silvrsvt Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-paris-engines-exclusive-idUSKBN12E11K Wonder how this is going to affect Ford's Ecoboost engines... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 It's not the gasoline engines so much as the cheatng going on with diesels, the new real world driving tests will expose those stll exceeding emissions outside the testing loops, the big one is excessve NOX and CO2. You can tell that Europe is about to get really tough on diesels, I think the next few years will see a lot of manufacturers either stepping up to the new challenge or exiting in favor of hybrids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 It's not the gasoline engines so much as the cheatng going on with diesels, the new real world driving tests will expose those stll exceeding emissions outside the testing loops, the big one is excessve NOX and CO2. First, I am not familiar with the "next generation" EU emission standards, but the current standards are very "loose" when it comes to NOx testing. Case in point, in EU, VW is able to apply a "software patch" to there cheating diesel engines to get them in compliance. It is likely that VW will NEVER be able to fix US engine to make the "clean enough" to meet EPA/CAFE standards. Second, consumers should not think that all gasoline engines are "squeaky clean" ! Ford added port injectors to the new 3.5L EcoBoost engine to reduce the amount of particulate emissions. Yep, 12 injectors ! I wonder how long direct injection will be around if it is that big of a cost hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 17, 2016 Author Share Posted October 17, 2016 Ford added port injectors to the new 3.5L EcoBoost engine to reduce the amount of particulate emissions. Yep, 12 injectors ! I wonder how long direct injection will be around if it is that big of a cost hit. Wouldn't the cost be driven down by more applications using Direct Injection? Also wouldn't the cost be passed on to the customer...remember meeting CAFE regs would increase the cost of a car by 2-4K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionel Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I was always a proponent that if emissions testing more closely mirrored real-world conditions, this lunacy of tiny, highly-strung engines would stop. The only barriers to sanity now are Road taxes and capacity taxes like those in China. Now Mazda doesn't have to turbocharge the rest of its range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I was always a proponent that if emissions testing more closely mirrored real-world conditions, this lunacy of tiny, highly-strung engines would stop. The only barriers to sanity now are Road taxes and capacity taxes like those in China. Now Mazda doesn't have to turbocharge the rest of its range. Explain 'real-world conditions.' If you could quantify that in some easily duplicated way, then you'd likely be the head of testing requirements for the EPA or something. The problem is, 'real-world conditions' is a set of random stops, starts, accelerations, speeds, etc. You can't define randomness with a repeatable test that will give you the exact same results each time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 To me the 2 biggest areas that should be changed are acceleration rates and use of E-10 rather than pure gasoline. EPA acceleration rates are much slower than the average driver and that is something that already is and can be controlled precisely. Not sure about the rest of the country but you have to go way out of your way in Atlanta to find pure gasoline. It's E-10 everywhere and that does make a measurable difference on fuel economy. It's also just as easy to regulate for the test procedures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 In the end, EPA tests are to compare vehicle A to vehicle B to vehicle C, not about the true economy you can expect from your vehicle. Personally, I've exceeded the ratings with every vehicle I've owned, so the tests are pretty 'real-world' for me. But, I realize that doesn't apply to everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 In the end, EPA tests are to compare vehicle A to vehicle B to vehicle C, not about the true economy you can expect from your vehicle. Personally, I've exceeded the ratings with every vehicle I've owned, so the tests are pretty 'real-world' for me. But, I realize that doesn't apply to everyone. Agreed but they also count towards CAFE and if the goal is to ACTUALLY improve fuel economy in the real world rather than just be a paper exercise then some changes are needed. I think what's happening is the mfrs are building drivetrains that perform well under the current EPA test on pure gas but do much worse for the average driver in the real world (I assume the 1.0LEB is in that category). Keeping up with traffic forces higher acceleration and boost while the much slower EPA test keeps boost lower. I think the changes I proposed would close the gap between average drivers and the EPA test results while still being controllable and repeatable. Of course they'd have to adjust the CAFE formulas to account for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Agreed but they also count towards CAFE and if the goal is to ACTUALLY improve fuel economy in the real world rather than just be a paper exercise then some changes are needed. I think what's happening is the mfrs are building drivetrains that perform well under the current EPA test on pure gas but do much worse for the average driver in the real world (I assume the 1.0LEB is in that category). Keeping up with traffic forces higher acceleration and boost while the much slower EPA test keeps boost lower. I think the changes I proposed would close the gap between average drivers and the EPA test results while still being controllable and repeatable. Of course they'd have to adjust the CAFE formulas to account for that. While I agree, if the goal is to improve fuel economy, the most important step would be to get drivers to drive more sensibly. That ain't gonna happen, so why should automakers be forced to meet stricter standards because people drive with their foot glued to the floor. What you are saying would close the gap, but don't expect EPA numbers to go up, and don't expect manufacturers to meet any goals. One of the biggest complainers about EcoBoost economy that I know is my father. He hated the economy in his '13 F150. I know exactly why, though, because I've ridden with him. If he wasn't on the bumper of the car in front of him, he had his foot to the floor trying to get on the bumper. And if that stop sign wasn't within 50 feet, he had his foot to the floor to reach it, then his foot went to the floor on the other pedal to keep from going through it. And running down the Interstate means you need to be doing at least 80. So, now he has a Super Duty with a 6.7L. He's in Pennsylvania now, and on the trip out, he was getting 17 MPG. Slow down and you'll see 20, I told him. When he got to the turnpike, he slowed down