Real World Emissions Testing Forcing Automakers Back To Large Displacement Powerplants

The linked article and others like it are a worthy read to understand what's REALLY going on.

In summary, manufacturers have been creating small displacement engines in order to meet the stringent in-lab-only emissions regulations. The problem is that these engines only met emission regulations in the lab. In the real world, under actual use (where vehicles spend ALL their time), these allegedly "clean" small-displacement engines emit many times the lab-legal levels.

Now that authorities are coming to grips with this widespread deception, they are gradually shifting to measuring emissions under real driving conditions. Manufacturers know this, and they also know their small, "clean only in the lab" engines don't make the grade when operating on the road, so they're doing what makes sense: develop engines that actually run cleaner under real-world driving conditions, and those engines just happen to have bigger displacement.

Small, turbocharged mills designed to replace larger, naturally aspirated engines simply do not produce better MPG but they most decidedly make cost of ownership over time radically more expensive

Hence Toyota and Honda slow roll-out of turbos, not behind but further ahead.

AMEN

Right, both seemed to have maintained acceptable emissions ratings. Don't they kinda lag in performance when comparing similar engines for competitors?

However - there is still a basic fallacy with these statements - while no engines LAB results are equal to their real world results - over the decades as the "Lab" requirements were tightened - these engines DID produce less emissions overall - even in the real world. - Cars - in the real world - are noticeably cleaner than they were 25 years ago. ANd lab testing is still the only way to produce test conditions that can be readily duplicated for all cars being tested. AS in all things - a manufacturer will try to use every advantage it can - like making its engine calibrations do better in the test that is being used - BUT - that will be the case if they try to change to real world tests.

I never like those small turbo engines due to the complexity and likelihood of future repairs resultant. This would fall on the used market mostly - where cars have lasted a lot longer than they did in the past.

TomM: I do NOT mean this post to be a slam against you, but I feel blanket statements often lead us to live in a “fool’s paradise.”

The facts are that in most of the world, laws focus solely on in-lab-only tests, and cars are monitored for compliance in the lab only. This is where we have mountains of data to support our beliefs. We do not have the same kind of data for tailpipe emissions in the real world because laws typically don’t apply there, and therefore, monitoring is done sporadically and inconsistently (read “lack of mountains of data that could even begin to compare with the data available for in-lab-only vehicle certification tests”).

Add into the mix the fact that engine designers and manufacturers design to pass the in-lab-only test -- as the linked article states – and you have a scenario in which Joe Q. Public is lulled into believing we’re building cleaner cars (the completely meaningless in-lab-only test clearly “prove” that!) while real world emissions are more like the wild, wild west, where anything goes.

Actual real-world-use tailpipe emission tests, sporadically applied, and for what they’re worth, prove that over the past few decades, we’ve eradicated toxic led emissions, which is freakin’ awesome! But as for other emissions, while the lab alleges we’ve reduced emissions by X% over the past decade, tailpipe emissions might tell us we’ve reduce only 10% of X, in the same vehicle. Depending on how deeply you look, you might also discover other surprises, such as while subcompact cars’ fuel economy has IMPROVED by X% over the past 2 decades, national fuel economy has actually DECLINED slightly during the same period because of a consumer shift to larger, less fuel-efficient, and more polluting vehicles.

So while the in-lab-only test allege less car pollution is being made, the real world shows us that pollution caused by cars has continued to increase over-all, although depending on how you slice the data, you might see some individual reductions within the over-all increase.

As long as we use fiction to form our beliefs, we’ll form fictitious beliefs. In-lab-only tests, while reproducible, do a horrible job in telling us ANYTHING about pollution while operating in the real world. That’s a fact, yet many, MANY people argue that this is the only practical, consistent, reproducible testing methodology. Data Processing 101 tells us “Garbage in / Garbage Out”. Most people never took Data Processing 101.

Fascinating! Good for us consumers and good for the environment.

If you take the time to read the article, you will find that it is about DIESEL engines, not spark ignition engines.

DavidA: I believe you're incorrect.

Article: "...Renault, General Motors and VW are preparing to enlarge or scrap some of their best-selling small car engines over the next three years, the people said. Other manufacturers are expected to follow, WITH BOTH DIESELS AND GASOLINES AFFECTED..." (emphasis added by me)

If you take the time to read the article, you will find that it is about DIESEL engines, not spark ignition engines.

[duplicate]

DavidA: I believe you're incorrect.

Article: "...Renault, General Motors and VW are preparing to enlarge or scrap some of their best-selling small car engines over the next three years, the people said. Other manufacturers are expected to follow, WITH BOTH DIESELS AND GASOLINES AFFECTED..." (emphasis added by me)

It mentions BOTH diesel and gas engines. The initial Euro focus is on diesel as that is a big part of their fleet, with gas following up.

What about fuel economy? US standards harder to meet?