I thought I'd get my brain in gear on this topic & looked at Wikipedia - hope I've got this properly sorted in my mind now.     :-

 

##    WLTP is an agreed world wide, driving cycle standard for testing light vehicles.  It came into effect September 2019.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Harmonised_Light_Vehicles_Test_Procedure

 

##    Euro6 is the current EU regulation for maximum pollutant output of various kinds from cars & commercial vehicles, petrol & diesel, but doesn't in fact cover CO2, a greenhouse gas, so not an immediate health risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards

 

There are various sub-versions of Euro6 - b,c,d - but I can't seen any difference in pollutant standards between them.  6b came into effect September 2015.  I see no reference to the emergence of tighter Euro7 regulations at the moment, though no doubt some officials are thinking about it.  Looking at petrol cars, in fact, many standards haven't changed much since the Jan 2005 Euro4 regs except for inclusions of particulates in Jan 2011 Euro5 (limits on particulates mass applying to direct injection engines only - known to emit more particles than indirect injection) + max particle numbers applying to all petrols in Euro6 (earlier Euro5 limits for diesels).

 

I thought it would be interesting to compare limits against my Karoq 1.0 TSI DSG SE Tech figures given in the registration document V5C - car registered 29 Jul 2019, so those figures may not have been done in accordance with full WLTP standards.  Nevertherless the figures look comfortably within Euro6 standards.  No particulates figures given, but my car does have a particle filter, so I wonder what those figures would have been!!!!  Anyone got the figures for the still current manual 1.0 TSI 2020 spec - a 2019 DSG a bit worse than that manual I imagine?

 

gms/ktm           CO     THC      NMHC     NOx      Prtcl Mass    Prtcl No

EURO6             1.0     0.01     0.068       0.060        0.0045         6x10(to power 11)

1.0 DSG            0.3                 0.020       0.019                     not stated

 

CO2 stated in V5c as 121 gms/km - no fuel consumption figures stated.

 

No distinguishing between the various particle sizes at present.  It is said DPFs don't do much to filter out the smaller particles that cross very easily into the blood stream through the lungs.  I haven't read if GPFs are also similarly unable to filter out these smaller particles.

 

 

Edited 26 January, 20206 yr by croquemonsieur

It appears Wikipedia got the Euro-6 Particle Number requirements wrong.  Euro-6c in Sep 2017 required the reduction of particle these by a factor of 10 - from 6x10(to power 12) in earlier sub versions of Euro-6, to 6x10(to power 11) in 6c.

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/6/1417/pdf    page 2 table

 

The reason for looking at the total particle numbers (PN) in Euro-6, as well as total mass (PM) introduced in Euro-5, is that the smallest particles are thought to be very damaging, but actually only form a small part of the aggregate weight of all emission particles.  Hence looking at the total number hopefully gives a crude indication if there's a high proportion of small particles.

 

It seems that compared with Indirect Injection, petrol direct injection leads to more particles (& lots of smaller ones too) due to various reasons - less chance for uniform mixing of fuel air & lower operating temperatures, to name but two.  It also appears they are more susceptible to carbon build up on the valves, becoming a problem say by 80,000miles, though petrols with more detergent might ameliorate this.  I wonder if Redex would be a good idea?

 

The adoption of higher fuel injection pressures and other detail improvements in the configuration of the combustion process can reduce the amount of particles.  This link shows how much reductions in particle numbers have been achieved over the years between Euro 3 & Euro 6.  Looking at the two 2014 VW 1.4 Golf models (Euro 4 & 6) - the latter has PN under 20% of the former.  The VWs (& I assume all others shown) are pre the introduction of GPFs.  The low values of the DPF fitted Peugeot Diesel at the bottom, I think suggests the DPF actually does capture most smaller particles, as well as larger ones.  However I'm told this only happens when the DPF gets hot and Diesels starting from cold are still rather dirty, until fully warmed up.  I wonder if this is true of GPF fitted Petrol Direct Injection cars too?  It's been said here before that GPFs do not need 're-energising' in the same way as DPFs, but whether that's relevant to cold starts, I don't know.   https://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/05/20170524-gdi.htm

 

VW are by no means the only people heavily into direct injection cars - look at this link, BMW & Merc for instance.   https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/04/20190416-gdi.html

 

Two more links, but that'll be enough for now.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/02/pros-and-cons-of-direct-injection-engines/index.htm

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2011-01-1228/

Looks like VAG are investigating combining direct & indirect injection.  I'm guessing that that is CNG in 'graph' but may be wrong.

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/01/2014014-audi.html

It seems this arrangement to achieve Euro-6c Particle Number standards without a GPF.

2 hours ago, croquemonsieur said:

Looks like VAG are investigating combining direct & indirect injection.  I'm guessing that that is CNG in 'graph' but may be wrong.

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/01/2014014-audi.html

It seems this arrangement to achieve Euro-6c Particle Number standards without a GPF.

 

But now a GPF is required post Sept 2018 (Euro-6d Temp?)  VAG have stopped combining direct and indirect injection with the EA888 petrol engine - as far as I know?

 

 

Edited 28 January, 20206 yr by bigjohn

Thanks, you prompt3d me to look into Euro -6d & 6d Temp a bit more - still getting my head round this.

https://www.fleeteurope.com/fr/new-energies-fiscalite-et-legislation/europe/features/do-you-know-your-euro-6-your-6c-and-6d-temp?a=DQU04&t[0]=Diesel&t[1]=RDE&t[2]=Euro 6d&t[3]=WLTP&t[4]=Euro 6d TEMP&t[5]=EVAP&t[6]=Taxation Guide&curl=1

 

Edited 29 January, 20206 yr by croquemonsieur

15 hours ago, croquemonsieur said:

though petrols with more detergent might ameliorate this.  I wonder if Redex would be a good idea?

 

Neither can possibly help for direct injection engines. The problem is  with build-up on the backs of the intake valves, because the fuel doesn't pass over them on its way into the combustion chamber.  So messing about with posh fuel or additives will simply lighten your wallet for no improvement in this issue.

 

 

Yes Wino, that does sound logical.  I thought I read it somewhere, but can't find article just now, but maybe I misread it and the detergent in fuel is more relevant to exhaust particle quantity.

 

I wonder therefore why TSIs are more susceptible valve back carbon deposits , unless for some obscure reason it occurs on the inlet valves & would get washed off with indirect injection engines.  I'd have thought it's the exhaust that are more likely to collect soot (is it oil seepage down valve stems & then carbonising).  If DI engines do indeed run a bit cooler, maybe it doesn't get burnt off the valves as quickly.  I'll try to find the article again.

1 hour ago, croquemonsieur said:

unless for some obscure reason it occurs on the inlet valves & would get washed off with indirect injection engines

 

 

That's exactly what happens with an indirect engine. However solely Direct injection engines with oil burning/ crankcase pressure issues have the worst carbon buildup due to engine breathing oil fumes back into the intake manifold causing buildup on valves which is then slowly baked on. The early cam chain 1.8 tsi and early 1.4tsi twin charger were very prone to this.  I think a good car to own would be one fitted with a later EA888 with both direct and port injection (pre OPF).

 

 

Edited 29 January, 20206 yr by bigjohn

Apparently the Ford 1.5l three cylinder turbo on the Focus has dual port and direct injection.

The EA888 gen 3b 190 Tsi in the Kodiaq and Octavia have GPFs (also called OPF) and dual port injection, though it seemed to be removed from the Superb 272 when they fitted GPFs.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/477380-10-tsi-cold-start

 

Some interesting stuff in that link offski.  Gerrycan also interesting about the Ford 1.5 3cyl.

 

The brand new Ford Puma is worth a look too, more like a lower Merc GLA type of car than full blown Koraq/Kamiq style crossover.  To my mind it looks rather better (in photos only so far) than many recent small Fords.  The 1.0 3cyl engine has a single cylinder shut off capability, but also they've taken the stop/start battery charging on overun business a stage further.  A Lithium battery is used instead of a quality lead one and a small electric motor driving through the belt, provides extra torque/power, particularly at low speed.  There are impressive performance claims - economy presumably under WLTP combined testing is a bit over 50mpg (mind you the Telegraph only got 34mpg).  The 1.0 Kamiq alternative manages just below 50mpg and is slower, but it is a taller & roomier car.  The Kamiq also has a rather nicer interior.

 

Ford are also claiming a little over 50mpg for the latest Focus, so I assume that this has cylinder shut off facility too, particularly bearing in mind the consensus here being that the Ford 1.0 3cyl in original form wasn't particularly economical.

 

 

'They' dare not 'claim' anything.

 

They publish WLTP & now RDE2 test results.   Since nobody other than Testers follow the driving style / regime of a 'Test' then you might or might not get the published figures on miles out of a litre of fuel or MPG's.

 

Some might better them and some might not, some might drive in a car alone and some might put people in the seats and stuff in the boot.

Edited 2 February, 20206 yr by Roottootemblowinootsoot

Going back to the 1.0 TSI cold start link, the Autocar article towards the end says that GPF filters, like DPFs are effective with all particles, large down to minute - I was told different about DPFs, but maybe that person was wrong, hope so.

 

That article also repeated what I'd read elsewhere, that tyres and brakes together are responsible for as much particulates emission as engines.  It doesn't say so, but I strongly suspect that fierce acceleration and braking + fast cornering increases these emissions from tyres - I'm guilty of the latter to maintain speed/momentum on corners in the interest of economy, maybe everyone should be slowing down.

 

More effective regenerative braking would presumably reduce dust from brakes.

At the risk of appearing a pervert I get a bit ' turned on' by the sound of regenerative braking from the many Toyota Hybrid taxis in our area.

Edited 9 February, 20206 yr by Gerrycan

@Gerrycan sounds more like degenerative rather than regenerative😀

 

Had this on an Outlander PHEV, the amount was set on the steering wheel paddles, very satisfying in use.

Re-cooperating or retardation of speed by use of motors.   

Very different when there is a power pack and not just a Car Battery like with current 1.0TSI's.

 

There is the Kidology 1.0TSI Light Hybrids coming and the 1.4 TSI not very green petrol engines with plug in Hybrid kidology on Low Emissions.

http://thebrakereport.com/clean-air-dirty-brakes

 

Edited 10 February, 20206 yr by Roottootemblowinootsoot

I would say it’s the future, but it’s clearly not after the recent U.K. government announcement about banning the sale of petrol / diesels including hybrids by 2035.

 

All BEV or hydrogen powered, no doubt with regenerative braking. Easy one pedal driving.

 

 

2020-2035 is plenty enough time to buy the Light Hybrids and Plug ins that are a con really once they are just running on petrol and diesel so that is near 15 years of future and then they are still going to be on the road as long as people use them, so that could be 2045 / 2050 ish, that is also the future.

Ireland, Denmark & the Netherlands are banning the sale of New Petrol / Diesels from 2030, so less far into the future.

 

Maybe not only more choice of Hydrogen cars at affordable prices needed and production of hydrogen from the renewable electricity not getting used now but maybe 

development of Hydrogen Hybrid cars.   ie Dual Fuel.

 

@Greenliner1  What sort of MPG did the Outlander PHEV get on trips over 200 miles?

Edited 10 February, 20206 yr by Roottootemblowinootsoot

Yes, still a way away, time to get better battery tech and longer lasting fuel cells. Lots of infrastructure to put in.

 

More tax breaks needed as it’s still too expensive but seems to be getting better.

 

I agree on the hybrids, the PHEV was great on batteries, quiet, smooth etc and great in city traffic, but really consumed petrol when the battery went flat which was very soon after getting on the motorway.

 

Anyhow where will the emissions be then, and what inventive ways will the government find to recover their lost revenue?

Battery when fully charged would do about 26 miles if driven gently (31 on the books). Turn the air-con or heater on and it instantly dropped 5 miles off that.

 

At motorway speeds when the batteries were flat, I was getting around 30 mpg as it was lugging those batteries around, though I wasn’t using an app to check just the trip computer. In comparison my 2.0 Tsi 4x4 Kodiaq tank to tank using the fuelly app I’m getting an average of 34 to 36mpg.

 

The PHEV would be good if you can charge (both ends) and / or if your commute is in the battery range.

 

Really enjoyed the battery driving, I recommend it, I’d just have extreme range anxiety with a BEV as I often do 180miles in a day and can’t see how it would work for me at the moment.

Very interesting link Offski.  I haven't read it carefully yet, but scanning through I think one important factor waas left out - the energy and emissions involved in making the car.  Some years ago when cars were thirstier, it used to be said that more energy was expended in making a car than ever it used in fuel over the car's life.

 

Say 20 odd years ago the old killer of cars seemed to have been solved, they stopped rusting and could have been kept running seemingly for ever - that would save much energy & emissions.  They still don't rust, but these days the inclusion of so much electronics, smart & convenience features & general complication, means that these break down well before the bodywork is spent.

 

I kept my manual 1.6 Peugeot 405 GL 13 years (wind up windows) from new and even then it was only a leaking heater matrix that made me get another car - clutch was getting heavy so would have benefitted from a new clutch too - no rusting, pretty reliable, one electical failure, a chip in something to do with the distributor, replaced within 1/2hr once RAC man arrived (I think the only bit of micrelectronics in the whole car).  On the other hand, was much thirstier than my Karoq and s****y replacement auto BMW 2.5 didn't seem to use any more petrol either.  I doubt I'll keep the Karoq 13years - I'd like to but as I age I worry more about breakdowns as the car ages too.

On the topic of Euro 6 emissions, I heard a bit of controversy on the radio today as Birmingham’s Ultra  Low Emission Zone is to go live at the beginning of July, and some cars coming up incorrectly on the online checker. My two are OK though - for now....

 

As I type - JLR on TV news tonight complaining about the now short timespan to quote “destination zero”, lots of investment needed. At least it will force the issue.

 

One day IC engined cars will be regarded as fondly as steam engines are now, perhaps they’ll have preservation societies?

 

@croquemonsieur

   Lets just see how the GPF's that VW Group went with for their TSI's are doing in 5 years.

With TDI's with SCR (Adblue) likely issues with the system before 10 years old that makes repair uneconomic will kill off a good few of those.

 

Rust stopped being an issue and VW re-introduced it and Skoda with Zinc Inclusion, and cheap brake disc procurement.

The issue really is Airbags out of date which is getting ignored. Then the Defeat Device vehicles that got or never got The Fix and are still on the road.

 

Vehicles are still getting built big and heavy use more natural or manufactured materials when actually their drivers use might not require this,

and in the UK HMRC will still help out Business Users to have vehicles bigger than they need like letting Sales Reps that never tow have SUV's / 4x4's as a tool for work in good deals.

 

Snobbery and Social Status might be well served in smaller & lighter prestige cars.   A Vanden Plas for Middle / Senior management.

Edited 10 February, 20206 yr by Roottootemblowinootsoot

I like the idea of an updated equivalent to the VP 1300.  The only trouble is it was far too low down, as are many modern cars - people can do their backs in climbing out of such cabins, reps doing 30-40,000miles per year in particular.  For me and my better half the Karoq seat height is ideal (she's had 2 hip replacements) but maybe something like the new Ford Puma is a sensible compromise for most drivers.

 

I for one would welcome a really comfy, smallish, silent, economical upmarket x-over style car, with adaptive dampers, adaptive anti-roll bars and 16" wheels.  Do we really need nearly every moderately upmarket car on the market to pretend to drive like a sports car.  Even small engined cars generally can drive pretty fast these days.  A car can handle well and predictably without necessarily being sporty - which after all encourages people (incl me) to drive too fast.