Recent Topics
Rotella T6 5W40, 5000Mi, 1991 Ford 460 - RV
by MutantGarage
07/20/18 12:23 AM
2013 SUBARU Outback, M1EP 0w20, 14190mi, 74465 tot
by NO2
07/19/18 11:52 PM
91 Ford 460 - noisy lifters at Idle when hot
by MutantGarage
07/19/18 11:49 PM
Great deal on PP 5w30
by 60ampfuse
07/19/18 11:48 PM
Motorcraft, 5W-30, 2425 miles, 2018 3.5 F EcoBoost
by cdlamb
07/19/18 11:40 PM
Off-Road Trailer Tires
by troutfisher
07/19/18 09:55 PM
dirty injectors - necessarily obvious?
by NissanMaxima
07/19/18 08:26 PM
Does ST Syn HM contain extra seal conditioners?
by Elantra16
07/19/18 08:09 PM
Leather treatment and frequency
by Toros
07/19/18 08:01 PM
jack in the box
by redbone3
07/19/18 07:39 PM
F1 - 2018 German Grand Prix
by gofast182
07/19/18 07:38 PM
Cooper Evolution???
by Traction
07/19/18 06:22 PM
Blackstone July 2018 Oil Report
by 2015_PSD
07/19/18 05:43 PM
VW Tiguan 2013 34000 Miles EA 189
by kilgore68
07/19/18 04:44 PM
Fuel pump age, wear, cooling, replacement brand
by wrcsixeight
07/19/18 03:34 PM
Much to choose between these two 5W30 FUCHS?
by 21Rouge
07/19/18 03:03 PM
Once a year changes
by jay929
07/19/18 01:45 PM
Royal Purple SAE 30 Synthetic
by SilverSnake
07/19/18 01:40 PM
EPAUTO Filters
by JeffKeryk
07/19/18 01:10 PM
NAPA 4070 Coolant Filter Results
by DoubleWasp
07/19/18 12:58 PM
Newest Members
TA128, Elantra16, Peterbilt52, CarllT100, 99SK04GTX
65515 Registered Users
Who's Online
14 registered (Driz, CleverUserName, ctechbob, ChrisD46, cwalkin, d00df00d), 782 Guests and 28 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
65515 Members
67 Forums
287343 Topics
4793625 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#4710997 - 03/29/18 10:20 PM What if "new CAFE requirements" ......
Linctex Offline


Registered: 12/31/16
Posts: 6186
Loc: Waco, TX
OK, PLEASE no politics to keep this from getting locked
( https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4710915/ )

Engineers, please step in.....

I have argued (well... ranted, really) for years
that if we just stop focusing on emissions to such a strict degree...
and focus on FUEL MILEAGE solely, instead -

That we COULD get cars that meet the new CAFE requirements.

High swirl combustion chambers, variable valvetrain events, etc... these make engine more "efficient".
"Efficient" is good, because mileage and power both go up.

Bu then throw in EGR, catalytic converters (not so much now as in the past), and other devices focused on emissions only. The diesel trucks guys have it horrible - doing a regen on a DPF uses tons of extra fuel (and makes more co2) - just so there's less particulates?!?!? To heck with particulates, look at all the extra co2 you're making!


Rant off (for now) -

Q: how efficient can engines really be if we could just forget about emissions and focus on fuel economy instead?




_________________________
"The evidence demands a verdict".
(Re:VOA)"it's nearly impossible to actually know the particular additives that are in there at what concentrations."

Top
#4711002 - 03/29/18 10:26 PM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex]
bubbatime Offline


Registered: 03/18/08
Posts: 5723
Loc: South Florida
Diesel cars? Like the VW? They got good mileage, but bad emissions.
_________________________
17 Chrysler Pacifica Mobil 1 5W30
13 Yamaha XT250 Valv MC 10W40
12 Suzuki S40 Rotella 15W40
10 Acura TSX 2.4 PZL Plat 5W30
06 GMC Sierra Nextgen 10W30



Top
#4711005 - 03/29/18 10:29 PM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex]
eyeofthetiger Offline


Registered: 11/18/17
Posts: 683
Loc: South Carolina
I know that running lean increases NOx emissions, and that some engines like to waste fuel just for the purpose of heating catalytic converters.
_________________________
2017 Ford Fiesta 1.0T - Valvoline SynPower 5W-20, Motorcraft FL910S
1988 GMC K1500 4.3/700R4 - Supertech 15W-40, Fram TG3980
1986 Ford Ranger 2.0 - uhh

Top
#4711007 - 03/29/18 10:30 PM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex]
Wolf359 Offline


Registered: 04/27/12
Posts: 4891
Loc: MA
I don't think emissions is as a big a deal as basic physics. You need a smaller car with a smaller engine to hit those gas mileage number. It's very apparent that's going on as the V6 in the Accord is now gone and it's been replaced by a 4 cylinder. It's probably easy to hit those CAFE numbers if you have a little 3 cylinder one liter engine. Except no one would want to buy one or drive one.

Top
#4711014 - 03/29/18 10:36 PM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex]
dishdude Offline


Registered: 11/14/08
Posts: 8826
Loc: Phoenix
Technology and engineering will get us there. When I was a kid, my mother had a '90 Cherokee that got like 12 MPG. My Grand Cherokee gets 24. I pulled into a parking spot a few weeks ago and parked next to an old 1990 Cherokee and the GC dwarfed it.
_________________________
2018 Challenger SRT

Top
#4711015 - 03/29/18 10:37 PM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Wolf359]
eyeofthetiger Offline


Registered: 11/18/17
Posts: 683
Loc: South Carolina
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
I don't think emissions is as a big a deal as basic physics. You need a smaller car with a smaller engine to hit those gas mileage number. It's very apparent that's going on as the V6 in the Accord is now gone and it's been replaced by a 4 cylinder. It's probably easy to hit those CAFE numbers if you have a little 3 cylinder one liter engine. Except no one would want to buy one or drive one.


I must be no one
_________________________
2017 Ford Fiesta 1.0T - Valvoline SynPower 5W-20, Motorcraft FL910S
1988 GMC K1500 4.3/700R4 - Supertech 15W-40, Fram TG3980
1986 Ford Ranger 2.0 - uhh

Top
#4711016 - 03/29/18 10:38 PM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Wolf359]
Linctex Offline


Registered: 12/31/16
Posts: 6186
Loc: Waco, TX
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
I don't think emissions is as a big a deal as basic physics. You need a smaller car with a smaller engine to hit those gas mileage number. It's very apparent that's going on as the V6 in the Accord is now gone and it's been replaced by a 4 cylinder. It's probably easy to hit those CAFE numbers if you have a little 3 cylinder one liter engine. Except no one would want to buy one or drive one.


No...... 15 years ago I rode in a Corvette that was getting 27 MPG.

Explain that?
_________________________
"The evidence demands a verdict".
(Re:VOA)"it's nearly impossible to actually know the particular additives that are in there at what concentrations."

Top
#4711021 - 03/29/18 10:41 PM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 40173
Loc: 'Stralia
Back in the 1970s, lean burn, EGR, restrictions on vacuum advance in what gear, and at what throttle opening destroyed power, drivability, AND economy.

Catalytic Converters enabled them to make engines that ran, and were economical, AND had lower tailpipe emissions.

I think that we ARE (OK, we WERE) getting the best of both worlds when catalysts and Electronic Controls were married together.

But now there's some silliness...first popped up at BITOG with DI Audis that were purposely tuned differntly to their Euro specs, for emissions regulations, and had high fuel dilution and wear.

That's when we lost the plot.

If we continue to make emissions regs tighter and tighter, then it will, and is starting to hurt possible economy gains.

Bureaucrats continually "evolving" the targets to justify their existance is a problem...Would love to mention more about "Pollution reduction programmes" for heavy industry that are operating within licence limits, but wont.

Pick an emissions envelope, and leave it be while you chase economy.

If a new technology appears the significantly changes emissions, then move the targets, and ease back on the chase for economy until the new benchmark is established.

Moving both sets of goalposts at the same time causes problems.

Top
#4711024 - 03/29/18 10:49 PM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: dishdude]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 40173
Loc: 'Stralia
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Technology and engineering will get us there. When I was a kid, my mother had a '90 Cherokee that got like 12 MPG. My Grand Cherokee gets 24. I pulled into a parking spot a few weeks ago and parked next to an old 1990 Cherokee and the GC dwarfed it.


I had a Holden Torana with 202 c.i. six...got 24MPG with 1970s emission strangulation. I worked the motor, changed the "tune" substantially, and got 32MPG (both are OZ MPG).

1978 Kingswood Wagon with 253 and auto. 15MPG. After messing with it seriously (and I mean seriously, with hot air intake, EGR, at idle, lower hose thermostat, PCV funes through a pipe wrapped around the headers), I got it up to 30MPG (Oz)...had free O2 in the exhaust.

Both would fail emissions tests in PPM, but produced less of them per mile, or gallon of fuel burned..

Top
#4711028 - 03/29/18 10:52 PM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: bubbatime]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 41896
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Diesel cars? Like the VW? They got good mileage, but bad emissions.


Define bad. We may be splitting fractions of a ppm of some combustion byproduct.

It's idiocy that a 12 MPG Ford SUV can be labeled a "partial zero" emissions vehicle, yet a 50mpg vw diesel is a "gross polluter". Which truly has the environmental impact?

I don't want to breathe soot or nod or stinky exhaust of any kind. But I suspect beyond a point, some of the byproducts will go away or be reduced as a focus on power output and efficiency are emphasized, over splitting ppm of something.

Top
#4711040 - 03/29/18 11:09 PM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex]
Linctex Offline


Registered: 12/31/16
Posts: 6186
Loc: Waco, TX
Originally Posted By: Shannow

Both would fail emissions tests in PPM, but produced less of them per mile, or gallon of fuel burned..


YES! See, that is where the focus should be

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
..... 12 MPG SUV can be labeled a "partial zero" emissions vehicle, yet a 50mpg diesel is a "gross polluter". Which truly has the environmental impact?


Yes. Why doesn't the EPA think about this?

A diesel Chevette or Rabbit from the early 80's makes smoke, but has way less co2.

Likewise, a weedeater gets thrown in the garbage after 20 hours (a huge environmental loss)
because the carb is too lean (to meet emissions).
It burns an entire 5 gallons of gas in it's 20 hour lifespan before failure.
"Low use, low fuel consuming items" should be exempt because they BURN LESS FUEL!!

I know my motorcycle wouldn't pass emissions... but it get 56 MPG.
It's gross co2 output in a YEAR is less than the average 9to5 weekday commuter is in a month.
_________________________
"The evidence demands a verdict".
(Re:VOA)"it's nearly impossible to actually know the particular additives that are in there at what concentrations."

Top
#4711049 - 03/29/18 11:30 PM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex]
Linctex Offline


Registered: 12/31/16
Posts: 6186
Loc: Waco, TX
Funny little anecdote...

Decades ago already, I bought a Ford Ranger with a 2.3 liter, Mazda M5R1 5sp OD trans, and 3.73 gears.
On a good day, I could get 25-26 MPG.

Power was abysmal. I couldn't even run the A/C up a hill in OD. Or into a strong wind, either!
I toyed with swapping in a 2.9 or 4.0 V6, but the M5R1 trans is made of glass & toothpicks.
I also really hate the V6 sound.

So...... with some careful scrounging, I swapped in a 5.0 V8, 5 sp OD, and dropped to 3.55 gears.
On a good day, I could get 23-24 MPG.

Over twice the engine displacement.... and nearly no loss in MPG (I actually hit 25 MPG once!)
_________________________
"The evidence demands a verdict".
(Re:VOA)"it's nearly impossible to actually know the particular additives that are in there at what concentrations."

Top
#4711050 - 03/29/18 11:43 PM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex]
nthach Offline


Registered: 01/02/04
Posts: 3992
Loc: California
I feel this way, we need CAFE to keep the automakers on their toes, but it's pushed too far when we now have small turbocharged engines in midsize cars and bigger trucks. And not everyone has OCD when it comes to maintenance like 99.998% of us here. But at the same thing, we're hitting the law of diminishing returns, and it might encourage Ford/GM/FCA to build more trucks and SUVs - yes, they are big, roomy and profitable for them but they won't get pressure to innovate. Look at what happened to them in the 1970s and again in the mid-2000s.

There was a theory that the Europeans focused on CO2 and NOx emissions since they are more prone to acid rain, while EPA/CARB focused on PM and HC emissions which are more immediate causes of smog, NOx does play a factor as well and the Asians targeted HC. Instead of CAFE as it is right now, why not have a CAFE for cars, MPVs and smaller trucks and a separate bin for heavy trucks(anything bigger than a Tacoma/Colorado/Ranger)? CARB might be hated, but in the towns that are home to major ports(Oakland/Long Beach/LA) and the Central Valley, every small bit of reducing emissions counts. Yes, the bros are grousing they can't roll coal anymore and truckers need to buy DEF and regens are a PITA but the technology is evolving. From what I've heard from a transit agency mechanic, they are having much less issues with SCR than with DPFs.

As it stands, the automakers would love to see CAFE rolled back. However, turbos, xDI, thin oil, micro-hybrids and electrification is here to stay. Toyota is kinda of bucking the trend of turbo GDI all the things - the 3rd and 4th gen Prius has a bigger engine(1.8L) in the paradox of higher efficiency === better gas mileage and lower emissions, their rationale is a bigger engine has to work less to stay in an optimal state between performance, emissions, consumption and reliability. They didn't turbo the Camry/Avalon/RAV4/Corolla - they somehow managed to strike a balance with their new Dynamic Force engine without the need for FI and the V6 is staying. They had to turbo the Lexus lineup because the Europeans are almost all TGDI now.


Edited by nthach (03/29/18 11:44 PM)

Top
#4711070 - 03/30/18 12:36 AM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 40173
Loc: 'Stralia
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Funny little anecdote...

Decades ago already, I bought a Ford Ranger with a 2.3 liter, Mazda M5R1 5sp OD trans, and 3.73 gears.
On a good day, I could get 25-26 MPG.

Power was abysmal. I couldn't even run the A/C up a hill in OD. Or into a strong wind, either!
I toyed with swapping in a 2.9 or 4.0 V6, but the M5R1 trans is made of glass & toothpicks.
I also really hate the V6 sound.

So...... with some careful scrounging, I swapped in a 5.0 V8, 5 sp OD, and dropped to 3.55 gears.
On a good day, I could get 23-24 MPG.

Over twice the engine displacement.... and nearly no loss in MPG (I actually hit 25 MPG once!)


I've experienced exactly that...

The Holden Torana platform had 1.9L Holden 4, 2.0L Opel, 2.85L Holden 6, 3.3L Holden 6, 4.3 V-8, and 5.0 V8.

I've had 1.9, 3.3, 4.2, and 5.0 back in the 80s and 90s.

ALL got 28+MPG (Oz) on the highway...road load was the same.

Around town, the V-8s used at least 1/3 more fuel (but made merging/cutting into traffic much "easier"...read fun)

Top
#4711088 - 03/30/18 01:06 AM Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex]
Reddy45 Offline


Registered: 08/15/08
Posts: 3025
Loc: USA
Focusing strictly on car emissions is like looking at the world through a toilet paper tube anyway. We can, and, have, made cars that emit little to no emissions, but because the fundamental need to move weight around (F=MA) is still the same, the emissions output simply shifted to power plants or hazardous battery mfg/waste.

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >