Ford of Germany offers retrofit diesel particulate filters for just €133.33
2009 Ford S-Max - Click on image for high-res gallery
Ford has launched a campaign to retrofit diesel vehicles in Germany with diesel particulate filters (DPF) for a very attractive price: just €133.33 (plus installation and 19 percent VAT). This measure complements the German Federal government incentive to retrofit DPFs. Eligible cars are those that are subject to Euro III and Euro IV antipollution rules, and the ones that can benefit from this attractive price are the Fiesta, the Fusion, the Focus, the C-MAX, the Galaxy, the Mondeo, the Transit Connect and the Tourneo Ford Connect. Retrofitting DPFs is an important change in Germany, as many cities are banning diesel vehicles without DPFs from city centers and diesel owners face the threat of an additional road tax of €1.2 per 0.1 liter of engine displacement if their car doesn't have a DPF.
Gallery: 2009 Ford S-Max
[Source: Ford of Germany]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Serge 6:19PM (10/08/2009)
Why is this car not sold in the States?!?!?!?
Reply
Snowdog 7:03PM (10/08/2009)
Because it's a European model, just like a hundred other Euro cars/variations that aren't for sale here. There are a bunch of Japanese market cars that aren't here either.
Serge 7:43PM (10/08/2009)
Snowdog, it was a rhetorical question. I'm wondering about the "reasons" why, not "why" (if you know what I mean).
Rich 7:07PM (10/08/2009)
We never get the good cars that are in Europe.
Reply
jonwil2002 8:45PM (10/08/2009)
Why is it that a car meeting Euro V emission standards and 5-star Euro safety crash rating STILL requires all sorts of gimping to be road legal in the US?
And why havent the automakers lobbied governments on both sides of the pond to come up with some kind of more harmonized rules for cars?
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 10:55PM (10/08/2009)
Because Euro V doesn't come even close to matching T2B5 emissions.
Why haven't they harmonized rules? Because then the areas wouldn't be able to pass their own laws. Are the Euros going to give up their pedestrian impact regs because they aren't the same as the US? Nope, and the US isn't going to give up its regs either.
Emissions regs:
CO for Euro 5 Diesel is 0.5g/km (0.8g/mi), in the US it is 4.2g/mi.
Particulate matter for Euro 5 Diesel is 0.005g/km (0.008g/mi), in the US it is 0.01g/mi.
NOx for Euro 5 Diesel is 0.18g/km (0.288g/mi), in the US it is 0.07g/mi.
NMHC for Euro 5 Diesel is unregulated, in the US it is 0.09g/mi. (non-methane hydrocarbons)
Just because a car meets Euro 5 Diesel doesn't mean it meets US Tier 2 Bin 5 (the requirement for all cars by the EPA). Specifically, NOx is pretty tough for Diesels to meet, and is the reason for urea injection.
The basic issue is that as of Euro V (and proposed Euro VI), Diesels are still not required to (and do not) meet the same emissions regulations as gas cars whereas in the US they must do so in order to be sold anywhere. For example, the emissions standards for Diesel NOx emissions in Europe are still looser at Euro V (only put in force last month) then they were for gas cars in December 2004. Whereas gas cars' NOx levels in the US and for gas cars in Europe are 1/3rd what they are in Europe.
wxman 2:24AM (10/09/2009)
@ why not the LS2LS7?...
>...The basic issue is that as of Euro V (and proposed Euro VI), Diesels are still not required to (and do not) meet the same emissions regulations as gas cars whereas in the US they must do so in order to be sold anywhere. For example, the emissions standards for Diesel NOx emissions in Europe are still looser at Euro V (only put in force last month) then they were for gas cars in December 2004. Whereas gas cars' NOx levels in the US and for gas cars in Europe are 1/3rd what they are in Europe.<
You're correct, but the U.S. regulators' obsession with NOx emissions makes no sense from an air quality perspective.
