The gasoline engine is NOT dead.

That super rich mode is why so many DI turbo gassers can blast soot out like a diesel, if the conditions are just right. Granted some other gassers can as well.

I have seen many of the early Kia and Hyundai GDI (N/A) models blast black soot / crap out the back when passing someone. And man, those fumes STINK. I feel bad for the damn catalytic converters in those.

One problem that DI engines in general have, is homogenizing the mixture. Port-injected engines do an excellent job of homogenization, but they can't handle high compression due to detonation concerns. IDI diesels have somewhat better homogenization due to the turbulence in the swirl chamber, but have high heat loss in the head causing poor cold starting performance, and poor efficiency.

Insufficiently homogenized mixture leads to soot (center of a droplet) and NOx (edge of a droplet) formation, which is where the emissions problems with DI gassers and diesels come from.

Both GDI AND PFI engines have been shown to produce very high black carbon (BC - aka "soot") emissions during Phase 1 of the FTP in very cold ambient conditions - up to 162 mg/mile. For reference, the total PM permitted in the FTP is 0.01 g/mile (10 mg/mile).

PFI was actually worse that GDI in BC emissions under these conditions in one of the studies.

I enjoy the 6 speed in the Mazda CX-5. Have 6, 9 or 18 speeds in my trucks.

With FE standards what they are, I expect to have a nearly double OD so that I can conserve fuel when not loaded, same with my sub 5K vehicles.

oilhammer said:

What real world difference would that make? Another gear I mean. My 5sp automatic Passat spins less RPMs at 80 than a 6sp manual R32. The R32 in 6th spins pretty close to what my Golf spins in 5th at the same speed.
I think if the engine has the power and a meaty enough curve, more gears doesn't necessarily mean better. For years, 911 turbos got by with just 4 gears, even when the regular 911 had 5. Ever driven one of those 4sp 911 turbo cars? You'd swear 4 gears was just plenty.

Click to expand...

I agree. In the 80's I had a little Dodge (Mitsubishi) Colt with a manual four speed. My friend had the same but a 5-speed man. My car got pretty much if not exactly the same MPG but was much more fun to drive, easier to shift, quicker when driven hard. I think much of what is going on is marketing etc. etc. etc.

There may be minimal gains in MPG to be had by such engineering but not much and also it seems most of what is going on involving fuel economy assumes the majority of your driving is highway and simply cruising which is not the case for everyone (annoys me).

To add (not directly related to the above) a big overriding assumptions seem to be that everybody is okay with going "slow" or driving relaxed and face clear, flat roads. Not me. I am sure many others are in the same boat who in the end say to hell with MPG, even emissions (which is sad). Unfortunately I truly enjoy having both and my old/simple/modified 5-speed now rusting out 99.5 Golf TDI achieves this.

Awesome MPG, very good power but mildly tuned for durability/MPG/emissions. Very simple ... electric door locks and that is it and I love it. I don't have a good reason why cars have to be over engineered these days outside marketing/corporate greed. Consumers in general don't really know how corporations/lawmakers/advertising and marketing firms/interest groups all work together (or side by side) convincing us we need "X" when we truly don't = profit driven change wrapped up in a bow for gen. public to digest and remaining ignorant, happy, even in support of it).

Don't get me started regarding the "bells and whistles"found on vehicles of today which are heavy, expensive to have and repair, and for the most part not necessary or impede proper driving habits. Safety systems, audio, phones (hands free or not), navigation systems, climate control systems etc., cup holders eating/drinking while driving.

I cannot believe the safety systems that are in place while at the same time witness how pathetic the vast majority of drivers are ... following distance, use of eyes, general awareness, proper signaling etc. or law enforcement that cannot be bothered to deal directly with such matters as it is apparently beneath them/too expensive/ too much of a bother. (did I mention I was a driving instructor for a few years? ha ha).

I also blame California and hypersensitive interest groups/activist types for so much pressure. I am not ignorant of the importance of clean air. There are a multitude of ways to reduce emissions/pollution ... none of which involve expensive systems tacked on to cars when there are so many heavy and/or poorly maintained vehicles roaming the streets every day. Don't get me started on factories, old refineries, ships, planes lack of trees/forests, pollution of lakes oceans etc. (world wide)

Another thing regarding MPG ... just make fuel cheaper! (ha ha) There is plenty in the world until we go electric or all have Mr. Fusions ... Oh I forgot that would mean less money for few the uber rich.

I know what I've stated is "off topic", generalization/seemingly pie-in the-sky. Despite this, there is much truth as well. All I know is I've studied and worked in most of the above mentioned professions and have witnessed these generalized truth's first-hand and chose to stop working in said professions as I did not want to think that I was contributing in any way no matter how indirect or small.

I know that ignoring /quitting is not the best answer either as it does not promote change. However, I did eventually choose a profession which does directly help those who are in need and make a difference.

Stringer said:

I agree. In the 80's I had a little Dodge (Mitsubishi) Colt with a manual four speed. My friend had the same but a 5-speed man. My car got pretty much if not exactly the same MPG but was much more fun to drive, easier to shift, quicker when driven hard. I think much of what is going on is marketing etc. etc. etc.

There may be minimal gains in MPG to be had by such engineering but not much and also it seems most of what is going on involving fuel economy assumes the majority of your driving is highway and simply cruising which is not the case for everyone (annoys me).

To add (not directly related to the above) a big overriding assumptions seem to be that everybody is okay with going "slow" or driving relaxed and face clear, flat roads. Not me. I am sure many others are in the same boat who in the end say to hell with MPG, even emissions (which is sad). Unfortunately I truly enjoy having both and my old/simple/modified 5-speed now rusting out 99.5 Golf TDI achieves this.

Awesome MPG, very good power but mildly tuned for durability/MPG/emissions. Very simple ... electric door locks and that is it and I love it. I don't have a good reason why cars have to be over engineered these days outside marketing/corporate greed. Consumers in general don't really know how corporations/lawmakers/advertising and marketing firms/interest groups all work together (or side by side) convincing us we need "X" when we truly don't = profit driven change wrapped up in a bow for gen. public to digest and remaining ignorant, happy, even in support of it).

Don't get me started regarding the "bells and whistles"found on vehicles of today which are heavy, expensive to have and repair, and for the most part not necessary or impede proper driving habits. Safety systems, audio, phones (hands free or not), navigation systems, climate control systems etc., cup holders eating/drinking while driving.

I cannot believe the safety systems that are in place while at the same time witness how pathetic the vast majority of drivers are ... following distance, use of eyes, general awareness, proper signaling etc. or law enforcement that cannot be bothered to deal directly with such matters as it is apparently beneath them/too expensive/ too much of a bother. (did I mention I was a driving instructor for a few years? ha ha).

I also blame California and hypersensitive interest groups/activist types for so much pressure. I am not ignorant of the importance of clean air. There are a multitude of ways to reduce emissions/pollution ... none of which involve expensive systems tacked on to cars when there are so many heavy and/or poorly maintained vehicles roaming the streets every day. Don't get me started on factories, old refineries, ships, planes lack of trees/forests, pollution of lakes oceans etc. (world wide)

Another thing regarding MPG ... just make fuel cheaper! (ha ha) There is plenty in the world until we go electric or all have Mr. Fusions ... Oh I forgot that would mean less money for few the uber rich.

I know what I've stated is "off topic", generalization/seemingly pie-in the-sky. Despite this, there is much truth as well. All I know is I've studied and worked in most of the above mentioned professions and have witnessed these generalized truth's first-hand and chose to stop working in said professions as I did not want to think that I was contributing in any way no matter how indirect or small.

I know that ignoring /quitting is not the best answer either as it does not promote change. However, I did eventually choose a profession which does directly help those who are in need and make a difference.

Click to expand...

I did choose a base M3 for many of those reasons. Base gave me cloth buckets. 6 speed, indie suspension, 4 wheel disc, DI (which we all seem to love to hate), 16 inch wheels (15 inch on base 1.8T Golf in 2015), I did pay extra for the Sport version (hatch) and AC. Blue tooth, PW and PL came standard. What I am getting at is this seems like the "right" base package for a comfortable daily driver. No cross traffic alerts and GPS and Turbos. Better mileage than all cars in its class and great handling. The 15 Golf seems more directed towards performance in the engine dept. and probably a bit stronger shell in a massive hit and the interior is pretty slick compared to the M3 as I have just driven the Golf. They saved money on wheels and transmission and maybe some areas I cant see but a few more bucks base to base. Both Gasoline cars by 2 makers who have decided that the gasoline engine is NOT dead.
I think the base Golf is gonna sell like hotcakes actually and impact TDI sales. Especially since the new TDI seems to have lost NO weight and gained virtually NO economy to speak of. We will see when a few members buy them. They should at least equal the current Passat no?

tdi90hp said:

I did choose a base M3 for many of those reasons. Base gave me cloth buckets. 6 speed, indie suspension, 4 wheel disc, DI (which we all seem to love to hate), 16 inch wheels (15 inch on base 1.8T Golf in 2015), I did pay extra for the Sport version (hatch) and AC. Blue tooth, PW and PL came standard. What I am getting at is this seems like the "right" base package for a comfortable daily driver. No cross traffic alerts and GPS and Turbos. Better mileage than all cars in its class and great handling. The 15 Golf seems more directed towards performance in the engine dept. and probably a bit stronger shell in a massive hit and the interior is pretty slick compared to the M3 as I have just driven the Golf. They saved money on wheels and transmission and maybe some areas I cant see but a few more bucks base to base. Both Gasoline cars by 2 makers who have decided that the gasoline engine is NOT dead.
I think the base Golf is gonna sell like hotcakes actually and impact TDI sales. Especially since the new TDI seems to have lost NO weight and gained virtually NO economy to speak of. We will see when a few members buy them. They should at least equal the current Passat no?

Click to expand...

Cannot comment on a Passat. I have not driven one ... only been a passenger and in general prefer versatile small cars that relay the driving experience as directly as possible. . I've driven several large cars and personally do not enjoy them as much. I always thought if you want big go station wagon, SUV or truck.

I think your summation is right on. I still will have to test both VW's when they arrive this month in Newfoundland. I bet for now I will buy something else (RAV4) and wait a year or two, see how the new Golf diesel and gasser behave then go from there.


Regarding the M3. As stated, I agree with what you say. I test drove and since have seen many and still think they are a great value, very nice in and out and provide very good MPG. However, after driving my TDI and knowing how fun it is while still being economical, versatile and solid as a rock I have a very hard time convincing myself to move to anything less. The six cylinder RAV4 will be a bit of a long term test for me to see if my attitude might change.

In the end I bet I will be back to a TDI assuming the new version is reliable enough. I know when I sell my 99.5 TDI to my mechanic I am going to kind of regret it. I have a feeling that I will not be happy (vehicle wise) until I am in a slightly tweaked TDI again. I am a proponent of VW Golf diesel torque/ performance/feel/fuel mileage ... no matter how hard I try to convince myself otherwise.

One thing I also miss about some of my old cars from youth is the direct driving experience. Technology/insulation has muted my fun/enjoyment : ) It is funny, when my friend who owned his Colt and I talk about cars we always get a big smile when reminiscing about the fun we had chasing each other in the wee hours of the morning driving two 68 hp carbonated, non-power steering econo-boxes which could take everything we threw at them.

He has since owned sports cars/racing bikes when living in Miami and still admits our youthful Colt driving was some of the most fun he has ever experienced driving. My older brother who was a race instructor still states that some of the most fun ever had was driving the crap out of our mother's old 1979 Honda Civic with friends (paved or dirt road). I simply cannot see any of today's economy cars taking that kind of abuse or being that much fun. It's too bad. My Golf TDI is still that fun, sips fuel, out drives most vehicles in winter and tows heavy trailers with ease.

It's all good

My mother has our former Mazda 6 wagon that is now 10yr old. Granted it has low miles, but other than routine maintenance, it has only needed a serpentine belt and an exhaust leak repair in 10yrs. Not bad for a 10yr old car. The steering and handling are also superior to my 05 Passat wagon. the Mazda does not have the overall heft of a VW, but it's been a very good value. Mom is 91 and enjoys the 6 wagon, which sadly is no longer imported.

The Mazda 6 was a Ford Mondeo reskinned and built in Michigan. Ford through and through. They were never "imported", they were built right here. Auto Alliance plant in Flat Rock. It was originally a Ford plant, from the '70s, then Mazda redid the whole works to build 626s and MX6s and Probes, then Ford bought into it 50%, and they also started building the Ford Contour, Mercury Mystique and Cougar there (all Anglo-Saxon derived models), and eventually the 6.

Now, after Mazda's split with Ford, they build the Fusion there (which is our version of the Mondeo... like most American versions, bloated and cheapened).

The last Ford-derived Mazda 6 was built here in 2012. The new 6 is built in Japan, by Mazda. Supposedly an all-new platform, but I've not yet had the opportunity to poke around under one to see how much, if any, of the old Ford stuff is left.

And the new 6 is two different wheelbases, too - one for the sedan (which they expect to mainly be bought by Americans, so it's bigger), one for the wagon (which they expect to mainly be bought by everyone else, so it's smaller).

Also, as I understand, the upcoming 2015 Mondeo is the same size as the current Fusion that it's based on.

It was really looking like Ford and Mazda were going to completely merge, given how their platforms and technologies had become so integrated, and almost blurred as to who had what. You know Ford's penetration was deep when you open the hood of a Miata and see "FoMoCo" all over everything.

Ford's influence on Volvo, Jaguar, and Rover were also similar.

The suspension design on the SkyActiv chassis does still look quite heavily Ford-influenced, but honestly, I'd expect Mazda to take what they learned from Ford in suspension design:

http://www.rx8club.com/attachments/...tiv-images-info-skyactiv-front-suspension.jpg - has the same sway bar linkage setup as a Focus
http://www.rx8club.com/attachments/...ctiv-images-info-skyactiv-rear-suspension.jpg - it's still the same control blade setup and everything, although that doesn't say all that much given that VW copied it for the Mk5 Golf

Yeah, some of that stuff there really isn't that many different ways to make something. I'm more talking about the little details like the fasteners and the supplied parts. One of the best parts of their cooperation was Mazda was free to design within the confines of a set platform that was shared, so the cost was kept low. Then the supply side economics that Ford's mighty mass and cash flow could give made the production of those cars in quantity very cost effective. Take the previous 3, for example: it was a Focus. Mazda just set up shop in Hiroshima to build a Focus, using some local suppliers for minor items, and some from global suppliers mostly sprung from the Southeast Asia corridor.

So a Japanese-built Mazda 3 got a FoMoCo cooling fan assembly made by Bosch in China, whereas the USA-built Ford Focus got the same Bosch part from Mexico, and the Swedish-built Volvo S40 got the Bosch fan from Germany. All the fans are interchangeable, but Mazda's ChinaBosch one probably cost less, and Mazda's no doubt very good at keeping production costs (assembly) low since that is what the Japanese manufacturers excel at... Toyota even wrote the book on it (literally, they did).

The running joke for a few years was if you wanted to buy the best Ford, you'd find it at a Mazda dealer. And really, it's true. The 3, 6, and even the 5, were all really good cars overall that were sold at a very good value price for what you got. Heck, Ford didn't even sell their version of the 5 here. And the 5 is really a sweet package because it can be had with the proper number of pedals!

Always good info Oilhammer, to add to this, Ford used Jag and Volvo platform for T-bird and Taurus/500 and Continentals too

Just got 38.5 MPG on way home from Decatur, Indiana to Toronto. I was running HARD. steady 75-80 MPH (120-130km/hour)...fully loaded with wife /Dog and tonnes of luggage.
So that kind of dispels the myth of gasoline engines going down dramatically at speeds. These are tank to tank exact figures

All figures are in USA gallons at 3.75 l per gallon.

Those are very impressive numbers! Similar run in my car would net ~40-42mpg.

And by EPA figures... burning 1 gallon gasoline is 8.887 kg CO2, 1 gallon of diesel is 10.18 kg CO2.

So, 38.5 mpUSg on gasoline would be 143 g/km.

42 mpUSg on diesel would be 151 g/km - worse CO2 emissions. To match the CO2 emissions performance of the 38.5 mpUSg gasoline vehicle on diesel requires about 44.2 mpUSg.

Or, to look at energy content... the EPA uses 129,000 BTU/gallon as the diesel energy content, 115,000 BTU/gallon as the gasoline energy content.

The 38.5 mpUSg gasoline car uses 196 MJ to go 100 km.

The 42 mpUSg diesel car uses 201 MJ to go 100 km, and would need to get 43.1 mpUSg to use the same energy as the gasoline car.

normally driven on highway @ 75-80mph and that nets 36-38mpg and best was 42 all highway. i have a 2013 bmw 328i all wheel version that gets 31 avg and 37 highway trips. id rather drive the beamer but the jetta is the beater. The 4 banger gas in the bmw makes more power and will leave dads modified bew from a dig and it sure cant pass like the bmw on interstate. the 328d bmw my co worker has gets 44mpg on his first tank. maybe there is a chance for the diesel... im convinced the tdi is just a niche market

bhtooefr said:

And by EPA figures... burning 1 gallon gasoline is 8.887 kg CO2, 1 gallon of diesel is 10.18 kg CO2.

So, 38.5 mpUSg on gasoline would be 143 g/km.

42 mpUSg on diesel would be 151 g/km - worse CO2 emissions. To match the CO2 emissions performance of the 38.5 mpUSg gasoline vehicle on diesel requires about 44.2 mpUSg.

Or, to look at energy content... the EPA uses 129,000 BTU/gallon as the diesel energy content, 115,000 BTU/gallon as the gasoline energy content.

The 38.5 mpUSg gasoline car uses 196 MJ to go 100 km.

The 42 mpUSg diesel car uses 201 MJ to go 100 km, and would need to get 43.1 mpUSg to use the same energy as the gasoline car.

Click to expand...

I'm not questioning... I'm just confused... I thought diesel emits less co2 per kilometre then the equivalent gas engine... Can you explain why in your example this isn't the case? I keep seeing on European sites new diesels emiting 100 g/km let's say, where as the gas engine is around 120 - 130 g/km

A diesel engine typically has better combustion efficiency than the equivalent gas engine.

Part of the increased range of a diesel per gallon is the increased density of the fuel, part of the increased range is the better combustion efficiency. The reduction in CO2 comes from the latter only, and in fact, diesel releases slightly more CO2 than gasoline for the same amount of energy.

ATR said:

Those are very impressive numbers! Similar run in my car would net ~40-42mpg.

Click to expand...

Yep. No real savings anymore realistically given the right gasoline car. I am sure the 1.8T will be pretty good overall as well. Until Diesel evens out in price in USA it will be a non event now that gasoline engines are super efficient. In Canada there is still some savings monthly in the summer. In winter Diesel spikes so about even. net savings over the year for me would be maybe 200 bucks.

tdi90hp said:

Yep. No real savings anymore realistically given the right gasoline car. I am sure the 1.8T will be pretty good overall as well. Until Diesel evens out in price in USA it will be a non event now that gasoline engines are super efficient. In Canada there is still some savings monthly in the summer. In winter Diesel spikes so about even. net savings over the year for me would be maybe 200 bucks.

Click to expand...

I look forward the the necropostings to this thread in 5-6 years when things may be wildly different.

GPFs and AdBlue on gassers will certainly throw the balance the other way...

tdi90hp said:

Yep. No real savings anymore realistically given the right gasoline car. I am sure the 1.8T will be pretty good overall as well. Until Diesel evens out in price in USA it will be a non event now that gasoline engines are super efficient. In Canada there is still some savings monthly in the summer. In winter Diesel spikes so about even. net savings over the year for me would be maybe 200 bucks.

Click to expand...

Yep!
Again I say that Mazda is my current goto brand for anyone who asks since they are the least to maintain and get great fuel economy for their given classes.
I really did like them (test drove the cx5, m3 & m6), but I personally needed more leg/head room which is why I went with VW. My only other choices were a BMW E60 528i or a E90 335d. No other cars out there could fit me quite right. The Golf really fits me well and gets much better fuel mileage then I could have asked for... The cost of ownership is better with the vw too

ATR said:

Yep!
Again I say that Mazda is my current goto brand for anyone who asks since they are the least to maintain and get great fuel economy for their given classes.
I really did like them (test drove the cx5, m3 & m6), but I personally needed more leg/head room which is why I went with VW. My only other choices were a BMW E60 528i or a E90 335d. No other cars out there could fit me quite right. The Golf really fits me well and gets much better fuel mileage then I could have asked for... The cost of ownership is better with the vw too

Click to expand...

Cost of ownership is better? on a CR? It really depends on luck. when you factor in a DSG flush and a T belt as I said in another thread at 1500 bucks or so you can buy a LOT of gasoline with that! and assuming no major issues post warranty you may...may...be right but the cost IN is so much higher that I don't know if the dollars add up anymore. I don't have the time or patience to do a spreadsheet but I will say that the new Jap/Korean even USA cars (cruze) may be cheaper to run per mile now.

I rented a Cruze in Georgia last week on business. Not a diesel, but a high end model with leather, etc, etc. I had the car two days and put 250 miles on it. Pretty nice car.....very quiet inside and got over 30 MPG. No torque, though, but still a respectable vehicle.

One thing that was impressive was the digital electronics. Much more sophisticated and well thought out than the current display VW has.

tdi90hp said:

Cost of ownership is better? on a CR? It really depends on luck. when you factor in a DSG flush and a T belt as I said in another thread at 1500 bucks or so you can buy a LOT of gasoline with that! and assuming no major issues post warranty you may...may...be right but the cost IN is so much higher that I don't know if the dollars add up anymore. I don't have the time or patience to do a spreadsheet but I will say that the new Jap/Korean even USA cars (cruze) may be cheaper to run per mile now.

Click to expand...

I will simply note a few details:

1) A TB change is going to be a wash since unless you have one of the few cars without a TB, then it's going to have to be done whether you have a TDI or a gasser

2) Not all TDIs use a DSG and thus may not have that expense

3) I can readily top 50mpg under the conditions stated above that you are responding to. Worst case at that speed with AC on, still provides me with about 46-47 mpg over the long haul.

4) A diesel can easy last 400K. How much does having to buy a new car at 250K factor into your cost analysis for cost per mile.

bhtooefr said:

And by EPA figures... burning 1 gallon gasoline is 8.887 kg CO2, 1 gallon of diesel is 10.18 kg CO2.

So, 38.5 mpUSg on gasoline would be 143 g/km.

42 mpUSg on diesel would be 151 g/km - worse CO2 emissions. To match the CO2 emissions performance of the 38.5 mpUSg gasoline vehicle on diesel requires about 44.2 mpUSg.

Or, to look at energy content... the EPA uses 129,000 BTU/gallon as the diesel energy content, 115,000 BTU/gallon as the gasoline energy content.

The 38.5 mpUSg gasoline car uses 196 MJ to go 100 km.

The 42 mpUSg diesel car uses 201 MJ to go 100 km, and would need to get 43.1 mpUSg to use the same energy as the gasoline car.

Click to expand...

Add in the extras to offset that 3.5 mpg that gasser's pretend mpg does not get (ie to deliver the fuel shortfall from the well to the tank) to deliver what the diesel is obtaining......