2006+ Honda Civic Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
732 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi all

I know that the 2 litre engine in the CTR dont comply with the Euro V emissions regulations, cause it produce to much co2 (please correct me if im wrong), but what i dont understand is, my dad AMG product way more co2 than the CTR, but yet the AMG is still goin... is it because the CTR is N/A??

can anyone (in very simple english) explain to me why the CTR is no more? but yet other more powerful hatches is still available?
 

·
!-!
Joined
·
369 Posts
because the emissions are bases on size of the engine to how much co2 they are producing.


So a 2ltr car can produce no more than X amounts of co2 etc ;)

Sent from my iPhone 6 *tester* using TapaTalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
732 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
because the emissions are bases on size of the engine to how much co2 they are producing.


So a 2ltr car can produce no more than X amounts of co2 etc ;)

Sent from my iPhone 6 *tester* using TapaTalk
but i heard from someone somewhere... that if it turbo/supercharge then its ok?
 

·
!-!
Joined
·
369 Posts
Because adding a turbo reduces the amount of co2 as it gives your more power low down so you don't have to rev the nurts out of it to get optimum power.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong

Sent from my iPhone 6 *tester* using TapaTalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
732 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
If its as easy as that.... Honda can just add a turbo to the type r (obviously honda won't) coz it's famous for its N/A....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
373 Posts
I've wondered about this too, I thought manufacturers could offset Co2 emissions from sporty cars against their range of economical cars. How come Ferrari and Nissan etc. can still be producing N/A cars? (especially Ferrari when their full range is N/A?) - All down to quantity I suppose?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
The Emmisions is done as an average for the manufacturer.

So in theory if the rest of the range is very low, then they can get away with having a single model thats higher.

Ferrari etc get away with it as they offset their range against Fiats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
732 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I've wondered about this too, I thought manufacturers could offset Co2 emissions from sporty cars against their range of economical cars. How come Ferrari and Nissan etc. can still be producing N/A cars? (especially Ferrari when their full range is N/A?) - All down to quantity I suppose?
I'm still a bit confused ..... Not sure how it all works.... 2l car producing 200+co2 6l car producing 300+ co2.... Either way it's still wrong how a 6l car can get alway with it :/
 

·
!-!
Joined
·
369 Posts
I'm still a bit confused ..... Not sure how it all works.... 2l car producing 200+co2 6l car producing 300+ co2.... Either way it's still wrong how a 6l car can get alway with it :/
Bigger engine size/block will need more fuel to burn and usually have more than 4 cylinders

Sent from my iPhone 6 *tester* using TapaTalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
732 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
But surely there other 2l car out there with the same problem.... Isn't there? The only other car I kno of thats been killed off is the rx8
 

·
TIMMEH!!!!!!
Joined
·
580 Posts
or we could all have eco green electric cars that produce ZERO emissions!


how do you make electricity? oh thats right burning fossil fuels/hydrogen/nuclear rods.

eco friendly-the biggest con ever made

Nuclear does produce zero emissions. You add water, you get steam, drives a turbine that connects to a generator and you get electrical power. And stream returns to water after cooling down.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,623 Posts
Nuclear does produce zero emissions. You add water, you get steam, drives a turbine that connects to a generator and you get electrical power. And stream returns to water after cooling down.
Unless you count radioactive waste that has to be buried for ages as "emissions".
 

·
...............Daedalus
Joined
·
3,687 Posts
or we could all have eco green electric cars that produce ZERO emissions!


how do you make electricity? oh thats right burning fossil fuels/hydrogen/nuclear rods.

eco friendly-the biggest con ever made
+1

Nuclear may not produced CO2 but as FWH pointed out, I wouldn't exactly call nuclear waste eco-friendly.

The only real eco-friendly fuel is hydrogen fuel cells but I'm sure even that has some drawbacks.

Sent from my Sony Xperia S using Tapatalk
 

·
TIMMEH!!!!!!
Joined
·
580 Posts
Its eco friendly, its not producing another gas that effects the atmosphere that man has caused . At also with become safe to lick over time. Yes time doesn't help but it doesn't become safe.

If you going to say thats its dangerous like that, then so is wind, water. everything. They all damage the land we need to farm and live on.
 

·
!-!
Joined
·
369 Posts
But surely there other 2l car out there with the same problem.... Isn't there? The only other car I kno of thats been killed off is the rx8
It combusts twice in one cycle so its Like a 2.6
Sent from my iPhone 6 *tester* using TapaTalk
 

·
...............Daedalus
Joined
·
3,687 Posts
Its eco friendly, its not producing another gas that effects the atmosphere that man has caused . At also with become safe to lick over time. Yes time doesn't help but it doesn't become safe.
Nuclear waste has a half life of thousands of years.... You're more than welcome to lick it in our lifetime but I really wouldn't recommend it.

If you going to say thats its dangerous like that, then so is wind, water. everything. They all damage the land we need to farm and live on.
You're comparing wind and water to radiation? Wind and water could never cause a Chernobyl....

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for nuclear power. It's more efficient, safer and less damaging to the environment than burning fossil fuels, but you can't say it doesn't have its drawbacks and that nuclear waste is safe.....

Sent from my Sony Xperia S using Tapatalk
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
lol some people just live in a state of denial.

heres an example. mankind has done nothing for the good of this planet. only destroyed many parts of it and used up valuable resources, waged wars and destroyed many many things.
what other species on earth attacks its own habitat in such a way?
hamanity is a blight, a disease that is so blind and ignorant to the causes of its own actions.

if you disagree with this statement then clearly you are in denial
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
lol some people just live in a state of denial.

heres an example. mankind has done nothing for the good of this planet. only destroyed many parts of it and used up valuable resources, waged wars and destroyed many many things.
what other species on earth attacks its own habitat in such a way?
hamanity is a blight, a disease that is so blind and ignorant to the causes of its own actions.

if you disagree with this statement then clearly you are in denial
I agree.

I think 50% of the worlds population should be executed in front of their families to save the planet ;)
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top