Holden Wont Close Early Over Emissions Standards.

[csv8]

"HOLDEN insists it won’t close its Elizabeth factory early, even if the Federal Government refuses its request for an exemption form new vehicle emissions standards.

The standards, which come into force in November next year, would force Holden to perform expensive upgrades for the engines on 11 models.

Two out of every three Commodores it builds — and the most popular version of the Holden Cruze small car — currently do not meet new emissions standards due in November 2016.

Holden has written to the Federal Government seeking an exemption and News Corp Australia understands authorities are likely to “rubber stamp” its approval.

But the carmaker is in limbo as the Government has been sitting on its application for at least two months.

However, Holden has moved to quash fears that its 1200 workers at Elizabeth could be out of a job 12 months early."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1227583228107

My comment : do we really need these strict emission standards ????

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by csv8

My comment : do we really need these strict emission standards ????

Why not?

[vztrt]

Why would Cruze be a problem? Its a global car, updates for emissions would be managed easily for a large car company. Its not like the car stops getting sold here once production finishes. Commodore has global engines, so again should be easily managed. This would have been thought about during VFII or a side project come the deadline.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by csv8

My comment : do we really need these strict emission standards ????

Have you ever been to a country with no vehicle emissions standards? What sort of value do you place on having clean air?

Euro 5 is one of the factors Ford decided to pull the pin in October 2016. It is a hell of a lot easier for Holden using global engines so I don't know why they (or you) are making a song and dance about it

[simon varley]

yup. they are just trying a get out of jail free card. They can meet emissions, but don't want to have to spend the money for just a year's worth of sales

[csv8]

I was just making a comment about the emission standards..How low can they go??? Realistically, it has to stop somewhere..Australia doesnt have the car density of Europe, America....so, do we really need EU6/7/8 or whatever??????

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Have you ever been to a country with no vehicle emissions standards? What sort of value do you place on having clean air?

Euro 5 is one of the factors Ford decided to pull the pin in October 2016. It is a hell of a lot easier for Holden using global engines so I don't know why they (or you) are making a song and dance about it

Don't think its Holden. Just trying to use their PR machine instead of just engineering. Maybe thats why they'll be doing SFA once commodore is gone.

Originally Posted by csv8

I was just making a comment about the emission standards..How low can they go??? Realistically, it has to stop somewhere..Australia doesnt have the car density of Europe, America....so, do we really need EU6/7/8 or whatever??????

Electric cars once battery tech gets to that 500km a charge, and they become reasonably priced. Most people don't care about the car they drive.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by csv8

I was just making a comment about the emission standards..How low can they go??? Realistically, it has to stop somewhere..Australia doesnt have the car density of Europe, America....so, do we really need EU6/7/8 or whatever??????

It's Euro 5, Euro 6 for Australia is still off in the future somewhere and there is no such thing as Euro 7 yet, even in Europe.

It is diesel engines in passenger cars that will encounter grief with Euro 5 and Euro 6, petrol engines less so (it is all about the output of particulate matter and longevity of pollution control equipment)

[Terror_Tree]

Maybe Holden should have a chat to the blokes from VW

[Trump]

The air in Australia as a whole is visually clean, but with so many cars on the road running on ULP, the air in metro areas is far from clean. The aromatics in ULP are known carcinogens and there is no mass produced catalytic convertor that nullifies the effects of the aromatics; they pass through the exhaust system unhindered.

A small page from the University of Sydney about the composition of ULP:

http://discovery.kcpc.usyd.edu.au/9...._Unleaded.html

[csv8]

The push for ethanol and ethanol is not much better..
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles...l#.Vi8_fGuqFz0

[Eaturbo]

I don't mind if the Government gives them a 12 month reprieve. It's not as if there asking too do it for no good reason. They should however offer Ford the same option if it would allow them to continue for 12 months longer. It's not as if they are asking for 3 years and where not talking 6000 cars a months like it was.

[Ford Falcon XR6]

^
Very good point it also will pay the bills for the 1200+ hard working aussie men and women for 12 months longer. However I highly doubt the government will come to the party.

[mik]

it would be surprising if govco lets it slide ...............unless theres votes in it for them.

[Phildo]

Originally Posted by csv8

My comment : do we really need these strict emission standards ????

Originally Posted by Terror_Tree

Maybe Holden should have a chat to the blokes from VW

It's Orstraylia.

Quick software patch, and she'll be right, mate.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Eaturbo

I don't mind if the Government gives them a 12 month reprieve. It's not as if there asking too do it for no good reason. They should however offer Ford the same option if it would allow them to continue for 12 months longer. It's not as if they are asking for 3 years and where not talking 6000 cars a months like it was.

Its not a 12 month reprieve. It would be 3 years technically. The date in question is the cutoff date for car manufactures to get their cars sorted. They give them 2 years, which is plenty.

[Eaturbo]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Its not a 12 month reprieve. It would be 3 years technically. The date in question is the cutoff date for car manufactures to get their cars sorted. They give them 2 years, which is plenty.

Yes but we are talking about a further 12 months relaxation on the cut off date. Hardly a global catastrophe and in terms of global car sales it would not even be .25% . Plenty of other countries help out there own local businesses and it about time we started looking after ours.

[ivorya]

They could get around the issue by building 3yrs worth of cars now and storing them.
Build plates will help them through the emission regs. ;)

[Express]

Originally Posted by Eaturbo

I don't mind if the Government gives them a 12 month reprieve. It's not as if there asking too do it for no good reason. They should however offer Ford the same option if it would allow them to continue for 12 months longer. It's not as if they are asking for 3 years and where not talking 6000 cars a months like it was.

The Aussie car manufacturers including Ford have asked for emission regulations to be postponed before and the Government has caved into them and that is the reason we are so far behind the rest of the modern world.

I agree just give them what they want as it doesn’t matter anymore now the industry is already dead but it is a bad way to run a business by seeking changes to regulations so you don’t have to advance forward and then you wonder why the rest of the world has left you behind.

But I think we already know that.

[mik]

Makes a lot of sense when you put it like that. , would make it hard to export your cars to if they are not compliant in other countries,........ If you where that way inclined.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by mik

Makes a lot of sense when you put it like that. , would make it hard to export your cars to if they are not compliant in other countries,........ If you where that way inclined.

Good thing Holden doesn't export!

[Express]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Good thing Holden doesn't export!

An old article:

Higher fuel use – not a lack of demand – could determine the sales success of the Holden VF Commodore in the United States.

Speaking at the motor show reveal of the Chevrolet SS – the name the Commodore will wear in the US - to media at the 2013 New York motor show, General Motors executive and former Holden boss Alan Batey said it would be America’s strict fuel use targets that will ultimately put a limit on sales.

The so-called corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) targets set strict sales-weighted measures that effectively discourage manufacturers from selling gas guzzlers.

With fuel use expected to be around 12 litres per 100km for the V8-powered export model, the Chevrolet SS will push GM’s average up, something that has a bigger impact the more that are sold.

His comments were backed up by marketing director for the Chevrolet SS program Russ Clark, who said there was no immediate interest in getting a rumoured supercharged V8 engine that is expected to be offered on some HSV versions of the VF Commodore.

“In our market we also have a lot of other things we need to satisfy with the greenhouse gas regulations,” said Clark.

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/f...20130327-2gvpe

[Express]

Another old article.

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

The only way to save the car industry? Crack down on emissions

Anna Mortimer


The Australian government’s approval for a summit mapping out the future of the car industry is not just a matter of more financial support, or a response to a call by South Australian MP Nick Champion to “impose tariffs”. The government knows that unless the local car industry implements global standards and practices, Ford’s closure will be the beginning of the end.

Most countries that build cars have mandated fuel efficiency and carbon emission targets for the purpose of making the car industry invest in fuel-efficient and alternative vehicles. This has created a global shift in the future of the car industry. Tony Weber of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industry told The Australian Financial Review:

“Australia needs to beat down non tariff barriers across South-East Asia for the domestic car manufacturing to remain viable.”

But such charges are not “tariffs”. Countries like Thailand are imposing high excise taxes to discourage the acquisition of high-emitting vehicles. As a result, petrol guzzlers like the Ford Territory had a “retail price of $99,000, twice the Australian price”. But for a vehicle with emissions of no more than 120g of CO2/km, Thailand’s excise taxes would have been cut from 30% to 17%.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott wants the Australian car industry to server the export market. To reach this target, it has no choice but to meet international global emissions or fuel efficiency standards.

The government will need to kick in some more cash to incentivise the industry. Industry Minister Greg Combet has pointed out Australia’s subsidies to its auto industry are among the lowest in the world: $18 per capita compared with $90 in Germany, $265 in the US and $334 in Sweden. This is true, but all those countries are investing in the most technologically advanced fuel efficient or alternative fuelled vehicles that will meet stringent mandatory emission targets.

Many of them are now competing to manufacture the most fuel-efficient car. Ford knows it, and is making great strides in efficiency — in other countries. For example, the Ford Focus was rated as the world’s best-selling car in 2012, and the multinational company is advertising that it offers “more choices of fuel efficient vehicles that any other car manufacturer, such as the 2013 Focus electric, 2013 Fusion hybrid, and the fully electric C-MAX Energi”.

GM Holden is also facing decline in new vehicle sales. In 2012, VFACTS recorded a decline of 7%, but in the month of December 2012 it recorded a fall of 25.3%, mostly from a 24.8% decline in Holden Commodore sales. Holden Cruze sales also fell 13.6%.

It is definitely time to call a “car summit”. If Australia is serious about manufacturing a car that can be exported overseas, it must raise its car emission and fuel efficiency standards to international levels or be left behind.

*Anna Mortimer is a lecturer in revenue law, income tax law and taxation planning at the Griffith Business School

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/05/28/...witcher=mobile

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by csv8

The push for ethanol and ethanol is not much better..
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles...l#.Vi8_fGuqFz0

Depends on how you compare. Tailpipe emissions from Ethanol "can produce as much as 90 percent fewer lifecycle emissions compared to gasoline".
A worst case scenario is achieved if you start taking into account the raw material, location & manufacturing standards some countries use - "the worst ethanol can produce significantly more lifecycle emissions than gasoline.
Expanding ethanol production while reducing emissions and protecting water resources requires moving beyond our current reliance on food-based ethanol to ethanol made from non-food sources.

Exciting new technologies are assisting with this transition: some convert fast growing grasses to ethanol using biochemistry, some convert waste into gases (a mix of hydrogen and carbon monoxide called synthesis gas) that are then converted into ethanol, and others use algae or other microorganisms to make fuel directly from water or sunlight."

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by Express

Another old article.




http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/05/28/...witcher=mobile

Can someone tell me exactly what Thailand buys from Australia or how they benefit Australia? What was the free trade agreement all about anyway? All I can see is them flooding Australia with vehicles that aren't real competitive in price but probably assembled for next to nothing, and illegal sex workers posing as student visa holders.. I for one will never buy a Thai built vehicle , as they are part of the reason why our car industry is no more.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

What was the free trade agreement all about anyway?

A Howard government sellout and Liberal Party ideology, that's what. Just like the rest of the "Free Trade Agreements" they've signed us up for.

[mik]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

A Howard government sellout and Liberal Party ideology, that's what. Just like the rest of the "Free Trade Agreements" they've signed us up for.

fair comment , but just remember, the other mob also played their part in the demise of the motor industry.

[Vesper Martini]

I still Think LPG could have saved the car industry here.
Proper not partial incentives from the government.
Factory engines/cars designed to work on LPG - not retrospective add-ons (they could be so much better)

& LPG to lower emissions

The Australian Greenhouse Office website states that the mass of CO2 gas released of the exhaust pipe by the burning of one litre of fuel is:
◾2.3 kg for Petrol
◾1.5 kg for LPG.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

I still Think LPG could have saved the car industry here.
Proper not partial incentives from the government.
Factory engines/cars designed to work on LPG - not retrospective add-ons (they could be so much better)

& LPG to lower emissions

The Australian Greenhouse Office website states that the mass of CO2 gas released of the exhaust pipe by the burning of one litre of fuel is:
◾2.3 kg for Petrol
◾1.5 kg for LPG.

If they did want to push the green agenda then thats where the state and fed governments should have targeted. By the end the buy Australian policy was gone, apparently Labour wanted to reinstate it, and were giving FBT exemptions to one ton utes.....guess which class is now huge.

[Bngoold]

Its easy to blame government for the demise of manufacturing in Australia but ultimately its the consumer thats to blame. If everyone boycotts imports then local manufacturing would of survived. Sick of hearing everyone blame the gov while they drive their imported cars.