RE: EU Kills 1.8-litre Lotuses

[Mr Gear]

RobM77 said:

What's cruel about keeping a load of cows or chickens in a field? I'm with you for battery hens etc, but most of the livestock around where I live just wander around in fields exactly as they would do in the wild. They are then killed in a far more humane way than other carnivores/omnivores would practise.

And how would reducing meat consumption reduce energy? Surely importing chillis and bananas across the Atlantic costs more than a few lorries delivering cows and ultimately British Beef up and down the M1 to my local butcher?

I'm not having a go, I just can't see the sense in your post.

If you converted all livestock fields into forests you'd have a fantastic carbon-sink.

But I'd have no beefs

[ads_green]

The problem is that The Toyota engine would probably pass the Euro 5 emmission regs if sombody stumped up the cash to do it.

Toyota have discontinued it from their current line up so they ain't going to pay it.
Lotus couldn't afford to.
Nobody else really uses the engine to warrant the cash to pass it.

Same with the RX8 - Mazda are already working on the next generation of that engine and the RX8 lineup is probably nearing the end of it's model lifespan anyway and again, nobody else uses it.

[Scuffers]

jcev39 said:

Lets just clarify a few things here:

1) As others have said Euro Standards for emissions do not include anything on CO2.
2) Euro 4 emissions standards requires less than 100 mg/km of HC, 80mg/km NOx and 1000 mg/km of CO. Euro 5 requires less than 100 mg/km of HC (with a limit of 68 mg/km Non-Methane HC), 60mg/km NOx and 1000 mg/km of CO. This is NOT a big increase in stringency at all! NOx shouldn't be an issue for gasoline engines and the aftertreatment technology (3-way cats) is more than capable of sorting this out.
3) Durability requirements have increased for Euro 5 and I believe there is now a requirement for deterioration factors to be used (so you can't just pass the test with a brand new engine which then fails 10mins later - hardly a serious increase in stringency).

I'm no fan of the EU - they deserve a good kicking for so many things - but it seems a bit much to blame them for this! I suspect that the biggest issue is likely to be one of electronics. One area where the new standards do up the bar is in On-Board Diagnostics which Toyota may simply not be supporting with this engine (the engine is getting pretty old now). As for the next Elise / Exige, it would seem sensible for Lotus to use the next generation of the Toyota engine.

Hope this informs...

JohnE

ads_green said:

The problem is that The Toyota engine would probably pass the Euro 5 emmission regs if sombody stumped up the cash to do it.

Toyota have discontinued it from their current line up so they ain't going to pay it.
Lotus couldn't afford to.
Nobody else really uses the engine to warrant the cash to pass it.

Same with the RX8 - Mazda are already working on the next generation of that engine and the RX8 lineup is probably nearing the end of it's model lifespan anyway and again, nobody else uses it.

only two sensible posts on this so far....

AFAIK, Toyota gave the 2ZZ engine it's end of life notice years ago, they no longer want to make it (and Lotus on their own certainly do not justify keeping it in production.)

the EU5 argument is just a smoke screen, there is nothing stopping Lotus selling the current cars (to EU4), only new models will need to meet EU5.

[RobCrezz]

They should have used the Honda K20 from the start!

[Al 450]

Of course the K series now meets EU5 standards.....

[dino ferrana]

Scuffers there is a cut-off for when EU4 cars can no longer be sold, I think it is the end of this year or middle of next if you have special exceptions. Not long anyway.

This thread shows how confused some people are about emissions, the government attempts to explain it have oversimplified things! But EU regs in this instance are to do with air quality and air pollution rather than greenhouse gases (although one of the oxides of Nitrogen is also an identified greenhouse gas). These regulations are reducing the gasses which cause problems in towns and cities (breathing issues etc.) and so less of them is definitely better. Also Euro 6 will make diesel regulations equal with petrol which will reduce the NOx and particulate levels very heavily, difficult to argue this is bad? I think in the case of the Elise the engine doesn't need to die as volumes are very low.

[kambites]

Al 450 said:

Of course the K series now meets EU5 standards.....

Isn't it called the N-series now?

[anonymous-user]

Mr Gear said:

MSTRBKR said:

B10 said:

MSTRBKR said:

Methane is 20x more harmful to the environment than CO2, that's a fact.

Kill all the cows I say. Milk is disgusting anyway and bacon is a better form of meat. Win win situation.

Go vegan.

Vegan is a mental disorder.

And so is thinking like you. Not only is methane emitted by cows comprised of carbon formally existing as atmospheric CO2, it is also unstable and breaks down very rapidly. Unlike CO2 which is stable for eternity.

Are you another person having a tantrum about CO2 in a thread that is about Euro emissions targets?

Edited by Mr Gear on Monday 21st June 13:28

Are you any fun at all at a dinner party? Sheesh. Both my posts were hugely tongue in cheek. I really don't give a flying welly about euro emissions targets because I don't buy new cars

[davepoth]

I think it's something like this. Lotus have had to re-engineer the elise/exige to put a new motor in it. It's going to be something a bit good. As a result they're left with a load of current spec exige/elise chassis that need to be shifted. They've stuck the largest engine that toyota now do in that type into the Elise so as to save costs and flog as many cars as possible, and made a runout special edition to get rid of all of the leftover exiges and 1.8 motors.

they won't announce the new stuff until after all of the old stuff has shifted to avoid everybody waiting for the new one, since they think it's a lot better.

[Mr Gear]

MSTRBKR said:

Mr Gear said:

MSTRBKR said:

B10 said:

MSTRBKR said:

Methane is 20x more harmful to the environment than CO2, that's a fact.

Kill all the cows I say. Milk is disgusting anyway and bacon is a better form of meat. Win win situation.

Go vegan.

Vegan is a mental disorder.

And so is thinking like you. Not only is methane emitted by cows comprised of carbon formally existing as atmospheric CO2, it is also unstable and breaks down very rapidly. Unlike CO2 which is stable for eternity.

Are you another person having a tantrum about CO2 in a thread that is about Euro emissions targets?

Edited by Mr Gear on Monday 21st June 13:28

Are you any fun at all at a dinner party? Sheesh. Both my posts were hugely tongue in cheek. I really don't give a flying welly about euro emissions targets because I don't buy new cars

That's fine. It always amazes me how people like to spout "anti-eco" stuff (for want of a more appropriate term of phrase) without actually understanding it. There was a bloke on PH recently who suggested that the breath from cyclists was more polluting than the exhaust from his car. FFS.

I also find it fun ruining people's jokes when I'm in a funny mood.

[Scuffers]

dino ferrana said:

Scuffers there is a cut-off for when EU4 cars can no longer be sold, I think it is the end of this year or middle of next if you have special exceptions. Not long anyway.

This thread shows how confused some people are about emissions, the government attempts to explain it have oversimplified things! But EU regs in this instance are to do with air quality and air pollution rather than greenhouse gases (although one of the oxides of Nitrogen is also an identified greenhouse gas). These regulations are reducing the gasses which cause problems in towns and cities (breathing issues etc.) and so less of them is definitely better. Also Euro 6 will make diesel regulations equal with petrol which will reduce the NOx and particulate levels very heavily, difficult to argue this is bad? I think in the case of the Elise the engine doesn't need to die as volumes are very low.

very much so...

ps. I think it's 2 years (from when EU5 came into force)

[RichyBoy]

So i take it the biofuel exile 260 is no more.

[king arthur]

kambites said:

Al 450 said:

Of course the K series now meets EU5 standards.....

Isn't it called the N-series now?

Yes and it's more than just the K-series with a new name.

[Daniel1]

Mr Gear said:

MSTRBKR said:

Mr Gear said:

MSTRBKR said:

B10 said:

MSTRBKR said:

Methane is 20x more harmful to the environment than CO2, that's a fact.

Kill all the cows I say. Milk is disgusting anyway and bacon is a better form of meat. Win win situation.

Go vegan.

Vegan is a mental disorder.

And so is thinking like you. Not only is methane emitted by cows comprised of carbon formally existing as atmospheric CO2, it is also unstable and breaks down very rapidly. Unlike CO2 which is stable for eternity.

Are you another person having a tantrum about CO2 in a thread that is about Euro emissions targets?

Edited by Mr Gear on Monday 21st June 13:28

Are you any fun at all at a dinner party? Sheesh. Both my posts were hugely tongue in cheek. I really don't give a flying welly about euro emissions targets because I don't buy new cars

That's fine. It always amazes me how people like to spout "anti-eco" stuff (for want of a more appropriate term of phrase) without actually understanding it. There was a bloke on PH recently who suggested that the breath from cyclists was more polluting than the exhaust from his car. FFS.

I also find it fun ruining people's jokes when I'm in a funny mood.

i hate cyclists. Damn CO2 expelling bds.

[peter450]

jcev39 said:

Lets just clarify a few things here:

1) As others have said Euro Standards for emissions do not include anything on CO2.
2) Euro 4 emissions standards requires less than 100 mg/km of HC, 80mg/km NOx and 1000 mg/km of CO. Euro 5 requires less than 100 mg/km of HC (with a limit of 68 mg/km Non-Methane HC), 60mg/km NOx and 1000 mg/km of CO. This is NOT a big increase in stringency at all! NOx shouldn't be an issue for gasoline engines and the aftertreatment technology (3-way cats) is more than capable of sorting this out.
3) Durability requirements have increased for Euro 5 and I believe there is now a requirement for deterioration factors to be used (so you can't just pass the test with a brand new engine which then fails 10mins later - hardly a serious increase in stringency).

I'm no fan of the EU - they deserve a good kicking for so many things - but it seems a bit much to blame them for this! I suspect that the biggest issue is likely to be one of electronics. One area where the new standards do up the bar is in On-Board Diagnostics which Toyota may simply not be supporting with this engine (the engine is getting pretty old now). As for the next Elise / Exige, it would seem sensible for Lotus to use the next generation of the Toyota engine.

Hope this informs...

JohnE

I think thats one of the problems, there is no next gen version of this engine, the 1.8 used in the R/SC etc was a high reving performance car engine, toyota's version of the VTEC, personally i think it's a solid unit for the Elise and Lotus were lucky it was available for them to use

Rover also had a fancy version of the K, designed for performance cars the VVC, which lotus also got to use, and the basic engine was very tune-able aswell up to a point

The current toyota line up has no engines designed, tuned or fettled for a sports car, so lotus are going to have to make do with the basic built for a normal car type engine, these will be tuned for low rev work and CO2, MPG and fun and high specific output were not on the design brief, this is were it's interesting to see what they do

I'm pretty sure that because of the deal in place with toyota, for engine supply. The next elise, in fact all future lotus's, will use Lexus/Toyota Engines, i do wonder how there going to get round the fact the current yota inline 4 range are not designed for sports cars, and unlike in the past were they had access to sports car tuned or designed varients (VVC, 2ZZ) there are currently no hot versions available, i suspect lotus are going to Supercharge these engines to get the required outputs, but i doubt they will be strong enough to get to the 260 odd hp of the outgoing 1.8, which could be were a V6 comes in

I guess we will know soon enough

[footsoldier]

ads_green said:

The problem is that The Toyota engine would probably pass the Euro 5 emmission regs if sombody stumped up the cash to do it.

Toyota have discontinued it from their current line up so they ain't going to pay it.
Lotus couldn't afford to.
Nobody else really uses the engine to warrant the cash to pass it.

This is the correct answer! The engine will not approved for use after end of this year because Toyota is not going to incur the cost of approval for an old engine. It is the same reason that 1.6 was replaced, and all cars with existing engine will have to be registered this year as they cannot be sold in 2010.

[footsoldier]

ads_green said:

The problem is that The Toyota engine would probably pass the Euro 5 emmission regs if sombody stumped up the cash to do it.

Toyota have discontinued it from their current line up so they ain't going to pay it.
Lotus couldn't afford to.
Nobody else really uses the engine to warrant the cash to pass it.

This is the correct answer! The engine will not approved for use after end of this year because Toyota is not going to incur the cost of approval for an old engine. It is the same reason that 1.6 was replaced, and all cars with existing engine will have to be registered this year as they cannot be sold in 2010.

[Benjman]

Daniel1 said:

Mr Gear said:

MSTRBKR said:

Mr Gear said:

MSTRBKR said:

B10 said:

MSTRBKR said:

Methane is 20x more harmful to the environment than CO2, that's a fact.

Kill all the cows I say. Milk is disgusting anyway and bacon is a better form of meat. Win win situation.

Go vegan.

Vegan is a mental disorder.

And so is thinking like you. Not only is methane emitted by cows comprised of carbon formally existing as atmospheric CO2, it is also unstable and breaks down very rapidly. Unlike CO2 which is stable for eternity.

Are you another person having a tantrum about CO2 in a thread that is about Euro emissions targets?

Edited by Mr Gear on Monday 21st June 13:28

Are you any fun at all at a dinner party? Sheesh. Both my posts were hugely tongue in cheek. I really don't give a flying welly about euro emissions targets because I don't buy new cars

That's fine. It always amazes me how people like to spout "anti-eco" stuff (for want of a more appropriate term of phrase) without actually understanding it. There was a bloke on PH recently who suggested that the breath from cyclists was more polluting than the exhaust from his car. FFS.

I also find it fun ruining people's jokes when I'm in a funny mood.

i hate cyclists. Damn CO2 expelling bds.

+1

Stupid cyclists! Always leave a mark in the fender when you hit 'em...

[aeropilot]

petrolveins said:

My phyisics teacher is also what one could call a sceptic, and he really knows his stuff, also has some interesting ideas. One for instance is that all this global warming talk was started by Maggie in the 80s so she could try and build some nuclear power-stations and stop relying on coal.

Except, only one Nuclear Power Station was built under Maggie's leadership, and that was the last one to be built (Sizewell B) and in fact it was her Govt. that effectively put an end the building of anymore.
And it was Harold Wilson's Govt that started the decline in the coal industry back in the 1960's after the discovery of north sea gas, and they embarked on the whole sale destruction of the coal sourced town-gas infrastructure in favour of this infinate supply of this new 'clean' energy source.

[47GT]

aeropilot said:

petrolveins said:

My phyisics teacher is also what one could call a sceptic, and he really knows his stuff, also has some interesting ideas. One for instance is that all this global warming talk was started by Maggie in the 80s so she could try and build some nuclear power-stations and stop relying on coal.

Except, only one Nuclear Power Station was built under Maggie's leadership, and that was the last one to be built (Sizewell B) and in fact it was her Govt. that effectively put an end the building of anymore.
And it was Harold Wilson's Govt that started the decline in the coal industry back in the 1960's after the discovery of north sea gas, and they embarked on the whole sale destruction of the coal sourced town-gas infrastructure in favour of this infinate supply of this new 'clean' energy source.

This is what I love about PistonHeads. I discussion about Lotus phasing out some of their existing Toyota engines ends up in a discussion on the merits of Britain's energy strategy in the 60s and 80s.