EU Regulations are a Mockery

Nixer Jim

Really pointing out the obvious here but If you look at EU regulations over the last two decades, they've really been counter intuitive and contradictory.

Take fuel consumption for example. The EU has been on a Co2 mission for the last two decades in particular, intruduction of Catalytic Converters, obviously unleaded fuel and carbon taxation. Co2 emmisions have (statistically) plummeted across entire ranges but it's all a farce, a complete fallacy. It's not real reductions at all.

Major manufactures have been reducing Co2 stats by stealth. Firstly the allowing of the Fiat group lets say, to spread their average emmisions across the entire brand range is a nonsense. Sure a Fiat Panda emits very low Co2 but a Ferrari or a Maserati would still be positively filthy. If they were to be assessed individually then the performance brand would be screwed.

Then theres all the added weight thats been added to vehicles over the last couple of decades via EU safety regulation. Airbags, side impact beams, crumple zones, pedestrian protection and so on. On average, a similar sized car from today compared to one 25 years ago is 250 kg heavier. Simply removing this weight alone would significantly reduce emissions.

Then there's diesel. The devils fuel. The great escape for European manufacturing of cars. Sure your Co2 levels plummet if you make tonnes and tonnes of diesels, but your soot levels increase, your carcinogenic output increases and the weight of the vehicle increases even further with the addition of devices that suppress those nasty emmisions. One step forward, two steps back.

Now for stop/start. Extra weight of a larger battery, alternator and starter motor (to deal with the effects of stopping and starting) lessen gains even further. Importantly though they reduce those nasty emmisions on a spreadsheet, just the kinda place all of the citizens of the EU live.

Lastly, and probably the greatest scam of all, the low pressure turbo. By and large, a 1 litre LPT will be less fuel efficient than a 1.2 non turbo car, atleast from the perspective of the amount of actual fuel used in the real world from fill to empty. Thing is though, the LPT running in it's off boost mode, is using little.or no fuel at all, thus emitting tiny amounts of Co2 on paper, right around the point where the EU test criteria measures emmisons.. Try driving a 1 litre LPT off boost for long though and see how far that gets you. It would be impossible. Again, back in the real world, the turbo is always blowing this using lots more fuel.

What I'm basically saying is that modern technology isn't really giving us the real world type of gains that we are told we're getting. Far from it infact. While we rave about modern fuel consumption, the reality is that 50 years ago, a mini could do 50 mpg. 30 years ago, a Sierra diesel could do similar. Sure performance and refinement have moved on but the reality is that modern fuel efficiencies are not for us, they're go appease law makers who, by the look of this, are clearly being fooled or are happy to be so.

debabyjesus

Didn't the krauts call time on the emissions fascination lately enough.

I see your point op, I'd be more concerned about emission reduction systems ruining new motors and couldn't give less of a ****e about actually reducing emissions.

Anan1

Nixer Jim wrote: »

Major manufactures have been reducing Co2 stats by stealth. Firstly the allowing of the Fiat group lets say, to spread their average emmisions across the entire brand range is a nonsense. Sure a Fiat Panda emits very low Co2 but a Ferrari or a Maserati would still be positively filthy. If they were to be assessed individually then the performance brand would be screwed.

I don't really see your point here. Relatively few Ferraris & Maseratis are produced, and they are taxed far more heavily than most other cars.

Nixer Jim wrote: »

Then theres all the added weight thats been added to vehicles over the last couple of decades via EU safety regulation. Airbags, side impact beams, crumple zones, pedestrian protection and so on. On average, a similar sized car from today compared to one 25 years ago is 250 kg heavier. Simply removing this weight alone would significantly reduce emissions.

It would, but at a huge cost to life & limb. Go back and look at the figures for road deaths/injuries in any EU state from 30 years ago and compare them to today, adjusting for traffic volumes.

Nixer Jim wrote: »

Then there's diesel. The devils fuel. The great escape for European manufacturing of cars. Sure your Co2 levels plummet if you make tonnes and tonnes of diesels, but your soot levels increase, your carcinogenic output increases and the weight of the vehicle increases even further with the addition of devices that suppress those nasty emmisions. One step forward, two steps back.

Modern diesels are so much cleaner and more efficient than their predecessors as to be unrecognizable. DPFs do block sometimes, so Id, say maybe five steps forwards one step back. Drive a Sierra 2.3D and see what I mean.

Nixer Jim wrote: »

Now for stop/start. Extra weight of a larger battery, alternator and starter motor (to deal with the effects of stopping and starting) lessen gains even further. Importantly though they reduce those nasty emmisions on a spreadsheet, just the kinda place all of the citizens of the EU live.

They reduce emissions in the real world.

Nixer Jim wrote: »

What I'm basically saying is that modern technology isn't really giving us the real world type of gains that we are told we're getting. Far from it infact. While we rave about modern fuel consumption, the reality is that 50 years ago, a mini could do 50 mpg. 30 years ago, a Sierra diesel could do similar. Sure performance and refinement have moved on but the reality is that modern fuel efficiencies are not for us, they're go appease law makers who, by the look of this, are clearly being fooled or are happy to be so.

And yet modern cars are cleaner, faster and more efficient than their ancestors. A new BMW 320d will out accelerate a Mercedes 450SEL 6.9 and is safer too, all the while using a fraction of the fuel. No car lover can fail to be impressed by that kind of an achievement.

keithclancy

Seems like a merriiiccuuuh f.. yeah thread.

dantastic

Sorry OP, you're dead wrong completely.

For kicks and giggles though I have to ask about the rationale for the safety devices argument. If you go back 25 years ago and had an accident in a mass produced car it would just crumple into a little metal ornament. Today's cars are very very safe, at a mere cost of 250KG (your number, I didn't research that one). To me that's no brainer...

Days 298

I think few petrol heads or motor enthusiast care about emissions. More pissed off that its used as a reason to fleece us for VRT, at the pumps and at the tax office.

dantastic

Sure, while we are at it...

1.5-liter three-cylinder turbo produces 400 horsepower from a 40kg engine

http://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/releases/nissan-unveils-revolutionary-engine-to-complement-electric-zeod-rc-powerplant

progress is awful awful awful... (And turbos don't work)

Stavros Murphy

I've a boggo-standard 1.8 non-turbo Escort diesel van outside that murders the modern stuff on fuel economy(I've modern stuff too). I'm not too sure how far we have actually come. I also bought a C15 xud for the laff that not only slaughters the modern stuff performance wise but also appears to run on giggles and lack of sophistication. It deffo doesn't seem to use diesel to get from a to b.

corkgsxr

dantastic wrote: »

Sure, while we are at it...

1.5-liter three-cylinder turbo produces 400 horsepower from a 40kg engine

http://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/releases/nissan-unveils-revolutionary-engine-to-complement-electric-zeod-rc-powerplant

progress is awful awful awful... (And turbos don't work)

Isnt that a constant revs engine to run a electric motor. Basically a genny? Or am I very wrong

dr.fuzzenstein

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

I've a boggo-standard 1.8 non-turbo Escort diesel van outside that murders the modern stuff on fuel economy(I've modern stuff too). I'm not too sure how far we have actually come. I also bought a C15 xud for the laff that not only slaughters the modern stuff performance wise but also appears to run on giggles and lack of sophistication. It deffo doesn't seem to use diesel to get from a to b.

I once owned one of those, the 1.8 diesel escort van.
In fairness it still is the worst car I have ever owned or driven, the chassis flexes so bad the door jams if its on a curb, it trusts like crazy, has zero power, folds like origami in an accident is is all round flimsy, noisy, slow, uncomfortable, ugly and just badly made.
My cmax now has a derivative of the same engine in it and it simply is lightyears ahead of the escort.
I say that even though I do somewhat agree with the OP, modern cars are getting fatter and heavier. I'm sure the same could be achieved with lighter but stronger materials, slimming down instead of loading cars with crap they don't need and rewarding manufacturers that built lightweight cars.

Stavros Murphy

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I once owned one of those, the 1.8 diesel escort van.
In fairness it still is the worst car I have ever owned or driven, the chassis flexes so bad the door jams if its on a curb, it trusts like crazy, has zero power, folds like origami in an accident is is all round flimsy, noisy, slow, uncomfortable, ugly and just badly made.
My cmax now has a derivative of the same engine in it and it simply is lightyears ahead of the escort.
I say that even though I do somewhat agree with the OP, modern cars are getting fatter and heavier. I'm sure the same could be achieved with lighter but stronger materials, slimming down instead of loading cars with crap they don't need and rewarding manufacturers that built lightweight cars.

You take that back about my lovely escort. Fupping cheeky baxter!

BMJD

thread subject is kinda pointless, the EU massively subsidise the largest polluters, cars are just the scapegoats

wendell borton

dantastic wrote: »

Sorry OP, you're dead wrong completely.

For kicks and giggles though I have to ask about the rationale for the safety devices argument. If you go back 25 years ago and had an accident in a mass produced car it would just crumple into a little metal ornament. Today's cars are very very safe, at a mere cost of 250KG (your number, I didn't research that one). To me that's no brainer...

People might drive with more consideration if that was still the case.

Guy:Incognito

wendell borton wrote: »

People might drive with more consideration if that was still the case.

They didn't though.

Leonard Hofstadter

debabyjesus wrote: »

Didn't the krauts call time on the emissions fascination lately enough.

I see your point op, I'd be more concerned about emission reduction systems ruining new motors and couldn't give less of a ****e about actually reducing emissions.

Not on car emissions, as far as I know. I was hoping with the recent changes in attitude by various EU member state Governements (including the UK) that this would cause something to give on car emissions, but sadly it's still business as usual.

The truth is a modern diesel does 50 mpg in mixed driving, but that's exactly what they did 15 years ago when the official figure might have been 50 mpg if you were lucky. These days they're claimed to do as much as 74 mpg (in the case of the facelifted Insignia), and people are buying them over petrol engines on this belief.

Ultimately while smaller engines do match the power of larger engines with more cylinders from even a few years ago, larger engines with less technology and more cylinders are far nicer to drive, not to mention being more reliable. They sound a lot nicer, too. Even with four cylinder engines try driving a 1.6 diesel and a 2.0, the larger engines have a better power delivery and are less fustrating when they're out of their power band, aside from the power, the way in which they deliver the power is also better, and in the real world they'll do the same mpg. Also, in the olden days, nobody bought diesel, remember the days when the pinnacle of a Mondeo's engine range was that nice sounding Cologne V6 petrol? I do, and I wish those days would come back.

dantastic

corkgsxr wrote: »

Isnt that a constant revs engine to run a electric motor. Basically a genny? Or am I very wrong

That's it. The exact same idea as the old diesel electric locomotives.

corkgsxr

dantastic wrote: »

That's it. The exact same idea as the old diesel electric locomotives.

So useless in the way most people will look at it. But it in the future for electric cars. Smaller batterys and a engine to provide the power when your not just pottering round in town. Solves weight and range issues.

dantastic

corkgsxr wrote: »

So useless in the way most people will look at it. But it in the future for electric cars. Smaller batterys and a engine to provide the power when your not just pottering round in town. Solves weight and range issues.

Yes, it's a very good concept. It allows the ICE engine to work exclusively at it's optimum rpm the whole time.

dr.fuzzenstein

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

You take that back about my lovely escort. Fupping cheeky baxter!

Sorry bud, didn't mean to diss your motor.
They weren't Ford's finest though.
I find it funny though that my CMax has an engine based on the 1.6 diesel in the Escort breadvan.

corkgsxr

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Sorry bud, didn't mean to diss your motor.
They weren't Ford's finest though.
I find it funny though that my CMax has an engine based on the 1.6 diesel in the Escort breadvan.

The 1.6 isnt. That's the psa engine. The 1.8 is the escort one

Stavros Murphy

corkgsxr wrote: »

The 1.6 isnt. That's the psa engine. The 1.8 is the escort one

Yeah, the one that didn't break.

dr.fuzzenstein

corkgsxr wrote: »

The 1.6 isnt. That's the psa engine. The 1.8 is the escort one

It was a 1.6 in the Escort, later was bored out to 1.8, the one that is found in my cmax. It can be recognised by its distinctive agricultural sound and clouds of smoke on cold start. And the fact that I have yet to find how many miles one of them can do, because I have broken everything on cars, except one of those engines.