IET Article - Car engines to increase in size following VW emissions scandal

[somewhatfoolish]

 

As a confirmed shitter and somehow trying to be environmentally aware, I have an ancient car running on LPG with a relatively modern lpg system.  I would really love to get it on the latest emissions equipment and see whether it is actually good or not.  Burning a gas simply has to generate less particulates - that is clear - and I believe that propane is less harmful if it gets out for all sorts of reasons.  It should burn cooler than petrol or diesel as the carbon content is less so perhaps less NOx?  Reality is of course that I have no idea.

 

I vaguely heard something about metallic nano particles causing brain cancer.  Came from cars and 'general industry'.  If that's brake discs then even the electric ones will generate them, ffs what are we getting ourselves into!  Do we have any idea?

 

LPG just makes different sized particulate, it doesn't get rid of smut altogether.

 

Electric motors (should) employ regenerative electromagnetic braking for most  stoppery, with discs just for handbrakes ultimately(or for when it all goes tits up and the smoke escapes).

[Tamworthbay]

Holy shite, that little bike engine is extraordinary

If you like that, have a nose at this:

 

http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/Classic%20Racers/honda_nr_500_gp_racer_1979.htm

[dieselnutjob]

A CO2 tax is just a fuel economy tax innit, that seems a reasonable basis for a tax surely?

 

If reasonable means fair, then no it isn't.  The only fair way to tax fuel economy (which directly relates to CO2 emissions) is to tax the fuel that is burnt.

 

Who cares if you have a V8 Range Rover on your drive but only drive it twice a year; it isn't producing any CO2s.

 

Scrap all road tax and CO2 BICs and only tax fuel.  The more you damage, the more you pay.

[Pillock]

As long as my work fuel payments go up above 9p per mile I'm happy with that!

The more fuel costs, assuming I get reimbursed, the more nectar points I get innit. BRING IT ON.

[pilninggas]

Cars 'n bikes not really a legitimate comparison IMO.

You need to tell that to the almost daily Audi/BMW driving turds who think they can outdrag my FZ1 from the lights. They seem to think their shitbox is gonna have the bike and it's never even close.

[RoadworkUK]

You said yourself the results would be largely the same so why bother? The entire scale would have to change as even a three pot diesel would pump out 200g/km or whatever when it's screaming it's bollocks off at 26mph so what is currently free tax for <90g would have to change to free tax for <200g or everything would be in the top band. How is that fair for the majority of average drivers?

 

It's equally unfair to assume everyone drives like that, so you've just changed extremes. Actually, the only fair way is variable tax based on your ECU reporting live emissions figures.

Ah, you're getting me!

 

However, I can't believe that a 3-pot diesel can chuck out as much crud flat out as a six-pot of twice the capacity. If a 1.5 is putting out 200g, surely a 3.0 will be more like 400.

 

Yes, the lowest polluting should still be tax free, and bands should be arranged from 200, 250, 300, 350, 400 etc. And yes, effectively the system would stay the same. BUT:

 

It would mean that engines no longer have to be developed to comply with stupid protocols. I think it would be a brilliantly simple and fair system based on the actual pollution a vehicle can produce.

 

Just like industrial engines. They're assessed on "must not exceed" levels, not "perhaps if you're lucky".

[Pillock]

They'd just limit them to 3000rpm to "game" the tests. Wherever you come up with as a reference model, it can be gamed.

 

Remember, it's just a score. It's just putting the cars in order, if your scheme doesn't change the order what's the point?

[Sir Snipes]

I stand corrected on the short life cycle of bike engines!

 

They'd just limit them to 3000rpm to "game" the tests. Wherever you come up with as a reference model, it can be gamed.

 

Remember, it's just a score. It's just putting the cars in order, if your scheme doesn't change the order what's the point?

But the point of things like euro 5 is to achieve an overall reduction in emissions. Across the board, not just a consumer choice issue.

[RoadworkUK]

They'd just limit them to 3000rpm to "game" the tests. Wherever you come up with as a reference model, it can be gamed.

 

Remember, it's just a score. It's just putting the cars in order, if your scheme doesn't change the order what's the point?

Yes, because it would be really hard* for a testing agency to spot that an engine had been rigged not to go above 3000rpm.

