Car engines to get bigger!

RandomAccess

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-paris-engines-exclusive-idUSKBN12E11K

That's quite a turnaround..

Sources state,
VW 3cyl 1.4 Diesel to be axed.
Renaults H4Bt aka 3cyl Petrol 0.9 TCe also to be retired.

Reuters have proven reliable for details since Diesel-gate broke. They seem to have good auto correspondents.

Special Circumstances

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.

Irish insurers won't know what way to turn...
"You can't have old cars, must have new ones.
Can't have bigger engine, must have smaller"

mickdw

Things may be taking a turn for the better. Bigger engines not forcing out bhp has to be good in the long term. A bit of common sense on co2 and all would be well.
Still if the plug in hybrid idea gets round the co2 somewhat, that again means some half decent petrols coming back into the system.
I mean that upcoming bmw 530e would be a decent proposition for some if it was never plugged in.

Leonard Hofstadter

Well that's what they're saying in Autocar!

The reason being that, in news that will shock absolutely no petrolhead or anyone that's interested in cars, that the downsized engines are actually worse than the less sophisticated, larger capacity engines with more cylinders for fuel economy in the real world. Manufacturers are planning on going back to bigger engines so they can better meet the forthcoming WLTP economy tests, which are going to be based on real world driving not the EU's hopelessly unrealistic lab based tests, which allow manufacturers to amongst other things tape up the door gaps, get rid of the mirrors, and fit smaller fuel tanks (because of the lower weight)

All I've got to say is: bring it on! Larger engines are more efficient in the real world, nicer to drive, smoother and more refined (more cylinders), and more reliable. I hate the fact that a 530i is only a four cylinder engine (rather than being the smallest engined V8, as it was once upon a time), the fact that there is no longer a Volvo (bar one or two models) with a five cylinder engine and the fact that the Porsche Boxster isn't available with that magnificent sounding flat six engine (which, when What Car? tested it, found that it was in fact more economical than the new flat fours in their True MPG tests).

Downsizing only works if it's combined with hybrids or lighter weight.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/future-cars-will-get-bigger-engines-due-real-world-emissions-tests/page/1/0

Leonard Hofstadter

These small engines are great at improving the on-paper fuel consumption, but are useless in the real world.

Even with not-so-small engines, downsizing doesn't always work; when What Car? tested the latest Boxster with its downsized four cylinder engine, which at 2.5 litres is hardly small, they found that in the real world it uses more fuel than the naturally aspirated six cylinder engine it replaced (not to mention the loss of that fantastic sounding flat six engine).

I long for the days when you could have delights like the V6 Mondeo, a 530i with a V8 (not a 2.0 litre four cylinder!) engine, five cylinder Audis, straight six Mercs (although at least they are on the way back next year) and there was none of this CO2 nonsense, which has just resulted in cars which are more expensive to buy and run, especially when they go wrong! I'm all for saving the planet, but these downsized engines are just not delivering in the real world!

unkel

I'm all for real world testing. I mean a near 500BHP Porsche Panamera PHEV officially producing just 50g CO2 / km? Give me a break :rolleyes:

If that means adios to the tiny engines and the forced breathing, so be it. I won't be crying

Any link to that test showing the ancient M96 flat 6 engine (I have one in my 90s Boxster) is more efficient than the current 4-pot? I find that hard to believe if I'm honest!

HandsomeDan

Bizarre interpretation of rather sensationalized article there CS.

You're looking at a correction in capacity of 15% or so to offset turbo heating nothing more.

You are very wrong if you think an na 6 cylinder is more efficient than a blown 4 of similar power.

GerryDerpy

If we think of it from a physics point of view, it stands to reason that the energy needed to accelerate or maintain speed is depentent on the mass of the vehicle. The loss of energy from bigger engines is to do with increased friction, and parts of more mass.

The main reason why big engines are less efficient is actually because they are in heavier cars.

Del2005

GerryDerpy wrote: »

If we think of it from a physics point of view, it stands to reason that the energy needed to accelerate or maintain speed is depentent on the mass of the vehicle. The loss of energy from bigger engines is to do with increased friction, and parts of more mass.

The main reason why big engines are less efficient is actually because they are in heavier cars.

A 1l turbo is fitted to a Mondeo, can't see that being much lighter than a 2l turbo which is also an option. The tiny turbo engines only work well on a rolling road, where current emissions levels are set, not in real life where you have to flog them within an inch of their lives to get them moving.

The Yanks had it right "There's no replacement for displacement"

GerryDerpy

Del2005 wrote: »

A 1l turbo is fitted to a Mondeo, can't see that being much lighter than a 2l turbo which is also an option. The tiny turbo engines only work well on a rolling road, where current emissions levels are set, not in real life where you have to flog them within an inch of their lives to get them moving.

The Yanks had it right "There's no replacement for displacement"

Right you are Del. Bigger turbos = more bang for same amount of fuel. I had overlooked that point.

Marcusm

unkel wrote: »

I'm all for real world testing. I mean a near 500BHP Porsche Panamera PHEV officially producing just 50g CO2 / km? Give me a break :rolleyes
!

That car exists for tax reasons; the UK is a huge Panamera market and BIK tax on employer provided cars is based on NEDC CO2 emissions. At 50g/km, the assessable income is 5% of the car cost rather than up to 37% for what that car would actually produceZ. The actual cost in providing the car is much the same but the take home cost is effectively massively reduced. Also, in order to meet CO2 averaging, the car company can credit these vehicles at the lower rate thereby fudging the corporate average fuel economy.

It's all to fiddle statistics rather than anything to do with economy. I suspect to still won't see many v8s. The "small" engine targeted here is more like the 1L Mondeo rather than the 3L 6-cyl which is likely to be the largest normal performance engine into the future.

ianobrien

I can see it going to bigger engines with low pressure turbos. They won't have the usual high pressure turbo fuel guzzling when on boost.

Then again, people will still buy the 0.56L triple turbo Avensis/Mondeo/etc that gives 60mpg on paper but 30mpg in the real world.

Special Circumstances

They'll buy whatever has the lowest CO2 rating because that's "the real enemy".

Funnily enough where real science shows that a litre of petrol will result in less CO2 than a litre of diesel, Gormley science says that petrol must have a levy put on it because it's so dirty and CO2-ey.

Efficient petrol engine giving better mpg, CO2 per km than some diesels? Fvck you pay more.
Petrol hybrid significantly reducing urban emissions? Better mpg than some diesels, lower CO2 per km? Fvck you pay the Gormley levy.

Standard indirect injection 1.4 petrol engine producing no Particulate Matter? Pay the Gormley levy or buy a diesel you irresponsible lunatic.

Green policy is working, diesel ist gut ja.





For the hard of thinking. Let me bullet point this.

If CO2 is the real enemy, levy the fuels so that they are priced proportionate to the CO2. Do not punish people every tank for choosing an efficient petrol or petrol hybrid.

If petrol is levied more than diesel because "diesel is clean" and "petrol is dirty"... essen mein scheisse pseudo science pseudo Greens.

jimmy blevins

captainspeed wrote: »

Well that's what they're saying in Autocar!

The reason being that, in news that will shock absolutely no petrolhead or anyone that's interested in cars, that the downsized engines are actually worse than the less sophisticated, larger capacity engines with more cylinders for fuel economy in the real world. Manufacturers are planning on going back to bigger engines so they can better meet the forthcoming WLTP economy tests, which are going to be based on real world driving not the EU's hopelessly unrealistic lab based tests, which allow manufacturers to amongst other things tape up the door gaps, get rid of the mirrors, and fit smaller fuel tanks (because of the lower weight)

All I've got to say is: bring it on! Larger engines are more efficient in the real world, nicer to drive, smoother and more refined (more cylinders), and more reliable. I hate the fact that a 530i is only a four cylinder engine (rather than being the smallest engined V8, as it was once upon a time), the fact that there is no longer a Volvo (bar one or two models) with a five cylinder engine and the fact that the Porsche Boxster isn't available with that magnificent sounding flat six engine (which, when What Car? tested it, found that it was in fact more economical than the new flat fours in their True MPG tests).

Downsizing only works if it's combined with hybrids or lighter weight.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/future-cars-will-get-bigger-engines-due-real-world-emissions-tests/page/1/0

Straight 6 ftw.

edburg

Manufacturers are more likely to go lighter cars than bigger engine's.

Although I kind of agree a 2.0 turbo be better than 1.0-1.4 turbo in bigger heavy cars I'd say there is a limit also.

Plus if manufacturers just stuck to stick bigger engines in Ireland we be bankrupt as we need mortgages to pay tax for them all.

frozenfrozen

Diesels that are squeaky clean in some very exact scenarios, but need to be driven in 3rd gear for 50km on the motorway every once in a while to blow out all the **** they were holding in for the emissions test

or turning off at every set of traffic lights to make sure they engine never gets up to proper temps and continues to degrade city air quality, to apparently save fuel so the vehicle will get "60mpg" in city driving.

one litre engines that need to be revved like a 2 stroke scooter to get up to speed


These PHEV vehicles are ridiculous for manipulating the numbers. tonnes of batteries, air conditioning, reclining heated and cooled seats, double glazing for sound proofing, big ipad screens, "50g co2/100km" my arsehole do these vehicles only pollute 50g of co2 per 100km. Maybe drafting a truck.. which is also towing them.. and charging their batteries.

The cleanest thing we could do is to stop lying to ourselves about low emissions. Combustion engines are all filthy things. Some are more efficient than others, but none are clean. There are ships burning sulphur, afghan diy fuel production where they heat up a barrel of crude and diesel pours out the other end, people flying for 30 euro across europe rather than going for a picnic down the country, people using cheap electricity produced by burning coal to power dryers rather than sticking the clothes out on a clothes line..

.... and we are supposed to think this could all be solved by scrapping perfectly functional, less clean, cars, to buy a brand new "clean" car which took hundreds of thousands of grams of co2 to produce?

I'm just rambling now but it's just so strange

SpannerMonkey

great news i wont feel so out of place now

Big Turd

^^^

ht tp://ww w.amusingplanet.com/2013/03/the-largest-and-most-powerful-diesel.html