Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1220212223 LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 332

Thread: Diesel cars in America

  1. #316
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    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
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  2. #317
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,157
    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.

  3. #318
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Californian by nature, living in Teggsas.
    Posts
    4,133
    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...
    An it harm none, do as ye will

    Approximately 79% of statistics are made up.

  4. #319
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,508
    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
    2013 VW Jetta Comparison Test: Hybrid vs. TDI vs. GLI vs. 2.5 Car and Driver
    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.

  5. #320
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,449
    Interesting comparison.
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  6. #321
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    6,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrer View Post
    I don't find it significant at all. The diesel should be much better than the other three.
    It's significant if you're an average US consumer. Hybrids will save the world!
    Life's too short to drive bad cars.

  7. #322
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Californian by nature, living in Teggsas.
    Posts
    4,133
    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.
    An it harm none, do as ye will

    Approximately 79% of statistics are made up.

  8. #323
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    7
    new upcoming Audi A8 L

  9. #324
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    2,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitdy View Post
    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, by seizing the assets of, and repatriating users of tax havens.
    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?
    "This is hardcore." - Evo's John Barker on the TVR Tuscan S

  10. #325
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Clivey View Post
    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?
    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.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  11. #326
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    10,157
    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.

  12. #327
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    2,192
    Quote Originally Posted by henk4 View Post
    perhaps because we can do without a car, but hardly without food....?
    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 Originally Posted by henk4 View Post
    And currently the coal powered fuel stations are having a hard time because natural gas is cheaper than coal.
    Generation 4 nuclear reactors are better than both.
    "This is hardcore." - Evo's John Barker on the TVR Tuscan S

  13. #328
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Clivey View Post
    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.
    If that is your point then aren't it the same $$$ that are driving the oil based car industry?
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  14. #329
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitdy View Post
    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.
    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.
    "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams

  15. #330
    Diesel power is all about great fuel economy, and unlike hybrid power it delivers on the highway as well as city streets. Cool invention.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. UK police replacing the Imprezas with Lexus IS-F cruisers
    By 4wheelsonline in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 10-14-2009, 07:25 AM
  2. if americans like torque, why not buy diesel engined cars?
    By teatako in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: 01-06-2007, 01:24 PM
  3. The fastest street cars in america
    By rev440 in forum Multimedia
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-27-2006, 07:39 PM
  4. Pixar Cars
    By 90ft in forum Multimedia
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-08-2006, 08:03 AM
  5. RWD diesel powered cars
    By QBridge in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-07-2005, 01:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •