Discussion
I have a vxr8 and a 1.0(125) ecoboost fiesta. The engine in the Fiesta is truly impressive but the implication of that article is that it its being achieved, at least in a lot of cars, by a massive increase in certain emissions. It would certainly be a shame if it were true as a car for nipping around town its hard to fault. Its fairly obvious Ford have been playing games with the engine and the tests because the 125 version has the same published fuel economy as the NA version of it that has about 60bhp. They've very obviously setup the engine to be off boost at whatever the test speed is but as soon as the boost cuts in the mpg inevitably dives so in the real world it rarely does the headline mpg.
vxr2010 said:
my doom and gloom worry is , everything turbo or big cc gets hit with even more tax , i'd have to cycle to work , and try and sell a car no one wants to run
My guess is electric cars will be next. They're massively incentivising them at the moment especially with the clean city rubbish where they're proposing to let them have priority at junctions and use bus lanes and all that. I presume at some point they'll work out all the toxic junk in the batteries is 'a problem'.Batteries are a proper evil, and woefully inefficient.
It would take some sort of miracle for them to be truly viable for an electric car. OK for a piece of s
t for city commuting, but that's about it.
For a functional car...nope.
The easiest way to fix petrol/diesel emissions is the hybrid. At least this gives a car proper range, and as you could run the petrol engine in more restricted operating ranges, you can better control the emissions and just use this to power the electric motors and/or re-charge batteries.
Part of the difficulty with emissions on cars is the fact the engine needs to operate under so many different conditions, like 1000-7000rpm, with all varying loads in between.
If you could alter that to say idle and 1 or 2 other fixed rpm's, you could easily make them cleaner but they'd still develop power needed to recharge.
It would take some sort of miracle for them to be truly viable for an electric car. OK for a piece of s
t for city commuting, but that's about it.For a functional car...nope.
The easiest way to fix petrol/diesel emissions is the hybrid. At least this gives a car proper range, and as you could run the petrol engine in more restricted operating ranges, you can better control the emissions and just use this to power the electric motors and/or re-charge batteries.
Part of the difficulty with emissions on cars is the fact the engine needs to operate under so many different conditions, like 1000-7000rpm, with all varying loads in between.
If you could alter that to say idle and 1 or 2 other fixed rpm's, you could easily make them cleaner but they'd still develop power needed to recharge.
So a small, high compression engine which has the sh*t boosted out of it and probably has fairly mediocre intercooling needs to be drown in fuel when IATs get too high. Who'd have thought...
I'm guessing the new technology will be slightly larger, lower compression engines with two-stage (though ultimately lower) boost levels and better intercoolers.
As for electric cars, I can't ever see an engine-to-generator-to-battery-to-generator-to-transmission set-up being more efficient than an engine-direct-to-transmission set-up. While the electricity from the plug socket is cheaper, it still won't be a more efficient way of producing kinetic energy if it comes from fossil fuel.
I'm guessing the new technology will be slightly larger, lower compression engines with two-stage (though ultimately lower) boost levels and better intercoolers.
As for electric cars, I can't ever see an engine-to-generator-to-battery-to-generator-to-transmission set-up being more efficient than an engine-direct-to-transmission set-up. While the electricity from the plug socket is cheaper, it still won't be a more efficient way of producing kinetic energy if it comes from fossil fuel.
robbyd said:
Tesla aint cheap...and no big deal if battery only needs to last a few 1/4 mile runs.Giving a car a good function 2, 3, 400+ mile range is another matter...and just aint happening on batteries alone at any affordable cost or practical setup.
Also from the 60ft, looks like the Hellcat might be on totally standard road tyres....and from it's 1/8th trap speed....it's also only running on 4-5 cylinders if it's supposed to have 700hp on all 8 lol.
Edited by stevieturbo on Wednesday 19th October 00:08
ArnieVXR said:
So a small, high compression engine which has the sh*t boosted out of it and probably has fairly mediocre intercooling needs to be drown in fuel when IATs get too high. Who'd have thought...
