6 hours ago, e-Roottoot said:

Parts of the world could not care less about Climate Change or emissions as the EU / UK can do that for them.

Nissan, Renault, Suzuki and others will just make cars look good, if they drive like crap it apparently does not matter.

 

No turbo then no wukking furries, you are only using it as a taxi and who cares about safety features.

 

 

India has been adopting Euro 6 level emission law a quite a rate and they are similar to Euro 6 for new 4 wheeled cars.

Problems is with so many 3 wheelers and motorcycles which are back at Euro 4 level or even the dreaded, although fondly remembered by me, 2 stokes of course.

 

Delhi and Mumbai are mega cities more than twice the size of London so have their problems and whilst India is growing economically about one and half times faster than China, ie nearly 10% rather than 6%, it has a long way to go its GDP per capita is still only just over $2,000 so still a very poor to China near $9,000 ie no longer a "Developing country" not that it gets preference in many trade deals.     

 

If this cars, even if Natural Aspirated, are EUR 6 equivalent and replacing some polluting Tuk-tuk that has got to be good. 

 

UK still has nearly a million Euro 5 and below polluting vehicles, which is still a significant percentage of the UK registered numbered so we have plenty to do ourselves.

Birmingham clean air zone now been running over a month, even the 65 plate diesel Fabia is not charged thankfully. 

 

Clean Air Zone	Daily charge	Zone live	Map	Exemptions
Bath	No Charge	Now	Zone boundary	Bath and North East Somerset Council
Birmingham	No Charge	Now	Zone boundary	Birmingham City Council
Portsmouth	No Charge	Late 2021	Zone boundary	Portsmouth City Council

 

Be interesting to see air quality improves https://aqicn.org/city/birmingham/ and we see a drop in that near 1,000 deaths a year in Brum from air pollution. E10 suppose to help CO2 by about 2%

 https://fleetworld.co.uk/e10-could-address-air-pollution-and-fuel-duty-concerns-in-short-term-appg-report-finds/

 

  

CO2  isn't the problem in urban emissions toxicity.

And it's a fallacy to imagine that lowering CO2 emissions from engines automatically reduces the toxic pollutants from them.

 

CO2  = climate change problem

NOx, HCs, CO, particulates = urban air quality problem

 

So few people seem to comprehend this.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 12 August, 20214 yr by Wino

http://caranddriver.com/features/a20776954/are-turbocharged-engines-a-fuel-economy-boost-or-a-fuel-economy-bust

 

 

 

http://inverse.com/article/55829-international-energy-agency-report-fossil-fuel-emitting-vehicles-carbon-tax-carbon-country-ranking

 

https://iea.org/reports/fuel-economy-in-major-car-markets

 

 

 

Edited 12 August, 20214 yr by e-Roottoot

2 hours ago, Wino said:

CO2  isn't the problem in urban emissions toxicity.

And it's a fallacy to imagine that lowering CO2 emissions from engines automatically reduces the toxic pollutants from them.

 

CO2  = climate change problem

NOx, HCs, CO, particulates = urban air quality problem

 

So few people seem to comprehend this.

 

Indeed two very distinct issues.  Use of diesel vehicles in cities and the minute particulates ie the PMs 2.5, 10 that trigger lung problems and the CO2 which is causing climate change which diesels were generally quite good at lower figures than petrol vehicles and the dip in diesel sales has actually seen average vehicle CO2 go up.

 

I am probably not a typical driver but it is good to hear my brother talk of his transition to from diesel SUV to mild hybrid turbo-petrol and his consistently mentions he is now getting better mpg out of the mild hybrid than he was on the diesel and not just on those sub 10 km trips but the long ones too.  There is hope. 

 

The recalibration of CO2 and mpg under WLTP seems to have confused and depressed many.

 

I am impressed what either of my cars do on my recent trips from Worcestershire to Oxford airport when taking the beautiful A roads rather than zooming round the motorway which can be 5 minutes faster but is nearly 20 miles further.   MPG on the Fabia 3 1.4 diesel is showing 75 mpg and the Octy 3 1.4 TSI DSG 60 mpgs, wow !   Might even make some money at 45 pence per mile tax allowance.

 

No towns driven though so not really polluting many people to but would love to be doing such journeys in an EV.  Due to fill up the petrol car soon so will try and see how the E10 works out.  Expect I will try and use Momentum 1 in 4 tankfuls.

 

1 hour ago, e-Roottoot said:

http://caranddriver.com/features/a20776954/are-turbocharged-engines-a-fuel-economy-boost-or-a-fuel-economy-bust

 

 

 

http://inverse.com/article/55829-international-energy-agency-report-fossil-fuel-emitting-vehicles-carbon-tax-carbon-country-ranking

 

https://iea.org/reports/fuel-economy-in-major-car-markets

 

 

 

 

 

First article explains it quite well I think.  

The turbo engine must be a downsized version hence comparing the 1.2 TSI/TCE, the PSA 3 cylinder, Ford Ecoboost, usually 3 cylinder and not 4 but putting out up to 140 hp, then compare to a 2 litre NA engine and not the same capacity but compare similar HP.   

 

I find travelling just at the point where the maximum torque is ie just over 1500 rpm, which I feel is best exploited by auto gearboxes with 7,8, or 9 ratios.  Also the brilliant double declutching in ECO mode ie both clutches are popped.  Not sure I am up to the full engine shut down the latest VW cars do with just the reserve electrical system powering the power steering.  A bit weird but something one get use to I suppose.  All good for burning as little E10, E5 or diesel as possible.

 

The important bit might well be that City traffic, gridlock traffic is crawling along and stopped lots so turbos are not what matters for economy or emissions.  Stopping them being there is how it is going. Stop start has its place but in cold conditions many vehicles in gridlock traffic will just have engined idling.  Too many large people carriers with just a person in.  Smaller lighter N/A vehicles might well be more fuel efficient.  But then the WLTP is not testing in that circumstance.  Turbos in diesels and petrols are here to stay but there were non turbo cars certified for the WLTP and RDE quicker than some manufacturers Turbo engines.  The manufacturer's had to go and mess up the good behaviour of the engined to get the low figures required.  Eg VW group.     A 1.0 Citigo would do good economy from cold starts and driven at slower speeds. You would need to do side by side testing with a 1.0 TSI Up!.  That would be apples and pears.     EV,s will take years to be the vehicle of choice for many but Mild Hybrids or plug ins can work well as long as it is not the ICE powering them along commuter traffic, holiday traffic, gridlock situations.  Once the new regs come in next year then there should be able to have traffic that gets government grants or tax breaks because they can emit low emissions to actually be emitting them. 

Edited 12 August, 20214 yr by e-Roottoot

Filled up my vRS with regular 95 yesterday, in the knowledge it was not E10 👍

As E10 isn't being supplied until September, no matter what the pump says, you could have filled with any petrol knowing is wasn't E10.

10 minutes ago, Routemaster1461 said:

As E10 isn't being supplied until September, no matter what the pump says, you could have filled with any petrol knowing is wasn't E10.

Indeed. Some debate earlier on in the thread about the timing of the introduction, some folk under the impression it's already been supplied for some months now, and not a "from this date onwards".

I filled up on my return from Cornwall this weekend at a semi-rural Texaco station and only noticed that it was E10 from a sticker on the pump handle. Fortunately my car is compatible with E10. On our arrival two weeks before, the displayed price per litre was 34.9p pence per litre. During our stay the price increased to 38.99 pence per litre. Now does the 38.99 pence per litre reflect the E10 price or the E5 petrol? There is confusion on this with pricing and compatability. There is a price hike problem here!

Bloody good prices! Where was this, exactly?

Or did you miss the leading 1...  

 

 

Edited 16 August, 20214 yr by Wino

7 minutes ago, edbostan said:

I filled up on my return from Cornwall this weekend at a semi-rural Texaco station and only noticed that it was E10 from a sticker on the pump handle. Fortunately my car is compatible with E10. On our arrival two weeks before, the displayed price per litre was 34.9p pence per litre. During our stay the price increased to 38.99 pence per litre. Now does the 38.99 pence per litre reflect the E10 price or the E5 petrol? There is confusion on this with pricing and compatability. There is a price hike problem here!

The E10 stickers have been on my local Tesco pumps for some weeks now, but it's not in the tanks yet. I agree the whole intro has been at best confusing and misleading, the UK Gov website is about as vague as you could deliberately make it in places. I just looked at the Texaco website, I can't find a mention of E10, but as I posted earlier, I had a comms from Shell informing it was going to start introducing E10 from 1st Sep, same as the Tesco notices.

 

Esso is a bit clearer about it:

 

https://www.esso.co.uk/en-gb/fuels-faqs

Edited 16 August, 20214 yr by stever750

Fuel price trend graph here. Easy to forget how expensive it was in 2013 / 14!

 

https://www.racfoundation.org/data/uk-pump-prices-over-time

 

2 hours ago, Wino said:

Bloody good prices! Where was this, exactly?

Or did you miss the leading 1...  

 

 

I should get a proofreader. Yes the 1 should be infront.

'They never knew they had it so good!' 

or remember when it was so bad.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/332212-£1-per-litre

 

 

3 hours ago, stever750 said:

Filled up my vRS with regular 95 yesterday, in the knowledge it was not E10 👍

 

2 litre VRS are OK on 95 I recall, it was the Mk 1 1.8 litre VRS and the Twincharge VRS 1.4 litre that wanted the 98 octane or better I recall.

 

Not sure about the 280 hp 2 litre Superb should run on with its higher specific output.   Occasional tank of Momentum seemed like a fair idea when feeling flushed. 

 

@stever750 You have been talking about remapping your car,

have you tried using the 99 ron min from Tesco and did you notice any difference?   

IMO it is worth the extra £2.50 or so a tank over the 95 ron even if it does not give even 1 MPG better economy.

It states min 95 RON on the fuel filler cap, so it's fine. I occasionally put in 99 but tbh I suspect any performance gain is so marginal as to be irrelevant, and I've never noticed a benefit in economy, probably because I've been trying to exploit the additional few hp and Nm

Edit: @e-Roottoot George I've given up the idea of remapping mine for the foreseeable future, the extra acceleration is offset with the paranoia of turbo failure, plus it's £700 for a revo where I live so not going to bother until I have a new daily commuter and the Octy is just a weekend project.

Edited 16 August, 20214 yr by stever750

According to APR's testing there is a benefit in using higher octane:

 

 

 

REVO and APR have given the 98 Ron bit and when you ask their dealers where they get 98 Ron in the UK they can not answer that since it stopped being sold by BP and Shell.  BP is 97 Ron min and Shell is 99 Ron min and sometimes better when it has come from continental Europe and can be 100 Ron.  All academic anyway if the cars can do better than the manufacturer's figures just on 95 Ron.  You do notice the difference though on the ones VW put out of the factory with a recommended 98 on the fuel filler flap as @lol-lolwas posting about.  

Edited 16 August, 20214 yr by e-Roottoot