2 hours ago, Offski said:

Is this the 1.6TDI's and are these available from September for a new registration, do they have SCR (adblue)?

 

Struggling to see any mention of "Ad wee wee" SCR systems but that might mean they are there or VW still sticking with the alternative Lean Nox Trap tech.  It is like not having TDI or the like on the tailgate "Keep it dark".

Edited 28 August, 20187 yr by lol-lol

12 hours ago, lol-lol said:

 

Struggling to see any mention of "Ad wee wee" SCR systems but that might mean they are there or VW still sticking with the alternative Lean Nox Trap tech.  It is like not having TDI or the like on the tailgate "Keep it dark".

 

VW have said all diesels will have SCR.

Edited 29 August, 20187 yr by logiclee

On 27/08/2018 at 12:33, lol-lol said:

 

As long as these dirty diesel do not enter urban areas there is no problem with them still being in the UK.  

 

If not kept on the roads in non urban areas they can be exported to other countries like much of the UK's waste which can be reused or recycled.

We'll say nothing about the pre Euro-6 DI petrols that are spitting out ultrafine PM that's far more dangerous

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/vw-group-hit-hard-new-wltp-emissions-test

 

I was checking on http://broadspeed.com    What was showing for SEAT Ateca.   Only 115ps 1.0TSI or 1.6 TDI's,  Manual or DSG and no AWD's.

Must check out at a SEAT Dealership what the story is on what and when stuff might be available.

36 minutes ago, vrskeith said:

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/vw-group-hit-hard-new-wltp-emissions-test

 

 

So basically its really only VAG that's been caught with its pants down.

 

Considering my latest check shows my new Superb 1.4tsi on board computer is over 13% optimistic on its mpg figures compared to real brim calcs, I reckon VAG still have many skeletons yet to clear out.

 

vorsprung durch lügen

 

4 minutes ago, xman said:

 

So basically its really only VAG that's been caught with its pants down.

 

Considering my latest check shows my new Superb 1.4tsi on board computer is over 13% optimistic on its mpg figures compared to real brim calcs, I reckon VAG still have many skeletons yet to clear out.

 

vorsprung durch lügen

 

Currently my latest VW acquisition , Up GTi appears not to be a "lugen"

As you would expect,  they spun them for long enough before producing them and then revised the figures before launching them and the come having been through the WLTP.

19 hours ago, chimaera said:

We'll say nothing about the pre Euro-6 DI petrols that are spitting out ultrafine PM that's far more dangerous

 

got any data on that ?

 

Just looked at the VCA database for Euro5 cars and of the over 1,000 Euro 5 petrols none of them were quoted as having reported PM pollution ???

15 hours ago, xman said:

 

So basically its really only VAG that's been caught with its pants down.

 

Considering my latest check shows my new Superb 1.4tsi on board computer is over 13% optimistic on its mpg figures compared to real brim calcs, I reckon VAG still have many skeletons yet to clear out.

 

vorsprung durch lügen

 

 

Pleased with my 1.4 TSI DSG in the Octy which is showing 58 mpg over the last 200 hours and 8k miles.

 

Thing it is probably about 56 mpg as the speedo/odometer is over reading by about 4%.

 

I do not do short ie sub 4 mile journeys in the Octy has use the town car Spark for those journeys as it is these journeys that wreck average fuel consumption on bigger cars.

 

Stupidly small (50 litre) and difficult to top off (cannot easily use the expansion volume) fuel tank is my main bug bear hence only getting 600 miles between fill ups.    

1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

 

got any data on that ?

 

Just looked at the VCA database for Euro5 cars and of the over 1,000 Euro 5 petrols none of them were quoted as having reported PM pollution ???

Take a look at the tailpipes next time you're walking along a line of cars and look at the soot on the petrol ones.

 

Soot/PM formation is a well known consequence of droplet combustion which is what's going on in any DI engine regardless of fuel type.

?

Has anyone any information on 'Gasoline Particulate Filters'  as are being fitted to VW Group & others petroleum / gasoline / otto engine vehicles.

 

Any special Service Schedule / Guidelines / Care and maintenance required, and downside or negatives or is it all positive.

No adverse affect on engine efficiency or fuel consumption after the manufacturers engineered these engines / hardware and engine management / software.

No need for better than 95 octane gasoline unless you want to go with 97, 98, 99, 100 or 100+?

No issues with weather & high or low ambient temperatures?

4 hours ago, Offski said:

?

Has anyone any information on 'Gasoline Particulate Filters'  as are being fitted to VW Group & others petroleum / gasoline / otto engine vehicles.

 

Any special Service Schedule / Guidelines / Care and maintenance required, and downside or negatives or is it all positive.

No adverse affect on engine efficiency or fuel consumption after the manufacturers engineered these engines / hardware and engine management / software.

No need for better than 95 octane gasoline unless you want to go with 97, 98, 99, 100 or 100+?

No issues with weather & high or low ambient temperatures?

 

From what I have ready the Gasoline (petrol) Particle filters are on a whole lower degree of issue to Wiesel Particle filters ie cost, issues with regen, reaching and maintaining operating temperature and effectiveness yet reduce PMs by anywhere between half and too a tenth.  

 

Johnson Matthey are pushing but then they would be considering their interest in the implementation of.....

https://matthey.com/products-and-services/emission-control-technologies/mobile-emissions-control/gasoline-particulate-filter

 

 

4 hours ago, chimaera said:

Take a look at the tailpipes next time you're walking along a line of cars and look at the soot on the petrol ones.

 

Soot/PM formation is a well known consequence of droplet combustion which is what's going on in any DI engine regardless of fuel type.

 

4 hours ago, chimaera said:

Take a look at the tailpipes next time you're walking along a line of cars and look at the soot on the petrol ones.

 

Soot/PM formation is a well known consequence of droplet combustion which is what's going on in any DI engine regardless of fuel type.

 

Got any actual data rather than anecdotal ?

 

There is some data an Euro6 petrols showing worrying PM on the VCA database but not Euro5 which would suggest it is lower than the measurable limit.

Oddly this is against the PSA 1.2 engine that has been engine of year !

19 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

 

Got any actual data rather than anecdotal ?

 

There is some data an Euro6 petrols showing worrying PM on the VCA database but not Euro5 which would suggest it is lower than the measurable limit.

Oddly this is against the PSA 1.2 engine that has been engine of year !

Not right now since I'm quite busy at work, but ask yourself why particulate filters are being mandated for euro 6 if PM wasn't an issue?

 

Fwiw as well, a good chunk of my PhD has involved modeling spray combustion and particulate evolution in those systems.

 

If you're after references search Science Direct for spray combustion, particulates, shrinking core models.

From my older reading into the subject of GPFs, it seems many engine designers are still unsure exactly how they will affect engines and are at the learning stage.

 

Generally they seem to think the following

 

1. GPFs will passively regen negating complex monitoring and strategies that DPFs require.

 

2. Petrol engines produce lower levels of soot/particulates than diesels so the GPFs can be considerably smaller than DPFs.

 

3. There seems to be 2 configurations available for a designer. Most small engines will use the one where the GPF is close to the exhaust manifold.

 

4. A lot say that the additional exhaust restriction (necessary apparently) will reduce max power, but increase economy. It has the bonus of quieter engines and cleaner exhausts but is a headache for sports car designers like Porsche because their customers expect a specific sound, and twin/multiple tailpipes.

 

No. 2 is a problem in that the bean counters will try to go for the smallest cheapest solution, so don't assume the GPF will be longer lived than a DPF. It is still limited by ash capacity. Ash doesn't regen. Don't be fooled by arguments that cats last a lifetime so should a gpf, its not a valid comparison.

 

Don't forget the low ash oils will be required, so no more 502.00.

 

 

Edited 30 August, 20187 yr by xman

What are the advantages of Direct Injection? Seems to cause a lot of problems.

36 minutes ago, Wino said:

What are the advantages of Direct Injection? Seems to cause a lot of problems.

Much more careful control of fuel metering, so better emissions and economy. With port-injected designs (for petrol) there's still some possibility that a portion of the charge intended for one cylinder might drift and end up in a different cylinder. Also, all your fuel for the combustion event must go in in a single shot. With DI, you can manage the fuel delivery during the combustion event, so you can spread out fuel delivery over the entire combustion cycle if needs be.

 

Non-DI petrol engines can produce soot too if they're running badly, it's just that with DI it's much more likely to happen in normal operating conditions.

 

IMO the big challenge for a GPF is adequately screening out very fine PM without choking the exhaust. The droplets are much smaller in a petrol engine and the particulates are likely to be similarly smaller.

 

In a diesel, the natural mode or operation is lean burn, and the excess oxygen available from that, plus the extra NOx it delivers, is used for passive regen. I'm wondering will we see petrols pushed towards much more lean burn running to create similar opportunities for passive regen, and if so what effects this might have on engine durability.

Thanks mate.

I've never had a more economical car than my carburetted 1.6 Mk2 Golf, but I guess it was probably chucking out one or two nasties along the way.

This is an extreme example but it shows how the fuel is swirling around the top of the intake trumpets and not all going in:

 

I have never had more economic petrol engines than Euro 5 1.4 TSI 132 kw min Twinchargers.

They could use a gallon of fuel every 22 miles or if driven with thought and still at UK NSL's get over 60 mpg.  (Imperial Gallons.)

But then i never had a Oil user.

 

So some needed 1/2 a litre of oil ever tank of fuel which was 2 stroke sort of usage.

They obviously were not economic for the VW Group with over 20% of them failing & requiring warranty work, rebuilds, component updates, software updates, 

discontinued engines and replacements and still more failures of components and complete engine replacements still required.

 

The thing is that VW Group will be wiser, surely with GPF's introduced they will accept any problems early if there are any.

After all with 1.5 TSI manuals in Skoda Octavia & Karoq there are owners having problems, as are VW owners with these engines reporting issues 

and VW are right on the case saying GTF.  Clear off its you driving wrong.

16 hours ago, Offski said:

I have never had more economic petrol engines than Euro 5 1.4 TSI 132 kw min Twinchargers.

They could use a gallon of fuel every 22 miles or if driven with thought and still at UK NSL's get over 60 mpg.  (Imperial Gallons.)

But then i never had a Oil user.

 

So some needed 1/2 a litre of oil ever tank of fuel which was 2 stroke sort of usage.

They obviously were not economic for the VW Group with over 20% of them failing & requiring warranty work, rebuilds, component updates, software updates, 

discontinued engines and replacements and still more failures of components and complete engine replacements still required.

 

The thing is that VW Group will be wiser, surely with GPF's introduced they will accept any problems early if there are any.

After all with 1.5 TSI manuals in Skoda Octavia & Karoq there are owners having problems, as are VW owners with these engines reporting issues 

and VW are right on the case saying GTF.  Clear off its you driving wrong.

 

I too was very impressed with my twin charge 1.4 but I can also see that the current 1.4 TSI and 1.8 TSI are better engines in many way and also the 7 speed DSG has got better to with the advent of the 4 mode engine/gearbox mapping rather than the two mode in the Fabia 2 VRS.

 

I recall getting over 600 miles just the once in VRS whilst I regularly get over 600 miles in the Octy 3 1.4 TSI and effectively they both have the same sized fuel tank ie 50 litres.

 

The Octy 3 has lost some 100 kgs in weight over the mark 2 Octy and hence the acceleration is pretty good ie 0-60 in 8 seconds compared to the VRS's low 7s.

 

Close call as to whether the Mark 2 1.8 TSI L&K DSG was better than my current 1.4 TSI DSG SEL but then the current car does about 20% better mpg ie 57 mpg compared to 45-ish mpg average.

 

As to emissions,  1.4 TSI single charge producing a lot less CO2  compared to the 1.8 TSI single charge but as to the currently more important NOX and PMs we all await more figures as to just how bad the current and recent crop of internal combustion cars really are but what is clear is that EVs are deemed by governments as the way forward and much as smoking became a pariah practice so is driving diesels particularly currently, and petrols will follow, the demise in favour of zero emissions vehicles.  Years overdue but looks like we are finally getting there as the true harm of using internal combustion engines in urban areas becomes increasingly known.    

       

Edited 31 August, 20187 yr by lol-lol

Interesting viewpoint

Lol-lol, your twinchargers tank was 45 litres like all fabia tanks,  but it would take over 52 litres,  brimmed and vented.

3 hours ago, Sad555 said:

Interesting viewpoint

 

again it is the basic misunderstanding that a internal combustion engine car takes a few minutes and miles to warm up, diesels longer than petrol.

One does not get the manufacturers figures due to this and makers never said one could.  Governments failed to explain this and salesmen certainly would not if not in their interest.

 

i get, and it is not that difficult to do so, get manufacturers figures because I do long journeys on motorways and A roads but the vast majority of drivers don't do this and hence often have the wrong car for the journey profile.  Sad.