Manufacturing a car and environment numbers!

[Did67]

I go to 95 g / km.

For an oil-fueled Xantia, 160 g CO2 corresponds to approximately 6.2 l / 100.
I guess it's "real" consumption ...

On the other hand, the 95 g for the C1 constitute a "normalized" value ...
Real comparisons can only be made with use and I am not sure that the advantage will be as important as expected ... [/ quote]

I had put 160 g of CO² at random. The consumption of my Xantia TurboD was between 7 and 7,5 l / 100 (I ate above the paline, so I "go up" every day ... In Alsace, the wheat therefore touches each other over 20 km , half is in zone 50 or zone 30 ...

However, my foot is very light, but I couldn't do better!

The C1 is very recent, the measures are in progress. It will be between 4,5 and 5 l under the same conditions. Less on "long journeys" in the flat plain (I will be around 4 l).

You have to try before you criticize. It is very surprising, the 3 cylinder of this small ...

On 3 cars, it was verified that my consumption under the stipulated conditions was very very close to the standardized consumption given on the manufacturers' sheets.

[Did67]

OK for the reduction of NOx, but for CO, I don't believe it for a moment, it even seems to me that LPG emits more.

That we equip ourselves with LPG to drive cheaper, yes, but we must not advance "pseudo-green" arguments as justification ...

Last thing: my "oil squash" only emits less than 120 g of CO2 fossil...

1) I quoted from memory. Confusion is possible. I check (data on internet + ticket of the last analysis on my C5) and I will specify.

2) I love people who know what I think better than I do! Gifted, what am I saying, Gods !!!

Just two clarifications: I indicated above that I first started with the idea of ​​a Prius; I also hinted somewhere that I did not benefit from the LPG conversion bonus on the C5 because the finance law had limited it to vehicles emitting less than 160 g of CO² in the petrol version. So I paid the € 3 "cash".

Sorry for you Lumberjack, but my motivation was at least as much particle emissions and health (I tell you, if you have not read it in other posts, that I could be dead,; it marked me ! When you haven't been there, you can hardly understand) ... Financially, I just want to find my way around (that is to say not to pay more "investment" + operation, while polluting much less) ... Now you will believe me or you will not believe me, it is your strictest right !!!

You can do the calculation with a C1: the profitability of the investment is even doubtful; besides the guy from Citröen did not care about my face when I told him !!!

LPG is profitable on cars with high fuel consumption. The cost of the transformation is the same, but the literations much much more important (JEEP type).

It remains that all pollutants combined, I polish much less than a PRIUS (even if I emit a little more CO²) than a PRIUS for 3 times cheaper. Basta. That's enough for me. Sorry if this troubles you.

3) You will explain to me how with 7 l you get 120 g of CO² per 100 km ???

And, with an XM, you are not many on the roads of France to have a control of the mushroom which allows them to hold such performances. But I believe you !!!

With my squash, despite all my efforts, impossible to get there (except on long flat distance) and especially to climb without leaving a small cloud behind me (it was particularly visible at night, when I had a car that followed me, and that I looked in the exterior mirror - by day, I did not see it! Look to see !!!).

[I Citro]

Yes, Woodcutter, it's easy to attack Did, but he had the courage to take action, to make choices, to fight the situation.

I proceeded somewhat in the same way, with perhaps errors, but I think the main thing is to move forward, analyze, correct, evolve rather than just wait.

For my part, I switched to LPG for bad reasons (economic and fiscal). However, this allowed me to discover the advantages of this cleaner fuel because it does not emit particles. By the way, he also got me, thanks to forum LPG that I frequented then, allowed to slide on quanthomme and the pantone which led me here.

Lately, I read a lot of things from VERY SERIOUS scientists who question global warming, I do not know what to think, but that does not change my desire to return to more sobriety on my consumption in general and to walk in them. not from my revered grandfather, a cultivator full of common sense "peasant".

[Woodcutter]

And oh guys! Let go of the bunch a bit!

Je don't attack Did, otherwise he would have felt him spend a little more than that ...

On the one hand I react to a comment that I find serious (CO2 would not be of primary importance) and on the other hand I make a technical remark on advanced figures ...

Now if you need a text explanation ...

[Woodcutter]

On a global scale this is completely false and CO2 is LE bigger problems to come man-made ...

Allow me, because being more sensitive to health issues, to be more nuanced:

a) CO² the problem from a climatic point of view, yes, certainly. With other consequences (balances, storms, climate refugees, etc.). Yes.

b) in areas with high density, I think that the consequences of particles, NOx are currently seriously underestimated ... I have no proof ...

c) what I say: we focus too much on CO² compared to other programs ; it's simple, we only talk about that! In particular for cars and boilers, it is, according to my convictions, an important dead end.

Is that clearer ? We must fight against CO², but not only!

If you do a quick estimate of the level of risk and the consequences (predictable and unpredictable) of climate change, and you weigh that against what is supposed to be the effects of particles and NOx, you will see that first deal with CO2 and then other emissions.
Moreover, these "other emissions" in the transport sector are continuously decreasing by the will of the legislator, so we are dealing with them anyway.

[Woodcutter]

that's an easy western reasoning!

...

Yes of course.

Just two words: who here on this forum, lived 4 years in the depths of the bush ??? [...]

Which report ?
I just have this: to deny the preponderant importance of CO2 (in terms of deaths, if you will) on other "problems" is to reason only from the point of view of people who live in areas at high concentrations of vehicles and travel. What does this represent worldwide?

[Woodcutter]

[...] I had put 160 g of CO² at the pif. The consumption of my Xantia TurboD was between 7 and 7,5 l / 100 (I ate above the paline, so I "go up" every day ... In Alsace, the wheat therefore touches each other over 20 km , half is in zone 50 or zone 30 ...

However, my foot is very light, but I couldn't do better!

Was it a 1.9 or a 2.1?
I guess it has to do with the city?
Even before arriving here where I take advantage of gravity and where I "extremized" my driving, I was turning below 7 l in the plain, but without a city.

[...] The C1 is very recent, the measurements are in progress. It will be between 4,5 and 5 l under the same conditions. Less on "long journeys" in the flat plain (I will be around 4 l).

You have to try before you criticize. It is very surprising, the 3 cylinder of this small ... [...]

Where did I "criticize"?
I say just like you: you have to try and I'm not sure that the 95 g is achievable in reality ...
We often tend to underestimate the overconsumption of LPG.
Now let's wait for your numbers ...

[Woodcutter]

[...] 2) I love people who know better than I what I think! Gifted, what am I saying, Gods !!!

But it comes from where, that B ... of M ...!
I'm just saying that the "green" argument associated with LPG is slightly abusive...
I didn't say "I know better than Did what he thinks!"
I'm going to have to stop with this bullshit, it swells me!

[...] Sorry for you Lumberjack, [...]
It remains that all pollutants combined, I polish much less than a PRIUS (even if I emit a little more CO²) than a PRIUS for 3 times cheaper. Basta. That's enough for me. Sorry if it troubles you. [...]

Sorry for what ?
"Global" pollution OK, this post was basically about CO2 it seems to me. Then, it is necessary to prioritize the impact of pollutants emitted by a vehicle.
What troubles me? It is necessary to be "confused" to react to figures advanced on a post?

[...] 3) You will explain to me how with 7 l you get 120 g of CO² per 100 km ???

And, with an XM, you are not many on the roads of France to have a control of the mushroom which allows them to hold such performances. But I believe you !!! [...]

Bracket: 120 g CO2/ Km, not per 100 km ...
Very simple explanations: less than 6 l / 100 of which only 75% fossil, it was marked in my post. Hence a "defossilization" of 117 g CO2 / km.
If you want figures, I have a xls file of consos over 4 years with 99 statements at your disposal.

Otherwise, by going for a ride on http://www.spritmonitor.de/, you will see that there are some who do better (in Xantia too!)

[...] With my squash, in spite of all my efforts, impossible to arrive there (except on long distance flat) and especially to make the rise without leaving a small cloud behind me (that was seen particularly at night, when i had a car following me, and I was looking in the exterior mirror - by day I couldn't see it! Look at it !!!).

You don't teach me anything ...
This type of engine is indeed a bit "smoker", but especially in the acceleration phases. It is less so when driving with the HVP and without pulling too much.

[Did67]

Very simple explanations: less than 6 l / 100 of which only 75% fossil, it was marked in my post. Hence a "defossilization" of 117 g CO2 / km.
If you want figures, I have a xls file of consos over 4 years with 99 statements at your disposal.

.

1) Yes, you're right. g of CO² / 100 km, it was obviously a written slip!

2) I now understand the fossil CO² (mix with the HVB) ... Very honestly, I had not captured, I had wondered why you underlined fossil elsewhere ...

3) Again, well done if you arrive well below the manufacturer's standards (the standard consumption of an XM must be given for around 8 l / 100 km - there, that's 100!).

Me, with efforts, I manage to stay roughly in the manufacturer's standard in my daily trips and 0,5 to 1 l below over long distance ...

4) So I deduce, because there is no reason that this is not the case, that I will also arrive at around 4,5 l / 100 with the C1 ("mixed consumption" according to manufacturer).

And that you would still be below! I do not see why you would be able with an XM and not with a C1 ???

So why doubt the 4,5 l higher ???

For my part, the 4,5 l of the C1 are equivalent to the 8 l of the C5 or the 7,5 l of the Xantia (this is the 1.9 TurboD; the ZX was the 1.9 atamospheric) (for the same journeys and the same "style" of driving) ... I compare what is comparable.

[Did67]

But it comes from where, that B ... of M ...! : Evil:
I'm just saying that the "green" argument associated with LPG is slightly abusive...

This comes out of the following passage:

Did67 wrote:
Same for the CO (divided by 10). And NOx (reduced by a third, I believe) ...
I would like to know where these figures come from?
OK for the reduction of NOx, but for CO, I don't believe it for a moment, it even seems to me that LPG emits more.

That we equip ourselves with LPG to drive cheaper, yes, but we must not advance "pseudo-green" arguments as justification ...

Written like this, I took these two points directly for me: where do these numbers come from? (in other words: prove what you are saying - I will do it tomorrow); then, it is true that the "on" allows to say that it is a generality - you will allow me to have taken it for myself ... Since, in all this thread, when it was question of GPL, it n was that I was talking about it ..

I received it like this:

"That you equip yourself with LPG to drive cheaper, okay, but you must not put forward" pseudo-green "arguments as justification" ...

And like that, you leave me the right to disagree and know better than you what motivated me ???

I don't want to be paranoid. But I see that Citro felt it like that too ...