Recent Topics
Fullers Vintage Ale anyone?
by Lolvoguy. 12/18/18 11:23 PM
Got an alignment
by michaelluscher. 12/18/18 11:18 PM
Castrol Edge 0W-40; 9,762 mi; 2016 Ford Fiesta ST
by asiancivicmaniac. 12/18/18 10:50 PM
Windows Defender Error Code
by ZeeOSix. 12/18/18 10:20 PM
UOA Motul 300V, 5w40, 2013 BMW S1000RR
by Sportbiker. 12/18/18 09:53 PM
Under valve cover pics
by barkingspider. 12/18/18 09:47 PM
Kubota Super UDT2? Anything better?
by Jmoney7269. 12/18/18 09:23 PM
Car Door Fabric Glue
by cb450sc. 12/18/18 08:57 PM
Canadian Uber
by StevieC. 12/18/18 08:13 PM
71141 / Lifeguard 5
by chefwong. 12/18/18 07:52 PM
Tested Positive for Flu
by john_pifer. 12/18/18 07:37 PM
Cooper RTX?
by 01rangerxl. 12/18/18 07:25 PM
IPhone SE or flip phone?
by 53' Stude. 12/18/18 05:49 PM
1993 K1500 hard cold start
by BrianF. 12/18/18 05:43 PM
Put my wife's dog down yesterday
by Stelth. 12/18/18 05:04 PM
ATF Filter oem vs aftermarket any differences?
by 97prizm. 12/18/18 03:50 PM
Depth-Fiberglass Filter Media.
by Al. 12/18/18 03:43 PM
Newest Members
Sportbiker, trollhattan, MuhThugga, wxo, dbierman
66718 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
62 registered members (ABCarr, 2strokeNorthstar, Aero540T, 97Astro, Ag76, 01rangerxl, 5 invisible), 1,250 guests, and 39 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics295,247
Posts4,930,827
Members66,718
Most Online2,553
Oct 27th, 2018
Donate to BITOG
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... #4710997
03/29/18 09:20 PM
03/29/18 09:20 PM
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 7,204
Waco, TX
Linctex Offline OP
Linctex  Offline OP
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 7,204
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."
Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex] #4711002
03/29/18 09:26 PM
03/29/18 09:26 PM
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,969
South Florida
bubbatime Offline
bubbatime  Offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,969
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
10 Acura TSX 2.4 Maxlife Syn 5W30
06 GMC Sierra Nextgen 10W30


Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex] #4711005
03/29/18 09:29 PM
03/29/18 09:29 PM
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 683
South Carolina
eyeofthetiger Offline
eyeofthetiger  Offline
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 683
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
Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex] #4711007
03/29/18 09:30 PM
03/29/18 09:30 PM
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,601
MA
Wolf359 Offline
Wolf359  Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,601
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.

Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex] #4711014
03/29/18 09:36 PM
03/29/18 09:36 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,307
Phoenix
dishdude Online content
dishdude  Online Content
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,307
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 392 PUP 0w-40 Wix 57899XP
2018 GTI
Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Wolf359] #4711015
03/29/18 09:37 PM
03/29/18 09:37 PM
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 683
South Carolina
eyeofthetiger Offline
eyeofthetiger  Offline
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 683
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
Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Wolf359] #4711016
03/29/18 09:38 PM
03/29/18 09:38 PM
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 7,204
Waco, TX
Linctex Offline OP
Linctex  Offline OP
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 7,204
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."
Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex] #4711021
03/29/18 09:41 PM
03/29/18 09:41 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,588
'Stralia
Shannow Online content
Shannow  Online Content
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,588
'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.

Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: dishdude] #4711024
03/29/18 09:49 PM
03/29/18 09:49 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,588
'Stralia
Shannow Online content
Shannow  Online Content
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,588
'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..

Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: bubbatime] #4711028
03/29/18 09:52 PM
03/29/18 09:52 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 42,304
New Jersey
JHZR2 Offline
JHZR2  Offline
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 42,304
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.

Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex] #4711040
03/29/18 10:09 PM
03/29/18 10:09 PM
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 7,204
Waco, TX
Linctex Offline OP
Linctex  Offline OP
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 7,204
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."
Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex] #4711049
03/29/18 10:30 PM
03/29/18 10:30 PM
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 7,204
Waco, TX
Linctex Offline OP
Linctex  Offline OP
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 7,204
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."
Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex] #4711050
03/29/18 10:43 PM
03/29/18 10:43 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,478
California
nthach Offline
nthach  Offline
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,478
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.

Last edited by nthach; 03/29/18 10:44 PM.
Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex] #4711070
03/29/18 11:36 PM
03/29/18 11:36 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,588
'Stralia
Shannow Online content
Shannow  Online Content
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,588
'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)

Re: What if "new CAFE requirements" ...... [Re: Linctex] #4711088
03/30/18 12:06 AM
03/30/18 12:06 AM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,231
Where the wind comes sweepin'
Reddy45 Offline
Reddy45  Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,231
Where the wind comes sweepin'
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.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™