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

[cort16]

I see Koenegsiggsigg are working on engines with hydraulic valves rather than camshafts.

 

 

[martc]

VW's engine capacity is based on the principles of their "Pinocchio Projekt", which is why the current range is considerably larger than a few years ago.

[Tamworthbay]

Cars 'n bikes not really a legitimate comparison IMO.

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.

Yes but can a bike motor make the same amount of torque and do 200k miles before the top end needs a rebuild?

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_S1000RR

 

http://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.

[RoadworkUK]

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

 

If it's accurate, yes. But once you've got the car you can drive it however you like.

 

You may be paying tax based on 120g/km, and 60mpg but that probably doesn't reflect how the car's actually being driven, I.E. foot to the floor at every opportunity.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

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

[RoadworkUK]

  

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.

 

Again the quote was about pinnacles of engineering and in terms of engines, that isn't the car world.

 

You're right. It's probably aerospace engineering or micro-robotics.

[twosmoke300]

Yes but can a bike motor make the same amount of torque and do 200k miles before the top end needs a rebuild?

Not many modern petrol car engines can do that !

 

Plenty of bikes can do 200k too . Vfr 's and Panhandles are two examples

[Pillock]

No, you're not going to get close to the rated MPG figures in normal driving. It's a comparison so you can buy a more efficient car if you wish. Cars are tested in the same way and kick out a figure.

 

If it helps, knock MPG off the end and call it a "Score". My BMW scores 73, my old Astra used to score 65.

[twosmoke300]

Two strokes for the win ! 55 hp out of a 125 gp bike ! Not reliable or clean mind .

I wish they would pursue 2t technology more . From a laymans point of view they make sense

[Tamworthbay]

You're right. It's probably aerospace engineering or micro-robotics.

I have limited knowledge of the aerospace industry but the only IC engines I know of tend to be relatively basic in design in a lot of ways as, for obvious reasons, ultimate reliability is valued more highly than ultimate performance or innovation. I have never seen an IC powered micro robot but it sounds an interesting thing.

[Tamworthbay]

Two strokes for the win ! 55 hp out of a 125 gp bike ! Not reliable or clean mind .

I wish they would pursue 2t technology more . From a laymans point of view they make sense

RD500s always make sense!

[RoadworkUK]

No, you're not going to get close to the rated MPG figures in normal driving. It's a comparison so you can buy a more efficient car if you wish. Cars are tested in the same way and kick out a figure.

 

We're either at cross purposes or going round in circles here.

 

Plucking figures out of the air, a car can do 60mpg if you really try, at which point it chucks out 100 g/km of CO2, or NO2 or lentils or whatever shit we don't want coming out of it.

 

If it's being hammered it'll do, say 45mpg and have 140g/km ir CO2, NO2, lentils etc out the back.

 

Assuming said car is more than likely to get hammered on a regular basis, surely it is a falsehood to base the way it's taxed / legislated on a figure which will only be achieved if it's driven in a saintly manner?

 

As before. Engines should be assessed on how much pollution they CAN produce, not what they MIGHT produce.

[Pillock]

What, if you drive everywhere redlining it in first with the handbrake on and flat tyres?

 

Nobody would drive like that either. You need an average, which is what the urban cycles are, aren't they?

[OwdChina]

Two strokes for the win ! 55 hp out of a 125 gp bike ! Not reliable or clean mind .

I wish they would pursue 2t technology more . From a laymans point of view they make sense

I recall reading somewhere that two strokes cannot be made to burn efficiently when the pot exceeds 125cc. That would equate to building V8 1ltr engines............oh yes..........wonder if anyones ever done it ?

[Mr_Bo11ox]

You have to test them all in the same way though, thats whats important, not whether the test profile is more like a saintly or a lead-footed driver.

[Dave_Q]

The problem here is that the drive cycle that cars are tested to was introduced in 1970, briefly amended in 1990 and is 100% not realistic.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle

 

Ultimately, emissions testing is easy-peasy for manufacturers to design to, it's like an exam with the questions published in advance. You know that the vehicle is going to be driven like this:

 

 

It doesn't really include any full bore acceleration, so you can do what you like up there really, as long at it hits the target in the cycle.

 

Further to this, most countries have a mega toothless enforcement regime, the manufacturer will pretty much self certify and maybe send one test car down to the 2 bods at MIRA or whoever tests these things on behalf of HM government. 

 

Actual CO2 output is directly proportional to actual fuel use, but rated CO2 output is not the same as real life fuel use - no fricking way every 2litre dizzler repmobile is putting out 99g/km at 90 in the outside lane.

 

 

A new more "realistic" cycle is being/has been designed, still looks like a fixed cycle to me. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_harmonized_Light_vehicles_Test_Procedures

 

I'd rig up some real time emissions testing kit and get an independent test driver to drive from London to Birmingham at 9am or something.

[SiC]

Motorbike emission standards are a lot less strict than cars. So they can get away with more power without having to worry about emissions as much.

[Pillock]

Plus you're not paying per microgram of whatever it is is bad this week. You're paying more for a car that pollutes more, it's a scale so I'd be very surprised if the order of cars changed whether you were testing them in full throttle or cruising at 50mph.

 

My car will still kick out less than an M3, whatever speed they're both being driven at. The consistency of test is the critical thing.

[RoadworkUK]

What, if you drive everywhere redlining it in first with the handbrake on and flat tyres?

 

Nobody would drive like that either. You need an average, which is what the urban cycles are, aren't they?

 

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.

[Timewaster]

One of our company cars, a 1.0 Focus went into Fords with a misfire first thing in the morning.

Diagnosed as HGF they said "oh we don't repair those. New engine mate £4k"

 

I think it is bean tins or Chinese saucepans now.

[Tamworthbay]

I recall reading somewhere that two strokes cannot be made to burn efficiently when the pot exceeds 125cc. That would equate to building V8 1ltr engines............oh yes..........wonder if anyones ever done it ?

not a two stroke, but Honda made and raced a 250cc SIX CYLINDER bike. A true feat of engineering:

 

http://petrolicious.com/honda-rc166

 

And obscenely beautiful as well.

[twosmoke300]

The sound !

[Tamworthbay]

The sound !

It is audio bike porn in its truest form. I am a die hard two stroke fan when it comes to race bikes but one of those is on my dream garage/ lottery win. There have been some at the silverstone classic races and they sound even better in real life but obviously lack the castrol R smell appeal.

[Pillock]

 

 

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.

 

.

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

 

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.

 

Or just put the fucking VED on fuel, and I can be mister smug arse when I'm getting 70+ mpg and getting rewarded for stinginess.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

Holy shite, that little bike engine is extraordinary

[SiC]

The problem here is that the drive cycle that cars are tested to was introduced in 1970, briefly amended in 1990 and is 100% not realistic.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle

 

Ultimately, emissions testing is easy-peasy for manufacturers to design to, it's like an exam with the questions published in advance. You know that the vehicle is going to be driven like this:

 

400px-New_European_Driving_Cycle.svg.png

 

It doesn't really include any full bore acceleration, so you can do what you like up there really, as long at it hits the target in the cycle.

 

Further to this, most countries have a mega toothless enforcement regime, the manufacturer will pretty much self certify and maybe send one test car down to the 2 bods at MIRA or whoever tests these things on behalf of HM government.

 

Actual CO2 output is directly proportional to actual fuel use, but rated CO2 output is not the same as real life fuel use - no fricking way every 2litre dizzler repmobile is putting out 99g/km at 90 in the outside lane.

 

 

A new more "realistic" cycle is being/has been designed, still looks like a fixed cycle to me.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_harmonized_Light_vehicles_Test_Procedures

 

I'd rig up some real time emissions testing kit and get an independent test driver to drive from London to Birmingham at 9am or something.

The low co2 emissions quoted by manufacturers are helped massively by stop-start engines. Because in the drive cycle, stationary means engine stopped, so zero emissions. Also helps increase the mpg ratings too. Gaming the emissions test, but completely legal.

 

However given the stop+start traffic it's probably no bad thing that engines stop.

[twosmoke300]

Holy shite, that little bike engine is extraordinary

Key points for me are the crank that you can deform in your hands yet Revs to 20k . Barrel shaped cams so every lobe is different and the fact it revs so quick it can kill itself in one rev with no load

[DodgeRover]

Yes but can a bike motor make the same amount of torque and do 200k miles before the top end needs a rebuild?

No to the torque as that's not what they are designed for but have seen late 80s onwards bikes run to 150k plus with nothing other than plugs, oil and filter changes and engine wise there seemed little performance difference - that I could detect whilst riding them over for an MOT anyway.

[Pillock]

Stop-start: How can it be "gaming" but useful at the same time?

[twosmoke300]

 

Towards the end when it's on the stand - poor rev counter can't keep up !