Petrol models with port fuel injection not tested

[Sdf4786k]

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/nea-clarifies-rules-for-car-emission-scheme

 

National Environment Agency said yesterday petrol models with port fuel injection - where fuel is injected just before the engine's combustion chamber - will not be measured for particulate matter (fine soot).

The exemption will apply when the Euro 6 emission standard kicks in in September and when the Vehicular Emissions Scheme starts in January.

 

****

first it was the hoo ha on CAT A and 130 bhp because the dealers got no cars that could compete with turbo charge cars and claim unfair practice.

Now, its the lack of ability in terms of port injection and cry foul on Port injection.

When will the dealers own up and say we suck on building cars and face the facts and not blame other better cars out there

 

[Kusje]

dealers don't build cars. next.

[Octopus]

I don't quite get what the article saying....

 

Since port fuel injection engine the particle "is low", and NEA say port furl injection engine are not tested for particle matter. So no difference what???

[Mkl22]

I don't quite get what the article saying....

 

Since port fuel injection engine the particle "is low", and NEA say port furl injection engine are not tested for particle matter. So no difference what???

 

difference is $$$ for the rebates/penalty.

 

i continue to laugh at LTA. A bunch of prata flipping, jiak liao bee fools.

 

But i must qualify that they are fools to us the public, but good servants of the government cause they do make the govt money doing lots of prata flipping.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Mkl22

[Vinceng]

I don't quite get what the article saying....

 

Since port fuel injection engine the particle "is low", and NEA say port furl injection engine are not tested for particle matter. So no difference what???

Don’t waste your brain juice analyzing such nonsense. 

 

If the government wants to find ways to increase revenue, they will have 1001 reasons to justify.

 

Classic examples are the increase of HDB season parking & hourly parking and HDB flats conservancy fees.

 

HDB Season parking –  Minister Lawrence Wong claims the cost of building materials has increased BUT the cost of building car parks has decreased over the years, with pre-fabricated SMART materials used.

 

HDB conservancy fees – Town Councils claim the cost of maintenance has done up over the years. But they did not take into account that more revenue is  also collected as more flats are built. More flats built = more expenditure BUT also more revenue collected in conservancy charges.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Vinceng

[Sdf4786k]

Don’t waste your brain juice analyzing such nonsense. 

 

If the government wants to find ways to increase revenue, they will have 1001 reasons to justify.

 

Classic examples are the increase of HDB season parking & hourly parking and HDB flats conservancy fees.

 

HDB Season parking –  Minister Lawrence Wong claims the cost of building materials has increased BUT the cost of building car parks has decreased over the years, with pre-fabricated SMART materials used.

 

HDB conservancy fees – Town Councils claim the cost of maintenance has done up over the years. But they did not take into account that more revenue is  also collected as more flats are built. More flats built = more expenditure BUT also more revenue collected in conservancy charges.

 

while that is true, the carparks are still design haphazardly. Panel van still get the rear glass shattered now and then. If you dont reversed it far enough, the driver door stuck at the side pillars. 

I don't quite get what the article saying....

 

Since port fuel injection engine the particle "is low", and NEA say port furl injection engine are not tested for particle matter. So no difference what???

 

more of the fact that those non port injected will be incurring higher tax if they dont meet the Euro6 compliant...

[Vratenza]

 

Meanwhile, an executive from a major German manufacturer said "there's no logic" for the exemption.

"Generally, port injection is not the most efficient way," he said. "So excusing it is basically undermining the supposed intent of cleaning up the air."

 

[ins1dious]

 

 

Didn't know NEA/LTA so free... needlessly complicate the testing by excusing one type of engines on the basis of fuel going into combustion chamber.

 

They never hear of KISS... and no... I don't mean the rock band

[TangoElite]

I don't quite get what the article saying....

 

Since port fuel injection engine the particle "is low", and NEA say port furl injection engine are not tested for particle matter. So no difference what???

 

 

exactly, I am baffled by their reasoning. Since they claim PFI models emits low PM, then why the need to waive the test for PM? If you claim it is low, then let it be tested and proven that it is indeed low!!

 

It obviously shows that they know the lab test result will yield a different answer, therefore they need to exempt it.

 

Perhaps NEA should re-look at the the appropriateness of the testing methodologies, rather than the standards set.

[Kusje]

Don’t waste your brain juice analyzing such nonsense. 

 

If the government wants to find ways to increase revenue, they will have 1001 reasons to justify.

 

Classic examples are the increase of HDB season parking & hourly parking and HDB flats conservancy fees.

 

HDB Season parking –  Minister Lawrence Wong claims the cost of building materials has increased BUT the cost of building car parks has decreased over the years, with pre-fabricated SMART materials used.

 

HDB conservancy fees – Town Councils claim the cost of maintenance has done up over the years. But they did not take into account that more revenue is  also collected as more flats are built. More flats built = more expenditure BUT also more revenue collected in conservancy charges.

 

It's you that fail to take into account all the factors leh.

 

Got take into account that the TC needs additional funds for investments?

[Mockngbrd]

This is just BS and biased against european cars. We all know the real reasons behind it la. move on move on. 

[Vratenza]

They only know KISS ASS.....and we ALL know whose derriere they have preference for....

 

Didn't know NEA/LTA so free... needlessly complicate the testing by excusing one type of engines on the basis of fuel going into combustion chamber.

 

They never hear of KISS... and no... I don't mean the rock band

[Sdf4786k]

exactly, I am baffled by their reasoning. Since they claim PFI models emits low PM, then why the need to waive the test for PM? If you claim it is low, then let it be tested and proven that it is indeed low!!

 

It obviously shows that they know the lab test result will yield a different answer, therefore they need to exempt it.

 

Perhaps NEA should re-look at the the appropriateness of the testing methodologies, rather than the standards set.

 

I suppose its like NCAP rating. why would you want to retest locally ?

 

 

[Watwheels]

 

The German brands typically lean towards direct injection, where fuel is injected directly into the combustion chamber. Compared to port fuel injection, this method is more fuel-efficient, but tends to produce more particulate matter.

 

I think the German executive and some of you misunderstood what is being said.

 

In terms of effeciency be it fuel economy, horsepower, less co2 gas emission, direct fuel injected engines is no doubt better dan port fuel injected engines, but when it comes to emission measured from the tailpipe DI produces more fine soot. The fine particles are harmful to the human body as it cannot be broken down and be rejected from our bodies, much like the fine particles that come along with haze. Singaporeans understand readings such as the pm2.5 means.

 

It's the fine particulate that is the main concern or at least what NEA is trying to point out. I don't think their measuring equipement is biased as some of you may suggest. The numbers usually do not lie or take sides.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Watwheels

[Mockngbrd]

Selective... macham some presidential election

 

It's the fine particulate that is the main concern or at least what NEA is trying to point out. I don't think their measuring equipement is biased as some of you may suggest. The numbers usually do not lie or take sides.

No scare then why don't want test all?

[Sdf4786k]

Selective... macham some presidential election

No scare then why don't want test all?

waste time testing or worst. must buy equipment to test and dont know how to test.

 

Anyway interestingly 

 

Audi Singapore managing director Jeff Mannering said: "The reason behind VES is to raise standards to ensure Singapore has the most efficient and environmentally friendly standards available in the world. However, allowing a port fuel injection to be exempted from PM readings makes no sense.

 

 

 

two version of the same engine. Wonder if cost is the factor?

[Watwheels]

Selective... macham some presidential election

No scare then why don't want test all?

 

Write to LTA lo. See what they say?

[Sdf4786k]

Write to LTA lo. See what they say?

As usual, after all that has been say and done, more would have been said than done.