Oil companies slow emissions reduction

New generation engine technology available now could reduce CO2 emissions by as much as 20 per cent in high-end cars, but the Australian market won't be ready for that new technology until 2015.

Both BMW and Mercedes-Benz have high-tech petrol and diesel engines in production for European and other global markets (more here), but according to David McCarthy, Senior Manager Corporate Communications for Mercedes-Benz, local oil distributors are leaving themselves as much as 10 years' breathing space for the introduction of improved quality fuels.

In the past, the German marques in particular have been vocal regarding fuel quality Down Under. BMW's latest round of petrol engine developments features the marque's High Pressure Direct Injection technology. These boast power increases as well as significant fuel economy improvements -- directly affecting CO2 emissions -- but are also denied to Australian consumers because of fuel quality.

The local manufacturers and importers have approached the federal government -- through the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) -- to apply pressure to the oil industry to raise the quality of pump fuel.

In the case of high quality diesel, the wait will stretch to at least 2015 -- and possibly as far away as 2018.

Just up the road at BMW, there's less concern about diesel fuel. Diesel fuel quality in Australia is no obstacle to importation of BMW diesels, but sulphur content in premium grade petrol ('PULP') means we're stuck for the foreseeable future with 'Valvetronic' engines, rather than the new super-duper HPDI ('High Precision Direct Injection') engines with lean-burn technology now available in Europe.

Toni Andreevski, PR and Corporate Communications Manager for BMW, says that the lean-burn tech needs to run on PULP petrol with a sulphur content below 15 parts per million ('PPM'), but Australia's petrol currently contains sulphur in quantities as high as 150PPM. With effect from January next year, the sulphur content will be reduced by mandate to 50PPM, but that's still some way shy of the threshold at which the HPDI lean-burn engines would be viable.

Furthermore, there's no known timetable for the further reduction of sulphur content after January. To illustrate the advantages of the new BMW technology over the existing Valvetronic set-up, Andreevski cited the 530i for the Australian market, versus the HPDI/lean-burn equivalent in Europe.

"The 530i Valvetronic engine develops 200kW and yet consumes fuel of 9.3L/100km," says Andreevski. "The equivalent high-precision direct injection with lean-burn mode that has just been made available in Europe, that engine will use 7.5L/100km. So the same power output, the same torque.

"That engine, to give you the comparison, not only is it better than 9.3, it's actually better than an equivalent -- let's say hybrid -- sedan, which is the Lexus GS 450 hybrid. That's at 7.9L/100km. So the BMW engine has a better CO2 figure and a better fuel consumption figure -- with no sacrifice to performance and no sacrifice to boot space.

"That's where the engine technology is at the moment: only available in Europe, because only Europe so far can guarantee ultra-low sulphur petrol."

There are two stumbling blocks to bringing in the high-tech engines in the current climate. Firstly, there's the gradual degradation of the catalytic converter due to the higher sulphur content and secondly, there's the poorer running of the HPDI/lean-burn engines in 'fail-safe' mode. Andreevski tells us that either one of these issues in isolation would be enough cause to reject these engines for Australia.

In his words: "A guy driving in Germany could technically drive into Russia. You could run the car, but you would have to keep an eye on the catalyst, because essentially, over time, it would degrade the catalyst. You could clean it out, but then the problem is, once the engine realises it's not dealing with ultra-clean fuel, it reverts to 'Lambda 1', which is like a standard fuel/air mixture. What happens then is you have a slightly worse fuel consumption than the current Valvetronic engine.

"Because it's working hard to not be in lean-burn mode and it's putting more fuel into the mixture, it's richening up the mixture. It's not optimised, it's doing it as a fail-safe. So, you're probably getting 9.5 instead of 9.3[L/100km].

"It doesn't make any sense to bring the engine in, given you've probably got issues with the catalyst over time.

"If it doesn't get better fuel economy, why do it? If it potentially damages something, why do it? One of those [reasons] alone would fail our test.

"As a must, fuel quality has to improve or those engines will not come to Australia."

However, it's not all bad news as far as BMW is concerned. The company is still refining Valvetronic engines for markets such as Australia, where sulphur content in petrol remains high. Valvetronic cars are more economical and cleaner running than many comparable engines around and would certainly be more efficient than the HPDI/lean-burn engines with a sulphur-clogged catalytic converter and engine management system in 'fail-safe' mode.

Pointing out that while the Valvetronic engine wasn't ultimately as efficient as the HPDI/lean-burn equivalent, it's still a very efficient engine in its own right, Andreevski compared the 530i Valvetronic engine (a port-injected six with variable valve timing for both inlet and exhaust valves) against the Holden Calais V with 190kW V6.

"[The Holden offers] Less power and a combined fuel consumption figure of 11.3L/100km. I don't want it to sound like the Valvetronic engines are in some respect outdated, because they're still cutting edge when it comes to petrol powerplants, but BMW being BMW, is obviously looking to the future.

Granted that the Calais has to run on 91 RON ULP as well as PULP, but the difference in fuel consumption is noteworthy, given the Holden's lower power and only marginally better torque from a significantly larger engine.

But it's the Valvetronic engine's very cutting edge stats that mark the beginning of the end for this type of engine.

"There's not much more we can get out of those [Valvetronic] engines," says Andreevski.

"The future clearly now is in High-Precision Direct Injection engines in this, what's called 'lean-burn mode'."

Andreevski was a little more forgiving of the petroleum industry than McCarthy, quoting a figure of up to $1.5 billion for the industry to bring in lower sulphur content.

Contrary to his Benz counterpart's view, Andreevski believes the government could bear at least some of this cost, since it enjoys a massive jackpot from fuel excise, new car sales GST and -- in the case of BMW and Mercedes cars above $57,130 -- the luxury car tax, a tax applied to vehicles that are often already cleaner, safer and more efficient than the bulk of cars that don't attract that tax.

The forecast for the luxury car tax collected by the government in one year is set at $450 million -- a substantial fraction of the amount necessary to reduce sulphur in premium grade fuel and commence improving air quality.

McCarthy states: "Oil companies have a responsibility to step up to the plate. If we want better emissions, better fuel economy, better air, it's [got to be] a cooperative approach. Two thirds of our range could be cleaner. We would love to introduce these models (more here), but we can't.

McCarthy also took a gentle swipe at the federal government when he said: "The government has to be more proactive." But in saying "We all have to bear the cost and it's not being borne," he was specifically challenging 'Big Oil'.

With a new government in Canberra -- and one ostensibly committed to 'Kyoto' and environmental issues generally -- perhaps now is the time for this issue to be revisited. As Andreevski says, any new technology with some potential appearing in high-end cars today will likely trickle down to the rest of the national parc in years to come, just as ABS and ESP are doing -- "not 2008, but perhaps 2010..."

To comment on this article click here