International Lancia Forums

The UK motorsport scene is taking on the criticisms from those who would like us to abandon the car entirely by encouraging the use of bio fuels.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/05 ... -with-eth/

There have been some successful attempts to convert the Fulvia V4 to injection both historically (Sport Competizione's) and by the likes of Paul de Raymond Leclercq.

Has anyone considered how a Fulvia could be run on bio ethanol?

Clearly there are Octane advantages but fuel consumption could rise by 30% and there are issues with rubber hoses and injectors.

On the more modern vehicles front I believe Practical Performance car converted a Porsche 924 and there is a Honda Insight rallying with bio ethanol.

A few decades ago life was simple. After sinning one went to church for confession. After an Our Father and a few Holy Mary's (or whatever the english translation is) once conscience was clear again.

Today the religion is Environment and you plant trees for sinning. If you think about it life is even simplier today. You don't even have to do the planting yourself. You give money to an environment priest and he plants the trees for you. Or at least he says he does. For your conscience it makes not difference if he does it or not.

nice one Huib

I'll stick with the former though not in a religious way!

But taxes are now based on emissions (at least here in UK) so the Govt will take the place of the priest and you won't even feel better unless you can pay the lowest CO2 g/km road tax bracket! Thankfully pre 1973 Fulvias are still road tax exempt.

You are too modest. The Govt is not taking the place of the priest but the place of god in this case I would say.

I am getting more confused by the day. Some years ago I saw a report from the UK Min. of Transportation which showed that the manufacturing of a new car produces more pollution than any existing car would ever produce in its remaining life. I already found it odd that the report was marked "Confidential".

This new tax system promotes the production of new cars.

Just a few weeks ago the new Belgian Minister of Transportation suggested to ban all pre 1996 cars. All these measures can only be understood if we realize that any organisation is only interested in one thing and that is keeping itself alive. As an organisation goverments have millennia of experience. They are clever. To thrive they need tax money which means everybody has to have a job. And people with good jobs don't start revolutions. In reality governments are only interested to promote the production of new cars so there are more jobs and thus more pollution. They use whatever excuse is swallowed easily by the people. This era it is the environment.

Doing nothing is usually good for the environment. Very good for the environment would be to cut the number of jobs by say 50%. Half the people would be at home which cures any traffic problems instantly and reduces the pollution from cars by probably more than 50%. Half the number of factories would be closed. This is also good. However any govt taking measures to this effect would sign its own death warrant. It is not going to happen. A real effective solution will have to come from nature. Not from humans. And I don't think nature thinks in terms of "solution". It just moves on in all dimensions.

Some time ago we had pope Al Gore in this country to introduce his movie about climate change. If he had crossed the Atlantic by sail boat he would have made a powerfull statement. However, he came by kerosine guzzler. There must be a hidden agenda.

A few minutes ago I heard a commercial on the radio for a new gas boiler for the central heating which would save some 400 euro per year for the average household. I bet the people use the saved money to book a vacation by kerosine guzzler.

We are getting away from the question. How do they measure this CO2 g/km? Do they take into account that if a car is unreliable the breakdown service has to come more often with a heavy trailer? Are you personally suffering from the new road tax system? For what amount?

This issue has been occupying my mind too, although I think I'm less suspicious than Huib about the motives behind governmental initiatives (at least sometimes). It's been a long time since Minervas were in production so I doubt that the Belgian Minister of Transportation is thinking about automotive jobs.

I have never owned a new car. I always considered my use of older cars a form of resource conservation. I was using the old vehicles until their lifespans were finally exhausted by disappearance of spare parts stocks or terminal rust. I figured people like me prevented the wasteful scrapping of spare parts and cars that can still provide good service. But here in California it is being proposed that automobiles of 15 years of age or older should be subjected to emissions tests on an annual basis. Previously the tests were performed every two years. 1975 and earlier models are entirely exempt. For regular driving on the high-risk Los Angeles streets, I've been running my 1981 Beta coupe for 16 years and a 1991 Alfa 164 has augmented the Beta for the past year. I have not altered the emissions systems on either of these cars and would never do so but the emissions testing routine is always stressful, time consuming and occasionally quite expensive due to the necessity of having a mechanic wilfully misadjust the cars to ensure that they pass their tests before re-adjusting them back to factory specifications in order to run properly. I favored these cars for regular use because (a) they are relatively expendable (compared to the earlier cars), and (b) they are equipped with modern emissions systems thus minimizing the environmental burden inflicted by my automotive use, and (c) while certainly not like the old cars they are still relatively enjoyable cars to drive, particularly when compared to their contemporaries, and the Beta is frankly a lovely-looking car. If it becomes necessary to get these two well-maintained cars through an emissions test every year, I may go backward and buy another Fulvia, subjecting it to the hardships of city traffic and uncovered parking just to avoid the hassle. Perhaps I can re-use an old page from my own history book and find a decent-running rust bucket so that I don't feel so bad about this treatment. My Flaminias are frankly too exotic and also too thirsty for such use.

But I have always known in the back of my mind that someday my beloved old cars would become unusably old, like a 1912 Spyker. Maybe those days are just over the horizon.

Many if not all car manufacturers have rather large plants in Belgium, Randy. Some months ago there were demonstrations as one was closed.

back to the subject of racing and bio fuels here is an interesting website with audio downloads of the seminars about renewable fuels for race cars:

http://www.eemsonline.co.uk/events/post ... uturefuels

Huib,

personally I drive an imported 2nd hand Audi A2 1.2 TDI which can run on RME biodiesel. Using just 3L/100km (96 UK MPG) it pumps out just 81g/km CO2 so is now also (like my 69 Fulvia) road tax exempt! Hurrah!

Most researchers accept that building a car is around 30% of the total emissions the vehicle makes. Sitting in a traffic jam with the engine running is the most damaging. materials used in construction affect re-cycling and energy use. The good thing about Aluminium as opposed to steel bodied cars is that they can be recycled very efficiently but the initial cost is high.

A shame then that Audi stopped making the Alloy A2 in 2005 and now promote gas guzzlers like the Q7 SUV and the beautiful but far too expensive R8. Todays cars are V heavy - just look at how the Renault Clio or VW Golf has been super sized in the last decade. People are getting fatter, want Air Con as standard, want a zillion airbags and side impact bars so they can forget about driving skills and just pull out in front of the next motorist. If they get injured they sue the car maker for not building them a WW3 tank! Both G DeHavilland (DH Tiger Moth to DH Comet - first jet airliner) and Colin Chapman (Lotus 7) said "add lightness". But consumers fail to listen.

Looks like the boring and over hyped Prius will win in America at least where only ONE percent of car drivers use the more efficient modern low sulphur diesel.

Aviation is another area the media has over blamed for global warming. Of total CO2 emissions it is between 2 and 3 percent of the global total. It's contribution to the world economy is vast. We want to stop elephants being killed in Africa but that will require tourism to pay for game keepers. Then we tax the tourist and make him/her feel guilty about air travel's pollution! If we stop people flying we will stop economies in poorer nations like Kenya who export most of their produce by air. Sea travel (except sailing and rowing!) is actually worse per km then air travel.

Actually staying at home is the biggest polluter in the West. The average US citizen pumps out 20 tonnes of CO2 per year , the average Chinese 5 tonnes (granted there are more of them) and the average African is the most environmentally friendly.

well enough hot air for now!

Time to push my Fulvia out - actually no engine so a flintstone car at the moment! the engine is in holland for repair! Er...... don't even think about the CO2 that will cost!

I stand corrected, Huib! Actually I suspected this might be the case but I couldn't resist the Minerva remark.

The diesel issue is interesting. Currently, in California, it is not necessary for the owner of a diesel to submit it to testing for emissions at all. This is a very great benefit to diesel owners but surprisingly it has not manifested in a move by the public to buy them. I suspect that very few Californians are aware of this exemption. There are also very few diesel models available in the US market.

My personal objection to diesels is their total lack of a pleasing sound. Most of the cars I have owned over the years have been very pleasing to the ear in terms of both mechanical and exhaust sound. I do not relish exchanging the sound of an Alfa or old Lancia V6 or V4 for the agricultural buzz of a diesel. They are not known for being very eager revvers either, another pleasure of the engines in most of the cars I have owned (the 2 liter Beta excepted). Finally, diesel engines used to be very heavy in order to withstand their high compressions. Is this still true? We all know what a heavy engine does "for" vehicle dynamics.

Those of you in Europe are well familiar with the irrational American appetite for gigantism. My country could make an emormous difference in the CO2 picture if its public would adopt smaller and smaller-engined cars. I would be thrilled to have the option of buying something like an Alfa 149 or Lancia Y here. It would be wonderful if sports cars were again available with small, high revving fuel efficient engines and low vehicle weight, instead of the pointless "luxuries" like power assisted steering and gadgets unrelated to the function of the car lugged about by heavy engines suitable only for executive sedans. But I like cars as cars. Most people don't.

Hi Randy

Things will change. It took until 2006 for the USA to introduce low sulphur diesel. It's been in europe for decades. The UK market took a very long time c.f. France or Germany to see the benefits of modern high pressure direct injection (Common Rail and Pumpe Duse (VW Audi PD) systems). But it was teh 1970s fuel crisis that led to much of today's technology. Elsbett invented PD : http://www.elsbett.com/us/elsbett-diese ... ngine.html

Suggest you listen to a BMW 335d and then make you mind up regards noise and performance. Close to M3 around race track and on road but still 35 to 40 mpg.

Audi just won Le Mans 24 hr with a TDI car for 2nd year running. Yes they do sound different but hardly tractor like anymore.

Spoke to one of the JCB Diesel max engineers and he said the land speed record for diesel would have been 50 to 100mph higher were it not for the tyres they had to use. Their two engine solution made 150bhp/litre not bad for converted tractor engines! See: http://www.jcbdieselmax.com/html/car.php?subsection=10

In General Aviation we are now seeing modern diesels taking over from traditional horizontally opposed avgas pistons like those made by Lycoming. See: http://www.centurion-engines.com/

The great advantage there is that JETA1 fuel is very similar to diesel and much cheaper than 100LL AVGAS. Consumption is almost halved when fitted to a Cessna 172 : about 4.5 US gals per hour.

Back to the Audi A2: The 1191cc TDI engine weighs 100kg - all alloy block 3 cylinder on an alloy subframe. Torque is higher than 1600cc 16v Toyota MR2 I used to run. At highway speeds aerodynamics (Cd 0.25) and lightness (850kg) really do come into play 50-80mph is easily as quick as a Honda Accord petrol and on those 145/80R14 tyres the only noise is wind noise!

As for diesel noise when at a standstill, in ECO mode the engine switches off if you hold the brake for more than 4 secs. As soon as the brake is released the engine starts again instantly. Even with air con and power steering she returns well over 80 mpg with my driving. My wife gets closer to 100mpg. Much nicer to drive than a Prius and no batteries to drag around at higher speeds. In fact very little body roll and good steering feel I think she's the closest modern car I've driven to a Fulvia.

I notice the new Fiat 500 is similarly light and when fitted with 1.3 Multijet will return 67mpg (Imperial). New MINI diesel version is to come with stop start system soon. Peugoet have also promised to stop the weight increase and now use Aluminium bonnets on more basic cars.

Thank you for the details, Eco. They do sound very interesting indeed. The idea of a modern 850kg automobile is downright exciting.

I hope you are right about things changing here but unless you have been to the US in the past five years or so, you would be shocked at the enormity of the vehicles driven here. My 164 is the largest car I ever expect to own--positively gargantuan for my tastes--and yet it is small compared to the Chelsea Tractors crowding the lanes and even compared to such bloated sedans as the current 7 series BMW. People wring their hands over the cost of fuel (still absurdly low compared to what you are paying in the UK) but they continue to buy these gauche and dangerous vehicles.

After reading your post I googled the cars you mention. Fiat are making some noises about coming back here with the 500 but we've been told Alfa would be back for almost ten years now and where are they? Fiat still have a very negative image here because of their dreadful reliability and durability record in the 1970s (matched only by Audi's reliability and durability record in that decade, but Audi soldiered on, focused on correcting the problems and producing truly appealing cars which are now quite popular). My guess is that the best hope I have of one of these new generation cars coming to this country is the Mini, for there IS a definite green contingent buying the Prius here and BMW are smart enough to know how to reach them.