Volkswagen emissions scandal

Currently reading:
Volkswagen emissions scandal

It highlights and interesting idea that the public seem to now have, that all petrol cars are better for the environment than any diesel.

Obviously the comparison in this case was opposite ends of a spectrum but the writer did genuinely believe his golf would better the far more modern diesel specifically in the NOX department.

People do think that petrol cars are exempt from NOX emissions and the papers like to pin all the worlds problems on NOX which they blame only on Diesel engines

Perhaps but between euro 1 and 4 harmful emissions from petrol engines were reduced by over 90%. The vast majority of petrol cars still on the road will be at least euro 4 compliant given it came in 12 years ago. Yes it makes a good article but if they'd used say an 05 focus that is well into banger territory by now it would have been much closer if not the opposite result in most areas other than CO2.
 
Heavier lump of steel. Larger fuel burning engine. Requires more fuel to propel it forward. I don’t care what MPG they publish..

It's not just the weight though, it's the aerodynamics and the rolling resistance in conjunction with fuel saving tech (regenerative braking e.t.c.) and how hard the engine needs to work that affects both economy and emissions.

We got the most powerful petrol version (1.2 108 bhp) of the c3...traditionally you would say it will be the least efficient in the range it's heavier its on bigger tyres it's got all the weighty creature comforts compared to the base model.

However the base model has 67bhp the mid range 82 and not much torque, the turbo petrol has the same amount of torque as our old 1.6 diesel but available on flat torque curve across nearly 3000 rpm. As a result you never need to hammer it to keep up with normal traffic so it's very economical. If it had the smaller engines you'd be flat out to get a similar performance. So the real world economy is actually very similar.
 
Last edited:
Heavier lump of steel. Larger fuel burning engine. Requires more fuel to propel it forward. I don’t care what MPG they publish..

I’m talking actual figures. I’ve owned two 1.2 powered Fiats and out of town neither will touch my BMW for efficiency.

You do realise that after you get to 50mph or so aerodynamics play an important part and both the 500 and Panda aren’t very aerodynamic.

The coefficient of drag for the vehicles we’re talking about is as follows.
500 0.36
Panda (current shape) 0.32
BMW 320d 0.27
BMW 320 ed 0.26

It’s not unreasonable to think that the 2003-2012 Panda is probably closer to the 500.

Drag is worked out by the velocity squared. So as you go quicker, aerodynamics becomes far more important. In case you didn’t notice my car before, compare it to a Panda and you can easily see which is going to be easier to push through the air.
 

Attachments

  • 175674AF-CD0E-49C2-AA1E-D28CEC522581.jpeg
    175674AF-CD0E-49C2-AA1E-D28CEC522581.jpeg
    2.8 MB · Views: 27
  • 2E4F0758-0A98-41EF-9EAA-7240D0574C48.jpeg
    2E4F0758-0A98-41EF-9EAA-7240D0574C48.jpeg
    20.3 KB · Views: 15
I’m talking actual figures. I’ve owned two 1.2 powered Fiats and out of town neither will touch my BMW for efficiency.



You do realise that after you get to 50mph or so aerodynamics play an important part and both the 500 and Panda aren’t very aerodynamic.



The coefficient of drag for the vehicles we’re talking about is as follows.

500 0.36

Panda (current shape) 0.32

BMW 320d 0.27

BMW 320 ed 0.26



It’s not unreasonable to think that the 2003-2012 Panda is probably closer to the 500.



Drag is worked out by the velocity squared. So as you go quicker, aerodynamics becomes far more important. In case you didn’t notice my car before, compare it to a Panda and you can easily see which is going to be easier to push through the air.



Nice car
 
At the end of the day, takes more energy to work

Only to accelerate. Once you’re up to speed it’s not the case anymore, well it is, but the difference in rolling resistance is negligible unless you’re forever having the brake and accelerate.
 
(I’m not taking it too serious). Whatever keeps you guys happy.

I mean, you’re probably right... massive diesel cars must be more economical than small petrol cars, and Global Warming’s probably not all that important either lol Just shave a bit here.. bit there... copyright a few marketing terms and voila.
 
You’re missing the point though. Big heavy cars are rubbish around town. But in the right conditions, weight doesn’t make anywhere near the difference you think it does.
 
All cars are at their least efficent accelerating from rest. The heavier it is the less efficient it is in that phase. More mass = more resistance to overcome. But once rolling it actually takes very little power to maintain a steady state cruise. This is where good aero, low rolling resistance, ancillary drag e.t.c. are important. There is a Mercedes E class hybrid that uses a 27bhp electric engine to cruise at up to 75 mph, that tells you how little power is required at a cruise.

If you do long journeys you spend a lot of time in a steady state cruise, mass is not actually that important. Round town it is very important because you spend lots of time accelerating it and slowing it down.
 
Last edited:
All cars are at their least efficent accelerating from rest. The heavier it is the less efficient it is in that phase. More mass = more resistance to overcome. But once rolling it actually takes very little power to maintain a steady state cruise. This is where good aero, low rolling resistance, ancillary drag e.t.c. are important. There is a Mercedes E class hybrid that uses a 27bhp electric engine to cruise at up to 75 mph, that tells you how little power is required at a cruise.

If you do long journeys you spend a lot of time in a steady state cruise, mass is not actually that important. Round town it is very important because you spend lots of time accelerating it and slowing it down.

My BMW has a display that shows you how much power and torque the engine is supposedly producing and the amount needed to keep the car doing 60 is rather low, almost certainly less than the S class you’re talking about.
 
Out of interest, when you say you get 70+ mpg out the bmw, is that going by the readout, or have you worked the actual mpg out?

I only ask because I know that the readout figure and the mpg you're actually achieving can often be 2 different things, lol!
 
(I’m not taking it too serious). Whatever keeps you guys happy.

I mean, you’re probably right... massive diesel cars must be more economical than small petrol cars, and Global Warming’s probably not all that important either lol Just shave a bit here.. bit there... copyright a few marketing terms and voila.

This comment serious or not completely misses the point here.

A large 2.0 litre Diesel engine can ‘easily’ be more fuel efficient than a smaller petrol engine car. As a direct comparison the 500x 1.4 petrol gets 47mpg while the 2.0 litre diesel does 51mpg with the Adition of an auto gearbox and 4WD fitted to the larger engine diesel.

From a global warming standpoint diesels produce less green house gasses all day every day. Which is why us diesel owners pay bugger all in excise duty (£30 for my 2.0 litre golf per year free on our last, 1.6 and current 1.5 mini)

What diesels do is produce emissions more harmful to people and usually in built up areas. This is the main diesel issue, London exceeds NOX levels in the air laid down my European targets and suddenly everyone buys petrols forgetting the reason we all bought diesels is the serious reduction in greenhouse gasses and global warming.

Another point to bring up is that the Germans are currently the only ones now hitting the targets in euro 6 emissions under real world testing as showed in that article with the Tiguan and the Mercedes (C class?)

While the fiat 500x I mentioned above was something like 14 times the NOX emissions that it should have when tested in the real world making it one of the worst offenders for claimed versus real world testing
 
Out of interest, when you say you get 70+ mpg out the bmw, is that going by the readout, or have you worked the actual mpg out?

I only ask because I know that the readout figure and the mpg you're actually achieving can often be 2 different things, lol!

Definitely. The trip computer is accurate to within a couple of MPG.
 
Been thinking about the high NOx emissions from the Golf petrol.
It will be an early catalyst equipped car. The catalyst should convert CO into CO2 and the NOx into Nitrogen and use the freed-up Oxygen to combine with the CO to give the CO2.

Sadly, at MOT, NOx is not measured. I believe to measure it requires significantly more expnsive machines than the current CO and HC tests. So we don't know how much NOx actually escapes 'not converted'.

I'm thinking that perhaps his catalyst is not as good as it was when new. Newer petrol cars are likely to be much better on NOx.

Diesel produces NOx, but we can't fit a catalyst to them, as they'd last a very short time, contaminated with the soot.

Many years ago, Volvo challenged the California legislature when they proposed more stringent emission regulations, and proved that already what was coming out of a Volvo exhaust was cleaner than that going in. They won, but I can't remember any detail. And can't be bothered to go search it out.

Another story, I think it was Captain Cook, or another famous explorer in a wooden sailing ship, that recorded in his log, when approaching San Francisco, that the area was shrouded in a thick yellow fog. Perhaps not then caused by vehicle exhausts. Although, to be fair, having later invented the internal combustion engine, we may have contributed to the problem.
 
Been thinking about the high NOx emissions from the Golf petrol.
It will be an early catalyst equipped car. The catalyst should convert CO into CO2 and the NOx into Nitrogen and use the freed-up Oxygen to combine with the CO to give the CO2.

Sadly, at MOT, NOx is not measured. I believe to measure it requires significantly more expnsive machines than the current CO and HC tests. So we don't know how much NOx actually escapes 'not converted'.

I'm thinking that perhaps his catalyst is not as good as it was when new. Newer petrol cars are likely to be much better on NOx.

Diesel produces NOx, but we can't fit a catalyst to them, as they'd last a very short time, contaminated with the soot.

I wouldn't think too far into it to be honest. Even new and low miles it wouldn't be great given it was literally built for the 1st ever euro standard in emissions. It struggles to be legal according to the article so the emissions gear is probably on it's last legs. A euro 5 petrol barely even registers on mot an test machine if it is healthy. Interesting that despite this it emits less nox than many euro 6 diesels.

The company that lent him the equipments website is worth a visit though. There's some interesting variability between apparently comparable cars. Even going down the petrol side, Citroen C3 turbo is actually euro 6 compliant in real world use..A Ford Fiesta ecoboost is Euro 3 for diesel compliant in the same circumstances.

There's also some interesting reading in the carbon monoxide section as well the vast majority of petrol cars comply with the more stringent diesel standards for CO. Which does rather put paid to that wonderful "you can't gas yourself with a diesel" line diesel drivers like to trot out. It's also as difficult to gas yourself with modern petrol..
 
There's also some interesting reading in the carbon monoxide section as well the vast majority of petrol cars comply with the more stringent diesel standards for CO. Which does rather put paid to that wonderful "you can't gas yourself with a diesel" line diesel drivers like to trot out. It's also as difficult to gas yourself with modern petrol..

It’s been very difficult to gas yourself with a car exhaust for many years CO levels, since the advent of catalytic converters mean at worst you might get a nasty cough and a headache for a few hours
 
Back
Top