I'm guessing the new technology will be slightly larger, lower compression engines with two-stage (though ultimately lower) boost levels and better intercoolers.
As for electric cars, I can't ever see an engine-to-generator-to-battery-to-generator-to-transmission set-up being more efficient than an engine-direct-to-transmission set-up. While the electricity from the plug socket is cheaper, it still won't be a more efficient way of producing kinetic energy if it comes from fossil fuel.
Depends what you mean by efficient.I'm guessing the new technology will be slightly larger, lower compression engines with two-stage (though ultimately lower) boost levels and better intercoolers.
As for electric cars, I can't ever see an engine-to-generator-to-battery-to-generator-to-transmission set-up being more efficient than an engine-direct-to-transmission set-up. While the electricity from the plug socket is cheaper, it still won't be a more efficient way of producing kinetic energy if it comes from fossil fuel.
Fuel efficient isnt the same as being emissions efficient for example...and it's emissions they're all crying about.
And electric motors to drive a car do not need a transmission, a single motor can cover all speeds needed.
You could have a car burn less fuel under many conditions...but what comes out the tailpipe will have all the hippys gurning their lamps out...hence why they run 14.7:1 instead of 15, 16, 17, 18:1 AFR's which would definitely use less fuel on long journeys. 14.7 is simply the cleanest burn.
But it's a huge struggle to have an engine operate from idle to 7000rpm and maintain stioch.
However....if batteries held some reserves and that allowed them to make an engine that might only ever need to run at a idle or say a fixed 3000rpm or 4000rpm...clearly they can fine tune that engine to make both power and be very very clean at those rpm's instead of needing to try and keep it clean over much wider ranges.
Like the Ampera and presumably those BMW's eventually yes when the batteries are done and you're relying on the small re-charge engine there would be a loss in total performance. But that would be a compromise from a performance point of view.
But for a daily driver it shouldnt be a big deal.
ringram said:
FI is only "effective" in reducing consumption because of a downsized engine where little to no BHP is required for cruise off boost.
Isn't that what we do, for 80% or a journey, and the journeys are probably 95% of a car's use?I can understand it's not ideal in a competition environment, but if FI is so bad, why does it effectively have a capacity or or other penalty when it is used?
ARAF said:
Isn't that what we do, for 80% or a journey, and the journeys are probably 95% of a car's use?
I can understand it's not ideal in a competition environment, but if FI is so bad, why does it effectively have a capacity or or other penalty when it is used?
Simple...it makes more power for any given engine size vs n/a. And it can make a lot more power.I can understand it's not ideal in a competition environment, but if FI is so bad, why does it effectively have a capacity or or other penalty when it is used?
Competition wants power...rarely fuel economy.
And neither of the above matter so much as far as idiot emissions targets are concerned.
ArnieVXR said:
So a small, high compression engine which has the sh*t boosted out of it and probably has fairly mediocre intercooling needs to be drown in fuel when IATs get too high. Who'd have thought...
.
Seems to be the answer to some bigger FI motors too..
To the main point of the thread; politicians (who set the emissions targets) are not engineers. (They generally don't make good politicians either!) Show me one who knows what the hell they are talking about anyway?
MyM8V8 said:
Seems to be the answer to some bigger FI motors too.
To the main point of the thread; politicians (who set the emissions targets) are not engineers. (They generally don't make good politicians either!) Show me one who knows what the hell they are talking about anyway?
That is the problem, it is hippies and idiots setting all the rules, without having a clue why they're doing it or how it will work in reality.To the main point of the thread; politicians (who set the emissions targets) are not engineers. (They generally don't make good politicians either!) Show me one who knows what the hell they are talking about anyway?
So engineers build to suit their rules...and when it's discovered their rules are stupid ( as VW proved ) somehow they apportion blame unto those who discovered the problems !
Gassing Station | HSV & Monaro | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff