AUTONEWS

Why the end of combustion engines in 2035 won't happen?

The measure had been contested: industry associations complained; some automakers didn't miss an opportunity to claim that it would be insane for the automotive industry, especially the European one, to end combustion engines in 2035. And many consumers thought the electric transition that the European Commission intended to implement was very "forced," in the literal sense of the word. But the "no mercy," after all, has room to be softened, and so much so that, in 2035, instead of completely eradicating new gasoline or diesel vehicles from European showrooms, it is most likely that up to 30% of sales at that time will (still) be models with combustion engines (mainly hybrids and PHEVs). This is because the European Parliament approved a proposal that lowers the carbon dioxide (CO₂) reduction target from 100% to 87.5%, compared to 2021 levels.

This drastic reversal in decarbonization targets for passenger and commercial vehicles will still have to be submitted to a plenary vote in the European Parliament, which should happen next December, anticipating negotiations with the Council of the European Union with a view to final approval of the new directive—something that, naturally, will only happen in 2027.

The most skeptical may understand that this change is not very substantive, considering that 90% was mentioned as an interim proposal to avoid and soften the absolute 100% cut initially announced in 2023. However, this is not quite the case: the new proposal from the European Parliament is rich in mathematical subtleties, sustainability incentives, and a genuine engineering of credits and super-credits that make the calculations worthy of explanation. What's on the table now is that, instead of manufacturers being required to reduce their average tailpipe emissions by 100%, they will have a 95% cut. However, a compensation mechanism of up to 7.5 percentage points is introduced through the use of low-carbon steel (green steel) produced in Europe. As a result, if manufacturers maximize the use of this measure, sustainable steel allows them to lower the limit to 87.5%. This opens not just a window, but a door of opportunity for hybrid vehicles to remain a viable purchase option. But there's more.

So what happens to the multi-million dollar fines?

There are also changes on this point, and they are not insignificant, with European legislators yielding to intense pressure from automakers and industry associations who saw the astronomical fines for non-compliance as a mechanism that would strangle car manufacturers and undermine their competitiveness against (Chinese) competition. The new proposal maintains the punitive impetus, but offers a series of escape valves to alleviate the financial pressure on manufacturers, giving them new breathing room to face the energy transition without having the daunting scenario of inaccessible sanctions ahead.

How are the calculations now made? The fine remains at R$ 95 for each gram of CO₂/km exceeded, multiplied by the total number of new vehicles registered by the manufacturer that year. However, as the bar drops to 87.5% (with "green" steel, or 95% without it), this allows automakers to continue managing their sales mix with a small percentage of combustion engine models, without incurring sanctions. Manufacturers are also "challenged" to be creative in managing a series of benefits, from the aforementioned use of low-carbon steel, which allows them to go from the nominal 95% to 87.5%, to the multiplier effect of supercredits attributed to electric vehicles manufactured in Europe. The emphasis of the increase is on city cars and utility vehicles powered by batteries (models up to 4.2 meters in length), which count as 1.4 vehicles in the fleet average calculation. 

Electric vehicles, also produced in the EU, which are considered highly efficient (i.e., stand out for their low energy consumption), are now worth 1.2 vehicles. Social leasing also boosts the result, adding +0.1 to the other multipliers. Thus, if a tram is allocated to a social leasing program, it is worth 1.5 if it is less than 4.2 meters long, or 1.3 if it is efficient. In practical terms, imagine a manufacturer sells 100,000 electric vehicles, urban or subcompact, produced in the EU. The manufacturer's average will not include 100,000 vehicles with 0 g/km of CO2, but rather 140,000. An additional 40,000 "phantom" electric vehicles are artificially injected into the average emissions calculation; these are models that were never sold but directly contribute to diluting the emissions of 40,000 combustion engine vehicles…

And, as if all these variables weren't enough to artificially lower the average emissions of automakers and avoid sanctions, it is proposed that vehicles certified to run exclusively on synthetic or renewable fuels be equated to electric vehicles, that is, they contribute "zero emissions" to the brand's average.

The total ban on the sale of new combustion-engine cars in the European Union by 2035 is being weakened and reconsidered due to pressure from automakers and countries such as Germany and France. You can follow the official discussions on the European Parliament’s portal.

What the original rule states:

• New cars only: The EU regulation prohibits only the sale of new combustion-engine cars and vans starting in 2035.

• Existing cars remain on the road: Gasoline or diesel vehicles purchased before this date may continue to be driven as usual for the remainder of their lifespan, provided they pass inspections and comply with local regulations (such as Low Emission Zones).

Why the target is shifting:

• Political and industry pressure: Traditional automakers (such as Volkswagen, Stellantis, Mercedes, BMW, and Porsche) and governments like those of Germany and France have been pushing for flexibility, citing the risk of job losses and high costs.

• Slow adoption and competition: Electric vehicle sales in Europe have grown less than expected, while Chinese manufacturers have gained ground with more competitive pricing.

• New alternatives: Recent proposals discuss allowing the use of synthetic fuels (e-fuels) or advanced biofuels, or lowering the zero-emission target from 100% to approximately 90%—which would allow for the continued use of certain types of hybrid vehicles and combustion engines.

You are correct: the strict 100% ban on new combustion engine cars in the European Union for 2035 has been revised and softened.

What Changed in the EU Policy:

• The Old Rule: The original legislation required all new cars and vans sold in the EU to have 100% zero tailpipe emissions starting in 2035.

• The Revised Target: In December 2025, the European Commission adjusted the requirement to a 90% reduction in average fleet CO₂ emissions (compared to 2021 levels) rather than a complete 100% ban.

• What Remains Possible: Car manufacturers can continue selling combustion engines, hybrids, or vehicles designed for sustainable/renewable fuels past 2035, as long as their overall fleet meets the new emission thresholds or uses compliance credits

The European Union adjusted its 2035 combustion engine policy from a complete 100% zero-emission sales ban to a 90% CO₂ reduction target, allowing manufacturers to continue selling internal combustion engines if average fleet emissions drop by 90% or through credits and low-carbon fuels.

Key Reasons Why a Strict 2035 Combustion Engine Ban Is Changing:

• Automaker Pushback and Economic Pressure: Major traditional automakers in Germany, Italy, and France (including Volkswagen, BMW, Renault, and Stellantis) lobbied hard against the total ban, citing massive financial strain, potential job losses, and factory closures.

• High EV Prices and Competition: European electric vehicles (EVs) often cost significantly more than traditional cars or cheaper Chinese alternatives (which hold a major price advantage of €6,000–€7,000).

• Slow Consumer Adoption and Infrastructure Gaps: Consumer demand has lagged in several markets, with under 10% of buyers considering EVs in parts of France and rental fleets (like Hertz and Sixt) reporting heavy financial losses or hesitating due to sparse charging infrastructure.

• Supply Chain and Material Bottlenecks: Severe global deficits in critical battery minerals (like lithium) and heavy reliance on foreign supply chains (such as China dominating battery components) created major industrial hurdles.

• Alternative Fuels (e-Fuels): Pressure from political leaders and the automotive sector opened pathways for combustion engines running on sustainable, low-carbon synthetic fuels (e-fuels) to remain legal past 2035

 

AUTONEWS

Fiat Argo X (Grande Panda for Brazil)

Fiat has released the first images of the new Argo X model for the South American market. It is essentially a localized version of the European Grande Panda, featuring minor design tweaks, a simpler interior, and different powertrains.

While the Grande Panda is manufactured in Kragujevac, the Argo X will be produced at the Stellantis plant in Betim, Brazil.

The official premiere of the Argo X is expected later this month, coinciding with the 50th anniversary of Fiat’s operations in the region.

Fiat has also confirmed that the current Argo will remain in production, noting that the Argo X will not immediately replace the model already well-known to the Brazilian market. This means the Argo will continue as an entry-level model, while the Argo X will take on a new role within the lineup—a move that reinforces Fiat’s strategy of offering two distinct options.

Fiat is set to embark on an intensive product renewal cycle in South America. The brand plans to launch a completely new model every year until 2030, with the Argo X serving as the first step in this offensive.

The company states that the Argo X was developed to expand the brand's presence in one of the most important segments of the Brazilian market. According to the brand, the Argo X "will ensure continuity for Fiat’s best-selling passenger car in Brazil" and is designed to combine robustness, efficiency, and a more modern aesthetic.

Although the design is derived from the European Fiat Grande Panda, the brand believes that the name "Panda" does not carry the same commercial weight in Brazil. The Argo is a very popular vehicle in the country, making its name one of the manufacturer's most valuable assets. The addition of the letter "X" serves to identify the new compact SUV offering and facilitates immediate consumer acceptance.

The Argo X will thus serve as the South American counterpart to the Grande Panda, though it will not be an exact replica of the European model. Fiat has adapted the vehicle to local requirements through a specific engine lineup, suspension tuning, equipment, and technical solutions. The core philosophy remains similar, emphasizing simplicity, durability, practicality, and a distinctive style.

It will be offered with both a 1.0-liter naturally aspirated engine and a 1.0-liter turbo engine. Further details are expected to be released soon.

Depending on the configuration, power will be delivered to the front axle via a five-speed manual transmission or a CVT.

The Argo X will be the first new product from the Betim plant under Stellantis's 32-billion Brazilian real investment plan for South America, which runs through 2030. Fiat has confirmed that the model will arrive in 2026 and will play a strategic role in refreshing the brand's local product portfolio.

 

AUTONEWS

Driven 112,000 km in five years with only two oil changes: Mechanic opens up engine and is left speechless

The owner of a 2021 Lincoln Aviator changed the oil just twice over the course of 112,000 kilometers. Disassembling the Ford 3.0-liter EcoBoost V6 engine revealed the catastrophic consequences of extreme neglect, including hardened oil sludge.

The case of a 2021 Lincoln Aviator—a modern SUV that had its oil changed only twice over 112,000 kilometers—perfectly illustrates what happens when an owner completely ignores basic maintenance and service intervals. When the vehicle arrived at the shop for disassembly, the interior of its engine was in a condition rarely seen, even in vehicles with five times the mileage.

A Ford V6 engine driven 112,000 km with only two service visits...The engine in question is a twin-turbocharged Ford 3.0-liter EcoBoost V6(in the image below), which ended up on the workbench of Eric Berg, creator of the popular YouTube channel "I Do Cars." Berg specializes in the detailed teardown of failed engines to determine the exact cause of their breakdown. Although he initially lacked details regarding how the vehicle had been driven, a check of the official records via the VIN revealed the explanation: the service history showed only two oil changes over a five-year period. Even allowing for the possibility that some maintenance was performed outside of official service centers, the condition inside the engine clearly testified to extreme neglect.

Removing the first valve cover revealed a thick layer of black, baked-on oil sludge. This occurs when oil, due to excessive mileage, completely loses its lubricating and chemical properties; instead of cleaning the engine, it begins to accumulate impurities and form tar-like deposits.

"I have seen engines with 400,000 or even nearly 500,000 kilometers that look incomparably better than this unit," noted Berg.

Black sludge instead of oil...Removing the second valve cover and the timing chain cover revealed even more serious consequences. The solenoid valves responsible for variable camshaft timing were completely covered in tiny metal particles. The same situation was found at the bottom of the oil pan, where a large quantity of metal shavings had accumulated—the result of metal components rubbing against each other without adequate lubrication. The fatal blow to this engine was a damaged bearing on the sixth cylinder, which, due to overheating and a lack of oil, had spun within its housing. Interestingly, the crankshaft did not suffer fatal damage in this instance; it is estimated that the cast-iron engine block could potentially be salvaged through extensive machining and refurbishment. 

Although the end result was a complete engine failure, the mechanic noted that it was actually quite fortunate that such a unit managed to cover 112,000 kilometers under those conditions—a testament to the durability of the engine's core design. Nevertheless, the reality for modern turbocharged gasoline engines remains unforgiving. Turbochargers and hydraulic tensioners operate under high temperatures and pressures; in these components, oil serves not only to reduce friction but also to dissipate heat and keep the system clean. When oil changes are delayed, oil passages narrow due to sludge buildup, system pressure drops, and vital components—such as turbocharger bearings—are the first to fail. Routine minor servicing remains the most affordable aspect of vehicle maintenance, while ignoring service intervals almost invariably leads to repairs that are many times more expensive.

You bring your car to the auto repair shop and they slap a sticker on the windshield: change your oil again in 3,000 miles or three months. You probably knew that the 3,000-mile interval was ridiculous, but what about that other deadline? What if you don’t drive much and let your oil sit for six months? A year?

I know a guy with a fleet of Ferraris—some of them seven-­figure cars—and he goes only by mileage. “That oil was in the ground for 100 million years,” he says. “What’s six more months?” That’s a good question, and one that I recently answered through semi-intentional negligence.

Here’s what happened: In 2008, I bought a Troy-Bilt lawnmower with a Honda engine. After a few years, I realized I hadn’t changed the oil. But, by then, electric mowers were getting cheap, and I really wanted an electric mower. I figured I’d just let the Troy-Bilt go until it blew up—which it refused to do. I kept mowing my lawn, season after season, the little Honda purring away, until I eventually started feeling bad for the thing. I decided that if I pulled the trigger on an electric mower, I could at least give my Troy-Bilt to someone who would use it. I warmed it up, tilted it over, and drained the oil, saving a few ounces to send to Blackstone Laboratories, an oil-testing company in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

I was particularly interested in the TBN (total base number). Oils contain bases to prevent acidification, so the TBN shows how much additive is left to keep it healthy. A TBN of less than one is considered bad. My oil’s TBN? Five. Hooray! The sample was also spot-on for average values of zinc and calcium, but a little high on sodium. Silicon was way high, about four times higher than normal. Flashpoint—the temperature when the oil’s vapors ignite, which can signify a contaminant like fuel in the oil—was a little low, at 360 degrees Fahrenheit.

Long story short: the oil was dirty, but leaving it there for ten years didn’t really hurt anything. What does that mean? Blackstone wrote it out on my oil’s report card: “Universal averages show typical wear for similar Honda engines with about 65 hours on the oil. This oil was in use for ten years, and may even be the factory fill. If so, some of the excess metal is from initial break-in and silicon could be sealer material from assembly. Silicon can also show abrasive dirt contamination, which causes poor internal wear. There’s also some fuel and moisture in the oil. The TBN is okay at 5.0, so the oil actually has additive left in reserve. Make sure the air filter is in good condition.”

So, should you wait 10 years between oil changes? No. But don’t worry if you miss the date on the Jiffy Lube sticker.

Why Do Repair Shops Say I Should Change My Oil So Dang Often? our average 3,000-mile quickie-lube sticker gives you a general suggestion of when to change your oil based on a really severe maintenance schedule. Their job is to sell oil changes, after all. The real authority you should consult first—if you’re erring on the side of caution and not in the market for a new lawnmower—is the owner’s manual for your vehicle. Different vehicles have different maintenance needs, especially with recent advances in automotive technology that have pushed some newer cars’ oil change intervals out to 7,500 or 10,000 miles, or once every six to 12 months.

Why Are Oil Change Recommendations Given in Mileage and in Time? Oil degrades over time. The longer it sits, the less viscous it becomes and thus, the less effective it will be at keeping various engine components properly lubricated. Synthetic oil is designed to break down more slowly over time, which means you can probably stretch its oil changes out a little longer, but it still breaks down like any other oil. Oil that degrades too much can cause engine sludge that can block oil flow entirely.

How Often Should You Change Your Oil? Even if you don’t drive very often and you’re not hitting the recommended mileage interval, it's bestto get your oil changed twice a year. Your oil may be fine, but it’s the moisture in your engine that’s the real enemy. If you don’t run your car for very long very often, the engine won’t get hot enough to burn off this moisture, and your oil won’t be as effective at lubricating your engine, eventually leading to shorter engine life.

What Is a “Normal” Vs. “Severe” Maintenance Schedule for Oil Changes? Remember how we keep calling the quick lube’s usual suggestion “severe?” Owners’ manuals often list both a “normal” and a “severe” maintenance schedule, with the latter being for harder driving, extreme weather, and other cases where there’s extra stress per mile on the engine, such as hauling heavy loads, towing, and track day use.

This is bad news for your grandparents’ couple-blocks-to-church use case: never getting the engine warm enough to burn off any condensation inside is also considered “severe” use. It typically takes about 10 miles to burn off that moisture, so if trips over 10 miles are rare-to-never, follow the “severe” schedule until you can get an expert analysis done.

How Can I Check My Oil? Few things beat simply pulling the dipstick out of the engine for a visual check. Even new cars can consume a little oil and may need topping off, so this is a good idea to do about once a month anyway. Taking a look at the dipstick can also give you an idea of when you should change your oil based on your driving habits.

Look for common warning signs of engine damage while you’re peeking at your dipstick. If your oil looks lighter or cloudier than usual—frothy like latté foam in extreme cases—you may have coolant leaking into the engine, perhaps from a broken head gasket. Watch out for any glittery chunks of metal, too. That usually signifies internal engine damage, potentially from metal parts not getting lubricated well enough. Either way, if your oil looks a little too glittery for comfort or smells too much like another fluid (such as coolant), that’s a good time to get an oil analysis done to determine how that may have happened.

How To Get Your Oil Tested...An oil analysis will tell you how long your car can really go between oil changes. They’re cheap, too—Blackstone’s standard analysis is just $30, and can tell you if you’re changing your oil too often or not often enough. Knowing to skip even one unnecessary trip to the shop makes it worthwhile.

Driving 112,000 km in five years while changing the engine oil only twice means you averaged about 56,000 km per oil change (or went ~37,000 km past recommended limits each time), which is a severe neglect of basic vehicle maintenance.

What happens with such long intervals:

• Massive mileage per change: Standard oil change intervals range from 8,000 km to 15,000 km depending on the vehicle and whether you use conventional or full synthetic oil. Going ~56,000 km means each batch of oil was used for roughly 3 to 6 times its intended lifespan.

• Depleted additives: Engine oil contains detergents, anti-wear agents, and dispersants that neutralize acids and trap soot. These additives burn off or break down long before 56,000 km, leaving the engine lubricated by degraded, acidic sludge rather than clean oil.

• Filter saturation: Oil filters clog up and go into bypass mode long before hitting 56,000 km, meaning metal micro-particles and debris circulate freely through the engine bearings, camshafts, and piston rings.

• Severe engine wear: Extended intervals like this typically lead to heavy carbon buildup, stuck piston rings, increased oil consumption, loss of power, and accelerated mechanical wear or catastrophic engine failure.

 

DACIA

Dacia Logan Steppe: An adventurer with a Romanian alpine spirit

When Dacia re-emerged under the leadership of Renault in the early 2000s, its mission was quite clear: to produce simple, robust, and affordable automobiles for emerging markets. The Logan, launched in 2004, became the symbol of this philosophy by proving that it was possible to offer a spacious, reliable, and economical sedan at an extremely competitive price. Few, however, imagined that just two years later, the modest Romanian manufacturer would surprise the world by unveiling its first concept car. Thus was born the Dacia Logan Steppe Concept—revealed at the 2006 Geneva Motor Show—a design exercise that showcased an entirely different facet of the brand and anticipated a new stage in its evolution.

Much more than a mere styling study, the Logan Steppe was conceived by the Renault Design Center to demonstrate that an affordable automobile could also evoke emotion. The proposal involved transforming the Logan platform into a leisure-oriented vehicle, inspired by the world of winter sports. It combined practicality, versatility, and an adventurous look, all while maintaining the traditional values ​​of robustness and rationality that already defined Dacia. The result was a concept remarkably close to a production-ready model, making it one of the most realistic show cars presented at that Geneva Motor Show.

Visually, the Steppe departed from the sedan’s austere appearance, adopting the proportions of a raised station wagon with a personality akin to an SUV. The body measured approximately 4,470 mm in length and reached a height of 1,780 mm, thanks to an elevated suspension and an ingenious cargo compartment integrated into the roof. To emphasize its adventurous character, the concept featured wraparound bumpers, plastic fender cladding, side skirts with metallic inserts, 17-inch wheels, xenon headlights with LED elements, and prominent, visible brake calipers. Every detail was designed to convey robustness without excess, remaining true to Dacia’s understated visual identity.

The true highlight, however, was the roof. Instead of a conventional roof rack, the designers created a compartment integrated into the bodywork, specifically for transporting skis and snowboards. Its opening mechanism was inspired by the bindings used on such sports equipment, offering both convenience and security against theft. At the front of this compartment, two powerful auxiliary spotlights—capable of illuminating snow-covered roads or ski slopes independently of the main headlights—further reinforced the project’s alpine theme.

The creativity extended to the interior, which combined light-colored leather with technical fabrics inspired by winter sportswear, creating a modern yet welcoming atmosphere. The cabin accommodated five passengers, while expansive glass surfaces—totaling over 3.3 square meters—flooded the interior with natural light, enhancing the sense of spaciousness. Video screens for rear-seat passengers were mounted behind the front seatbacks, and the multimedia system included an MP3 player—a significant luxury for a concept from a budget-oriented brand back in 2006.

Functionality was another key strength. The trunk featured two symmetrical rear doors rather than a conventional tailgate, a design choice that facilitated access in tight spaces. The interior floor was modular and featured a non-slip surface; it could be reconfigured to create a large, flat area when the seats were folded down, even allowing two people to rest comfortably during trips or outdoor activities. The maximum cargo capacity reached 1.7 m³, demonstrating that practicality remained an absolute priority.

Although it was never intended for production exactly as it appeared in Geneva, the Logan Steppe fulfilled its mission perfectly. It previewed nearly all the design lines of the future Logan MCV, which was unveiled a few months later at the Paris Motor Show and launched in Romania later in 2006, offering both five- and seven-seater versions. While several extravagant features were naturally dropped, the overall architecture, body profile, and highly efficient interior space were carried over almost entirely to the production model—a vehicle that would go on to become a major commercial success in various markets.

The Logan Steppe also represented a symbolic milestone for the Romanian automotive industry. As the first concept car in Dacia’s history, it signaled to the international market that the manufacturer was no longer just a producer of budget vehicles, but a brand capable of exploring new ideas and developing creative projects within Renault’s technological framework. In a sense, this concept paved the way for the adventurous identity that would later emerge in models such as the Sandero Stepway, the Duster, and, more recently, the Jogger.

Viewed nearly twenty years later, the Dacia Logan Steppe remains one of the most intelligent concepts unveiled in the 2000s. Rather than banking on unattainable, futuristic technologies, it envisioned how an affordable, mass-market car could become an adventure companion for families and outdoor enthusiasts. It was an exceptionally realistic, functional, and production-ready concept—qualities that perfectly reflected Dacia’s philosophy. Perhaps this is why its legacy is so significant: it demonstrated that simplicity and creativity can go hand in hand, transforming a budget-oriented project into a vehicle capable of sparking genuine excitement and foreshadowing a new generation of European family cars.

MotorLand

 

AUTONEWS

Euro 7 completely changes the rules of the game

A new era for the automotive industry begins on November 29th. It will no longer be enough for a car to simply pass a technical inspection and meet emission regulations. The new Euro 7 standard introduces monitoring throughout the vehicle's entire lifespan—a shift that could affect owners of both gasoline and diesel vehicles.

The most significant change lies in a system designed to independently monitor the functionality of emission-control equipment. If a car detects that it is polluting beyond permitted limits—specifically, emitting more than 2.5 times the prescribed amount of harmful substances—or if there has been unauthorized tampering with the system, the driver will receive a warning.

And this is where things get serious...If the fault is not rectified within 2,400 kilometers, the vehicle may impose operational restrictions. Manufacturers could implement limits on the number of engine starts, prevent the engine from restarting after refueling, or block the fuel supply system.

It is important to note: the car will not shut down while in motion. Instead, the restrictions will take effect the next time the vehicle is started—which, in practical terms, could mean you will need to call a tow truck.

Electric vehicles are also included...However, Euro 7 does not just bring changes for gasoline and diesel vehicles; for the first time, it also significantly impacts electric cars!

Brakes, tires, and batteries are now also subject to regulation. Dust generated by brake wear is now subject to specific limits: 7 mg/km for vehicles with internal combustion engines (including hybrids) and 3 mg/km for electric vehicles. A particularly interesting new requirement concerns electric car batteries. They will be required to retain at least 80 percent of their capacity after five years or 100,000 kilometers—and 72 percent after eight years or 160,000 kilometers.

Greater safety, but also higher costs...What does all this mean for buyers? The European Commission estimates an additional cost of up to 450 euros per vehicle, while the automotive industry suggests the figure could be as high as 2,000 euros. The inclusion of more sensors, software, and additional systems will inevitably be reflected in the prices of new vehicles.

Euro 7, therefore, is not just another environmental regulation. It marks the beginning of a new era in which a vehicle must demonstrate that it meets environmental standards throughout nearly its entire lifespan.

The European Union Vehicle Emissions and Battery Durability (Euro 7) Regulation changes the rules of the game by expanding regulations past the exhaust pipe for the first time and holding vehicles accountable over a much longer operational lifecycle.

While tailpipe limits for standard petrol and diesel passenger cars remain largely aligned with Euro 6, Euro 7 fundamentally transforms automotive engineering and testing through several key shifts:

Beyond the tailpipe: Brakes and tyres:

• Brake Wear Limits: Euro 7 introduces the world's first mandatory legal limits on particulate matter (PM) emissions generated by brake wear (taking effect starting late 2026 for new models). This pushes manufacturers toward specialized materials like carbon-ceramic discs or advanced alloy coatings.

• Tyre Abrasion: Regulations now cover particulate emissions and abrasion rates generated by tyres, accounting for non-exhaust pollution that traditional laws ignored.

Extended durability and long-term compliance:

• Double the Lifespan: Emission control systems must remain compliant for 10 years or 200,000 km—double the distance and time required under Euro 6.

• Battery Durability: For electric and hybrid vehicles, official rules establish strict minimum capacity retention thresholds (e.g., maintaining at least 80% capacity after 5 years/100,000 km and 72% after 8 years/160,000 km).

Real-world testing & monitoring:

• Stricter Real-World Scenarios: Testing conditions are much broader, factoring in extreme cold starts, short urban trips, high speeds, heavy loads, and varying altitudes rather than predictable laboratory cycles.

• On-Board Monitoring (OBM): Vehicles are equipped with continuous monitoring systems to track emissions and performance dynamically throughout their life.

• Smaller Particle Tracking: Solid particle number (PN) limits now account for ultrafine particles down to 10 nanometers

 

TESLA

New Tesla Roadster flies at the Nürburgring, aided by algorithms

The German Nürburgring circuit—spanning 20.8 km and featuring over 150 corners—has traditionally served as the ultimate proving ground to determine the best supercar on the market, based on the fastest lap time achieved. Naturally, there was significant interest in seeing how the new Tesla Roadster would fare against other supercars, whether powered by electric, internal combustion, or hybrid powertrains. However, there was an initial hurdle: the Tesla Roadster does not yet exist as a production vehicle; the two-seater coupé currently exists only as a prototype, with the production version not expected until 2028.

As the old saying goes, "desperate times call for desperate measures"—or, in this case, if the car isn't yet available, one can create a virtual model to compare it against the competition. Modern simulators—driven largely by the demands of competitive racing, with Formula 1 at the forefront—have evolved to an almost startling degree. This has turned today’s top drivers, such as Max Verstappen, into true masters of simulation, where the precision and fidelity to real-world track conditions are remarkably lifelike.

This virtual supercar comparison relied heavily on the expertise of Marek Lubieniecki, a Polish specialist in vehicle simulation optimization. Long recognized in the motorsport world as a leading authority on lap-time optimization, Lubieniecki calculates ideal racing lines, track-driving dynamics, and optimal trajectories tailored to each specific car and driver, based on their unique vehicle setup. Lubieniecki became a significant figure in F1 when he simulated the behavior of the future power units proposed by the FIA—set to debut in 2026—accurately predicting the challenges regarding battery management, as well as the top speeds at the Brazilian and Mexican Grands Prix. Since then, the Polish engineer has established himself as one of the best in the field at developing algorithms for the simulation and efficiency optimization of single-seater race cars.

To demonstrate the rigor of his virtual model and the validity of his expertise, Lubieniecki began testing parameters such as steering, braking and acceleration capabilities, tire grip, weight transfer, front/rear and total downforce, as well as power, weight, length, width, and height. To verify the margin of error in his virtual model, he input data for the Porsche Taycan Turbo GT, the Tesla Model S Plaid, and the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra, comparing the lap times generated by his simulator for the Nürburgring against the actual best lap times achieved by each of these sports cars. For the Porsche, the deviation was only 0.1 seconds, while for the Tesla, it was 0.5 seconds—over the course of a nearly 7-minute lap. In the case of the Xiaomi, the deviation was 6.6 seconds; Lubieniecki noted that this was likely due to a reduction in power toward the end of the lap, presumably caused by overheating. After proving the validity of his virtual model, Lubieniecki shared via social media that the Tesla Roadster—powered by 1,360 hp and equipped with a suction system to increase cornering grip—would be capable of completing a lap in 5 minutes and 41 seconds.

 

The Polish expert capped the speed at 338 km/h, estimating a lap time between 5:38 and 5:58; he noted that if the suction power drops to 70%, the time would increase to 5:48, and if it falls to 50%, the lap time would extend to 5:58. Should the Roadster fail to keep its temperatures within normal operating parameters, it could lose another four seconds. Nevertheless, Lubieniecki maintains that, under normal conditions, the Roadster has the potential to complete a lap in 5 minutes and 40.772 seconds. This would mean the Roadster beats the 2022 Porsche Taycan Turbo S (which set a fastest lap of 7:33.300) by 1 minute and 52.228 seconds, and the 2026 Taycan Turbo GT with the Manthey package (6:55.533) by 1:14.761. It would also outperform the 2023 Tesla Model S Plaid (7:25.231) by 1:44.459 and the 2025 Xiaomi SU7 Ultra (7:04.957) by 1:24.185.

The performance of the new Tesla Roadster on the legendary Nürburgring Nordschleife circuit (the "Green Hell") promises to be historic, thanks to a significant engineering leap in the model. Although Tesla has yet to set an official track time, technical data and advanced optimal control simulations—based on the specifications of the performance model (excluding gas-powered thrusters)—offer a projection of how the car would perform across the circuit’s 20.8 km:

1. Estimated performance and lap time

Estimated Lap Time: Vehicle dynamics simulations indicate that the Roadster could complete a lap in between 5:36 and 5:58 (averaging ~5:41). Direct comparisons:

- Mercedes-AMG One (a street-legal combustion/hybrid supercar): 6:29.09. The Roadster would be at least 30 seconds faster.

- Porsche 919 Hybrid Evo (an unrestricted racing prototype): 5:19.55. The Roadster would fall within approximately 20 seconds of this absolute record.

2. Critical advantage: Active ground effect (Fans/Suction)

The Roadster’s greatest asset at the Nürburgring is not merely its straight-line acceleration, but rather its grip in low- and medium-speed corners.

- Downforce at 0 km/h: An underbody fan system generates active suction (approximately 1,700 kg, or 1G, of suction force).

- Cornering behavior: Traditional aerodynamic wings only generate downforce at high speeds. Tesla’s suction system provides immediate grip in tight, technical sections (such as Hatzenbach or Adenauer Forst)—areas where conventional vehicles struggle to generate downforce.

The performance of the new Tesla Roadster on the legendary Nürburgring Nordschleife circuit ("The Green Hell") promises to be historic, though it hinges on how Tesla addresses the track's technical challenges.

Theoretical potential (shattering records)...Currently, the record for a production electric vehicle at the Nürburgring is held by the Porsche Taycan Turbo GT (~6:55 min), while the absolute record for road-legal production cars belongs to the Mercedes-AMG One (6:29.09 min).

Based on specifications released by Tesla:

-Immense Power: A 1 MW (~1,360 hp) powertrain combined with instantaneous torque vectoring would deliver brutal acceleration when exiting corners and along the Döttinger Höhe straight.

-Ground Effect / Suction Fans: The Performance version of the Roadster features a system of fans and adaptive skirts that generate downforce even at 0 km/h. This would allow for cornering speeds comparable to—or even exceeding—those of GT3-class race cars.

-Cold-Gas Thrusters (Rocket/Thrust Trim): If utilized during a flying lap, these auxiliary thrusters could provide lateral stabilization and extreme acceleration through critical sections of the track.

Engineers and analysts estimate that, under ideal aerodynamic and traction conditions, the Roadster has the theoretical capability to complete a lap in under 6 minutes.

Major challenges at the Nordschleife...Spanning 20.8 km with over 70 corners, the Nürburgring is the world’s most demanding circuit for electric vehicles, primarily due to two critical factors:

Battery thermal management:

-Maintaining a continuous output of 1 megawatt of power over a 20 km distance generates an immense amount of heat within the battery cells. To maintain this pace without entering a protective mode (thermal throttling), Tesla requires an extremely robust cooling system (featuring dedicated chillers and radiators).

-Weight vs. Braking and Suspension: Despite the extensive use of carbon fiber, titanium, and magnesium, the battery pack (~150 kWh) keeps the estimated weight near 1,700 kg. The continuous stress placed on the brakes, tires (such as the Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS), and suspension—compounded by the bumps and undulations of the Nordschleife—demands an impeccable setup.

Summary of expectations:

Scenario---Estimated Time---Comparison/Impact

-Without thermal limitations (Full Attack Mode)---Under 6:00 min---Breaks the all-time record for road-legal cars (Mercedes-AMG One: 6:29).

-With thermal limitations/road-legal restrictions---6:15 – 6:35 min---Surpasses the Porsche Taycan Turbo GT (6:55) and competes directly with combustion-engine hypercars.

The performance of the new Tesla Roadster on the legendary Nürburgring Nordschleife circuit (the "Green Hell") promises to be historic, thanks to a major engineering leap in the model. Although Tesla has yet to set an official track time, technical data and advanced optimal control simulations—based on the specifications of the Performance model (excluding gas-powered thrusters)—offer a glimpse into how the car would perform across the circuit’s 20.8 km (12.9-mile) layout:

1. Estimated performance and lap time:

Estimated lap time: Vehicle dynamics simulations suggest the Roadster could complete a lap in between 5:36 and 5:58 (averaging approximately 5:41). For direct comparison:

- Mercedes-AMG One (a road-legal combustion/hybrid supercar): 6:29.09. The Roadster would be at least 30 seconds faster.

- Porsche 919 Hybrid Evo (an unrestricted racing prototype): 5:19.55. The Roadster would fall within about 20 seconds of this absolute record.

2. Critical advantage: Active ground effect (fans/suction):

The Roadster’s greatest asset at the Nürburgring is not merely its straight-line acceleration, but its grip in low- and medium-speed corners.

Downforce at 0 km/h: An underbody fan system generates active suction (approximately 1,700 kg, or 1G, of suction force). Cornering Behavior: Traditional aerodynamic wings only generate downforce at high speeds. Tesla’s suction system provides immediate grip in tight, technical sections (such as Hatzenbach or Adenauer Forst)—areas where conventional cars struggle to generate downforce.

3. Where the car excels and where it faces challenges:

Sector/Aspect---Behavior at the Nürburgring:

-Slow and Medium-Speed ​​Corners: Dominant—the constant ground effect allows the car to navigate corners with a level of grip and speed unprecedented for a road-legal vehicle.

-Straightaways (Döttinger Höhe): Very fast, but not miraculous—with 1 MW (~1,341 hp) of power and a top speed limited to around 338 km/h (210 mph), it performs much like a high-end, state-of-the-art EV.

Undulations and curbs:

-Critical point: The Nürburgring is notorious for jumps and undulations (e.g., Pflanzgarten). If the ground-effect sealing skirts lose contact with the asphalt due to bumps, the car could lose as much as 30% to 50% of its downforce (suction).

Thermal management:

-Battery Challenge: Sustaining a 1 MW discharge for more than 5 minutes pushes cell temperatures above 60°C. Any power reduction ("power fade") caused by overheating toward the end of a lap could cost 3 to 5 seconds off the total lap time.

Tires:

-Extreme wear: Subjected to the combined forces of aerodynamic downforce (suction) and violent acceleration, the tires (e.g., Pirelli P Zero Trofeo RS) operate at the absolute limit of their load and temperature capacity (>110°C).

The verdict...Given an ideal track scenario and a suspension setup tuned to absorb the imperfections of the Nordschleife, the new Tesla Roadster has the potential to shatter the production-car record and approach the lap times of dedicated Le Mans-style racing prototypes. In practice, the main deciding factor will be the thermal system's ability to maintain maximum energy delivery from the first second on the track to the very last.

Autonews and MotorLand

 

BMW

BMW M635CSi COUPÉ (1986): the German shark

Few automobiles represent the technical exuberance of 1980s BMW as well as the 1986 M635CSi Coupé. Derived from the elegant E24 6 Series, this model transformed a sophisticated four-seater grand tourer into a high-performance machine by incorporating an engine developed by BMW Motorsport—based on the powerplant of the legendary BMW M1. Introduced in 1984 as the new flagship of the E24 family, the M635CSi became the first large luxury coupé developed by the Motorsport division. It established a formula that would remain fundamental to future BMW M models: combining sports-car performance and dynamic handling with the comfort required for long-distance travel. Production ran from April 1984 to February 1989, with only 5,855 units built, making it one of the most coveted classic BMW M models today.

The foundation was the E24—an elegant coupé originally designed by Paul Bracq and launched the previous decade—but the transformation carried out by BMW Motorsport went far beyond simply installing a more powerful engine. Beneath the long hood lay the M88/3, a 3,453 cc inline-six engine featuring dual overhead camshafts, 24 valves, and six individual throttle bodies. The powerplant was derived directly from the M88 used in the M1, though it was adapted for the E24’s front-mounted, inclined configuration. With a compression ratio increased to 10.5:1, the engine produced 286 hp at 6,500 rpm and 340 Nm of torque at 4,500 rpm—extraordinary figures for the time. BMW made a point of clarifying that this was not merely a more powerful 635CSi; it was a genuine Motorsport product.

Its connection to the M1 endowed the M635CSi with a distinct mechanical character. Rather than opting for a large V8 or a turbocharged six-cylinder engine, BMW chose a high-revving, naturally aspirated powerplant—one capable of delivering power progressively, accompanied by the signature metallic exhaust note of the brand’s straight-six engines. Power was channeled to the rear wheels via a 5-speed Getrag manual transmission, while a limited-slip differential helped translate its 340 Nm of torque into effective acceleration. The suspension also underwent specific modifications, featuring reinforced components, firmer shock absorbers, and recalibrated anti-roll bars, along with a ride height lowered by approximately 10 mm.

The result was a car capable of extreme speed without compromising its identity as a grand tourer. The M635CSi could accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h in roughly 6.4 seconds and reach a top speed of 255 km/h—figures that placed it among the fastest mass-produced BMWs of the era. Weighing in at around 1,500 kg, with four seats and a body measuring nearly 4.76 meters in length, it was no compact sports car; rather, it was a high-speed coupé engineered to cover long distances with remarkable competence. A weight distribution of approximately 54% at the front and 46% at the rear helped maintain the signature balance characteristic of BMW’s rear-wheel-drive models.

Visually, the design followed a philosophy of calculated discretion. The E24’s famous "sharknose" remained intact, but the M635CSi gained a more pronounced front spoiler, a rear spoiler, body-colored side mirrors, and cross-spoke wheels. The BBS wheels—especially in wider configurations—became one of its most recognizable signatures. Its low-slung body, long hood, set-back cabin, and elegantly arched waistline created a silhouette that, even today, seems to strike a perfect balance between aggression and elegance. Inside, sports seats and a leather-wrapped steering wheel complemented an instrument cluster featuring a speedometer that reached 280 km/h and a tachometer marked up to 8,000 rpm, with the redline beginning at approximately 6,900 rpm.

The year 1986 is particularly significant, as it marked a transitional phase for the M635CSi. From that point on, versions equipped with a catalytic converter and the S38B35 engine—featuring lower compression and a reduced output of approximately 260 hp—began to appear, primarily for markets with stricter emissions control requirements. Meanwhile, the non-catalyzed European specification, which retained the M88/3 engine, continued to deliver the coveted 286 hp. BMW itself notes that the catalyzed version was integrated into the lineup later, whereas the early M635CSi models remain especially prized by collectors precisely for their original, high-performance configuration.

There was, therefore, a reason why the M635CSi earned an almost mythical reputation among enthusiasts. It brought together two seemingly contradictory personalities: while cruising, it could behave like a refined luxury coupé—quiet and comfortable—yet when the driver pushed the M88/3 engine into its upper rev range, it transformed into a machine with genuine Motorsport-grade performance. Moreover, it carried a direct lineage from the racetrack and the BMW M1, making the E24 a connecting link between BMW’s first supercar and the future generation of M models that would come to dominate the decades that followed.

The 1986 BMW M635CSi Coupé is, for this reason, much more than just a sporty version of the 6 Series. It represents an era when BMW could still apply racing technology to a production car—free from complex electronic interventions, turbochargers, or the need for extravagant, headline-grabbing figures to prove its capabilities. All it took was 6 cylinders, 3.5 liters, 24 valves, rear-wheel drive, and 286 hp. The result was one of the most complete and fascinating European grand tourers of the 1980s—a car where the elegance of the E24 met, beneath its hood, the heart of an M1.

 

MotorLand