emissions and power in the future
Discussion
As emissions will be the limiting factor on engine power in the future where does this leave more powerful engines?
McLaren and Zonda are heading down the turbo route as, apparently, a naturally aspirated engine just couldn't be made to work and pass the emissions rules.
What size and power output could an independent car company, i.e. a small supercar marque that can't spread the emissions over lots of models, make an engine, either turbo or non turbo, and still pass?
Will diluting a marques emissions over a group average, as Ferrari apparently do across the whole of the Fiat group, be enough to keep any high output naturally aspirated engines at all in the future?
Would any of our resident experts care to comment?
McLaren and Zonda are heading down the turbo route as, apparently, a naturally aspirated engine just couldn't be made to work and pass the emissions rules.
What size and power output could an independent car company, i.e. a small supercar marque that can't spread the emissions over lots of models, make an engine, either turbo or non turbo, and still pass?
Will diluting a marques emissions over a group average, as Ferrari apparently do across the whole of the Fiat group, be enough to keep any high output naturally aspirated engines at all in the future?
Would any of our resident experts care to comment?
It's a good question. Alternative fuels may offer something, but I think it's only a matter of time before the legislate against anything motoring related that could be deemed fun or enjoyable due to having some power.
They may rant and rave about battery cars or hybrids. But the reality is they are all complete useless s
te. Mostly because batteries are just ste.
They may rant and rave about battery cars or hybrids. But the reality is they are all complete useless s
te. Mostly because batteries are just ste.You need to include CO2 in "emissions" Typically until now emissions has reffered to the 3 main polutants CO, THC, and NOx. Conventional aftertreatment systems (oxidisation catalysts) in conjunction with ever more precise control of fuel quantity and ignition timing, has delivered every cleaner engines in terms of tail pipe polutants.
However, the challange of CO2 reduction is rather different and can only be approached in 2 ways:
1) reduce the vehicles roadload (rotational friction and aerodynamic drag) so it takes less power to move it about
2) Increase the mean powertrain efficiency to deliver the required tractive power with less wasteage.
Up till now 2) has been the primary focus, with a lot of attention to improveing the efficiency over the mandated test cycles using things like Stop-start, smart alternators, multispeed transmissions, inteligent warmup control and reduced parasitic losses (EPAS etc).
On top of those downspeeding and downsizing are really becoming necessary now, with the capacity of engines falling as the number of transmission ratios increases.
Next the battle must move towards focusing on reducing the energy required to move the car as 1).
Unfortunately, this has a much bigger knock on effect on the vehicles the buying public has embraced.
Low drag = not necessarily a nice shape to look at (which like it or not is the Primary reason most people buy the car they do
Low rolling resistance = small, narrow low grip tyres. In europe we like our cars to perform!
Low mass/smaller size = less crash resistance per unit cost (you can restore the overall crash performance, but only at a cost untennable to the volume manufacturer currently)
Electricification is the next big thing, with various schemes of electric traction assistance acting as "load leveling" to allow the ICE engine to only operate at maximum efficiency. With current cars, we are now used to having hundreds of kW of power for those occasional effortless accelerations, but a typical car only requires about 12kW to do 100kph! This means the large powerful ICE engine is only operating at low load (and hence minimum efficiency) for the vast majority of it's life.
Until battery systems take a significant leap in energy density, pure electric cars of the size/mass/drag/feature content/safety/practiciality that we have got very used to, are not cost effective or practical.
The trade off between complexity(cost/reliablity), efficiency and practicality are still very much up in the air. Not helped by technology moving so fast (particularly in batteries) that by the time you have finished a typical development program (3-4 years) the tech is obsolete........
Fortunately, for Hyper/Super cars, the issues of cost and to some extent fuel efficiency simply dissapear, so we will be seeing mega high power high capacity hyper cars for some time yet. (although expect a small degree of hybridisation to creep in to these too, primarily to "show off" the tech on a platform that can absorb the henious development costs of such tech. In these cases the hybridisation will also be "dynamic enablers" rather than purely efficiency improvers (such as active torque sharing/ KERS etc)
However, the challange of CO2 reduction is rather different and can only be approached in 2 ways:
1) reduce the vehicles roadload (rotational friction and aerodynamic drag) so it takes less power to move it about
2) Increase the mean powertrain efficiency to deliver the required tractive power with less wasteage.
Up till now 2) has been the primary focus, with a lot of attention to improveing the efficiency over the mandated test cycles using things like Stop-start, smart alternators, multispeed transmissions, inteligent warmup control and reduced parasitic losses (EPAS etc).
On top of those downspeeding and downsizing are really becoming necessary now, with the capacity of engines falling as the number of transmission ratios increases.
Next the battle must move towards focusing on reducing the energy required to move the car as 1).
Unfortunately, this has a much bigger knock on effect on the vehicles the buying public has embraced.
Low drag = not necessarily a nice shape to look at (which like it or not is the Primary reason most people buy the car they do
Low rolling resistance = small, narrow low grip tyres. In europe we like our cars to perform!
Low mass/smaller size = less crash resistance per unit cost (you can restore the overall crash performance, but only at a cost untennable to the volume manufacturer currently)
Electricification is the next big thing, with various schemes of electric traction assistance acting as "load leveling" to allow the ICE engine to only operate at maximum efficiency. With current cars, we are now used to having hundreds of kW of power for those occasional effortless accelerations, but a typical car only requires about 12kW to do 100kph! This means the large powerful ICE engine is only operating at low load (and hence minimum efficiency) for the vast majority of it's life.
Until battery systems take a significant leap in energy density, pure electric cars of the size/mass/drag/feature content/safety/practiciality that we have got very used to, are not cost effective or practical.
The trade off between complexity(cost/reliablity), efficiency and practicality are still very much up in the air. Not helped by technology moving so fast (particularly in batteries) that by the time you have finished a typical development program (3-4 years) the tech is obsolete........
Fortunately, for Hyper/Super cars, the issues of cost and to some extent fuel efficiency simply dissapear, so we will be seeing mega high power high capacity hyper cars for some time yet. (although expect a small degree of hybridisation to creep in to these too, primarily to "show off" the tech on a platform that can absorb the henious development costs of such tech. In these cases the hybridisation will also be "dynamic enablers" rather than purely efficiency improvers (such as active torque sharing/ KERS etc)
stevieturbo said:
Im amazed CVT never really made it. Surely it should have offered good advantages so the engine could be run in a more efficient way ?
Gas turbine etc ?
One problem with the toroidal CVTs is that your transmission losses increase by a similar amount to the fuel economy benefit of always being at the right point in the rev range.Gas turbine etc ?
Judging by Zonda and McLaren it would seem that 600bhp is unattainable with a naturally aspirated engine assuming that you haven't got the option of averaging the emissions out over thousands of much smaller cars.
Morgan however mange without turbos and sell cars with engines ranging from a two litre up to 367 bhp 4.8V8s.
So the limit is somewhere between 2.0 and 4.8 litres.
Morgan however mange without turbos and sell cars with engines ranging from a two litre up to 367 bhp 4.8V8s.
So the limit is somewhere between 2.0 and 4.8 litres.
Max_Torque said:
You need to include CO2 in "emissions" Typically until now emissions has reffered to the 3 main polutants CO, THC, and NOx. Conventional aftertreatment systems (oxidisation catalysts) in conjunction with ever more precise control of fuel quantity and ignition timing, has delivered every cleaner engines in terms of tail pipe polutants.
However, the challange of CO2 reduction is rather different and can only be approached in 2 ways:
1) reduce the vehicles roadload (rotational friction and aerodynamic drag) so it takes less power to move it about
2) Increase the mean powertrain efficiency to deliver the required tractive power with less wasteage.
Up till now 2) has been the primary focus, with a lot of attention to improveing the efficiency over the mandated test cycles using things like Stop-start, smart alternators, multispeed transmissions, inteligent warmup control and reduced parasitic losses (EPAS etc).
On top of those downspeeding and downsizing are really becoming necessary now, with the capacity of engines falling as the number of transmission ratios increases.
Next the battle must move towards focusing on reducing the energy required to move the car as 1).
Unfortunately, this has a much bigger knock on effect on the vehicles the buying public has embraced.
Low drag = not necessarily a nice shape to look at (which like it or not is the Primary reason most people buy the car they do
Low rolling resistance = small, narrow low grip tyres. In europe we like our cars to perform!
Low mass/smaller size = less crash resistance per unit cost (you can restore the overall crash performance, but only at a cost untennable to the volume manufacturer currently)
Electricification is the next big thing, with various schemes of electric traction assistance acting as "load leveling" to allow the ICE engine to only operate at maximum efficiency. With current cars, we are now used to having hundreds of kW of power for those occasional effortless accelerations, but a typical car only requires about 12kW to do 100kph! This means the large powerful ICE engine is only operating at low load (and hence minimum efficiency) for the vast majority of it's life.
