USians are not noted for paying attention to what's happening outside their back yard, so here is another scary thought for manufacturers of USian petrol swiggers (US:"gas guzzler").
The EU is now working towards tighter specs on the CO2 that a vehicle can emit: in the next few years, 130gm/Km, with hopes of 120gm/Km not too long after that. For comparison, a Prius emits 104gm/Km and a big Mercedes saloon more like 240gm/Km.
And you can bet that the size of the EU market would, without anyone else getting interested, persuade manufactuers to make moves on this opportunity. And the ideas will spread. OTOH, I doubt folks like the Chinese, Indians, Japanese &c &c would want to be left out and will pile aboard the band wagon.
It may become interesting. Toyota should do well out of it.
Make better use of the fuel. Burn hydrocarbons (eg, petrol) and you get mainly CO2 and water. The heat involved incidentally is able to burn atmospheric nitrogen to produce its several oxides. Burn less fuel to do the same job, make less CO2. Proper engine and general maintenance is an easy way towards this, BTW. Ditto (non-political) conservative driving habits.
There's nothing to stop one having a powerful engine that's also more efficient. But a question worth asking is, do we need that much power? How about an engine that varies its max power? Ray or someone can say if I'm wrong, but ISTR engines which switched pistons in and out, according to the required oomph. Hybrids do this, of course, by switching an electric motor in "assist" mode on/off. Better solutions are probably awaiting discovery, if we bother to look.
There's another approach, and it's an old one. From more than one mechanic, I've heard explanations of why some relatively new cars belch more smoke than others, as if they were much older. Often, if you look carefully, you'll see that these cars are driven by people who never actually touch the gas pedal. You know the type: Creepers.
The mechanical reason doesn't matter. The fact is that in addition to timid drivers who wreck their cars, driving in heavy traffic causes the same symptoms, compared to cars that actually run at optimal efficiency more of the time.
Obviously, one solution would be better mass transportation, but some people call that socialism, or more "guvmint control". Try getting past THAT nonsense.
Oh, we have those too. And those who can't seem to decide what speed they want to drive at: fast a while; nope, I prefer slow; this bit looks good for fast, just in case someone wants to nip past me; ah, a lovely winding lane, so let's slow down to enjoy the scenery...
Fair point. We need cars to be suited to stop-start work, as I can't see traffic jams going away in a hurry and most of us now live in cities. I read that India is expecting a massive shift of rural population into the burgeoning cities as their economy grows wealthier. (Makes one recall "How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, now that they've seen Paree?" TV spreads ideas.)
There's a possible way: make it efficient, fast, cheap, clean...
From some former (as in "now dead") old folks in the family, I've heard "I don't like the people on buses". Wrong skin color, in other words. I wonder how much of that attitude still exists.
The other issue is bad planning. My city still uses a hub & spoke system for its bus routes. All buses must pass through a central pickup/dropoff point, an emanate outward from there. Ridiculous. There should be routes which mimic where the heaviest automobile traffic exists. Obviously, that's where people are actually going. But, that's too simple an idea for our local bureaucrats. So, if it takes 15 minutes to go someplace by car, the same trip takes almost 2 hours by bus. You have to take a bus downtown, and then back out to the suburban destination. Obviously, you can't expect the bus ride to be the same as the car ride, but 8 times longer? Ridiculous.
The idiot who runs the agency says the routes are fine. When a reporter asks "Then, why do so many buses run with hardly any passengers, even during rush hour?", he changes the subject.
Ironically, when hydrocarbons are burned completely and cleanly, the result is CO2 and H2O. If not burned completely, other stuff ends up in the exhaust.
AFAIK, the only way to reduce CO2 output is to reduce hydrocarbon input.
GM offered a V8-6-4 variable displacement engine in the 1970s, along with passenger car diesels. Both engines were very trouble-prone and the American public seems to want to avoid either technology as a result.
GM and I believe DC also) now offer Displacement on Demand which is the same idea with modern technology, and I am guessing that by calling it Displacement on Demand, GM is hoping that the public will not recall the trouble-prone engines previously offered. GM's DOD allows some 8 cylinder engines to achieve high EPA highway fuel economy figures, although one of the reviews I read said that there is a noticeable lag when trying to accelerate from a steady cruising speed. If automakers can make engines start from a dead start without lag, I would imagine that GM would be able to overcome the cylinder re-activation lag.
BTW, BBC-tv's business oriented "Working Lunch" programme did a piece on this today (7 Feb). AIUI, with broadband you can tell the Beeb's website to stream you a repeat of the programme: the piece was at the start, after the "what we are covering" blurb.
Visit
formatting link
and look for stuff about Watch Again (or similar). I'm on dial-up, so have never bothered.
I think on some DoD engines, there's no lag at all (reviews I've seen). However, on the Silverado, there's some sort of engine management software that switches between closed and open fuel loop (?) which affects performance and takes 4 seconds of full throttle to defeat. It's described in this article:
formatting link
Click "Dyno Testing" for a description of the issue. Could something like that be related to the noticeable throttle lag on some models? I imagine you understand the technology better than I.
Hmmm, I think I was confused as to the source of the lag, it was not DOD lag, but the lag for the ECM to go to open loop. ;-)
Open loop and closed loop refers to whether the ECM is using feedback from the O2 sensor to adjust the air/fuel ratio. When a system is in open loop mode, it is not using input from the O2 sensor, and when it is in closed loop mode, it is using input from the O2 sensor.
An O2 sensor has to be warmed up to operate correctly, and most sensors these days have heaters to speed up the warm-up process. Basically, while the ECM is waiting for the O2 sensor to warm up, it uses information from the air flow sensor to tell how much air is entering the engine, from the throttle position sensor to tell what the operator wants the engine to do, a signal from the coolant temperature sensor to tell whether it needs to enrichen the air/fuel mixture, and then uses default programming to determine how much fuel to inject.
After the O2 sensor is warmed up, it detects the O2 content in the exhaust , and along with the signals it was using during open loop mode, the ECM fine tunes the air/fuel mixture, then takes another measurement from the O2 sensor, and keeps doing continuously in a loop, hence the term "closed loop." During closed loop operation, emissions are controlled more tightly and fuel economy usually improves.
Most ECM's are programmed to switch to open loop mode under wide open throttle (WOT) conditions because the programmers assume that the operator (driver) is in a hurry so instead of trying to eke out MPG and clean air, it dumps more fuel into the engine.
According to the Edmunds article, the Silverado is programmed to delay the transition to open loop mode under WOT conditions for 4 seconds. I can see the logic behind that decision because they can achieve better fuel EPA fuel economy numbers while still advertising higher horsepower and torque. During the EPA drive cycle,
formatting link
it does not look like the vehicle is tested under WOT conditions for more than 4 seconds. The programming might also explain the larger difference between EPA and observed fuel economy for the Silverado than with the other trucks. IMO, the comparison would have been more complete if they compared all of the full size half ton trucks available for sale in the U.S., including the F150 and Dodge Ram.
Modern cars are now using "wideband" sensors, such as the one I use to tune my car, as standard. These only need a matter of 5-10 seconds to warm up, so thats improving.
Thank you for your kind words! As a Boy Scout volunteer, I try to lead youth and adults by example. The boys are supposed to be trustworthy loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent, although they also tend to be dopey, grumpy, happy, bashful, sneezy, & sleepy.
Gee, I wonder where you cribbed that list from. Sounds REALLY familiar, I know I've heard it somewhere before. Heck, I think I've recited it a few times before...
Do a head count before you drive back from the campout - that's only six. I think you left Doc somewhere in the Catskills... ;-P
(Thank you!! I'll be here all week! Try the kreplach!)
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.