Why do the major regulatory boards, ignoring America, limit and/or tax engine displacement above 2L? Is it bureaucrats not understanding engineering? To regulate material useage of manufactures? To tax commercial vehicles because they need high displacement?
It just seems silly when many cars would be better off with higher displacement, lower revving engine making the same power at greater efficiency.
It's not just fuel, it's emissions. More air in = more emissions out. 2.0L is plenty of power potential for the average person, they just don't all know it won't hurt the car to actually rev it high.
That doesn't seem right. Maybe more emissions per a cycle, but since the gas is being used more efficiently, shouldn't there be less emissions per kilo of gas? This is the first time I've heard that explanation.
>every industry, from aerospace to marine, is making larger and larger displacement engines for greater efficiency
>cars are locked to 2L because government regulations
I don't know why they were restricted to 2L in the first place, but larger displacement engines are more efficient than smaller engines of the same power level when naturally aspirated. If turbochargers are added, having smaller, faster engines is better, because the turbo does more work for the pistons because the exhaust pulses are more constant, and the more frequent intakes use boost pressure more efficiently. Turbos are also free power, so they improve everything. Don't know how SUPERCHARGED plays into this, but turbo is better for efficiency anyways.
its honestly to score points with left leaning environmentalists. Thats it. If they trully gave a shit about emissions, then they would outright ban pickup trucks NOT used in agriculture or industry, ban all luxury vehicles that are reasonably considered to be used as DDs, and ban ALL SUVs.
>Why do the major regulatory boards, ignoring America, limit and/or tax engine displacement above 2L? Is it bureaucrats not understanding engineering? To regulate material useage of manufactures? To tax commercial vehicles because they need high displacement?
>It just seems silly when many cars would be better off with higher displacement, lower revving engine making the same power at greater efficiency
...user they do it to make money...thats it.
The government doesn't give fuck about the environment, it's just a great racket because they get wringe money from the populace just for trying to exist in a modern civilization. Do you really think western governments are so inept and buttfuck retarded that the literal geniuses that design programs to efficiently take the money you earn for free don't know they're being disingenuous? They dont give a fuck because the ruling class will still have their toys even when the working class are in bread lines and the middle class are being executed for being kulaks. you think its difficult convincing the horde of gullible afraid modern womyn who make up the bulk of voter turn out that evil rich white men(who aren't man enough to wife a 100kg 39 yr old professional Facebooker)
drive smoke spewing 16 cylinder smog machines that make baby Africans cry need to be stopped? Do you think the majority of voters in favor of these regulations ever asked for evidence or a basic fucking graph on how pollution works? THEY DON'T CARE TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS MAKES THE VOTER(female) FEEL GOOD BECAUSE OMG SELFISH MEN CARS ARE UGLY SCARY APPLIANCES HOW DARE MEN CARE ABOUT ANYTHING BUT OBSESSING OVER HER CLAPPED OUT SLIME HOLE???
Western democracy was a mistake
This guy gets it. It's all because we let women be sluts and now all of western civilization is going down the shitter
Turbos are good on government tests and that's it, once you get into boost fuel economy goes out of the window
>, limit and/or tax engine displacement above 2L?
>tax displacement
>every car has now a small displacement turbo with 80s tier compression ratio
>"but hey, it 3.9L/100km in NEDC"
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption.
engines are not most efficient at idle speed, but in fact in the mid-range at near-WOT. Therefore smaller engines that cruise closer to this ideal will be more efficient.
>but larger displacement engines are more efficient than smaller engines of the same power level when naturally aspirated
>of the same power level
Worthless statement because no one would've attempted powering a landbarge with a 2L engine or an econobox with a 6L boat anchor before the age of forced induction.
>boohoo why isn't every country obsessed with cars?
>why even tax cars at all? roads basically build and maintain themselves, and if not we can simply let the free market take care of it
It's not about taxes, I'm asking why policy to encourage small displacement engines was created?
I can only speak for Germany. In our case the original plan was to tax power output because in pre-war times the power output of your car reasonably closely correlated to your wealth, but accurate measurement equipment did not exist yet, so as a relatively close equivalent a substitute was found in displacement because without forced induction it correlated to engine size. This regulation was simply never changed, and eventually only amended by a split into a displacement charge and an emissions charge.
Personally if it was me I'd charge by curb weight and emissions as those are the factors actually causing costs for society.
Because it's easier to blame the general public and enforce taxation/restrictions than it is to do the same for industry.
The industry would kick up a big fuss if they had to start downsizing/become more emissions friendly because that costs money and decreases profit margins.
I think it was three? big container ships put out the same amount of emissions as all the cars in the world? Good luck getting them to switch over to nuclear or anything other than the cheapest, dirtiest crude oil when you can just blame the general public instead.
>wanting dinky container ships operating from some third world country to run on nucular
Instead of merely blaming the mailboy, let's just blame globalization in the first place.
You underestimate how much globalisation has fucked over the world my friend.
>Why do the major regulatory boards, ignoring America, limit and/or tax engine displacement above 2L?
They don't it's not the early 90's anymore they tax emissions. The idea of a displacement tax it put about by idiots and people defending a 200hp 5l V8 as being about freedom not incompetence.
...
nice dubs
Downsizing reduces pumping losses. That's the logic. And they're correct. But downsizing eventually stops working.
First off, let's remember that engines are really just self-propelled air pumps.
Secondly: The ideal air-fuel ratio is 14.7:1, which means that even with the steady increase in efficiency with engines, in general you're still going to be using roughly the same amount of fuel in relation to how much air is going into the engine. More air means more fuel can be burned, giving you more power.
Sure, you can design an engine to safely run quite a lean mix under certain driving conditions (20:1 isn't unheard of), but that increases combustion temperature a significant amount, causing excess NOx emissions to be generated, which is bad.
Direct injection petrol engines get around this by using stratified charge injection to reduce the amount of fuel injected in low/partial throttle without causing an excess of NOx, but they can struggle to properly mix the air and fuel when you're going full throttle, thus limiting power.
You can also make engines more efficient and/or powerful by raising compression ratio, improving head flow, VVT/lift, slapping on a turbocharger, etc, but you're still going to want that magical 14.7:1 AFR, because that's when you get very little CO, NOx, and hydrocarbon emissions, all of which is important in reducing smog and preventing divorced husbands from killing themselves in the garage.
On the other hand, clean combustion means you're getting the most possible CO2 from the engine; this kills hippies and makes polar bears cry.
Because CO2 is a product of clean combustion, you can only reduce the CO2 output of a car by limiting the amount of air it can pump. I don't know much about the actual regulated emission testing side of things, but I'd hazard a guess that they mostly test engines under 'normal' driving conditions, not full load at full throttle, so a 2.0L engine at 'normal' load/RPM should put out less CO2 than a 5.7L V8 does under similar conditions.
This is why small engines make environmentalists happy.
Yes yes, HOWEVER! Smog testers rev the fuck high out of your engines so whatever the gobberment regulation says defeats the whole purpose of how much the car produces emissions during testing for it to pass. A 2L I4 is about the same as a 3L I6 and so on 4L V8 now just because of this, otherwise I suggest you install a rev limiter.