Quote Originally Posted by wai View Post
Remember, this is the US where it all started. Even the California EPA did nothing for weeks after being made aware. It is only when it went public that they piped up.

The thing is that what has been carried out by the researchers has been done using a non-approved methodology, and a non-approved test. The levels that are being talked of as an upper limit are for tests carried out in laboratory conditions and not in everyday driving.

Basically, they do not want to upset the US car maker lobby, and apart from that, it is not a mandated test. It is close to an absolute certainty that every other car maker does precisely the same thing. The researchers will not test other brands, particularly US brands, because there will be veiled threats made regarding funding to the university. Logic would say, that when they came up with these figures, they should have widened their testing to include other brands, but they have not.

This then begs the question "Why has the California EPA sat on its hands and done no independent testing of its own in the same way they did to establish the original drive cycle and emission limits?". The answer (in all probability) is lobbying against including local brands.

By the way, I contacted the RMS regarding the annual tests now called e-Safety Checks for renewal of registration in NSW. They pointed me to the rules for Authorised Inspection Stations. They used to do a basic check for CO and unburned HC, bit from the mandatory equipment that they must now have, there is no mention of an exhaust gas analyser, so even the basic CO/HC check is no longer required in NSW.
Just to clarify, when you say researchers you are referring to researchers working within the regulators such as the EPA and CARB? Or do you mean researchers working on their own or or independent companies separate from the regulators?