2.0 & 2.2 Diesel Boxers For Europe Next Year

[1 Lucky Texan]

Richard, you and I are almost in complete agreement; I just feel that particular article is written with some misleading opinions and conjecture. And ignores that idea that the hybrid buyer is will to pay more for reduced pollution.

 

On the other hand, I’m a huge proponent of diesel and feel that VW is leading the industry with the TDI. I believe that current hybrids are falling far short of their potential, even with currently available technology. The marriage of hybrid with modern diesels would be a huge step in the right direction. Your math is correct, in a purely dollars and cents debate the hybrid gains you nothing and the current environmental payoff may be more than offset by the fact that building them (and recycling them) creates more environmental hazards than conventional cars. They will get better and may even make some sense at some point… but they are still a short term solution.

 

All of this is a moot point for a guy like me, I simply can’t afford a new car payment. I drive about 4500 miles a month and currently do it on a ’91 Legacy SS at about 27mpg, even the TDI’s 45mpg wont cover the difference in operating costs… might cover the difference in insurance if I’m lucky, never mind the loan payment.

 

Gary

 

Since I was a kid I always thought it would be cool if a car engine could be designed that would be cooled, lubricated and fueled by the same liquid. Might require a catalyst and some exotic engine materials but it seems like we may be close to it now.

 

Carl

[rweddy]

On the other hand, I’m a huge proponent of diesel and feel that VW is leading the industry with the TDI. I believe that current hybrids are falling far short of their potential, even with currently available technology. The marriage of hybrid with modern diesels would be a huge step in the right direction. Your math is correct, in a purely dollars and cents debate the hybrid gains you nothing and the current environmental payoff may be more than offset by the fact that building them (and recycling them) creates more environmental hazards than conventional cars. They will get better and may even make some sense at some point… but they are still a short term solution.

 

All of this is a moot point for a guy like me, I simply can’t afford a new car payment. I drive about 4500 miles a month and currently do it on a ’91 Legacy SS at about 27mpg, even the TDI’s 45mpg wont cover the difference in operating costs… might cover the difference in insurance if I’m lucky, never mind the loan payment.

 

Gary

Wow you drive more than me!! I drive 2000 a month and my 96 gets me 30-32 mpg.

I know, I would love to get a jetta but they are way too $$$ and they are nowhere near as reliable as japan cars. And VW dropped the ball big time, no TDI wagons will be available until 07 since they are moving production to Mexico.

[Diesel]

Lets dispell a myth here. Locomotives are diesel electric because it was too difficult to build an automatic tranny to deal with that much torque. The have since evolved into something that is pretty efficent but they are still diesel electric because of the tranny issue. These are the only industrial engines that are diesel/electric. If this was such a great idea over the road trucks would have been converted decades ago. A hybrid shines in the city but on the highway they are no better. Hybrids have a nich but who wants to pay 20k for something that takes you to and from work.

 

I miss my old Vegge-O-matic.

[KStretch55]

Ok, someone mentioned that hydrogen basically is not cost effective cuz' it costs more to "distill" it than it's worth, paraphrasing of course. I won't dispute that, cuz' I don't know the facts. But, couldn't you say the same about fossil fuels? At least hydrogen is a renewable/reuseable resource, and as I understand it, definitely cheaper by the gallon/cubic foot/whatever it's measured in. And, nonpolluting!! Discussion welcome.

[blitz]

Lets dispell a myth here. Locomotives are diesel electric because it was too difficult to build an automatic tranny to deal with that much torque. The have since evolved into something that is pretty efficent but they are still diesel electric because of the tranny issue. These are the only industrial engines that are diesel/electric. If this was such a great idea over the road trucks would have been converted decades ago. A hybrid shines in the city but on the highway they are no better. Hybrids have a nich but who wants to pay 20k for something that takes you to and from work.

All your points are good, but I'm not completely clear on exactly which myth you've dispelled.

[Diesel]

Ok, someone mentioned that hydrogen basically is not cost effective cuz' it costs more to "distill" it than it's worth, paraphrasing of course. I won't dispute that, cuz' I don't know the facts. But, couldn't you say the same about fossil fuels? At least hydrogen is a renewable/reuseable resource, and as I understand it, definitely cheaper by the gallon/cubic foot/whatever it's measured in. And, nonpolluting!! Discussion welcome.

We'll never know what the actual cost of a gallon of fuel really is. The fuel industry and the govt have some big money ties with one feeding the other sorta coconsumptive. H2 fuel cells is definitely the way to go but that time is still a futuristic dream. What we need is to make our society run efficently with what we have (Scientific Amarican last month) and invest towards a better future. That issue of SciAm has some really good points about conserving energy. One kW saved at the point of use (gasoline or electricity) is way more than one kW saved ot the point of production. For the short term (next 50 years) diesel is the way to go. It can be grown in a field and it is way more energetic than all the other fuels. I would love zero pollution cars but I'm willing to compromise for something that is realistic in upfront cost and can be used for a long time.

[Diesel]

All your points are good, but I'm not completely clear on exactly which myth you've dispelled.

I always thought a locomotive-style diesel / electric would be a pretty good idea. Just enough electrical storage capacity to be able capture the braking energy for use at the next acceleration.

Diesel electric trains don't have the engine connected to the wheels mechanically. They're basically huge gensets that can run at constant RPMs, which makes the engine more efficient and less polluting, and then the electric motors put all the power down.

Trains were built the way they are not because its more efficent but because they are easier to build that way.

[All_talk]

Trains were built the way they are not because its more efficent but because they are easier to build that way.

 

But rest assured, if the monster trans was cheaper in the long run they would do it that way. Industry is all about the bottom line and rarely get sidetracked buy whats marketable or the trend of the day. Lots of heavy earth moving equipment and stationary generators are diesel over electric, they mechanical transmission of power is one reason but the diesel power plant is chosen because of lower operating costs.

 

The Hybrid is all about optimization, internal combustion engines are always more efficient when tuned to run in a focused RPM range. So much so that they can even show overall gains after the inefficiency of converting their output to electricity then back into mechanical energy at the motor.

 

We'll never know what the actual cost of a gallon of fuel really is. The fuel industry and the govt have some big money ties with one feeding the other sorta coconsumptive. H2 fuel cells is definitely the way to go but that time is still a futuristic dream. What we need is to make our society run efficently with what we have (Scientific Amarican last month) and invest towards a better future. That issue of SciAm has some really good points about conserving energy. One kW saved at the point of use (gasoline or electricity) is way more than one kW saved ot the point of production. For the short term (next 50 years) diesel is the way to go. It can be grown in a field and it is way more energetic than all the other fuels. I would love zero pollution cars but I'm willing to compromise for something that is realistic in upfront cost and can be used for a long time.

 

^^^^ what he said

 

 

Since I was a kid I always thought it would be cool if a car engine could be designed that would be cooled, lubricated and fueled by the same liquid. Might require a catalyst and some exotic engine materials but it seems like we may be close to it now.

 

Carl

 

Carl, its been around for a while now… its called a 2-stroke, lol And there is some research going on that just might make them useful in the future.

 

Gary

[Snowman]

 

 

 

Carl, its been around for a while now… its called a 2-stroke, lol And there is some research going on that just might make them useful in the future.

 

Gary

 

Yeah, we could just all buy 360s and get 66mpg!

[casm]

Incidentally, for anyone who hasn't seen it yet: the Axial Vector Engine. Looks promising, just hoping it's not vapourware.

[blitz]

Trains were built the way they are not because its more efficent but because they are easier to build that way.

OK, I see the problem:

 

You're focusing on 50 year old train technology, whereas my point centers around a new lightweight stoplight-jumper, using modern, efficient motors, regenerating braking and a specialized turbo-diesel. I don't think the old train model fits that description. In other words, we're talking about two completely different things.

 

You're working towards a straw-man, to wit: A modern effiecient diesel/electric car isn't feasable, because 50 years ago trains were built for a different reason.

[nipper]

We'll never know what the actual cost of a gallon of fuel really is. The fuel industry and the govt have some big money ties with one feeding the other sorta coconsumptive. H2 fuel cells is definitely the way to go but that time is still a futuristic dream. What we need is to make our society run efficently with what we have (Scientific Amarican last month) and invest towards a better future. That issue of SciAm has some really good points about conserving energy. One kW saved at the point of use (gasoline or electricity) is way more than one kW saved ot the point of production. For the short term (next 50 years) diesel is the way to go. It can be grown in a field and it is way more energetic than all the other fuels. I would love zero pollution cars but I'm willing to compromise for something that is realistic in upfront cost and can be used for a long time.

 

I worked for a fuel cell mfg (H-Power Corp ..now owned by Plug Power). I will say I learned alot and it was great fun (I even have a couple of patents from it). Unfortunitly Fuel cells in car are not going to happen for some time yet until cost comes down, and the range can be increased. Simple truth is that the system for a car would run about 80K, and thats with mass production. Right now they run about 300-400K. Liquid fuels and the ICE (internal combustion engine) does what it does very well, and still has alot of life left in it.

We figured out that H2 equal to a gallon of liquid fuel (deisel gasoline kerosine) was about 6.00 a gallon (thats was three years ago). Fuel cell membranes have a very short life, but that will improve with time, maybe. Its much cheaper and more efficient to run H2 in an ICE.

The most plentyful and easiest source for H2 is ...... get ready for it .... oil.

H2 is a waste product of the refining process. After that H2 xan be pulle dout of ammonia, fertilizer, natural gas, methane, sea water, anything with a H molecule. The problme is is that it takes alot of energy, or alot of chemistry, to get that bugger loose. We used two three fuels, H2 (the easiest to work with and cheapest), Methanol, and Natural gas. Fuel cells will not free us from fossil fuel, it will just shift what we use.

The best way to save fuel and cut back really is convservation, be it passive (buying more efficient cars, aplliances etc), or more active like driving less.

I'ld love to see deisels make a comeback, but growing it will not help. We are too thirsty a country, and there isnt enough farmland to meet the demand. Bur anything that we do to try to cut back consumption

[Diesel]

Lots of heavy earth moving equipment and stationary generators are diesel over electric, they mechanical transmission of power is one reason but the diesel power plant is chosen because of lower operating costs.

I totally agree with you about running these engines in the sweet spot (especially a diesel), but the diesel/electric thing is to avoid using a transmission. Imagine the maintence cost of replacing a clutch in a 1600 hp dump truck.

 

"Hey Fred could you hand me that 21 centimeter socket"

 

"In a minute Joe we're using the hoist to move the starter bolts. What diameter was that pilot shaft 6 inch or 7 inch"

 

I always thought trucks would be good candidates for diesel/electric but it turns out that right now the mechanical coupling between the wheels and engine is the most efficent.

d.

[Diesel]

there isnt enough farmland to meet the demand.

We should stop eating Big Macs.

[blitz]

Since I was a kid I always thought it would be cool if a car engine could be designed that would be cooled, lubricated and fueled by the same liquid. Might require a catalyst and some exotic engine materials but it seems like we may be close to it now.

Mmm... beer.

[Scottbaru]

I bicycle to work, and I'm on my fourth tank of gas this summer in the subie! Most of that gas is from my daughter borrowing it to save her gas $. I'm looking for another car as my daughter's vintage quattro can't last forever. My first choice is a used Landcruiser getting 15mpg. Second is a new TDI. At 15mpg vs 45 (realistically)mpg, and 20k miles/year, and $3/gallon, I save about $2666/yr in fuel cost in the TDI. The new TDI will end up costing well over $24k, interest on my car loan and depreciation will be far more than I save in fuel, and I'm in a tiny car instead of an awesome Landcruiser. I guess if you must have a new car for some reason, maybe diesel or hybrid has some advantages. A slightly used Legacy will probably save you a lot more.

[rweddy]

I bicycle to work, and I'm on my fourth tank of gas this summer in the subie! Most of that gas is from my daughter borrowing it to save her gas $. I'm looking for another car as my daughter's vintage quattro can't last forever. My first choice is a used Landcruiser getting 15mpg. Second is a new TDI. At 15mpg vs 45 (realistically)mpg, and 20k miles/year, and $3/gallon, I save about $2666/yr in fuel cost in the TDI. The new TDI will end up costing well over $24k, interest on my car loan and depreciation will be far more than I save in fuel, and I'm in a tiny car instead of an awesome Landcruiser. I guess if you must have a new car for some reason, maybe diesel or hybrid has some advantages. A slightly used Legacy will probably save you a lot more.

 

Or better yet a FJ80 Diesel!!

[operose]

I'm looking for another car as my daughter's vintage quattro can't last forever.

 

ah! beg to differ on the vintage quattro not lasting forever I'm driving a 1988 Audi 80 quattro.... with 220k on the clock... still running strong. damn thing is way faster than my '88 xt6 FWD auto (of course)

 

oh it gets really good mileage too... like 30mpg with my crazy lead foot getting it up to 5500RPM before shifting and cornering so hard the temp sensor malfunctions

[Scottbaru]

Or better yet a FJ80 Diesel!!

I'm drooling. Not many in the states, lots of talk on the cruiser forum of converting our 80s.

ah! beg to differ on the vintage quattro not lasting forever I'm driving a 1988 Audi 80 quattro.... with 220k on the clock... still running strong. damn thing is way faster than my '88 xt6 FWD auto

Nice! Is that a 5-cyl? I've had three quattros, they all last forever or until you total them. Several type-44s around here with well over 200k on the clock and going strong. One brother still has his 4000cs quattro running well, needs my turbo engine in it someday.

[nipper]

heheeh trees and running into other non-moveable objects do tend to dramatically reduce the cars overall life

 

 

 

Joe

[Scottbaru]

heheeh trees and running into other non-moveable objects do tend to dramatically reduce the cars overall life :)Joe

Deer, I've hit five now. The two quattros fared well hitting deer at almost 80mph, but the cam pulleys were hit hard. They're just behind the grill, and interference engines. One actually ran well enough to drive to a hotel despite a bent cam pulley. That's another reason I lean toward Landcruiser as my next vehicle, preferrably with a bull-bar.

[nipper]

Forgot about those 4 legged trees....

 

 

Joe