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

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.

Thread Tools
Old April 12th, 2018, 11:00   #31
Certified Volkswagen Nut Vendor
oilhammer's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St Louis
Fuel Economy: fantastic

Ain't that the truth!
oilhammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2018, 11:23   #32
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Fuel Economy: 55 max / 44 avg on beetle ~37 on JSW

Originally Posted by oilhammer View Post
I don't think that will happen here. Every time it even gets mentioned, people start to go bananas. (I don't, I laugh... but I'm not driving a pig either).

In this country, we instead reward people for bad choices: case in point, Cash for Clunkers. People who bought a pig, that lost value quickly, and didn't take care of it, got a nice cash payout. People like me, who bought an efficient car that held its value and took care of it... got nothing beyond what I granted myself for making a wise choice in the first place. And my tax dollars went to pay for the idiots who made poor decisions.
I looked at the cash for clunkers deals. There was not a vehicle out there that got high enough mileage to replace any of the cars I had at that time. Without really trying, I had found myself in that magic land of decent fuel economy on everything in the drive. I think we were a four car family at the time too.

The only way to get people to give up their monster vehicles is fuel prices. When it costs over $100 a week to fill it up, many people are going to figure out they can't afford the beast and food at the same time.

Tax increases will only work if there is a transparent system where we are told where each cent collected is going. People may be willing to pay more if they know what it is being used for. When we lived in Wisconsin, they published where are the property taxes were going. Made it easier to pay when you knew that 55 cents (just a number off the top of my head) of every dollar was going to the local schools. I have no idea where any of my taxes now are going.
2010 silver/black JSW TDI with DSG, 2011 red Golf TDI with dsg, 2003 red/gray Passat 1.8l gasser
kjclow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2018, 13:34   #33
Moderator at Large
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada

Originally Posted by tadawson View Post
So, I'd love to see a comparison of similar size and weight from current to 1970's or so . . . I don't think the gains will be what a lot of folks think they are.
I have one for you.

I learned to drive in a 1978 Honda Civic CVCC.

1.5 litre (optional engine), 5 speed manual, no catalyst, Honda's fancy CVCC system - which ended up carboning up and causing massive driveability problems. This car weighed about 800 kg; this had already been increased over the standard Civic because of the impact absorbing bumpers, and the bigger-engine models had a longer nose. The only thing electronic in that car was the radio. You had to fiddle with the breaker points every 8000 km and once in a while you had to replace the points and condenser.

Fuel consumption was about 6 litres per 100 km. It could be coaxed (reasonably, without hypermiling) to around 5.5 litres per 100 km.

When I exited from driving VW diesels, I split the motorcycle hauling and daily driving tasks. I don't need a big car for work, a small one is better for finding parking spots. So, I returned to my roots as far as the daily driver is concerned.

The daily driver is a 2015 Fiat 500, 5 speed manual, 1.4 non-turbo. It is roughly the same size on the outside as the Civic was. The back seat is even more useless than what I remember of the Civic - but the 500 sacrifices some practicality for styling; to be honest if I could have bought a Panda instead (same platform and about the same size but 4 doors and a more squared-off roofline) I probably would have.

The Fiat weighs about 1100 kg - still a lightweight by today's standards but well above what the Civic weighed. The Fiat has a little over 100 hp, the Honda had 63. The Fiat's high-tech engine feature is the MultiAir variable valve timing and lift system. Fuel consumption in day-to-day driving is 5.5 - 6.0 L/100 km ... right where the Civic was.

In every other way, they are worlds apart. The Fiat meets today's safety standards. If you were in a crash in the Honda, heaven help, because you were on your own. The Fiat has ABS and stability control and 4 wheel disk brakes. The Honda ... didn't. The Fiat has air-con, the Honda didn't. The Fiat has automatic climate control, heated seats, height-adjustable seats, cruise control, in-car entertainment with bluetooth and the like. The Honda had an AM radio.

The Civic was ready for the scrap heap with 180,000 km on it. Too early to tell with the Fiat ... it has 75,000 km on it, and runs like new.

So in the same size car, the fuel consumption has stayed the same even though the weight has gone up and performance has gotten better and they have gained a lot of comfort and convenience features. I know Fiat paid attention in the wind tunnel. I doubt if the Honda ever saw a wind tunnel when that car was designed in the early 1970s.

The other vehicle in the driveway is also a Fiat-derived product ... a ProMaster van. Compare that to my friend Al's 1983 Dodge Ram van back in the day. The ProMaster has a 280hp Pentastar V6. The old van had a slant six with a single barrel carb. The new one has way more interior space. Comfort ... way better. Safety ... way better. The van uses 11 - 12 L/100 km in mostly-rural driving, which I really can't complain about. We just towed a trailer with it, 2 bikes in the van and 2 more in an enclosed trailer, and it used 13-ish while towing ... which I can't complain about. The old van would use more than that without anything in it.

The USA's collective fuel consumption problem is because people want to drive lifted 4x4 pickup trucks to transport themselves back and forth to work and to the grocery store ...

It has not helped that the Civic has become a big-ish car. The Accord is comparatively huge. My dad had a 1983 Accord which did fine with a 1.6 litre engine.
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 April 15th, 2018, 17:46   #34
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Fuel Economy: 55 max / 44 avg on beetle ~37 on JSW

The cars I learned to drive were a 67 Plymouth Belvedere II and a 72 Dodge Charger. Both with 318 V8s. Both got maybe 20 on the highway at 55. Around town, I doubt they broke double digits. Lots of fun to drive as a teen aged boy, especially since neither had any weight at all in the rear. We crammed six people in both those two door cars quite often. Dad even pulled a pop up trailer with the Charger. I don’t think either one would fit in my garage today.

I’ve owned my share of gas guzzling V8 and efficient 4 cylinders before the VW diesels. My Ram Ecodiesel is the first V6 that I’ve owned. It gets better mileage than the GMC Canyon with a 4 cylinder that it replaced.
2010 silver/black JSW TDI with DSG, 2011 red Golf TDI with dsg, 2003 red/gray Passat 1.8l gasser

Last edited by kjclow; April 15th, 2018 at 17:49.
kjclow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 09:04   #35
Veteran Member
SilverGhost's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Old Hickory, TN. Settling here...

And as we discuss big, gas guzzling, SUVs vs TDI mileage, and complain about why the TDIs are banned for being dirty, TN is trying to remove emissions testing. Argument is that air quality meets EPA guidelines so we don't need the emissions tests. That and it puts an unfair burden on people with limited income to fix their cars so they pass emissions tests.

I call BS! Just gives people an excuse to not maintain their cars beyond minimum to drive to work and the mini mart to buy smokes/beer. I predict a lot more gross polluters from this.

Here is a link to one of the stories about it. Here is another link. It appears the bill has passed the houses and on its way to the governer.

SilverGhost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 18:29   #36
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lewisville, TX

I dunno . . . in a lot of states, testing is nothing more than another tax by a different name. The lightest touch that gets the desired result is typically the best . . .
tadawson is offline   Reply With Quote

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
Colorado Emissions Standards? JHands TDI 101 7 March 31st, 2016 14:21
USA vs. European Emissions Standards? efb91 TDI (Diesel) Emissions 57 August 26th, 2010 20:37
Faint "marble rolling in a tin" sound on accelerating passat130 TDI 101 9 April 21st, 2008 18:20
Question about 2008+ emissions standards stevehecht TDI (Diesel) Emissions 7 November 18th, 2006 07:26
Clinton sets new diesel emissions standards 98JettaTDI TDI (Diesel) Emissions 6 December 22nd, 2000 00:21

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 23:35.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 0.10189 seconds with 13 queries
[Output: 83.49 Kb. compressed to 73.93 Kb. by saving 9.56 Kb. (11.45%)]