Until battery systems take a significant leap in energy density, pure electric cars of the size/mass/drag/feature content/safety/practiciality that we have got very used to, are not cost effective or practical.
The trade off between complexity(cost/reliablity), efficiency and practicality are still very much up in the air. Not helped by technology moving so fast (particularly in batteries) that by the time you have finished a typical development program (3-4 years) the tech is obsolete........
Fortunately, for Hyper/Super cars, the issues of cost and to some extent fuel efficiency simply dissapear, so we will be seeing mega high power high capacity hyper cars for some time yet. (although expect a small degree of hybridisation to creep in to these too, primarily to "show off" the tech on a platform that can absorb the henious development costs of such tech. In these cases the hybridisation will also be "dynamic enablers" rather than purely efficiency improvers (such as active torque sharing/ KERS etc)
Ah the old co2, then everybody , not just the few people who are able to think for themselves realises man made climate change is man made up BSHowever, the challange of CO2 reduction is rather different and can only be approached in 2 ways:
1) reduce the vehicles roadload (rotational friction and aerodynamic drag) so it takes less power to move it about
2) Increase the mean powertrain efficiency to deliver the required tractive power with less wasteage.
Up till now 2) has been the primary focus, with a lot of attention to improveing the efficiency over the mandated test cycles using things like Stop-start, smart alternators, multispeed transmissions, inteligent warmup control and reduced parasitic losses (EPAS etc).
On top of those downspeeding and downsizing are really becoming necessary now, with the capacity of engines falling as the number of transmission ratios increases.
Next the battle must move towards focusing on reducing the energy required to move the car as 1).
Unfortunately, this has a much bigger knock on effect on the vehicles the buying public has embraced.
Low drag = not necessarily a nice shape to look at (which like it or not is the Primary reason most people buy the car they do
Low rolling resistance = small, narrow low grip tyres. In europe we like our cars to perform!
Low mass/smaller size = less crash resistance per unit cost (you can restore the overall crash performance, but only at a cost untennable to the volume manufacturer currently)
Electricification is the next big thing, with various schemes of electric traction assistance acting as "load leveling" to allow the ICE engine to only operate at maximum efficiency. With current cars, we are now used to having hundreds of kW of power for those occasional effortless accelerations, but a typical car only requires about 12kW to do 100kph! This means the large powerful ICE engine is only operating at low load (and hence minimum efficiency) for the vast majority of it's life.
Until battery systems take a significant leap in energy density, pure electric cars of the size/mass/drag/feature content/safety/practiciality that we have got very used to, are not cost effective or practical.
The trade off between complexity(cost/reliablity), efficiency and practicality are still very much up in the air. Not helped by technology moving so fast (particularly in batteries) that by the time you have finished a typical development program (3-4 years) the tech is obsolete........
Fortunately, for Hyper/Super cars, the issues of cost and to some extent fuel efficiency simply dissapear, so we will be seeing mega high power high capacity hyper cars for some time yet. (although expect a small degree of hybridisation to creep in to these too, primarily to "show off" the tech on a platform that can absorb the henious development costs of such tech. In these cases the hybridisation will also be "dynamic enablers" rather than purely efficiency improvers (such as active torque sharing/ KERS etc)
then what ???? what will drive car design post the global warming scam??? ....
powerstroke said:
Max_Torque said:
You need to include CO2 in "emissions" Typically until now emissions has reffered to the 3 main polutants CO, THC, and NOx. Conventional aftertreatment systems (oxidisation catalysts) in conjunction with ever more precise control of fuel quantity and ignition timing, has delivered every cleaner engines in terms of tail pipe polutants.
However, the challange of CO2 reduction is rather different and can only be approached in 2 ways:
1) reduce the vehicles roadload (rotational friction and aerodynamic drag) so it takes less power to move it about
2) Increase the mean powertrain efficiency to deliver the required tractive power with less wasteage.
Up till now 2) has been the primary focus, with a lot of attention to improveing the efficiency over the mandated test cycles using things like Stop-start, smart alternators, multispeed transmissions, inteligent warmup control and reduced parasitic losses (EPAS etc).
On top of those downspeeding and downsizing are really becoming necessary now, with the capacity of engines falling as the number of transmission ratios increases.
Next the battle must move towards focusing on reducing the energy required to move the car as 1).
Unfortunately, this has a much bigger knock on effect on the vehicles the buying public has embraced.
Low drag = not necessarily a nice shape to look at (which like it or not is the Primary reason most people buy the car they do
Low rolling resistance = small, narrow low grip tyres. In europe we like our cars to perform!
Low mass/smaller size = less crash resistance per unit cost (you can restore the overall crash performance, but only at a cost untennable to the volume manufacturer currently)
Electricification is the next big thing, with various schemes of electric traction assistance acting as "load leveling" to allow the ICE engine to only operate at maximum efficiency. With current cars, we are now used to having hundreds of kW of power for those occasional effortless accelerations, but a typical car only requires about 12kW to do 100kph! This means the large powerful ICE engine is only operating at low load (and hence minimum efficiency) for the vast majority of it's life.
Until battery systems take a significant leap in energy density, pure electric cars of the size/mass/drag/feature content/safety/practiciality that we have got very used to, are not cost effective or practical.
The trade off between complexity(cost/reliablity), efficiency and practicality are still very much up in the air. Not helped by technology moving so fast (particularly in batteries) that by the time you have finished a typical development program (3-4 years) the tech is obsolete........
Fortunately, for Hyper/Super cars, the issues of cost and to some extent fuel efficiency simply dissapear, so we will be seeing mega high power high capacity hyper cars for some time yet. (although expect a small degree of hybridisation to creep in to these too, primarily to "show off" the tech on a platform that can absorb the henious development costs of such tech. In these cases the hybridisation will also be "dynamic enablers" rather than purely efficiency improvers (such as active torque sharing/ KERS etc)
Ah the old co2, then everybody , not just the few people who are able to think for themselves realises man made climate change is man made up BSHowever, the challange of CO2 reduction is rather different and can only be approached in 2 ways:
1) reduce the vehicles roadload (rotational friction and aerodynamic drag) so it takes less power to move it about
2) Increase the mean powertrain efficiency to deliver the required tractive power with less wasteage.
Up till now 2) has been the primary focus, with a lot of attention to improveing the efficiency over the mandated test cycles using things like Stop-start, smart alternators, multispeed transmissions, inteligent warmup control and reduced parasitic losses (EPAS etc).
On top of those downspeeding and downsizing are really becoming necessary now, with the capacity of engines falling as the number of transmission ratios increases.
Next the battle must move towards focusing on reducing the energy required to move the car as 1).
Unfortunately, this has a much bigger knock on effect on the vehicles the buying public has embraced.
Low drag = not necessarily a nice shape to look at (which like it or not is the Primary reason most people buy the car they do
Low rolling resistance = small, narrow low grip tyres. In europe we like our cars to perform!
Low mass/smaller size = less crash resistance per unit cost (you can restore the overall crash performance, but only at a cost untennable to the volume manufacturer currently)
Electricification is the next big thing, with various schemes of electric traction assistance acting as "load leveling" to allow the ICE engine to only operate at maximum efficiency. With current cars, we are now used to having hundreds of kW of power for those occasional effortless accelerations, but a typical car only requires about 12kW to do 100kph! This means the large powerful ICE engine is only operating at low load (and hence minimum efficiency) for the vast majority of it's life.
Until battery systems take a significant leap in energy density, pure electric cars of the size/mass/drag/feature content/safety/practiciality that we have got very used to, are not cost effective or practical.
The trade off between complexity(cost/reliablity), efficiency and practicality are still very much up in the air. Not helped by technology moving so fast (particularly in batteries) that by the time you have finished a typical development program (3-4 years) the tech is obsolete........
Fortunately, for Hyper/Super cars, the issues of cost and to some extent fuel efficiency simply dissapear, so we will be seeing mega high power high capacity hyper cars for some time yet. (although expect a small degree of hybridisation to creep in to these too, primarily to "show off" the tech on a platform that can absorb the henious development costs of such tech. In these cases the hybridisation will also be "dynamic enablers" rather than purely efficiency improvers (such as active torque sharing/ KERS etc)
then what ???? what will drive car design post the global warming scam??? ....
- the only possible exception being Fusion generation, but thats been "just around the corner" for as long as i can remember.
stevieturbo said:
Im amazed CVT never really made it. Surely it should have offered good advantages so the engine could be run in a more efficient way ?
Gas turbine etc ?
The problem with true CVT's is that they are not nice to drive in small underpowered cars with poor NVH, which historically have been the only ones that exisiting CVT's have been any good for (due to torque transfere limitations) Customers have simply voted with their feet and not bought CVT cars in any numbers.Gas turbine etc ?
TBH, multispeed auto's / DCT's are now so good there is little benefit left to a pure CVT.
(except of course for electric traction drive, using two Emachines either side of an epicyclic transmission, and acting as a broad spread CVT) (a-la Volt/Prius etc))
Gas Turbines are a non starter really. There singular benefit is a high power density. They have a poor thermal efficiency and only operate well in a narrow load/speed range. This requires something like battery storage to do load leveling, but current batteries really do not like "pulse" charging at high powers..............
(I could just about immagine a turbine generator "charging" a high speed flywheel, either through an electric drive or CVT (like a Torotrac unit). But this is so very far from the OEM's comfort zone, in terms of risk/durability/NVH, let alone uncertain customer perception, that no volume manufacturer is going to go near it. Even then the poor thermal efficiency bites you. Range extenders are almost certainly going to stay as reciprocating devices for a while (with wankels an outside possibility))
I can remember in the late 80s, the fear over the power sapping demands of these new "catalytic converters" and the demise of powerful engines. We'll never see more then 350bhp again, etc..
Now we have more power- even modren hatchbacks have very powerful engines. And clean engines. You no longer smell unburnt fuel in a traffic jam. Or see smoke.
So dont worry. Engineers will always find a way. It could involve additional electric power like the Williams Hybrid powertran on the Porsche 911, but there will always be power. Lots of it. Dont worry.
Now we have more power- even modren hatchbacks have very powerful engines. And clean engines. You no longer smell unburnt fuel in a traffic jam. Or see smoke.
So dont worry. Engineers will always find a way. It could involve additional electric power like the Williams Hybrid powertran on the Porsche 911, but there will always be power. Lots of it. Dont worry.
Max_Torque said:
Well, unless we are all imagining oil as a finite resource...
It is actually infinite.There are two possible sources:
1) The usual text book theory about ancient dead plants, hence "fossil" fuel. Stuff hasn't stopped being added to the start of this process, production is continuous. The only problem is that the easy to get at reserves are being used up faster than new reserves are being created. So we'll never, ever, run out. It will simply get harder and harder to get in smaller and smaller quantities.
2) Nothing to do with dead anything at all. Free hydrogen and carbon are combined in the Earth's crust making oil no different from any other mineral. Google "Abiotic oil", otherwise see above.
So either way we'll never run out but we'll pay more and more for less and less.
Whatever happened the supercharged 2 stroke that Jaguar ( or maybe Queens University ) was working on some 15 years ago ?
Or do emissions rule out the two stroke format ?
More recent article
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/lotus-qub-...
Or do emissions rule out the two stroke format ?
More recent article
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/lotus-qub-...
cymtriks said:
Max_Torque said:
Well, unless we are all imagining oil as a finite resource...
It is actually infinite.There are two possible sources:
1) The usual text book theory about ancient dead plants, hence "fossil" fuel. Stuff hasn't stopped being added to the start of this process, production is continuous. The only problem is that the easy to get at reserves are being used up faster than new reserves are being created. So we'll never, ever, run out. It will simply get harder and harder to get in smaller and smaller quantities.
2) Nothing to do with dead anything at all. Free hydrogen and carbon are combined in the Earth's crust making oil no different from any other mineral. Google "Abiotic oil", otherwise see above.
So either way we'll never run out but we'll pay more and more for less and less.
Maybe i should have said "Effectively finite" as market forces and economics will make it unaffordable to the vast majority of people long before it is actually becomes impossible to extract from the ground.
When talking about "engineered hydrocarbon fuels" such as biofuels or chemically "cracked" fuels of various kinds, the issue is the practicalities of mass production and the fact that we now have to start actually paying for the raw energy before locking it up in the energy storage system (whatever format that might be). Up till now we have got "free" energy, because mothed nature has herself harnessed the suns energy over several million years and sequestered it in a convienently energy dense substance (crude oil)
Any which way, there isn't enough energy to go around. (in fact, BBC4 right now are showing the "Can we make a star on earth" documentary that touches on this very point ;-)
Max_Torque said:
The issue is our consumption of oil. We are consuming it at a faster rate than it can ever be created. This is evident from the fact the atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing. (i.e. less carbon is being substrated than is being released by mankind)
Maybe i should have said "Effectively finite" as market forces and economics will make it unaffordable to the vast majority of people long before it is actually becomes impossible to extract from the ground.
When talking about "engineered hydrocarbon fuels" such as biofuels or chemically "cracked" fuels of various kinds, the issue is the practicalities of mass production and the fact that we now have to start actually paying for the raw energy before locking it up in the energy storage system (whatever format that might be). Up till now we have got "free" energy, because mothed nature has herself harnessed the suns energy over several million years and sequestered it in a convienently energy dense substance (crude oil)
Any which way, there isn't enough energy to go around. (in fact, BBC4 right now are showing the "Can we make a star on earth" documentary that touches on this very point ;-)
Burn methane. It's a more powerful greenhouse gas, so converting it to CO by extracting energy actually lessens the impact on the atmosphere. And, it's ABUNDANT on this planet, locked up in methane hydrate. Read some place that the available stocks of methane hydrate was about 1200 times the remaining amount of oil in the ground that was feasible to get without some new supertechnology.. Maybe i should have said "Effectively finite" as market forces and economics will make it unaffordable to the vast majority of people long before it is actually becomes impossible to extract from the ground.
When talking about "engineered hydrocarbon fuels" such as biofuels or chemically "cracked" fuels of various kinds, the issue is the practicalities of mass production and the fact that we now have to start actually paying for the raw energy before locking it up in the energy storage system (whatever format that might be). Up till now we have got "free" energy, because mothed nature has herself harnessed the suns energy over several million years and sequestered it in a convienently energy dense substance (crude oil)
Any which way, there isn't enough energy to go around. (in fact, BBC4 right now are showing the "Can we make a star on earth" documentary that touches on this very point ;-)
garagewidow said:
as market forces and economics will make it unaffordable.
surely as long as it exists it will always be'affordable'as that is what the market will dictate.
in theory energy is worthless much like currency.
Not as long as taxation exists and is a cash cow for governments.surely as long as it exists it will always be'affordable'as that is what the market will dictate.
in theory energy is worthless much like currency.
Just to rehash the original question:
How much engine capacity/power (natural and forced induction) do the emissions regs translate to before a car has to rely on smaller cars to average the total down?
These numbers are the maximum values for any small independent company (i.e. Morgan, Zonda or a resurected TVR).
How much engine capacity/power (natural and forced induction) do the emissions regs translate to before a car has to rely on smaller cars to average the total down?
These numbers are the maximum values for any small independent company (i.e. Morgan, Zonda or a resurected TVR).
cymtriks said:
Just to rehash the original question:
How much engine capacity/power (natural and forced induction) do the emissions regs translate to before a car has to rely on smaller cars to average the total down?
These numbers are the maximum values for any small independent company (i.e. Morgan, Zonda or a resurected TVR).
Its a horrible question in that the answer will take an eternity to work out. Euro Tier 6 emissions are coming into play in 2014 and I am sure Tier 7 is in the pipeline so the goal posts are already moving. There are lots of questions being asked about the way in which Emissions testing is being carried out as its so easy for manufacturers to cheat the tests. Very much in the same way vehicles were being mapped for the Transient Driving Simulations as part of EU MPG Calculations leading to many consumers wondering why they were nowhere near the brochure figures.How much engine capacity/power (natural and forced induction) do the emissions regs translate to before a car has to rely on smaller cars to average the total down?
These numbers are the maximum values for any small independent company (i.e. Morgan, Zonda or a resurected TVR).
The truth is that engines are massively inefficient in just about any possible way you try to measure and the numbers get worse the bigger the engine. You don't need a 5.0 V10 to make 400bhp but it sounds (in advertising land) much better than a turbo 4-pot. As previously mentioned market forces are bringing engine sizing down, just the higher end tend to have more money so the price of the tax etc makes demand slightly more inelastic.
If you want an answer like - "TVR can only make 3.0 V8s producing 280bhp before they need to start making Smart cars" then you wont get one. Plus I think small firms are exempt from this new ruling.
SWR Performance said:
Burn methane. It's a more powerful greenhouse gas, so converting it to CO by extracting energy actually lessens the impact on the atmosphere. And, it's ABUNDANT on this planet, locked up in methane hydrate. Read some place that the available stocks of methane hydrate was about 1200 times the remaining amount of oil in the ground that was feasible to get without some new supertechnology..
Hmmm now there is an idea! 
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff