VW on the ropes again

[pharmaboy]

Electric cars are an important step, and are doing as well as can be expected in this bogan backwater we call Australia... We'll get there eventually, but we'll be late to the party as per usual as a technology taker from overseas markets. Just like we did with the whole diesel con, tagging along with european market trends.

"Diesel con" part . I have been forced to buy a diesel by my employers "green policies" for some years now. I always saw it as a euro thing - particularly as diesel use suited North Sea oil, but there is no denying it is more efficient in a heavy highway use vehicle.

The particulate thing is largely irrelevant IMO in Australia - trucks don't have the requirements and can go hard at spewing stuff into the air.

On VW, I suspect they felt a little like they are the victims of US anti diesel legislation. Euro diesel is built around efficiency and filtering, whereas US rules seem to be built around ad blu plus filtering

 

[Flow-Rider]

"Diesel con" part . I have been forced to buy a diesel by my employers "green policies" for some years now. I always saw it as a euro thing - particularly as diesel use suited North Sea oil, but there is no denying it is more efficient in a heavy highway use vehicle.

The particulate thing is largely irrelevant IMO in Australia - trucks don't have the requirements and can go hard at spewing stuff into the air.

On VW, I suspect they felt a little like they are the victims of US anti diesel legislation. Euro diesel is built around efficiency and filtering, whereas US rules seem to be built around ad blu plus filtering

I think some information is getting between the truth here, first time i had seen ad blu was on a volvo truck.

 

[Haakon]

There is no anti deisel legislation. CARB rules just adopted Euro 6 like standards before the EU did - they take smog a bit more seriously in California and the regulators (suprisingly) seem more immune to automaker lobbying.

There has been pro diesel legislation in effect forever - diesel has never had to perform to the same standards as petrol, having slacker limits for everything. The "tightening" of diesel emission limits is simply progressivly requiring they perform to the same standards as petrol.

Smog and lung cancer don't care what type of fossil fuel was used....

 

[scblack]

scBlack, The Lexus has double the power of the forester, and weighs >35% more. Even just the electric motor in the Lexus has more power than the forester Diesel engine. Of course fuel consumption is going to be higher.

So what? Its the only comparable hybrid to my vehicle. So I brought it up as a real world comparison in the vehicle sector that is one of Australia's, if not our biggest selling sector. Mid size SUV's are about 30-40% of vehicle sales now so its a very valid vehicle to compare.

The 35% weight penalty probably comprises mostly batteries. They are both 5seat SUV. The power (KW) of the Lexus is petrol plus electric combined, so its higher sure. The petrol engine in the Lexus is just 123kw. Torque of the Lexus is just 368nm - my Forester is 350nm, so very little different on torque. The Forester tows 1,800kg compared to only 1,500kg for the Lexus.

The Hybrid Lexus is supposed to be the pinnacle of technology and fuel-saving for an SUV. But even for $100,000 versus my $40,000 it only just very marginally beats it for rated fuel consumption. And even then, reading the review I linked earlier I will bet real money the Forester has better real world fuel economy.

 

[99_FGT]

they take smog a bit more seriously in California and the regulators (suprisingly) seem more immune to automaker lobbying.....

More immune, or just different lobbyists?
California is at the forefront of renewables, but their policy is driven by their own interests as much as the environment
Using the U.S. As an example of leading the pack for environmental legislation is kind of ironic. The eu rules don't allow hi power v8's any more (think m3 being a tt) but they are allowed in the U.S.
So the legislation has been selectively applied to suit their own interests

 

[pharmaboy]

There is no anti deisel legislation. CARB rules just adopted Euro 6 like standards before the EU did - they take smog a bit more seriously in California and the regulators (suprisingly) seem more immune to automaker lobbying.

There has been pro diesel legislation in effect forever - diesel has never had to perform to the same standards as petrol, having slacker limits for everything. The "tightening" of diesel emission limits is simply progressivly requiring they perform to the same standards as petrol.

Smog and lung cancer don't care what type of fossil fuel was used....

My understanding is that current U.S. Restrictions on NOX are greater than euro6 , to quote from BBC

Mind you, there are two distinct factors working in favour of Europeans’ wallets: fuel with a higher cetane rating, which makes it easier to control NOx emissions, and EU emissions standards that are generally comparable to the US’s Tier 2 standards in all areas apart from, yes, NOx. Even our EU 6 standards, due in 2015, do not quite match the States’ strict limits on smog- and acid rain-causing emissions.

Slightly more tax on diesel in the U.S. As well. Whereas the euros tax diesel less than petrol.
I mentioned ad blu, because the only U.S. Based manufacturer of diesels is jeep and they use the ad blu system - same engine as many of Mercedes so I'm guessing merc use ad blu as well, which only leaves VW with their pretend system

 

[Haakon]

More immune, or just different lobbyists?

I'd say the latter! But the US EPA does still have more teeth than EU and our environmental regulators on this subject at least - smog is a big deal and it has been a shitfight for 50 years getting the US automakers to do something about it and that has in part kept US automakers from going diesel themselves (that and hte fact their early efforts were terrible and gave them a bad reputation in that market).

There are plenty of hipo V8s in europe... Both diesel and petrol (v10 toerag anyone?).

Big petrol V8s meet the smog controlling emission limits - CO2 is a different discussion and regulated seperatly.

 

[Haakon]

My understanding is that current U.S. Restrictions on NOX are greater than euro6 , to quote from BBC

Mind you, there are two distinct factors working in favour of Europeans’ wallets: fuel with a higher cetane rating, which makes it easier to control NOx emissions, and EU emissions standards that are generally comparable to the US’s Tier 2 standards in all areas apart from, yes, NOx. Even our EU 6 standards, due in 2015, do not quite match the States’ strict limits on smog- and acid rain-causing emissions.

Slightly more tax on diesel in the U.S. As well. Whereas the euros tax diesel less than petrol.
I mentioned ad blu, because the only U.S. Based manufacturer of diesels is jeep and they use the ad blu system - same engine as many of Mercedes so I'm guessing merc use ad blu as well, which only leaves VW with their pretend system

Yup, they take smog seriously. CARB dont differentiate between fuels, so I geuss this is an insight in the difficulty of getting diesel to work on a level playing field.

SCR is now required on any diesel trying to get to these NOx levels (including Euro6 VW diesels such as the Mk7 Golf still allowed to be sold in Australia), its expensive and when the certification tests are tightened to better reflect "reality" it will be interesting to see what engines make it through (diesel and petrol...).

 

[Ivan]

So what? Its the only comparable hybrid to my vehicle. So I brought it up as a real world comparison in the vehicle sector that is one of Australia's, if not our biggest selling sector. Mid size SUV's are about 30-40% of vehicle sales now so its a very valid vehicle to compare.

The 35% weight penalty probably comprises mostly batteries. They are both 5seat SUV. The power (KW) of the Lexus is petrol plus electric combined, so its higher sure. The petrol engine in the Lexus is just 123kw. Torque of the Lexus is just 368nm - my Forester is 350nm, so very little different on torque. The Forester tows 1,800kg compared to only 1,500kg for the Lexus.

The Hybrid Lexus is supposed to be the pinnacle of technology and fuel-saving for an SUV. But even for $100,000 versus my $40,000 it only just very marginally beats it for rated fuel consumption. And even then, reading the review I linked earlier I will bet real money the Forester has better real world fuel economy.

The Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV is a much more comparable model.

Same size as the forester
Similar power and torque
Lower towing at 1500kg
But better fuel consumption rating of 1.9L per 100k, and you can do 50km on electric only.
More expensive to purchase

 

[scblack]

The Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV is a much more comparable model.

Same size as the forester
Similar power and torque
Lower towing at 1500kg
But better fuel consumption rating of 1.9L per 100k, and you can do 50km on electric only.
More expensive to purchase

Fair enough did not consider it. $50-55,000 is farkin expensive though.

I still contend the Lexus is a valid comparison, its still a mid size SUV, just an expensive one. Cost is really the only true differentiating factor. Its really not much vehicle for $100k.

 

[scblack]

Agreed, driving style and conditions make a bigger difference. This really isn't my argument, I have a V8 in the shed that won't get near either of those numbers, it's just that you were asking Haakon to come up with 'facts' when your own (or Lexus's) were not perfect either.

I had another think about this one, and you have got to be kidding. You'll have to excuse Lexus for pitting the manual model versus their auto. What a bone-headed lack of accuracy and to be quoting out by 0.3litres\100km is a MAJOR distortion of the facts.

But then I suppose Haakon found the going too hard so someone had to step in for him.

 

[hifiandmtb]

This is a serious thread. So serious.

 

[Haakon]

Of course if you're a bit of a selfish cock, you can always just do this;

http://www.rawtekinc.com/products/dpf-egr-adblue-delete-midpipe-for-2-0l-cr-tdi-gen-2

http://www.optimatransportsolutions.com

Unfortunately the EPA simply has no resources to stop these tossers...

 

[MARKL]

...If you want to try to say something, compare apples with apples....

Combined fuel cycle
Forester 5.9 litres/100km
Lexus 6.3 litres/100km...

So the Forester BEATS the Lexus for fuel economy and is within 7 CO2 emissions numbers the same.

Wow, those hybrids REALLY have it won - bahahaha.

Citing a combined cycle hides the advantage in stop start traffic, and the disadvantage in sustained highway use.

The combined cycle more closely reflects "real world" usage. People in the real world drive both in the city and on rural roads. You can't just poke your hand up for one cycle and pretend you have a better resultound:

So, seeing you know this, how about you give us some numbers

I just showed you that a hybrid SUV has WORSE fuel consumption than my diesel SUV...

IF you choose to pretend you only ever drive in stop start traffic then "maybe" fuel economy is better for a hybrid. ...

...So for my real world driving the economy of a diesel far outstrips a hybrid in a very large percentage of my driving. So - YES - for people like me in Sydney a diesel will have better fuel consumption. Thus I have shown diesel fuel consumption is often and for many people much better.

Yep, when we expect facts to back up the hollow platitudes, it does get hard for you to continue.

I had another think about this one, and you have got to be kidding. You'll have to excuse Lexus for pitting the manual model versus their auto. What a bone-headed lack of accuracy and to be quoting out by 0.3litres\100km is a MAJOR distortion of the facts.

But then I suppose Haakon found the going too hard so someone had to step in for him.

You asked for an apples vs apples comparison...

You claimed claimed that a Forester was 0.4 liters/100km more economical than the hybrid Lexus...

You told Haakon he can't pick the numbers that suit his argument...

You shouted that the hybrid has WORSE consumption...0.4 liters/100 by your numbers...

You told us you had shown diesel fuel consumption is often and for many people much better...


All i did was point out that you had cherry picked your numbers, like you accused Haakon, and that the numbers did not support your claims. The Forester number went from your claim of 5.9 to 6.4...which is 0.5 difference in an apples for apples comparison (though I agree with Ivan it is an effing stupid comparison Luxury SUV vs fleet special). I have no idea where you got the 0.3 from. I agree the 0.5 isn't much but hey it dwarfs the previous WORSE of 0.4.

Anyhow cheer up and go for a ride:hug:

 

[Haakon]

One approach to the destroyed resale value.

View attachment 319888




(disclaimer - this one was a 2.0 petrol....)

 

[DJninja]

"Diesel con" part . I have been forced to buy a diesel by my employers "green policies" for some years now. I always saw it as a euro thing - particularly as diesel use suited North Sea oil, but there is no denying it is more efficient in a heavy highway use vehicle.

The particulate thing is largely irrelevant IMO in Australia - trucks don't have the requirements and can go hard at spewing stuff into the air.

On VW, I suspect they felt a little like they are the victims of US anti diesel legislation. Euro diesel is built around efficiency and filtering, whereas US rules seem to be built around ad blu plus filtering

Like Flow rider said a lot of trucks use ad blu. I haven't read through the thread but has anyone linked to the actual atmospheric effect differences between petrol and diesel

Everyone check this out when buying/comparing fuel consumption https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/

 

[DJninja]

Of course if you're a bit of a selfish cock, you can always just do this;

http://www.rawtekinc.com/products/dpf-egr-adblue-delete-midpipe-for-2-0l-cr-tdi-gen-2

http://www.optimatransportsolutions.com

Unfortunately the EPA simply has no resources to stop these tossers...

You can remap for efficiency. Also police have some power over EGR delete and fines.

 

[Haakon]

You can remap for efficiency. Also police have some power over EGR delete and fines.

You can remap for fuel efficiency - at the expense of emissions, especially NOx. This is the crux of VW issue - they remapped for fuel efficiency and power in the real world, and dialled it back for the "test mode" so it would pass emission standards.

Alas the Police don't give two shits (hell, they don't give one...) about EGR deletes. Or fog lights. Or Harley exhausts...