Title should read ? Which is Greener: A BMW 530i Automatic or a Ford Focus 1.6? [Sorry couldn?t really what I wanted to write in the subject header ? restricted by the length].
Believe it or not, the E60 facelift (coming in April 2007) 530iAutomatic emits only 178g of CO2. The five door Focus emits 184g of CO2.
Interestingly, for the first time in a petrol powered BMW 5 series, the Automatic version is greener (at least in CO2 emissions) compared to a manual.
Perhaps Aprillia (or someone with the technical know-how) can explain to us how the Autos are becoming more economical compared to manuals. Perhaps it has something to do with the mountain of torque? Because for smaller powered engines, manuals are still more economical.
The other question is that, as recently as 2000, the equivalent 528 (with a 3.0 litre engine) output was 192hp. The new 530 engine output is 272hp AND more economical. Both engines are non-turbo. We have been used to the diesel engine technology improving by leaps and bounds. Any reason why the petrol engines have begun to make sudden improvements?
|
The five door Focus emits 184g of CO2.
Only when fitted to a 4 speed auto. 157 or 159g of CO2 with the much more popular manual.
|
|
I think the 192 bhp thing was to do with taxation, and cars under this figure were subjected to cheaper taxes in Germany, remember reading it but not sure? They could have gone over 192 easily, but reined in the horses for reason above!
|
I think the 192 bhp thing was to do with taxation, and cars under this figure were subjected to cheaper taxes in Germany, remember reading it but not sure? They could have gone over 192 easily, but reined in the horses for reason above!
Granted. However the CO2 emissions for the 528 was well over 230g. How does one exlain an almost 25% drop in emissions in just 7 years of development?
Do we really need hybrids?
|
|
|
|
|
I am comparing Autos!
|
Fuel consumption isn't everything.
What about the energy needed to produce each of these cars ? What is their typical lifespan ?
I would imagine that the Focus uses fewer materials, energy etc to construct as it's a simpler, cheaper car. But maybe the BMW will last longer before it's scrapped ?
|
Co2 emissions are essentially linked directly to fuel consumption. If you improve the economy of the car then CO2 drops. With auto's there is a further complication in that some transmissions are much more efficient than others (in terms of losses and also in terms of shift pattern) - the unit used in the Ford is not particularly efficient and being only a 4-speed there is every likelihood that a fair proportion of the test cycle is done in a less appropriate gear than in the 5-speed BMW. It could also be that the BMW's shift pattern was 'tweaked' so that it performed well in this test......
As mentioned above, 192bhp output was very modest for the 3.0 engine. The 2.2 gives 170bhp - 100bhp/litre is readily achievable.
|
I've ben looking at CO2 emissions in the forthcoming changes to Ken's Congestion Charge (anything Euro IV and in VED bands A&B will be free, powershift listed cars such as LPG conversion exemptions to be phased out). As a car is essential for my job and I will be affecetd by the expansion next month, this is great news, because it means I will be able to drive a 'normal' car free.
Cars that will be free include some Pandas (diesels), 207 HDI 90s, Fiesta TDCIs, some Clios, even a Megane (diesel) some Citroen C1, C2, C3, but interestingly there are no VWs or Vauxhalls that qualify. I want/need an auto, which will limit me to a Smart, Prius, 107/Aygo, or, and the one I will probably go for, a C4 HDI auto.
|
|
|
IIRC the BMWs have 6 speed auto boxes, compared to the 4 of the Ford. Could this make it easier to achieve a good result in the 'official' test? It'd be interesting to see what the real wrold consumption is...
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
The other question is that, as recently as 2000, the equivalent 528 (with a 3.0 litre engine) output was 192hp. The new 530 engine output is 272hp AND more economical. Both engines are non-turbo. We have been used to the diesel engine technology improving by leaps and bounds. Any reason why the petrol engines have begun to make sudden improvements?
To be fair, the E39 528 only ever had a 2.8l engine - and though it had the same 192bhp as the previous 24v 2.5l found in the E34 series, it did have more torque. The 3.0 which replaced it in the latter E39s and E60s was rated as 231bhp and was more (or at least equally) economical than the 2.8. The newer 3.0 takes this a step further with 272bhp and further gains in economy.
IMO this has always been one of BMW greatest strengths - to build strong engines which are both powerful and economical. Honda and many others may produce good engines but they rarely get class leading fuel consumption figures too.
|
|
|
The difference between an auto and a manual is that motoring journalists and motorists in general expect flexibility from their car. Imagine trying to get a 1.6 petrol or even a 3.0 petrol to accelerate rapidly at 1400rpm or so at 70mph. It just won't happen, there isn't enough power being delivered for rapid acceleration. So we keep the revs up above 2000rpm on big engines and well over 3000 on small petrol engines to get that kick that's wanted.
When an auto gearbox is running the show a quick kick down to 5th or 4th isn't an issue to action to get the acceleration, so why not have a long lazy sixth that deals with pretty much all circumstances? Less RPM = less friction = less loss. It also means the engine is more heavily loaded = more efficient conversion of fuel to output. Modern autos are smarter than the average sports car driver and won't let you shift down gears at inopportune moments, they also allow total lock up of the gearbox so the slush box is only used during the change. You'll see more autos like this in the future.
|
|
What's written above in the other posts is all true, but remember that these CO2 figures are derived from a specified driving cycle and are unlikely to be exactly repeatable in real-world situation. There has been some debate in the technical press that the CO2 cycle used tends to slightly favour the larger engines.
|
|
|
|
The other question is that, as recently as 2000, the equivalent 528 (with a 3.0 litre engine) output was 192hp. The new 530 engine output is 272hp AND more economical.
No, the 528i was NOT a 3 litre engine. It had a 2.8 litre engine and was artificially restricted. It had quite a lot of torque for an engine of its type.
The equivilent car in 2000 was indeed the 530i, which was launched in late 2000. This had 231bhp.
|
|
|
