saving money at the pump

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

Yes, unless regenerative braking is used, early on, EVs MIGHT produce more PMs from their brake pads.

As ever, driving styles have an effect on the environment!

A modern ICE vehicle, like an EV, produces no gaseous emissions, when the throttle is closed, since fuel is cut off (Which is why diesels used to be more economical than carburetted petrol engines, which went very rich on the idling system when the throttle was closed)

Maybe, the increased weight of EV requires heavier braking, producing more brake dust, and tyre wear, than ICE is open to debate, but seems logical.

Howard

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Hello Howard,

I need to go to Peterborough at some point in the next week.  If you would like me to take you for a spin around town and/or along the A1, send me a PM.  I promise not to frighten you unexpectedly with the acceleration.🙂

RAB

[VicParticipant @vic]

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Well done, Vic.  A much more recent and honest review of brake wear for BEVs.🙂

[jimmy bParticipant @jimmyb]

What about the increased tyre wear and associated micro particles?

(I have no skin in this game, I drive a 23mpg car, just passing comment)

 

Jimb

[Dave HalfordParticipant @davehalford22513]

Picking up on the title of Vics post “Another way EV’s clean the air”.

There was a pollution piece in an early 70’s Hot Rod magazine that claimed the newest California models driven in LA exhausted less pollution than that which they sucked into the Carb as not so fresh air.

[Dave Halford]

On Dave Halford Said:

Picking up on the title of Vics post “Another way EV’s clean the air”.

There was a pollution piece in an early 70’s Hot Rod magazine that claimed the newest California models driven in LA exhausted less pollution than that which they sucked into the Carb as not so fresh air.

My 1973 gas guzzler (~15mpg) was equipped with an air pump driven from the same belt drive as the water pump. This sucked in ‘clean’ air and pumped it into 8 nozzles, one per exhaust manifold. The theory was that it helped burn any remaining unburnt fuel – but as a byproduct, it ensured that the measured gases at the tailpipes appeared to be less concentrated than without the pump.

This apparently was the only way that the quad carburetored model could pass the c1972 California emissions standards.

As a side comment, performance, weight and range is about the same as my 10 year old Audi Quattro estate – 50 years from leading the pack to brisk but just a bit above average.

So fiddling with the test results is not a new situation!

I await the flak…..

 

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

“Adjusting” conditions to pass tests is not new.

Mixtures were set so weak as to risk engine damage, car tyre pressures were inflated upwards, to lower rolling resistance, Alternator outputs reduced, to return as high a fuel economy figure as possible, to aid sales.

When emission controls first came in, one of the American engine manufacturers used to boast that their engines were cycle beaters by detecting when the engine was put into test conditions, and adjust settings so that it passed!

One of our world leading engines went out of production because it could not pass the test cycle.  It was so efficiecient that the exhaust would not get hot enough (250 C) to light off the catalytic conconvertor. The average exhaust temperature over the test cycle was only 150C!

Sometimes the small print needs a microscope to be readable

Howard

 

 

[Author]

Posts