I have to smile  at the names the Car Manufacturers give to their innovations,

Blue Motion, Green Tech, Valvetronic, Eccoboost, etc:

Its as if they were selling the latest Washing Powder!

Well the car is usually the second biggest purchase people make after property so there is an awful lot of associated marketing hype.

The way that some people go on about vehicle aesthetics you would think they were buying a Louis Vuitton handbag but it does go to show how influenced we are with fashion and styling, even with vehicles.

6 hours ago, Ronn said:

What really Hacks me off with people like VW is:

The Turbo version of the 1litre 3 pot is available, because they put it in a version of the 'Up'.

But, can you get it in a version of its sister, the Citigo?

Oh NO, You Damn Well CAN'T!!!

Why?

Because VW like to 'meter out' the Goodies to the Non Flagship Brands they Own!!

Just pure SPITE on VW's part!!!

 

I'm not sure that this is down to spite. I suspect instead that this is down to limited supply and the economics of optimising the profits from limited manufacturing resources. Here's my two penn'orth:

 

1. The Up!/Mii/Citigo are VWs response to the likes of the Aygo/107/C1. Obviously pitched at the bottom end of the new car price range and pitched at those who can't/won't stretch to a Polo/Ibiza/Fabia. Better to sell them a Citigo with a small profit margin than let the customer go to Toyota/Peugeot/Citroen.

 

2a. The CHY engine and transmission are "low-tech" compared to more recent powertrains from rival manufacturers and as such are relatively cheap to produce.

 

2b. Not as much profit margin in the Up!/Mii/Citigo compared to more expensive cars made by VAG. 

 

3. Up!/Mii/Citigo brakes and cooling system originally designed around an engine that produces no more than 75 PS and modest torque. Additional design and production costs might be incurred to accommodate a more powerful engine.

 

4. The 1.0 TSI engine is more expensive to produce than the CHY but producing the 110 PS version probably doesn't cost much more than producing the 90 PS version. Mostly down to the boost controller mapping in the ECU which is virtually free.

 

5. An Up!/Mii/Citigo with a TSI engine and a worthwhile profit margin pushes the price into Polo/Ibiza/Fabia territory.

 

6. The 1.0 TSI engines are used in an increasingly wide range of VAG cars, from the A1/Polo/Fabia to the the A3/Golf/Octavia and everything in between. As such I don't think that VW can make enough of them right now.

 

7. If the production capacity of 1.0 TSI engines is limited then make as many 110 PS versions as you can and allocate them to cars with a perceived higher value and therefore bigger profit margin, i.e. Golf, Octavia, A3, higher specification Polos and Fabias.

8 hours ago, Ronn said:

Because VW like to 'meter out' the Goodies to the Non Flagship Brands they Own!!

Just pure SPITE on VW's part!!!

 

Although SEAT seems to have exclusive access to the 115PS variant of the 1.0 TSI engine at the moment for use in the Ibiza and Ateca.

SEAT have access to most of the performance engines and much earlier than the 'sensible' Skoda range.

A broad generalisation but the SEATs are a bit better styled and with aforementioned performance engines but lacking the interior efficiency of the equivalent Skoda model.

Normally the advice would be to just buy a SEAT but they don't seem to have the same reputation for build quality, although I suspect the gap between Skoda and SEAT quality is less now than it has ever been.

That's my understanding but then SEAT has not been sold in Australia for a few years when their reputation and sales were not real good.

Skoda went back on sale here in 2007 and market traction has been only slowly rising despite regular good product reviews and marketing initiatives (eg all models now come with standard 5 year/unlimited mileage warranty). 

Reply to Ronime,

You say the CHY engine is Low Tech compared to more recent rivals offerings.

 

That may be so, I don't know but, it was a new engine (I believe) when the Up was 1st produced (think about 2012).

4 hours ago, Ronn said:

Reply to Ronime,

You say the CHY engine is Low Tech compared to more recent rivals offerings.

 

That may be so, I don't know but, it was a new engine (I believe) when the Up was 1st produced (think about 2012).

The engine was new insofar as it was a 3 cylinder instead of the conventional 4 cylinder but the rest of the spec of 4 valve heads, variable inlet valves and multi-point fuel injection was (is) pretty conventional stuff, little different from our 2003 Toyota 1.3 Yaris *Echo apart from cylinder count. The Toyota engine is still in production with little change but I have to say I cannot fault the reliability of ours.

The Citigo/engine is about 10+% more fuel efficient than our car (our overall average being 48mpg) so they must be doing something right even with cost cutting technology.

Just because a manufacturer sticks Direct Injection in a car (to keep up with fashion?) if it isn't done properly then the benefits are often minimal

Hyundai/ Kia added DI to their 1.4 and local fuel consumption figures were actually slightly worse than the previous MPI equipped model. 

Removing 1 cyl could give you 10% saving in fuel with the due to the less fuel used + savings on frictional losses.

But, I have to say, if you read across what they've done to improve Car engines in recent years, Motorcycle engines have not kept up!!

Am I right in thinking that no motorcycles have catalytic converters fitted?  Why not?  

How does that work for all those "two-up plus camera gear" bikes that weave around among the hard-breathing cyclists on eg. Tour de France??

Surely those chase bikes must have better emissions control than the usual stuff?

 

Richard

No,

I know of Motorcycles that DO have Catalytic Converters, Kawasaki W800 Twin (I know, because I have one).

But strangely, it's NOT part of the MOT, so I could remove the Catalytic Converters (which are inside the Silencers, by fitting 'High Performance' Exhaust Silencers (not including Catalytic Converters) & the Bike would still pass MOT.

Don't know if ALL new Motorcycles are fitted with Catylitic Converters though.

5 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

Just because a manufacturer sticks Direct Injection in a car (to keep up with fashion?) if it isn't done properly then the benefits are often minimal

 

Indeed, apparently DI engines can be susceptible to poorer fuel consumption and increased particulate emissions during part-load operation compared to a conventional MPI setup.

 

The widely used VW EA888  engine combats this by using two banks of injectors, one bank direct into the cylinder and another bank indirect into the inlet manifold. The popular view is that they really did this to cure a problem with build up on the backs of the inlet valves which caused them to stick open or otherwise not seal properly against the valve seat.

On 24/07/2017 at 16:52, RichardatWakefield said:

Am I right in thinking that no motorcycles have catalytic converters fitted?  Why not?  

How does that work for all those "two-up plus camera gear" bikes that weave around among the hard-breathing cyclists on eg. Tour de France??

Surely those chase bikes must have better emissions control than the usual stuff?

 

Richard

 

Yes, ALL new motorcycles have catalytic converters and this has been so for many years, 3 way type just like cars. Officially, you must not remove a catalytic converter from your bike, just as with cars and new legislation will further enforce that in 2019. Interestingly, all bikes, just like cars must pass the MOT emissions test. That too is being toughened up to enable them to catch folks who remove catalysers. At the moment, it is still possible in some instances to flout the law and get the bike through the MOT without the cat fitted if the engine is still in good condition.

Edited 5 August, 20178 yr by Estate Man