Volkswagen Stops Its Quest for Tiny Engines With Big Pollution Footprints

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Contrary to the popular mantra, there is a replacement for displacement. The problem is tiny engines that harness technology to boost power output aren’t the greenest things on the road. In fact, the emissions created by small two, three and four-cylinder engines are often out of all proportion to the mills’ Lilliputian displacement.

Volkswagen, realizing it’s staring down the barrel of regulatory non-compliance, has vowed to stop searching for the latest gas- and diesel-powered micro-wonder. Small is out. Normal-sized is in.

While the smallest engine offered by Volkswagen in the U.S. is its 1.4-liter TSI four-cylinder, European displacements can drop far lower. The company recently canned its 1.4-liter diesel, stating all future diesels will bottom out at 1.6 liters. A 1.0-liter three-banger currently found under the hood of the super-tiny Polo and Up will soldier on, though VW promises it won’t look at building anything smaller than that.

The proclamations come at a time of increasingly stringent emissions requirements. Studies performed in the wake of the diesel emissions scandal found small-displacement engines were, in normal operation, huge polluters. Despite sipping gas, the wee mills pumped out clouds of nitrogen oxide and other smog-causing particles.

In two years, European nations will enact real-world Driving Emissions Tests (RDE). Many engines built and sold today, especially the small ones, fail the looming standards miserably.

“The trend of downsizing is over,” VW chairman Herbert Diess said at the recent launch of the next-generation Golf, according to The Telegraph.

Volkswagen, consumers, and the environment were burned by the diesel scandal’s fallout, but the widespread proliferation of oil-burning engines across Europe can’t be blamed on the company once-popular technology. Blame governments who tried to turn consumers off of gasoline by taxing it at a higher rate, Diess said.

Diesel use “has not been a customer choice, but a result of favourable tax regimes,” Diess said. “Once you have a price advantage, people will play along.”

[Image: Wikimedia Commons ( CC BY-SA 3.0)]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 45 comments
  • Daniel J Daniel J on Feb 07, 2017

    Just curious, anyone know what the NOX levels are for the Mazda Sky Active Engines? While they don't feel nor sound like the most refined things, I prefer it over the Ecoboost equivalents.

    • Notapreppie Notapreppie on Feb 07, 2017

      According to this, it's about 7mg/km for the Euro version of the SkyActiv 2.0 6MT AWD CX-3 that we don't get here in the states. The USDM engines run at 13:1 compression ratio while everywhere else in the world gets 14:1. Also, we can't get a manual CX-3. That same website puts the SkyActiv-D 2.2 in the Mazda3 at 61mg/km and Golf GTI at 18-35mg/km, depending on transmission and power output. A Ford Fiest ST is reported as having 11-20mg/kg while the plain Fiesta w/non-turbo 1.6 emits 18mg/km. http://www.nextgreencar.com/emissions/make-model/mazda/mazda+cx-3/

  • Hummer Hummer on Feb 07, 2017

    Forced induction is not a replacement for displacement, it's a bandaid to a problem that shouldn't exist. You can put a turbo on an 6.0L vortec, makes it better but not an 8.1L.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next