amounts of blow-by (e.g., worn out ones, or ones not well built to begin with) would leak profusely via those routes.

From 1928 until the early 1960s, car and truck petrol engines vented combustion gases directly to the atmosphere through a simple vent tube. Frequently, this consisted of a pipe (the road draft tube) that extended out from the crankcase down to the bottom of the engine compartment. The bottom of the pipe was open to the atmosphere, and was placed such that when the car was in motion a slight vacuum was obtained, helping to extract combustion gases as they collected in the crankcase. The vacuum was satisfied by a vent, typically in the valve or valley cover, creating a constant flow of clean air through the engine's air volume. The oil mist would also be discharged, resulting in an oily film being deposited in the middle of each travel lane on heavily-used roads. The system was not positive though, as gases could travel both ways, or not move at all, depending on conditions. (Most modern diesel engines still use this type of system to dispose of crankcase fumes.)

During World War II, however, a different type of crankcase ventilation had to be invented to allow tank engines to operate during deep fording operations, where the normal draft tube ventilator would have allowed water to enter the crankcase and destroy the engine. The PCV system and its control valve were invented to meet this need, but no need for it on automobiles was recognized.

In 1952, Professor A. J. Haagen-Smit, of the California Institute of Technology at Pasadena, postulated that unburned hydrocarbons were a primary constituent of smog, and that gasoline powered automobiles were a major source of those hydrocarbons. After some investigation by the GM Research Laboratory (led by Dr. Lloyd L. Withrow), it was discovered in 1958 that the road draft tube was a major source, about half, of the hydrocarbons coming from the automobile. GM's Cadillac Division, which had built many tanks during WWII, recognized that the simple PCV valve could be used to become the first major reduction in automotive hydrocarbon emissions. After confirming the PCV valves' effectiveness at hydrocarbon reduction, GM offered the PCV solution to the entire U.S. automobile industry, royalty free, through its trade association, the Automobile Manufacturers Association (AMA). In the absence of any legislated requirement, the AMA members agreed to put it on all California cars voluntarily in 1961, with national application following one year later, in 1962.

In 1967, several years after its introduction into production, the PCV system became the subject of a U.S. federal grand jury investigation, when it was alleged by some industry critics that the AMA was conspiring to keep several such smog reduction devices on the shelf to delay further smog control. After eighteen months of investigation by U.S. Attorney Samuel Flatow, the grand jury returned a "no-bill" decision, clearing the AMA, but resulting in a "Consent Decree" that all U.S. automobile companies agreed not to work jointly on smog control activities for a period of ten years.

In the decades since, the legislation and regulation around emissions has tightened substantially, and the emissions of cars and light trucks have decreased substantially. Today's petrol engines continue to use PCV systems in addition to many other emissions control measures, many of which reduce toxic exhaust emissions by relying on sensors (to collect status information for computer input), engine control units (for information processing), and actuators (to translate computer output to the changing of conditions).

[aussiblue]

Also see http://autospeed.com/cms/title_Emiss...7/article.html

ADR 27A requires that each car built from July 1st, 1976 be fitted with a positive crankcase ventilation system, an evaporative emission control system and an exhaust gas recirculation system.

[jpd80]

PCV was used on early Cleveland and Windsor but was restricted to a vent cap and PCV until closed crankcase ventilation was adopted as part of the 1975 ADR27 emissions move and was combined with evaporative emissions from fuel tanks wher a charcoal canister was employed to hold an release hydrocarbons via vacuum hose into the engine when running at speed.

[aussiblue]

Note: while some claim the PCV system was adopted in Oz in 1963 (eg http://www.used-car.com.au/history-of-cars/engines.html) my late 1963 EH panel van originally just had the road draft tube. I have since fitted what in 1963 was apparently an optional PCV system as as the extra, albeit plugged, holes in the rocker cover and intake manifold were in place on the 149 red motor to have a PVC system fitted. I fitted it not just to be green but mainly to stop the build up of destructive chemicals and sludge in the oil from blow by gases for a car that has low mileage and still only occasionally used.

[Buntz]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Everyone jumped up and down about EGR or Exhaust gas recirculation but it was used on part throttle
to prevent excess Oxides of Nitrogen forming from the very lean mixtures used to reduce Hydro carbons
and was mostly inactive during full throttle due to the richer mixtures used for full power.

The air cleaners had pick ups off the exhaust manifold to improve drive ability while the engine
was cold and on the choke, once the air cleaner bimetal sensor warmed up the flap switched to cold air.

It was so funny to watch guys pulling hoses off everywhere trying to improve performance,
we went through my XD 5.8 and set every carburettor adjustment to what Ford said in their
thick manual, something like 13 adjustments, the final kick was to adjust the step up rods
another half a turn rich and lighten the secondary opening valve tension a touch and then...
man oh man, did she ever fly after that....

Just after 1986 , New South wales had very strong penalties for people caught deactivating
or removing catalytic converters, it was something like $1,000 fine and $100/day until you
provided an emission compliant car, some people found it cheaper to de-register their car
and reapply for registration with full emission gear at a later date.

I read an article about Ford's new green initiative in their factories. One in particular in the US where they are installing more renewable energy at the plant like solar and wind, and recycling their own water and stuff.

In the long run it pays for itself. Then it starts showing on the figures of reducing costs. Hopefully with Ford generating huge profits now, they can start rolling out renewable energy on all their plants.

[last fairlane]

My 66 390 Thunderbird has a PCV fitted
its a California car
thanks John

[jpd80]

Actually , the First Edition ADRs were distributed for discussion purposes. However, they were not adopted as a legally binding set of standards under either national or state/territory law. The Second Edition ADRs came into power in 1969 and after 1988 were progressively replaced by Third Edition ADRs.

I'd say by that, PCV before ADR26 in 1971 was a voluntary industry standard,
By 1968, most manufacturers had PCVs in place but breathing through the oil filler caps
and all had closed PCVs and Carbon Monoxide Idle control settings by 1971.

[Road_Warrior]

I bought an ex-US 302 Windsor out of a 1982 Mustang once. Needed a full rebuild, but the motor was almost unrecognisable with all the emissions control crap all over it. This thing had the works, thermactor pump, little black hoses everywhere and EGR valves and solenoids in the system. It all went in the bin.

[castellan]

HR was the first to get rid of the blow by pipe and the XT falcon 6 had no blow by pipe it had a breather with a hose going to the air filter that was a two in one job it sucked and blowed then the XY - XA had a holden look a like job with a rear of the rocker cover to the intake manifold and a breather vent at the front then the XB got the same thing as the late 1974 HQ 1975 HJ thing totally blocking all blow by fumes back into the motor.

The V8 falcons falcons all had the intake manifold sucking fumes from the driver side rear rocker cover then the XB got the total system thing.

The main thing with the XC ADR27A was the cam timing was retarded killing power.

F100 and transit van did not get ADR27A in July 1976.

[2011G6E]

Transit and F100 had no anti-pollution? That's because they were classed as "commercial vehicles"...and as such they didn't have to meet the same regs as a passenger car.
Hell, I remember when I started driving in 1982 having plans to build a HQ ute, partly because the registration was heaps cheaper than a car, being a "commercial vehicle".

[CAMS290]

IIRC New south Wales had even more strict control over vehicle emissions than the rest of Australia, somewhere around the early to mid 80's Commodores and Falcons that went to NSW where different.