Audi axes its iconic five-cylinder engine after 50 years

[-]

Hulahulaman@reddit

Ends in the European market in mid-2027. Euro7 emissions regulations come into effect in Nov, 2026 and the 5 cylinder will not meet this strict new standard.

[-]

Ambitious-Chip4902@reddit

Serious question: how can AMG bring back the V8 while everyone else needs to take their great iconic engines from the market?

[-]

zerogee616@reddit

See my comment below this one, I guarantee you I have more experience with this stuff than you do.

[-]

nondescriptzombie@reddit

The standards for emissions for Heavy Fuel Oil issued by Marpol are more lenient than for other fuels... 60% of the world's oceanfaring ships run on HFO.

So it's cheaper, and it's allowed to pollute more, and to "stop the pollution" they're allowed to rinse the exhaust with seawater... and just dump the polluted seawater back into the ocean.

Hey, Alexa, what percentage of the world's ocean floor corals have died off in the last ten years?

[-]

csimonson@reddit

Apparently you don't know about bunker fuel

[-]

zerogee616@reddit

I literally work on ships and I handle "bunker fuel" (in reality called HFO for Heavy Fuel Oil) all the time.

We don't use old school "Bunker C" anymore and we haven't for a long time, it's all a very low sulfur variant of residual fuel. Is it the cleanest fuel out there? No, but it is very controlled for emissions, in addition to all the other emissions controls on the stack hardware and everywhere else.

We don't NEED them, but they sure make our lives a lot easier, specially when you have kids.

Although, in my example, the city in question is Lisbon which doesn't have enough public transport for the demand and it's geography is terrible for cycling.

Also, I live in a "suburb" just outside the city limits, where the Metro lines end.

(only literal millionaires are able to buy a place in Lisbon proper nowdays, at least one which is not falling apart)

I could:

Take my kids to school by car, and then leave the car in one of the terminal Metro stations which have huge parking lots so people don't take the car into the city center, which tons of people do, tbh. But that would take me about 1h30 to get to work. (and it's paid)
Just use the BUS for everything, it passes by my door every 45min and takes about the same just to reach my kid's school. It would take like between 2h-3h to get to work.
Or, I take my car, leave the kids in school and in 15min I'm at work.

Multiplying that by 2 times a day and 5 days a week:

I would lose 15 hours a week;
I would lose 20h+ hours a week;
I lose 2h30 per week.

When places are within walking distance, you have an extra option for personal mobility. When there are safe cycle paths, you have an extra option for personal mobility. When accessible and reliable public transport is available, you have an extra option for personal mobility.

Oh, and from a car enthusiast's perspective: why do you want everyone to be dependent on driving? Do you enjoy being stuck in traffic with people who have no other option but to drive? Do you like sharing the roads with people who are just trying to get from A-to-B?

[-]

mikefitzvw@reddit

As an urban planner, the amount of conspiracy theorism that has gone into 15-minute cities is heartbreaking. Conservatives truly find a way to ruin everything. Historically in the "good ol' days", that's exactly how it worked - you'd walk to the barber, go to your job, then after work, grab a pint and stop at the cobbler and the market on the way home. If you want to live in strip-mall hell, that's your choice, but it's an unhealthy choice. It makes life sadder and less meaningful when once-vibrant, socially-interconnected communities were destroyed for gigantic, oily parking lots filled with assholes who can't bother to push their cart back.

I'm a huge car enthusiast, but the worst thing that ever happened to driving was putting it in the hands of every idiot who would be better off doing something else.

[-]

Firereign@reddit

“We should not act on this one thing, because this other thing is also bad!”

This line of argument is disingenuous. It’s a shitty deflection that people reach for because they don’t want to consider that the thing they like and enjoy might be causing harm to themselves and others.

We are capable of, and should be, addressing multiple issues at the same time.

The fact that other sources of pollution exist does not remove significance from those produced by passenger cars, nor does it eliminate any benefits to be had from reducing those emissions.

An oil tanker does not typically drive down the street on which I live. Compact cars, and other passenger vehicles, frequently do. And I quite like the idea of having less poisonous crap in the air I breathe.

[-]

StimkyYeen@reddit

Nah, this is disingenuous at best.

The total emissions generated by passenger cars themselves is in the single digit percentages of overall emissions in the world.

They’ve already been regulated to hell and we’re getting to the point where ICE cars are anemic and they still want to push it further.

This is because cars are the one thing governments have full range to control, it forces the problem onto people and makes people think that their individual choices are the problem. A problem that coincidentally can be solved by “buying more products!”

If Europe actually cared about the environment there would be a much larger push to regulate industrial/commercial pollution, much more research/development/investment into nuclear power, and Coal/natural gas power would be outright banned

Instead they keep pushing the cost onto us.

The end result, there’s no way in hell I’m buying a European car anymore.

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

The domestic transportation sector is responsible for about 24% of the EU's GHG emissions and about 16% is from passenger cars (16% of the total emissions, not 16% of the 24%). So... you know, it's not nothing. In fact, that 16% means that passenger cars would be the number 3 highest polluting sector overall, after only domestic energy and industry.

Passenger cars are also by far and away one of the simplest places to legislate for change. What's more, the EU absolutely is pushing to legislate and reduce industrial pollution and increase renewables. The Renewable Energy Directive literally mandates a 42% share of renewables in the EU energy blend by 2030. That's not enough for you?

Also, the breakeven point for GHG emissions for EVs is in the range of tens of thousands of miles driven, which is ridiculously low, and batteries are incredibly recyclable, whereas diesel and gasoline are and will forever be single use. But that's okay, because extracting them definitely isn't a hugely damaging extraction industry, right?

Right?

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

The domestic transportation sector is responsible for about 24% of the EU's GHG emissions and about 16% is from passenger cars (16% of the total emissions, not 16% of the 24%). So... you know, it's not nothing. In fact, that 16% means that passenger cars would be the number 3 highest polluting sector overall, after only domestic energy and industry.

Passenger cars are also by far and away one of the simplest places to legislate for change. What's more, the EU absolutely is pushing to legislate and reduce industrial pollution and increase renewables. The Renewable Energy Directive literally mandates a 42% share of renewables in the EU energy blend by 2030. That's not enough for you?

Also, the breakeven point for GHG emissions for EVs is in the range of tens of thousands of miles driven, which is ridiculously low, and batteries are incredibly recyclable, whereas diesel and gasoline are and will forever be single use. But that's okay, because extracting them definitely isn't a hugely damaging extraction industry, right?

Right?

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

The domestic transportation sector is responsible for about 24% of the EU's GHG emissions and about 16% is from passenger cars (16% of the total emissions, not 16% of the 24%). So... you know, it's not nothing. In fact, that 16% means that passenger cars would be the number 3 highest polluting sector overall, after only domestic energy and industry.

Passenger cars are also by far and away one of the simplest places to legislate for change. What's more, the EU absolutely is pushing to legislate and reduce industrial pollution and increase renewables. The Renewable Energy Directive literally mandates a 42% share of renewables in the EU energy blend by 2030. That's not enough for you?

Also, the breakeven point for GHG emissions for EVs is in the range of tens of thousands of miles driven, which is ridiculously low, and batteries are incredibly recyclable, whereas diesel and gasoline are and will forever be single use. But that's okay, because extracting them definitely isn't a hugely damaging extraction industry, right?

Right?

[-]

Firereign@reddit

And when the impact of global emissions is as significant as it is - and, for the avoidance of doubt, it is very fucking significant - a single-digit percentage of that is still significant in its impact.

Once again: as a society, we can address multiple things at the same time. The fact that there are other emissions sources does not mean that we should not target cars. The fact that we heavily target cars should not stop us from targeting other emissions sources, either.

And the impact of targeting the “small problem” posed by passenger cars has had a very clear impact on air quality in cities. Because it’s not just the delayed impact of carbon emissions that matters; combustion byproducts include plenty of crap which has an immediate, negative impact on human health.

It’s also entertaining that you imply there isn’t a push to move towards better energy sources. Here in the UK, the last coal-fired power plant shut down some time ago, offshore wind is booming, and my car often charges when the carbon intensity of the grid in my region is zero.

And if you want to look like you’re making points in good faith, don’t bring up the tired, old, well-refuted “bUt ThE lItHiUm!!1” arguments.

[-]

StimkyYeen@reddit

Oh, do tell me more about how much Europe is investing in nuclear to offset their reliance on oil and natural gas.

Oh wait, they’re moving away from nuclear?

But no, they need more regulation to move the environmental impact of cars less than a tenth of a percent at best!

You’re fully bought into the greenwashed economics. Just keep spending more money to solve climate change, pay no attention to the companies that get to do whatever they please.

And there’s no debunking of the environmental impact of procuring lithium. It takes an EV a few years to overcome the environmental deficit of the battery itself.

But keep on sniffing your own farts and ignoring conversation on climate change. I’m sure being a drone is so much easier especially when you get to act like a condescending shitbag like you love to do

[-]

Firereign@reddit

You make a lot of assumptions about where I stand on a lot of issues, and where I think we should be going. Many of those assumptions are incorrect.

So, the environmental impact of cars has gone from a single-digit percentage to a fraction of a percent. If I keep repeating “we can target several things at once”, I wonder where the number ends up? Finally, we’ve found the solution to all of our problems: a digit gets dropped each time they’re mentioned as a problem!

Why do you assume that I think that all “environmental” causes and actions are pushed by good actors?

Why do you assume that I’m not concerned with corporate interests that are permitted to continue to run rampant?

Yes, lithium mining, processing, and the manufacturing of batteries are all significantly impactful. As is pretty much anything involved in the manufacturing, maintenance, and disposal of cars. It is very clear at this point that the net impact of a typical EV is, over its life, substantially lower than that of similar ICEs. Yes, they’re still significantly impactful. No, moving to EVs won’t “save the planet”. Nor will any individual action or change. If you’re going to argue that a net positive change is not worthwhile because it doesn’t solve all problems, then I find that to be a rather sad outlook.

It’s rather entertaining that you suggest I’m ignoring the impact on global climate, when it’s been the majority of what I’ve pointed at. Implicit in your comment is the suggestion that local air pollution doesn’t matter. It demonstrably does.

oil tankers are polluting as much as 10 million cars each

Regarding diesels (which is still what powers all European trucks, vans, pick-ups, the few offroad vehicles remaining, and most cars used for great distances), it's a disaster.

Up until the last euro 6, even with WLTP, emissions were analyzed on the cycle of the vehicle (from start until stop). This means that at startup the car could and would pollute more, then once it reached temperature it would pollute slightly less than the limits, and if the average of the pollutants emitted across the cycle would comply with the regulations, the car could be sold.

This is how it worked from euro 1 in 1991, because it's the way catalysts and exhaust systems work. Great when at temperature, bad when cold or too hot. It's just the way physics work.

With euro 7 the emissions limits (which are similar to euro 6) must never be surpassed, not even at the first cycle of the crankshaft. This means:

- electrically heated catalysts with 48v battery systems (increased cost, decreased reliability, even if designed by NASA)

- massive use of post-injections (inevitable oil contamination, for euro 6 only used during DPF regen) and richer injections (less thermal efficiency, less fuel efficiency, more heat, also all this for the post-injections).

So euro 7 diesel engines may yeah be slightly cleaner, but they'll be inevitably and significantly less reliable, will require more frequent oil changes, and will burn more fuel.

This is not a rant about the NOx limits being lowered by x amount, or about even smaller PM being regulated, it's a rant because it will inevitably make vehicles worse with very very very little benefit to the air. If anything, fewer people will buy them, keeping their older turds with 5 engine codes and a clogged EGR running even more. Environment W eh?

Bonus: on top of all the stuff already inside the exhaust of a modern diesel, there will also be a NH3 catalyst because the increased required use of DEF will produce too much NH3, and therefore another catalyst will be necessary.

For gasoline engines, the above + the requirement to always run lambda 1.

ECUs abandon lambda 1 when the user requires power, choosing lambda .9 or .85, because the gasoline in excess helps to lower the temperatures preserving the engine and by cooling exhaust gasses, also the turbine.

Results?

Less reliable, more expensive, less fuel efficient diesel vehicles.

More expensive (different turbine alloys and cylinder coatings), less reliable, gasoline engines. Basically we'll see 2L Miller-cycle engines with 48v systems to give them the grunt required.