Hybrid or Diesel

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bad_roo
...It was the V10 diesel engine that made headlines when the car was first launched however. No - scrub that - perhaps this diesel should be called The Diesel Engine. It’s a monster. This 313bhp 5.0-litre V10 TDI turbodiesel generates 542lb/ft of torque. What does that mean in the real world? A turbodiesel Range Rover develops 288lb/ft, whilst a diesel BMW X5 manages 302. Pitiful! Lamborghini Murcielago – a limp wristed 480lb/ft. A Ferrari Enzo hawks up 484lb/ft. The Touareg V10 TDI is a true leviathan amongst cars...

---

Amongst "cars," yes. But here's the champ IMHO:

KAWASAKI ZX10R

http://www.kawasaki.com/flash/upload...orange_800.jpg

Quote:

---

184HP* and 375 pounds equal a power-to-weight ratio of 1:2.04!

---

No idea what the torque is, but if it's about 80 ft/lbs at 375 lbs, that's got the Touareg beat by a mile. ;)

Ah yep 1080Rider, I'm still dreaming....

Anyone know when the diesel version of the Passat is going to be available in the U.S.? My wife is looking at buying a Passat and the fuel economy of the diesel would be nice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 365wp
BTW, VW is bringing over their DSG (dual something gearbox) in future TDI Golf and Jetta models. This is a transmission that has a clutch but no pedal

---

So is this just because people are too lazy to push the clutch in or is there some other advantage?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The AD
So is this just because people are too lazy to push the clutch in or is there some other advantage?

---

Fat stupid lazy American consumers.
Gotta love em.

DSG - Faster, more efficient gear changing - absolutely brilliant piece of technology not just for bovine barrelasses.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by likwid
Fat stupid lazy American consumers.
Gotta love em.

---

Automatic transmissions are great for the car companies! An option that typically reduces both fuel economy and performance that you pay $1,000 for. Never quite understood the appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The AD
So is this just because people are too lazy to push the clutch in or is there some other advantage?

---

Nope, it's F1 technology - sort of an upgrade of the "Tip-tronic" transmission. Cleaner, faster shifts than a standard Auto-trans. Should be much quicker!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dipstik
Did you know that a 14 hour plane flight (say NYC to London roundtrip) produces more smog in that 14 hour time frame than a car will produce in it's entire life? And thats assuming the car's life will total more than 200K, which is unlikely.

---

Okay, I just did some basic math. We'll assume that the RT from NY to London is about 10,000 miles. Now say that that plane is carrying 100 passengers. For that flight, the total number of miles travelled by all the passengers is 1 million miles. Going by your figure that a car will last 200K miles, that one flight is the equivalent of the life time travel of five cars. So when you look at things from that perspective, the emissions per passenger per mile for a plane are probably more efficient than those of a car.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The AD
An option that typically reduces both fuel economy and performance that you pay $1,000 for. Never quite understood the appeal.

---

Neither did I until I lived in the city...that's the cool thing about DSG - it's a clutch-based tranny, not a typical torque converter automatic. So fuel economy and performance aren't really affected...I think R&T compared the M3 6psd manual vs SMG and found them to be within a couple tenths 0-60.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The AD
Anyone know when the diesel version of the Passat is going to be available in the U.S.? My wife is looking at buying a Passat and the fuel economy of the diesel would be nice.

---

I think you can order one now. They will only be available with an automatic though. Check out the Jetta TDI with GLS trim. Nice car, less money.

QUOTE]Originally posted by powderhound
anyone know what the tax write off for a hybrid is? [/QUOTE]

Not much:
If you buy a hybrid new, you may be eligible for a one-time federal income tax deduction of $2,000! The IRS has determined that consumers purchasing a new Honda Insight, Honda Civic Hybrid or Toyota Prius by the end of 2003 are eligible for a "Clean-Fuel" vehicle tax deduction of up to $2,000. The current incentive is scheduled to phase out in 2004-06. Vehicles purchased in 2004 will be eligible for a deduction of up to $1,500; vehicles purchased in 2005 will be eligible for up to $1,000; vehicles purchased in 2006 will be eligible for up to $500.

Remember that is a deduction not a credit. So in the 15% bracket, you might save tops $300 in taxes, $560 in the 28% bracket. Some states give a break on the sales tax though, which can add to savings. There has been a tax credit (dollar for dollar reduction) floating around in congress. But in the end ,the environment will take a back seat to government revenues. A $5,000 tax credit might get things rolling on the hybrid front, because for them to be effective massive amounts of people need to switch over.

If you are buying a hybrid you are not buying it because it's fast. Your buying it to save the enviroment, save money on gas or whatever reason you can think of. Not because you want to smoke ricers off the line.

I would spring for a hybrid if I could. Who cares that it's not the fastest thing on the block. Just throw a system in it and roll. :cool:

Question for all you well informed car folks from a car JONG. I read that they recently opened a bio diesel fuel somewhere around northern denver. With a diesel car, can you alternate petroleum diesel and bio diesel between tanks, say if you have a half tank of PD can you fill it up with BD? Does that work?

it is fine. Most "bio-diesel" available at pumps is actually 80% conventional and 20% bio.

The magnions should offer a "hot air" powered car.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
The magnions should offer a "hot air" powered car.

---

I drive a car that runs on my sense of self satisfaction.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Plakespear
So when you look at things from that perspective, the emissions per passenger per mile for a plane are probably more efficient than those of a car.

---

Lets see, a plane puts out 10-15,000 pounds of crap in the air for each hour it flies. Assuming that it is going to fly at 500mph all the way from NYC to London, and since you said that flight is 10,000 miles RT, that leaves the plane flying for 10 hours, depositing a total of 150,000 pounds of crap, averaging 1500 pounds of crap per person. The average car puts out 7,000 pounds of crap for every 12,500miles it drives, so assuming the drive to London from NYC (lets just pretend it's possible) is 5,000 miles, the car would put out around 3,000 pounds of crap, so thats 3,000 pounds of crap per person. So basically, your right, if you fly under those standards (100 ppl per flight) then yes, it is better to fly, as you will put out half as much pollution compared to if you drove. But lets not forget the fact that it is going to be a a very very very long time before they make airplanes that are "hybrid" Not to mention hybrid trains, trucks and boats.

Also let's not forget that MOST people (talking globally here) never buy new cars, so even if they start making these great new cars, most people won't be able to afford them. I figure it's going to be a long time before you can find a beater ultra-effiecient hybrid sitting in a used car lot.

Uhhhh Dipstick - Trains already are "hybrids"

their diesel engine powers is a generator and they run on electric motors. Behind a ship they are the most efficient means of moving stuff from a to b.

Ever see a big loco pulling a full load of coal up in the mountains? It is stunning how little they're blowing the black nastiness.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dipstik
Also let's not forget that MOST people (talking globally here) never buy new cars, so even if they start making these great new cars, most people won't be able to afford them. I figure it's going to be a long time before you can find a beater ultra-effiecient hybrid sitting in a used car lot.

---

A good thing to remember as well is the large portion of pollution & energy expended in producing that new car - up 30-50%

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lemon boy
Uhhhh Dipstick - Trains already are "hybrids"

their diesel engine powers is a generator and they run on electric motors. Behind a ship they are the most efficient means of moving stuff from a to b.

Ever see a big loco pulling a full load of coal up in the mountains? It is stunning how little they're blowing the black nastiness.

---

yeah ok, but you get my point, right?

Gee, Dipstik, I rode on a hybrid diesel-electric boat just yesterday. It was built in 1967. Of course, it was not an early version of a hybrid vessel, as they date back to the 1920's.

No I don't know what your point is.

What does it matter that it's gonna be a long time till they have hybrid planes (as we've seen there already is trains and boats)? Then a hybrid plane will be stupendously more efficient than a hybrid car at moving those folks...

Tippster- couldn't you just bring it home and say "hey honey, look who followed me home. Can I keep him?"

bad_roo/techno geeks- I read a long time ago that ceramic engine blocks produced no friction and therefore little to no heat. Why the hell aren't we designing engines out of other materials that would improve efficiency? I also read somewhere that the oil companies bought up some technologies that improved fuel efficiency. Any truth to this???

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lemon boy
No I don't know what your point is.

What does it matter that it's gonna be a long time till they have hybrid planes (as we've seen there already is trains and boats)? Then a hybrid plane will be stupendously more efficient than a hybrid car at moving those folks...

---

My point is that it's pretty worthless, right now , to go and blow $20,000 on a hybrid car. The impact you make on the environment would be so minor. There needs to be global acceptance of these hybrid cars for them to have any effect on air pollution, and as I see it, that's not going to happen for awhile.

The few tree huggers that buy these things are not going to save the world, there needs to be major acceptance everywhere. I figure you need at least a 1/4 of the world to be driving these things before you see any satisfactory difference in air quality.

Also, the fact that air travel is expected to double in the next 20-40 years isn't going to help things either, unless they come up with some new engine that puts out less than 1/2 of the pollution that planes put out now. Becuase if you think about it, if they can only reduce pollution in plane engines in half, and air traffic is going to double, the pollution emittion of planes won't change at all from right now. (which is a lot) On that note, didn't some guy do a study in the day's following 9/11, when planes weren't allowed to fly, and found that the national temperature dropped a single degree?


Getting back to my main point; there needs to be major development in engine technology before air pollution can be reduced. I think the idea of a hybrid car is a great idea, don't get me wrong, but I think that they will come out with a better engine way before hybrids are widely used. Something like this :
fuel cell or this: hydrogen power: fuel cells or this: air powered cars

ceramic expands and contracts.