My stance on it is this:

First, the death of 30k penguin chicks this season with only, what, two surviving in one specific... Herd? Anyway, that's pretty conclusive evidence there's a major environmental change happening, even if it's not primarily due to human or even automotive factors.

Second, no matter your stance on global warming or climate change on a global scale, you can't argue the effects of pollution on a more local scale. Compare NYC between 1970 and today, or Tokyo between today and even 10 years ago. Look at pollution data, lung disease rates, cancer rates, even crime rates. There's a definite impact atleast locally from pollution whether it be industrial, automotive, or otherwise.

 

I don't believe anyone is going to argue about the affects of pollution. It's just the way the federal government goes about correcting the issue. Yes, somethings work, great, while others are just monies flushed down the toilet. As populations grow, our issues will only continue to magnify.

As far as climate change...yes...it's happening. But, I believe the ice age was a considerable amount of climate change 10000 years ago, too. So, I guess these thing happen...lol...and arguing about it here will solve nothing.

Man, this topic has ran wild...from octane, foreign car - part costs, to dirt bikes, to climate change.

For what it's worth...two XR500, three YZ490's, two CR500's. Yes..."Love the smell of two stroke oil in the morning"...lol.

Brian.

 

I just read the article that France posted and I have to apologize for being hasty; I thought it was an argument against climate change. My apologies.

After reading through it, it makes a ton of sense. I knew about the VW scandal in the US, but was unaware that the problem was so widespread across auto makers and of these related issues across Europe.

I rather enjoyed the article and hope to see more like it bringing these problems into the light. Props to the author for following good journalism ethics and doing very in-depth research. That's something that, atleast in the US, seems to be severely lacking as of late.

 

Hi Alex

VW is just the tip of the iceberg. Since then Renault, Citroen, Ford etc, etc, etc have been trapped cheating on diesel engine emissions and NOx. As the article indicates, the new Nissan Qashqai diesel emits 18 times the legal pollution limits but seems to get away with it as it's probably tested and certified by a 'tame' laboratory, no doubt. It seems that truly 'independent' vehicle test laboratories are extremely rare.

 

this is not true at all. Fuel is a stew,lots variables other than what octane rating it has determine energy density. The octane rating is also the minimum, so fuel meeting the 93 spec also meets the 87 spec.

 

there are other ways to improve engine performance. Thermal efficiency is low hanging fruit on a rover v8. The cylinder head is stuck in the leaded era. Quench and squish are practically non existent, the result is a lot of excess heat dumped into the cylinder head.

This wasted heat is the main reason it needs higher octane, detonation isn't just from higher pressure. The wasted heat is also why you need a 3 core brass radiator and a cooling fan that sounds like a 747 to cool a 200 horsepower engine. If someone would take the time to develop a modern style head and piston combo designed for the factory powerband I think these engines would respond incredibly well.

 

Someone makes a raised port head for the Rover. Think they lowered the exhaust port as well.

have you ever read about smokey yunick's "hot-vapor" engine? Very interesting.

If I remember correctly, internal combustion engines lean towards the cooler side of a two physical possibilities for engine design. The ideal design is a ridiculously hot and high pressure burn (possibly with recycled exhaust gases?), with minimal waste heat being transmitted through the engine. It just isn't a viable design with mass production components and materials. Diesels get closer to the ideal scenario but mass produced components are too heavy for high pressure AND low mass.

​​​​

 

I'm not sure I follow, but production combustion chamber shapes and piston bowl profiles have come a long way since the early 60s along with many other ways to increase thermal efficiency. Rover just never adopted them and the BSFC shows.

 

The factory rover heads have a very flat port angle. Poor flow characteristics. As well as the inline valves. The redesigned heads bring the intake and exhaust ports to a steeper angle and I believe they rotate the valves as well. They've got an open chamber as well I believe. Point being that they are a much more modern design, closer to that of an LS or aftermarket SBF head.

My point about the hot vapor engine was that engine sophistication isnt everything. Smokey built a hot air engine out of a fiero piece of crap. It made like 250hp and got 45+mpg. On a super lean, super hot burn.

 

You are absolutely wrong!
87 octane fuel of reputable brand makes more calories per unit when burned compared to 91 or 93 octane of same brand,
perhaps you should do a little research b4 making such a claim,
Lower octain is more combustible under same pressure than higher octane,
Higher octane isn't a cleaner or better fuel if that's what you think,
Higher octane is for engines that will have a pre ignition detonation if they use a lower octane fuel, back in 60's most normal engines had (7.5 -8 to 1 ) compression ratio and anything 9 to 1 ratio or higher was considered high compression and needed higher octane to work properly & not have a pre detonation due to limitations in combustion chamber designs in most engines, (and yes there were high performance engines with even higher compression ratios 10 to 1,,, even 11 to 1, in some road cars and all had to use high octane fuel to avoid detonation,, Rover V8 is an old design combustion chamber, so 9.35 to 1 is high compression for this engine,, (As a rule of thumb in most cases a larger diameter piston is more likely to have pre detonation at same compression ratio compared to a smaller diameter piston, even when both have the same displacement , )
Today's newer design combustion chambers are so much better than even with 9.5 or 10 to 1 ratio they can run on 87 octane with no problem,,
-----
An atmospheric engine (non turbo or non supercharged) will have more compression = (power) at lower altitude compared to higher altitude due to loss of compression at higher elevation, that's why airplane piston engines that are non supercharged have 13 to 1 or even higher compression ratio's, to make up the loss as they climb up, and what do they do to not blow the engine when they are at ground level,? They use aviation fuel, which is 105 to 110 octane,, (& most racers try to use same fuel for their very high compression engines if they can get their hands on),,
Higher octane fuels are more expensive not because they are cleaner or burn better (as oil companies advertise) but because it's more difficult to produce a gasoline that does not want to catch fire as quickly under pressure & heat as a regular gas,
(Higher octane gas makes less calories per unit, but when you have higher compression ratio, you will be able to make more power from same displacement & will make up for loss of calories in fuel & then some,)
And yes it is safer to use higher octane fuel in lower compression engine rather than using lower octane ina high compression engine, first one will only cause the engine to underperform , but second will cause predestination & commonly called ping.