Snowdog 8:08AM (10/09/2009)
NOx is the main precursor to ground level ozone/smog.
So it makes perfect sense to regulate it as this is the stuff that inflames lungs, leading to many conditions, shortening lives of those with preexisting conditions.
VW meets the regulations, so it can be done without a urea tank. So the ball is in the other manufacturers court. Is VW the only one smart enough to do this?
Tim 8:56AM (10/09/2009)
Strict gov't regulation = limited supply & high costs cost to the consumer.
Very simple Progressivism!
(and we wondered why the Soviet's store shelves were empty)
Snowdog 9:03AM (10/09/2009)
Tim, may I suggest a trip to Calcutta India, so you can breath the fresh unregulated air.
Laurens 9:37AM (10/09/2009)
The idea of banning certain cars from city centres has not made many friends in the Netherlands. In practice it doesn't do much anyway, cars are better with every new model generation so the "problem" will resolve itself, although some will never be satisfied...
Serge 9:52AM (10/09/2009)
why not: Thanks for that explanation. From numbers you listed, carbon monoxide and particulate matter regs are much stronger on the Euro side. So that leaves NOx and hydrocarbon emissions to be worked out.
wxman 12:14PM (10/09/2009)
@ Snowdog -
>NOx is the main precursor to ground level ozone/smog....<
No it's not, HC is. As a matter of fact, in virtually all areas that are in non-attainment with the ozone NAAQS (in the U.S.), NOx has a NEGATIVE correlation with ozone (i.e., ambient ozone levels increase when ambient NOx levels decrease, @ constant levels of all other ozone precursors). See my post (#12) at http://green.autoblog.com/2009/10/03/audi-completes-a-to-b-efficiency-challenge-a3-tdi-gets-71-3-mpg/ for further explanation of the "NOx disbenefit".
Snowdog 12:32PM (10/09/2009)
We have thousands of sources indicating NOx is a main smog precursor.
And there was one study claiming there might be some cancellation effect between chemicals.
That is not a sane reason to advocate higher NOx pollution.
We should just keep working to reduce all pollutants.
But good luck whining that we need more pollution in the air.
wxman 4:34PM (10/09/2009)
Who's advocating higher NOx emissions? I'm just saying there's not only no justification for cutting NOx emissions to the degree required by Tier 2 or LEV II, there are potential disbenefits to pursuing such a strategy. Having NOx emission standards established by Europe would be better, IMHO.
The "cancellation effect" is a fundamental atmospheric chemistry principle. NOx has the capacity to either create or DESTROY ozone, depending on local environmental conditions. Under conditions found in all major metropolitan areas in the U.S. studied thus far, these atmospheric conditions favor destruction of ozone by NOx. The fundamental principle is that NOx will destroy ozone as fast as it makes it without the interference from hydrocarbons (NMHC). NOx may create the ozone, but it's NMHC that allows it to accumulate in the atmosphere.
If this is "only one study" as opposed to "thousands of studies" supporting NOx as the principle ozone precursor (and by the way, there are more than "one study"), why does EPA acknowledge in virtually all of their RIAs that there's a "NOx disbenefit" in VOC-limited area (e.g., EPA Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines; EPA, “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder." See also "EPA Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Highway Heavy-Duty Engines.", "U.S. EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria (First External Review Draft)." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-07/093, "EPA Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines.", Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007). I can provide specific page numbers within those documents if interested.
Snowdog 5:09PM (10/09/2009)
How about simply providing a link that backs up what you say?
Snowdog 5:23PM (10/09/2009)
Googling for you titles and I find nothing but stuff that says NOx is noxious stuff that needs more reductions. Not only does it form Ozone, it forms secondary fine particulate matter and is harmful in it's own right.
Things like this: (page 25 of PDF)
http://www.catf.us/publications/view/84
Ozone is harmful gas formed from nitrogen oxides and has been one of the most difficult ambient air pollutants to control. Recent ozone control efforts have centered on reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx) itself a harmful pollutant that gives city skies a brown cast during rush hour.
NOx also forms secondary fine particulate matter, particularly in the winter
time. Diesel NOX emissions have doubled since 1970 from 2.8 million tons to about 7
million tons per year in 2002. Reducing NOx is therefore a key to achieving attainment of federal ozone and fine particle standards.
Ozone has been associated with an array of adverse health impacts including:
• Premature death68,69
• Upper and lower respiratory irritation, bronchitis.
• Triggering of asthma attacks
• Increases in hospital admissions and emergency room visits.
70,71,72, 73
why not the LS2LS7? 10:54PM (10/09/2009)
NOx not only causes smog, it causes acid rain too. I don't find your arguments that we should loosen the regs convincing.
Yes, there are areas where an increase in NOx wouldn't necessarily cause more smog due to low VOC levels. And there are other areas where that isn't the case.
So you can repeat your argument all you want, but I'm not for increasing NOx allowances for gas or Diesel vehicles.
wxman 2:28AM (10/10/2009)
OK, here are some links to back up what I say...
“…It should be noted, however, that the potential exists for a few localized areas to actually experience slight increases in ozone concentrations as a result of NOx emission reductions.... (page 119)
Source: EPA Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Highway Heavy-Duty Engines, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd-hwy/1997frm/hwy-ria.pdf
“...NO and NO2 are important precursors of O3 formation. However, because O3 changes in a nonlinear way with the concentrations of its precursors, it is unlike many other secondarily-formed atmospheric species whose rates of formation vary directly with emissions of their precursors. At the low NOx concentrations found in most environments (ranging from remote continental areas to rural and suburban areas downwind of urban centers) the net production of O3 increases with increasing NOx. At the high NOx concentrations found in downtown metropolitan areas and especially near busy streets and roadways and in power plant plumes, net destruction of O3 is initiated with the excess NO found there. In the high NOx regime, NO2 scavenges OH radicals that would otherwise oxidize VOCs to produce peroxy radicals, which would in turn oxidize NO to NO2. In the low NOx regime, oxidation of VOCs generates excess free radicals, and hence O3 production varies more nearly directly with NOx. Between these two regimes, there is a transition zone in which O3 shows only a weak dependence on NOx concentrations….”
Source: U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria (First External Review Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-07/093. http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=468716 (page 2-4)
“…While this final rule will reduce ozone levels generally and provide significant ozone-related health benefits, this is not always the case at the local level. Due to the complex photochemistry of ozone production, NOx emissions lead to both the formation and destruction of ozone, depending on the relative quantities of NOx, VOC, and ozone catalysts such as the OH and HO2 radicals. In areas dominated by fresh emissions of NOx, ozone catalysts are removed via the production of nitric acid, which slows the ozone formation rate. Because NOx is generally depleted more rapidly than VOC, this effect is usually short-lived and the emitted NOx can lead to ozone formation later and further downwind. The terms “NOx disbenefits” or “ozone disbenefits” refer to the ozone increases that can result from NOx emission reductions in these localized areas….” (page 2-113/114 of 155)
“…EPA’s air quality modeling predicts NOx disbenefits in the areas identified by some studies as “VOC-limited” (e.g., Los Angeles)….” (page 2-223/114 of 155)
Source: EPA Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines, http://epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr/420r04007c.pdf
By the way, the last reference also acknowledges another potential benefit to NOx...
“…There is some evidence that nitrogen deposition may have positive effects on agricultural output through passive fertilization….” (page 2-120/121 of 155)
Since we’re allowed only 3 links in a post, the remaining references are provided without links. However, the EPA documents can be found on the EPA’s web site.
“...Under these conditions NOx reductions are highly effective in reducing ozone while VOC reductions have little effect. Such conditions are called “NOx-limited”....
...When NOx levels are relatively high and VOC levels are relatively low, NOx forms inorganic nitrates (i.e., particles) but relatively little ozone. Such conditions are called “VOC-limited.” Under these conditions, VOC reductions are effective in reducing ozone, but NOx reductions can actually increase local ozone under certain circumstances....” (page 2-29)
Source: EPA, “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder.”
“…In urban areas with a high population concentration, ozone is often VOC-limited….
…Due to the complex photochemistry of ozone production, NOx emissions lead to both the formation and destruction of ozone…The terms “NOx disbenefits” or “ozone disbenefits” refer to the ozone increases that can result from NOx emission reductions in these localized areas….” (pp 2-1 – 2-2)
Source: EPA, FINAL OZONE NAAQS REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS
"…NOx controls in Southern California (and other urban U.S. locations) are counterproductive for reducing ambient ozone, and they actually increase ambient ozone levels. Were it not for large concurrent HC emission reductions on weekends, weekend ozone would be even higher than it is, and the weekend/ weekday ozone difference would be even larger...."
Douglas Lawson, NREL, “DOE’s Studies of Weekday/Weekend Ozone Pollution in Southern California.” Proceedings of the 8th DEER Conference
"…The extremely important implication of this scientific finding (AN11) and findings from other studies is that because of the ozone-destruction effect of NOx under VOC-sensitive conditions and the widespread occurrence of such conditions (e.g., within intensely urbanized areas), air quality managers should view NOx control with caution…."
Source: Southern Oxidant Study (SOS)
"...The findings from this study suggest that timely attainment of O3 standards will require greater emphasis on reducing VOC emissions in major metropolitan areas....”
“...We interpret the observed absence of differences between weekday and weekend peak O3, in combination with significantly lower ambient levels of NOx, as an indication that O3 formation in the urban study areas is VOC-limited. Our analyses of weekday/weekend differences in O3 precursors show that different emission reductions of O3 precursors than normally take place on weekends will be required to affect greater reductions in peak O3 in large metropolitan areas...."
Source: Blanchard, Tanenbaum, Lawson; “Differences between Weekday and Weekend Air Pollutant Levels in Atlanta; Baltimore; Chicago; Dallas–Fort Worth; Denver; Houston; New York; Phoenix; Washington, DC; and Surrounding Areas.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Volume 58, December 2008, Pages 1598–1615
As far as PM nitrate is concerned, these weekend ozone studies have also looked at that and they conclude that large reductions in ambient NOx levels (~50%) result in only about a 3% reduction in PM nitrate, i.e., highly non-linear.
Nitrate could reasonably be expected to be an acid rain precursor, but in fact studies (e.g., National Atmospheric Deposition Program) have shown that the correlation between rain water pH and nitrate concentration is weak.
You guys can believe what you want, but based on the latest science of ambient ozone formation and accumulation, urban smog will remain a problem unless until the U.S. regulators stop focusing on NOx and/or start refocusing on VOC/NMHC.
Snowdog 9:36AM (10/10/2009)
You seem to be laboring under some kind of mutually exclusive assumption here. They don't have to stop concentrating NOx to attack VOC/NMHC.
As previously pointed out to you by someone in the field elsewhere, the NOx issue is a localized phenomena, but the NOx is more persistent than VOCs and will cause more widespread air quality issues, outside the localized Ozone disbenfit zone.
Even in the localized area, you are concentrating on one aspect of NOx problem (ozone). NOx is itself a pollutant and also reacts to increase secondary PM which is also extremely nasty to humans.
NOx isn't a beneficial chemical that we really need to worry about maintaining in our air.
We aren't having this discussion because you are worried about the loss of NOx in our atmosphere. We are having it, because you are a diesel fan and NOx is hard to clean up in diesels and you are looking for justification for slacker regulation.
Well that ship has sailed. It is unlikely in the extreme that these regulation will be rolled back.