|
"The EU are mostly to blame because the test to establish the emissions is a non-real world test. Hopefully the forthcoming changes will stop that, although surely the EU will have to up the NOx level boundaries for the limits given almost all diesels perform far worse in real-world driving in that regard than on the test-bed."
There are as many 'real world' styles of driving and journeys as there are drivers. Assuming, safely, that there is no way to test while simulating the driving of the whole of the people who drive, isn't a static test in the laboratory the only way ?
|
|
Is real wordl?
Starting from cold ? When ambient is -10C, or 1C or 5C, 16C ?
Starting from warm?
etc
List as long as your arm
|
|
How's this for an idea. Within 6 months of the launch of a car (this allows for climate variations), the MD of the company is required to undertake a long journey - say 500 miles. For this journey, they are allowed 10% more fuel than their 'declared' economy figures. So if they have declared 50 mpg (meaning 10 gallons of fuel), then they are given 11 gallons.
If the MD runs out of fuel, they have to walk the rest of the journey. Barefoot.
Sadly, it'd never happen. But we'd see these comedy mpg numbers vanish overnight.
|
|
"the MD of the company is required to undertake a long journey - say 500 miles. For this journey, they are allowed 10% more fuel than their 'declared' economy figures. So if they have declared 50 mpg (meaning 10 gallons of fuel), then they are given 11 gallons.
If the MD runs out of fuel, they have to walk the rest of the journey. Barefoot.
Sadly, it'd never happen. But we'd see these comedy mpg numbers vanish overnight."
AND make them suffer a puncture scenario too, see how they perform with the sealant kit.
|
|
And change a headlight globe at night by the roadside in the rain.
|
|
|
|
How's this for an idea. Within 6 months of the launch of a car (this allows for climate variations), the MD of the company is required to undertake a long journey - say 500 miles. For this journey, they are allowed 10% more fuel than their 'declared' economy figures. So if they have declared 50 mpg (meaning 10 gallons of fuel), then they are given 11 gallons.
If the MD runs out of fuel, they have to walk the rest of the journey. Barefoot.
Sadly, it'd never happen. But we'd see these comedy mpg numbers vanish overnight.
Except the 'comedy' MPG numbers don't come from the individual manufactuerers. They are from the EU testing. The companies themselves aren't delaring anything.
|
dy' MPG numbers don't come from the individual manufactuerers. They are from the EU testing. The companies themselves aren't delaring anything.
Of course the companies are declaring. THEY test the cars. How do you think the numbers are fiddled? By the EU? :-)
|
dy' MPG numbers don't come from the individual manufactuerers. They are from the EU testing. The companies themselves aren't delaring anything.
Of course the companies are declaring. THEY test the cars. How do you think the numbers are fiddled? By the EU? :-)
Yes, sorry Alan, but the companies carry out the tests themselves, and declare the results to the EU.
|
|
Agreed - And I drive around with the wing mirrors on and the gaps NOT taped up. So until we get pass the basic failures of the testing system it's going to be ground hogg day!
|
Agreed - And I drive around with the wing mirrors on and the gaps NOT taped up. So until we get pass the basic failures of the testing system it's going to be ground hogg day!
Urban myths, sorry !
However, something even more ridiculous is true :
Whatever the car tests at, the manufacturer can arbitrarily reduce the CO2 number by 5%. No reason needs to be given for this.
So if you test a car at 200g/CO2, you can reduce that number to 190, and declare that as your 'official' figure. And the EU can't do a thing about it.
|
|
While I realize the test are tighter than my joke suggest the point is made. To many loop holes.
Further the US hate NOx and paticals and CO and CO2 is ok, Europe say NOx is ok! So the objectives are unclear of what we trying to do in the first place!
|
|
also, I'd guess the tests are done in a nice warm environment, no headwind, engine at operating temperatire and certainly never cold weather like now when the engine takes much longer to warm up
|
|
The official tests are carried out in labs on a rolling road, so no wind. I believe temperature in the lab is fixed, but the test is carried out with a warm engine.
Another ridiculous part of the test : Acceleration, from standing to 51 (I think) km/hr (which is 32 mph) , the acceleration taking 30 seconds. Again, completely un-representative of any sort of driving, unless you're 94 !
|
|
And any diesel on test will not be having a DPF burn out using fuel.
|
|
I have a feeling that petrol engines are tested at -7 for euro 6. Oddly enough diesels are not tested at low temp's.
I understand the reason they are sill considering the diesel testing is due to the tech developed for Euro 5/6 does not work well at low tempesures! It seams the ERG and NOx treatment system don't like the cold!
|
|
If IIRC diesels use the EGR in an open/ semi open state during a cold engine to help warm the engine by putting warm exhaust gasses back into the combustion chambers.
|
|
Euro 6, like all the EU emissions tests is done at 20-30 degrees C - the average UK temperature is about 10 degrees C
|
The official tests are carried out in labs on a rolling road, so no wind.
Correct but a factor is fed into the rolling resistance to compensate for wind resistance. This factor is determined by the manufacturers using a coasting measurement (with the taped up seals, mirror removed, pumped up tyres etc.).
|
|
Are the tests conducted in a wind tunnel too?
|
|
It's quite clear from even a cursory examination of all that has been written about these tests that they are a total farce as far as the consumer is concerned. Yes they may be useful in determining that vehicle A will do 0.7 mpg more than vehicle B under unrepresentative test conditions but it will be totally irrelevant to how anyone will use the vehicle. The tests would simply seem to be there for the manufacturers to be able to get an overall emission score to keep there own taxation down, at least as far as European countries are concerned.
|
|
Taxation criteria has always been something of a farce - the RAC Horsepower rating from 1910 bore no relationship to the actual power produced and resulted in excessively long stroke engines as it was based on cylinder bore area - that was abandoned in 1947, replaced by a cubic capacity tax, but that in turn replaced in 1948 by a flat rate tax.
In my opinion VED should be abolished and rely solely on fuel duty, the less you use the less you pay and base BIK Income Tax on the costs actually paid by the employer.
|
|
"Another ridiculous part of the test : Acceleration, from standing to 51 (I think) km/hr (which is 32 mph) , the acceleration taking 30 seconds. Again, completely un-representative of any sort of driving, unless you're 94 !"
Hey, no ageism here please RobJP. Seriously, when I travel down the A6 in the mornings it is commonplace not to be able to do 32 mph, and illegal if you do !
|
|
The 0-32mph test is not so daft as you think, Probably one of the most popular parts of driving for people in cities, accelerating away from traffic lights.
|
The 0-32mph test is not so daft as you think, Probably one of the most popular parts of driving for people in cities, accelerating away from traffic lights.
Oh, agreed. But taking 30+ seconds to accelerate, at a constant rate, up to that speed in a joke. Maybe 10 or 12 seconds, yes, but 30-plus is ridiculous
|
|
|
|