 

If a car company was to fiddle its engine management system to produce good results at the top end of the rev-range, surely that's a win-win? And anyway, it could be legislated that tests have to be performed at 90% of the quoted max RPM or peak power. I really don't see the problem.

 

Again, it would prevent cars having to comply with meaningless criteria that fails to reproduce the gentle, economical daily driving that really doesn't appeal to the average 65-plate TDI driver anyway.

[SiC]

Max rpm isn't a useful measuring point. Just look at diesel smoke tests on the MOT. Max load is more useful. Harder to measure though.

[RoadworkUK]

Max rpm isn't a useful measuring point. Just look at diesel smoke tests on the MOT. Max load is more useful. Harder to measure though.

Maximum acceleration from a standing start should do the trick. For 1 kilometre. What better way to measure grams per kilometre? Hard in a laboratory, but possible on a test track with a probe up the exhaust.

 

You know, like on actual roads.

[SiC]

Maximum acceleration from a standing start should do the trick. For 1 kilometre. What better way to measure grams per kilometre? Hard in a laboratory, but possible on a test track with a probe up the exhaust.

 

You know, like on actual roads.

What about exterior temperature, humidity, road surface, road temperature, tyre compound, wind strength, etc, etc? Tonnes of variables that make it impossible to replicate a test in a non laboratory environment. One test day may make it fail very badly, other test days, pass easily.

 

There is very valid reasons why things are tested in very controlled, repeatable conditions.

[RoadworkUK]

Then do it in a big hangar! And there's no pass or fail, just big numbers. Do it over a number of days. Take an average over varying weather conditions. Whatever!

 

I'm sure the conditions would be no more variable than real life. If anything their variation would make the readings more representative of reality.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[Mr_Bo11ox]

The whole point is to take out all the variation of 'real life' so you can realistically compare one car with the other!!

[PhilA]

I have been surprised by my car. High gearing, variable displacement, variable valve timing.

 

It'll bumble along at 45 doing 70mpg, on average returns about 30mpg. It has enough low end torque that the engine can afford to rotate slowly if it needs so driving along gently on half the cylinders it'll happily propel the car in city traffic. Allow for slow engine speeds and the fuel has time to fully burn, surprised how efficient it is for nearly 6 litres.

 

A 1.0 turbo would be less likely to be as efficient across the full range of driving.

 

And yes, I get taxed heavily on it because it is capable of consuming fuel at an alarming rate if you request so.

 

It makes me smile more than a Fiesta does too.

 

Phil

[cort1977]

There is no such thing as an "average driver". Euromix or whatever arcane systems of average they use are not representative.

And as you can't accurately reproduce a mode, mean or median average, all you can rely on is extremes.

 

The entire system needs to be based on worst case scenarios, which, yes, could in essence include redlining it with the handbrake on and flat tyres. In most cases the results would be roughly similar to how they are now anyway, so a 1.2-litre petrol is bound to chuck out fewer lentils in extremis than a 2.0-litre. Etc. You're therefore paying tax on how much of a pollution liability your car can potentially be, only this time it's been measured fairly.

 

Put it this way: thousands of perfectly good* VAG cars are about to be crushed because they don't comply with a measuring system that isn't representative anyway.  Yet If a VW TDI and a BMW 3 series diesel were both driven on the M4 at 90mph, I'll bet they both pollute the same.

Why would a tax based on worst case emissions be better than one based best case emissions?

 

  The VAG cars are going to be crushed because they had been designed to cheat the test.   The test was administered fairly, it may not be a good test, in fact I agree with you that it isn't, but it is carried out under laboratory conditions for each manufacturer.   All car makers have to comply with the test so VW gained an illegal commercial advantage by their actions.

 

As others have said, it's the fairness of the test that is important, no test can be representative of all conditions and scenarios so the kind of extreme testing you're advocating would not be much of an improvement and would be completely impossible to administer as no company would accept such subjective results.   A laboratory test is the only way to measure emissions but clearly all the manufacturers are currently lobbying hard to get the most favourable testing regime they can for the next round of emission standards.

[dugong]

'pinnacle of engineering' is a totally vague term, you can't say bike engines are it and cars aren't, thats nonsense.

 

I thought my cock was the pinnacle of human engineering - that's why my ex now lives in Finland.

 

She's now a dishwasher tablet.

[Felly Magic]

I remember when Volvo Bus went from Euro 3 to Euro 4, the engine size was increased by nigh on 2 litres in double deckers, now they have massively overblown 5 litre units that have a doubtful service life

[RoadworkUK]

Why would a tax based on worst case emissions be better than one based best case emissions?

Because cars are never, ever driven according to best case scenarios.

 

Car A emits 120g/km of crap on The Measured Cycle, but can also do 0-62 in 7.5 secs while throwing out 300g/km. And frequently will.

 

Car B emits 120g/km of crap on The Measured Cycle, and is a little shopping car that can only throw out 200g/km even if thrashed to an inch of its life.

 

How is it fair to declare that the two are equally pollutive?

 

Yes, VW should be punished for cheating, but in real terms, accounting for human behaviour, its doubtful as to how much more pollutive its cars are over comparable cars from other marques.

 

Is it fair that a Lotus Elise, a car which will constantly be driven hard, is measured on the same system as a Kia Picanto which will spend its life pootling to the shops?

 

The whole point is to take out all the variation of 'real life' so you can realistically compare one car with the other!!

Yes Bo11, but in your own words, taking out the variation of real life isn't terribly realistic, is it? Perhaps laboratory testing should be confined to product development and forecasting, like with aircraft, which have to go through real-life flight testing before they're certified as airworthy. Only after being flown, in the sky, with all the variables can guarantees of performance be issued.

 

Telling car makers that they now have to comply with emissions testing on the road, on randomly selected similar-spec cars straight off the production line, in real time conditions, at random intervals if necessary, would be no harder to mandate than Euro 6 or whatever.

[Rocket88]

^^^ Let's hear where theyre going wrong then!

 

I used to have an old straight six Chevy with no cambelt and no timing chain.....................gear drive. Simple, reliable, lasts for ever...............

[Dick Longbridge]

The comment was that 321bhp from a three litre was engineering at its very best, it clearly isn't close. Bike engines are engineering justbthe same way as car ones are and as anyone who has ever worked on them will tell you, the quality pisses over pretty much anything seen in the car world.See above, torque was not mentioned, but bike engines can kick out a lot of torque and my 86 VFR750 was running like a sewing machine at over 300k with only rider done regular services. Would a BMW M engine do that? I doubt it very much. Check the stats: the BMW 100r doubles the M3 in power per litre and has more torque per litre as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_S1000RRhttp://www.parkers.co.uk/bmw/3-series/m3-2007/m3-coupe-monte-carlo-2d/specs/

Again the quote was about pinnacles of engineering and in terms of engines, that isn't the car world. There is a snobbery in some car quarters against bike engines but the reality is they are superior in almost every way except one - cost.

Whilst I don't deny that bike engines are akin to black magic, I was referring to car engines. The topic title and main content focusses on car engines and their size/power output, and my post regarding engineering design related to this. Much as bike engines are very cleverly designed, I don't fancy sticking one in the M3 shell and then expect it to overtake an Allegro.

[Tamworthbay]

Whilst I don't deny that bike engines are akin to black magic, I was referring to car engines. The topic title and main content focusses on car engines and their size/power output, and my post regarding engineering design related to this. Much as bike engines are very cleverly designed, I don't fancy sticking one in the M3 shell and then expect it to overtake an Allegro.

There are plenty of bike engined cars that go like stink and if you look at the stats of modern ones then they are more than capable of moving a decent size car. BMWs are a getting a bit fat over the last couple of decades but I would still prefer a bmw1000r engine in my lardarse 318 touring than anO series if we were drag racing (or overtaking each other). I can't imagine an M3 would be fatter than that.

[For Fiats Sake]

If reasonable means fair, then no it isn't.  The only fair way to tax fuel economy (which directly relates to CO2 emissions) is to tax the fuel that is burnt.

 

Who cares if you have a V8 Range Rover on your drive but only drive it twice a year; it isn't producing any CO2s.

 

Scrap all road tax and CO2 BICs and only tax fuel.  The more you damage, the more you pay.

 

No, it isn't fair as that means anyone who has a company car and fuel card gets off without any fiscal penalty for driving over engined polluting monsters which they probably have chosen themselves.

 

Imagine  having chosen an efficient vehicle and being rewarded with low tax, then fuel goes up massively (which it would) as VED was scrapped you'd be pretty pissed off, yet Mr company car driver pays neither for fuel or anything else and feels no impact.  Not fair at all.

 

Personally I'd be quids in if VED was scrapped, but I doubt it would ever happen as it's a huge chunk of income for the govt which has already been hit by going discless (which I'd welcome to have back myself) with less revenue generated than before.

 

There isn't an easy answer to getting folks weaned off over powered polluting vehicles, the encouraged switch to diesel cars has backfired spectacularly, electric cars are still too expensive and unable to give the range.  The manufacturers are only interested in meeting the current regulations so until regulations are toughened to a point where genuinely clean vehicles are forced into production and not half arsed dpf copouts and catalytic converters, we will only get the engines we regulate for.

 

Maybe what's really needed is a firm cut off date for the end of high polluting vehicles (with the exemption of classic vehicles of course!) of all sizes and a carbon tax enforced for those that choose to carry on polluting.

We'll probably all end up in hybrids eventually...

[Sir Snipes]

Remind me again of how we define a classic car?

 

Also if you go into London almost every other car is a Prius.

[Tamworthbay]

No, it isn't fair as that means anyone who has a company car and fuel card gets off without any fiscal penalty for driving over engined polluting monsters which they probably have chosen themselves.

 

Imagine having chosen an efficient vehicle and being rewarded with low tax, then fuel goes up massively (which it would) as VED was scrapped you'd be pretty pissed off, yet Mr company car driver pays neither for fuel or anything else and feels no impact. Not fair at all.

 

Personally I'd be quids in if VED was scrapped, but I doubt it would ever happen as it's a huge chunk of income for the govt which has already been hit by going discless (which I'd welcome to have back myself) with less revenue generated than before.

 

There isn't an easy answer to getting folks weaned off over powered polluting vehicles, the encouraged switch to diesel cars has backfired spectacularly, electric cars are still too expensive and unable to give the range. The manufacturers are only interested in meeting the current regulations so until regulations are toughened to a point where genuinely clean vehicles are forced into production and not half arsed dpf copouts and catalytic converters, we will only get the engines we regulate for.

 

Maybe what's really needed is a firm cut off date for the end of high polluting vehicles (with the exemption of classic vehicles of course!) of all sizes and a carbon tax enforced for those that choose to carry on polluting.

We'll probably all end up in hybrids eventually...

Just on the VED argument, a company car driver wouldn't pay the VED anyway so putting it on fuel wouldn't make any difference to them But a gas guzzler would make a big difference to the companies bills if the tax was on fuel and encourage/ force them to look at both how effiecient the car AND the driver are.

[wuvvum]

There are plenty of bike engined cars that go like stink

True, but most of them weigh less than half a Fiesta.  And they only go like stink if you rev the living f*ck out of them.

[Tamworthbay]

True, but most of them weigh less than half a Fiesta.  And they only go like stink if you rev the living f*ck out of them.

It's just getting out of a traditional car engine mind set, whereas most car engines are redlining around 6000rpm, most bikes are still going past 10,000 with a redline between 12,000-15,000rpm. Again, down to the quality of the engineering.

[RoadworkUK]

It's just getting out of a traditional car engine mind set, whereas most car engines are redlining around 6000rpm, most bikes are still going past 10,000 with a redline between 12,000-15,000rpm. Again, down to the quality of the engineering.

 

No, it's a case of being appropriate for the job in hand -including (as Bo11o added below), the amount of mechanical effort it has to exert. A bike engine has been designed to be suitable for a bike. A car engine has been designed as suitable for a car. It's not about quality of engineering, it's fitness for purpose. The former comes as a fringe benefit.

 

It's unlikely that any manufacturer will waste profit on excess engineering these days if it doesn't have to. Bike engines are expected to work hard and as such some have an extra margin of engineering built in. Car drivers are generally expected to stay within fairly narrow performance parameters. Hence you could say that a F20C from an S2000 is better engineered than a Pinto, and it is. Because it's expected to work far harder than a Pinto.

 

I've seen lost-wax titanium castings you could wear as jewellery. They're obscenely well engineered, but only because they have a job to do. They're just another product at the end of the day.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

no - its down to the weight of the rotating masses, which is a function of the size/bulk of the thing the engine is propelling.

[RoadworkUK]

no - its down to the weight of the rotating masses, which is a function of the size/bulk of the thing the engine is propelling.

 

Simultaneous post. Jinx!