Haha, RDX has best new car smell
07-30-2008, 08:56 PM
#1
Racer
Thread Starter
Haha, RDX has best new car smell
07-30-2008, 11:29 PM
#3
Safety Car
The unfortunate use of the phrase "new car smell" tends to make it appear that automakers are just interested in a rewarding aroma -- kind of like when you walk into a upscale clothing store -- part of the "consumer experience".
But this is actually a serious subject and Honda deserves credit for taking the lead with the RDX, the Accord, Odyssey, Civic and Ridgeline. Read the actual report here:
The Consumer Guide to Toxic Chemicals in Cars
What's interesting is that many automakers are all over the chart, with some products ranked well and others rock bottom. It's apparent that they are responding only as consumer concern becomes a market force. All the more credit to Honda for being out front on this.
But this is actually a serious subject and Honda deserves credit for taking the lead with the RDX, the Accord, Odyssey, Civic and Ridgeline. Read the actual report here:
The Consumer Guide to Toxic Chemicals in Cars
What's interesting is that many automakers are all over the chart, with some products ranked well and others rock bottom. It's apparent that they are responding only as consumer concern becomes a market force. All the more credit to Honda for being out front on this.
07-31-2008, 01:24 AM
#4
Intermediate
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by XLR8R
The unfortunate use of the phrase "new car smell" tends to make it appear that automakers are just interested in a rewarding aroma -- kind of like when you walk into a upscale clothing store -- part of the "consumer experience".
But this is actually a serious subject and Honda deserves credit for taking the lead with the RDX, the Accord, Odyssey, Civic and Ridgeline. Read the actual report here:
The Consumer Guide to Toxic Chemicals in Cars
What's interesting is that many automakers are all over the chart, with some products ranked well and others rock bottom. It's apparent that they are responding only as consumer concern becomes a market force. All the more credit to Honda for being out front on this.
But this is actually a serious subject and Honda deserves credit for taking the lead with the RDX, the Accord, Odyssey, Civic and Ridgeline. Read the actual report here:
The Consumer Guide to Toxic Chemicals in Cars
What's interesting is that many automakers are all over the chart, with some products ranked well and others rock bottom. It's apparent that they are responding only as consumer concern becomes a market force. All the more credit to Honda for being out front on this.
They didn't measure the amount of toxins that occupants would be exposed to in the air (via out gassing from the materials) or through contact with the skin, etc. Instead, they just used an X-ray device to measure the amount of certain elements in the solid materials used each car's interior.
To illustrate just how ridiculous that is, let's consider one of those elements, chlorine. Chlorine is a dangerous gas in its free state, but chlorine compounds aren't necessarily toxic. Salt is a compound of chlorine and sodium (sodium chloride) and as such the X-ray device would register very high concentrations of chlorine. However, salt is obviously not a toxin. It is an very stable compound which does not give off chlorine gas under normal circumstances.
Incidentally, if they were also looking for sodium, salt would be doubly dangerous according to their methodology, because free sodium is an extremely hazardous substance.
08-01-2008, 12:55 AM
#5
Safety Car
Originally Posted by VChron
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the study and the ratings are complete junk.
They didn't measure the amount of toxins that occupants would be exposed to in the air (via out gassing from the materials) or through contact with the skin, etc. Instead, they just used an X-ray device...
They didn't measure the amount of toxins that occupants would be exposed to in the air (via out gassing from the materials) or through contact with the skin, etc. Instead, they just used an X-ray device...
"Other carmakers, however—including General Motors and Chrysler—complained that the study's conclusions were irrelevant, in part because the report didn't draw conclusions about the actual quality of the air in any new vehicle."
"GM said that it "does not agree" with the findings "because we believe the scientific method used is not valid for making" the rankings and claims. "
"Chrysler sounded a similar note, citing "concerns about the methodology" in the report, including a lack of information about the presence of the toxic elements in the vehicle compartment air, levels of exposure of occupants and risks of exposure."
"GM said that it "does not agree" with the findings "because we believe the scientific method used is not valid for making" the rankings and claims. "
"Chrysler sounded a similar note, citing "concerns about the methodology" in the report, including a lack of information about the presence of the toxic elements in the vehicle compartment air, levels of exposure of occupants and risks of exposure."
"Honda maintained that its relatively good showing in HealthyCar.org in part reflected its growing attention to a car's interior environment. For example, the company has been working on a "biofabric" made from plant materials that wouldn't give off any of the toxic fumes criticized by the Ecology Center. This biofabric is designed to be durable and highly resistant to fading and degradation from sunlight, according to David Iida, a spokesman for American Honda Motor Co. in Detroit."
1. We will make efforts to recycle materials and conserve resources and energy at
every stage of our products’ life cycle from research, design, production and sales,
to services and disposal.
2. We will make every effort to minimize and find appropriate methods to dispose
waste and contaminants that are produced through the use of our products, and in every stage of the life cycle of these products.
3. As both a member of the company and of society, each associate will focus on the
importance of making efforts to preserve human health and the global environment, and will do his or her part to ensure that the company as a whole
acts responsibly.
4. We will consider the influence that our corporate activities have on the local
environment and society, and endeavor to improve the social standing of the
company.
every stage of our products’ life cycle from research, design, production and sales,
to services and disposal.
2. We will make every effort to minimize and find appropriate methods to dispose
waste and contaminants that are produced through the use of our products, and in every stage of the life cycle of these products.
3. As both a member of the company and of society, each associate will focus on the
importance of making efforts to preserve human health and the global environment, and will do his or her part to ensure that the company as a whole
acts responsibly.
4. We will consider the influence that our corporate activities have on the local
environment and society, and endeavor to improve the social standing of the
company.
By the way, I don't much doubt that the Ecology Center is staffed with enviro-zealots who have no dictionaries.......their White Paper spells "fluorescence" as "flouresence". Geez, what are they X-raying? Wheat?
But X-Ray fluorescence spectrometry is a highly regarded and widely used non-destructive analysis technique -- and the Ecology Center's premise is as simple as they are:
If there is NO chlorine, bromine, chromium in the car; then there is NONE to harm people or the environment.
Honda gets it..........Does GM? Do you?
08-01-2008, 08:51 AM
#6
Burning Brakes
I love "new car" smell. It's a lot better than driving with my Uncle Bruno after he's had a loaf of garlic bread. I'm going to die anyway, so why not let me enjoy myself while I'm here?
I am sick and tired of all these self-proclaimed "experts" and enviro "wackos" who want to dictate what I can eat, drink, smell, see, smoke and buy.
I am sick and tired of all these self-proclaimed "experts" and enviro "wackos" who want to dictate what I can eat, drink, smell, see, smoke and buy.
Trending Topics
08-01-2008, 01:30 PM
#8
Intermediate
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by XLR8R
But X-Ray fluorescence spectrometry is a highly regarded and widely used non-destructive analysis technique
Originally Posted by XLR8R
-- and the Ecology Center's premise is as simple as they are:
If there is NO chlorine, bromine, chromium in the car; then there is NONE to harm people or the environment.
If there is NO chlorine, bromine, chromium in the car; then there is NONE to harm people or the environment.
The Ecology Center's methodology is therefore junk. That's an objective assessment which has absolutely nothing to do with the policies and practices of any car manufacturer.
08-01-2008, 01:41 PM
#9
Burning Brakes
Since 75% of vehicle sales are for "used" vehicles I guess only people who buy new vehicles will get cancer, have children with three eyes, and otherwise become a burden on society. Thank goodness I still have the right to buy a new car.
08-02-2008, 03:45 PM
#10
Safety Car
Originally Posted by VChron
The XRF measurements don't tell which toxic compounds, if any, are present; nor do they tell the extent to which any toxic substance would escape from the solid materials.
With that in mind XRF material analysis is simple, reliable and eliminates variables.
Originally Posted by VChron
That premise is simple-minded because it makes the absurd assumption that all chlorine compounds for example, including common salt, are equally harmful to people and the environment.....
Measurement of volatile organic compounds inside automobiles†
Marion J Fedoruka and Brent D Kergerb
The objective of the current study was to evaluate the types and concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the passenger cabin of selected sedan automobiles under static (parked, unventilated) and specified conditions of operation (i.e., driving the vehicle using air conditioning alone, vent mode alone, or driver's window half open).
The profile of most prevalent individual VOC compounds varied considerably according to vehicle brand, age, and interior temperature tested, with predominant compounds including styrene, toluene, and 8- to 12-carbon VOCs. TVOC levels under varied operating conditions (and ventilation) were generally four- to eightfold lower (at approximately 50–160 g/m3) than the static vehicle measurements under warm conditions, with the lowest measured levels generally observed in the trials with the driver's window half open.
Marion J Fedoruka and Brent D Kergerb
The objective of the current study was to evaluate the types and concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the passenger cabin of selected sedan automobiles under static (parked, unventilated) and specified conditions of operation (i.e., driving the vehicle using air conditioning alone, vent mode alone, or driver's window half open).
The profile of most prevalent individual VOC compounds varied considerably according to vehicle brand, age, and interior temperature tested, with predominant compounds including styrene, toluene, and 8- to 12-carbon VOCs. TVOC levels under varied operating conditions (and ventilation) were generally four- to eightfold lower (at approximately 50–160 g/m3) than the static vehicle measurements under warm conditions, with the lowest measured levels generally observed in the trials with the driver's window half open.
Since PVC is 60% chlorine, the XRF detection of chlorine in auto materials is a reliable indication (though not absolute proof) of PVC in the material.
You should take careful note here: Auto interiors are NOT made from table salt.
To a reasonable and thoughtful person, the Ecology Center's study -- while simple -- is adequate to demostrate their contention that certain automakers are reducing interior VOCs.
08-04-2008, 01:50 PM
#11
Intermediate
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You start by saying you're not inclined to defend the Ecology Center, but then everything that follows is a vigorous attempt to defend them, replete with excuses:
XRF analysis doesn't eliminate the variables, it just ignores them. If the Ecology Center lacks the time, financial and technical resources to conduct properly controlled, valid scientific analysis, then it should stay out of the business.
Yes, but again that's not the issue. The amount of leaching, out-gassing, etc., of toxic substances depends on a number of important factors, including the specific toxic compounds present, other compounds in the materials that bind or stabilize the toxic substances, the structure of the materials, and the way the materials are processed and finished. The XRF measurements do not account for these factors.
The Ecology Center's methodoloy does not support their conclusions regarding the relative risk of each car's materials to human health and the environment. That's not to say the risks are non-existent or insignificant. It means the methodology does not provide valid measurements of said risks. A car with higher XRF measurements may pose a lower risk than one with lower measurements because of one or more of the factors I mentioned above.
There's a gap between the XRF measurements and the conclusions, which is bridged via assumptions and speculation. (The salt example is a graphic illustration of that gap.) Speculation, however plausible, isn't science.
That's it as far as I'm concerned, so we'll probably have to agree to disagree.
Originally Posted by XLR8R
They are testing new cars on dealer lots with the consent of the dealer. Under these circumstances, testing for airborne VOCs would be problematic. There would be too many variables to contend with; the duration of test and outside air temperature being most obvious.
With that in mind XRF material analysis is simple, reliable and eliminates variables.
With that in mind XRF material analysis is simple, reliable and eliminates variables.
Originally Posted by XLR8R
The fact that interior PVC materials leach known or suspected carcinogens as VOCs is not in dispute. That work has already been done. Nor is there any dispute that phthalates-enriched flexible PVC is commonly used throughout car interiors.
The Ecology Center's methodoloy does not support their conclusions regarding the relative risk of each car's materials to human health and the environment. That's not to say the risks are non-existent or insignificant. It means the methodology does not provide valid measurements of said risks. A car with higher XRF measurements may pose a lower risk than one with lower measurements because of one or more of the factors I mentioned above.
There's a gap between the XRF measurements and the conclusions, which is bridged via assumptions and speculation. (The salt example is a graphic illustration of that gap.) Speculation, however plausible, isn't science.
That's it as far as I'm concerned, so we'll probably have to agree to disagree.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
andysinnh
2G RDX Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
1
09-05-2015 11:38 PM
