-
Based on driving experience Ferrer, that's not the subjective case and I suspect it's because you are only looking at peak torque and not torque available at the revs the gears are running in.
Until it's reviewed what gear ratios and revs then it's not a safe comparison :(
-
You know what would actually be a very interesting read? A comprehensive technical, test, and drive review by an automotive journalist outlet comparing like model cars with diesels vs ottos, akin to the cars mentioned by RM. Grab and test a whole whack in the range.
Matra hits it with peak torque. Things are complicated in these comparos when you start talking about peak torque, torque curve, redline/peak power, gearing, etc etc.
I am curious what boost the Cummins/Powerstroke/Duramax are pushing.
-
For some reason I am having a hard time pulling what the stock boost on those bad boys are, only that they can usually take up to ca. 50lbs of boost...
-
For US pickups diesels do have an added benefit if you live at altitude. Like all turbos they don't have the fear of heights a NA motor gets at 3000m. I was in the Rockies two years ago. I never noticed a drop in power associated with altitude thanks to my SAAB's turbo. At 3000m I think the fall off in power is around 30% for an NA car. Turbos do lose power but not nearly as much. Most trucks are not turbos though all the diesels are so if you are going up the hills a diesel is a nice thing to have.
In other news, Car and Driver did an interesting comparison. Jetta vs Jetta vs Jetta vs Jetta
[url="http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2013-vw-jetta-comparison-test-hybrid-vs-tdi-vs-gli-vs-25-review"]2013 VW Jetta Comparison Test: Hybrid vs. TDI vs. GLI vs. 2.5 Car and Driver[/url]
The real test was 2.0T vs 2.0 diesel vs 2.5L I5 vs hybrid.
The observed mileage and 0-60mph times were
2.5L: 26 mpg 8.9s
2.0T: 31 mpg 6.4s
Hybrid: 38 mpg 7.9s
diesel: 39 mpg 8.4s
The 2.5L was a clear loser but really that motor has always been a bit of a dog. The hybrid is compelling given the lower fuel costs and negligible loss in mileage. There is fear of the battery losing performance later in life. However, the US VW diesel's have a nasty expensive particle filter that is likely to need service after 100k miles for around $3k.
-
Interesting comparison.
[quote=Car & Driver]According to the EPA, the TDI should be good for 30 mpg in the city, 42 on the highway, and 34 combined. (Those results are with the manual or the quick-shifting DSG automatic, which was the transmission in our car.) We logged an impressive 39 mpg, which was—and this is significant—better than we achieved with the hybrid. [/quote]
I don't find it significant at all. The diesel should be much better than the other three.
Does anyone know the test route, conditions and speed?
It's also interesting to see how shot geared is the USDM diesel automatic, only 50,1km/h @ 1,000rpm in top gear which is shorter the EDM 1.6 TDI engine (50,7km/h @ 1,000rpm in the 5 speed manual, 51,6km/h @ 1,000rpm in the 7 speed auto).
The manual EDM Jetta 2.0 TDI has 58,4km/h @ 1,000rpm, which if it is the same in the USDM model would have greatly improved fuel consumption.
-
[quote=Ferrer;995701]I don't find it significant at all. The diesel should be much better than the other three.[/quote]
It's significant if you're an average US consumer. Hybrids will save the world!
-
Most hybrids, compared to Toyota HSD, do have shorter battery life. Just as in your cell phone, they do not simply just go out, they deteriorate. Honda hybrids are notorious for this and although there are charging strategies and recals which can go part way towards pluggimg the gap, no Hybrid really has the financial advantage save perhaps for the Fords. Hyundai may prove an exception as well.
-
-
[quote=Kitdy;995524]And here is the crux of the environmental argument. Someone else's "freedom," is actually negatively impacting all other members of the human race. A Northern North American is producing huge amounts of garbage and emissions, and they pay for it, but those that pay for it most are those who are already worse off.
Evidence points to anthropological climate change being real. The majority of evidence points to this change being potentially catastrophic. I would rather operate with the precautionary principle in hand and aim to reduce potentially catastrophic damage. If the potential risk is widespread death and destruction, and the relative cost to stop this is high (but still low compared to well, widespread death and destruction) then I'd rather err on the side of caution then let myself in older life and subsequent generations of humans and non-human beings on this planet suffer for our grandiose.
jcb, see what The Economist has to say on climate change. They fully embrace the fact that anthropological climate change and global warming is real and accept that it will likely be absolutely devastating. They had a very coolly discussed podcast about the widespread ramifications of this issue where they attempted to come up with some solutions.
I say: build approximately 29837420938472908347238 nuclear fission reactors. Canada and Australia has the world covered for uranium.
EDIT: Fund these reactors, and use the reactors to create desalination plans,[URL="http://moneymorning.com/2013/05/01/check-out-whos-hiding-32-trillion-in-offshore-accounts/"] by seizing the assets of, and repatriating users of tax havens[/URL].[/quote]
All well and good...but what proportion of pollution is actually caused by privately owned motor vehicles? It's not as high as you thought, is it?
So why do governments seemingly spend most of the time / effort regarding environmental issues scrutinising, regulating and penalising car manufacturers and drivers?
What's the point in me trading my petrol BMW for a miserable eco box when our dumb society is still relying on coal-fired power stations and when food production creates multiples of the pollution we will ever do driving our cars?
-
[quote=Clivey;999831]
What's the point in me trading my petrol BMW for a miserable eco box when our dumb society is still relying on coal-fired power stations and when food production creates multiples of the pollution we will ever do driving our cars?[/quote]
perhaps because we can do without a car, but hardly without food....? And currently the coal powered fuel stations are having a hard time because natural gas is cheaper than coal.
-
No, its as low as I thought. Commuters at what, 18%? Henk, food is needed to live but not meat, and certainly not the amount of meat "we" eat, and meat production/animal husbandry is a horribly inefficient system of converting sunlight into caloric energy for humans compared to plants, and of course it produces I believe in both percentage and absolute terms far more co2 emissions than crop harvesting.
-
[quote=henk4;999832]perhaps because we can do without a car, but hardly without food....?[/quote]
You've missed the point. - Why not spend some of the time and effort we use to obsessively scrutinise every last aspect of cars to make a bigger difference in making food production less destructive (this would make a MUCH bigger difference to the state of the planet)?
For example: In the last couple of weeks, in vitro meat has been making headlines. - Beef production is massively destructive; if we could "grow" meat without having to farm cattle, we could make a monumental difference, not least by essentially giving the land we currently use to house livestock "back to nature".
The same thing goes for growing plants aero and hydroponically. - If we spent even a fraction of the $Millions we currently waste on chasing dubious CO2 targets on improving farming methods, we'd see a much larger overall improvement to the environment.
Alas...I know why it isn't being done: $$$. - At the moment, there isn't the political will because a viable business case hasn't been put forward. The only reason everyone's circle-jerking over "eco" stuff at the moment is that some people are raking in the Dollars.
[quote=henk4;999832]And currently the coal powered fuel stations are having a hard time because natural gas is cheaper than coal.[/quote]
Generation 4 nuclear reactors are better than both. ;)
-
[quote=Clivey;999837]You've missed the point. - Why not spend some of the time and effort we use to obsessively scrutinise every last aspect of cars to make a bigger difference in making food production less destructive (this would make a MUCH bigger difference to the state of the planet)?
For example: In the last couple of weeks, in vitro meat has been making headlines. - Beef production is massively destructive; if we could "grow" meat without having to farm cattle, we could make a monumental difference, not least by essentially giving the land we currently use to house livestock "back to nature".
The same thing goes for growing plants aero and hydroponically. - If we spent even a fraction of the $Millions we currently waste on chasing dubious CO2 targets on improving farming methods, we'd see a much larger overall improvement to the environment.
Alas...I know why it isn't being done: $$$. - At the moment, there isn't the political will because a viable business case hasn't been put forward. The only reason everyone's circle-jerking over "eco" stuff at the moment is that some people are raking in the Dollars.
Generation 4 nuclear reactors are better than both. ;)[/quote]
If that is your point then aren't it the same $$$ that are driving the oil based car industry?
-
[quote=Kitdy;999836]No, its as low as I thought. Commuters at what, 18%? Henk, food is needed to live but not meat, and certainly not the amount of meat "we" eat, and meat production/animal husbandry is a horribly inefficient system of converting sunlight into caloric energy for humans compared to plants, and of course it produces I believe in both percentage and absolute terms far more co2 emissions than crop harvesting.[/quote]
Having just been to the USA, I agree that food production could be more geared to actual needs than to the unhealthy desires from the Great Consumer, however the same goes for the automotive industry, so saying that somebody else does something wrong, is no a reason to justify your own mistakes.
-
Diesel power is all about great fuel economy, and unlike hybrid power it delivers on the highway as well as city streets. Cool invention.