Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Read All About It
Bob Sacamano

End to engine downsizing?

So it looks like these small 3 cylinder turbo petrols an diesels are some of the worst polluting engines, with Renault's 0.9L being a particularly bad culprit.


http://fortune.com/2016/10/14/aut...rs-cars-bigger-engines-emissions/


Quote:
Tougher European car emissions tests being introduced in the wake of the Volkswagen scandal are about to bring surprising consequences: bigger engines.

Carmakers that have spent a decade shrinking engine capacities to meet emissions goals are now being forced into a costly U-turn, industry sources said, as more realistic on-the-road testing exposes deep flaws in their smallest motors.

The tougher tests may kill diesel engines smaller than 1.5 liters and gasolines below about 1.2, analysts predict. That in turn increases the challenge of meeting CO2 goals, adding urgency to the scramble for electric cars and hybrids.
JohnC

Just proves that no-one knows what they are doing!!!

As an aside, who has been looking at Intimissimi underwear? I currently have a very attractive advert to look at!
Italian lingerie apparently, modelled by dark haired beauties.
Boxer6

JohnC wrote:
 
As an aside, who has been looking at Intimissimi underwear? I currently have a very attractive advert to look at!
Italian lingerie apparently, modelled by dark haired beauties.


Well it's not there now. Dammit!
simonp

No ads here. And I never paid a penny for them to not be either...
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

I remember a Honda engineer "justifying" the Type-R's turbo engine: "we'd have needed a 3-litre six to make the same power". And why is that a bad thing?
Frank Bullitt

JohnC wrote:
Just proves that no-one knows what they are doing!!!

As an aside, who has been looking at Intimissimi underwear? I currently have a very attractive advert to look at!
Italian lingerie apparently, modelled by dark haired beauties.


I believe we each get adverts relating to what we look at rather than all of us seeing what users on the forum are also looking at - therefore John, only you can answer that...
Boxer6

Frank Bullitt wrote:
JohnC wrote:
Just proves that no-one knows what they are doing!!!

As an aside, who has been looking at Intimissimi underwear? I currently have a very attractive advert to look at!
Italian lingerie apparently, modelled by dark haired beauties.


I believe we each get adverts relating to what we look at rather than all of us seeing what users on the forum are also looking at - therefore John, only you can answer that...


I've had no adverts for a couple of days now; seems slightly odd in fact!
Humphrey The Pug

All those little engines are engineered to pass a test, the 0.9 TCe has crap real world mpg figures, for the size of engine, you have to thrash the nuts off it to get decent performance.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

Humphrey The Pug wrote:
All those little engines are engineered to pass a test, the 0.9 TCe has crap real world mpg figures, for the size of engine, you have to thrash the nuts off it to get decent performance.

So what you're saying is, Renault should do another Clio V6 ...
Tim

Look at the test figures from CAR mag a couple of months ago from the M4/C63/Alfa Giulia QF test - the 2 Germans only managed 16 and 13 respectively and that included motorway driving, I can't imagine the older N/A engines could've done much worse.
Humphrey The Pug

The problem is; all the testing is done under lab conditions and every car is tested under the exact same conditions so the engines are manufactured and optimised to perform under those conditions.

These conditions aren't representative at all of the real world, however what is the alternative; you can't just take a car on the road and use the results from that kind of testing as all sorts of things can mean different results; the person driving, how they drive, their weight, the weather, the road surface, time of day.

What is the alternative?
Tim

Simple, a standardised route out on real roads.

The VW dieselgate thing was meant to be sparking a review of this but from memory they simply altered the cycle slightly and increased it from 13.4 miles on a rolling road to 17.6 miles with slightly different settings.

Given the vast sums spent on R&D surely they scrutinising organisation could have a few guys driving around at the speed limits on a variety of roads.
Get several people to drive the route and average the results.
I'd be happy to do that every day if they paid me enough.
Humphrey The Pug

Tim wrote:
Simple, a standardised route out on real roads.

The VW dieselgate thing was meant to be sparking a review of this but from memory they simply altered the cycle slightly and increased it from 13.4 miles on a rolling road to 17.6 miles with slightly different settings.

Given the vast sums spent on R&D surely they scrutinising organisation could have a few guys driving around at the speed limits on a variety of roads.
Get several people to drive the route and average the results.
I'd be happy to do that every day if they paid me enough.


Too many variables though.
Frank Bullitt

Agreed, too-many variables.

I think economy taken at 50,60,70,80,90,100,110,120 and 130km/h, average the lot over a given time or distance of driving at that speed would probably cover it - not perhaps entirely representative of real word driving but highly representative of a genuine comparrison between any two cars, and across enough of a spectrum to ensure that any fiddling of gearing could be to the benefit of one increment but the deficit of others. Remember the ultra-long top gear models from the 80's and 90's with a 5th geared to extract maximum mpg at 100km/h, probably get rid of that.
Tim

Well, ok then to remove some of the variables do it at 2 in the morning.
I don't think modern petrol cars are as affected by temperature variations as they used to be in the carburettor days so that would rule that variable out.

Plus no matter what you did it would be an improvement on the current system.
Just go to the long termers at the back of CAR mag and compare the actual with claimed figures.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

Tim wrote:
Look at the test figures from CAR mag a couple of months ago from the M4/C63/Alfa Giulia QF test - the 2 Germans only managed 16 and 13 respectively and that included motorway driving, I can't imagine the older N/A engines could've done much worse.

Very true - my M3 wouldn't go below 20, even on trackdays and (truly) flat-out Autobahn bashing. And the GT3 averaged close to 30 in the UK.
gonnabuildabuggy

JohnC wrote:
Just proves that no-one knows what they are doing!!!

As an aside, who has been looking at Intimissimi underwear? I currently have a very attractive advert to look at!
Italian lingerie apparently, modelled by dark haired beauties.


They are personalised to your viewing history  

When I owned the Dolomite a few years ago I was forever getting adverts for Triumph Bra's coming up.  

Back the OP. My V8's were incredibly thirsty but hard to get below 20mpg when driven hard. The BMW 2.8 averaged circa 30mpg despite a lot of that being at high motorway speeds.

As goes the saying, "there's no substitute for cubic inches"

       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Read All About It
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum