[Closed] Car engine re-map. Super chips?

150hp is fine for pretty much any family car. We used to have a VAG diesel with 140hp

It delivered all the power in a very narrow range and was therefore very annoying to drive, it didn't need more power, just could have done with a broader power range.

Inevitably making the range wider gives more power at peak....
You can play about with multiple and multistage turbo's... as a means to reducing the peak power but this seems to usually lead to a decrease in efficiency not to mention having more parts to fail.

To give an example BMW make the 3L flat 6 .. you can get the x25, x30 and x35 and now the x40 but they are all the same engine block..

The 30 to 25 is just detuned and some restricting parts whereas the x35 is a dual Turbo with low boost (or something)

The x35 is only available auto though as the torque shreds the clutch faster on a manual... but the fuel economy is significantly worse and the remapped x30 delivers a similar range of power/torque but the clutch can suffer but it does this with a better mpg ...

That's all broad brush strokes but ....what I mean is there are ways to lower the max power AND have a wider delivery but then its possible all you are actually achieving is limiting peak power....without an actual reason except saying "xxx ps is enough" so lets build an engine that delivers less power, probably is less efficient and such just to academically meet something....

Now in some ways it's interesting ... for example you can't change torque being linked to power.. it's how its defined and you don't necassarily want too much or it strains the clutch and can't be delivered to the road effectively so in some ways this is a useful thing...

Meanwhile, though I rarely ever use the peak power I do use the mid range all the time .. my clutch lasts OK because I don't drive like I'm trying to lay down 280hp the whole time ....

.

We used to have a VAG diesel with 140hp

It delivered all the power in a very narrow range and was therefore very annoying to drive, it didn't need more power, just could have done with a broader power range.

Yeah the old ones are like that, the new ones not. I used to have an old one, you jsut had to drive it differently.

Quoting peak bhp is willy waving and not particularly relevant for every day driving. Low down torque increases are the thing you should be searching for. Have a look a dyno charts from your proposed mapper. Look at the torque curve not the peak bhp numbers that we are all drawn to (including the mapper!)
[img] ?t=1427792005[/img]

so lets build an engine that delivers less power, probably is less efficient

Guesswork.. I think you should step away from the technical stuff....

This is quite funny. People picking random BHP numbers out of thin (tho presumably polluted) air that are 'enough' regardless of the who/what/why/when stuff. 🙂

[quote=stevextc ]My 3L diesel is more efficient at 70 mph with the remap the extra torque means it goes into the super economy mode mostly...

You need to check out maxtorque's post on the first page. The theoretical extra torque available due to the remap makes no difference at all when cruising at 70mph - the torque the engine is actually providing is exactly the same as before the remap, hence in order for the remap to improve the fuel economy then it's found some magical way to do this with less fuelling than the factory map at the same engine speed. Presumably you reckon the people designing the factory map didn't bother optimising the economy at 70 (your implication seems to be that they optimised it at 56 instead, which fundamentally misses the reason it's possible to have a remap in the first place!)? As maxtorque suggests, your lighter right foot is just due to a changed pedal map.

[quote=stevextc ]You own a diesel with half the power so how are you comparing ??

Because you were talking about the quality of the power delivery and a diesel with half the power is still "effortless to drive" with "smooth but effortless power delivery". Your biking analogies don't really apply, because the quality of the driving experience is much the same - having to use 3/4 of the pedal travel rather than 1/4 doesn't really change that.

[quote=boblo ]This is quite funny. People picking random BHP numbers out of thin (tho presumably polluted) air that are 'enough' regardless of the who/what/why/when stuff.

Well the OP has 150 (and wants more) in a car which is almost certainly no bigger or heavier than mine which is adequate with 120.

hence in order for the remap to improve the fuel economy then it's found some magical way to do this with less fuelling than the factory map at the same engine speed

It's not magic - it's less EGR.

Ah, so more polluting?

To give an example BMW make the 3L flat 6 .. you can get the x25, x30 and x35 and now the x40 but they are all the same engine block..

The 30 to 25 is just detuned and some restricting parts whereas the x35 is a dual Turbo with low boost (or something)

The x35 is only available auto though as the torque shreds the clutch faster on a manual... but the fuel economy is significantly worse and the remapped x30 delivers a similar range of power/torque but the clutch can suffer but it does this with a better mpg ...

Not so, the x25 and x30 (which are no longer available) were a different block to the x35. The x25 and x30 did use the same block but with differnet ancilliaries to give different power outputs, these were also non-turbo, so getting more power out of these is not as simple as re-mapping the engine to gain more boost. More likely changes to displacement and upgraded engine parts would be required to get any noticeable difference. The x35 was a different block and at first was a twin turbo which laterly changed to a twin scroll (single turbo). These can be mapped more easily than the NA engines.

The newer x28 and x30 are now 2.0L 4 cyclinder turbo units rather than the 3.0L straight 6 units (not flat 6).

Well the OP has 150 (and wants more) in a car which is almost certainly no bigger or heavier than mine which is adequate [i]for my circumstances[/i][i] with 120.

How do you know what the OPs specific circumstances are> He could live in a hilly area. His local road network could be full of short uphill slip roads. He might need to tow, etc etc.

I had a 1.8 petrol Toledo with 125bhp, two up and with two bikes on the roof I had to floor it to maintain speed at 70mph on some of the steeper sections of the M74. So for me 125hp wasn't adequate. A more powerful car makes journeys a lot more pleasant for my circumstances.

People have different priorities when it comes to transportation picking an arbitrary number and saying "this is enough" is just daft

So for me 125hp wasn't adequate.

No, you're not thinking about this right. 125bhp was your maximum power, and you needed close to that (assuming you weren't near the red line with your foot on the boards) to get up the hill. But what your car actually needs to maintain speed is wheel torque. So in a car with the same power but different torque distribution, you would have felt relaxed whilst still delivering the same wheel torque.

As said above - torque distribution is what makes a car 'feel' better, not peak power. In other words, power at sensible revs. Now traditionally, more peak power also means more torque low down, but that is no longer the case. With a turbo, you can tune the torque distribution. My dad's 85bhp Golf feels like a much more powerful car in normal driving. You only notice the low peak power when you go for overtakes i.e. get up to the red line.

molgrips - Member

So for me 125hp wasn't adequate.

No, you're not thinking about this right. 125bhp was your maximum power, and you needed close to that (assuming you weren't near the red line with your foot on the boards) to get up the hill.

The outcome is the same even if the analysis is flawed.

[i]Car feels underpowered, it has 125bhp. Needs more power.[/i] Even if what it really needs better power distribution a tuner/re-mapper can interpret this layperson speak, and tune the car accordingly.

I'm aware of all of this Mols, but aracer was just picking random numbers to say one figure was enough.

As it happens the Toledo was an NA petrol so didn't have a great deal of torque. Its also why my little 1.4 Fiesta feels pretty gutless despite making what on paper is a reasonable amount of power for a small car.

Still if you are going to have a torquey petrol car then it will inevitable make a lot of top end power. A petrol engine that can make 200ft/lbs will almost certainly make at least 200bhp, that's just how these things work (torque in ft/lbs = bhp @ 5500rpm)

Except richmtb's car is a petrol - unlike mine and the OP's. Can't say I ever noticed an issue with the hills on the M74 with my previous car with 110 nominal horses (haven't been that way since I got this one), not even when fully loaded 3 up with 2 huge kayaks on the roof. Sure I might have had to press a bit harder with my right foot, but that's hardly stressful.

[quote=richmtb ]I'm aware of all of this Mols, but aracer was just picking random numbers to say one figure was enough.

Well no, because the OP has a turbo diesel (which is what I've driven for the last 20 years), so the torque/power delivery should be pretty similar - apologies for not being more specific when comparing my experience with the OP's.

Still if you are going to have a torquey petrol car then it will inevitable make a lot of top end power.

Not necessarily, if it has a VNT turbo as these modern small ones do. They can put in more air and fuel in the cylinder at lower revs then back off at higher revs.

Re the A74, just drove it in both directions with a caravan and three bikes on. I think I may have needed fourth once or twice, but not really a big deal. And that's with a paltry 140bhp max. Which I didn't go near of course.

How much torque did you use?

Out of interest... what is the premium increase for chipping/remapping?

Didn't change with Polestar because it's technically a factory option.

I dunno, why do you ask?

OP here again.

Having looked that the published power and torque curves, then it would appear that the remap in question does not add a notable amount of lower rev range torque.

The original max torque is quoted at 385nm @ ~ 2,500 rpm becoming 412nm at ~ 2,600 rpm. However, it holds notably more torque after 3,000 rpm. So, you have to rev it to get the benefits.

Similar story for power. Original = 156bhp @ ~3,200 rpm, remap = 208 bhp @ ~ 4,100 rpm.

So this particular remap does require higher revs to access the benefits. Given I tend not to rev beyond 3,000 rpm then I guess this is not for me.....

Guesswork.. I think you should step away from the technical stuff....

It's hardly guess work ... it's what BMW/VAG and Mercedes all found or they found that to give better mid range the easiest way is simply to make the top end higher.

However it's missing the point which assuming it is possible to create more even power with less top end power WHY ??? Why have a smallest dick competition ??? The only reason would be more poorly thought out legislation

As said above - torque distribution is what makes a car 'feel' better, not peak power. In other words, power at sensible revs. Now traditionally, more peak power also means more torque low down, but that is no longer the case. With a turbo, you can tune the torque distribution. My dad's 85bhp Golf feels like a much more powerful car in normal driving. You only notice the low peak power when you go for overtakes i.e. get up to the red line.

Or you can stick with more peak power....
What I'm missing is why you or a manufacturer would want to reduce peak power simply for the sake of reducing peak power...

Re the A74, just drove it in both directions with a caravan and three bikes on. I think I may have needed fourth once or twice, but not really a big deal. And that's with a paltry 140bhp max. Which I didn't go near of course.

It's not a big deal... it's inconvenient and it's unnecessary stress on the engine and depending how you calculate it probably more pollution.Of course you probably don't drive with 2 bikes and a caravan all the time so designing the car for that specific is not a winner... but I'm still missing what is wrong with having 240 HP available ... when of course it's perfectly acceptable for the base model Tesla to have 240 BHP ....

Why does the Tesla need it but other cars don't ???

May have been posted already (haven't read all 3 pages in detail) but BlueFin (from Superchips) is worth looking at

[url= http://www.mybluefin.co.uk/ ]http://www.mybluefin.co.uk/[/url]

You basically re-map the car yourself via the diagnostic port. Have run it on 2 of my cars and the changes are really noticeable. Support is great too.

However it's missing the point which assuming it is possible to create more even power with less top end power WHY ???

Well, I'm not an automotive engineer, but I'd assume that the risk of pre-ignition from increased cylinder pressure would be greater at higher engine speeds. So at lower speeds you can ram more air in without having to worry about it, but if you didn't back off at higher speeds you'd get pre-ignition and your engine would die.

it's unnecessary stress on the engine

Hang on - haven't we just been saying that you can use the same engine components and tune it up to get more power? How can 80bhp's worth of torque in a 140bhp engine cause more stress than 80bhp's worth of torque in the exact same block and crankshaft when there's a bigger turbo fitted and it's using a different map?

Why does the Tesla need it

It doesn't. That's my point.

Although you could argue that Tesla needed to impress people and convince them that electric cars weren't milk floats to give them credibility and help promote alternative fuels.. which has worked. And the performance comes for free if you have enough battery for long range, as has already been discussed.

As usual Steve - I don't want to antagonise you, you seem like a nice bloke, but I really have no idea what your point is!

You need to check out maxtorque's post on the first page. The theoretical extra torque available due to the remap makes no difference at all when cruising at 70mph - the torque the engine is actually providing is exactly the same as before the remap,

hence in order for the remap to improve the fuel economy then it's found some magical way to do this with less fuelling than the factory map at the same engine speed.

This is fairly simple to see... try 1000 down a 1:4 and 1000 RPM UP

Presumably you reckon the people designing the factory map didn't bother optimising the economy at 70 (your implication seems to be that they optimised it at 56 instead, which fundamentally misses the reason it's possible to have a remap in the first place!)? As maxtorque suggests, your lighter right foot is just due to a changed pedal map.

Of course they optimise it for 56 mph... that is the speed the cars are tested at .. (and 50 in the US)
All of this is basically because the way legislation is written so that testing has no basis in real world driving.

Any car manufacturer that decided to optimise for 70 mph would be penalised both by legislation and the fuel figures thy are allowed to publish..so it is a game. the whole VAG diesel fiasco was just extending the game boundaries...

Because you were talking about the quality of the power delivery and a diesel with half the power is still "effortless to drive" with "smooth but effortless power delivery". Your biking analogies don't really apply, because the quality of the driving experience is much the same - having to use 3/4 of the pedal travel rather than 1/4 doesn't really change that.

That is your subjective view...
In the real world luxury cars (and especially the ones where the chauffeur drives) have always been made so that only 1/4 of the pedal is used ... (or whatever the fraction) rather than 3/4 ....

If I go back to my younger days and a rally tuned 306 it had heaps and heaps of power for the weight... but it was a terrible passenger car .... as a drivers car it was subjective as to if you wanted to feel the changes in g-force or not....

As I got older the fluctuating power of the tuned hot hatch is way less appealing than smooth delivery of power and indeed it reminds me of an old review on (I think) a lamborghini (could have been a ferarri) .. the point I remember was the 0-60 was something very quick going through the gears but the 0-60 starting in 1st and then going straight into 6th wasn't far off but MUCH smoother... now I think I think it was a Ferarri maranello....

The point is not the peak power but the resulting smoothness....in the case of the Ferarri it has so much torque it can go from 5-200 in 6th... with a smooth power ramp... in the case of Molgrips caravan on the A74 it means the power is always in the 1/4 (or whatever fraction) so its not going up/down as you change gears..

It's just smoother ....

Subjectively the quality of the 100mm can be much the same as the 160mm going full pelt down FW DH ... it really depends what feel you want... hence the long travel HT .. steel frames etc. however most people who tried it on a steel HT vs a DH bike would prefer the FEEL of the DH bike....

If however you'd never ridden a DH bike you mint think the bone jarring ride is all part of the fun ...

Although you could argue that Tesla needed to impress people and convince them that electric cars weren't milk floats to give them credibility and help promote alternative fuels.. which has worked. And the performance comes for free if you have enough battery for long range, as has already been discussed.

Well it's not quite free if you happen to live in somewhere they are mining lithium... but this is the base model... if they simply needed to say it's not a milk float why not have a higher end model with 240 bhp and 100 bhp for everyone to buy "because it's all you need" ???

As usual Steve - I don't want to antagonise you, you seem like a nice bloke, but I really have no idea what your point is!

The point is there is way more crap on fuels and pollution than real fact. (ad on most environmental issues)
Tesla won't tell you about the families potentially poisoned by the lithium mine but then who cares as it's not in Europe or the US... and they aren't doing the mining that's someone else... (I have no idea where Tesla get their lithium but I don't see them splashing it about so I suspect it's not very environmentally friendly)

My ex used to work for a water company (as a chemical analyst) and the biggest continuous problem they had with water supply was the paper recycling plant... Why? Because the recycling plant was completely unregulated and poured all the pollution into a stream - they didn't even TRY and do anything with it.

The water company couldn't do anything about it except react... had this been another industry the plant would have been closed down but because it was recycling they had a get out of jail free card. (I don't know how much that has change din 2 decades but I suspect not much)

Weirdly I was also googling this the oner day and looking at Wisconcin that (apparently) has a paper recycling pollution problem... but even here the anti-paper recycling crowd are mixing harmless and very harmful in scare tactics... PCB's are nasty.... kaolin isn't ...
Its very much like a lot of the anti-cracking scares... when pretty common stuff you use in the kitchen gets used in pretty small amounts... If I was living in the area my biggest problem would be increased very heavy traffic not someone putting sugar or HCl into a hole.

As with anything "follow the money" ... but I'd much rather live next to tracking than a lithium mine!

As someone said earlier .. this is a point on which there are two opposing camps... however only 1 camp is saying what others should and shouldn't have... if your happy with your car that's fine by me.... but follow the money on many of the new "green" innovations and it's about money pure and simple with a target audience who want to do the right thing...

I'm not sure which is the biggest target ... new parents or people that feel a need to buy GREEN....
The thing about BUYING GREEN is if its something you didn't need (see below) then NOT BUYING was the greenest option.

I was reading a review yesterday for a fuel cell and it cracked me up ... the person reviewing said something like I used to have one of thee and my analyst used it as an example as to what's wrong with me... £200 for the unit then £20 to charge an iPhone 6 times....

So great idea a hydrogen fuel cell, you just buy a load of hydrogen cartridges at £20 each and carry them round and it provides sufficient power to charge an iPhone 6 times...

It's cool and novel but .....how much pollution is created making the device vs what you possibly save over the lifetime of the device using coal generated electricity to chafe your mobile phone.... it's perhaps an extreme example of someone who think cool green tech but doesn't consider the pollution caused in making the non-refillable hydrogen carts...

Disposing of lithium batteries is likely a future issue...

Hang on - haven't we just been saying that you can use the same engine components and tune it up to get more power? How can 80bhp's worth of torque in a 140bhp engine cause more stress than 80bhp's worth of torque in the exact same block and crankshaft when there's a bigger turbo fitted and it's using a different map?

Fair point and 80-140 is almost double... but if you have an engine designed for 140 that has been detuned to 110 that's different. I am waiting for someone to address stop/start in diesels... and although I can see it might reduce fuel consumption I suspect it increases pollution (in use) and adds to pollution in engine wear.... in my case 330D the engine block is the same as the restricted car.... 325D and the 240 bhp and whatever torque was based on the clutch rather than engine.

I say suspect on stop/start because none is addressing it... no-one seems to have long term or wider figures the same as with lithium mining and disposal .... it's presented as "it must be good" so we don't need to look too closely.
.

[quote=stevextc ]

You need to check out maxtorque's post on the first page. The theoretical extra torque available due to the remap makes no difference at all when cruising at 70mph - the torque the engine is actually providing is exactly the same as before the remap,

Which bit is confusing you? Have you not read and understood maxtorques post, or do you disagree with it? How much torque do you think your engine is producing at 70mph after the remap compared to before?

Its not magic ..(any more than suspension tuning) .. the engine has multiple burn modes and these are used differently .. if the engine is at 1000 rpm with a load it uses a different burn than 1000 rpm with no load except the engine drag.
This is fairly simple to see... try 1000 down a 1:4 and 1000 RPM UP

What's that got to do with the price of fish? We're talking about exactly the same load (driving at 70) before and after remapping.

Of course they optimise it for 56 mph... that is the speed the cars are tested at .. (and 50 in the US)
All of this is basically because the way legislation is written so that testing has no basis in real world driving.
Any car manufacturer that decided to optimise for 70 mph would be penalised both by legislation and the fuel figures thy are allowed to publish..so it is a game. the whole VAG diesel fiasco was just extending the game boundaries...

Er, you do realise we're not talking about tuning a carb? Optimising it at 70 makes no difference at all to the optimisation at 56 - this is kind of the whole point of having a map!

It's interesting that you bring up the VAG diesel scandal though - because your remapping effectively results in the same thing as that allowed VAG to do with their engines - improved performance at the expense of emissions. The only difference being that your remap doesn't have a cheat mode to revert to low emissions when it detects a test being carried out.

That is your subjective view...

It's my view having lots of experience of driving diesels with half the power you seem to think you need, along with some experience of driving more powerful cars. There's plenty of power and torque for everyday driving, you don't have to stir the gears to make progress (or to get up hills on the M74), it's effortless driving.

Your thoughts are your own subjective view, and you keep strawmanning with examples of cars which are rubbish which are nothing like mine.

The point is there is way more crap on fuels and pollution than real fact. (ad on most environmental issues)

There is, and you seem to be simply googling it and regurgitating what you've read and not thinking much beyond it.

I'm out of this one.

Seems to be going around in circles here but...

I think while we've fairly different views you're right Aracer, no one 'needs' to have their car remapped. I've certainly never owned a standard/road car that needed a remap, though it hasn't stopped me doing it

I'd imagine most of the time it is done just for the hell of it, trying to justify it is daft.*

*Previous comment about towing and in my opinion being nicer to drive still stand.

If MT did ever read this ridiculous thread, which I'm pretty sure he won't waste his time on, I'm sure he would be doing this:
[img] [/img]
If on the off chance he is reading this, why aren't you working on the Ibiza rather than reading this crap. 😆

aracer .. you are using the word NEED in a very millennial-snowflake way....

Lets get this straight ... you don't need a car to carry bikes because you neither [b]need[/b] a bike nor a car ... these are simply lifestyle choices you have made.

I don't need a car... I can change job or sign on if i can't find one... this is not about what is NEEDED it is about people making lifestyle choices.

I could walk to a place to buy food that people have carried to that place to sell in wheel barrows etc. I just find the car is more convenient when I decide or choose to do 50kg of shopping in one go...

How much torque do you think your engine is producing at 70mph after the remap compared to before?

What's that got to do with the price of fish? We're talking about exactly the same load (driving at 70) before and after remapping.

So assuming the engine is switched on and rotating and the load is exactly the same etc. then the torque is the same .. what changes is the amount of fuel to create the same torque.

To ignore any electronic wizardry this would depend on what viscosity oil was in the car... so changing the oil viscosity will change the torque developed from the same amount of fuel... HOWEVER what happens with the electronics is that the pressure, rate and the time the fuel is injected changes.... again at an extreme if the car is floored then it dumps the fuel and not all of it is converted... whereas when its ticking over it dribbles the fuel in over longer on the piston stroke...but develops far less energy per cylinder cycle....

Either one ay or another ... plenty of people see fuel economy improvements when driving mildly after a remap... so either they are getting that because their foot is less down on the pedal than before or not... so if they are on average doing the same speeds on the same journey how is there foot less heavy if not because they are developing slightly more power ???

And at the end of the day why does it bother you so much if someone remaps a car to have power you don't feel is necessary ???

It's interesting that you bring up the VAG diesel scandal though - because your remapping effectively results in the same thing as that allowed VAG to do with their engines - improved performance at the expense of emissions.

There is no such thing as absolute omissions.... the type and nature of the omissions changes depending on how the fuel is injected ... (and a load of other things like the oxygen in the air or engine temp)

In one situation a car is spewing unburned fuel and in another its spewing more particulates, CO2, CO etc. and a large part of the emissions is WATER .... ideally we want the cleanest burn possible but that largely coincides with the most efficient one but again really depends what's being measured... which goes back to the whole way emissions are tested and what is tested and what isn't.

Most importantly proper testing and publication would actually make the facts available and allow people to choose and most people would take a cleaner car over a dirtier one all other things being equal..and even more so when tax etc. is applied. this is exactly what happened with the whole mis-selling diesels except people were fed false or misleading info because of the legislation.

To put this simply the legislation says they publish figures at 56 mph... as extra urban... so that is what's published and what people have as a basis.. when the government tells them diesel is cleaner and gave tax breaks they bought deisel many of them never getting half the testing MPG and many having DPF's that didn't clean...

The only difference being that your remap doesn't have a cheat mode to revert to low emissions when it detects a test being carried out.

To me this illustrates how bad the testing is.... if the testing represented REAL WORLD conditions then how on earth would the car detect it was being tested? (Yes it's possible with some extra sensors but that's not what they did) from my understanding what they did was detect the non-real world and very specific test conditions .. they didn't need use a sensor to check the car was on a rolling road and wasn't going through air .. they just detected a specific set of conditions that are exceedingly unlikely to ever occur in the real world...

CBA with the obfuscation and whataboutery - go and read Maxtorque's post on the first page.

But testing is something I know a lot about - I've been paid to design and run development, production and acceptance tests for some pretty high value projects:
[quote=stevextc ]To me this illustrates how bad the testing is.... if the testing represented REAL WORLD conditions then how on earth would the car detect it was being tested? (Yes it's possible with some extra sensors but that's not what they did) from my understanding what they did was detect the non-real world and very specific test conditions .. they didn't need use a sensor to check the car was on a rolling road and wasn't going through air .. they just detected a specific set of conditions that are exceedingly unlikely to ever occur in the real world...

The most important aspect of a test - far more important than any other aspect - is that it is repeatable. They could develop such a test by putting sensors on a real car, giving it to somebody to drive around and recording the data (I don't think that is how it's done, but I presume there is some real world input). However then the test would always consist of precisely that sequence of events. The cheat mode would detect that sequence (well the start of it) in order to engage and would work fine with a completely real world sequence of events. That sequence is extremely unlikely to occur in the real world - it just happened once and the next time that person drove the sequence would be different - yet it is still a real world sequence.

In summary it's the repeatability - which is an essential aspect - of the test sequence which allows the cheat mode to work, not whether it's at all related to real world driving.

>reading a review of a fuel cell

If it's that shitty Brunton thing that looks like a Dyson washing machine then it's a gimmick mate, not proper engineering and performs accordingly.

aracer .. you are using the word NEED in a very millennial-snowflake way....

Lets get this straight ... you don't need a car to carry bikes because you neither need a bike nor a car ... these are simply lifestyle choices you have made.

I don't need a car... I can change job or sign on if i can't find one... this is not about what is NEEDED it is about people making lifestyle choices.

well interesting thread yet again from the one I started a while ago .

my real world testing now the novelty has worn off

overtaking when fully loaded is a joy and I spend less time on the wrong side of the road .

my fuel consumption is an extra 28 - 34 miles from each tankfull driving like I am paying for the fuel ( which I am )
and how I always drive .

so I am burning less fuel for the same mileage so am i killing more baby robins now or before the remap

I'm not sure whether better fuel efficiency is an indicator of reduced emissions..

>reading a review of a fuel cell

If it's that shitty Brunton thing that looks like a Dyson washing machine then it's a gimmick mate, not proper engineering and performs accordingly.

It probably was.... it was the review actually cracked me up though.....

That's what people buy based on some good intention....as I say its a close run between people having a first child and people wanting to buy green....

When the OH was expecting we got convinced we needed all sorts of stuff... like a changing table... most of it was used ONCE... like the changing table but first time parents are an easy target

People wanting to buy green are the same ... its not just the engineering but the what isn't published... such as the effect of lithium mining and disposal... the effect of paper recycling (which far from just googling my ex was head of analysis for a big water company but you didn't really need sophisticated instrumentation to see the water) ... we drove past one day and she told me what the stream was ... you could see the dead vegetation... you didn't need a GCMS or sophisticated analysis....

I'm not sure whether better fuel efficiency is an indicator of reduced emissions..

It's certainly [b]an[/b] indicator ... which is different to saying its the whole story.... but as I already said there is no real measure or definitions of what "emissions" actually are..... and how harmful one type of emission is locally vs wider... e.g CO is very toxic but quickly turns into CO2 which is non toxic and required by trees to breath and convert to oxygen... (but not a good thing overall) .... so CO in a town is different to CO on a motorway with regards the effect of it ....

Overall however with modern cars particulates are captured so the cleanness of the burn (as MPG for the same car) is a fair indication of the emissions...