VW Pump Duse TDI Voted Car of the Year!

S

SkyPup

Guest
Volkswagen Makes Diesel Car History As Passat TDI PD 130 Is Named Car Of The Year: The new Volkswagen Passat TDI PD 130 bhp has been named Car of the Year 2001 and Family Car of the Year by Diesel Car magazine. Volkswagen has now been the manufacturer of the Car of the Year for two consecutive years, and todays award brings to three the total number of Diesel Car overall COTY titles it has won since the accolades began in 1995. No other manufacturer has ever won more than once.

Diesel Car was impressed by the Passat TDI PD 130s mechanical refinement and exuberant power delivery. It praised Volkswagens revolutionary PD or Pumpe Duse technology (see description on following page) and added:
Volkswagen has taken a thoroughly winning formula and fine-honed it to near perfection. The Passat was previously a class-conqueror, and its mid-life rejuvenation has ensured that it will continue to be so until an all-new generation eventually appears.
 
S

SkyPup

Guest
Now why NONE of the ultra kewl VW TDI PD engines will be tooling around anywhere in North America:

From Jamie VonDruska at the Vortex:

"THE reason why TDI engine choices are extremely limited right now is NOT Volkswagen of America's fault. So before you go putting them up on the stake, take a deep breath and relax.

The main reason why we aren't getting these new diesels is emissions. There are two issues that are causing this problem. The first is that states like California (and now New York and Mass.) have passed new stricter emission standards with very low particulate standards as they related to CAFE fleet ratings. The existing 1.9l TDI does not fully pass the particulate standard for those states. So in order to protect VWoA's CAFE fleet standard rating, VWoA only sells a VERY small handfull of TDI models in those states. If more states keep adopting these new standards, the TDI engine as we know it now will become extinct in North America.

The second part to this problem is our diesel fuel. Our diesel fuel is not nearly as well refined as the diesel fuel available in Europe. This means that VWoA has a much harder time getting the current 1.9l TDI to pass emissions (for instance VWoA uses the variable vane VNT turbo from the European 110hp 1.9l to get the 90hp 1.9l to pass emissions). This also means problems for the new high pressure fuel injector units being phased into all TDI engines in Europe, as they don't handle the poor quality fuels well. These new "pumpe duse" high pressure direct injectors are the future of VWAG's diesel strategy and are more sensitive to fuel quality than existing common rail injector systems.

So what can VWoA do? They are lobbying our government to force the petroleum companies to better refine diesel fuel. Daimler Chrysler is also lobbying for the same better diesel fuel standards (so there goes your big three conspiracy). The main people preventing new legislation like this are the petroleum companies that don't want to make big investments in new refinery equipment, and the trucking industry which is fighting it tooth and nail. The trucking industry is an extremely powerful group that doesn't want to pay the higher costs associated with new better fuels. VWAG is also working on preheating catalytic converters to help meet emission standards since turbocharging makes it difficult to get the catalytic converter up to proper temperature so it can do its job.

The American attitude towards diesel in general right now is *not* favorable. People still have a lot of misconceptions about diesel engines going back to the late 70's and early 80's, plus the black smoke belching, noisy trucks on the road don't help either. The last Jetta TDI model we had here at Vortex came the week after we had a 1.8T Jetta. I drove my mother in both cars (both GLS trim, so identical in features).
She thought the TDI model was a base model simply because it was so noisy compared to the 1.8T the week before. Again perception... American's are used to quiet, refined gas powered engines. While the new TDI models are vastly and tremendously improved over old VW diesels, no one will mistake it as a gasoline powered engine."
 

Eolair

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2000
Location
Ludwigshafen, Germany
In this edition of the German mag Autozeitung, they published the result of their Auto Troophy award. the cars are nomitated by the manufacturers and then voted by the public. In 5 of 9 categories the winner was a diesel:

- Best City Car:
1) Audi A2 1.4 TDI
2) MCC Smart Convertible cdi
3) Mini Cooper

- Best Family car:
1) Opel Zafira 2.0 DTI 16V
2) VW Passat Wagon 1.9 TDI
3) Skoda Octavia Wagon 1.6

- Best leisure car:
1) BMW X5 3.0d
2) Audi Allroad Quattro TDI
3) Mercedes ML 55 AMG

- Best Bussiness-Sedan:
1) Mercedes S400 CDI
2) Audi A8l 4.2 Quattro
3) BMW M5

- Most reasonable car
1) VW Lupo 3l TDI
2) Audi A2 1.2 3l TDI
3) Opel Corsa 1.0 12V

Most beautiful convertible:
1) BMW Z8
2) Peugeot 206 CC Platinum
3) Ferrari 360 Spider

Most sporty Coupé:
1) Porsche 911 Turbo
2) BMW M3
3) Aston Martin Vanquish

Best German novelty:
1) Ford Mondeo
2) Mercedes C-Class SPortcoupé
3) Audi A4

Best import novelty:
1) Alfa Romeo 147
2) Jaguar X-Type
3) Peugeot 206 CC
 

jdubes

Active member
Joined
Mar 12, 2001
Location
Boston, MA
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyPup:
They are lobbying our government to force the petroleum companies to better refine diesel fuel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you say "They will never succeed" and "I hope they never succeed". This is exactly why the US gas prices have shot up. OPEC has not cut production, it's because of the new requirements from the government with respect to the refining process.

I for one would vote "NO" to changing the Diesel formula. Re-formulation = more cost. I like VW TDI's, but not when it's taking money out of my pocket. There is no way I would agree to something, just to bring the car over here. After all who are helping out? Us or Volkswagen?

If tomorrow someone came out with a Electric Car that had every characteristic of a gas car without the reliance on fossil fuels. The traditional Fossil Fuel car companies would never see my business again.

This is just a band-aide on a huge problem. We shouldn't be relying on fossil fuels like we do now.
 
S

SkyPup

Guest
Your view is in fact why this country is so backwards and filthy and going nowhere fast.

In fact, one high quality ULSD will be here in spite of people like you who love to pollute to save a few cents and mistakenly think that is the reason we have such low quality fuel.

Join Ric in his peanut gallery with all the kids that die of asthma and bronchitis each year and the millions of others that suffer in hospitals.

Stoneage mentality = most typical American thinking on diesel fuels.

Go buy a phat SUV, you'll love yourself even more!
 

Micwal

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 11, 1999
Location
USA
Just some food for thought.

The United States is a net consumer of CO2 from the atmosphere due to our forests and farming whereas Europe is net contributor. The US removes more CO2 from the air than it outputs burning fuels. Europe with it's higher level of urbanization does not have the flora to consume as much CO2 as it creates.

Also, the level of output by US cars as opposed to European cars for HC and CO is lower in their own respective countries. That gas guzzling Buick Park Ave with a 3.8 liter supercharged v-6 that your neighbor has is required to have the same level of HC, NOx, and CO output as a 2.0 liter VW. These levels are NOT in percent of exhaust. These levels are in grams/mile. From an engineering standpoint it is much easier to make a smaller displacement engine meet these levels than a larger engine. A 5.7 liter V-8 at full load and at its horsepower peak will consume aprox 790 grams of gasoline in one minute. A 2 liter will only consume 277 grams. So a 5.7 liter must be 3 times more efficient at keeping these levels down.

Try this webpage for an interesting story: http://www.smh.com.au/news/0105/03/text/pageone9.html

I smell the torches lighting...


[ May 14, 2001: Message edited by: Micwal ]
 

paschalini

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2000
Location
Seabrook, Texas, USA
Everything I've read has shown a $0.05 to $0.10 cents per gallon increase for the ULSD fuel. That, in my opinion, is well worth it for cleaner emissions. Also, we'd get a better consistency in our fuel, and likely a higher cetane rating. Higher cetane equals more power and better mileage, which should offset the additional fuel cost.

So, bring on the cleaner fuel, and maybe more diesel engine selection
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
Here's a novel idea! Instead of having multiple standards for emissions, and thus quality of fuel to meet those same emissions,
why can't we have a single standard for the whole country!? Give us the cleanest, best quality diesel. Give us the cleanest burning, best quality petrol also! In the end, cost's would level out with standardization of production.
We could then say, "More Power!"
(and good economy along with it)

----------

AutoDiesel
 

jdubes

Active member
Joined
Mar 12, 2001
Location
Boston, MA
SkyPup,

You can not be serious? Since you insulted me get ready.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOU OBVIOUSLY FAILED TO COMPREHEND MY POST.

My statement is not an attack on diesel fuel! It's an attack on this country AND YOURS (WHERE EVER YOU COME FROM), reliance on Fossil Fuels. I owned a TDI, and have no problems with diesel technology. I also would buy a Diesel over a gas vehicle any day.

In case you haven't noticed, someday the earth will run out of oil. Whether it's 10,100,1000 years, be assured it will happen.

Don't you think for the earth and societies sake we should stop relying on Fossil Fuel?

And furthermore since when is evolving and moving in another direction considered "Stoneage mentality"?

I guess from your point of view, we should all switch to diesel and forget about trying to evolve.
 

blue909

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2000
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Jdubes, gas prices are up primarily due to profiteering by the oil companies. One of the first things Bush Jr. did was to RELAX air pollution standards for refining of gasoline in parts of the midwest "in order to offset any shortages". This relaxation means that fuels burned will produce even MORE emissions than they already do (which is far more than the cleaner fuels refined and used in most parts of Europe). Of course, the powerful petro lobby (which Bush and Cheney are both intimate with) pushed for these changes, which incidentally reduces their refining costs. So, the midwest gets dirtier gas, the oil companies save costs and reap record profits as prices at the pump continue to climb.

I for one would gladly pay a premium for cleaner fuels, knowing full well that the availibility of USLSD will probably have no effect on VW (i.e.: make them bring 150PD TDIs to the U.S.) anytime soon. If we have to use fossil fuels, they might as well be as clean as possible.

blue909
 
S

SkyPup

Guest
Sorry for the insult, however in the near term, ie next 25 years, liquid phossilized fuels are going to be the mainstay for modern man inspite of whatever other source of energy anyone can or could possibly dream up.

Probably the very best technolgy to achieve that use is through Coal Gasification and Synthetic Diesel Fuels through the F-T process, both of which are the cleanest to use and profitable at $35 per barrel level too.

After that, maybe move to Mars, they don't have much atomsphere, water, animals or plants but they DO have alot of land surface, while only 1/8 of the Earth's surface is land. Just think of all the superhighways that could be built there!!!!
 

Torque!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2000
Location
Boston, Massachusettes, USA
TDI
2001 MK4 Jetta TDI - 196K
Electric cars are also dependent on fossil fuels. If you want to go that route we should all ride trains.

If its one thing I have learned people can't handle change. Until we run out of fossil fuels there will be money for oil companies to make. I for one am willing to pay for for better quality fuel that produces lower emmisions as I understand the negative effects of cost externalization. Higher prices are offset by positive effects of cleaner emmisions. When you get to keep money in your pocket you just get it taken out later when the negative aspects of dirty air take a toll on society. You get what you pay for. Companies that dump chemicals save the tipping fee but the costs come back and often are much greater when they do. Don't fool yourself you pay one way or the other.
 
Top