If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"John S." > wrote in message oups.com... > Well of course it is spinning - that is by definition the way turbos > work. Cruising down the highway it is having virtually no impact on > the engine. It is under acceleration that the value of a turbo can be > seen. Otherwise you could remove it and probably improve milage by 2-3 > mpg. If turbos consume more fuel, I say again, why do busses, ambulances, fire engines... heck, just about ANY diesel now days, use them? If you went without a turborcharger in these engines, it would take a much bigger engine to power these vehicles and give the performance that the consumers want. In other words, they'd suck up more fuel. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"Magnulus" > wrote
> "fbloogyudsr" > wrote >> Since you don't seem to want to believe me, go to >> http://www.answers.com/topic/turbocharger and read the >> wikepedia article. Notice it talks about "increased power", >> but never mentions efficiency (other than the fact that >> the turbo actually *reduces* efficiency). > > Increased power can equal increased efficiency. The two are not > mutually > exclusive. If you find a way to make an engine that burns less fuel but > delivers enough power for the application, then that engine is the more > efficient. NONONONONONO! You need to take some physics courses. TANSTTAAFL. Every bit of HP you get out of an engine takes *MORE FUEL*. Period. Exclamation point. Your "definition" of efficiency is inadequate, bogus, and incorrect. The only way that you get a little better mileage out of a car with a turbo diesel rather than a normal diesel *OF THE SAME HP* rating is because the turbo engine is smaller and hence the car supporting it is lighter and has less rolling resistance. But that *DOES NOT* say anything about the engine efficiency. Floyd |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Go back and reread the thread.
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Magnulus wrote: > > wrote in message > ups.com... > > Don't forget the possibility of replacing the MAF sensor, and the > > once/40k timing belt changes. > > The newer MAF sensors don't wear out as much. The timing belt is not > unique to VW diesels, lots of other cars have belts that must be changed. Name *one* other vehicle that requires the change at 40k mile intervals. (I know of one, no longer in production.) Most TB replacements are at very high mileage - hell, even the VAG 1.8T motor has a 60k replacement recommendation. And *that's* pretty low too. > > No matter what, this car is not a Toyota gas-powered car, and it will > > require as much money to keep on the road, when you include all the > > maintenance. > > Maybe, but personally I think Toyotas are not as good. Reliability? Please - let's get real. Toyotas are bullet-proof. Boring as hell, but bullet-proof. > VW has better > crash ratings, better features as standard. Which has what effect on operational costs, again? That's right, none. > And it just looks nicer. I won't argue that, but that's a very subjective thing, and doesn't have any bearing on the operational costs. > Corollas look a bit cheap in comparison. And some people like hatchbacks > and wagons. Value judgements that have nothing to do with how much it costs to keep a vehicle on the road. > > Maybe in 10 years your slushbox TDI will fetch 50% of that, but I > > wouldn't count on it. > > I would could on it. In ten years gas will probably be over 3 dollars per > gallon. A "slushbox" Jetta TDI is going to be alot more attractive than a > Ford Explorer. Since when were we comparing Ford Exploders to anything? I'm talking TOYOTA. If you can't keep the discussion straight, maybe you should quietly bow out. Toyotas and Hondas have high resale values for a reason. VWs have low resale values for a reason. TDI Passat wagon resale values are an anomaly based on desirability amongst the diesel crowd who want more hauling capacity than a sedan offers. And the manual tranny ones always seem to go for more. As much as $3k more. Slushbox diesels, even TDI, are about the slowest vehicle on the road, and anyone looking for a diesel will know to get a manual tranny if they want to get any kind of acceleration out of them. That's why they go for more. Sorta like the resale on a FWD Audi vs quattro cars. E.P. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message ... > NONONONONONO! You need to take some physics courses. > TANSTTAAFL. Every bit of HP you get out of an engine takes > *MORE FUEL*. If that were true, then engines would never get more efficient. > > The only way that you get a little better mileage out of a car with > a turbo diesel rather than a normal diesel *OF THE SAME HP* > rating is because the turbo engine is smaller and hence the > car supporting it is lighter and has less rolling resistance. The turbodiesel engines in the current TDI's are bigger (1.9 liter-100-110 hp) than the diesel engine from the 1970's and 80's (I believe they were 1.5 liter- 50-70 hp), yet the fuel consumption is about the same. And the VW diesels from the 70's and 80's weighed over 1000 lbs less (the old Golf/Rabbit weighed about 1900 lbs., the current Golf TDI weighs about 3000 lbs) |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"John S." > wrote in message oups.com... > Go back and reread the thread. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger It specificly says that the disadvantages of turbocharges for gasoline engines (more fuel consumption, less compression, less efficiency), don't apply to diesels. Diesels also don't have throttles that mix air and fuel, and the fuel is injected straight into the cylinder, it is not mixed with air outside the cylinder except in older diesels that used port injection. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:40:13 -0400, Magnulus wrote:
> The turbodiesel engines in the current TDI's are bigger (1.9 > liter-100-110 > hp) than the diesel engine from the 1970's and 80's (I believe they were > 1.5 liter- 50-70 hp), yet the fuel consumption is about the same. .... which is because of technology advancement, not because the turbo makes the engine more efficient. > And the VW diesels from the 70's and 80's weighed over 1000 lbs less > (the old Golf/Rabbit weighed about 1900 lbs., the current Golf TDI > weighs about 3000 lbs) In Germany VW had SDIs in the late 90s for a while, TDIs without a turbo. They were gutless but used significantly less gas than the TDIs. VW got rid of them, because few people bought them. You should look around for one, would be a perfect match for your fuel saving fetish and your problems with fast driving. Chris |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ups.com... > Name *one* other vehicle that requires the change at 40k mile > intervals. (I know of one, no longer in production.) The timing belt on my Jetta wagon lasts for around 80,000 (I would have to look it up, but it is not 40k). It was only on the pre-2003 models that the belt had to be changed every 40k, and even then they came out with newer belts for the older models which last longer. > > > VW has better > > crash ratings, better features as standard. > > Which has what effect on operational costs, again? That's right, none. It doesn't matter to me. It's ultimately human life on the line, which is priceless, or at least that's the government's mantra. Toyota is too cheap to put side curtain airbags on their cars as standard, or ABS, or any number of things. That speaks alot about their company's philosophy when most of the low end cars they ship don't even have cruise control or ABS, yet they cost about 17,000 dollars. Heck, for about a thousand more I can get a brand new VW Golf turbodiesel. I want to buy into a company that makes me feel good about buying their products, not just because it's good for me but because the company does the right thing with all their cars. The fact is that the Corolla and Civic are predominantly barebones cars, strictly utilitarian, and what little safety features they have as standard are only designed to pass lax US crash tests. I cannot feel good about buying a car from a company like that. > Toyotas and Hondas have high resale values for a reason. VWs have low > resale values for a reason. And what's that reason? The TDI has high resale value, the reliability is decent, very good in late models. You have bought into that crap about ricemakers having some kind of Midas touch, some kind of superhuman, godlike powers over automobiles. A quick perusal of reality will show you there are plenty of issue with Asian cars. Heck, it turns out the Toyota Prius, one of their flagship cars, can have a softwaere error that kills the car at highway speeds, Toyota cars do have wiring problems occasionally, and Honda is having problems with some of their CVT's making too much noise. No car is perfect. OTOH, Volkswagen's reliability according to sources such as J.B. Power and CR is improving to the point that most get a "good" rating. Many of the problems can be traced to switchover to production of the Jetta at the Puebla plant in Mexico in the late 90's; many TDI's are built in Brazil. >TDI Passat wagon resale values are an > anomaly based on desirability amongst the diesel crowd who want more > hauling capacity than a sedan offers. And the manual tranny ones > always seem to go for more. As much as $3k more. Slushbox diesels, > even TDI, are about the slowest vehicle on the road Not true. The performance is about the same as any other economy car. And the manual TDI's where I live seem to go for less money than the autos, though there are more manual TDI's than many other manual car model options. Manuals just don't sell, regardless of the car. >, and anyone looking > for a diesel will know to get a manual tranny if they want to get any > kind of acceleration out of them. I don't drive a manual; I don't care for rowing through gears constantly. I also don't need really fast acceleration, so fast the wheels lose traction constantly. Acceleration for cars now days is more than adequate. A 0-60 of around 11 seconds is plenty fast for my needs- I rarely push the car that hard anyways- I don't have the need, and I don't see many people accelerating that fast either. 40-50 years ago that kind of acceleration was reserved for sports cars. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Magnulus wrote:
> "John S." > wrote in message > oups.com... > >>Go back and reread the thread. >> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger > > It specificly says that the disadvantages of turbocharges for gasoline > engines (more fuel consumption, less compression, less efficiency), don't > apply to diesels. Diesels also don't have throttles that mix air and fuel, > and the fuel is injected straight into the cylinder, it is not mixed with > air outside the cylinder except in older diesels that used port injection. > > Um, name ONE Diesel engine that didn't inject the fuel either directly into the chamber or into a "pre-chamber..." nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Magnulus" > wrote
> "fbloogyudsr" > wrote >> NONONONONONO! You need to take some physics courses. >> TANSTTAAFL. Every bit of HP you get out of an engine takes >> *MORE FUEL*. > > If that were true, then engines would never get more efficient. (THROW UP HANDS) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nationwide Crash Repair BEWARE Poor quality repair | Frustrated Car Owner | Technology | 16 | June 14th 05 08:36 PM |
Forza Car List | Rob Berryhill | Simulators | 19 | May 7th 05 11:37 PM |
New *FREE* Corvette Discussion Forum | JLA ENTERPRISES TECHNOLOGIES INTEGRATION | Corvette | 12 | November 30th 04 06:36 PM |
Consumer Advocacy Organization Takes Aim at Auto Repair Shop Rip-offs. Please Help! | Kenneth Brotman | 4x4 | 2 | January 6th 04 06:21 PM |