the 65, and guess what....20 MPG easy. Needless to say, I don't ride with him very often. Bottom line, if people want to save money on fuel, they need to slow down. The only possible to legislate people to save fuel is to force them into electric/hybrid vehicles. Personally, I don't think I don't think legislation to save fuel is an answer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I've noticed a LOT of F-150 drivers are like that. It's the absolute #1 reason why I won't buy a used truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 But I think only about 10% of drivers drive like your dad and another 10% drive like the EPA cycle. I'm talking about the 80% in between. With a 1.0LEB the average driver may end up with worse mpg than a 1.5LEB driver in the same vehicle because the 1.0LEB requires a lot more boost. So while the 1.0LEB looks better on paper in the real world on average the larger engine may actually get better mpg and lower emissions. It all depends on whether you're looking at better real world experiences for both mpg and emissions or whether you're just looking at theoretical possibilities on paper. If they change the rules they won't be incentivized to build those 1.0LEB engines for larger vehicles where they only work on paper. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I've noticed a LOT of F-150 drivers are like that. It's the absolute #1 reason why I won't buy a used truck. That shouldn't have any effect on longevity or reliability provided they do proper maintenance. In fact it probably runs better than ones that were babied. Might need to change the brake pads though. Don't they put brand new vehicles on the rollers at the end of the factory line and go WOT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Don't they put brand new vehicles on the rollers at the end of the factory line and go WOT? Umm, I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 That shouldn't have any effect on longevity or reliability provided they do proper maintenance. In fact it probably runs better than ones that were babied. Might need to change the brake pads though. Don't they put brand new vehicles on the rollers at the end of the factory line and go WOT? It's not so much the reliability that scares me, it's the likelihood that if they drive like that, there's a greater chance that they just don't give a s*** about maintenance IMO. Yes they do go WOT at the factory, but only for the dyno tests. However the drivers that take the cars to the holding lots, I've seen them doing some pretty stupid stuff.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 It's not so much the reliability that scares me, it's the likelihood that if they drive like that, there's a greater chance that they just don't give a s*** about maintenance IMO. Yes they do go WOT at the factory, but only for the dyno tests. However the drivers that take the cars to the holding lots, I've seen them doing some pretty stupid stuff.... Wait, so every vehicle goes to WOT at the factory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 (edited) Ford added port injectors to the new 3.5L EcoBoost engine to reduce the amount of particulate emissions. Yep, 12 injectors ! I wonder how long direct injection will be around if it is that big of a cost hit. That's only one part of it. Sure, avoiding DI on start up prevents particulate formation when the charge strikes a cold cylinder wall but the much bigger benefit of dividing the injection is to give a better emissions and fuel economy profile on part throttle with smaller injectors. What the EU is scrambling to do now is shut the gate on all areas where its been asleep at the switch, it turned a blind eye to diesel, NOX under light cruise while encouraging manufacturers to provide the lowest possible CO2 figures. As we've seen, Europe simply traded one emssion for another. So now the question is how much legislation and testing is necessary to guarantee emissions compliance, a lot of manufacturers milked diesel fuel economy for all it was worth and only added gasoline engines to balance out production. Ford's Ecoboost is a classic example of downsized DI turbo that was designed to get around EU emission test cycles that were found wanting under US EPA tests. It took Ford power train a lot of time and resources to back up Derrick Kuzac's boast of 20% improved efficiency that simply wasn't there with US testing...everywhere you see evidence of Ford and other manufacturers trying to game tests so they can claim fuel economy figures that regular buyers find very hard to achieve. I'm sensing that time is up and the hammer is about to drop as we move from EPA and EU tests that were used by many as historical comparisons to actually doing and measuring something worth while. Edited October 17, 2016 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Wait, so every vehicle goes to WOT at the factory? AFAIK, yeah. There's a dyno test involved and a test track (squeak and rattle). It's not repeated WOT cycles as you described though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 But then again I've only worked 1 out of the last 5 weeks so I don't know what's real anymore. Do I still even have a job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 AFAIK, yeah. There's a dyno test involved and a test track (squeak and rattle). It's not repeated WOT cycles as you described though. Interesting. I knew about the squeak/rattle course, but didn't realize every vehicle went on the dyno for a WOT run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 But then again I've only worked 1 out of the last 5 weeks so I don't know what's real anymore. Do I still even have a job? That sucks man, sorry to hear that. Hopefully things stabilize for you soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 That sucks man, sorry to hear that. Hopefully things stabilize for you soon. heh, yeah I'm doubtful. Focus sales are still declining. I wouldn't be all that surprised if my job was eliminated by this time next year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 heh, yeah I'm doubtful. Focus sales are still declining. I wouldn't be all that surprised if my job was eliminated by this time next year Hopefully you can hang on until the Ranger/Bronco show up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Hopefully you can hang on until the Ranger/Bronco show up. ideal scenario would be if they ever open up transfers again and I go back to FRAP. We just moved and I can now walk there in under 10 minutes, I'm literally on the other side of I-75. I can see the plant if I go to the end of my street. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Interesting. I knew about the squeak/rattle course, but didn't realize every vehicle went on the dyno for a WOT run. Yep. I think our old Lincoln LS Owner's club saw that at Wixom when they took a tour. So you don't really need to baby it during the break-in period - just don't keep it at the same RPM for hours and hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.