I thinks that that's for a few reasons: - You can't run lean burn with a cat i.e. above stoich (14.5:1 AFR) as the cat gets cold. - At high throttle positions, you have to increase fuel to cool cat down, so essentially, fuel goes in & out the chamber just to cool.
Gives a better driving experience too, as you actually get some power rather than a choked, wheezing tiny, gutless N/A engine that's been screwed by the regulations. Of course, as a car man, I'd prefer a decent size N/A engine any day, but we can't have such things new anymore, hence my daily is '72 vintage. And still less pollution than a Prius, despite the V12...
Burning 1 litre of fuel will produce the same CO2 regardless of whether it's clean or not, assuming complete combustion. Low compression engines are less efficient than high compression engines but reduce NOx, as they're a function of flame temperature and EGR.
I think you're right there, however, some other emissions are much more "powerful" green houses gases than CO2. I believe that NOx has a greater greenhouse effect than CO2 per gramme.
XJ12 ? My current car inventory: E39 M5 E60 530i (manual) '88 V6 Granada (don't ask!) Going to look at a Benz 320SL tomorrow too and a Stag. Not sure which one I'd prefer. Benz has legs & reliability, Stag has more classic appeal. :-/
@TheWierdFish What the hell? How can a car make more pollution, but burn cleaner? As for the US not caring about fuel consumpion, why is it that by 2018, big truck fuel consuption will drop 23% and smaller trucks and vans by 15%? Why is it also that new cars must average 35.5 miles to a gallon by 2016?
@NemeanLion The US laws are strange, they don't seem to care how much fuel is used just so long as what comes out is nicer. So a low MPG US spec car could make more pollution per mile but the fuel is burned cleaner.
@NemeanLion If a car burns 1 litre of fuel very cleanly, i.e. less co2. but produces less power, (low compression ratios and such to get co2 results) the engine needs to be bigger to get the same performance therefore burning more actual fuel per mile and still making more co2 in total. In europe we are already averaging 40-MPG with 60-70 MPG cars everywhere. My Landie'll get 20 odd and my 1960s Jag E type with its 3.8 litre straight six is getting 25 - 30 MPG on a long M-way cruise.
CO2 emmisions are seen as "clean". There are other emissions than CO2, that are very damaging. Oxides of Nitrogen & Sulphur for example. Therefore, doing 15mpg in a fully catted car is seen as cleaner than, say 25mpg in a non-cat car. Furthermore, diesels chuck out loads of NOx (oxides of Nitrogen) but no one seems to mention that. Google it. There's loads on there.
I own a Jeep and a Landy and by far Landy have better stock capabilities, to reach same level you have to improve wrangler a lot if not do like me and leave it as a everyday car as I do
Assuming complete combustion. What do we really want though? Heavy, inefficient monsters of engines, or little, frugal, lightweight things that make the same power, burn much less fuel and make less NOx anyway as a result of those savings, despite the higher ratio to volume of fuel used. High compression, small, turbocharged, that'll get you the best all round performance/efficiency balance, in my experience.
![[UNCUT]"ทนายตั้ม" แฉยับ! ความลับสวรรค์ ใครคือ "บิ๊กเทวดา" ของบอสพอล l คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ l 15 ต.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ru9fpSaUwdA/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video..Land Rovers are Amazing!!
nice driving. I like the controlled approach.
That sounds about right, which is why so many manufatcurers are going to smaller engines, fewer cylinders and two or more turbos.
Bei fuoristrada,elaborati con gusto e qualita'.
I thinks that that's for a few reasons:
- You can't run lean burn with a cat i.e. above stoich (14.5:1 AFR) as the cat gets cold.
- At high throttle positions, you have to increase fuel to cool cat down, so essentially, fuel goes in & out the chamber just to cool.
what engines do these two defenders have? is this the sound you achieve when you drill holes in the exhaust of a TD5 and Puma?
@TheWierdFish Is that why the US has stricter emission standards?
very nice landys
Gives a better driving experience too, as you actually get some power rather than a choked, wheezing tiny, gutless N/A engine that's been screwed by the regulations. Of course, as a car man, I'd prefer a decent size N/A engine any day, but we can't have such things new anymore, hence my daily is '72 vintage. And still less pollution than a Prius, despite the V12...
Extreme low ratio will win every time.
Burning 1 litre of fuel will produce the same CO2 regardless of whether it's clean or not, assuming complete combustion.
Low compression engines are less efficient than high compression engines but reduce NOx, as they're a function of flame temperature and EGR.
@r3sident101 What saffety regulations? Rollover?
I think you're right there, however, some other emissions are much more "powerful" green houses gases than CO2. I believe that NOx has a greater greenhouse effect than CO2 per gramme.
XJ12 ?
My current car inventory:
E39 M5
E60 530i (manual)
'88 V6 Granada (don't ask!)
Going to look at a Benz 320SL tomorrow too and a Stag. Not sure which one I'd prefer. Benz has legs & reliability, Stag has more classic appeal.
:-/
@TheWierdFish What the hell? How can a car make more pollution, but burn cleaner?
As for the US not caring about fuel consumpion, why is it that by 2018, big truck fuel consuption will drop 23% and smaller trucks and vans by 15%? Why is it also that new cars must average 35.5 miles to a gallon by 2016?
best sound come from the red Toyota LC!
@NemeanLion The US laws are strange, they don't seem to care how much fuel is used just so long as what comes out is nicer. So a low MPG US spec car could make more pollution per mile but the fuel is burned cleaner.
@NemeanLion If a car burns 1 litre of fuel very cleanly, i.e. less co2. but produces less power, (low compression ratios and such to get co2 results) the engine needs to be bigger to get the same performance therefore burning more actual fuel per mile and still making more co2 in total.
In europe we are already averaging 40-MPG with 60-70 MPG cars everywhere. My Landie'll get 20 odd and my 1960s Jag E type with its 3.8 litre straight six is getting 25 - 30 MPG on a long M-way cruise.
just shows what a landy can do
Is 5:27 why the Defender doesn't pass US emissions testing? :-)
CO2 emmisions are seen as "clean". There are other emissions than CO2, that are very damaging. Oxides of Nitrogen & Sulphur for example. Therefore, doing 15mpg in a fully catted car is seen as cleaner than, say 25mpg in a non-cat car.
Furthermore, diesels chuck out loads of NOx (oxides of Nitrogen) but no one seems to mention that.
Google it. There's loads on there.
no thats the sound of a decat pipe or one silencer in stead of two
I thought was more about the health issues.
The increase in CO2 in a cat car than a non cat car is staggering though.
I own a Jeep and a Landy and by far Landy have better stock capabilities, to reach same level you have to improve wrangler a lot if not do like me and leave it as a everyday car as I do
Assuming complete combustion.
What do we really want though? Heavy, inefficient monsters of engines, or little, frugal, lightweight things that make the same power, burn much less fuel and make less NOx anyway as a result of those savings, despite the higher ratio to volume of fuel used.
High compression, small, turbocharged, that'll get you the best all round performance/efficiency balance, in my experience.
Nice video, but extreme ? Jeep drivers would go through there eating a sandwich and changing CDs.
They're just a pain in the arse really. And if 5.3 litres of 41 year old V12 can pass emissions, why bother?
@NemeanLion I've seen US trucks spewing more crap than that.
So Toyota drivers are all rev head bogans not just in Australia. ;)
why the hell use a 4x4 when it's the same speed as walking on your feet! why burn all that oil for nothing?