US Report: Changing Climate Likely to Lead to More Extreme Weather Events in North America
Marathon Oil Begins Construction on Detroit Refinery Heavy Oil Upgrade Project

Fiat Introduces Alfa Romeo MiTo Mini

Mito
The Alfa MiTo.

The Fiat Group has introduced the Alfa Romeo MiTo, a sporty mini. (MiTo references the Italian cities of Milan and Turin.) Two gasoline engines (78 bhp 1.4-liter and 155 bhp 1.4-liter turbo) and one turbodiesel (120 bhp 1.6 JTDM), all from Fiat Powertrain, will be available at launch. The engines are paired with 6-speed manual transmissions.

All the models are Euro 5 ready, and offer CO2 emissions ranging from 126 g/km for the turbodiesel to 153 g/km for the gasoline turbo.

The power-limited naturally aspirated 1.4-liter unit has a power output of 78 bhp (58 kW) at 6000 rpm and a maximum torque of 125 Nm at 4250 rpm. The weight/power ratio of this particular engine is based on the requirements of an Italian law that limits the specific power over tare ratio for drivers who have recently passed their driving test to 50 Kw/t. This law was originally intended to enter into force in July 2008, but has now been postponed to January 2009.

The new 1.4-liter turbocharged gasoline engine offers maximum power of 155 bhp (114 kW) at 5500 rpm and a maximum torque of 206 Nm (152 lb-ft). Selecting Dynamic driving mode on the Alfa D.N.A. switch can deliver 230 Nm at 3000 rpm.

The 16-valve 1.6 JTDM turbodiesel offers the same power output, but nearly 25% more torque (320 Nm at 1,750 rpm) and 8% less fuel consumption (measured over the NEDC) than earlier. Maximum torque is delivered at 1,750 rpm (with 280 Nm available at 1,500 rpm). The improvements were achieved through a comprehensive optimization of combustion that exploits the combination of the potential of the engine’s new injection system with a new-generation variable geometry turbo.

The 120 bhp 1.6 incorporates a Close Coupled Diesel Particulate Filter and an integral EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) system that improves control of temperature and gas flow, simultaneously delivering lower emissions and low fuel consumption.

Alfa Romeo MiTo
  155 bhp 1.4L Turbo Power Limited 1.4L 120 bhp 1.6 JTDM
Displacement cm3 1368 1368 1598
Max power kW (bhp) at rpm 114 (155) 5500 58 (78) 6000 88 (120) 3750
Max torque Nm at rpm 230 3000 120 4750 320 1750
Fuel consumption combined L/100km (mpg US) 6.5 (36) 5.9 (40) 4.8 (49)
CO2 g/km 153 138 126

Comments

pinki

Another ICE car .pity that FIAT that have the expertise for small cars did not see the future, and did not invest in EV. Fiat knows that the day that Tata or BYD is going to wash them out of the market is getting near.

Bill W

Think of how much GHG we could reduce if this was available in the US, why would you want to drive an SUV? Beats me.....

marc

correct me if i am wrong but euro 5 still allows more nox than t2b5 correct? so these kinds of cars will never be available in the us..?

Raymond

What's interesting is that when Alfa Romeo does return to the USA market, the MiTo could be one of the models sold here. With its turbocharged 1.4-liter engine, it could be a viable alternative to the MINI.

K

Was it Fiat that GM had a huge stake in?

And options to buy the rest. And ended up selling it all at a huge loss.

These are Fiat Group, Alfa-Romeo offerings. Perhaps a totally different situation.

Never mind. Those are rhetorical questions, I can find out in Google.

Nations really need to adopt common emission standards.

When you ban a car that gets great mileage because it produces just a little more NOX you haven't exactly helped matters.

Of course in the US CA has even tougher standards and a lot of states are adopting those.

The CA battle has been fought and I think the decision was legally correct. But there also a lot of merit in arguing for a single standard.

Rafael Seidl

@ K -

GM and Fiat S.p.A. did have a collaboration. The contract called for GM to either buy Fiat S.p.A. at the end of the term or else pay $2 billion to walk away. They chose the latter.

Alfa Romeo currently has no sales presence in the US. There has been talk of returning there under the umbrella of the Maserati dealership network. I suspect that won't happen while the US is in recession, we'll see. In any case, you'll probably only get the gasoline variants because the diesels don't meet US emissions regs - and because US diesel is now so expensive. Note that Alfas are loved for their styling and engine sound, not low fuel consumption. The Italian brand lags its German rivals in lightweight design capability.

K

Paying two billion to get out was big money at the time. I remember GM was in a previous crisis then. Do our car makers wax and wane with the sunspot cycle?

This MiTo seems like the sort of car GM could use in their Chevrolet showrooms now. Right now.

GM seems to think their smallest cars must be low priced. They end up with small + poor quality. I think that is a mistake. Better to offer small + great quality even if it must cost somewhat more.

Karl-Uwe

What GM paid Fiat at the time was pretty good money.
Fiat supply GM with the only decent motors they sell in Europe. In the current emissions clampdown in Europe, this is even more so. In particular the Fiat 1.3 multijet is the engine on the new Opel Agila with the best GHG emissions and this is also the case on the Suzuki Splash.
Fiat also supply the amazing 1.9 twin-stage turbo multijet on the new Saab 9-3 Aero TTiD, though they are apparently keeping the higher performance version within the FIat group.
Groups outside GM also use Fiat supplied engines. This includes Mercedes (truck division) and Tata.

The way things are going in Europe (keep in mind the percentage of diesels among European cars) with environmental concerns, it would be a lot harder for GM to sell cars without the Fiat engines.

As a further example of this, take a look at the CO2 emissions above for the 1.6 litre engine: 126 g CO2/km from 1.6 litres....

What would be really cool is if Fiat were to bring the Aria concept (70/30 CNG/Hydrogen) into production.

Karl-Uwe

"The Italian brand lags its German rivals in lightweight design capability."

First of all this doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Fiat (or Alfa - these are today equivalent)
produce the Croma SW and comparing this to the VW Passat one has:

Croma 1.9 MJT Classic
1445 kg
120 CV
24100 euros
158 g CO2/km

Volkswagen Passat 1.9 TDI/105CV DPF Trendline
1477 kg
105 CV
26500 euros
158 g CO2/km

So the Fiat with the same engine CC sized SW not only is lighter than the German equivalent, but also has significantly more hp and costs over 2000 euros less. As far as the 15 CV difference is concerned one should keep in mind the 7-8 year technological lag that the Germans have in terms of common-rail technology (i.e. with respect to the multijets, the HDi and the dCi engines).

The Fiat group sales are centered around the A and B segments in Europe, and in these segments the Panda, Grande Punto and Bravo are among the most lightweight of their classes:

Fiat Bravo 1.6 MJT (105 CV) Active
1320 kg
129 g CO2/km
18800 euros

VW Golf 1.9 TDI DPF United (3-door)
1338 kg
135 g CO2/km
19600 euros
5.0 l/100km

Besides the Italian marques being lighter than their German rivals, and having a huge lead in terms of common-rail technology (as do the French), the Germans are also lagging when it comes to engine downsizing. I have been unable to find a German equivalent to the above 1.6 multijet which is finding its was across the Fiat group (in the above Mito and the Lancia Musa). Another rather important point to remember is the quality/price ratio. In other words, even if the above figures had been inverted, I for one take a keen interest in a car which costs 2-4000 euros less but which also has better hp AND emission ratings (note the "and")

The only REALLY lightweight German car I know of is the carbon-fibre Porsche Carrera GT, but the carbon-fibre chassis and engine chassis+body are however made in Italy:
http://www.atrgroup.it/eng/clienti.htm

Karl-Uwe

"...you'll probably only get the gasoline variants because the diesels don't meet US emissions regs..."

this kind of statement is similar to statements I've found over and over again of late, but have a lot of trouble comprehending for several reasons.

For one thing I've visited the US and have seen just how larger the car models are in the US and just how numerous these larger models are. Then there are those graphs from various international organizations and consultancy groups showing the Japanese and EU emission levels light years ahead of US emission levels and even China today having left the US well behind.
In searching for websites listing US car models which meet T2B5, one website lists only cars such as the Fortwo, Aygo and Yaris, which of course make up an insignifact fraction of cars in the US (this is already not the case for Euro5 cars, which even today represent an important fraction of cars being sold in Europe as "Euro5-ready").
This website, on the other hand, lists basically every other model as a T2B5:
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/download/all_alpha_08.pdf
Not only can one recognize models among the T2B5 list which are basically tractors with huge and and very old engines, but there are also European models in the list with their euro rating, invariably only euro4.
Thus cars such as Audi Q7, BMW X5, Mercedes M350 etc which are only euro4 are listed as T2B5, while in Europe these cars attract huge anti-emissions tolls and tax surcharges. Something here doesn't add up.....

stas peterson

EU 5 isn't within light years of the NOx ratings of T2B5. Or some other pollutants either.

The ratio is about 20 to one, (ie a EU5 mini pollutes more than 20 American SUVS) in that pollutant, and lesser multiples in others.

The Federal and CA emissions are equal now. As the slower implementation schedules for the federal standards at the same levels, have now caught up and matched CA.

As a matter of fact the Bush Federal standards are much more advanced in several broader areas: off-road, aviation, marine, and locomotive emsissions.

Its better to prevent a longer growing season, a more fertile world, with a more lush climate, two hundred years from now, rather than prevent a toxic, poison being spewed over the lanscape today.

Trendy Green EU isn't it?


Karl-Uwe

Comparing the Euro5 limits here (p.12)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:171:0001:0016:EN:PDF
with T2B5 here
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf
and converting grams/mile to grams/km (??!!??)
one has that for CO (poisonous) T2B5 sets 2.61 g/km and Euro5 sets 0.5 g/km, so that in this case Euro5 is over 5 times more stringent than T2B5.

The idea of doing something more stringent 200 years is pure rhetoric to stall on implementing real measures.
Let's not forget that the US is also pretty much the only country left not to have signed Kyoto. Outside the US Kyoto is recognized as being only a first step, and insufficient today in bringing us back to a safe zone. It's rather brow-raising that rhetoric such as this can come from the US given the situation with Kyoto and the per-capita power+fuel consumption levels (i.e. not only car-related).

My point however about T2B5 is that, by and by, the standard is a very stringent one, but how is it ctually implemented? It it very strict but then there is a waiver list which allows the filthiest cars to be tagged T2B5 anyway? "Euro-5 ready" cars in Europe are being sold like hot-cakes, while the extremely long T2B5 car list on the EPA website includes some very large tractors with very old engines. As I pointed out above, cars like the Audi Q7, BMW X5, Mercedes M350 are classified as T2B5, yet in several EU countries they attract2-3000 euros emission surcharges at the time of sale, and the highest London Congestion Charge for entering the city (again on emission grounds).

kermit the frog

you know, It's not easy being green.

Karl-Uwe

BTW, as far as NOx is concerned, and again following the above links and converting to g/km from g/mile,
we have for Euro5 0.060 g/km for petrol and 0.180 g/km for diesels. The T2B5 level for NOx is 0.044 g/km.

Just how you get a 20X factor improvement when dividing 60 (or even 180) by 44 is beyond humble guys like myself....

but again, the important thing here isn't the fact that T2B5 is 73% (not 5%) the NOx level of Euro5 and 24% for diesel, but whether the T2B5 has any meaning at all. Again, the epa website list includes cars that are in TODAY'S worst eco-tax brackets in Europe....

Also do not forget that the EU and FTP cycles are completely different load cycles. They produce completely different emissions profiles (eg one more HC sensitive and the other more NOx sensitive) even when you run the same car over both cycles. Not back to back comparable at all.

Karl-Uwe

now we're getting somewhere.
there has to be some kind of explanation for the fact that T2B5 cars are dinosaurs in Europe.

The cycles may be different, but some cars (like the ones I list above) have both US and European ratings. Surely I'm not the only one to wonder why it is that cars that are in the worst emission class in Europe are tagged T2B5 in the US? Page 12 of the above .eu link is all you need to know for Euro5, whereas with T2B5 there are about 40 pages of annexes and exceptions. With different cycles what happens is that you can't compare the figures in the two tables. But it does give a comparison of the two standards as a whole.

If the Audi Q7, BMW X5, Mercedes M350 are all T2B5s, but in Europe these are in the worst emissions categories, isn't this plain greenwashing? Surely the administration came up with the different cycles with the aim of making the standard seem much tougher than it is, especially when compared with euro5 and euro6 ?

Michael Chomiczewski

@marc
If you saw FIAT products (including Alfa Romeo) crash tests you'd likely understand why they are not being sold in the US.

Karl-Uwe

it looks like Alfa Romeo are returning to the US, and despite the euro/dollar exchange rate...

Not only do both the Fiat 500 and Bravo have the highest EURONCAP (the European crash test organization) crash ratings of 5 stars, but the 500 is still the ONLY car of its class to have the number of side airbags that it does.

The rating I refer to is the rating people use by default, that is to say the driver safety rating (other categories exist). Keep in mind that despite the enormous size and price difference between the Fiat 500 and Audi Q7, the 500 has the full 5 stars and the Q7 only 4. Considering the importance of car mass with the driver safety, this fact is absolutely mind-boggling.

...and then you may also want to consider the tiny price difference of around 60000 euros.....


Karl-Uwe

in truth, there is historically only one example of a car model proving extremely unsafe among the French, Italian and German models

some years ago now, Mercedes came out with a new model known as the Class-A. This new model dismally failed what is called the "Moose Test". This basically involves a simple test of swerving through a series of cones on the road. The Class-A failed dismally and systematically toppled over when trying to curve around the cones.
Mercedes were forced to make a massive recall of all the Class-As sold. Facing the daunting prospect of massive losses, Mercedes then came out with what is known as ESP. In other words the origin of ESP was a fudge factor for what was an extremely poorly engineered car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test

Never in history has a French or Italian car stooped as low as this......

zem

The EU5 ***NOx*** standards are less strict than T2B5. If the EU5 NOx standard was equivalent to T2B5, all european diesels would require additional NOx aftertreatment - SCR/NOx Adsorbers - EGR wouldn't cut it... these systems add to the price of a diesel vehicle, dampens consumer sentiment, which would make it harder for the EU to meet GHG targets (let's see what happens as we head toward Euro6). There are no new diesel (passenger) vehicles that can be sold in the united states without either a NOx adsorber or SCR.

Granted, EU5 is better for other pollutants, requires high durability, etc...... it's just the NOx (and PM) that's more stringent in the states.. but that's the hardest/most expensive thing to treat in diesel emission (PM too I suppose but DPF technology is pretty good, eh?)

Euro 5 vs. T2B5 - drive cycles/load aside:

if Euro 5 diesel jetta's were clean enough to meet T2B5 in 2007, don't you think VW would have sent some over, or does it sound more likely that VW decided purposely to miss out on the $$$'s? Or, was it that they just didn't have the NOx adsorber worked out yet & thus couldn't meet T2B5 which prevented them from selling '07 Jetta's in the US?

Karl-Uwe

Nope. I think everyone is aware by now that VW are even considering withdrawing the Golf from US sales because of the euro/dollar conversion rate.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iwCp9vBzlEjEmNuZF-fhnmmAmSAA
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=127288
Now if there are serious doubts for the smaller car, then for the larger model......

As stated above NOx are not necessarily worse as the two figures can not compared. 73%, remember was the raw figure. If however you have to multiply the T2B5 by 3 or 4 to have the equivalent Euro5 figure because of the difference in cycles or various exceptions (as the Audi Q7 comparison would suggest), then comparing the two numbers has no meaning.

I fail to understand why one should brush aside the obviously massive difference in the two cycle types.
The Audi Q7 is a T2B5. It is also a Euro4 in Europe.
Today, this car attracts around 3000 euros in emissions surcharges in several countries. Several cities (such as London) also charge huge amounts just to enter the city centre. This is because it is in the worst emissions bracket.

So then what's 2+2....?

2+2 = greenwashing....

let's learn to walk before we try to run shall we? Let's at least sign Kyoto before shooting our mouths off. Kyoto is no pinnacle, it's just a teeny-weeny starting point.....

frakke

While American standards seem to concentrate their attention on NOX-emissions, the European regulations do the same on CO-2 emissions.

T2B5 allows the American producers to further produce their hughe , big engine gasoline cars, without too much penalty from CO-2 emission. At the same time the stringent NOX-emission keeps the economical (European) diesels away from their market.

On the other hand Euro4-5-6 allow the European manufacturers to further build their small-engine cars : no competition from the big Americans : big consumption and thus big CO-2 emission is harshly punished by taxes. Higher Nox-emissions are allowed to get little diesel-consumption. Remember that Europe has very limited oil-supply of it's own !

So the difference between T2B5 and the European Euro4-5-6, is a matter of market protection. It has nothing to do with who is stupid and who is not, nor with Kyoto. Both sides just make sure that they have as little competition as possible !

So we are very far away from any possible international agreement on emission-standards !

And for the "green " guys here : you will have to choose between toxic gasses (NOX) or greenhouse-gasses (CO-2) for a long time to come, because the environment is not the concern of either side.

The comments to this entry are closed.