www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2016 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You




Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > TDI News/Tech

TDI News/Tech This Forum is for the posting of TDI news related items.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 18th, 2017, 11:45   #46
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada
Default

Yes, the smaller engines are at higher specific load more of the time and that means more operation in enrichment.
__________________
Brian P.
formerly ... 2006 Jetta TDI 5-sp, Spice Red, Unitronics stage 1, 0.681 5th gear.
and before that ... 1996 Passat TDI, Silk Blue
GoFaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2017, 12:07   #47
whitedog
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFaster View Post
Yes, the smaller engines are at higher specific load more of the time and that means more operation in enrichment.
So it makes me wonder if these smaller engines can pass the emissions test, but actually put out higher pollutants in Real World Driving than a larger engine working less hard and not going into the enrichment operation. Magic 8 Ball says, "Signs point to Yes."
__________________
Knows how to refold a map.
whitedog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2017, 16:19   #48
bhtooefr
TDIClub Enthusiast
ToofTek Inventor
 
bhtooefr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newark, OH
TDI(s): None
Default

And that's why downsizing is being reversed, now, in Europe, where this has been taken to extremes.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lug_Nut View Post
The really cool ToofTek made "Emperor's Clothes" injector fork risers only worked until someone pointed out that there wasn't any thing there.
bhtooefr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2017, 18:55   #49
whitedog
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhtooefr View Post
And that's why downsizing is being reversed, now, in Europe, where this has been taken to extremes.
And if I had read the article, I would have known that.
__________________
Knows how to refold a map.
whitedog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2017, 06:44   #50
tikal
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southeast Texas
Fuel Economy: 37 MPG (~ 45% city)
Default Not so "clean gasoline vehicles" either

Here is an overall comparative graph with the so called "Clean Gasoline vehicles" and "Clean Gasoline-Hybrid Vheicles" vs the BMW X5 35d and other types of passenger vehicles:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
You're welcome, tikal.
Thanks to a comment by bhtooefr, I searched for, and was able to find, a document that provided damage cost factors for both urban and rural emission scenarios, albeit it is calculated for Ireland ("Air Pollutant Marginal Damage Values Guidebook for Ireland 2015"). I'm still not able to run the APEEP model, which would still probably provide the best estimate of each vehicle technology/fuel pathway.
GREET provides total and urban emissions for both WTW and vehicle manufacturing. Thus, urban and rural damages can be calculated individually (rural emissions calculated by subtracting the urban emissions from the total emissions), and a "composite" damage derived from combining the urban and rural damages.
Using that methodology, here is a graphic of the results I get:

This shows EV in a better light, especially if it's a very clean grid like California (virtually no coal generation), since a higher percentage of emissions are generated in rural locations.
Edit: The "Diesel @X5" uses the average overall "real world" exhaust emission profile of the BMW X5 35d measured by WVU in the ICCT report.
tikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2017, 07:42   #51
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada
Default

Are those graphs extrapolated from emissions established during something akin to EPA test procedures, or are they established from "real driving emissions"?
__________________
Brian P.
formerly ... 2006 Jetta TDI 5-sp, Spice Red, Unitronics stage 1, 0.681 5th gear.
and before that ... 1996 Passat TDI, Silk Blue
GoFaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2017, 08:06   #52
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whitedog View Post
So it makes me wonder if these smaller engines can pass the emissions test, but actually put out higher pollutants in Real World Driving than a larger engine working less hard and not going into the enrichment operation. Magic 8 Ball says, "Signs point to Yes."
An empty and gently-driven Ford F150 3.5 Ecoboost will probably use less fuel than an empty and gently-driven Ford F150 5.0 V8.

Hitch up a big trailer, and everything changes.

There are some engineering changes that can be done to control piston and exhaust valve and catalyst temperature and we are starting to see them in newer engine designs. The trickery is being able to raise the compression ratio without encountering knock while still being able to use a premixed charge (to minimize soot formation).

Example 1 http://newatlas.com/toyota-tnga-engines/46830/ 13:1 compression ...

Example 2 http://motorchase.com/en/2016/09/fia...nes-in-brazil/ This engine has many interesting design features. 13.2:1 compression ... and without direct-injection and without 4 valves per cylinder, just a well-optimized twisted-hemi 2 valve design.

Example 3 http://www.allpar.com/mopar/V6/PUG-2015.php 11.3:1 compression ... this wasn't a ground-up redesign like the above two were.
__________________
Brian P.
formerly ... 2006 Jetta TDI 5-sp, Spice Red, Unitronics stage 1, 0.681 5th gear.
and before that ... 1996 Passat TDI, Silk Blue
GoFaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2017, 09:24   #53
atc98002
Veteran Member
 
atc98002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auburn WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFaster View Post
Are those graphs extrapolated from emissions established during something akin to EPA test procedures, or are they established from "real driving emissions"?
Can't say for every column, but wxman noted at the very bottom that the X5 diesel was real world testing from the same university that started the mess for VW.
__________________
2012 Audi Q5 2.0T: Passat replacement, such as it is
2013 VW GTI: new car for daughter back from Cambridge
2014 Passat TDI SEL Premium: Sold back but miss it.
2010 Routan: other daughter has 3 kids
atc98002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2017, 09:39   #54
wxman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: East TN, USA
TDI(s): Other Diesel
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFaster View Post
Are those graphs extrapolated from emissions established during something akin to EPA test procedures, or are they established from "real driving emissions"?
The "vehicle operations" damages are based on emission factors established by EPA (see http://greet.es.anl.gov/files/vehicles-13 (Tables A2 & A3)).

The past few versions of GREET have started to deviate from the EPA emission factors somewhat, as can be seen in this screen capture of the GREET1_2016 output file:





Please note that the assumed NOx emission rate is still almost twice the T2B5 FTP "regulatory limit".
wxman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2017, 04:26   #55
bhtooefr
TDIClub Enthusiast
ToofTek Inventor
 
bhtooefr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Newark, OH
TDI(s): None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFaster View Post
Example 1 http://newatlas.com/toyota-tnga-engines/46830/ 13:1 compression ...
And don't forget the Yaris engine linked above (or here) - 13.5:1, with port injection, and I've seen claims that it's set up for 90 RON, so worse than the fuel available here.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lug_Nut View Post
The really cool ToofTek made "Emperor's Clothes" injector fork risers only worked until someone pointed out that there wasn't any thing there.

Last edited by bhtooefr; February 20th, 2017 at 04:30.
bhtooefr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2017, 04:28   #56
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFaster View Post
An empty and gently-driven Ford F150 3.5 Ecoboost will probably use less fuel than an empty and gently-driven Ford F150 5.0 V8.
Hitch up a big trailer, and everything changes.

Yep, but Ford realizes better who is actually buying and driving their trucks, and how they are using them....which is the vast majority of the time mostly empty. So who cares if the fuel economy tanks that 2% of the time the truck actually gets used as a truck?

I live in the middle of truck country, F150s are like mosquitoes here. Rarely do you see one loaded down with any sort of load nor see one towing a heavy trailer. Heck, we service fleets of F150s that never, ever see any kind of load coming even close to what even a half-ton truck could handle. For those people, a V8 is pretty useless. Even the Ecoboost options are overkill, most get by just fine with the standard 3.7L (and now 3.5L, and soon to be 3.3L) naturally aspirated V6.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com
oilhammer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2017, 07:49   #57
NSTDI
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Default

Oilhammer, are the smaller engines better on fuel than the turbo V8 or the V8's in real world driving with similar loads- mostly none?

Don
__________________
1998 Beetle TDI, 325,000 KM, Upsolute (sold), 2003 Passat 1.8T, 340,000KM Upsolute (sold), 62 Bel Air 409, 4 speed, 1963 Parisienne 409 4 speed
2013 Passat 6MT TDI Comfortline with Sport, Sept 18/12 New. Sep 2016 126,000KM. Replaced turbo, sway bar links front and rear, Adblue heater went.
NSTDI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2017, 07:52   #58
NSTDI
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoFaster View Post
An empty and gently-driven Ford F150 3.5 Ecoboost will probably use less fuel than an empty and gently-driven Ford F150 5.0 V8.

Hitch up a big trailer, and everything changes.

There are some engineering changes that can be done to control piston and exhaust valve and catalyst temperature and we are starting to see them in newer engine designs. The trickery is being able to raise the compression ratio without encountering knock while still being able to use a premixed charge (to minimize soot formation).

Example 1 http://newatlas.com/toyota-tnga-engines/46830/ 13:1 compression ...

Example 2 http://motorchase.com/en/2016/09/fia...nes-in-brazil/ This engine has many interesting design features. 13.2:1 compression ... and without direct-injection and without 4 valves per cylinder, just a well-optimized twisted-hemi 2 valve design.

Example 3 http://www.allpar.com/mopar/V6/PUG-2015.php 11.3:1 compression ... this wasn't a ground-up redesign like the above two were.
I keep reading about direct injection causing valve carbon buildup on the back side of the valves and then a need for an expensive cleaning of the valves. How common is that?

Don
__________________
1998 Beetle TDI, 325,000 KM, Upsolute (sold), 2003 Passat 1.8T, 340,000KM Upsolute (sold), 62 Bel Air 409, 4 speed, 1963 Parisienne 409 4 speed
2013 Passat 6MT TDI Comfortline with Sport, Sept 18/12 New. Sep 2016 126,000KM. Replaced turbo, sway bar links front and rear, Adblue heater went.
NSTDI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2017, 08:10   #59
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

The F150's last generation had 3.7L V6 non-turbo, 3.5L V6 twin turbo, and a 5.0L V8. The Raptor also got a hyped up version of the 6.2L V8, but we'll leave that truck out of the discussion as it has over $3000 worth of shock absorbers, so I really do not think fuel economy was high on the list of attributes for those buyers.

Since there is such a giant span of curb weights with F150s, it is tough to lay a good rule of thumb to ALL of them with ALL the engines. A regular cab long bed 2WD truck is going to weigh less than a crew cab 4WD truck, even if that crew cab has that stunted useless 5ft bed on it. They also have different tire and wheel options, rear axle ratio options, etc. They call get the same 6sp slushbox.

The current generation went on a major weight savings plan with the aluminum body, so all versions are lighter. They also replaced the 3.7L with a non-turbo 3.5L, as well as added the 2.7L "Nano" V6. The 3.5L turbo and 5.0L V8 are carryover, with a couple of minor tweaks.

Driven with little to no load, the V6s (all of them) are going to use less fuel than the V8. The difference comes when they are loaded, then obviously the turbo engines will suffer more, because they have more available power to be made. I think the 3.5L turbo can do everything the 5.0L V8 can, but how much fuel it uses is largely dependent on how much load you are asking of it. Personally if you are driving around with a heavy load most of the time, a 1/2 ton truck is probably not the best choice anyway.

The Nano V6 seems pretty frugal, that is what my Dad bought. It is peppy to drive unloaded, and has good punch to get up to speed when you need it. It is surprisingly quick for its size. It can get into the mid 20s MPGs with light load and moderate speeds. His is a supercab, short bed, 4WD. Their previous F150, a 1994 model with the same cab configuration only 2WD and it had the optional 4sp slushbox would get about 19 asking it to do the same task. And it wasn't nearly as peppy (not even close). However, I doubt this new truck will give them the 300k miles of very low cost of service that the '94 did. Seriously, the 4.9L I6 in that truck never needed anything but oil changes and ignition parts changes, a thermostat, and I think a TPS once. That is about it. Didn't leak oil, didn't burn oil, didn't do anything bad. Big low tech lump of iron.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com
oilhammer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2017, 08:16   #60
NSTDI
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Default

"The Nano V6 seems pretty frugal, that is what my Dad bought. It is peppy to drive unloaded, and has good punch to get up to speed when you need it. It is surprisingly quick for its size. It can get into the mid 20s MPGs with light load and moderate speeds. His is a supercab, short bed, 4WD."

That's better fuel economy than my 3.4L V6 2002 4WD extended cab manual transmission Tacoma.

Don
__________________
1998 Beetle TDI, 325,000 KM, Upsolute (sold), 2003 Passat 1.8T, 340,000KM Upsolute (sold), 62 Bel Air 409, 4 speed, 1963 Parisienne 409 4 speed
2013 Passat 6MT TDI Comfortline with Sport, Sept 18/12 New. Sep 2016 126,000KM. Replaced turbo, sway bar links front and rear, Adblue heater went.
NSTDI is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Race520 7H nozzles.For sale Downsizing. ItAintRodKnock Private TDI Items for Sale/Wanted 3 June 9th, 2013 20:05
Downsizing sislianli TDI Power Enhancements 0 March 28th, 2011 05:10
Power Service is Downsizing its Bottles PDJetta Fuels & Lubricants 60 January 15th, 2010 19:34
Downsizing nozzles Gearhead51 TDI Power Enhancements 12 December 11th, 2009 15:39
Diesel Downsizing in Villa Park, IL. All of Us Mid-west USA 1 June 27th, 2007 07:01


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:10.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
1996 - 2017, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.22026 seconds with 10 queries
[Output: 139.85 Kb. compressed to 117.99 Kb. by saving 21.86 Kb. (15.63%)]