backtop

Print 149 comment(s) - last by Lord 666.. on Sep 8 at 5:34 PM

Volkswagen will soon be officially unveiling its new BlueMotion diesels -- variants of the Polo, Golf, and Passat. The trio manages 71.3 mpg, 61.9 mpg, and 53.4 mpg, respectively. Assuming these numbers hold, this would place them ahead of the hot 2010 Toyota Prius hybrid in fuel efficiency.   (Source: AutoBlog)

The new BlueMotion Passat features industry-leading performance for a mid-size sedan and is packed with clean diesel technology.  (Source: AutoBlog)
Volkswagen's electric-free diesel offerings are putting hybrids to shame

This week at a Automotive Press Association luncheon in Detroit, Jim O'Donnell, chairman and CEO of BMW's U.S. operations reaffirmed his company's strong commitment to pushing diesel in the U.S. as an alternative or supplement to hybrid vehicles.  BMW is jumping into electrics as well with the electric MINI E and its new X6 and 7 ActiveHybrids.  However, he says that diesel's impressive performance is driving sales of the 335ds and X5s.  He also hinted that a 5-Series diesel may be coming next year as well.

That wasn't the only exciting news for diesel enthusiasts from the German front this week.  Volkswagen, Germany's largest automaker, announced that it will be debuting three new BlueMotion vehicles at the Frankfurt Auto Show.  BlueMotion is Volkswagen's most fuel-efficient diesel platform.

The Golf, Polo, and Passat will all get BlueMotion variants -- the U.S. will at least get a diesel version of the Golf, the other two models are still up in the air.  The Polo will get an incredible 71.3 mpg (U.S.) and emit a mere 87 g of CO2/km.  This emissions performance matches that of the Smart ForTwo, but the noticeable difference is that you can seat five in the Polo, versus the titular two in the ForTwo.  This feat is pulled off thanks to Volkswagen's new 1.2-liter TDI engine.

Next up, the Golf gets an also impressive 61.9 mpg and 99 g of CO2/km emissions off a peppier 103 hp 1.6-liter TDI.  The mid-sized Passat rounds off the lineup with the same engine, but lower fuel economy at 53.4 mpg and higher (but still low) emissions of 114 g of CO2/km.

Among the ways Volkswagen has fine-tuned its diesel performance to sip fuel is its recalibration of these engines and reductions to their idle speed.  To further reduce idle losses, it's vehicles include an automatic start-stop system, low rolling resistance tires and reduced aerodynamic drag thanks to lower front air dams and rocker panel extensions.

While clean diesel vehicles aren't the perfect fuel economy solution, they're certainly giving mild hybrids a run for their money (the hot 2010 Toyota Prius gets approximately 50 mpg according to the EPA and the 2010 Honda Insight, another top selling hybrid, gets 41 mpg -- both vehicles can manage much higher fuel economy under certain driving conditions).  What should be truly exciting is when the price of both technologies drops enough that diesel-hybrids can reach the masses.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
America
By TomZ on 9/2/2009 1:11:15 PM , Rating: 4
I don't see any mention of it in the press release - but there is some question in my mind as to whether these will be offered in America. We have more stringent diesel emissions standards than most of the rest of the world. Low CO2 is nice, but its not exactly the only thing that the EPA looks for. :o)




RE: America
By randomposter on 9/2/2009 1:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
There are all kinds of cool diesel cars available in global markets that never make it to North America, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for these ones.


RE: America
By tjr508 on 9/4/2009 10:40:07 AM , Rating: 3
There are all kinds of cool diesels in the US/Canada that never make it to Europe... Like the F-350.


RE: America
By computergeek485 on 9/2/2009 1:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Golf, Polo, and Passat will all get BlueMotion variants, which will be coming to the U.S.


RE: America
By KingofL337 on 9/2/2009 1:16:36 PM , Rating: 1
Damn beat me to it.


RE: America
By TomZ on 9/2/2009 1:31:35 PM , Rating: 5
Neither the VW press release, nor the autoblog article, stated they were coming to the US. VW will have to work hard and make a number of changes if they want to market those vehicles here. Other OEMs don't offer their advanced diesel technologies here for a reason.


RE: America
By Steve1981 on 9/2/2009 1:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
From what I've read over at Car and Driver, the Polo isn't happening any time soon (maybe 2012 time range), and the Golf TDI will come over with the 2.0 liter turbo diesel. Don't recall anything about the Passat being offered as a TDI.


RE: America
By UNCjigga on 9/2/2009 2:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
Can someone please clarify whether the Golf with BlueMotion diesel (1.6 liter) is coming to the US *in addition to* the TDI? Or are we only getting the TDI diesel (with lower fuel economy?)


RE: America
By xprojected on 9/2/2009 3:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
We're only getting the Golf TDI, which is expected to get roughly the same mileage as the Jetta, i.e. 29 city 40 highway. (although most Jetta TDI owners are claiming 40 mpg average)


RE: America
By acase on 9/2/2009 1:40:47 PM , Rating: 5
Who cares about what a VW press release or autoblog article say? If Mick says it is coming to America than it is. Everything he types is pure infallible fact. Idiot.


RE: America
By ImSpartacus on 9/3/2009 8:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Opinion? What the hell is that? We have Jason Mick here, people.


RE: America
By Mojo the Monkey on 9/3/2009 4:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
I dont even need to look back up at the author when I see great lines like:
quote:
titular two
-in the article. It must be a Mick. +1


RE: America
By Starcub on 9/4/2009 1:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
Where did you pull that quote from? Provide a link please.


RE: America
By walk2k on 9/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: America
By shabby on 9/2/2009 2:19:39 PM , Rating: 3
Read the article on autoblog.

quote:
The new Polo BlueMotion gets a combined fuel economy rating of 71.3 mpg (U.S.)


RE: America
By Masospaghetti on 9/3/2009 9:45:23 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if 71.3 MPG really means 71.3 MPG in the US EPA cycle...I suspect they are either using imperial gallons OR the european combined cycle, which yields economy figures about 30% greater than the EPA cycle. Can anyone disprove this?


RE: America
By encia on 9/3/2009 10:05:28 AM , Rating: 5
They are using UK test cycle with US MPG...

For Golf "BlueMotion 1.6 TDI 105PS" model
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/golf-vi/which-mo...

Convert 3.5 l/100km (UK test cycle) to 67.21 US MPG by using this calc: http://calculator-converter.com/l_100km_mpg_conver...


RE: America
By Spuke on 9/3/2009 11:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are using UK test cycle with US MPG...
Why was this rated down? He's supporting the previous statement.


RE: America
By otispunkmeyer on 9/4/2009 10:59:47 AM , Rating: 3
Fifth gear (an alternative motoring show to the BBC's topgear, shown on the five channel in the UK) road tested the previous Polo BlueMotion model with its 1.4 3cyl TDi engine.

VW claimed some massive MPG figure there too, well over 60 i think....

in testing, with just tom ford at the wheel and driving normally he couldnt get anywhere near. he got high 40's i think. (this is UK mpg)

i think the thing is, with any car, but particularly all the green cars out today like the hybrids and the bluemotions and the econetics...you just have to adopt a really conscientious driving style thats probably gonna have you taking hours to get anywhere and concentrating far too much on your speed and revs instead of actually driving.

your better off, for your sanity, getting the standard car with the standard diesel engine because its going to be a much better compromise of efficiency and performance.


RE: America
By FITCamaro on 9/2/2009 2:20:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
They stink


I can't remember the last time I sat next to a diesel running and thought to myself, "that stinks".

quote:
they pollute the air


So do you then. Filtering has come a long way.

quote:
fuel is much harder to find.


How so? Yes less diesel is made because there are fewer cars using it in the US. But diesel is available everywhere. I rarely see a gas station that doesn't sell diesel. Maybe in a station that is in a heavily urbanized area where few people are likely to drive a diesel.

And we already have ways of producing diesel grade fuel in a "green" manner.


RE: America
By Lord 666 on 9/2/2009 2:46:32 PM , Rating: 4
Ignore those naysayers. Let me add,

1. They are more durable.

2. Much better depreciation than gas vehicles

3. More usable power for American driving at red lights and incredible passing power at highway speeds.

4. Always good for a chuckle "arguing" with the petroluem engineer when they try to tell us our car isn't diesel.

5. In theory, less maintenance with the elimination of ignition system. The only "different" work we have had to do is fuel filter every 30,000 miles and oil changes every 5,000.


RE: America
By TomZ on 9/2/2009 3:05:35 PM , Rating: 3
Diesels also cost more, weigh more, diesel costs slightly more than gas, and a gallon of diesel fuel requires a lot more (~2X) the crude oil compared to gasoline to produce. So there are some disadvantages, too.


RE: America
By Lord 666 on 9/2/2009 3:22:51 PM , Rating: 3
Please provide a source for the 2x amount of crude per gallon. In a cracking tower, diesel grade is much lower in the stack and is not far from aviation grade... hence the reason why airlines are looking at algae based biodiesel.

Didn't go into the biodiesel advantages since Fit mentioned it already. Weight could be an advantage in some scenarios. For my wallet, the cost difference is not a factor; using VW as an example the cost delta is about $900. Other options or packages such as navigation cost more in comparison.


RE: America
By TomZ on 9/2/2009 10:17:55 PM , Rating: 3
I can't find support for the 2X figure, so I'll have to withdraw that point. I had read that in an article recently, but when I researched further, I don't see evidence to support that. It looks more like 1:1 gasoline and diesel, plus or minus.


RE: America
By hyvonen on 9/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: America
By ClownPuncher on 9/2/2009 3:43:39 PM , Rating: 3
Shamelessly snipped from Wikipedia:

quote:
The density of petroleum diesel is about 0.85 kg/l (7.09 lb/US gal), about 18% more than petrol (gasoline), which has a density of about 0.72 kg/l (6.01 lb/US gal). When burnt, diesel typically releases about 38.6 MJ/l (138,700 BTU/US gal), whereas gasoline releases 34.9 MJ/l (125,000 BTU/US gal), 10% less[5] by energy density, but 45.41 MJ/kg and 48.47 MJ/kg, 6.7% more by specific energy. Diesel is generally simpler to refine from petroleum than gasoline. The price of diesel traditionally rises during colder months as demand for heating oil rises, which is refined in much the same way. Due to recent changes in fuel quality regulations, additional refining is required to remove sulfur which contributes to a sometimes higher cost. In many parts of the United States and throughout the United Kingdom and Australia[6] diesel may be higher priced than petrol.[7] Reasons for higher priced diesel include the shutdown of some refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, diversion of mass refining capacity to gasoline production, and a recent transfer to ULSD, which causes infrastructural complications.[8] Unleaded Petrol Ethanol


RE: America
By HVAC on 9/2/2009 4:26:22 PM , Rating: 3
... and God forbid that you should ever have to change a head on one. There are more diesel mechanics with hernias than any other kind of service professional.*

* (This non-fact was made up out of thin air, but it illuminates the point that diesel engine head bolts are a pain to torque)


RE: America
By Dorkyman on 9/3/2009 2:38:57 AM , Rating: 3
I can attest to the beefiness of a diesel engine.

I once owned a beautiful Cad Seville with the infamous diesel engine. Surprisingly, it was a great engine for me, and I logged about 160k miles before I had a serious problem with the preheaters. One day I cranked maybe 10 seconds before the engine started, and all the raw fuel really created some cylinder pressures when it finally lit off. Engine ran strangely after that; I began to work on it myself, until I discovered 3 head bolts the diameter of broom handles, snapped in two. Takes some serious pressure to do that.


RE: America
By mindless1 on 9/7/2009 10:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
Not 'cuz it's diesel, 'cuz typical old diesels are big. These are only 1.2/1.6L engines and might be modern alloys instead of cast iron, plus computerized designs cut weight back even more these days.

I'll speculate that for the size of car, it should be as easy or easier to change the head as it would be on an equivalent gasoline version, assuming neither have to have the engine itself or whole subframe pulled for access. More bolt torque but less strap-on components to deal with.


RE: America
By PorreKaj on 9/2/2009 5:09:51 PM , Rating: 1
While it might be true that Diesel is more expensive in the US. It's because there arent that many Diesel cars... Here in Denmark Diesel is cheaper. Some time ago it was a hell lot cheaper.

Also, i work in an american owned Company where i can get a card that'll give me ~0,19$ pr L rebate on Diesel, ( versus a 0,06$ Pr L ) Because they wan't to promote Diesel - Its a cleaner and better Tech. I know Several companies who provides this service.

Also; Biodiesel

( If i want'ed i could put used cooking oil in a diesel tank - which also smells better :P )


RE: America
By knutjb on 9/2/2009 8:30:25 PM , Rating: 5
The difference in the US is Jet fuel and diesel are competing for the same chunk of crude. We also have large freight rail and the Union Pacific railroad is the single largest consumer of diesel in the world, yes, even more than the US Navy. Add in the other railroads, trucking community, the many diesel pick ups, farming implements. So when the economy finally recovers and with all these market demands fighting for the same chunk of oil, diesel in the US will sky rocket beyond diesels current economic advantage.

Also not every diesel is capable of running pure bio diesel,not all seals and bearings can tolerate it. Bio diesel does not like flowing below -12C. The northern regions in the US see that temp in winter regularly.

No, I'm not against diesel, but it's not a wonder fuel. It's just another one. I happen to think natural gas is better and can be run in both diesel and gasoline engines with some modification. Right now diesel in the US is cheaper but it wasn't that long ago that diesel was 50-75 cents per gallon more than gas.

Don't forget running cooking oil for fuel has placed an unreasonable burden on many parts of the developing world where food costs are 25-39% of their budget and a doubling of cooking oil really puts a squeeze on them. Food should not be used for fuel. Recycling locally is great but as a national policy can have serious global ramifications.


RE: America
By djc208 on 9/3/2009 7:15:39 AM , Rating: 3
Great points. Don't forget home heating oil, which is also made from the same chunck of crude and is one of the reasons prices on gasoline and diesel change in the winter.

Fuel taxes for on-road diesel are also higher than gasoline. Most on-road diesel is used by large trucks in the US, so it's taxed more heavily since those vehicles are more damaging to the road system.

A "non-commercial" diesel taxed more like gasoline would help to push consumer diesel technology.


RE: America
By Spuke on 9/3/2009 11:34:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While it might be true that Diesel is more expensive in the US.
The price of diesel in the US depends on where it's being sold. Here in CA, diesel is usually cheaper than the lowest octane gas.


RE: America
By George Powell on 9/2/2009 5:06:26 PM , Rating: 3
In response to your servicing requirements.

My Audi A3 TDI has variable servicing intervals, which results in about 20000 miles between oil changes. The fuel filter isn't changed every service. And the last time it got done it came out clean, which is testament to how well refined diesel is now.


RE: America
By Lord 666 on 9/2/2009 5:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
I've got an 2006 TDI Jetta, USA spec. For some reason VWoA has the oil change intervals much less. Not sure what the US Audi TDIs are (Q7 and A3).

Please re-read my post; we change the fuel filter every 30,000 miles. Anything past this milestone, the fuel economy starts to drop along with what performance the car has.


RE: America
By Spuke on 9/3/2009 11:34:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not sure what the US Audi TDIs are (Q7 and A3).
The A3 TDI is not sold in the US.


RE: America
By Lord 666 on 9/3/2009 11:50:06 AM , Rating: 2
Spuke,

It is sold in the US and I sat in it at the NYC Auto show.

http://www.audiusa.com/us/brand/en/models/a3_tdi.h...


RE: America
By Spuke on 9/3/2009 2:12:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is sold in the US and I sat in it at the NYC Auto show.
No sh!t!!! I never thought that Audi would bring that car here. I know some people that are waiting for this. Thanks for the correction.


RE: America
By encia on 9/7/2009 9:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
Please cite VW being number 1 or 2 in reliability ratings in US/UK consumer reports.

Try again Lord666


RE: America
By Lord 666 on 9/8/2009 10:23:42 AM , Rating: 2
Reliability and durability are two separate qualities.

VW is on the record saying a VW diesel motor will last three times as long as a petrol.

How often that same vehicle is in the shop for repair/service is another thing. For our car, it has exceeded the VW reliability expectation we were aware of prior to purchasing it.


RE: America
By encia on 9/8/2009 5:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
Define which petrol motor's make and brand.

Reliability and durability are related qualities. Durability goes down if there's a design flaw. This effects reliability statistics.

VW's statement flies against 3rd party consumers statistics.


RE: America
By Lord 666 on 9/8/2009 5:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
Their own; VW diesel vs VW petrol.

Related, but not the same. The engine is just one part of a vehicle. In a VW diesels, the power plant is the only difference between petrol and TDI.

Guess what I am saying is the motor is bullet-proof, but the rest of the car is a crap shoot. We have been lucky so far, but love the driving dynamics and fuel economy to worry about small stuff ;)


RE: America
By Vim on 9/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: America
By EJ257 on 9/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: America
By Masospaghetti on 9/3/2009 9:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
An imperial gallon is 5 quarts instead of 4 quarts for a US gallon...if you weren't being sarcastic.


RE: America
By FITCamaro on 9/2/2009 2:15:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Low CO2 is nice, but its not exactly the only thing that the EPA looks for. :o)


And that's the problem. The EPA has gone from caring about protecting the environment to doing the bidding of environmental groups who hate anything that burns fossil fuels of any kind.

Even if Congress doesn't pass cap & tax, the EPA is set to pass rules limiting CO2 emissions in as little as a few weeks.


RE: America
By Spuke on 9/2/2009 2:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the Bluemotion diesels already offered here in the US. What diesel engine is in the US Passat?


RE: America
By xprojected on 9/2/2009 2:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
None, there is no US diesel Passat.


RE: America
By Lord 666 on 9/2/2009 4:45:17 PM , Rating: 1
If they put the 3.0 TDI in the Passat with AWD, I'll be first in line to buy one at my dealership. Even the 2.0 would be nice, only if VW allows the full options of a gas Passat.

The 3.0 TDI motor is amazing in the Toureg with the 5.0 V10 being my dream truck.


RE: America
By fic2 on 9/2/2009 8:49:33 PM , Rating: 1
I'll second that. I have been wanting an AWD Passat with TDI forever. I live in Colorado and go to the mountains every weekend so I need/want AWD. I currently drive a Subaru, but would change in a heartbeat if/when VW offers the Passat with AWD + TDI.


RE: America
By mydogfarted on 9/2/2009 2:56:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We have more stringent diesel emissions standards than most of the rest of the world.

We also had the "dirtiest" diesel (highest sulfur content). The reason we're starting to see more Euro diesels is because we're finally using cleaner diesel and the fuel/emissions systems don't need to be changed for the U.S. market.


RE: America
By TomZ on 9/2/2009 3:16:39 PM , Rating: 3
Cleaner diesel is still only one part, but from what I understand, we have more stringent diesel emissions standards (starting in 2010) than Europe and Asia. And for that reason, models that could sell in Europe, for example, would still need further emissions reductions equipment in order to be sold here in the US.


RE: America
By GotDiesel on 9/2/2009 4:04:52 PM , Rating: 1
well, actually.. NO.. the emissions requirements are "different" due in the most part to the oil companies having the epa in their pocket.. the emissions requirements were deliberatly changed to prevent european and other imports competing with the american market.. so preserving the highly profitable.. ( LMAO ) car manufacturers.. these words are not mine, but quoted from a senator friend of the family who for obvious reasons shall remain nameless.


RE: America
By Alexstarfire on 9/2/2009 5:06:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, and I know someone on the president's cabinet, but I'm not going to name any names either.


RE: America
By Spuke on 9/3/2009 11:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the emissions requirements were deliberatly changed to prevent european and other imports competing with the american market.. so preserving the highly profitable
The emissions requirements of diesels in the US have ALWAYS been stricter than the Euro requirements. There is no conspiracy here.


RE: America
By Jeffk464 on 9/2/2009 4:29:23 PM , Rating: 1
I would so buy the 2.0 diesel jetta if I wasn't scared of its reliability. It looks great, and what fantastic mileage.


RE: America
By Lord 666 on 9/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: America
By Hiawa23 on 9/3/2009 9:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
WOW, my Lancer Ralliart 2.4 2006 on a good day gets 25MPGs. Although, I could never see myself buying a diesel vehicle, that is pretty impressive. Why can't someone design gasoline engines to get that kind of mileage, as I am sure many feel as I do about diesel, maybe misinformed, but diesel has always seemed dirty to me.


RE: America
By yomamafor1 on 9/4/2009 2:39:16 PM , Rating: 3
Actually EU has the best emission standard for diesel, and their diesel fuels are of the highest quality IIRC. US's diesel on the other hand, has lower quality than that.

I really think diesel will be an excellent alternative (if not better) to the gasoline - electric hybrid craze.


WTF
By bradmshannon on 9/2/2009 1:14:06 PM , Rating: 1
I still don't know why we didn't have these in the US years ago?!?




RE: WTF
By KingofL337 on 9/2/2009 1:18:46 PM , Rating: 1
Because, congress and the EPA keeping dumping all these rules on diesels. No one stops them because most Americans don't care about diesels. These rules make it very hard for car manufactures to sell diesel vesicles.


RE: WTF
By bradmshannon on 9/2/2009 1:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, but why? Is it just politics?


RE: WTF
By RandomUsername3463 on 9/2/2009 1:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
Through the 80s and 90s i think the US regulated particulate emissions more heavily than Europe, so European companies didn't import diesel. The US also has a slightly higher tax on diesel than gasoline (Europe is the other way around).

I think that diesels were either hard to import or not well respected back in the 70s and 80s. This meant that demand for diesel engines (ouside of heavy duty pick-ups) was small, so no one bothered importing them. Now that gas is a bit more expensive, demand is going up, so we'll see more companies start to use diesels in the US.


RE: WTF
By sebmel on 9/2/2009 1:47:37 PM , Rating: 3
As far as I understand it it was the result of lobbying by the US car industry.
Initially the US wanted to clean up the air and diesel engines were smokey polluting things.

US raised air quality standards past the point that diesels could match.
US car manufacturers stop developing them.

French and German makes continue developing.
Diesels start getting clean and very popular outside the US.

US car manufacturers realise they can't compete immediately so they lobby for air quality standards that even good diesels can't match. That keeps out the Europeans.

Now diesels have got to the point that even those standards have been met: via particulate filters, catalyst cleaners and urea systems. Ford, at least, is now back in the running.


RE: WTF
By rudy on 9/2/2009 3:22:11 PM , Rating: 1
Why do you guys think it has everything to do with the government. I know many many people with diesel cars of all sizes the bigger problem was they are more expensive to purchase, maintain and fix and the other parts in your car wear out too at a rate that is closer to gas engine so you just buy a cheaper gas engine car and let it wear out then buy another one. The difference is now feul economy is becoming more important so there is more interest in diesel. But with large trucks in the US where the added cost is worth it in feul and down time savings diesel has always been the prefered choice. Diesel is heavily used in the US where it makes sense and if the balance of costs changes it will take a larger market share.


RE: WTF
By Danish1 on 9/3/2009 5:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
Because if a lobby will pay the next campaign bill a politician will do its bidding.

See also; Earmarks.


RE: WTF
By Spuke on 9/3/2009 11:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
The automakers always lobby AGAINST more stringent emissions regulations. LOL! What planet do some of you people live on? More stringent regulations mean an increase in cost of vehicles that you and I buy. The more expensive the car, the less likely that people will buy one or may settle for a cheaper one (or even...gasp...a used one). Less revenue for the automakers. Less revenue, less employees, less R&D, less product diversity, etc.


RE: WTF
By Danish1 on 9/3/2009 1:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly what part of it being about limiting foreign competition didn't you understand?


RE: WTF
By Spuke on 9/3/2009 2:26:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exactly what part of it being about limiting foreign competition didn't you understand?
It doesn't limit foreign competition. The Toyota Camry/Solara, Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla/Matrix, Honda Accord, Honda CR-V, Nissan Altima, and Hyundai Elantra all reside on our top 10 best sellers list. And every car I listed except the Elantra being on that list for many years (some for at least a decade or longer). Foreign cars sell extremely well here and, quite frankly, are the number one choice for most Americans. Your argument holds no water.


RE: WTF
By Danish1 on 9/4/2009 6:59:49 AM , Rating: 2
This thread is about diesel cars.

Since you apparently still don't get it I'll quote the post I replied to.

quote:
As far as I understand it it was the result of lobbying by the US car industry. Initially the US wanted to clean up the air and diesel engines were smokey polluting things. US raised air quality standards past the point that diesels could match. US car manufacturers stop developing them. French and German makes continue developing. Diesels start getting clean and very popular outside the US. US car manufacturers realise they can't compete immediately so they lobby for air quality standards that even good diesels can't match. That keeps out the Europeans.


RE: WTF
By Amiga500 on 9/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: WTF
By Danish1 on 9/4/2009 7:01:18 AM , Rating: 2
They aren't retarded.

They know exactly how to funnel your money into their and theirs pockets.


RE: WTF
By TomZ on 9/2/2009 1:42:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Because, congress and the EPA keeping dumping all these rules on diesels.
And California. Especially California.


RE: WTF
By walk2k on 9/2/2009 2:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
They are the leader but most other states follow CARB standards.


RE: WTF
By FITCamaro on 9/2/2009 2:23:32 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't call a state that imposes standards far above what the rest of the country holds itself to a leader. About the only thing California leads the nation in is number of pot smokers, state budget deficit, and friendless towards those breaking federal laws(illegal aliens). Oh and in giving the rest of us completely demented Congressmen.


RE: WTF
By rcc on 9/2/2009 2:33:29 PM , Rating: 1
Don't forget about the lower bigot count.

On this subject FIT, you sound like a greenpeacer at a nuke convention.


RE: WTF
By FITCamaro on 9/2/2009 3:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'll admit I'm bigoted against idiots.

But please describe to me how you believe I am a bigot? Against what group am I bigoted against? Blacks? No. Hispanics? No. Asians? No. Gays? No.


RE: WTF
By HVAC on 9/2/2009 4:43:40 PM , Rating: 3
The only thing accomplished by calling FIT a bigot is revealing your own limitations in making a successful argument based on facts. Stick to them and you retain a teflon coating. Associate your own identity with a conclusion based on your perceptions and prejudices and you will be unable to adapt, stuck in your own form of bigotry:

Denial of the truth.


RE: WTF
By rcc on 9/4/2009 12:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
lol, pretty much anything that cites California.

I didn't say you were a racial bigot. Nor would I. I can only base my opinion on what you post here.

While I have to admit that my opinion of my fellow Californians varies a lot, it's a great place to live. And I've seen all 50 states and a good cross section of the World. I do miss seasonal colors occasionally, but I can find them if I drive North a bit.

Just for the record, I agree with you on more subjects than not. But everytime CA comes up on the boards you go off like fireworks in a forest fire. Did some surfer dude run off with your high school sweetheart or something? Just curious.

: )


RE: WTF
By walk2k on 9/2/2009 2:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
As usual your shrill neocon dittohead bleatings are misinformed and misguided.

CA is the only state that is allowed to create their own emissions standards, and that's only because they had standards before the national Clean Air Act was enacted. All other states must either A) follow CARB or B) follow the EPA standars.

CA does not "impose" anything on anyone. Other states are free to follow the EPA standard instead. However since CA is one of the largest auto markets (along with the 16 other states, some of them quite big, you might've heard of New York, New Jersey, etc..?) it basically behooves automakers to follow CARB just for the sake of effiency (yes, even your beloved US auto makers).


RE: WTF
By FITCamaro on 9/2/2009 4:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
Just because they had standards before the Clean Air Act doesn't mean they should have to make auto manufacturers produce cars for two different sets of standards. The fact is NOW we have the Clean Air Act and it should apply to all states or not at all. Recently the standards were raised above old California's standards and what do they do? Fight to maintain the ability to set their own standards so they can create EVEN HIGHER standards.

And most auto manufacturers just throw an extra catalytic converter or slightly detune the car for the California market.

California's standards also affect the oil industry since they have to make special blends for sale in California.


RE: WTF
By walk2k on 9/2/2009 5:39:21 PM , Rating: 3
If the EPA had any balls I might agree that there should be 1 and only 1 standard. Unfortunately as they demonstrated under Bush they caved in to the US auto industry lobbyists (and let's be honest, the oil industry) rather easily. Which is why CA and the 16 other states that follow CARB had to SUE the EPA to maintain their higher standards. In the end it just means that most auto makers create cars with "50 state" emissions as standard, and everyone benefits from cleaner air, water, etc.

As for special blends, many many states have areas that use special gas blends, either year-round or just in the summer months. Including New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Minnesota, Arizona, Georgia/Atlanta area, Lousisana, Florida, Texas and on and on, it's not some "Commifornia conspiracy", give it a rest.


RE: WTF
By Spuke on 9/3/2009 11:53:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's not some "Commifornia conspiracy", give it a rest.
It's not a conspiracy, it's idiocy. Make ONE damn standard and everyone follow it!!


RE: WTF
By thurston on 9/3/2009 1:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
Not much of a states rights fan?


RE: WTF
By TomZ on 9/3/2009 2:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of people feel like each state having its own emissions requirements would be too much of a burden on the automakers. There should be a single, federal standard, just from an efficiency point of view.

Also remember the automakers already have to deal with regulations in all the different markets throughout the world into which they sell vehicles.


RE: WTF
By Spuke on 9/3/2009 11:48:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are the leader but most other states follow CARB standards.
Most other states DON'T follow CARB standards.


Power? Speed?
By Mr Perfect on 9/2/2009 3:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
I see the article mention that the 1.6 makes 103HP, but there's no mention of the horsepower generated by the 1.2, or the torque from either. Have these numbers been released?

Also, how peppy are these things? Saving the world is great an all, but how does it do for highway merging?




RE: Power? Speed?
By sebmel on 9/2/2009 3:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
One doesn't buy an eco-friendly diesel if one is concerned about performance. These things are designed to eek every last metre out of your gallon of fuel. They, being diesel, will have more low rev power than you'd expect from similarly powered petrol cars but will run out of 'pep' sooner than a petrol engine, even with a turbo.

If you want performance you can buy diesel (70% of BMWs European sales are diesels) just not these BlueMotion models. VW do an excellent diesel GTi style Golf in Europe.

The only small diesel worth considering, if you want to enjoy your driving, is the Mini... but read up on it's reliability because last time I checked it wasn't looking good.


RE: Power? Speed?
By Vim on 9/2/2009 4:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
Jetta TDI is very, very peppy for a car that gets 40+ MPG


RE: Power? Speed?
By Pneumothorax on 9/2/2009 11:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yup way more peppier than the cheezy flower-power Prius (Is it only me that wants to barf at the latest Prius commercials?)
Not to mention that diesels don't require RARE-Earth elements (from China) in the same quantity like hybrids.


RE: Power? Speed?
By encia on 9/7/2009 8:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
USA mines it's own RARE earth elements.

Toyota alone is looking for alternative RARE earth sources e.g. Canada, Vietnam.


RE: Power? Speed?
By encia on 9/7/2009 9:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
Again, some basic comparisons:

Golf: “...just 11.3 seconds” (quote from green.autoblog.com, VW press release), 3.8 l/100km (UK test cycle, extra urban, combined is 4.1 l/100km), 99 g/km CO2, manual transmission

Passat: “12.5 seconds for the sprint...” (quote from green.autoblog.com, VW press release), 4.4 l/100km (UK test cycle, extra urban, combined is 4.5 l/100km), 114 g/km CO2, manual transmission

Prius G3: 10.4 seconds, 3.9 l/100km (UK test cycle, combined), 89 g/km CO2, CVT automatic transmission

I'll take the Prius G3...

Sources:

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/02/frankfurt-pre...

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/polo-v/which-mod...

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/golf-vi/which-mo...

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-saloon/wh...

http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_...


RE: Power? Speed?
By Johnmcl7 on 9/3/2009 4:44:36 AM , Rating: 2
"If you want performance you can buy diesel (70% of BMWs European sales are diesels) just not these BlueMotion models. VW do an excellent diesel GTi style Golf in Europe.

The only small diesel worth considering, if you want to enjoy your driving, is the Mini... but read up on it's reliability because last time I checked it wasn't looking good."

Or you could consider the original, the Skoda Fabia Vrs TDI - this car trashed the petrol mini round the racetrack while returning far better mpg generating good sales for the undesirable brand, BMW eventually responded with the Cooper D. Skoda then offered their bigger Octavia Vrs with a diesel engine as have Seat with their sports cars (very successfully) eventually prompting the parent company VW to finally offer a Golf GTD.

Also worth noting is that Seat are doing rather well racing their diesel Leons against the petrol BMWs and petrol cars don't really get a look in at Le Mans these days.


RE: Power? Speed?
By chunkymonster on 9/3/2009 3:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
I drive a 2005 Jetta TDI which has a 1.9L engine that produces 100hp and 180ft/lb torque. Compare that to my wife's 2002 Camry with a 3.0L V6 that produces 192hp and 209ft/lb torque. My Jetta has about 100 less hp and only 30ft/lb less torque. Where the incredible torque of the TDI shines is in the 45-80mph range. During normal and highway driving, my Jetta has much more pull for merging with traffic and does this at a lot less rpm's (anywhere from 500-1500 less rpms!) compared to the Camry. Let me put it to you this way, I commute daily on the New Jersey Turnpike, and having enough pep for highway merging is the least of my driving concerns.

TDI and Diesel FTW!!!!!!!!!!!


RE: Power? Speed?
By encia on 9/7/2009 9:03:47 AM , Rating: 2
2002 Camry is abit old...


RE: Power? Speed?
By chunkymonster on 9/7/2009 8:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
OLD?! Is that the most intelligent response you can come up with?

Regardless, it runs as smooth and as quiet as the day I bought it plus it's paid for!


RE: Power? Speed?
By Brain onna Bun on 9/4/2009 9:52:18 AM , Rating: 2
I drive a Skoda 1.9tdi station wagon. It uses the same engine as the standard VW 1.9TDi engine. My biggest problem in relation to speed with this car is the fact that I am running out of funds for fines and points on my licence ;)

Seriously though, it is a rocket, handling is fantastic, and my fuel economy is outrageously good.

Think the best speed i have managed on a fairly windy mountain road is about 160kmh, (100 mph), with highway speeds breaking 200kph for very little effort, power still left over for overtaking......


low rolling resistance tires?
By KingstonU on 9/2/2009 2:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone care to clarify if rolling resistance is related to amount of grip? This gives me the impression that they have low grip, which sounds dangerous.




RE: low rolling resistance tires?
By FITCamaro on 9/2/2009 2:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
They'll have less grip than a standard car tire. But given the type of car they're on, you shouldn't be trying to Auto-x it anyway. It'll hold fine for driving down the road and turning a corner at reasonable speeds.


RE: low rolling resistance tires?
By mcnabney on 9/2/2009 3:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think the concern was stopping the car, ya know, that is kind of important.


RE: low rolling resistance tires?
By PorreKaj on 9/2/2009 5:21:21 PM , Rating: 1
Dunno how they teach you in the US. But in Denmark we learn to keep a distance equilivant of 2 sec ( If in front car passes a obstacle at the road it should take you more than 2 sec to reach that same obstacle ) And that on dry high quality roads. at this distance you can have pretty shitty tires and still brake in time.

Just a little side information... How does it work in US? any special unwritten rules of distance like ours?


RE: low rolling resistance tires?
By bobsmith1492 on 9/2/2009 8:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
Driver's ed in Michigan tells you 2 seconds distance unless you're on the freeway, then 4 seconds.


RE: low rolling resistance tires?
By TomZ on 9/3/2009 9:41:36 AM , Rating: 2
Tell that to the majority of people who drive on the highway 1-2 car lengths behind the one in front of them, such as in rush hour. And really, the 2-4 seconds rule is absolutely unrealistic unless the highway you're on is not crowded at all.


By mindless1 on 9/7/2009 11:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
They do not drive 1 to 2 car lengths behind someone at highway speeds. Maybe it seems that way when you are traveling at such a higher rate of speed compared to walking or running, but it's nowhere close to 1 to 2 car lengths.

There is good reason, the accident rate would go up 30 fold, you would literally have the highway ALWAYS shut down to collect wreckage and I literally mean always.

2 seconds on the other hand seems reasonable on the expressway, 4 a bit too much for crowded conditions as you'd just have too many people cutting in front of you cutting it down to 2 seconds again.

Traffic moves faster with a greater than 2 car length distance, if someone isn't backing off more than that they are causing a slowdown as people can't drive at as high an average MPH when they have to continually brake and accelerate.

If someone is following a car too closely the best thing to do is leave even more room between yourself and them, as they will be braking more often and more quickly than a sane driver would. I'm speaking of speeds above 30 MPH, below that even an old clunker can stop pretty fast and with minimal additional traffic pileup plowing into a wreck in progress.


RE: low rolling resistance tires?
By zxern on 9/3/2009 7:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
So what does Denmark teach you about stopping when a kid runs out in front of you, or another driver runs a red light or pulls out in front of you?


By mindless1 on 9/7/2009 11:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
That this is why you should obey the speed limits, drive even slower when road conditions or visibility are poor, stay alert, don't fiddle with radio/cellphone/etc.

Tires are about the last thing that matters if a kid runs out in front of you, driver runs red light or pulls out. When you can't see what is coming from the sides at a distance ahead enough to stop, that is exactly when you should drive slower until you can, to the point where you are driving slow enough that there is trivial difference in stopping between two otherwise suitable tires for a vehicle (right size, inflation, type per season, etc).

Who gets in the most accidents? Impatient young drivers, not people in slow stopping cars.


By mindless1 on 9/7/2009 10:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
In the US we are taught the same. The problem is, the same people who tout cars because of their performance, typically want that performance to drive unsafely, to try and out muscle other people in traffic.

When they are alone on the road it would be an arbitrary matter whether their car gets them where they are going in 15 minutes and 22 seconds or 15 minutes and 17 seconds.

Some will spout nonsense like the thrill of it, but it's far more "thrill" to take a sharp curve in a car that doesn't handle well, rather than one that does. Far more thrill to drive a car that can't stop well, contrasted with one that can.

There are a rare few who want an automobile that handles well for safety's sake, but they aren't the ones we hear from with "performance" concerns or criteria.


Basic comparisons
By encia on 9/3/2009 9:52:16 AM , Rating: 2
Basic comparisons:

Golf: “...just 11.3 seconds” (quote from green.autoblog.com, VW press release), 3.8 l/100km (UK test cycle, extra urban, combined is 4.1 l/100km), 99 g/km CO2, manual transmission

Passat: “12.5 seconds for the sprint...” (quote from green.autoblog.com, VW press release), 4.4 l/100km (UK test cycle, extra urban, combined is 4.5 l/100km), 114 g/km CO2, manual transmission

Prius G3: 10.4 seconds, 3.9 l/100km (UK test cycle, combined), 89 g/km CO2, CVT automatic transmission

I'll take the Prius G3...

Sources:

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/02/frankfurt-pre...

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/polo-v/which-mod...

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/golf-vi/which-mo...

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-saloon/wh...

http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_...




RE: Basic comparisons
By ersts on 9/7/2009 4:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
But then you have those batteries to deal with, and doesn't that Prius cost more anyhow?


RE: Basic comparisons
By encia on 9/8/2009 12:32:32 AM , Rating: 2
Please cite a source that supports your view.


RE: Basic comparisons
By mindless1 on 9/7/2009 11:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty meaningless comparison, considering small differences in CO2 aren't the problem and most people don't need to get more than a couple seconds +- more acceleration.

The other attributes of a car are far more important than simple numbers which seldom effect use of the vehicle if ever. People manage to live their lives fine in cars that don't accelerate as fast as any of these, pollute CO2 a little more (arguable at best that CO2 is pollution) and they aren't always late for work or piling up in accidents as a result.

If there are any numbers that really matter to the majority they are the inital cost, maintenance costs, and total # of years it's viable to run one before it becomes substandard in interior/exterior appearance, driving quality, overall resemblance to it's state when new (things start rattling, suspension and steering gets sloppy, strange noises, gasket leaks let moisture in when it rains, small leaks on the driveway, etc, etc).

