VES 2018

[Wt_know]

Cat A revised to limit at 130bhp .... did coe plunge?

ARF revised to 140-180% of OMV ... did coe plunge?

Downpayment revised to 40-50% ... did coe plunge?

petrol tax up ... did coe plunge?

kena 4D is easier than coe plunge? lol

spore is the world most expensive city for 3 years is not for nothing hor

property and car price is the TOP in the list

 

So makes sense to get new car before end of year right? But maybe coe will plunge?

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Wt_know

[Spidey10]

Play with scholars hahaha .......... head they win and tail we lose

[Mustank]

So makes sense to get new car before end of year right? But maybe coe will plunge?

Lolly one plunge

Car one Cheong

[Noob79]

actually they win either way...

 

Play with scholars hahaha .......... head they win and tail we lose

[Aaronlkl]

actually they win either way...

Bao jiak! ;-)

[therock]

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/car-firms-question-emission-exemptions

 

 

 

Excluding some models from one test defeats scheme's aim, creates unfair competition, they argue

Christopher Tan

Senior Transport Correspondent

 

 

A number of carmakers and dealers are crying foul over a surprise move to exempt some models from getting particulate matter (PM) readings. It is counterproductive to the Government's aim to reduce PM - or fine soot - in the air, they said.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) made public last week, in response to queries from The Straits Times, that petrol models with port fuel injection (PFI) will not be tested for one of the five pollutants.

The news came two months after the NEA announced a new car emission scheme that takes into account five pollutants, including PM.

The NEA said petrol models with PFI - where fuel is injected just before the engine's combustion chamber - will not be measured for PM when the Euro 6 emission standard kicks in in September, and when the Vehicular Emissions Scheme (VES), which dishes out tax rebates or surcharges according to a car's emission levels, starts in January.

It explained that the European Commission makes a similar exemption for PFI models, citing the PM emissions from these models as being "very low".

Because of this exemption, a car like the Toyota Corolla Altis, which employs PFI, could enjoy a tax rebate, while a similar model, such as the Mazda 3, would be slapped with a surcharge. This could make the Mazda 15 per cent to 20 per cent costlier than the Toyota.

 

 

NOT A GOOD CHOICE

It may not be a good choice if we wholly rely on European standards, since the actual emission performance varies (with) many other factors.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE TRANSPORT RESEARCHER LEE DER-HORNG, on following the European Commission's similar exemption.

NOT FAIR

Exempting one group of vehicles from what is a key pollutant count will just create unfair competition.

SALES DIRECTOR DAVID PANG FROM ALPINE GROUP , which sells Opel and Chevrolet cars.

Sales director David Pang from Alpine Group, which sells Opel and Chevrolet cars, said: "We have no quarrels with the timeline for the new emission standards. But exempting one group of vehicles from what is a key pollutant count will just create unfair competition."

Meanwhile, PFI technology is deemed to be less fuel-efficient and could produce more carbon dioxide than direct injection, where the fuel is sprayed directly into the combustion chamber.

Mr Pang added: "The latest and more efficient engines are measured for attributes that older, less efficient engines are not. This will lead to the more efficient engines being penalised by the VES."

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.

"Every car should be measured the same way."

A spokesman for BMW Group said: "We cannot confirm that port fuel injection always tends to produce less particulate emissions. This depends very much on the engine load."

He added that under high engine load, such as accelerating from a stop or overtaking, "the particulate emissions of engines with direct injection can be equal or even lower than those with port fuel injection".

A 2012 European Commission study concurs and said there are concerns regarding the suitability of the legislated procedure for the assessment of the true particulate emissions of PFI vehicles. "The particle number emissions of PFI vehicles are found to strongly depend on the driving behaviour," it read.

Asian Clean Fuels Association director Clarence Woo said no exemption should be made as emission standards should be "technology neutral".

National University of Singapore transport researcher Lee Der-Horng said: "Regarding exhaust emission... it may not be a good choice if we wholly rely on European standards, since the actual emission performance varies (with) many other factors."

 

[TangoElite]

wow, really embarrassing for NEA

 

looks like NEA didn't do their homework thoroughly enough in April

[Soya]

wow, really embarrassing for NEA

 

looks like NEA didn't do their homework thoroughly enough in April

What's new really?

 

Flip Prata is the order of the day.

 

Which reminds me "Boss, roti telor satu"

[Carbon82]

This whole event exposed how poor is the policy planning at LTA and NEA.

 

First they decided on a certain parameters without looking at how to implement it. There are a few testing standards for vehicular emission such as European EU, Japan JC09, US EPA, etc. and since testing cycle and conditions varies among these standard, is it fair for consumers here to allow LTA to impose surcharge or grant rebate basing on different standard?

 

Next, what are the basis for setting the parameters for determine to grant rebate or impose surcharge? Without any strong justification, as a consumer and general public, I would tend to think these set of numbers are simply pluck from the air. Don't repeat the same mistake as the EU, where the stringent requirements ended up forcing manufacturers to cheat...

 

Last but not least, since parameters has been casted in stone, LTA and NEA has to get every single manufacturer to comply and submit documents to prove it, NO exemption allowed! Allowing older PFI engine to be exempted from PM2.5 testing simply basing on theory that the PM2.5 level is lower than DI engine is akin to allowing runners to be exempted from taking 2.4K during IPPT because runner is deemed to be able to run fast!!

 

BTW, I would also like to understand from LTA and NEA which parameters is more important in even of conflict of interest? CO2 & NoX emission (which is closely related to fuel consumption) vs PM2.5 (which seems to be higher for more fuel efficient engine as fuel is burnt better to generate more power and mileage). Why I say conflict of interest? Well, every liter of fuel sold here are heavily taxed, so better FC car would ended up paying less fuel tax in long run (lesser revenue for government), got it?!

Edited June 2, 2017 by Carbon82

[Mkl22]

This whole event exposed how poor is the policy planning at LTA and NEA.

 

First they decided on a certain parameters without looking at how to implement it. There are a few testing standards for vehicular emission such as European EU, Japan JC09, US EPA, etc. and since testing cycle and conditions varies among these standard, is it fair for consumers here to allow LTA to impose surcharge or grant rebate basing on different standard?

 

Next, what are the basis for setting the parameters for determine to grant rebate or impose surcharge? Without any strong justification, as a consumer and general public, I would tend to think these set of numbers are simply pluck from the air. Don't repeat the same mistake as the EU, where the stringent requirements ended up forcing manufacturers to cheat...

 

Last but not least, since parameters has been casted in stone, LTA and NEA has to get every single manufacturer to comply and submit documents to prove it, NO exemption allowed! Allowing older PFI engine to be exempted from PM2.5 testing simply basing on theory that the PM2.5 level is lower than DI engine is akin to allowing runners to be exempted from taking 2.4K during IPPT because runner is deemed to be able to run fast!!

 

BTW, I would also like to understand from LTA and NEA which parameters is more important in even of conflict of interest? CO2 & NoX emission (which is closely related to fuel consumption) vs PM2.5 (which seems to be higher for more fuel efficient engine as fuel is burnt better to generate more power and mileage). Why I say conflict of interest? Well, every liter of fuel sold here are heavily taxed, so better FC car would ended up paying less fuel tax in long run (lesser revenue for government), got it?!

No need to understand. They recently realized that with such a stringent requirement, there will be less competitive bidding of coe from toyota Honda and basically all the made in ASEAN cars. Coe will plummet. Then they prata flip to patch this hole lor. Simple as this.

[Aaronlkl]

No need to understand. They recently realized that with such a stringent requirement, there will be less competitive bidding of coe from toyota Honda and basically all the made in ASEAN cars. Coe will plummet. Then they prata flip to patch this hole lor. Simple as this.

 

[Soya]

See I hungry liao

[Aaronlkl]

See I hungry liao

 

Dun worry bro, more to come! Won't go hungry one.

[Soya]

Dun worry bro, more to come! Won't go hungry one.

Next one boss scholar gonna incl telor & onion for us

 

Maybe even one day, we get murtabak

 

So yummy

[Vidz]

 

what is there to understand?    

 

 

[Aaronlkl]

Next one boss scholar gonna incl telor & onion for us

 

Maybe even one day, we get murtabak

 

So yummy

 

Lol...

[inlinesix]

That's why Singapore birth rate so low.

 

Everyday kenna screw by gxxt.

 

Where got time to have sex.

[therock]

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/port-fuel-injection-vehicles-to-be-banded-for-particulate-matter-under-ves-from-july-1

 

Changed again..

 

 

SINGAPORE - Port Fuel Injection (PFI) vehicles will need to be banded for particulate matter (PM) or fine soot under the Vehicular Emissions Scheme (VES) from July 1, 2018, the National Environment Agency (NEA) said in a statement on Tuesday (June 13).

Car dealers will have six months from the commencement of the scheme on Jan 1, 2018 - which gives rebates for low-pollutant vehicles and surcharges for high-pollutant ones - to submit their PM emissions readings.

PFI vehicles, where fuel is injected just before the engine's combustion chamber, are currently exempted from the need for PM testing. This is because PM emissions from PFI vehicles are deemed to be low under current European emission standards, NEA said.

However, NEA has relooked its treatment of PM banding under the VES for PFI vehicles after "feedback and analysis".