Next year prolly not. 5 yrs...ehh possibly... 10 yrs.. I believe so. It will be from overwhelming demand worldwide outside the West and/or govt caveat as you mention.
I agree about the current situation in China but it along with India is so overwhelmingly bigger than any other place in the world it likely will gobble up every resource in sight just to get halfway to where we are now.
India is 3+ times bigger than we are and China is 4+ times bigger than we are. This many people want things.. now. It'll be a bidding war for resources. Autos, appliances, steel, aluminum, fertilizer, heating, roads, infrastructure, etc etc etc. all will demand basic resources.
Both countries, for the time being, are strongly capitalistic and willing to play in our league. The socialist agrarian tilt of the government is gone and China especially has a history of trade and commerce much more developed than ours.
You have used this bit of worthless trivia at least a dozen times. It was a record of no consequence to anyone outside of the Guinness Book of World records. First finding five guys with nothing to do but drive a car 1400 miles at less than 40 MPH is hard to imagine. At least the Jetta TDI vs Prius from Detroit to DC was a realistic test of both cars. And guess what in a real world test on real highways driving at realistic speeds the TDI is superior. I would hope the Prius with it's thousands of dollars worth of batteries and motors would be able to get better mileage than the TDI in town driving 35-40 MPH.
Size comparison? The Jetta Wagon which has a better EPA mileage rating than the sedan, has more room for people and stuff than the Prius.
I will repeat my challenge, that no one has answered. Show me the evidence that a modern diesel car running on ULSD with less than 15 PPM sulfur, is overall more polluting than a comparable gas car. For example the very fine E320 CDI. Find me a gas car that compares on all levels and gets 37 MPG on the highway.
Indeed, hybrids have increasingly faced sobering publicity about the "myth" of real-life fuel economy. Many drivers have reported to be disillusioned about underperforming the advertised mileage on their hybrids, which are most effective in stop-and-go city driving but help little on highways.
Unveiling the Mercedes E320 BLUETEC diesel car to be launched this fall and which features what DaimlerChrysler touted as the "cleanest diesel in the world," CEO Dieter Zetsche said diesels offered an excellent solution to weaning the United States off of foreign oil.
Indeed, hybrids have increasingly faced sobering publicity about the "myth" of real-life fuel economy. Many drivers have reported to be disillusioned about underperforming the advertised mileage on their hybrids, which are most effective in stop-and-go city driving but help little on highways.
Funny you use this quote.. the complaints are mostly coming from the other group. Those misunderstanding what consititutes City driving. There is almost no conflict that Hwy ratings and actual results are close. YMMV.
You conveniently ignored the Vancouver video comparo in refering to the 2 y.o. Detroit-DC-Detroit event. Both are anecdotal at best.
I will put my driving and my money on the Prius in either test tho. Either alone is good. Together, it's the world.
2 yrs from now ULSD is firmly in place all over the US... and Toyota announces the Gen3 Prius as a diesel hybrid. Do you spring for it?
Actually, I was quite surprised by that Vacouver video. I did not expect the Honda hybrid to do so poorly. The Ford Escape for an SUV did quite well. That was real world driving and an interesting segment they drove. The Prius did pretty well and the Jetta came in second. I have seen these results on other tests as well. I think Car and Driver did a similar test and they said the Prius got better mileage than the TDI. It all boils down to what you want in a car. For a few mpg difference someone way want the German engineering and handling and not care about the little bit less mileage. I guess you have to look at the overall package indeed.
quote gagrice-"Show me the evidence that a modern diesel car running on ULSD with less than 15 PPM sulfur, is overall more polluting than a comparable gas car."-end quote
All you have to do is go to the fueleconomy.gov site, look at the pollution scores of the 2006 TDIs. All are 1 on a scale of 10. There's your evidence right there. No big deal.
All you have to do is go to the fueleconomy.gov site, look at the pollution scores of the 2006 TDIs
Nice try larsb. Not even close to accurate. Those tests were done with high sulfur diesel, at least 500 PPM sulfur. Would you like to explain why your HCH only has a 2 rating? Which is not much different than a 1 rating.
Diesel still has many challenges in regard to emissions, even with the clean diesel coming to the USA by 2006:
Future Standards, Big Challenges While the current emissions standards are different for diesel vehicles compared to gasoline engines, the new federal standards, which go into effect in 2007, require diesel-powered vehicles to meet the same pollution levels as gasoline models. In some areas, such as carbon-dioxide emissions, diesels are actually more environmentally friendly than gasoline, but pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and soot are a different story altogether. On average, the new standards would mean a 77-percent cut in nitrogen-oxide emissions and an 88-percent drop in particulate emissions to put diesels on an equal playing field with gasoline cars.
The big challenge is that the emissions control systems, which filter out nitrogen oxides and particulates, don't work well with today's U.S. diesel fuel, because our diesel fuel has a much higher sulfur content than Europe's. The EPA has mandated diesel fuel to be produced with lower sulfur content, but that change won't take full effect until 2006 and even then the fuel won't be comparable to Europe's fuel.
So, Gary and all the diesel proponents, even the CLEANEST DIESEL FUEL the USA will get is still dirtier than Europe's cleanest diesel fuel. And the vehicles have to be 77 percent cleaner in NOx and 88 percent cleaner in PM than they are now? How they gonna do that?
HCH does not have a two rating....Whatsup widdat? Here's my 2004 Manual tranny HCH score:
Score = 6
All states except CA,MA,ME,NY,VT
BIN 5
4HNXV01.37CP
Oh, and by the way: They made the 2006 HCH an AT-PZEV for all locations. 9.5 on the EPA score. That's the vehicle I'll be trading up for in about a year.
You might research the emissions testing and see that they are designed for testing gasoline vehicles. The only thing that keeps the TDI low is NOx. Some of the other pollutants are not an issue with diesel.
As further proof of the inadequacies of the testing procedure. I went to a CA Smog testing station and was told that they have NO way to test my VW TDI. May be the reason CA blocked the sale of diesel TDI. It was easier to do than change all their smog testing equipment.
Several alternatives are being discussed about the best way to reduce emissions to meet future standards. One possibility is a system that would require a person to use an additive akin to adding windshield washer fluid. There's a concern, however, that owners won't add it regularly because there will be no noticeable difference in the vehicle without it — it simply won't be emissions-compliant. Another option is to use a component to trap the particulate matter, but these systems need to rid themselves of the matter somehow in order to be effective. Delphi has developed a fuel reformer that may provide a solution to this problem, but further testing is necessary.
At issue with creating a diesel engine that meets the stricter emissions standards of the future is the long-term durability of the emissions control equipment. Toyota is one of several major automakers taking a conservative approach in the U.S., despite the fact that diesel-powered vehicles represent over 30 percent of its sales in Europe. "We're not there yet," said Mike Love, national regulatory affairs manager at Toyota. "We are not confident that we can meet standards for the useful life of the engine." Toyota, which is known for the longevity of its vehicles, notes that as the systems wear to 100,000 miles and beyond, they are no longer effective at meeting the emissions standards.
> guess what in a real world test on real highways driving at realistic speeds the TDI is superior
Not true.
The 4-day 1,200 mile Road-Rally in Minnesota proved it.
The 2 Classic Prius driven by their owners beat the TDI automatic driven by its owner. Not by much, but that was the older model of Prius. The HSD does even better.
You mind giving us the EPA link for that. I show a 3 score for CARB states and a 2 score for all the rest. Very poor for a hybrid. I think you would be better off with a Civic CNG car. It has a 9 score for the 2004 model.
Once the sulfur is out or nearly out, PM becomes less of an issue. Add a PM filter and it becomes a non-issue.
NOx is a little harder to do, but the Bluetec concept from MB is very viable and works quite well. The are other SCR systems out there that also work quite well in reducing NOx.
Try doing a Google search using NOx reduction in diesel engines. The are several viable SCR solutions that reduce NOx below the required EPA minimum.
and here is the closing paragraph to that article you are selectively quoting:
Leon G. Billings, president of Clean Air Trust, describes meeting the new standards as a "tall order," but he is still hopeful. "The key to diesel technology for tomorrow's cars, SUVs and pickups is likely to be the availability of really clean fuel. Once the makers of emissions control technology are assured a sulfur-free fuel supply, they will be able to provide systems which will achieve standards for gasoline-powered vehicles."
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
And reading from the facts of the text in the article, it sounds like this "best of both worlds" scenario which Mr. Billings describes is a LONG LONG LONG way down the road.
i know you did. i followed it. i'm just posting that for those who might not follow the link and read the whole article.
i won't be so presumptuous as to read between the lines. The article tries to be objective and present all sides, that's all. We'll see what the future brings. I, for one, am still very hopeful.
Its amazing how quickly we forget ... but it wasn't too long ago that the naysayers claimed mass-produced hybrids were a LONG LONG way off, would cost an extraordinary amount of money, etc, etc. People just love standing on one side of the fence and throwing rocks ... I'm not sure why.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I still don't understand why there is all this bickering over the diesel fuel issue. Since diesel passenger cars/trucks account for such a small percentage of overall sales, I doubt their impact on the environment is significant. Same holds true for hybrids. Some are fuel efficient and green, but their small numbers have minimal impact. It is tantamount to trying to extinguish a forest fire with one garden hose. Even when clean diesel does arrive, who cares? I only know of three sedans that can run on diesel that are sold in non CARB states. I would love to go up to Canada and buy a Smart diesel and import it to the US. Now that would be cool!!
The point is that some people are proponents of Hybrids, and those innocent people have been attacked from day One by almost everyone, including the diesel guys, who say "hey, what's the big deal about hybrids - I can do that in my TDI" to which the hybrid proponents say "Oh no you can't" and there began the bickering.
We all should want cleaner air. We also all should want less demand for Middle East oil. The hybrids provide both of those. The diesels (for now) only provide for one of those.
The diesel guys are going to keep saying "just wait till clean diesels get here" and "clean diesels are coming" and the hybrid guys say "we dont need that we have hybrids" and there is really no way to reconcile the two.
Look up "stubborn" and you will understand why..... :shades:
The diesel guys are going to keep saying "just wait till clean diesels get here" and "clean diesels are coming" and the hybrid guys say "we dont need that we have hybrids" and there is really no way to reconcile the two.
AH, but I keep saying "wait for clean diesel hybrids"! Possibly will be the best of ALL WORLDS! Yet, I still am argued against ... again, not sure why. Its that throwing rocks thing, i guess.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The one point that gasser/electric hybrid people fail to mention is that gasoline is a one-way fuel and can only be made from oil or coal. No matter how little gasoline a hybrid uses, it is still adding more old carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The real advantage to diesel is that they can use a carbon neutral fuel and do it now. That fuel is biodiesel. I have not heard of bio-gasoline unless there is something on the market I am not aware of.
The use of ethanol in the form of E100 requires significant engine modifications to take advantage of it's low energy density.
quote winter2-"The one point that gasser/electric hybrid people fail to mention is that gasoline is a one-way fuel and can only be made from oil or coal. No matter how little gasoline a hybrid uses, it is still adding more old carbon dioxide to the atmosphere."-end quote
Surely hybrids use gasoline. But the beauty of the hybrid is that you can have a fully functional, highly customized midsize car like the Prius for $25K and still get 45+ MPG.
Before hybrids came along, much of that was very hard to accomplish in a comfortable 5-passenger car, and impossible at 19,000 dollars, which is what I paid for my HCH.
And sure, biodiesel is fine and good, although there are anti-biodiesel groups also, but until the day comes where you can drive up to Circle K and fillup with biodiesel, it's only a pipe dream for mainstream commuters.
I suppose there are positives and negatives to each technology. Amazingly, from what I am seeing, the hybrids from Ford, Honda and Toyota seem to have minimal issues. One thing that can't be replicated in a laboratory is the passage of time. That will be the litmus test for the hybrids. Diesel is a proven technology, but very few Americans understand that it can be used in cars. They associate it with trucks. Every time I pick up a car magazine there are lots of pages devoted to hybrids, but very little to diesel. I think we should embrace both because they save fuel, which is our long term goal, isn't it?? Let the public decide which they prefer. If diesels become popular, then hybrids would maybe be phased out, the opposite also holds true to a degree. Way too early to tell, but the next few years look quite interesting. Isn't competition great??
quote winter2-"You can get a VW TDI for what you paid for your HCH and still get 45+ MPG."-end quote
Not me. My commute is 100% city driving. The only time I get on the freeways is when I take a vacation. No 5-passenger TDI is rated 45 in the City like my HCH.
> Jetta TDI has a standard manual transmission. It is more efficient than the automatic.
So... you are saying people must make a compromise to get higher MPG. That's quite a sacrifice for a population that clearly prefers not having to shift.
The use of automatic transmissions is quite a consumer of fuel for people not willing to save it. In addition folks usually pay a premium of 800-2000 for the privilege. So say the range savings is between 2-6 mpg over 12-15k x 232.2M vehicles in the fleet, fully 80% or higher of that total being automatic transmissions. I think you don't do the math because you really wish to ignore the conclusions. So say you still dont want to do the math. That is ok does automatic vs manual consume more or less fuel?
People don't want to be required to shift, period. Deal with it.
That's why the appeal for the CVT (both types) has grown, even in non-hybrids. You get a MPG gain without making a user-experience sacrific. People are more than happy to pay for the convenience.
No John, there is no compromise on the VW as BOTH manual and automatic are offered. Some people hate automatics and some hate manuals or do not have the skills or experience to drive them. The TDI forces no compromise. TDI is available with a DSG transmission that may be shifted manually or automatically. brief description of dsg in this article
Wow Mopar, great wagon. Wonder what the mpg is on that?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this car even in a gas version is NOT available in the US, correct? I don’t see it on Honda’s web site. :sick:
Who is the clown in Honda’s marketing dept. that decided that it would not sell in the US? :mad:
I have NO problems at all dealing with it. People who buy auto's really don't mind wasting fuel. They also dont mind paying the premuim for it either. So I think you are right YOU should deal with it.
But to say or even try to imply that an auto (like vs like) transmissions get better fuel mileage is disingenuous at best. It also does not enhance your credibility.
I can fully see why and the rest of the readers can fully see why you do not do the math or deny the issue all together. Just because it is the "majority" does not mean the extra fuel use is NOT THERE. What is operating is (YOU)folks ignoring the issue because the majority are guilty.
So yes, there are three tranmission choices with todays' off the shelve technology, auto (including CVT) manual, DSG. Two out of the three, structually get better mph.
> The TDI forces no compromise. TDI is available with a DSG transmission that may be shifted manually or automatically.
If that were actually true, you would have provided a reference to MPG. After all, that was what we were discussing. (By the way, that link did mention a few minor shortcomings... like maximum revs and D jerking.)
So... how does the DSG compare to the manual and the automatic in terms of MPG?
So yes, John if you get out of your "shape the data to fit the conclusion" mode, i.e., diesels sux and hybrids are the answer to world peace in our time:
what is boils down to is parasitic waste. So in order of worse to best: auto, dsg, manual/clutch. The waste SHOWS its numbers in mpg (among other ways).
This might be a nit, but the insurance on my 2004 Honda Civic VP is 46% more per year than my 2003 TDI. Policy coverages are identical. If thise hold true over 10 years, the savings will be enough to buy me app 30,200 miles of fuel. If I dont want to wait that long that translates to 3,016 miles per year. That is a one way trip from sea to shining sea.
I think that another thing that really doesn't hit the statistics is the fact one does not have to drive like a fuel miser to get good mpg? Of course in both cases one can make the choice in both and get GREAT mileage.
There is nothing wrong with comparing a Buick with the diesel and hybrid for your application. Ultimately it gets down to cents per mile driven. The other truth is since it is your nickel, you can buy anything you please.
"People don't want to be required to shift, period. Deal with it."
You can't put every person into 1 bucket. People, their driving habits and preferences differ wildly. My wife and I have both CHOSEN to buy manual transmissions. For a number of reasons. Many people I work with have also chosen manual transmissions (>70%). My point is that you make your statement as if it is fact, and that is wrong.
I like my semi-American iron. Jeep Liberty Limited CRD. Italian diesel, German designed trans, and the rest domestic. Runs like a dream. Touch over 30 MPG on the highway at 62 mph. Engine is still green at 6900 miles. Another 3K to go before she really loosens up.
Comments
Next year prolly not. 5 yrs...ehh possibly... 10 yrs.. I believe so. It will be from overwhelming demand worldwide outside the West and/or govt caveat as you mention.
I agree about the current situation in China but it along with India is so overwhelmingly bigger than any other place in the world it likely will gobble up every resource in sight just to get halfway to where we are now.
India is 3+ times bigger than we are and China is 4+ times bigger than we are. This many people want things.. now. It'll be a bidding war for resources. Autos, appliances, steel, aluminum, fertilizer, heating, roads, infrastructure, etc etc etc. all will demand basic resources.
Both countries, for the time being, are strongly capitalistic and willing to play in our league. The socialist agrarian tilt of the government is gone and China especially has a history of trade and commerce much more developed than ours.
You have used this bit of worthless trivia at least a dozen times. It was a record of no consequence to anyone outside of the Guinness Book of World records. First finding five guys with nothing to do but drive a car 1400 miles at less than 40 MPH is hard to imagine. At least the Jetta TDI vs Prius from Detroit to DC was a realistic test of both cars. And guess what in a real world test on real highways driving at realistic speeds the TDI is superior. I would hope the Prius with it's thousands of dollars worth of batteries and motors would be able to get better mileage than the TDI in town driving 35-40 MPH.
Size comparison? The Jetta Wagon which has a better EPA mileage rating than the sedan, has more room for people and stuff than the Prius.
I will repeat my challenge, that no one has answered. Show me the evidence that a modern diesel car running on ULSD with less than 15 PPM sulfur, is overall more polluting than a comparable gas car. For example the very fine E320 CDI. Find me a gas car that compares on all levels and gets 37 MPG on the highway.
Unveiling the Mercedes E320 BLUETEC diesel car to be launched this fall and which features what DaimlerChrysler touted as the "cleanest diesel in the world," CEO Dieter Zetsche said diesels offered an excellent solution to weaning the United States off of foreign oil.
More diesel cars
Funny you use this quote.. the complaints are mostly coming from the other group. Those misunderstanding what consititutes City driving. There is almost no conflict that Hwy ratings and actual results are close. YMMV.
You conveniently ignored the Vancouver video comparo in refering to the 2 y.o. Detroit-DC-Detroit event. Both are anecdotal at best.
I will put my driving and my money on the Prius in either test tho. Either alone is good. Together, it's the world.
2 yrs from now ULSD is firmly in place all over the US... and Toyota announces the Gen3 Prius as a diesel hybrid. Do you spring for it?
All you have to do is go to the fueleconomy.gov site, look at the pollution scores of the 2006 TDIs. All are 1 on a scale of 10. There's your evidence right there. No big deal.
Nice try larsb. Not even close to accurate. Those tests were done with high sulfur diesel, at least 500 PPM sulfur. Would you like to explain why your HCH only has a 2 rating? Which is not much different than a 1 rating.
Future Standards, Big Challenges
While the current emissions standards are different for diesel vehicles compared to gasoline engines, the new federal standards, which go into effect in 2007, require diesel-powered vehicles to meet the same pollution levels as gasoline models. In some areas, such as carbon-dioxide emissions, diesels are actually more environmentally friendly than gasoline, but pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and soot are a different story altogether. On average, the new standards would mean a 77-percent cut in nitrogen-oxide emissions and an 88-percent drop in particulate emissions to put diesels on an equal playing field with gasoline cars.
The big challenge is that the emissions control systems, which filter out nitrogen oxides and particulates, don't work well with today's U.S. diesel fuel, because our diesel fuel has a much higher sulfur content than Europe's. The EPA has mandated diesel fuel to be produced with lower sulfur content, but that change won't take full effect until 2006 and even then the fuel won't be comparable to Europe's fuel.
So, Gary and all the diesel proponents, even the CLEANEST DIESEL FUEL the USA will get is still dirtier than Europe's cleanest diesel fuel. And the vehicles have to be 77 percent cleaner in NOx and 88 percent cleaner in PM than they are now? How they gonna do that?
Whatsup widdat?
From this page:
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/93338/article.html
Score = 6
All states except CA,MA,ME,NY,VT
BIN 5
4HNXV01.37CP
Oh, and by the way: They made the 2006 HCH an AT-PZEV for all locations. 9.5 on the EPA score. That's the vehicle I'll be trading up for in about a year.
As further proof of the inadequacies of the testing procedure. I went to a CA Smog testing station and was told that they have NO way to test my VW TDI. May be the reason CA blocked the sale of diesel TDI. It was easier to do than change all their smog testing equipment.
Several alternatives are being discussed about the best way to reduce emissions to meet future standards. One possibility is a system that would require a person to use an additive akin to adding windshield washer fluid. There's a concern, however, that owners won't add it regularly because there will be no noticeable difference in the vehicle without it — it simply won't be emissions-compliant. Another option is to use a component to trap the particulate matter, but these systems need to rid themselves of the matter somehow in order to be effective. Delphi has developed a fuel reformer that may provide a solution to this problem, but further testing is necessary.
At issue with creating a diesel engine that meets the stricter emissions standards of the future is the long-term durability of the emissions control equipment. Toyota is one of several major automakers taking a conservative approach in the U.S., despite the fact that diesel-powered vehicles represent over 30 percent of its sales in Europe. "We're not there yet," said Mike Love, national regulatory affairs manager at Toyota. "We are not confident that we can meet standards for the useful life of the engine." Toyota, which is known for the longevity of its vehicles, notes that as the systems wear to 100,000 miles and beyond, they are no longer effective at meeting the emissions standards.
Not true.
The 4-day 1,200 mile Road-Rally in Minnesota proved it.
The 2 Classic Prius driven by their owners beat the TDI automatic driven by its owner. Not by much, but that was the older model of Prius. The HSD does even better.
JOHN
You mind giving us the EPA link for that. I show a 3 score for CARB states and a 2 score for all the rest. Very poor for a hybrid. I think you would be better off with a Civic CNG car. It has a 9 score for the 2004 model.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
Go to that page and see the page I posted my data from last time.
NOx is a little harder to do, but the Bluetec concept from MB is very viable and works quite well. The are other SCR systems out there that also work quite well in reducing NOx.
Try doing a Google search using NOx reduction in diesel engines. The are several viable SCR solutions that reduce NOx below the required EPA minimum.
Leon G. Billings, president of Clean Air Trust, describes meeting the new standards as a "tall order," but he is still hopeful. "The key to diesel technology for tomorrow's cars, SUVs and pickups is likely to be the availability of really clean fuel. Once the makers of emissions control technology are assured a sulfur-free fuel supply, they will be able to provide systems which will achieve standards for gasoline-powered vehicles."
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
And reading from the facts of the text in the article, it sounds like this "best of both worlds" scenario which Mr. Billings describes is a LONG LONG LONG way down the road.
i won't be so presumptuous as to read between the lines. The article tries to be objective and present all sides, that's all. We'll see what the future brings. I, for one, am still very hopeful.
Its amazing how quickly we forget ... but it wasn't too long ago that the naysayers claimed mass-produced hybrids were a LONG LONG way off, would cost an extraordinary amount of money, etc, etc. People just love standing on one side of the fence and throwing rocks ... I'm not sure why.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Interior is very sharp looking, but that shape - UGGHHH !!!
Thats absolutely correct, as it should be.
We all should want cleaner air. We also all should want less demand for Middle East oil. The hybrids provide both of those. The diesels (for now) only provide for one of those.
The diesel guys are going to keep saying "just wait till clean diesels get here" and "clean diesels are coming" and the hybrid guys say "we dont need that we have hybrids" and there is really no way to reconcile the two.
Look up "stubborn" and you will understand why.....
AH, but I keep saying "wait for clean diesel hybrids"!
Possibly will be the best of ALL WORLDS!
Yet, I still am argued against ... again, not sure why. Its that throwing rocks thing, i guess.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
As a matter of fact, I like it BETTER than a prius. At least from the side.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The real advantage to diesel is that they can use a carbon neutral fuel and do it now. That fuel is biodiesel. I have not heard of bio-gasoline unless there is something on the market I am not aware of.
The use of ethanol in the form of E100 requires significant engine modifications to take advantage of it's low energy density.
Surely hybrids use gasoline. But the beauty of the hybrid is that you can have a fully functional, highly customized midsize car like the Prius for $25K and still get 45+ MPG.
Before hybrids came along, much of that was very hard to accomplish in a comfortable 5-passenger car, and impossible at 19,000 dollars, which is what I paid for my HCH.
And sure, biodiesel is fine and good, although there are anti-biodiesel groups also, but until the day comes where you can drive up to Circle K and fillup with biodiesel, it's only a pipe dream for mainstream commuters.
Biodiesel is not a pipe dream. It is coming and is available, but unfortunately, not widely. It will happen.
Not me. My commute is 100% city driving. The only time I get on the freeways is when I take a vacation. No 5-passenger TDI is rated 45 in the City like my HCH.
So... you are saying people must make a compromise to get higher MPG. That's quite a sacrifice for a population that clearly prefers not having to shift.
JOHN
Advanced Technology Vehicles
People don't want to be required to shift, period. Deal with it.
That's why the appeal for the CVT (both types) has grown, even in non-hybrids. You get a MPG gain without making a user-experience sacrific. People are more than happy to pay for the convenience.
JOHN
TDI is available with a DSG transmission that may be shifted manually or automatically.
brief description of dsg in this article
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this car even in a gas version is NOT available in the US, correct? I don’t see it on Honda’s web site. :sick:
Who is the clown in Honda’s marketing dept. that decided that it would not sell in the US? :mad:
But to say or even try to imply that an auto (like vs like) transmissions get better fuel mileage is disingenuous at best. It also does not enhance your credibility.
I can fully see why and the rest of the readers can fully see why you do not do the math or deny the issue all together. Just because it is the "majority" does not mean the extra fuel use is NOT THERE. What is operating is (YOU)folks ignoring the issue because the majority are guilty.
So yes, there are three tranmission choices with todays' off the shelve technology, auto (including CVT) manual, DSG. Two out of the three, structually get better mph.
If that were actually true, you would have provided a reference to MPG. After all, that was what we were discussing. (By the way, that link did mention a few minor shortcomings... like maximum revs and D jerking.)
So... how does the DSG compare to the manual and the automatic in terms of MPG?
JOHN
I've always been a fan of the Accord Wagon.
GT TDI 6 spd manual
Fuel Consumption
Urban 37.2mpg - 7.6l/100km
Extra-urban 57.6mpg - 4.9l/100km
Combined 47.9mpg - 5.9l/100km
Engine emissions 159g/km
Engine noise levels 73.0dB
Engine maximum Speed** 125mph - 202km/h
Engine acceleration 0-62mph 9.7secs
Maximum output PS 140
at RPM 4000
Maximum torque 236 lbs.ft / 320 Nm
at RPM 2500
GT TDI 6 spd DSG automatic
Fuel Consumption
Urban 34.0mpg - 8.3l/100km
Extra-urban 53.3mpg - 5.3l/100km
Combined 44.8mpg - 6.3l/100km
Engine emissions 170g/km
Engine noise levels 69.0dB
Engine maximum Speed** 124mph - 200km/h
Engine acceleration 0-62mph 9.7secs
Maximum output PS 140
at RPM 4000
Maximum torque 236 lbs.ft / 320 Nm
at RPM 2500
As you can see, there is some loss in efficiency for the automatic in mpg, though acceleration is equal.
what is boils down to is parasitic waste. So in order of worse to best: auto, dsg, manual/clutch. The waste SHOWS its numbers in mpg (among other ways).
Specs. state 11.6 seconds 0-60 mph and they are usually conservative.
BOTTOM LINE: For the person who cares about economy but loves to drive, the VW provides a surprisingly well-adjusted compromise of fun and frugality.
I agree with PM's conclusion.
You can't put every person into 1 bucket. People, their driving habits and preferences differ wildly. My wife and I have both CHOSEN to buy manual transmissions. For a number of reasons. Many people I work with have also chosen manual transmissions (>70%). My point is that you make your statement as if it is fact, and that is wrong.
You do not speak for us. We want to shift.
It's actually less than that. And among them, there are some that would choose a CVT next to get close to the same MPG without having to shift.
So not wanting a manual is most definitely representative of the "majority".
JOHN
Not sure how many people are going to fork over the big bucks for the Benz. Hope that Ford comes to fruition. I want it big time!!