Emissions standards could close down Ford's Geelong plant

[Sprint XR8]

The Australian January 08 2010, THE federal government faces a strong fight to win acceptance for planned new car emission standards, with the industry warning the higher standards would kill Ford's Geelong engine plant and put others in jeopardy.

Transport Minister Anthony Albanese today released proposed higher emission standards based on so called Euro5 from 2012 and Euro6 from 2012.

Andrew McKellar, head of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, stressed the need to consider emission standards along with other regulations governing fuel standards and the like. McKellar said it doesn’t make much sense demanding higher vehicle standards when motorists can’t buy the right fuel.

The new standards required equate to premium unleaded petrol, which means by definition that consumers will pay more for their petrol even before wider issues like the emissions trading carbon reduction scheme are considered.

The use of premium unleaded costs around 10 cents a litre more, or $1.9 billion a year in the consumer fuel bill.

This would be offset by the fact that engines designed for premium fuel are more efficient and hence use less fuel.

Likewise health costs would reduce with less pollution.

Albanese said the new rules would cut hydrocarbon emissions by up to 50 per cent, nitrogen oxides by up to 70 per cent and other particulate matter by 90 per cent.

Such an impact would unquestionably be welcome, but will come at a cost which the community should understand.

The federal government threw tens of millions of dollars to persuade Ford to maintain its six cylinder engine plant in Geelong, which is capable of handling up to Euro4 standards.

It is doubtful whether Ford would be willing to spend big money to upgrade the facilities.

Likewise, Toyota has its local engine plant under review, signalling a shift to fully import engines.

The change in emission standards might be the swing factor to effectively shut down car engine production in Australia.

That, at least, will be the warning issued by the local industry during the public comment period on the proposed changes.

Given the industry’s comrades offshore already make engines to meet the higher demands, actually getting the engines isn’t an issue, but engine production is the high value-added end of local manufacturing and that is what is being threatened.

Caltex and the other refiners will also have to upgrade plants at time when Mobil is already signalling its desire to walk from Australia.

The minister’s cost impact study shied away from these wider issues for obvious reasons.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1225817322197

[Paxton]

The I6 makes Euro IV, and has been rumored to have achieved the European Specification of Euro V. I don't think the I6 has any problems there. Look at Falc'man's profile for more information...

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by Paxton

The I6 makes Euro IV, and has been rumored to have achieved the European Specification of Euro V. I don't think the I6 has any problems there.

Yep. Thread over.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Paxton

The I6 makes Euro IV, and has been rumored to have achieved the European Specification of Euro V. I don't think the I6 has any problems there. Look at Falc'man's profile for more information...

X2. Total non story. Euro 5 in 2012 seems a bit early considering its Euro 4 (well for existing cars....) in 2011?? Maybe trying to catch up to EUrope? Probably be 2013 for existing models anyway.....

[Ohio XB]

Likewise health costs would reduce with less pollution.

Albanese said the new rules would cut hydrocarbon emissions by up to 50 per cent, nitrogen oxides by up to 70 per cent and other particulate matter by 90 per cent.

That kind of reporting really burns my butt. Here's why.

Of course I can only reference US emissions but I would imagine Aussie emissions are similar enough for the comparison to be relavent.

Right now, cars in the US are 90% cleaner than a car built in 1970.

To clean up these emissions by 50%, 70%, and 90% is NOT a very big jump. Particulates are such a very tiny portion of auto exhaust it is negligible. They should be looking to factories and diesel engines for particulate concerns.

Here in the US cars only contribute 10% of the total of Global Warming emissions, yet are the subject of the most blame.

If you cut emission of a specific gas by 90% from 1970 to now, to cut it again by 50% amounts to a VERY little impact in actual good for health concerns. This means only a 5% gain (50% of the 10% that is left from the original 90% improvement). This is like saying "We used to have a 100 meter race back in 1970, but we changed it to a 10 meter sprint in 1998. Now we are going to make it 50% shorter, a 5 meter sprint." Not a very big difference compared to the 1998 change, eh? It's only 5 more meters.


Give me a break.



Steve

[xtremerus]

Lovely thing, Maths. Can be used to show or say what you like. Percentages are the most abused, as they almost never include a base figure. Politicians love them.

[Road_Warrior]

What a stupid article, they dribble on about the plant not being able to meet E5 where in fact it has nothing to do with the plant itself, its what the plant produces! Completely different cost centre.

And correct me if I'm wrong the I6 is E4 compliant already. Dumbarses.

[Kryton]

Im really getting sick of the media trying to bring down Ford at any cost.

B.S journalism should be put a stop to - its crap like this that does more harm than good.

Why the Media were never held accountable for the demise of Mitsubishi Australia is a joke.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

What a stupid article, they dribble on about the plant not being able to meet E5 where in fact it has nothing to do with the plant itself, its what the plant produces! Completely different cost centre.

And correct me if I'm wrong the I6 is E4 compliant already. Dumbarses.

I think they said that in the article. It's E5 that they are punting will cause a problem.

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by Wally

I think they said that in the article. It's E5 that they are punting will cause a problem.

Which is wrong.

[TC200six]

(sigh) Slow news day?

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Paxton

Which is wrong.

Them punting or that the I6 already meets E5, no doubt both?

How do we not know that it could be Ford manouvering for more R&D taxpayer money and using the press as it's vehicle?

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Wally

Them punting or that the I6 already meets E5, no doubt both?

How do we not know that it could be Ford manouvering for more R&D taxpayer money and using the press as it's vehicle?

Geez Wally, does every silver cloud have a dark lining? As far as I know Ford is the only one that can afford R&D without Govt help, but if it was asked if it wanted any then I would doubt that it would not take it, after all Toyota took it in 2007 & did not need it then.

[Wally]

Hey I'm not being critical, it's good business practice. If they are infact clever enough to lead the journos; hats off to them.

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by Wally

Hey I'm not being critical, it's good business practice. If they are infact clever enough to lead the journos; hats off to them.

Trust me, they are.

[mik]

hmmm interesting, there`s no mention of the masses of older cars on the road spewing pollution, that many can`t afford to upgrade, to me a better way to reduce pollution 5 fold would be more incentives for poorer people to afford new or newish cars, did some one one this forum recently mention that the ships around the world spew out far more pollution than all the cars on the planet? i may have seen it in a doco, another bit of useless trivia .

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Geez Wally, does every silver cloud have a dark lining? As far as I know Ford is the only one that can afford R&D without Govt help, but if it was asked if it wanted any then I would doubt that it would not take it, after all Toyota took it in 2007 & did not need it then.

Ford did receive Gov't money in the US for the purpose of emissions R&D that was offered to ALL automakers in the US, including the Foreign transplants.


Steve

[vztrt]

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2576A7007DF6F7

Ford's Aussie six faces new challenge

New emission standards could knock out local Ford six-cylinder engine

11 January 2010

By JAMES STANFORD in Detroit

FORD Australia says engineering its locally produced in-line six engine to meet upcoming Euro 5 emission standards will be “difficult”.

The federal government last week released a draft report prepared by the transport department which recommends the Euro 5 emissions standard be introduced in Australia between 2012 and 2014. The deadline for the Ford Australia I6, should the report be approved and legislated, would be 2013.

The Euro 5 emission deadline looms as a possible end-date for the 4.0-litre engine that has been produced in various forms in Geelong since 1960 and is used for all locally produced models including Falcon, Falcon Ute and Territory.

Ford Australia announced in mid-2007 that it would end production of the Australian engine due partly to the fact that it would have cost too much to upgrade it to meet Euro 4 engine standards that come into force halfway through this year.

That decision was later reversed due to a range of factors, including the view that the engine could be engineered to meet Euro 4 standards for far less investment than was first estimated.

While engineers were able to upgrade the engine to the Euro 4 standard with very little change, adapting it to meet Euro 5 standards will be a far greater, and more expensive, task.

Ford Australia spokeswoman Sinead McAlary told GoAuto that engineers were already looking at ways the current engine could be upgraded to meet the Euro 5 regulations, but said it would not be easy.

“There is no doubt it is going to be difficult, but we thought Euro 4 was going to be hard as well,” Ms McAlary said.

She said the report came as no surprise to Ford Australia.

“We had known that they were going to put out this report; it had to come sooner or later,” she said.

Ford Australia would weigh up several options before it made a decision on the future of the in-line six plant in Geelong and whether upgrading it to meet Euro 5 would be viable, Ms McAlary said.

“What we have to do now, now that there is a deadline is, is ask whether it is possible. If it is possible, then, how much?” she said.

“A business case and engineering study has to be done.”

Ms McAlary said Ford Australia was keen to continue producing the in-line six which started off as Ford North America 2.4-litre unit into a modern dual-VCT 4.0-litre engine unique to the Australian operation.

“We always work on the idea of never say never,” she said.

With the current Falcon due for replacement in Falcon due in 2015, it is possible that the Euro 5 deadline could arrive quite close to the introduction of an all-new model that would either have an upgraded Australian I6 or US derived engine.

In this case, Ms McAlary said that it would, hypothetically, consider requesting an exemption to continue producing the current engine for a short period until the new vehicle arrived.

Ford Australia announced last July that it would introduce a turbocharged four-cylinder EcoBoost engine, which would meet Euro 5, for the Falcon in 2012.

Asked if Ford Australia would consider dropping the I6 upon the introduction of the Euro 5 standard and selling Falcon with only a four-cylinder EcoBoost, Ms McAlary indicated this was unlikely.

“I don’t think just running with EcoBoost would ever be our strategy,” she said. “EcoBoost will satisfy a group of customers who are primarily driven by fuel economy, but there will be customers who are after performance.”

The transport department report recommends that Euro 5 standards be introduced for newly introduced petrol vehicles in 2013 and existing vehicles in 2014. Newly introduced diesels would need to meet the Euro 5 standard by 2012 and existing diesels would have to meet the new standard by 2013.

The Rudd government has asked for industry and the broader community to comment on the proposed new regulations timetable which it says would cut emissions from cars, 4WDs and utes by as much as 90 per cent.

Federal transport minister Anthony Albanese said the Euro 5 emission standards would see a reduction of hydrocarbons by up to 50 per cent, a reduction of nitrogen oxides of up to 70 per cent and a reduction of particulate matter of up to 90 per cent.

Mr Albanese said the Euro 5 emission standards, introduced in Europe last year, were a cost-effective way of improving air quality in cities.

“While the air quality in our major cities has improved significantly in recent years, the growth in the number of vehicles means we must continually monitor our standards and where possible deploy new, more effective technologies,” he said.

[Road_Warrior]

Can anyone actually say what E5 compliance will involve and how much of a jump it is over E4??

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Can anyone actually say what E5 compliance will involve and how much of a jump it is over E4??

Unsure what it involves technically but this site has some detail. Some more info here.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Unsure what it involves technically but this site has some detail. Some more info here.

Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the jump from E4 to E5 for petrol engines isn't that significant??

Tier Date CO THC NMHC NOx HC+NOx PM P***

Euro 4 January 2005 1.0 0.10 - 0.08 - - -
Euro 5 September 2009 1.000 0.100 0.068 0.060 - 0.005**

I don't see what the big deal is. Or are Ford looking for an excuse the can the I6 again?

[R-Design]

Originally Posted by GoAuto

In this case, Ms McAlary said that it would, hypothetically, consider requesting an exemption to continue producing the current engine for a short period until the new vehicle arrived.

It’s kind of strange asking for an exemption. If Falcon was to continue I can't see it being a big deal putting the new engine in a few years earlier. This may be the strongest suggestion yet that the FG series may be the last RWD Aussie Falcon. Either that or they're just trying to squeeze some dollars out of Rudd & Co.

[BA-Fan]

WHY ARE THEY PUSHING SO HARD TO MEET THE EUROPEAN UNIONS ACTIONS?

Who the hell runs this European Union anyway???

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

I don't see what the big deal is. Or are Ford looking for an excuse the can the I6 again?

E3 to 4 is easy to five it's a little more tricky.

But I'd say Ford might be trying to get a bit more funding or for E4 to stay on course so they can stretch the engine further. I know that they have no issue with E5.

[vztrt]

Here we go the first Falcon is gone article.

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...0111-m1rp.html

First drive: Ford Falcon's future V6?
JEZ SPINKS
January 11, 2010

Behind the wheel of the Ford Taurus SHO that could share its twin-turbo V6 and all-wheel-drive underpinnings with future versions of the Falcon.

The previous day's snow blizzard has subsided for a sunny but still chilly morning in Detroit, an apt meteorological metaphor for an American car industry hoping it has emerged from the worst of an economic onslaught.

And the outlook is currently brightest for Ford - the only US car maker not to have sought a multi-billion-dollar financial bail-out from the United States Government - as our media group assembles at its icy proving ground for a test drive of the company's latest drivetrains.

There are hybrid and hydrogen prototypes among the fleet at our disposal, but it's a production car that is of most interest to Drive.

The Taurus SHO is a high-performance version of Ford's large car for North America, and it's powered by a twin-turbocharged 3.5-litre V6 that could eventually find its way into the engine bay of the company's Australian large car, the Falcon.

The V6 is the debut of Ford's new range of 'Ecoboost' engines that combine direct injection, turbocharging and downsizing with the main purpose of replacing a naturally aspirated engine of a bigger displacement - while improving economy but retaining similar performance.

It's based on the 3.5-litre Duratec engine that was set to be fitted to the Falcon (and Territory) from mid year before the company determined that it could tweak the ageing locally built 4.0-litre inline six-cylinder for Euro IV emissions compliance that comes into effect in Australia from July 1st.

Euro V compliance with even stricter emissions limits, however, could be introduced as early as 2012, and Ford Australia admits it's already investigating whether it has already reached the limits of the 'Barra' engine's environmental compatibility.

If it has, then Ford will need a replacement for both versions of its 'Barra' V6 - in 195kW normally aspirated form and 270kW turbocharged form (310kW in FPV models).

While the front-drive Taurus's 3.5-litre Duratec - or a new 227kW/379Nm V6 unveiled in the Mustang recently - could replace the regular inline six, the SHO's Ecoboost V6 would make a natural swap for cars such as the Falcon XR6 Turbo, though it could also be seen as the replacement for the Falcon's current V8 if Ford Australia confirms strong rumours that it will ditch the XR8 nameplate and make V8 engines exclusive to Ford Performance Vehicles models.

The flagship Taurus's engine produces a fraction more power, with 272kW (produced at 5500rpm), though there is a torque deficit - 474Nm compared with the 533Nm produced by the XR6 Turbo.
Peak torque, though, is delivered across a vast rev range, from a low 1500rpm all the way to 5250rpm - just before peak torque kicks in.

The aluminium V6 feels as driveable as it sounds on paper, even if our drive of the Taurus SHO was restricted to just a couple of laps around Ford's proving ground circuit. Turbo lag barely registers, and progress through the broad power range is smooth and accompanied by a meaty engine note.

There's also sufficient muscle to push you back into your seat under meaningful acceleration, though the engine feels less performance focused than the XR6 Turbo's wonderfully energetic six-cylinder.

The SHO accelerates from 0-100km/h in about six seconds, though the Taurus's hefty 2100kg kerb weight inevitably has a detrimental effect on performance. The Falcon is a comparative lightweight at about 1700kg-plus.

Ford claims the Ecoboost V6 is up to 25 per cent more economical than rival V8 engines, though the SHO's two-tonne mass doesn't help official fuel consumption of 20mpg - a figure that is virtually line-ball with the XR6 Turbo's 11.7L/100km when converted.

A better result would be expected for the comparatively lightweight Falcon (from 1700kg upwards), though the local Ford may one day share the Taurus SHO's heavier all-wheel-drive system.

Ford is still refusing to confirm whether the next-generation Falcon will retain rear-wheel-drive, as speculation intensifies that the Australian large car will be forced to share its underpinnings with the front-drive/all-wheel-drive Taurus as part of the blue oval's One Ford strategy.

The One Ford program is designed to reduce costs by simplifying the company's product offerings by creating a single platform or model for multiple markets. The Fiesta city car and third-generation Focus (revealed imminently at the 2010 Detroit motor show).

Of course, one Ecoboost engine is already confirmed for local Fords - a new 2.0-litre turbocharged four-cylinder that will join the Falcon line-up from 2011.

The engine will contradict other Ecoboost engines designed to take the place of larger-capacity normally aspirated engines.

Rather than replacing the locally built 4.0-litre inline six-cylinder, the new four-cylinder Falcon will be introduced mainly to appeal to fleets and governments seeking a more fuel efficient homegrown car, as well as slowing the number of buyers who are snubbing large cars for more economical small cars.

[Franco Cozzo]

AWD wouldn't be so bad as FWD, would it? Or would it be better?

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by SM0KED

WHY ARE THEY PUSHING SO HARD TO MEET THE EUROPEAN UNIONS ACTIONS?

Who the hell runs this European Union anyway???

Because they decided they needed to bring locally made cars up to a modern emissions standard, but didn't want to fart around trying to invent their own emissions laws, so just chose an "off the shelf" emissions system such as the EU, cars from everywhere else in the world have to meet EU regs with the exception of the US who have their own

[g220ba]

Good to see they do their research. "If it has, then Ford will need a replacement for both versions of its 'Barra' V6 - in 195kW normally aspirated form and 270kW turbocharged form (310kW in FPV models)."

For some stupid reason people still call the I6 a V6.

[JPFS1]

blah blah blah

[Road_Warrior]

A query, if I may:

You say the cold startup cycle of the I6 is its biggest downfall, in an emissions sense. Would the addition of an electric water pump, computer controlled to provide zero circulation on startup for the first, say, 50 seconds, help with this? So that the coolant heats up quicker and the motor isn't stuck in the warm up loop mode for as long...?