EU 130 g/km CO2 target is.... illegal!

E92

Yep, that's what the clever clogs at the EU's Legal Affairs Committee have decided.

Meaning that the whole thing may have to be re-negotiated all over again.

Let's hope the EU stops interfering with the car industry, the car industry is under enough pressure with ultra high labour costs in Europe, and we are unquestionably seeing evidence of extensive cost cutting measures in the form of all the electrical problems modern cars produce(not to mention mechanical), and then the new regs will make cars even dearer, as the manufacturers will be forced to spend a fortune on cleaner cars.

I've nothing against lower CO2 cars per say, but we've gotten so obsessed with the thing that quality, reliability and cost are all taking a big back seat in order to pander to Governments who are going to try and make the motorist's lives even more miserable regardless of what the manufacturers do.

Story here.

Darragh29

E92 wrote: »

Yep, that's what the clever clogs at the EU's Legal Affairs Committee have decided.

Meaning that the whole thing may have to be re-negotiated all over again.

Let's hope the EU stops interfering with the car industry, the car industry is under enough pressure with ultra high labour costs in Europe, and we are unquestionably seeing evidence of extensive cost cutting measures in the form of all the electrical problems modern cars produce(not to mention mechanical), and then the new regs will make cars even dearer, as the manufacturers will be forced to spend a fortune on cleaner cars.

I've nothing against lower CO2 cars per say, but we've gotten so obsessed with the thing that quality, reliability and cost are all taking a big back seat in order to pander to Governments who are going to try and make the motorist's lives even more miserable regardless of what the manufacturers do.

Story here.

I'm a bit confused with all this CO2 emissions. When I was in college doing this stuff, the theory was that in order to fully burn 1 volumetric unit of petrol, I think 14.7 volumetric units of air was required for ideal combustion. The products of combustion were:

N2
CO2
H20

Co used to be produced but has been reduced to literally zero using closed loop lambda control and catalythic converter technology.

Now, as far as I know, the remaining 2 gases produced above are non negeotable products of combustion, obviously the recombined O2 and CO which are converted into H2O is harmless and in any event once these are recombined to become H2O, they are no longer a gases and N2 just passes through the combustion process completely unchanged except for when combustion conditions are exceptionally hot. The only way we can reduce the one remaining gas (CO2), is to burn less petrol, which means a lighter car or else turning off the engine when the car is not moving... Does anyone have any thoughts on this???

Del2005

Car makers are wise to this and play the game also. Why do you think they launch small cars that don't sell?

And don't forget that fuel efficiency drives are what led to the SUV boom. The Us goverment forced car makers to make their car fleet more fuel efficient, so the manufactures started using their truck chassies to get around the fuel effiency problem.

VH

what practical implication for us does this have, if any?

Del2005

VH wrote: »

what practical implication for us does this have, if any?

None, it just looks good on paper.

Zube

Darragh29 wrote: »

I'm a bit confused with all this CO2 emissions.
...
The only way we can reduce the one remaining gas (CO2), is to burn less petrol

You are not confused, you are quite right. For cars, CO2 emissions are just another way to measure fuel efficiency.

cantdecide

Darragh29 wrote: »

is to burn less petrol

Relatively lower mpg is not the same as providing decent public transport. Thousands of extra miles are driven each year by every single person in Ireland because of car dependency caused by poor public transport. We get the wagging finger aswell??? How big a difference can it make to choose car A instead of car B?

Think of all the paper they waste with this stuff. It does indeed sound well though.

robbie99

Zube wrote: »

You are not confused, you are quite right. For cars, CO2 emissions are just another way to measure fuel efficiency.

Exactly.

With fuel prices as they are, nothing wrong shooting for better fuel efficiency.

cantdecide

robbie99 wrote: »

Exactly.

With fuel prices as they are, nothing wrong shooting for better fuel efficiency.

If they cared governments would invest and incentivize nw technologies, not tweaked versions of already developed and harmful old technologies. Better mpg is a red herring if everything we're hearing about global warming is to be believed.