Technical 1.4 135grs/km version

[multispoke]

Hi. I was looking for a bit of technical emissions info on the 1.4 - I realise that the hot topic at the moment is the twin air ! I have looked (possibly not hard enough) as to when did the 1.4 emission drop from 149 to 135grs/km. The tax band in my country is 140-155 and 120-140 so my car tax will drop from €302 to €156 with the 'new' one. Local dealer said that there's a few new 1.4sport 'knocking around' and they have been discounted. I would only be interested in one with the lower emissions. Does it have to have the stop/start for the 135grs/km model ? Also it any more economical if I drive it a little easier (I drive a little slower if the other half is with me

).

 

[jnoiles]

I wonder, if you put a second cat in the exhaust somewhere could you reduce the output and therefore the tax band?

 

[Venters]

Cats have the effect of converting co to co2 as part of their operating process.

 

[jrkitching]

I wonder, if you put a second cat in the exhaust somewhere could you reduce the output and therefore the tax band?

Sadly not.

You may be confusing CO2 (carbon dioxide) with CO (carbon monoxide). The purpose of the cat is to reduce CO emissions (and some other harmful stuff) to near-zero levels; it can't reduce CO2 emissions, which are a natural product of combustion & can only be reduced by increasing the efficiency of the car.

Actually, fitting a cat increases CO2 emissions by 10-15%, not just because it converts any CO to CO2 but also because it inevitably makes the engine less efficient, but there's no other practical way at present of meeting current euro standards.

For small city cars, lean burn technology (without a cat) would probably do less total damage to the environment, and would certainly reduce both fuel use & CO2 emissions but there are some powerful political forces at work in the automotive industry.

 

[306maxi]

For small city cars, lean burn technology (without a cat) would probably do less total damage to the environment, and would certainly reduce both fuel use & CO2 emissions but there are some powerful political forces at work in the automotive industry.

Is this what you mean?

 

[babbo_umbro]

Sadly not.

You may be confusing CO2 (carbon dioxide) with CO (carbon monoxide). The purpose of the cat is to reduce CO emissions (and some other harmful stuff) to near-zero levels; it can't reduce CO2 emissions, which are a natural product of combustion & can only be reduced by increasing the efficiency of the car.

Actually, fitting a cat increases CO2 emissions by 10-15%, not just because it converts any CO to CO2 but also because it inevitably makes the engine less efficient, but there's no other practical way at present of meeting current euro standards.

For small city cars, lean burn technology (without a cat) would probably do less total damage to the environment, and would certainly reduce both fuel use & CO2 emissions but there are some powerful political forces at work in the automotive industry.

Yes - the whole catalytic converter nonsense was cooked up by the oil industry, with government connivance, to convince people that something was being done to clean up emissions - connect a CO2 generator to the back of an engine, reduce its efficiency - burn more fuel - but con the populace.

 

[306maxi]

Yes - the whole catalytic converter nonsense was cooked up by the oil industry, with government connivance, to convince people that something was being done to clean up emissions - connect a CO2 generator to the back of an engine, reduce its efficiency - burn more fuel - but con the populace.

If I were in government I reckon you'd make a lot of money by doing that and then taxing the hell out of CO2 and fuel. Oh wait........

 

[jrkitching]

If I were in government I reckon you'd make a lot of money by doing that and then taxing the hell out of CO2 and fuel. Oh wait........

and the manufacturers will likely follow the government's example by using smoke & mirrors to headline exciting, innovative new technologies which promise improved economy & lower emissions & then deliver something that encourages you to use more fuel & produce more CO2...

 

[jnoiles]

Sadly not.

You may be confusing CO2 (carbon dioxide) with CO (carbon monoxide).

No may about it

Substitute cat for other type of exhaust modification and re-submit question

 

[pearce_jj]

So in short, in answer to the OP, we don't really know?

 

[jrkitching]

So in short, in answer to the OP, we don't really know?

Sorry, should have tried to answer the question before drifting off topic.

The short answer is that only the S/S car will manage 135, but it's not quite that simple as the engine has been produced in both Euro4 and Euro5 versions & the numbers are different. The change from Euro4 to Euro5 reduces CO2 emissions from 149 to 140 even without S/S.

