EU sets 106mpg target by 2025

From what I remember, ethanol is actually not very good for fuel consumption, nor is it good for what comes out of the exhaust, not to mention it's terrible for engines. The main reason the US has mandated ethanol is because of cheap subsidized corn.
 
I say make all of you Oooropeons ride bicycles :p

Words can hurt you know.....








So can my boot if it's planted firmly up your arse. :p
 
Last edited:
The states can't handle me :p
 
Sensational headline is sensational. Please, everybody, read the article. It is full of could, would and want.
 
Time to stock up on classics cos those will not get affected by the regulations and it seems to me, everyone will want one in 20 years, after suffering damaged eyesight by staring at the electric car shoe-box designs.
 
Time to stock up on classics cos those will not get affected by the regulations and it seems to me, everyone will want one in 20 years, after suffering damaged eyesight by staring at the electric car shoe-box designs.


What? Electric cars have the most aerodynamically efficient designs. For obvious reasons.
 
As more and more models become lighter than their predecessors (various Nissans, Mazdas, the new Accord IIRC, Golf, etc) and efficiency tech improves I can see how it could be done. Narf said that the Polo BlueMotion needs a tiny amount of work to hit it so it is possible.
 
Narf said that the Polo BlueMotion needs a tiny amount of work to hit it so it is possible.

I didn't say that :tease:

Shaving off 0.7l/100km sounds easy, but when you have to shave them off 3.4l/100km you need to raise efficiency by a large fraction.
Besides, making a Polo more efficient is nice but doesn't save large amounts of oil/CO2. You need to address the larger cars and especially trucks as well, because they eat a lot more fuel to start with.
 
Wondering where this odd mpg-number came from, I tried to look it up. But all I found was the intention to set the CO2 fleet average to something between 68 and 78g. That then turns into a bunch of numbers, also depending on the type of fuel. Not sure what they base their number on, but rough numbers should look like this if I am not totally mistaken:

68g
Petrol = 2,9 l/100km = 80 US mpg = 96 UK mpg
Diesel = 2,5 l/100km = 94 US mpg = 113 UK mpg

78g
Petrol = 3,3 l/100km = 71 US mpg = 85 UK mpg
Diesel = 2,9 l/100km = 80 US mpg = 96 UK mpg


Previous limits: 2015 = 120g, 2020 = 95g. Considering that even an improved test probably is not super realistic and looking at low 4,x-liter-figures with many 4-bangers already, I think at least getting down to the 78g numbers with a lot of 3-banger-turbos shouldn't be a real issue.
 
Looking at the Golf as the stereotypical "average car", you almost cannot buy one that doesn't officially meet the 120g limit - only the GTIs properly exceed it, and they get drowned in numbers by the 1.6TDI and 1.2TSI.
 
Exactly. And now think proper 3-bangers flooding the entrylevel and you'll reach most of those numbers fairly easy with 12 years time.
 
Looking at the Golf as the stereotypical "average car", you almost cannot buy one that doesn't officially meet the 120g limit - only the GTIs properly exceed it, and they get drowned in numbers by the 1.6TDI and 1.2TSI.

And a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) four-cylinder is going to be offered in the Golf VII before the end of 2014, the two-cylinder PHEV?will debut in 2015 in the Up, the three-cylinder PHEV is earmarked for the 2016 Polo replacement.
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/VW-XL1-2013-CAR-review/
 
Alternatively, just order an eco up! today, advertised to do 79g/km CO2 - almost meeting the potential 78g target thomas identified.
 
Alternatively, just order an eco up! today, advertised to do 79g/km CO2 - almost meeting the potential 78g target thomas identified.
You can get more car for the same amount of CO2...

Toyota-Yaris-Hybrid-11.jpg
 
You can get more car for the same amount of CO2...

Toyota-Yaris-Hybrid-11.jpg

In terms of CO2 they may appear the same, yes. But not in terms of money - officially the eco up! can be run for a bit over 3?/100km while the official petrol figure for the Yaris means about 5.5?/100km. Then there's the price of the car, the Yaris starts out 4k? more expensive. So you do get more car for the same CO2, but you also pay less money for the same CO2.
The key is that the eco up! runs on either petrol or CNG, with no hybrid tomfoolery going on.
 
In terms of CO2 they may appear the same, yes. But not in terms of money - officially the eco up! can be run for a bit over 3?/100km while the official petrol figure for the Yaris means about 5.5?/100km. Then there's the price of the car, the Yaris starts out 4k? more expensive. So you do get more car for the same CO2, but you also pay less money for the same CO2.
The key is that the eco up! runs on either petrol or CNG, with no hybrid tomfoolery going on.

The Yaris belongs to a superior segment, so it's obviously going to be more expensive than the Up!, whose Toyota equivalent is the Aygo.

Edit: Not to mention that you'd be able to fill the Yaris up in any petrol station anywhere in the world, while for the eco Up! you'll have to search for those CNG stations. Good luck!
 
Last edited:
My fairly small city has two CNG stations, one quite close to me and one next to the start of the Autobahn. You can always fill up on petrol if you need to :dunno: there's no risk of getting stranded in no-CNG-land. However, looking at the network, you don't really need to. Going from Kiel to Munich all the way across the country, the biggest gap between stations is 96km... the CNG range is several times that.
 
Last edited:
Top