Not sure what to make of this but it doesn't seem good
Not sure what to make of this but it doesn't seem good
That's kind of all over the place, and I'm not sure I buy it.
A limit on "power per liter of displacement?" I had a '77 Cutlass that aced that test.
And then we get this: "At the moment, we only see a turbo solution. Naturally aspirated, not really.” But I thought we were reducing specific output!
IDK. Everything europeans do seems ass-backwards to me. So maybe I just don't get it.
I've known abut EU7 emissions for a while now, and that's the first time I've heard of a power/displacement limit. I'll aks about it, and see if that claim is true.
There will be some more smattering of NA engines, for other technical reasons. And the scarier problems for the EU7 rules is the drive away nature of the worst real world drive cycle that can be expected.
So I asked- there is NOT a power-displacement limit. I can see some interpretation that would mean larger engines, but in the end, it would also end up being more efficient overall. But I also asked why the P car guy would suggest there's a power limit.
In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :
It's been a couple of years but; Hasn't the downsizing with turbo trend pretty much run its course? I thought I remembered reading something about the engines not returning the kind of fuel mileage expected while having a higher level of one of the now more stringently regulated emissions (NoX maybe? I'm still half asleep.)
Basically the next phase of ICE engines was going to return to larger engine sizes to comply with the new post diesel-gate restrictions on NoX.
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:So I asked- there is NOT a power-displacement limit. I can see some interpretation that would mean larger engines, but in the end, it would also end up being more efficient overall. But I also asked why the P car guy would suggest there's a power limit.
Could it just mean that it's going to be harder to get engines that put out large amounts of naturally aspirated horsepower per liter to pass? Sort of like how the 240Z engine grew to be the 280Z to hold horsepower constant as '70s emissions standards kept inching up?
Could it be something where a test parameter is a function of the engine's redline?
In reply to The0retical (Forum Supporter) :
Yes and no. Yes, I see the turbo downsize run it's course- too much of a good thing can be bad. But NOx really isn't a specific issue with turbos- that's a totally different problem. And it's kind of related to the VW scandal, as the kind of testing has completely changes in the EU. And- like the US, the EU is going ot start treating diesel and gas engines the same.
MadScientistMatt:
So the core issue is a requirement to run stoich all the time- and it's a lit easier on a lightly boosted 1.5l than a heavily boosted 1.0l. But this mostly is about real world usage- so that engine on a 4500lb CUV (which happens) is a real problem. And that's applicable to Ford, Renault, Fiat, and VW. But not so much to Porsche, Ferrari, etc. So it's kind of odd for that statement to come from a Porsche exec. In the end, a larger engine runing stoich all the time will use less fuel than a smaller engine that needs enrichment.
Pete:
So far, no agency tells OEM's how to run the car, specifically. Other than now the engine has to run stoich all the time. No rev limits, no boost limits, nothing like that, yet.
In reply to alfadriver (Forum Supporter) :
In that light it is odd indeed that Porsche would be concerned. Does Porsche still do engineering for hire like they used to? Or, do Porsche engineers handle VWAG powertrains? I wonder how interconnected the web is.
Or maybe VW wanted to say it but had to use Porsche as the mouthpiece because VW is still kind of in a place to not talk, between the Diesel thing and their attempts to fight R-1234yf (I heard they were called "environmental terrorists" over that!)
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
Some very valid speculation there.
(I would bet P does some engineering for VW)
You'll need to log in to post.