Why is this? Because people buy a new car when their old one deteriorates. At least those considering equivalent vehicles instead of a different type like truck vs SUV vs small vs AWD vs RWD, etc.


RE: Basic comparisons
By encia on 9/8/2009 12:40:29 AM , Rating: 2
Not quite addressing Jason Mick's claims.


RE: Basic comparisons
By mindless1 on 9/8/2009 1:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
I never suggested I was addressing Jason Mick's claims, which was why I replied one level under your post instead of top level for the article.

My post regarded the picking of cars based on only that information when to most people these details are the least important. It went off on an tangent, but don't these comments always?


RE: Basic comparisons
By encia on 9/8/2009 5:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
The context of the article is about MPG and performance comparison.


By catalysts17az on 9/2/2009 3:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
this is what i mean..........the cash for clunkers report just came and while its not complete VW did not make the top 10 best nor did it make the top 10 most traded in vehicles traded in either (18mpg rule)probably because none of them qualify. what i mean is this, when my cousin had his jetta, that POS just kept breaking down something that all VW's have in common eventually after two years of frustration he got rid of it happily. if you dont believe me check out consumer reports, VW has not been recomended for a long time now, not one vehicle. so what it comes down too, if the american people dont trust the brand like CRYsler (pun intended) then WE are not going to buy from them. thats my .02 and im sticking to it. i also picked up a toyota corolla in C4C program.




By Beenthere on 9/2/2009 4:09:59 PM , Rating: 1
FYI-

For years VW has sold every Diesel it imported to the U.S. and people have begged for more. Check any of the forums. There is a cult following for the VW Diesel in the U.S. and as more people in America drive a modern Diesel, VW, BMW, M-B etc. will all sell more of these vehicles because they are excellent products.

While VW's quality has been sketchy over the years, recent consumer surveys show improvement. VW is a niche player in the U.S. market at this time with sales of ~200,000 units annually. It's difficult to change peoples perceptions be it of Diesels or VWs. The perceptions held by many Americans are not necessarily reality.


By Jeffk464 on 9/2/2009 4:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yup,VW had a very bad reputation with mechanics. I don't know if the 2.0 diesel has fixed the problems plaguing VW reliability. It has scared me off of buying one.


By Pneumothorax on 9/2/2009 11:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
The problem VW is the crappy quality of VW DEALER mechanics. Most of them have no business looking into a TDI engine bay. Read the horror stories on TDICLUB.


By zxern on 9/3/2009 7:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
While that may be, if VW quality was a bit better the mechanics wouldn't get so many opportunities to screw things up.


By mindless1 on 9/7/2009 11:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind, cults are small minorities not the target market of an automaker considering importing. People begging for more is not any particular level of demand so much as a lack of supply.

By most standards VW diesels are failures in the US. Perceptions are reality when the perception is that most people don't value what VW diesel buyers do. A VW diesel fails to deliver most attributes a typical US car buyer wants, simple as that.

We could agree or disagree with the validity of their decisions but since it's their money...


Don't mix EU and US economy figures
By bludragon on 9/2/2009 2:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
I assume the figures in the headline are UK/EU and not US EPA ratings. Firstly, the UK gallon is about 20% bigger than the US gallon, secondly, even if you convert the units, you still can't compare numbers from different tests.

These are still impressive numbers, but the new prius gets 72.4mpg and emits 89g of CO2/km in the EU combined cycle.




RE: Don't mix EU and US economy figures
By FITCamaro on 9/2/2009 2:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
As another quoted.

quote:
The Polo will get an incredible 71.3 mpg (U.S.)


RE: Don't mix EU and US economy figures
By bludragon on 9/2/2009 2:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
OK, just noticed that, but it still leaves the question of what test this was on, and how the EU and EPA milage tests compare?


By Spuke on 9/3/2009 12:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OK, just noticed that, but it still leaves the question of what test this was on, and how the EU and EPA milage tests compare?
Another poster said this was done on the UK cycle so we'll have to wait for the EPA to do it's testing.


Cool cars
By Beenthere on 9/2/2009 1:22:22 PM , Rating: 1
The reason the U.S. didn't have these particular Diesel models years ago is because VW just created them. VW has offered good Diesels in the U.S. since the late 70's.




RE: Cool cars
By sebmel on 9/2/2009 2:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
They only got really good in the late '90s. I owned a couple of early '90s diesels from VW and Peugeot... still shot plumes of black soot out the back when accelerating.

As for these mpg figures I had a 1.4l TDi VW Lupo in around 2002. I got 65mpg (54mpg US) around London from it and straight down the motorway to the South Coast I got 85mpg (70mpg US) with ease.

That was a standard version... no thin wheels, magnesium steering wheel, plastic doors or stop-start ignition.

A later Polo Sport 1.4 TDi regularly did 65mpg (54mpg US) in 2004 on the same run south.

VW needs to follow BMW into the regenerative breaking the Mini diesel has. That gives you extra economy without having to make the handling sacrifice of thin high pressure tyres... which aren't safe.


RE: Cool cars
By ksherman on 9/2/2009 2:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
The BlueMotion Diesels do have regenerative braking.


RE: Cool cars
By mellomonk on 9/2/2009 2:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
VW has consistently produced good diesels. They just didn't market them or even attempt to get most of them US certified. These vehicles feature the current common-rail fuel systems, particulate filtration, and sometimes bluetech (urea), but are just the latest in a long line of Diesels from Wolfsburg.After the fuel crisis of the 70s there were attempts to market diesel cars here, particularly by GM, which used fairly crude truck sourced engines. There were vibration, performance, and maintenance issues resulting in a stigma in the marketplace here. Mercedes-Benz and VW rolled various turbo-diesel models through the US market which were well received but failed to move the market toward adoption. Finally with the recent fuel price crisis and the change over in the US to low-sulfur fuel, the market and technology seems to be aligning. But it is going to take far more the VW to push the US to the joys of Diesels that EU has been enjoying for some time now. BTW I am on my third VW diesel.


I want one of these!!
By ksherman on 9/2/2009 2:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
Please bring the Golf to America VW!! The Rabbit it a little too small, IMO (though some will say they are the same, the Rabbit sure shrunk from the Golfs before it). Pair one of these with a 6speed manual and I will trade my Mazda3 in in a second!




RE: I want one of these!!
By bludragon on 9/2/2009 2:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
Err, the Rabbit is the Golf, and it surely is bigger than the previous generation which was actually called "golf" in the US. I'm not sure if the US has the latest European generation though. I think for 2009 it does, but you will need to wait for the 2010 GTI if you want that model. (which, btw is a Golf GTI).

The disappointing part of the Rabbit is the 2.5L engine they insist on putting in it in the US.


RE: I want one of these!!
By Beenthere on 9/2/2009 2:48:17 PM , Rating: 1
The Rabbit name plate is gone. VW U.S. gave up the silly idea that they could sell more Golfs by calling them Rabbit in the U.S. It was always the same car just different name plates.

The VW Diesels from the 70's on were all excellent engines. All Diesels back then had a plume of black soot under WOT. Thanks in part to screwed-up state emissions laws and the lack of low sulfur Diesel fuel in the U.S. until 2006, VW and others were not able to sell their Diesels in a bunch of states. VW's new Diesels meet 50 state emissions. The new Diesels are clean, quiet and user friendly. VW's current car Diesels used post exhaust filters so no urea is required like in the BMW and M-B Diesels, which use the same basic common-rail "BlueTec" technology.


RE: I want one of these!!
By Spuke on 9/3/2009 12:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Rabbit name plate is gone. VW U.S. gave up the silly idea that they could sell more Golfs by calling them Rabbit in the U.S.
The Rabbit name was brought back a year or two ago. Not sure why.


5 series diesel?
By Hare on 9/2/2009 2:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He also hinted that a 5-Series diesel may be coming next year as well.


Huh? The 5-series has had diesel engines at least 20 years.




RE: 5 series diesel?
By xprojected on 9/2/2009 3:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Huh? The 5-series has had diesel engines at least 20 years.


quote:
Jim O'Donnell, chairman and CEO of BMW's U.S. operations reaffirmed..


Eventually some sense...
By KingConker on 9/3/2009 1:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
I know we keep harping on here in the UK that we've had diesel cars capable of 60+MPG for years and that finally you may see them in the USA.

But how do your diesel prices stack-up against petrol.

Here diesel is actually cheaper than petrol - win, win :)

M




RE: Eventually some sense...
By tjr508 on 9/4/2009 10:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
It is back-forth here. Diesel has a strong commercial foundation and is much less elastic, so it is cheaper when fuel is cheap and more expensive when prices are high. For the past year it has been equal or lower for the most part.


By Elementalism on 9/2/2009 7:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
I am need of a car in 24 months. Like to have an option for a high mileage vehicle that isnt a Hybrid.




Comparing Apples to Apples
By Kuroyama on 9/2/2009 7:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
Jason copies directly from an article with invalid fuel economy conversions, and the anti-hybrid crowd amusingly accepts statements from a Mick article. Since you're all too lazy, here's an apples-to-apples comparison direct from VW and Toyota's UK sites:

Prius: 72.43 mpg (UK), 89 g/km CO2, 0-62mph in 10.4s
Bluemotion Golf: 68.9 mpg (UK), 107 g/km CO2, 0-62mph in 11.3s

So in MPG, CO2, and acceleration the Prius beats the Bluemotion Golf. Base MSRP for 5 door Bluemotion Golf is only £75 (~$125) less than for 5 door Prius.

And, yes, it is a form of hybrid. From VW's description: "The unutilised alternator voltage during slowing down or braking is used to add extra charge to the battery during this period. This extra battery charge can then be utilised during acceleration or starting,"

Links for you lazy folks:

VW UK data on new Golf: http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/golf-vi/which-mo...

Toyota UK data on new Prius: http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_...




2010 Golf TDI in USA
By MANDallasTX on 9/3/2009 1:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
fueleconomy.gov shows the 2010 Golf TDI will come in 4 cyl, 2 L, Automatic (S6), Diesel with 30 city, 42 highway and 34 combined or a 4 cyl, 2 L, Manual 6-spd, Diesel with 30 city, 41 highway and 34 combined. Which is quite interesting when you look up the 2010 Jetta TDI and see the SAME specifications and economy.

Look at www.vw.com/upcomingcars/en/us/ you will see the 2010 Golf is coming to America in 2010. They give links to other announcing articles.

I would point out this article states "the Golf gets an also impressive 61.9 mpg and 99 g of CO2/km emissions off a peppier 103 hp 1.6-liter TDI." Since the 2010 model has the 2-liter I would think we are talking about future model changes NOT what will be here in USA for 2010.




BlueMotion
By Eri Hyva on 9/3/2009 2:00:17 AM , Rating: 2
These diesel engines sold to you in the US called BlueMotion are nothing special.

They are standard Euro 5 -diesel engines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_sta...

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_ma...

If you check the wikipedia article, you can see, how much diesel engines have improved in last 15 years.

And the car manufacturers can sell those Euro 5 engines for five years: in 2014 they have to have developed Euro 6 engines, which are demanded by the European Union.




Hats off to VW
By superflex on 9/3/2009 11:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
Finally a fuel efficient car that:
A) Look good
B) Doesnt make you look like a douchebag for owning one (sorry Prius, Insight and Four-Two owners)




It's a shame. . .
By blueboy09 on 9/4/2009 8:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
that the US of A can't even implement an idea such as diesel cars. Nowadays, the emissions are waaaay less, and not nearly as bad as it was in the old days. VW and Audi are showing the world the possibilities of newer tech involving diesel cars, and America NEEDS to embrace at least a little of this. If it helps improve fuel consumption and has at least a decent "green" footprint (emissions-wise), then I'm all for it. If Europe can do it and show us how it is done, then it shows that we need to change our attitude towards diesels in a hurry.




Please compare apples to apples here
By puckalicious on 9/2/09, Rating: -1
By sebmel on 9/2/2009 3:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
Actually that makes little real world sense.

If you are a consumer you compare cost of motoring diesel to cost of motoring petrol.
Then you compare performance.

If you are environmentally concerned you compare emissions/mile or km.

Trying to even up calorific advantages is only of interest to an engineer.


By Soccerman06 on 9/2/2009 3:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
You really didn't read the article at all did you? Those numbers were US figures.


RE: Please compare apples to apples here
By Soccerman06 on 9/2/2009 3:50:55 PM , Rating: 1
You really didn't read the article at all did you? Those numbers were US figures.


By Spuke on 9/3/2009 12:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You really didn't read the article at all did you? Those numbers were US figures.
The numbers were converted from results of the UK cycle. The US results will be different. That's if these cars are actually coming to the US.


RE: Please compare apples to apples here
By piroroadkill on 9/7/2009 10:24:06 AM , Rating: 1
Everyone knows Diesel contains more energy, but Diesel engines are still more efficient even given that difference - also, the main thing to the consumer is the cost of the fuel. At least here (in the UK) the cost of diesel and petrol (gasoline) is identical. If you can pay the same, and get more distance travelled for that same amount of fuel, there's no contest, calorific numbers aside


By mindless1 on 9/7/2009 11:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe in the UK everyone drives the smallest car possible, but in the US it is certainly not the case that the main thing to the consumer is the cost of the fuel.

The problem with your argument is you ignore everything except what you want to focus on as if there are no other relevant details.

LOTS of people car about things other than most distance traveled, or else they'd drive micro cars or mopeds. The contest is rarely ever the most distance for a dollar, or else everyone would take a bus regardless of being able to afford a car.

What is the real factor? In areas with narrower streets and more congestion you benefit from having a small nimble car more than having a fast one.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki