flobert wrote:

> Problem is, you can't get a decent, efficient, and above all else
> MODERN diesel engine in the Us - i believe its because the fuel that
> is sold here, doesn't work well with the new engine designs that have
> come up in the last 20-odd years, and the new fuels don't work well
> with the engines that have been sold in the US in those intervening 20
> years.
>


VW is the only one selling good moderate priced diesel powered cars in
the US right now.

This is mostly a problem of politics and not of engineering or economics.

John

 

flobert wrote:

> Problem is, you can't get a decent, efficient, and above all else
> MODERN diesel engine in the Us - i believe its because the fuel that
> is sold here, doesn't work well with the new engine designs that have
> come up in the last 20-odd years, and the new fuels don't work well
> with the engines that have been sold in the US in those intervening 20
> years.
>


VW is the only one selling good moderate priced diesel powered cars in
the US right now.

This is mostly a problem of politics and not of engineering or economics.

John

 

"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
news:aaase1lg0i6amans69chnlh9ujmubv6hb8@4ax.com...

> Lets look at it another way, EPA rating for prius 51mpg (very
> optomistic rating, as with all EPA ratings) I've seen an Audi A8
> (thats the big one) with a 4l V8 twin turbo engine (thats a big engine
> too) return 40mpg. A car designed to be big, heavy, smooth,
> comfortable - ANYTHING but fuel efficient - can get such figures
> speaks volumes. i will admit that was highway driving, if you'd rather
> have a small car, and think about fuel economy from the get-go, VW
> group also make a lupo - agains non-hybrid - thats RATED at 65mpg.
>

OMG - I wasn't familiar with the Lupo, so I did a little research. See
http://www.usatoday.com/money/consum...w/mauto497.htm
for the USA Today report on an early test version. The truth is ugly
indeed! Non-existent acceleration, maddening transmission behavior,
rock-bottom comfort, and so much more. Talk about doing tricks to get fuel
economy - this benighted little gremlin tries them all. No A/C of course, no
P/S available, and a $3000 premium for the privilege of being abused by your
car. This is the basis of the TD version the economy claims stem from.

http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews...e-1003151.html
is more kind to the production "E" version of the car, but notes much lower
economy - 54 mpg on the highway and 30(!) mpg in town. Our Prius gets
real-world upper 40s in town, even with hills and stop and go traffic and
frequent waits for trains.

Mike

 

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:53:16 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
>news:aaase1lg0i6amans69chnlh9ujmubv6hb8@4ax.com.. .
>
>> Lets look at it another way, EPA rating for prius 51mpg (very
>> optomistic rating, as with all EPA ratings) I've seen an Audi A8
>> (thats the big one) with a 4l V8 twin turbo engine (thats a big engine
>> too) return 40mpg. A car designed to be big, heavy, smooth,
>> comfortable - ANYTHING but fuel efficient - can get such figures
>> speaks volumes. i will admit that was highway driving, if you'd rather
>> have a small car, and think about fuel economy from the get-go, VW
>> group also make a lupo - agains non-hybrid - thats RATED at 65mpg.
>>
>
>OMG - I wasn't familiar with the Lupo, so I did a little research. See
>http://www.usatoday.com/money/consum...w/mauto497.htm
>for the USA Today report on an early test version. The truth is ugly
>indeed! Non-existent acceleration, maddening transmission behavior,
>rock-bottom comfort, and so much more. Talk about doing tricks to get fuel
>economy - this benighted little gremlin tries them all. No A/C of course, no
>P/S available, and a $3000 premium for the privilege of being abused by your
>car. This is the basis of the TD version the economy claims stem from.

this wiould be the 'lupo 3l' - and the link i gave a few days ago in
the thread about the canadian test, right? Few things to remember. No
PS - normal, its so small you don't need it. Don't need it in my 88
civic either. AC is not standard in european cars, its a
hgih-equipment spec standard, or otherwise option. Most of europe you
don't need it. the engine stop+start is something common to a fair few
of the 'high effiiciency cars' The Rock bottom comfort - well thats an
american reviewing a european only claim. Used to luxury boats, that
get terribale millage, and well hes not in one, plus it was a
pre-producton model. By contrst, the BBC's top reviewer (and one of
the most influential reviewers in europe) tested the F150 recently.
Thats the best selling vehicle in the US, and he tested a production
model (the lightning in fact) and he said pretty much the same thing
about the comforts, and the production quality. He liked the engine,
but then, since he was about to take delivery of the new FordGT (which
has the same engine0 i'm not surprised there. In short, i feel the
usatoday reviewer was predjudiced by his american car standards, same
as europeans are predjudiced against american vehicles (such as their
amazement when they drove the caddie CTS, branding it 'the first
american car to be able to handle a corner', so which I say "its about
time"

>
>http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews...e-1003151.html
>is more kind to the production "E" version of the car, but notes much lower
>economy - 54 mpg on the highway and 30(!) mpg in town. Our Prius gets
>real-world upper 40s in town, even with hills and stop and go traffic and
>frequent waits for trains.

Its a petrol engine, what doyou expect. the 1.7tdi is more efficient.
though, 'return a combined fuel consumption figure of over 64mpg,
although acceleration is rather limp" which is
http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews...o-2002288.html
on the combined lupo test.

>
>Mike
>

 

"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
news:1bebh197klal2g6qcdii6n3kf1337rbikd@4ax.com...
> Its a petrol engine, what doyou expect. the 1.7tdi is more efficient.
> though, 'return a combined fuel consumption figure of over 64mpg,
> although acceleration is rather limp" which is
> http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews...o-2002288.html
> on the combined lupo test.
>
But the point stands - these are dinky cars (as the above link points out,
the rear seat is really only practical for children) with small engines to
increase fuel economy - the same things that have been used for economy for
half a century or more. Remember the Nash Metropolitan or the early VWs? You
can have economy or you can have performance, but not both, by selecting the
version... as the article makes very clear.

That is where hybrids shine, with economy in the same league as the
economical Lupos and spaciousness and performance in a completely different
league. Our 2002 is smaller, lighter, less powerful, lower performance and
15% *less* economical than the current generation Prius (which started in
2004) but still seats five adults adequately (better than my daughter's '93
Accord) and gets fuel economy in town between 45 and 50 mpg - real world,
many short trips, with A/C on. According to the article, the 1.0L
entry-level model offers that sort of economy but takes more than 18 seconds
to reach 60 mph - half again as long as our first-generation Prius and
almost twice as long as the current generation.

The Prius is the Model T of hybrids. Popular, well designed, but only a
shadow of the cars to come. Hybridization is the answer to many engineering
dilemmas posed by the requirements of passenger cars. At last we can have
spacious, responsive and economical cars - something VW's tricks still can't
bring together, as the article makes plain.

Mike