www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2016 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You

Order your TDIClub merchandise and help support TDIClub


Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > TDI (Diesel) Emissions

TDI (Diesel) Emissions This is a discussion about emissions from TDI's. Pro's cons of Diesels (including biodiesel) effects on the environment and how they compare to Gasoline and other fuel sources for Internal combustion engines.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 30th, 2019, 19:08   #31
IndigoBlueWagon
TDIClub Enthusiast
Principal IDParts
Vendor
w/Business number
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: South of Boston
Fuel Economy: 50/45/37
Default

Is this not the same engine?

https://www.vw.com/models/golf-sport...n/performance/
__________________
2002 Jetta wagon, 400K, RC3+; 1993 Mercedes-Benz 300D 2.5, 197K; 1997 Passat, 289K; '99.5 Golf, 260K; 2011 335d, 63K; 2015 Golf Sportwagen, 13K. Principal, http://www.idparts.com
Kid's cars: 2002 Golf TDI, 2002 Jetta TDI, 2015 Passat TDI SEL
IndigoBlueWagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2019, 19:14   #32
jackbombay
Veteran Member
 
jackbombay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Diesel knows best
TDI(s): A4 Jetta
Fuel Economy: 57/43/32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tikal View Post
Also, is the 47 mpg is with four passengers and the trunk full of stuff going hwy speed?

Because all the miles you put on your TDI are with 4 passengers and the trunk fully loaded?

As if nobody reports MPG numbers for their TDI with an unloaded car on flat terrain?
__________________


Hp vs. TQ
jackbombay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 30th, 2019, 21:49   #33
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada
Default

No, that was empty with just me. Detroit airport to a job site in the middle of Ohio and back. Cruise set at 80 mph with the automatic-distance-following thing doing its thing, mostly 70-75 due to traffic.

Those reporting that sort of mileage from a common-rail TDI aren't reporting that in mountain driving at max GVWR, either. Remember, I used to have one of those cars (P-D, but fuel consumption isn't much different from a common-rail). 47 mpg US = 5.0 litres per 100 km. I don't think mine EVER did that. 5.5, all the time. 5.0? Not with me driving it. Sure, it could probably be achieved by hypermiling. Certainly not loaded to GVWR doing 130 km/h.

The Toyota "Dynamic Force" engine is well designed, it is connected to an efficient transmission with a tall top gear, and the car (Camry) has well-sorted aerodynamics. It works.

No, the Camry is not a wagon, but that's what the Rav4 is for. You can get the same engine and (I think) transmission in a Rav4. Not efficient enough for you? Get the hybrid version. (Camry and Rav4 both have that option)

Don't want Toyota? The Mazda Skyactiv powertrains also do very well. Same concept of technology. Today's "wagon" is a CUV ... that's what people buy. Mazda CX-3, CX-5, etc, take your pick.

I don't know if VW has seen fit to put the 1.4 TSI in a wagon. It does appear that VW is discontinuing the wagons in the USA, though ...

I'm not locked into a particular technology. I am in favour of "what works".
__________________
Brian P.
formerly ... 2006 Jetta TDI 5-sp, Spice Red, Unitronics stage 1, 0.681 5th gear.
and before that ... 1996 Passat TDI, Silk Blue
GoFaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2019, 04:23   #34
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

And the ALH "works". Continues to. Although to be fair, my BHW and my AWM also continue to work, 15 years and 200k+. I'd say they work the same as they did when new, but that would be a lie, thanks to Rocketchip.

My non-fixed CJAA+ DSG A5 sedan was able to tag 50+ pretty consistently the few times I ran a tank start to finish and bothered to check. Mostly highway, but fast (80+) with some "spirited" driving mixed in. I did tend to use the Tip mode a lot on my drive home, which consists of lots of two lane and twisties.

What really sucks to me is that there are cars capable of 65+ MPG, real world, that I would actually most likely want to drive, with not only existing tech, but tech that is over a decade old or older, but we cannot get those here.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com
oilhammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2019, 06:11   #35
IndigoBlueWagon
TDIClub Enthusiast
Principal IDParts
Vendor
w/Business number
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: South of Boston
Fuel Economy: 50/45/37
Default

jack is making a good point. Sure, newer gasoline powered cars do much better than they used to, but FE tends to drop more when loaded or driven harder. This is especially true with turbo gassers. Ask any Ford 150 owner what FE does when the truck is loaded or driven hard. FE drops to V8 levels pretty quickly.

Diesels in general don't tend to do that. I've seen 52 MPG at 80+ MPH trips in my ALH. And FE rarely gets below 45, even making a lot of short trips in Winter. I don't think a Camry, or even a Golf TSI, would see anything close to those numbers under similar conditions.
__________________
2002 Jetta wagon, 400K, RC3+; 1993 Mercedes-Benz 300D 2.5, 197K; 1997 Passat, 289K; '99.5 Golf, 260K; 2011 335d, 63K; 2015 Golf Sportwagen, 13K. Principal, http://www.idparts.com
Kid's cars: 2002 Golf TDI, 2002 Jetta TDI, 2015 Passat TDI SEL
IndigoBlueWagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2019, 06:21   #36
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

I know I get tasked with driving a lot of different cars home and back, to give thorough test drives and get readiness to set after major work, even if I was not the one who did the job. And most all of them suck fuel down in a horrible fashion the way I drive. Just going by the amount the gauge drops, but still pretty obviously noticeably bad.

I replaced an engine in a Santa Fe, the standard 2.4L GDI bolted to the 6sp autobox. It was a shop trade in that we decided to fix and sell. I drove it to and from work for a week, and it netted an abysmal 22 MPG. And I didn't even drive it as fast as I drive my cars, kept it below 80 on the highway. That is a very popular vehicle. And this was just the FWD model. That is worse than twice the fuel consumption of my Golf. And I bet many Americans would consider that "good". I mean, it is a four cylinder, right?

I just finished and sold one of my project 2.slo Jettas, and it managed 24 MPG on its last tank with me. LMAO. At least it ran and drove well, and the new owner doesn't drive nearly as much as I do. I really think a lot of those cars' issue with bad fuel economy was the gearing. It screams along at nearly 4k RPM at 80. Which is ridiculous. I have often wondered what one would get with a TDI's 02J behind it.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com

Last edited by oilhammer; October 1st, 2019 at 06:28.
oilhammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2019, 08:17   #37
Mythdoc
Veteran Member
 
Mythdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Tennessee
Default

On the heavier Q5 the difference between the diesel and the new 4-banger is exactly as said above. You can get decent mpg in the gasser if you don’t load it down and if you drive like a grandma. If you choose sport mode you can get tolerably good performance (you ignore the frenetic shifting patterns) at a steep loss of economy.

Personally I think the higher statutory mpg rules under Obama’s EPA (ambitious though they were) are preferable to the complete and total rollback to prior levels that the current EPA wants. Although they aren’t a first order contributor to air quality as noted above, they are an indirect contributor through the methods used to extract petroleum, a resource which in itself there is a compelling interest not to overuse.
__________________
Try not to be one of the “some of the people who are fooled all of the time.”
2015 Q5 TDI w/ Chipwerke tuner, 43K Miles. Post fix MPG: 34.0
2015 Golf TDI SE, Lighting Package, 25K miles
2011 Touareg TDI (sold back, May 2018); 2015 Golf TDI S (totaled, Oct 2018)
Mythdoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2019, 08:22   #38
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

It just sucks that the war on diesel is in exact opposition to higher fuel economy. And the engines that some of us want to purchase that DO offer good fuel economy are made verboten. Or the ones that we can get are hidden behind stratospheric MSRPs. The diesel F150 "starts" at $46k. So, yeah, I could buy a 30 MPG full sized pickup. But I'd be in debt up to my eyeballs for years to do so, and so I'd end up just making do with something that gets 15 MPG instead.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com
oilhammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2019, 09:14   #39
IndigoBlueWagon
TDIClub Enthusiast
Principal IDParts
Vendor
w/Business number
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: South of Boston
Fuel Economy: 50/45/37
Default

F150 pricing makes little sense to me. You can buy a less well equipped F250 for the same money as the lowest trim level available F150.
__________________
2002 Jetta wagon, 400K, RC3+; 1993 Mercedes-Benz 300D 2.5, 197K; 1997 Passat, 289K; '99.5 Golf, 260K; 2011 335d, 63K; 2015 Golf Sportwagen, 13K. Principal, http://www.idparts.com
Kid's cars: 2002 Golf TDI, 2002 Jetta TDI, 2015 Passat TDI SEL
IndigoBlueWagon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2019, 09:27   #40
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IndigoBlueWagon View Post
F150 pricing makes little sense to me. You can buy a less well equipped F250 for the same money as the lowest trim level available F150.
And, as we saw first hand in Dearborn, they (Ford) are building mostly the tarted up model F150s as fast as they can. Makes no sense to me either.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com
oilhammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2019, 09:48   #41
jackbombay
Veteran Member
 
jackbombay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Diesel knows best
TDI(s): A4 Jetta
Fuel Economy: 57/43/32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IndigoBlueWagon View Post
jack is making a good point. Sure, newer gasoline powered cars do much better than they used to, but FE tends to drop more when loaded or driven harder.
So the 47mpg would maybe drop to 44mpg if the car had 800 pounds of cargo in it? Which still has it getting double the mpg of most vehicles on the road, and this is supposed to make us TDI owners feel so triumphant why?

I'm just stoked that there are more than zero fuel efficient vehicles that are available for purchase in the USA.
__________________


Hp vs. TQ
jackbombay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2019, 11:25   #42
Matt-98AHU
Loose Nut Behind the Wheel Vendor
 
Matt-98AHU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Vallejo, CA
Fuel Economy: Depends on which TDI :)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oilhammer View Post
I know I get tasked with driving a lot of different cars home and back, to give thorough test drives and get readiness to set after major work, even if I was not the one who did the job. And most all of them suck fuel down in a horrible fashion the way I drive. Just going by the amount the gauge drops, but still pretty obviously noticeably bad.

I replaced an engine in a Santa Fe, the standard 2.4L GDI bolted to the 6sp autobox. It was a shop trade in that we decided to fix and sell. I drove it to and from work for a week, and it netted an abysmal 22 MPG. And I didn't even drive it as fast as I drive my cars, kept it below 80 on the highway. That is a very popular vehicle. And this was just the FWD model. That is worse than twice the fuel consumption of my Golf. And I bet many Americans would consider that "good". I mean, it is a four cylinder, right?

I just finished and sold one of my project 2.slo Jettas, and it managed 24 MPG on its last tank with me. LMAO. At least it ran and drove well, and the new owner doesn't drive nearly as much as I do. I really think a lot of those cars' issue with bad fuel economy was the gearing. It screams along at nearly 4k RPM at 80. Which is ridiculous. I have often wondered what one would get with a TDI's 02J behind it.

hah, that's pretty pitiful.

My near 6000 lb V10 powered Touareg, complete with air suspension, low gear transfer case, permanent AWD and locking differentials, has averaged 21-22 on long highway trips doing 80-85... and it has 550 ft lbs of torque :P

My sister had that 98 New Beetle with the AEG, I couldn't stand the 4000 RPM at 80. I eventually got a used TDI 5th gear that I installed in it, dropped RPMs by nearly 500 at 80. Made a big difference in noise, so much quieter. I did a couple hundred miles of highway driving doing about 80-90 on I-5 once and it got 30 MPG.

Wasn't a quick car, but not so horrendeously slow either. It was still kinda fun in its own way.
__________________
Sole Proprietor, Diesel Autowerks in San Anselmo, CA. One man operation, email is preferred method of contact: email me with inquiries for service.
Matt-98AHU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2019, 11:59   #43
oilhammer
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
 
oilhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic
Default

I am down to one 2.slo now, anothe 2001 Jetta that need an engine. Owner decided to let a little coolant leak get low enough to overheat the engine, and decided "meh, I'll keep driving it" until it said "meh, you're an idiot, I'm done" and it has zero compression.

Fortunately, the pack rat that I am, I have a low mileage unit that I harvested from the dealer that had less than 10k miles on it before being tooefed by a pothole and cracking the pan. Insurance bought them a new engine. I saved the old one, put a new pan and new bearings in it, just for such an occasion. Been sitting for a LONG time, though, so hopefully the lifters will pump up.

They are pretty decent cars just thirsty.

But getting back to the diesels, here is one of my regulars here today:



You'd never know by looking at it, but it has covered some distance:



It got a new high tone horn today.
__________________
oilhammer
www.cardocautomotive.com
oilhammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2019, 14:00   #44
tikal
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southeast Texas
Fuel Economy: 37 MPG (~ 45% city)
Default

Yes there are a few choices for fuel efficient relatively larger vehicles in the US and if I ask a question about how a certain gasoline powered vehicle operated under load is not to put down the gasoline engines, it is to get more date from people who have driven them under load conditions.

Ok, so gasoline engines have come a long way in the last decade or so. In the same way has light duty diesel engines have progressed (normalized to performance output vs efficiency under load). The availability of light duty diesel vehicles is just not here in the US so consequently we can say that gasoline technology is 'catching up' to light duty diesel engines. Well in a sense I agree, since light duty diesel engines are disappearing from our buying choices in the US so gasoline is ahead in this sense
tikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 1st, 2019, 15:55   #45
turbobrick240
Veteran Member
 
turbobrick240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: maine
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt-98AHU View Post
Wasn't a quick car, but not so horrendeously slow either. It was still kinda fun in its own way.
I've had more fun behind the wheels of ~100 hp stickshift four banger beaters than just about anything with 3x the power.
turbobrick240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thank you EPA & Cal EPA… PacCoastFwy923 Dieselgate - VW Group Emission Scandal 43 November 20th, 2016 11:51
flexing turbo vanes Joshinthecity TDI 101 4 February 12th, 2005 21:00
Newbie with new muscles thanks to TDI! Mark Mellblom TDI 101 6 May 10th, 2002 06:57


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
© 1996 - 2017, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.17011 seconds with 11 queries
[Output: 140.75 Kb. compressed to 118.82 Kb. by saving 21.93 Kb. (15.58%)]