Thoughs on VolksWagen TDI's?

[skewbe]

I see whats going on here, you folks are JEALOUS of the TDI . Hey, can't say as I blame you. I even find myself jonesing for the old diesel rabbit sometimes, really would like to know what it could do with p&g/etc...

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I may have the answer to that in a bit.

[Nerds laugh at me]

SVOboy : Why the name SVO as in "straight vegetable oil " ( biodiesel ) if you own a gas car ? : )
( Not dissin' the CRX dude. Just curious )

Personally, what I want is the cleanest car that I can afford.
If this meant installing a part that reduced my emissions 50% but ended up costing me more money when I fill up, I'd still do it !
I'm considering buying a TDI Golf that would run SVO. I could still get 40+ MPG and be clean at the same time ( and flip the finger to Big Oil too ).
The only reason that I don't own a TDI yet is that the emissions that my current car would produce would - in the hands of its new owner ( if I trade the car in ) far outweigh what I normally produce with the car.
I'd really like to see how much of a difference there would be emissions wise between a SVO TDI Golf getting 45-50 MPG on biodiesel vs. an Insight getting 60-65 MPG.
Wasn't the Insight ( manual transmission ) rated as an LEV ?? ( strangely enough, the auto got worse FE, yet has a ULEV rating )

I wonder how that a biodiesel would rate - LEV,ULEV,SULEV, or better.

Going off topic ( sorta ) What's up with the all new VW Rabbit ? 30 miles per gallon on the highway ....WTF !!! That just sucks !!!

VeganPowa ? hell yeah !!!

I've seen the " This car is a vegetarian" bumper stickers for SVO TDIs , but I'd want to modify mine to say "This car is a VEGAN " since actually the car doesn't consume dairy either. I would run soybean oil instead of that grease from places like KFC or McDonalds.

[Bill in Houston]

Originally Posted by Nerds laugh at me

Wasn't the Insight ( manual transmission ) rated as an LEV ?? ( strangely enough, the auto got worse FE, yet has a ULEV rating )

Going off topic ( sorta ) What's up with the all new VW Rabbit ? 30 miles per gallon on the highway ....WTF !!! That just sucks !!!

The MT Insight had lean burn which disqualified it for ULEV. The CVT did not have lean burn.

About a year ago I was going to buy a new car to commute a long distance. I was stunned by how badly the VWs did in the comparison. I didn't include the TDI because they weren't making them. The gassers were just abysmal.

[CO ZX2]

Originally Posted by Nerds laugh at me

The only reason that I don't own a TDI yet is that the emissions that my current car would produce would - in the hands of its new owner ( if I trade the car in ) far outweigh what I normally produce with the car.

N.l.a.m. You could drive your Civic over a cliff, I guess. Do TDIs not produce emissions? They sure smell like they do and burn my eyes besides.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Hmm... Sounds like some TDI owners is messing w/ their vehicle. AFAIK, they shouldn't produce enough NOx to burn anyone's eyes. Iirc, my bunny doesn't make enough NOx to burn eyes.

[Bill in Houston]

Maybe using high-sulfur fuel...

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Could be, but that shouldn't be available any more, and definitely isn't legal.

[SVOboy]

Originally Posted by Lug_Nut

Well, from the top: I don't know just how much detail is needed to my assertions. The same government whose EPA you use to back up your selective claims, I believe funds the Argonne National Laboratories I use to back up my wider claim. Is that deceptive, or letting those that know make the claims. Just as you haven't done measurements yourself, and trust the government agencies given the responsibility to produce data to be truthful, so I also use a different agency of that same government for my data.

Air quality? What specifically is being quantified and measured? Particulate count? Gasoline engine emissions have a higher count of particulates. Diesel particulates are larger in size but fewer in number, so you pick one and I'll pick the other and we'll continue forever and both be wrong. There are claims that the smaller size particulates of gasoline combustion get deeper into the lungs and are harder to cough out. I can't debate that diesel particulate is larger in size than gasoline particulate.

I see from your 'garage' that you get 40.17 mpg on gasoline. You can see from my garage that I get 46.29 on roughly an annual blend of B90.

A gallon of gasoline has the energy of 115,500 BTU. A gallon of petroleum diesel has 128,500 BTU, a gallon of B100 biodiesel has 117,090 BTU. My annual B90 would have an average of 118,231 BTU per gallon. My miles per gallon would have to be 2.36% better to be the same BTU/mile efficiency. Instead it is 15% better.

The same 115,500 BTU gallon of gasoline releases enough fossil carbon to create 10.874 kilograms of CO2. The same BTU equivalent in petrodiesel (.899 gallon) releases enough fossil carbon to produce 10.963 kilogram of CO2. The 115,500 BTU biodiesel equivalent (.986 gallon) releases a net of 2.746 kilograms of CO2 made from fossil carbon. My own B90 annual average contributes 3.568 Kg of fossil sourced CO2 to the atmosphere for each 115,500 BTU of work.

My 'work' is being performed 15% more efficiently and yet produces one third the GHG emission of you.

Petrodiesel has a maximum of 15 ppm sulfur. B100 biodiesel has zero. My 10% use of petrodiesel puts my average sulfur content at 1.5 ppm or less. Sorry, I don't know what gasoline sulfur content is so I can't debate this point.

When I talk of "all" emissions or "total" emissions, I want you to remember that the EPA regulated emissions are but a tiny fraction of the total environmental impact. NOx and CO and HC are measured in grams, the CO2 contribution is in the thousands of grams.

And I've just looked at the EPA site to which you link. They have neglected the emission impact of getting the fuel out of the ground, processing it, shipping it and such. That is why the number I use from the Argonne labs are higher than your numbers from the EPA. Must be some more of that "all" and "total" to which I keep referring...

I, for my part, see no reason to distrust the public entity known as the EPA and have not become aware of any reason they might lie or conspire against the use of diesel, so I will not assume they are likely to test in a way that would create results detrimental to the environment in order to make diesels look bad.

Also, I was not quoting my mileage when my car had an automatic transmission, but my mileage since, which has been better than yours. I am not quoting the BTU/gallon, but co2/gallon, which I consider more relevant (not that I remember where I got the figures right now). If you want to play the "I'm-better-because-I-emit-less-carbon-from-automobile-fuels" game, you can look at how much I drive and figure it out for yourself. Personally, I don't care. I feel no desire to engage in petty contests as such.

The units used to measure pollutants is irrelevant here...I think we would agree 1 gram of mercury is worse than 1 kilogram of carbon dioxide.

In any case, drive your tdi. I am not insulting you or diesel fuel. I would gladly drive one of the newer cars with lower emissions, but seeing as I have no room to work with WVO and don't drive nearly enough to bother, I won't be doing it.

I was never arguing against BD or WVO, which I think are fine ventures and would prefer myself, just cautioning the use of diesel cars as such in general. In any situation, a one side discussion with important, unvoiced concerns is a dangerous one to have.

Anyway...

Nerds: It's a holdover from my first forum membership at vwvortex...

[Sludgy]

Originally Posted by skewbe

The only thing you would be wrong about is labelling NIMH as "non-toxic". People talk about NIMH batteries like they are going to grind them into baby food. Aside from nasty things used in their manufacture, they contain:
oxide of nickel, cobalt, aluminum,. lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, and praseodymium. The Material Data sheet says it may release toxic materials, so lets just stop acting like nimh is an environmental free ride.

http://www.mahaenergy.com/download/p...ycell_msds.pdf

Everything, including air and water, is toxic when taken in excessive quantities. More people are killed by water every year than any other chemical. (Not just by drowning. There is actually a condition called hyponatremia that is caused by drinking too much water.) And excessive nitrogen (in air) can cause narcosis and "the bends".

My point is relative toxicity. Lead is more toxic than the metals in NiMH battteries. And new-generation LiFePO4 batteries contain only Lithium, Iron and Phosphorous, all "non-toxic".