[Zarquon]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... r-fuel-use

"China will end the production of 553 passenger-car models that don’t meet fuel-consumption limits amid efforts by the nation to curb pollution.

The halt in production will begin Jan. 1, the China Vehicle Technology Service Center said in a statement Thursday. Models include FAW VW’s Audi FV7145LCDBG sedan, Beijing Benz’s Benz BJ7302ETAL2 sedan and Shanghai GM’s Chevrolet SGM7161DAA2 sedan.

China has been cracking down on chronic pollution in the past year through measures including curbs to steel supply, restricting coal usage, and a plan to phase out vehicles powered by fossil fuels. The latest announcement marks the first time China has come up with an official list of offending vehicles and there’ll be more to come, said Wang Liusheng, a Shanghai-based analyst at China Merchants Securities Co.

“To emphasize a cut back on energy consumption, such documents will surface frequently in the future,” Wang said in an email. “It’s an essential move to ensure the healthy development of the industry in the long run.”

The 553 models form a “very small” percentage of passenger cars in production, Cui Dongshu, secretary general of the China Passenger Car Association, said by phone. He didn’t provide further details."

[Tanada]

If those 553 are a "very small" percentage they must have a really unusual definition of what constitutes a distinct model of car. In the USA we generally define a model as what the maker defines it as, a Honda Civic is still a Honda Civic no matter what the trim level or optional variations are. The only way to get many thousands of 'models' would be to define every trim level as a distinct model of vehicle which has a little going for it in the sense that a heavier engine or heated seats will lower fuel mileage. However to my way of thinking it seems needlessly complicated, just do tests on the heaviest version of each model and declare if it passes or fails the mileage requirement. That incentivizes the manufacturers to make the most fuel efficient version possible the standard.

[GHung]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'I')f those 553 are a "very small" percentage they must have a really unusual definition of what constitutes a distinct model of car. In the USA we generally define a model as what the maker defines it as, a Honda Civic is still a Honda Civic no matter what the trim level or optional variations are. The only way to get many thousands of 'models' would be to define every trim level as a distinct model of vehicle which has a little going for it in the sense that a heavier engine or heated seats will lower fuel mileage. However to my way of thinking it seems needlessly complicated, just do tests on the heaviest version of each model and declare if it passes or fails the mileage requirement. That incentivizes the manufacturers to make the most fuel efficient version possible the standard.

[Cog]

Someone did not pay the appropriate bribe to a Chinese official. This will be fixed shortly.

[Outcast_Searcher]

That's interesting. For a more world standard definition of what's likely happening, I think Tanada has it right -- this is likely a relative handful of gas guzzling models.

It's interesting though. Look what this would do to the profits of Ford and GM if the US government were to move like this -- even if it gave them time to comply. If they could no longer sell the likes of big pickup trucks (except, say, to real world farmers and construction people who could PROVE that was their full time vocation), it would decimate a huge proportion of their big profit lines. Same story for big SUV's of course.

Little fear US politicians will want to do that, regardless of which party is in power.

[dolanbaker]

For Chinese car makers, apart from having to re-tool a line, this isn't really that big a deal as the same parts can mostly be used in a smaller more efficient model.

But it does set a precedent that other countries can follow to eliminate the most wasteful of vehicles by preventing them from being made in the first place. For some western car makers, this step could kill off their most profitable models.

[KaiserJeep]

When you digest the size of the market, it DOES mean that when China announced the intention to ban FF vehicles outright, it was a very big deal.

They have not yet set the schedule for this, only announced the intent. That leaves the door open for indefinite postponements, of course.

I believe the USA should do them one better, and also announce the ban of FF vehicles, with a timetable. I like 2030 as that date. Beyond 2030, the only new vehicles that can be sold are EVs and PHEVs, where the power plant can not ever be fuelled with FFs, only biofuels, hydrogen, etc.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')I believe the USA should do them one better, and also announce the ban of FF vehicles, with a timetable. I like 2030 as that date. Beyond 2030, the only new vehicles that can be sold are EVs and PHEVs, where the power plant can not ever be fuelled with FFs, only biofuels, hydrogen, etc.

[KaiserJeep]

In truth it will take decades to replace the fleet of ICE vehicles, and the demand for FF's to taper off. Those who like high performance engines would stubbornly hang onto them. Meanwhile we would continue to burn oil and gas and coal for HVAC and electric power.

But it's a start, and you cannot leave this choice up to the consumer, it must be mandated. I am reluctant, in fact I hate the idea of imposing choice upon someone else, but we have more than good enough EV tech today, and that's not good enough.

But it bothers my libertarian (with a small "l") conscience.

[kublikhan]

I'm not so sure that EVs are more than good enough today to warrant a mandate. They are still much more expensive than a comparably equipped ICE. To me it seems a bit premature to start mandating EVs. Their sales are still dependent on government subsidies. Sales would fall if these subsidies were removed. Yet many governments are looking to do exactly that: replace subsidies with mandates. This to me seems like governments washing their hands of the whole EV transition challenge and pushing it onto automotive companies and consumers. If governments want this transition to happen they should help make EVs an appealing choice by assisting with battery research to bring down costs, not cutting funding to such programs. Setting standards, not leaving us with a Hodgepodge of charging plugs. Raising fuel taxes, not shying away because it is politically tough sell. Yet many governments are taking the easy way out with mandates.

Also, we will see further improvements from ICE yet. Reminds me of when the railroads were facing a similar transition. Back in the day the French railroad was contemplating electrifying more of their lines and switching away from coal. Just as they were singing the praises of electrification and trying to arrange financing from the government, along came the coal locomotive 4-8-4 242 A1. It was more powerful than any electric locomotive to date and economical enough in coal consumption to nullify the economic advantages of electrification. Turned into a real embarrassment for those singing the praises of electrification. However the EV engineers didn't just take this challenge lying down. They altered their plans for a new locomotive they were designing so it was even more powerful than the 242 A1. Healthy competition pushing their rivals to better themselves.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his remarkable locomotive achieved extraordinary power outputs and efficiency in coal and water consumption, but no further examples were built since the SNCF focused on electric traction for its future motive power development. The 242A1 was put through trials on many test runs which showed that this locomotive was equal in power output to the existing SNCF electric locomotives at the time. Here, for the first time in Europe, was a steam locomotive with a 20 tonnes axle load which was not only at least as powerful as the most powerful existing high-speed electric locomotive, but which could repeatedly achieve its maximum power without any mechanical trouble. Nothing in Europe could match it.

While the 242A1 was being tested, electrical engineers were designing the locomotives for the 512-kilometre long line between Paris and Lyon, which was to be electrified. An electric locomotive that was to be slightly more powerful than the successful Paris to Orléans 2-D-2 type electric locomotive was being contemplated. When the test results of the 242A1 became known, however, the design was hurriedly changed to incorporate the maximum capacity possible with a 23 tonnes axle load, resulting in the 144 tonnes 9100 class with a power output of more than 1,000 horsepower (750 kilowatts) more than that of the original design. The performances of the Mistral and other heavy passenger express trains would therefore not have been so outstanding if the 242A1 had not existed and Andre Chapelon therefore indirectly influenced French electric locomotive design.

[Subjectivist]

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-econ ... rs-18-cent

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ar sales in China plunged for a sixth consecutive month, intensifying pressure on global carmakers that have staked their future growth on the world’s largest car market.

Retail sales of saloons, multipurpose vehicles and sport utility vehicles dropped 18 per cent to 2.05 million units in November, the China Passenger Car Association said on Monday.

The size of the fall means the market is all but certain to have its first annual decline in at least two decades.