https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-emissions/diesel-cars-can-be-banned-from-german-cities-court-rules-idUSKCN1GA2XD
Only 2.7 out of 15 million diesel cars on the road today would survive the ban. :popcorn:
"France and Britain will ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2040."
Daaaaaamn.
Interesting.
(is the Cougspocalypse upon us?!?!?!!!)
Quote from: giant_mtb on February 27, 2018, 12:11:36 PM
"France and Britain will ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2040."
Daaaaaamn.
I think predicting the energy situation 22 years down the road is an iffy proposition.
2040 is far enough that any "ban" in my book is empty political posturing. A short term ban would really hit european brands.
RIP Europe.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on February 27, 2018, 01:02:16 PM
2040 is far enough that any "ban" in my book is empty political posturing. A short term ban would really hit european brands.
I think this is generally true. Germany at minimum will not let its number 1 industry just flat out be outlawed on the continent.
The death of the rattleboxes is nigh at hand! :lol:
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on February 27, 2018, 01:02:16 PM
2040 is far enough that any "ban" in my book is empty political posturing. A short term ban would really hit european brands.
Agreed 100%. These politicians don't even know if they will survive their terms.
The problem in Germany are cities with air pollution problems. They are losing law suites left and right. Several options are being considered to tackle the problem including making public transportation "free."
Who are the litigants in the law suits? People vs. cities? Cities vs. car companies? What are the claims?
Quote from: Laconian on February 27, 2018, 10:24:24 PM
Who are the litigants in the law suits? People vs. cities? Cities vs. car companies? What are the claims?
Individuals and groups are suing the cities demanding that pollution levels shall be kept below levels considered dangerous. For example for NO2 the average yearly limit considered safe is 40 micrograms per cubic meter. Stuttgart in 2017 averaged 73, Munich 78. The courts have in all cases ruled that the cities need to get below that value. In most cases the cities have been given ~ 1 year to get the situation under control. Stuttgart is potentially facing fines of € 1 million per day if they fail.
Wow. I can understand their desperation with the prospect of fines that steep. Yikes.
Yay, cheap diesels for me!
Having just returned from India, I found it difficult to breathe in New Delhi when in the car or outside. It's a whole nuther level of pollution but, previous to this trip I took clean air for granted.
Also China has put far more stringent regulations regarding future vehicle emissions (basically requiring electric vehicles) in a very short time interval. Also China is a very large market for German cars.
If VW, BMW, MB are forced to provide the Chinese market with "clean" cars it's going to extend to Europe. Hasn't Volvo (basically a Chinese brand) already declared most future vehicles are electric?
361 PM2.5 in New Delhi, holy cow!!!! R.I.P. environment
Quote from: Laconian on February 28, 2018, 12:21:13 AM
361 PM2.5 in New Delhi, holy cow!!!! R.I.P. environment
Yeah man it was terrible. Its a combination of farmers burning residual crops to clear their fields in neighboring states because they can't afford modern farming equipment, poor people burning biofuel (cow dung and twigs) to cook and keep warm in the winter months (housing in general doesn't have central heat and 55-60 deg F without central heat is damn chilly at night), increased number of polluting cars and trucks, interstate commerce having to travel through New Delhi because of a lack of city bypassing highways, and stagnant air related to climate/topography. Unlike dictatorial China, you have often (like in the U.S.) parliamentary gridlock because of competing parties and corruption.
As I've gone back every 3 to 7 years since birth to primarily visit relatives, life seems better mostly every time I've gone. This time I saw less beggars and better organization/infrastructure. More wealth all around. But damn that air was nauseating in the capital. What should be a clear blue sky was a tan colored haze.
Quote from: Galaxy on February 27, 2018, 10:58:40 PM
Individuals and groups are suing the cities demanding that pollution levels shall be kept below levels considered dangerous. For example for NO2 the average yearly limit considered safe is 40 micrograms per cubic meter. Stuttgart in 2017 averaged 73, Munich 78. The courts have in all cases ruled that the cities need to get below that value. In most cases the cities have been given ~ 1 year to get the situation under control. Stuttgart is potentially facing fines of € 1 million per day if they fail.
It's not the cities that are polluting though- it's the people and the companies in the cities.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 28, 2018, 06:04:21 AM
It's not the cities that are polluting though- it's the people and the companies in the cities.
Yes, but municipal governments are have obligation to enforce the law of the land, and currently they are turning a blind eye to a problem.
Quote from: Galaxy on February 28, 2018, 08:06:21 AM
Yes, but municipal governments are have obligation to enforce the law of the land, and currently they are turning a blind eye to a problem.
So local governments will force factories to stop producing? They will take older cars off the road?
Seems like a large burden of enforcement which should be handled at your Federal level (to me).
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 28, 2018, 08:09:38 AM
So local governments will force factories to stop producing? They will take older cars off the road?
Seems like a large burden of enforcement which should be handled at your Federal level (to me).
The federal level did drop the ball, especially wen it comes to car emissions. To my knowledge there have not (yet) been any lawsuits by cities against the Federal Government. For the moment there appears to be the intent to work together amicably. The Federal Government has come up with € 1 Billion to help air quality in the most affected cities, and is trying to arm twist the car industry to come up with 1/4 of that. Of course 1 Billion is probably only a drop in the bucket.
I think I read Volvo made a statement they are no longer developing internal combustion engines.
Quote from: r0tor on February 28, 2018, 10:35:13 AM
I think I read Volvo made a statement they are no longer developing internal combustion engines.
yup- going to need a trailer full of batteries on back with a charging cord to drive cross country... :lol:
People are pissed. Especially at this dumbass.
(https://www.welt.de/img/wirtschaft/mobile167137594/2542502307-ci102l-w1024/Aktionstag-fuer-bessere-Luft-in-Stuttgart.jpg)
LOL. :lol:
The biggest shame is ithink the electric car market needs at least another 10-15 years before it really should go mainstream. There is a ton of development going on with supercapacitor battery banks - not only would they charge faster, last longer, and weigh less... But they also don't require the amount of rare metals to be stripped from the earth.
Quote from: r0tor on February 28, 2018, 01:08:59 PM
The biggest shame is ithink the electric car market needs at least another 10-15 years before it really should go mainstream. There is a ton of development going on with supercapacitor battery banks - not only would they charge faster, last longer, and weigh less... But they also don't require the amount of rare metals to be stripped from the earth.
?? It already is in mainstream. You can walk into most dealerships and buy an electric car.
Consumers usually pick ICE though.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on February 28, 2018, 11:55:28 AM
People are pissed. Especially at this dumbass.
(https://www.welt.de/img/wirtschaft/mobile167137594/2542502307-ci102l-w1024/Aktionstag-fuer-bessere-Luft-in-Stuttgart.jpg)
Well Wimmer, you are a big diesel fan. Explain why your aversion for gas stations should be considered more important than air quality.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 28, 2018, 02:17:39 PM
Well Wimmer, you are a big diesel fan. Explain why your aversion for gas stations should be considered more important than air quality.
You do know that gasoline cars also pollute, right?
From a minimalist point of view nobody needs to have fun while driving a car. Nobody. Fun in a car is irrational. A car should bring people from A to B efficiently and cheaply using as little fuel as possible while creating as little pollution as possible. That is the minimalist point of view. So all of those evil driving enthusiasts who bitch about diesels but then go for a
pointless joy drive in their sports car, SUV or whatever on a road, track or in the city are a little hypocritical and needlessly contributing to air pollution.
Those same morons who want to ban diesels here also share that view about getting rid of sports cars, V8s and V12s and all the FUN THINGS that we as enthusiasts like and love. In fact they are already complaining about people needlessly going for drives in their cars.
Diesels are still great. I'll stand by that statement. You've experienced a modern diesel and you liked them.
Well this whole discussion has certainly brought fringe groups out of the caves, but the car industry could have avoided this debacle if they would have simply done their job properly.
Now that they are being scrutinized with a microscope they are getting their act together. For example the new Mercedes E220 Diesel produced only 7.5 mg/km of NOx under a real world driving test. The Euro 6d limits would actually allow 80 mg/km on the test bench and 168 mg/km in a real world test. Why did they not bring this result in the past? No magic fairy dust has been invented these last two years the technology has existed for several years. They just choose to bring mediocracy to the market.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on February 28, 2018, 02:34:25 PM
You do know that gasoline cars also pollute, right?
From a minimalist point of view nobody needs to have fun while driving a car. Nobody. Fun in a car is irrational. A car should bring people from A to B efficiently and cheaply using as little fuel as possible while creating as little pollution as possible. That is the minimalist point of view. So all of those evil driving enthusiasts who bitch about diesels but then go for a pointless joy drive in their sports car, SUV or whatever on a road, track or in the city are a little hypocritical and needlessly contributing to air pollution.
Those same morons who want to ban diesels here also share that view about getting rid of sports cars, V8s and V12s and all the FUN THINGS that we as enthusiasts like and love. In fact they are already complaining about people needlessly going for drives in their cars.
Diesels are still great. I'll stand by that statement. You've experienced a modern diesel and you liked them.
I'm all for small diesels, but diesels definitely put out more particulate matter than gas engines.
Diesel sucks. No reason for any passenger car to be diesel.
I don't particularly have anything against diesel cars. As long as I don't have to work on them. ;)
.
I was stuck behind a truck today and couldn't breathe because of the diesel fumes. So nasty.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 28, 2018, 03:44:27 PM
I'm all for small diesels, but diesels definitely put out more particulate matter than gas engines.
Actually particulate matter is one area where modern diesels currently have an edge over modern direct injection gasoline engines, hence Euro 6d requires all gasoline cars undergoing certification to have particulate filters from Fall 2018 onwards.
Quote from: Galaxy on February 28, 2018, 04:20:37 PM
Actually particulate matter is one area where modern diesels currently have an edge over modern direct injection gasoline engines, hence Euro 6d requires all gasoline cars undergoing certification to have particulate filters from Fall 2018 onwards.
He's correct^^^^^
Quote from: cawimmer430 on February 28, 2018, 02:34:25 PM
You do know that gasoline cars also pollute, right?
From a minimalist point of view nobody needs to have fun while driving a car. Nobody. Fun in a car is irrational. A car should bring people from A to B efficiently and cheaply using as little fuel as possible while creating as little pollution as possible. That is the minimalist point of view. So all of those evil driving enthusiasts who bitch about diesels but then go for a pointless joy drive in their sports car, SUV or whatever on a road, track or in the city are a little hypocritical and needlessly contributing to air pollution.
Those same morons who want to ban diesels here also share that view about getting rid of sports cars, V8s and V12s and all the FUN THINGS that we as enthusiasts like and love. In fact they are already complaining about people needlessly going for drives in their cars.
Diesels are still great. I'll stand by that statement. You've experienced a modern diesel and you liked them.
I never said gasoline cars don't pollute. But diesels pollute more :huh: I liked the diesel rentals I had, but I still would prefer gasoline with similar power and torque given the choice. Especially if it's better for the environment.
And how can the same people who go for drives in their GT cars and SUVs want them banned? You're not making any sense man.
You never answered my question BTW. Why should your preference for diesel be more important than the environment? I think you are just emotional because you are finally realizing the compromise of living in a society. Sometimes you can't do what you want. IF you want to drive a dirty diesel move to India.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 28, 2018, 04:50:59 PM
I never said gasoline cars don't pollute. But diesels pollute more :huh: I liked the diesel rentals I had, but I still would prefer gasoline with similar power and torque given the choice. Especially if it's better for the environment.
And how can the same people who go for drives in their GT cars and SUVs want them banned? You're not making any sense man.
You never answered my question BTW. Why should your preference for diesel be more important than the environment? I think you are just emotional because you are finally realizing the compromise of living in a society. Sometimes you can't do what you want. IF you want to drive a dirty diesel move to India.
My old Chevy only has a PCV valve- no other emissions controls. I do keep it in tune though, and that keeps it as clean as possible.
I drove a small diesel SUV in Iceland: it was a little torque monster - quite good fun. But, based on my Honda 1.5T experience, I think small GDI turbos are a good substitute. Which of them is less smelly & polluting I don't know.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 28, 2018, 04:50:59 PM
I never said gasoline cars don't pollute. But diesels pollute more :huh: I liked the diesel rentals I had, but I still would prefer gasoline with similar power and torque given the choice. Especially if it's better for the environment.
Not really. Modern direct-injection gasoline cars also have a severe drawback in that they produce more fine particulates. They also produce more CO2.
I think people have the impression that gasoline engines are "better" for the environment and humans because they produce no or less NOX and don't have the reputation of Diesel engines in general as "polluters."
Currently the media frenzy is all over NOX. Yes, NOX is toxic and harmful, but it can be effectively minimized through the use of AdBlue/urea or what name the manufacturer gives this liquid. At least this process minimizes the NOX exhaust.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 28, 2018, 04:50:59 PMAnd how can the same people who go for drives in their GT cars and SUVs want them banned? You're not making any sense man.
With "the same people" I was referring to the people in Europe who are pushing to ban diesels from the cities. Basically Greenies and members of that idiotic DUH (Deutsche Umwelthilfe) group.
These groups are already eyeing sports cars, SUVs and in their eyes what are "needlessly big and overpowered engines." In fact the Green Party here has for years whined about such things. This is their chance to eliminate diesels, and then slowly infringe on certain types of gasoline-powered cars. And they are going in for the kill. Diesel first, gasoline second...
With the ridiculous anti-diesel hysteria going on here, I can easily picture a future where track days are forbidden, people can't own sports cars, huge SUVs etc. About a decade ago Switzerland proposed banning sports cars because of pollution issues. Thankfully the outcry against this stupid idea was huge. But times are unfortunately changing. There are more Green-minded people here than ever before, and the new generation of youngsters does not share the passion for cars that our generation, YOU and ME, do. This is why these anti-car laws are slowly but surely becoming something of a potential reality.
On a side note, even though I may give the impression that I am against SUVs, sports cars and overpowered engines, I am not against them. People can buy whatever they want. My personal tastes simply revolve around practicality and fuel efficiency in something small and manageable.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on February 28, 2018, 04:50:59 PMYou never answered my question BTW. Why should your preference for diesel be more important than the environment? I think you are just emotional because you are finally realizing the compromise of living in a society. Sometimes you can't do what you want. IF you want to drive a dirty diesel move to India.
Let's be honest here. If we, all of us here at Carspin, cared about the environment we wouldn't be driving the cars that we do. Or at least we wouldn't be going out on joy drives, track events etc. I don't think anyone here owns a Prius (not like it's good for the environment anyway when you factor in battery production etc.), but sports cars, a Wankel Mazda RX-8, various huge gas-guzzling SUVs and pickups are popular on this board. If we cared about the environment we would use our cars as little as possible and make sensible choices; fuel-efficient cars, small cars, cars with cheap recycleable interiors etc.
Would anyone here willingly drive something like say a 60-horsepower 1.0 3-cylinder Volkswagen Up!? I don't think so. You'd prefer your sports car, your performance car, your SUV etc.
Do I care about the environment? Kinda. But I don't think about the environment when I am speeding down the Autobahn at 200 km/h+ unnecessarily wasting fuel and emitting huge amounts of CO2 for my personal driving pleasure. This is my driving pleasure. Speeding on the Autobahn. That's my environmental sin, I suppose.
But I also do my part for the environment; I only use my car if I have to. I love cars and I love driving, but I don't go out on joy drives to satisfy my "driving fun urges" for example. In the city I tend to walk everywhere because I view it as good physical excercise for my health. If my destination is further away I may take public transportation. Sure, sometimes I will take my car, especially to areas where public transportation isn't available. But generally my driving is always planned and calculated beforehand. If I am coming back early from a photo shoot and the supermarkets are still open I'll plan a stop at one, load up my car with groceries and then head home. Efficiency is my life. :lol:
As for diesels, I do like them because of their fuel efficiency, low end torque and because you can have fun with them on the Autobahns - extended high speed fun while still getting relatively impressive fuel economy. That's the reason I love diesels. Always have since I first drove one, a 1996 Mitsubishi Pajero with a 99-horsepower 2.5-l Turbodiesel motor. That heavy car could cruise all day and you literally never had to fill it up. The 3.5 V6 (gasoline) versions on the other hand...
Again, when I am driving, diesel or gasoline, the last thing on my mind is what's coming out of the tailpipe. I'm not one of those fanatics that wants to preserve the environment at all costs - and neither are the CarSpinners here. If they were then their vehicles of choice would be drastically different.
One more thing, the Europeans governments promoted diesel usage because they wanted to reduce CO2 emissions. CO2 is supposedly responsible for speeding up global warming or harming the ozone layer IIRC. The idea was that the lower fuel consumption of Diesel engines meant less CO2 emissions. Diesel also became popular because gasoline was more expensive. But make no mistake - owning a gasoline car in Europe is cheaper than owning the same car with a Diesel engine. The cost savings really only make sense for those who drive a certain distance per year or for some particular vehicles like large luxury cars or heavy and large SUVs.
I feel like we might need to straighten something out here. GDI without a filter creates more particulates than a modern diesel with a filter.
Yea, the GDI particulate issue is pretty serious. I wonder if they have factored that into studies.
Wimmer as far as liking cars and caring about the environment, they are not two separate things. I made my living in green energy for about a decade and you know my sentiments about cars. Likewise I will not jump for your slippery slope argument (first they take our diesels, then our track days! LMAO)
The reason they focus on NOx is because it's worse for people. CO2 is a greenhouse gas so it makes the planet warmer.... NOx directly harms humans. Plus as pretty much every German manufacturer has shown, it's basically impossible to make a clean, powerful diesel engine within the Euro 6 standard. I'd bet that with proper emissions controls the CO2 gap closes. And then you have to deal with the extra maintenance of urea, and the higher purchase price of the diesel car. For what? A couple extra miles on your tank?
Like I told you before, the Camry Hybrid gets 611 miles/977km to the tank. No emissions cheating, no urea, no overly complicated bullshit. On gasoline. With the same or better performance as any comparable diesel. The way forward is obvious and all the diesel scandals have finally forced the industry in that direction. IT's a good thing :ohyeah:
Diesel will seem pointless when HCCI hits the market anyways.
Quote from: Laconian on March 01, 2018, 09:17:50 PM
Diesel will seem pointless when HCCI hits the market anyways.
I was reading a discussion last night in which an engineer stated that modern gasoline engines, thanks to turbocharging and increased compression, are producing more NOx. If I know my science correctly, NOx is the result of higher compression and heat inside an engine, hence the reason why diesels produce the stuff.
The Mazda and Infiniti (variable displacement) ideas seem unnecessarily complicated for an issue, which in my mind, can be easily solved. Here's a theoretical solution. Manufacturers should produce a simple car with say 150/200-horsepower, keep the weight down and it will still be agile, quick and relatively fast. Fast enough for your average car buyer. Best of all, the fuel economy should be decent, which means less harmful emissions.
I really don't understand why cars have to become more powerful with every generation (and HEAVIER). Where and what are the benefits? The acceleration times marginally improve but the fuel economy remains more or less the same or in some cases is worse than before. To me that's not progress. It's getting more and more difficult to balance high power and lower emissions, and the technology being developed to ensure high horsepower while keeping emissions low seems needlessly complicated and potentially unreliable to me.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on March 02, 2018, 05:38:28 AM
I was reading a discussion last night in which an engineer stated that modern gasoline engines, thanks to turbocharging and increased compression, are producing more NOx. If I know my science correctly, NOx is the result of higher compression and heat inside an engine, hence the reason why diesels produce the stuff.
The Mazda and Infiniti (variable displacement) ideas seem unnecessarily complicated for an issue, which in my mind, can be easily solved. Here's a theoretical solution. Manufacturers should produce a simple car with say 150/200-horsepower, keep the weight down and it will still be agile, quick and relatively fast. Fast enough for your average car buyer. Best of all, the fuel economy should be decent, which means less harmful emissions.
I really don't understand why cars have to become more powerful with every generation (and HEAVIER). Where and what are the benefits? The acceleration times marginally improve but the fuel economy remains more or less the same or in some cases is worse than before. To me that's not progress. It's getting more and more difficult to balance high power and lower emissions, and the technology being developed to ensure high horsepower while keeping emissions low seems needlessly complicated and potentially unreliable to me.
So you are angry that the greenies want to take sports cars/SUVs/track days away, but you want to mandate that we all be limited to simple cars with no more than 150-200hp.....
Your beef with this whole car thing has nothing to do with cars or the environment.... it's all about control. You want to dictate what everyone else drives, but you don't want anyone to dictate what you drive. An interesting position to take.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 01, 2018, 07:33:09 PM
Yea, the GDI particulate issue is pretty serious. I wonder if they have factored that into studies.
Supposedly modern gasoline engines (turbocharged, direct injection, higher compression) also produce more NOx.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 01, 2018, 07:33:09 PMThe reason they focus on NOx is because it's worse for people. CO2 is a greenhouse gas so it makes the planet warmer.... NOx directly harms humans. Plus as pretty much every German manufacturer has shown, it's basically impossible to make a clean, powerful diesel engine within the Euro 6 standard. I'd bet that with proper emissions controls the CO2 gap closes. And then you have to deal with the extra maintenance of urea, and the higher purchase price of the diesel car. For what? A couple extra miles on your tank?
Clean diesels do exist, but as you said there is a lot of extra maintenance involved (Urea fill-ups) to keep them clean. For some people it's worth the hassle, especially those who do a lot of driving. A friend of my mom is an anesthesiologist . She drives a facelifted W212 E220 CDI BlueEFFICIENCY because she does almost 38,000 km a year. She needs the fuel economy and she needs to be able to drive into cities and into
Umweltzonen.
Diesels that are driven for long distances are the cleanest. This type of driving allows the engine, the oil, the SCR filter, DPF filter, catalytic converter etc. to reach their optimal operating temperature and efficiently do their job.
Much of the pollution problems in Germany right now are due to the fact that people take their car to work and essentially drive the car for short distances only. The engine, oil, catalytic converter etc. don't reach their proper operating temperatures and this means air pollution. For diesels it's even worse because they need more time to reach their operating temperature and short trips render their fuel economy and their anti-pollution systems useless (and help to clog the DPF filter). Unfortunately, many drivers, gasoline or diesel, do just that here. Take their car to work even though they could use public transportation. The government is now thinking of offering free public transport in order to encourage people to use it... but this is pissing off the cities... ah, the drama here... :thumbsup:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 01, 2018, 07:33:09 PMLike I told you before, the Camry Hybrid gets 611 miles/977km to the tank. No emissions cheating, no urea, no overly complicated bullshit. On gasoline. With the same or better performance as any comparable diesel. The way forward is obvious and all the diesel scandals have finally forced the industry in that direction. IT's a good thing :ohyeah:
I remember. And I still don't buy it that a porky Camry Hybrid can achieve such range given the extra weight it has to carry around. Also, I would assume that the batteries for the electric motor have a negative effect on its payload capacity and trunk space. Remember the Lexus LS600h? If four people are seated inside the car its has reached its payload capacity. :lol: :devil:
I'm not opposed to hybrids. Every technology has pluses and minuses. But mobility, for now, still means pollution. Either direct or indirect.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 02, 2018, 05:48:53 AM
So you are angry that the greenies want to take sports cars/SUVs/track days away, but you want to mandate that we all be limited to simple cars with no more than 150-200hp.....
Your beef with this whole car thing has nothing to do with cars or the environment.... it's all about control. You want to dictate what everyone else drives, but you don't want anyone to dictate what you drive. An interesting position to take.
No, what I am saying that brainless automotive excess just seems like a waste of resources and over-complicates an issue.
Here are the facts. Pollution is a serious issue. Cars have to become more efficient and cleaner. But right now many mainstream and almost all luxury automakers are churning out cars that are becoming heavier and more powerful while the performance gains are minimal and the fuel economy remains the same or is worse. Where is the progress? What are the benefits? Even worse, sales of really fuel-inefficient cars are on the rise (SUVs, Pickups, Crossovers etc.).
So what I am saying is this: maybe a carmaker should focus on keeping the power the same, but reduce the weight of their cars. If the current BMW 123456 has 350-horsepower, the next-generation BMW 123456 should also have 350-horsepower (which is more than enough) but progress should be made elsewhere - weight reduction, improved transmission efficiency, better emissions. Stuff like that. These improvements can even improve the overall performance. But instead cars are getting fatter and heavier while the performance does not really improve and its getting harder for manufacturers to control emissions, especially with governments setting ever stricter emissions targets.
If oil weren't a finite resource and if burning fuel didn't create pollution then I wouldn't care. :lol:
Here in the US if a car, especially a hybrid, cannot make its FE numbers... the manufacturer gets sued. So yes, the Camry absolutely can achieve those numbers as it has for nearly 2 decades.
Not sure why a Camry is "porky".... it only weighs 1570-1620kg. Only 100kg more than the non hybrid. By comparison the W212 E220 CDI weighs 1730kg. Even putting aside that the Benz is a luxury car and the Camry isn't, the Benz has way more maintenance and things that can break. And it's no faster or more fuel efficient. Camry Hybrid trunk is the same as the regular one as well.... Benz loses some trunk space for the urea tank.
Yes mobility = pollution. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize it :huh: You want to see what countries that don't deal with pollution look like? Go to China and try to breathe :ohyeah:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on March 02, 2018, 06:03:23 AM
No, what I am saying that brainless automotive excess just seems like a waste of resources and over-complicates an issue.
Here are the facts. Pollution is a serious issue. Cars have to become more efficient and cleaner. But right now many mainstream and almost all luxury automakers are churning out cars that are becoming heavier and more powerful while the performance gains are minimal and the fuel economy remains the same or is worse. Where is the progress? What are the benefits? Even worse, sales of really fuel-inefficient cars are on the rise (SUVs, Pickups, Crossovers etc.).
So what I am saying is this: maybe a carmaker should focus on keeping the power the same, but reduce the weight of their cars. If the current BMW 123456 has 350-horsepower, the next-generation BMW 123456 should also have 350-horsepower (which is more than enough) but progress should be made elsewhere - weight reduction, improved transmission efficiency, better emissions. Stuff like that. These improvements can even improve the overall performance. But instead cars are getting fatter and heavier while the performance does not really improve and its getting harder for manufacturers to control emissions, especially with governments setting ever stricter emissions targets.
If oil weren't a finite resource and if burning fuel didn't create pollution then I wouldn't care. :lol:
Manufacturers are responding to what people actually want to buy. If people wanted your basic car manufacturers would (and do) build it. People want SUVs. And the fuel economy tears over SUVs are overblown. You compare cars with SUVs of the same PRICE, they are usually the same amount of room, and now get about the same gas mileage with the same engine/transmission. Clearest example of this is the Accord/CR-V.
I agree that cars are growing a bit needlessly, but at the same time that makes cars cheaper overall. The current 3 series is about as big as an old 5 series. So now if I want a luxury car that's comfortable for 4 adults, I can get a 3 instead of a 5. It's the same with performance. A 340i is faster than something like the E39 M5, but burns about half the fuel. And is about 500-600lbs lighter. That's where the progress is being made :huh:
You just seem opposed to any kind of change. Change is the only constant... deal with it :huh:
Two thoughts:
First, cars have grown heavier because of:
- Safety mandates
- Size Inflation: competition to provide the roomiest car in a segment. See James May's Grand Tour segment (S2 E5) on the glory of the nimble & chuckable VW up! GTI vs the bloated Golf GTI.
- People getting fatter (see Food Pyramid below)
Second:
- It's immoral and unethical for the German government to order individuals to buy diesels to save the planet, then later turn round & kick them in the nuts for doing what they were told to do in the first place. It's reminiscent of the Food Pyramid in the USA: Government told everyone to stop eating fat & so sparked the obesity epidemic.
It does indeed seem a bit hypocritical. Of course, things change...the available information changes, new studies get done, and like many policies, you can't/don't really see the true effects of it until much later. Only then can you go "oh, maybe this wasn't the best idea." When you're governing millions of people, you're bound to have to go back on yourself sometimes, for better or worse.
Quote from: Morris Minor on March 05, 2018, 10:59:59 AM
Two thoughts:
First, cars have grown heavier because of:
- Safety mandates
- Size Inflation: competition to provide the roomiest car in a segment. See James May's Grand Tour segment (S2 E5) on the glory of the nimble & chuckable VW up! GTI vs the bloated Golf GTI.
- People getting fatter (see Food Pyramid below)
Second:
- It's immoral and unethical for the German government to order individuals to buy diesels to save the planet, then later turn round & kick them in the nuts for doing what they were told to do in the first place. It's reminiscent of the Food Pyramid in the USA: Government told everyone to stop eating fat & so sparked the obesity epidemic.
:hesaid: The Food Pyramid thing still makes me wonder WTF? How could they be so wrong, for so long?
Quote from: shp4man on March 05, 2018, 11:20:21 AM
:hesaid: The Food Pyramid thing still makes me wonder WTF? How could they be so wrong, for so long?
Sugar industry special interests.
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 05, 2018, 11:23:31 AM
Sugar industry special interests.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/3b/3b75813af2350e14a3403e46e8539c3cb2f8d44e36b0a0ff450203ef80b42b2c.jpg)
Quote from: giant_mtb on March 05, 2018, 11:23:31 AM
Sugar industry special interests.
Absolutely. The US Food Pyramid is the creation of the US Department of Agriculture, not the Department of Health or the CDC. It was based on junk science.
Quote from: shp4man on March 05, 2018, 11:34:14 AM
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/3b/3b75813af2350e14a3403e46e8539c3cb2f8d44e36b0a0ff450203ef80b42b2c.jpg)
100% serious. There are multiple documentaries out there about the politics of the sugar industry and their influence on diet and the "science" of diet.
I had the same questions as you, so I've investigated. Google "sugary industry documentary" and you'll find all kinds of information.
We've noticed that the seats of the CR-V are wider & flatter that we've been used to: lardass-friendly.
America: We Like Our Women BBW
Japanese cars have flat seats with small seat bottoms. They've only recently got the memo to not make seats scaled for people with all torso and no legs.