RE: Next AMG C63 to go four-cylinder

RE: Next AMG C63 to go four-cylinder

Author
Discussion

simonwhite2000

1,261 posts

45 months

Thursday 24th October
quotequote all
Lt. Coulomb said:
simonwhite2000 said:
Granted humans are not helping but it is being massively blown out of proportion.
And how would you know that?
Because based on the evidence, or lack of, that i have seen/read that is my personal conclusion and opinion.



mikey k

12,407 posts

164 months

Thursday 24th October
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
Quite the opposite in fact, as long as you aren't a Luddite.

For example, I was part of the team that developed this:



When it was first announced PH said "why don't they just drop all the stupid, heavy, electrical nonsense and just use the V8" and in many threads on here, having actually driven the car i said, "just you wait, it's BRILLIANT because it IS electrified" and was mainly shouted down by the Luddites.

Then lo and behold, the car is released, driven by the press to critical acclaim:

it's a whole new thing

And it's the same with EVs. I've been saying for years now that EVs are the future, generally to most people disagreeing. Today we are, just a few short years later, well past the tipping point for EV adoption for the mass private car market. Today, the challenges of rushing to market the Battery Electric Vehicle are numerous, and, well challenging, but they offer massive benefits over a conventional ICE vehicle in terms of de-carbonisation, and critically for the OE PassCar industry, make emissions SEP (Someone Else's Problem) which following things like DieselGate, is a welcome relief

There has, imo, never been a better time to be an vehicle engineer :-)
Agreed
The joy of engineering is solving a problem and doing it better in the process.
The P1 is a great example.
I love the fact they took a technology develop to help the environmental impact and reworked it to torque will the gaps in and ICE
I loved my 650 and 675, I'm REALLY looking forward to the next McLaren Hybrid cool

A44RON

171 posts

44 months

Thursday 24th October
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
Erroneous. Just because A is "bad" does not make "B" being bad any different.

And the cruise ship thing is also erroneous. Hint, how many people get to work in a cruise ship everyday, compared to doing those miles in a private car.

Just in the UK, car total mileage is estimated to be 658 Billion KM in 2017, and of course a cruise ship has something like 1,000 people onboard, so your carbon footprint per person is divided down as well. Cruise operator Carnival reported in 2008 that their fleet returned around 400 g/km per person. A C63 AMG on an official test (significantly lower consumption than in the real world with traffic, cold starts, aggressive driving etc) returns around 200 g /km.

So your cruise ship, per KM is twice as bad as a C63 AMG per person, per Km, and whilst it's particulate emissions ARE indeed also bad, they tend to be released mainly in the middle of the ocean, far from centers of high population density, unlike those from a typical passenger car.

So, if we all commuted to work in cruise ships, yes, your 'argument' would be valid, but we don't....


And of course, cruiseships are being electrified and are driven by the same cost and economy decisions due to their use of a high carbon fuel as cars have been. Soon, imo, ANY high carbon activity (flying, cruising etc) may become socially frowned upon. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in 5 10 or even 30 years time, but i think it will happen (especially should the real effects of climate change start to impact a rich 1st world nation, rather than some poor "sh*thole" (TM D.Trump) country far away........ )
So those particulate emissions from the cruise ship equivalent to 1 million cars is okay because it's not released in city centres, just into the atmosphere..... righteo.

you're describing it as erroneous/flawed/inaccurate because it doesn't suit your agenda. I'd like to know how Carnival manipulated their own figures, because if you divide a cruise ship's emissions by the number of people onboard and distance travelled, the g/km figure is much much higher.




Welshbeef

38,402 posts

146 months

Friday 25th October
quotequote all
Been on the train most of the week with the C63 4TT parked up.... but had a ride today. God it makes you grin from ear to ear just starting the bloody thing up (I had a 5am leave this morning and it felt rude the noise it made hahaha) and then once the coolant then oil then gearbox oil up to temp a chance to open her up a bit. She’s an utter beast - lord only knows how brutal the E63S is & im confident it’s the exact same engine so a map will get it to the same output with zero risk

cerb4.5lee

13,024 posts

128 months

Friday 25th October
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
Been on the train most of the week with the C63 4TT parked up.... but had a ride today. God it makes you grin from ear to ear just starting the bloody thing up (I had a 5am leave this morning and it felt rude the noise it made hahaha) and then once the coolant then oil then gearbox oil up to temp a chance to open her up a bit. She’s an utter beast - lord only knows how brutal the E63S is & im confident it’s the exact same engine so a map will get it to the same output with zero risk
An epic engine for sure. smokin

Pleased you are enjoying it. thumbup

TheDrBrian

2,914 posts

170 months

Friday 25th October
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
Been on the train most of the week with the C63 4TT parked up.... but had a ride today. God it makes you grin from ear to ear just starting the bloody thing up (I had a 5am leave this morning and it felt rude the noise it made hahaha) and then once the coolant then oil then gearbox oil up to temp a chance to open her up a bit. She’s an utter beast - lord only knows how brutal the E63S is & im confident it’s the exact same engine so a map will get it to the same output with zero risk
Does it rev to 5500 rpm?

Welshbeef

38,402 posts

146 months

Saturday 26th October
quotequote all
TheDrBrian said:
Welshbeef said:
Been on the train most of the week with the C63 4TT parked up.... but had a ride today. God it makes you grin from ear to ear just starting the bloody thing up (I had a 5am leave this morning and it felt rude the noise it made hahaha) and then once the coolant then oil then gearbox oil up to temp a chance to open her up a bit. She’s an utter beast - lord only knows how brutal the E63S is & im confident it’s the exact same engine so a map will get it to the same output with zero risk
Does it rev to 5500 rpm?
7k but to be honest I’m rarely above 4k in it it’s so fast you simply don’t need to. Also about 5-6 weeks in and say 1.5k miles into ownership plus pretty crap weather means I’ve been taking it very gently TBH.

Max_Torque

14,391 posts

165 months

Saturday 26th October
quotequote all
A44RON said:
So those particulate emissions from the cruise ship equivalent to 1 million cars is okay because it's not released in city centers, just into the atmosphere..... righteo.
yes.

Particulates are simply sooty chunks of carbon (and a few other trace compounds), and are harmless unless inhaled into the lungs of an air breathing mammal. They matter when released in significant concentrations in our cities because our cities are full of air breathing mammals. In the middle of the ocean, not only are there very few air breathing mammals per cubic km of air, but in fact the wave action actually removes these aerosols from the atmosphere, effective the waves and water vapour released wash those particulates out and into the sea, where they become just another bit of carbon in an ocean of a billion tonnes of carbon.

And as you haven't provided any actual figures to back up your "equivalent to 1 million cars" we have to consider that figure suspect, especially as PM number and size will not be comparable between the tail pipe emissions of a small passenger car engine with full aftertreatment, and those of a large marine diesel. And i'm sure you are aware that the harmful effects of PM are inversely proportional to PM size.




A44RON said:
you're describing it as erroneous/flawed/inaccurate because it doesn't suit your agenda. I'd like to know how Carnival manipulated their own figures, because if you divide a cruise ship's emissions by the number of people onboard and distance travelled, the g/km figure is much much higher.
I don't have an agenda.

Even if Carnival have manipulated their figures down (and i'm sure they have), it makes no difference because the number of passenger km per cruiseship is billions of times less than the number of passenger km for a passenger car! So even if a cruiseship emits 4,000 g/km, instead of 400 g/km the overall result is un-altered.



I've never been on a cruise, and i never will, mainly because you are likely to get trapped with some massive bore for 2 weeks who only wants to talk about how amazing their new AMG Merc is......... :-)

A44RON

171 posts

44 months

Monday 28th October
quotequote all
Exactly - the number of passenger km travelled by cruise is less than your average personal car user, however the carbon emissions kicked out by those cruise ships are off the charts - just because less people travel less total distances on cruise ships than cars shouldn't allow it to be swept under the carpet when the carbon footprint is multiplied.

A poster above correctly commented that an average cruise ship's particulate matter is equivalent to one million cars and many links on google confirm this to be true - one large cruise ship = CO2 to 83,678 cars... NOx to 421,153 cars... particulate emissions to 1.05 million cars... Sulphur Dioxide to 376 million cars

Now times that by the number of cruise ships and other large ships operating daily around the world...... Bingo.

give it a go, it took all of 30 seconds.

"Marine pollution analysts in Germany and Brussels said that a large cruise ship would probably burn at least 150 tonnes of fuel a day, and emit more sulphur than several million cars, more NO2 gas than all the traffic passing through a medium-sized town and more particulate emissions than thousands of London buses. According to leading independent German pollution analyst Axel Friedrich, a single large cruise ship will emit over five tonnes of NOX emissions, and 450kg of ultra fine particles a day.

"Air pollution from international shipping accounts for around 50,000 premature deaths per year in Europe alone, at an annual cost to society of more than €58bn [$65bn]."

Daniel Rieger, a transport officer at German environment group Nabu, said: “Cruise companies create a picture of being a bright, clean and environmentally friendly tourism sector. But the opposite is true. One cruise ship emits as many air pollutants as five million cars going the same distance because these ships use heavy fuel that on land would have to be disposed of as hazardous waste.”
Nabu has measured pollution in large German ports and found high concentrations of pollutants. “Heavy fuel oil can contain 3,500 times more sulphur than diesel that is used for land traffic vehicles. Ships do not have exhaust abatement technologies like particulate filters that are standard on passenger cars and lorries,” says Rieger.

and - "The average cruise ship passenger emitted 0.83 tonnes (830,000 grams) of CO2-equivalent just for their cruise. Most packages would also include some air travel to the port of embarkation and back home, adding to the overall footprint, plus a cruise ship passenger accounts for 3.5kg of rubbish daily - compared with the 0.8kg generated by local people on shore."

Gluttonous unnecessary excess.

I'm off to test drive a selection of used naturally-aspirated V8 coupes, including a W204 C63 tomorrow before purchasing, will be rude not to. hehetongue out

Max_Torque

14,391 posts

165 months

Tuesday 29th October
quotequote all
A44RON said:
Gluttonous unnecessary excess.
Like a AMG C63 then?

Cold

7,839 posts

38 months

Tuesday 29th October
quotequote all
Seems like cruise ships are fine as long as they don't go anywhere near land. This is why passengers have to swim out to them.

TobyTR

728 posts

94 months

Tuesday 29th October
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
A44RON said:
Gluttonous unnecessary excess.
Like a AMG C63 then?
Still much better for the environment than large ships though. This is PistonHeads, Mumsnet is that way byebye