Holy carp!
Time to unload the old X-Trail before everyone hears about this!
Nissan 'fesses up to fudging emissions data
Nissan, last year accused by UK consumer magazine Which? of faking emissions data, has admitted its own “dieselgate”. The Which? investigation in March 2017 claimed Nissan's X-Trail 1.6 litre engine produced “13 times as much NOx as the Euro 6 limit”. The carmaker instituted an internal review, and in September 2017 found it …
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 11th July 2018 08:11 GMT TonyJ
Re: 1.6 litre!
Yup...always amazes me that US vehicles can have a 92 litre engine and still only produce 12bhp and are only good in a straight line...
Yes, I poke fun, but Europe and well most of the rest of the world can produce excellent engines these days, emissions cheating aside, that are both low-capacity (by traditional standards) and high power.
I recently had a Honda Civic - it was either a 1.0 or 1.2l petrol turbo engine and it went like the proverbial brown stuff off of a digging implement.
-
Wednesday 11th July 2018 11:38 GMT werdsmith
Re: 1.6 litre!
Yup...always amazes me that US vehicles can have a 92 litre engine and still only produce 12bhp and are only good in a straight line...
Don't be amazed, go there and try them. They suit the environment well. Planned (as opposed to our organic) urban development in much of their cities means straight roads and intersections with lights. So their torquey lazy wafting along is more appropriate than our zippy and nippy style. Highly strung small engines that need race-like revving wouldn't fit in so well there.
-
-
-
Tuesday 10th July 2018 07:06 GMT Voland's right hand
Re: 1.6 litre!
Yeah, seven in Japan maybe. If they are school girls.
Err... This is diesel, not American style low compression petrol shit designed to run off low-octane petrol.
The latest generation 1.6 bi-turbo diesels are perfectly fine to lug a 2 tone 4x4 or pick-up truck off-road.
Example: https://www.isuzu.co.uk/?keyword=d%20max%20blade - perfectly fine off-road and can tow 3 tones on-road without batting an eye lid. There is a 2.5l "Arctic spec" version, but you do not really need it unless you are going somewhere into the extreme wilderness while towing 3 tonnes. If it is "either/or" the latest gen of 1.6 is sufficient (*).
I would never drive a new (post-Renault acquisition) Nissan off-road for other reasons like reliability. Lack of pulling power however is not on the list.
You only need 6 litre monstrosity if it is petrol and automatic (which puts you fair and square in America). The reason is that petrol's high torque point mostly coincides with high power point on the revs curve and is somewhere past 3.5K RPM (at least). As a result, in order to deliver the torque you need for 4x4 driving, you need a stupidly overpowered engine. The automatic gearbox adds insult to injury here as well.
Compared to that diesel engines reach max torque shortly after idle revs. So if you really drive offroad and really tow it is a choice of diesel or diesel (if allowed by regs) until the transmission-less engine-per axle (or engine per wheel) hybrids fully displace the Prickus style shite. Those reach max torque immediately so they will displace both diesels and petrols. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. This is the sole reason I am not replacing my 11 year old D-Max with a new D-Max - I'd rather wait until there are multiple suppliers (not just Mistubishi) for electric per-axle.
(*)I own an older 2.5 one which sees plenty of action every summer (and sometimes in winter) around the deepest darkest Eastern Europe and I have test driven the new 1.6 one.
-
Tuesday 10th July 2018 07:25 GMT werdsmith
Re: 1.6 litre!
And the 1.2 litre DIG-T Renault petrol engine that Nissan use in their smaller SUVs is also quite capable of going faster than it ever needs to even with a full load.
Remember, big cube engines are for people compensating for under-endowment.
Same as sports bikes, loud motor cycles, big calibre hand guns and aggressive dog breeds.
-
Tuesday 10th July 2018 14:27 GMT CrazyOldCatMan
Re: 1.6 litre!
Same as sports bikes
I deg to biffer here - sports bikes are for frightening oneself silly and making one realise that some things just are not Big or Clever (like crashing)
Unlike kill-switch backfires in tunnels. Those *are* both Big and Clever.
Sadly nowadays, my access to sports bikes is nil since the arthritis in my hands means that I can't ride bikes any more. Which is a bit of a bummer.
-
-
Tuesday 10th July 2018 15:43 GMT Voland's right hand
Re: 1.6 litre!
PS: No such thing. Only aggressive dog owners. Any dog can be trained to be aggressive..
Correct. There are however several breeds which have a very strong instinct to "defend owner against anything" and some people erroneously lock them up and isolate them instead of teaching them that strangers are not a threat to be terminated. It is a basic requirement if you own one of the big mountain shepherd breeds that the whole family goes and wrestles with the 180 pound cuddly teddy bear (bearing scratches and an occasional play-bite). If they do not, you got a serious issue.
-
Tuesday 10th July 2018 15:58 GMT wolfetone
Re: 1.6 litre!
"PS: No such thing. Only aggressive dog owners. Any dog can be trained to be aggressive.. I speak as someone who has owned Boxers, half-rottweilers and half-Staffies. None of whom were aggressive - although the Miniture Dachshund was.."
Went to the Dogs Trust 18 months ago to get a dog. The wife wanted a Minute Dachshund, and the lady at the centre warned us that the dog we were looking at had been returned twice because it was aggressive to people and now only a handful of centre staff could go in the kennel with it. Fair enough, what about the Chihuahua that my wife saw on the website? Same story.
My wife has no interest in getting a dog now, but I had seen a staffy online and asked about it. I asked to see it, the wife came along not bothered at all (actually not wanting the dog). She was gorgeous, playful, everything a staffy should be. I put my £110 down, came back a week later with my new staffy. The wife didn't want the staffy as she thought they were mean nasty killer dogs.
18 months on, the wife told me last night she couldn't think of ever living without a dog now. She adores the staffy, even if it still pisses and shits everywhere. But she's not aggressive to a fault. The neighbours cat regularly takes pop shots at her and she runs away. But then goes back to play with it.
-
Tuesday 10th July 2018 17:24 GMT RubberJohnny
Re: 1.6 litre!
"PS: No such thing. Only aggressive dog owners. Any dog can be trained to be aggressive.. I speak as someone who has owned Boxers, half-rottweilers and half-Staffies. None of whom were aggressive - although the Miniture Dachshund was.."
OK. So the security industry and the police should ditch their dobs and rotties and replace them with miniature dachsunds.
Seriously, some breeds have been selectively bred for aggressive working roles and have an aggressive appearance which, like the other items on the list, act as a crutch to sad insecure little men. So nit-picking isn't going anywhere. You know what he meant.
-
Wednesday 11th July 2018 10:17 GMT wolfetone
Re: 1.6 litre!
"OK. So the security industry and the police should ditch their dobs and rotties and replace them with miniature dachsunds.
Seriously, some breeds have been selectively bred for aggressive working roles and have an aggressive appearance which, like the other items on the list, act as a crutch to sad insecure little men. So nit-picking isn't going anywhere. You know what he meant."
You've got the wrong end of the stick. Rottweilers are chosen due to their presence and the strength of their bite. Not the fact that they're natural born killers. Most rotties I've come across that are pets will lick you to death. That's really the only bad thing about them, the slobber.
-
-
Wednesday 11th July 2018 16:51 GMT tip pc
Re: 1.6 litre!
The thing with Staffy’s is that they are perfectly fine until they’re not. Most dogs are the same but when they are not fine, staffy’s are worse than others.
Staffy’s are very obedient and quite smart, just when they are in a frenzied state they are difficult to bring out of that state which is why they are dangerous.
My brother has boxers and a Staffy, our dog gets on better with the staffy than the mental boxers, I like the staffy too, but I know which dogs I’d rather take on in a fight and it wouldn’t be the staff.
-
-
-
Tuesday 10th July 2018 12:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: 1.6 litre!
@Voland's right hand; "I would never drive a new (post-Renault acquisition) Nissan off-road for other reasons like reliability. Lack of pulling power however is not on the list."
I dunno... to be honest, the laydeez just don't seem to be at all impressed when I invite them for a ride in my X-Trail.
Then again, maybe it's because I sang "Get Outta My Dreams, Get into My Car" at them.
-
Tuesday 10th July 2018 21:56 GMT Sgt_Oddball
Re: 1.6 litre!
I actually own the 1.6 ltr x-trail in question and whilst not the full fat 4x4 it'll still pull already from lights in a cloud of smoke tyre squeal.
As for fitting 7 that can be done but really only for little uns in the boot.
It also pushes out 130bhp and 340nm of torque which I can believe the way it pulls to 70 (and is more torque than the original rover 3.5ltr V8 ).
It also sounds like Brian Blessed bellowing from having his foot stood on when you stamp on the noisy pedal which does please me.
It's also worth asking if this check was done from a cold start? If so then it's not surprising since the exhaust has anti soot feature that runs the engine hotter until it's upto temp to allow build up to burn off. Takes about 15 -20 mins to kick in which then also bumps the mph higher too. Enquiring minds and all that.
Also be reeeaallly interesting if they find no problem with the Reanult Captur or Kadjar considering it's the same sodding engine...
-
-
Tuesday 10th July 2018 09:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: 1.6 litre!
"No, it is the mighty powerplant for an offroad car meant to hold up to seven passengers. Yeah, seven in Japan maybe."
American engines tend to be big and lazy due to cheap petrol - European and Japanese less so. E.g. VW make a 2.0 that produces the same power output as the 3.7 V6 in Ford's Mustang and has higher peak torque (at 1800 rpm), and a 4.0 V6 that produces more power (560bhp) and torque (700Nm) than the 5.0/5.1 V8 in the GT/GT350. Heck, Kawasaki make a 1.0 with more power (yeah, I know, not a fair comparison as it's a bike engine - included for fun) ... ;)
-
-
-
Wednesday 11th July 2018 07:52 GMT werdsmith
Re: 1.6 litre!
You should measure its life in miles not time because a low miler properly serviced will go on forever.
Small CC engines that have been designed to produce high torque/bhp per litre are just as good and durable as large engines. Only engines that have been boosted to produce more power than their design are really stressed.
The latest generation of small engines producing high power are designed to do so.
The biggest problem is that people haven't been taught the driving style change needed to get the better mpg out of them.
-
Thursday 12th July 2018 01:40 GMT Sorry that handle is already taken.
Re: 1.6 litre!
The biggest problem is that people haven't been taught the driving style change needed to get the better mpg out of them.
These modern small capacity turbos have been designed to short-circuit fuel economy test cycles and don't hold up in real world use. Fuel cycle testing standards are now being revised because it turns out that when a real human gets behind the wheel of one of these new turbocharged economy cars, it can easily consume 50% more fuel than rated. Meanwhile, the equivalent naturally aspirated vehicle is only 10-20% over its rating, so it usually ends up using less fuel.
-
Wednesday 18th July 2018 16:15 GMT RubberJohnny
Re: 1.6 litre!
These modern small capacity turbos have been designed to short-circuit fuel economy test cycles and don't hold up in real world use.
That's rubbish. The problem is the driver, the small capacity turbos have a different driving style and a competent driver gets really good MPG.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 10th July 2018 08:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
fudging emissions data
the "scandal" about "gaming" the emission rules is nothing new and there were persistent rumour about it in some car magazines, if I remember correctly, at least 10 years ago. It looked like this: a group of boys sit in a circle and ones says: ok, now, who's watching those dirty magazines?! All snigger.
-
Tuesday 10th July 2018 08:28 GMT Frenchie Lad
Will they be Fined?
Only the Yanks will fine a car manufacturer. The other countries are quite happy with a telling off. Look at how impotenet are the French and most certainly not to a company with French links. The German fines of VAG were symbolic in comparison to the US approach.
Unfortunately its a case of too big to fail as regards the car inducstry.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