Euro4, no S/S:

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/usedcar/vehicleDetails.asp?id=53069

Euro5, no S/S:

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/usedcar/vehicleDetails.asp?id=53649

Euro5, with S/S:

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/usedcar/vehicleDetails.asp?id=53650

This is a useful reference website for all similar queries:

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk

 

[multispoke]

Many thanks jrkitching. The model from May 2010 onwards (Euro 5 without the stop start) is within the lower band of 121-140 JUST qualifies. It will be interesting to see what the dealer in Finglas, Dublin comes back with tomorrow. I have had an offer today on my 08 500 1.4 sport but have held off on accepting the offer until I see what costs I'm looking at to move to 2011 model under the scrapage scheme (this only allows for models up to & incl 140gr/km). I have a Marea weekend 00 which I was going to use a 'trade-in'. Normally there is a difference of €4k between a 1.2 pop & a 1.4sport - hence the reason on buying a secondhand one last year. The price of the Abarth in the UK is a steal - it you can get one in Ireland they're priced at €24k+ before you add leather, strips etc - so they're outside the reach of most petrolheads given the size of the car. If I lived in the UK it would be my first preference.

 

[durukan]

does the new 1.4 engine have multiair?

 

[multispoke]

No. Only the USA edition 500 has the multi-air.

 

[durukan]

hmm.. I wonder how they lowered emissions and consumption without S/S and multiair.

 

[multispoke]

Going from Euro 4 to Euro 5 gave the 140mg/km. Would this be just a new ECU ?

Giving it the Stop/Start then reduced it to 135. I'd imagine that this would be harder to retrofit.

 

[jrkitching]

Going from Euro 4 to Euro 5 gave the 140mg/km. Would this be just a new ECU ?

Giving it the Stop/Start then reduced it to 135. I'd imagine that this would be harder to retrofit.

I suspect it's more than just a remap/ECU swap. I asked a similar question on the Panda forum (the Panda has recently gone from E4 to E5) and it was suggested that the compression ratio was raised also, and maybe a different cam was fitted.

In any event, I suspect it would in practice be difficult or even impossible to get the tax band of an individual car changed retrospectively as this is based on the type approval of the specific model when the car is first registered. I shudder to think of the bureaucratic process involved & if you want lower road tax, I think you would do better to restrict your search to existing Euro5 variants.

I was about to write that the whole thing is probably smoke & mirrors to get the car into a particular tax band, but I just remembered that my Euro5 500 definitely uses less fuel than my Euro4 Panda, but only when the engine is cold (they're near identical on a long run) - so maybe they also refined the low temperature mapping to get the result they needed.

 

[pearce_jj]

could be some longer gear ratios in there perhaps.

 

[multispoke]

I suspect it's more than just a remap/ECU swap. I asked a similar question on the Panda forum (the Panda has recently gone from E4 to E5) and it was suggested that the compression ratio was raised also, and maybe a different cam was fitted.

In any event, I suspect it would in practice be difficult or even impossible to get the tax band of an individual car changed retrospectively as this is based on the type approval of the specific model when the car is first registered. I shudder to think of the bureaucratic process involved & if you want lower road tax, I think you would do better to restrict your search to existing Euro5 variants.

I was about to write that the whole thing is probably smoke & mirrors to get the car into a particular tax band, but I just remembered that my Euro5 500 definitely uses less fuel than my Euro4 Panda, but only when the engine is cold (they're near identical on a long run) - so maybe they also refined the low temperature mapping to get the result they needed.

I one looked into changing the tax band for a 323i from a 2.5 to a 2.0 litre engine last year (based in Ireland). All it involved was getting a 'proper' mechanic to sign a form stating that the engine was changed. It is probably a lot more difficult (!) to have an existing engine's emission changed. At least if I have to put in a new engine in I'll make that sure that I get a copy of the car's registration documents to substantiate the more favourable emissions output. The saving from €302 to €156 in road tax will be compensate a little towards the hit on a 'new' engine.