GTD in 2015?

Hey VW: don't skimp on the steel. Don't play the less steel to fudge the MPGs game. I bought a VW for the clunk. My salesman swung on the door.

turbocharged798 said:

I want a MKVI golf with the passat's engine and emission system in it. Is that too much to ask for?

Click to expand...

The current Golf and Jetta went through EPA emission certification using the lean-NOx catalyst, air-to-air intercooler, and the 2000-bar piezo-operated injectors. Changing any of this would presumably invalidate the emission certification, which means they'd have to pay the cost of re-certifying, and that is a very significant cost. Furthermore, the Mk6 Golf and Jetta have no place engineered into the vehicle to put the AdBlue tank, pump, wiring harness, and controls, which means there would be a re-tooling cost - plus the lead time for getting the parts designed, validating the new system to make sure it doesn't screw up anything else, plus the lead time (and cost) for building the tooling, and it just goes on and on. No doubt someone has done a cost-benefit analysis of just leaving the current system as is for another year until the new engine comes out, versus whatever re-engineering and re-certification costs they would have to pay, and came up "screw it - not worthwhile".

What remains to be seen, when the MQB Golf comes into being with the new EA288 engine, is what they do with the Mk6 Jetta and the NMS Passat. Presumably the current Mk6 Jetta vehicle platform is destined to become a development dead-end, eventually to be replaced with a MQB Jetta at some future date. There is a possibility that there will be THREE different 2.0 TDI engines for North American sale at the same time! (The EA211 engine in the Jetta, the upgraded EA211 in the Passat, and the EA288 in the Golf.) Or maybe they'll update the Jetta to include the EA288 engine in the course of a mid-cycle refresh. No one knows.

ssamalin said:

Hey VW: don't skimp on the steel. Don't play the less steel to fudge the MPGs game. I bought a VW for the clunk. My salesman swung on the door.

Click to expand...

One of the objectives with the MQB redesign is to get a significant amount of weight out of the car - which is desperately needed. But I'd count on this being done by being smart with where materials are being used, not by transforming the chassis into a tin can.

Take a look at the NMS Passat in the showrooms. Despite the extra size, it weighs scarcely different from a Jetta.

The MQB Golf is supposed to weigh about the same as a Mk4 Golf. Nothing wrong with that.

More weight is safer I think. We have the torque, more weight. Less weight = less car.

More weight is inconsistent with the environmental objectives that we have set for ourselves. I think you can rest assured that the MQB platform will remain a safe vehicle - even though it's lighter.

FWIW the MQB-based Seat Leon was announced about a week ago.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/16/new-seat-leon-brings-all-new-design-more-tech-and-enjoyneering/

It's a fair guess that the new Mk7 Golf will not be too far from this. Subtract the Seat styling cues and replace them with the VW styling cues and there you go. It's fair to say that the next Golf will include a lot of the technology described for the Seat Leon, also - possibly all of it and more, given that Seat is meant to be one of the VW Group's less expensive brands.

One of the news brought by the new Seat Leon is a torsion beam rear suspension for lower-powered versions. (the current Leon is all IRS)

ssamalin said:

More weight is safer I think.

Click to expand...

You're wrong, simply.

Are you a mechanical engineer? Auto engineer? Materials specialist? If none of those, you're forgiven for thinking that way.

Problem is, increasing weight adds inertia and kinetic energy.

Inertia is what you have to beat in order to keep your vehicle controllable (turn stability, braking distance, emergency manouvers). More of it means you need stronger forces to control it.
Stronger tires, stronger suspensions, stronger brakes, stronger steering, stronger everything. Stronger either means more expensive or HEAVYER or both. So you're adding weight to fight weight...

Kinetic energy is what you have to deal with when you crash. More of it means you need a stonger cage and stronger crumple-zones. Stronger, you guessed it, means either more expensive or HEAVYER or both. So you're adding weight to fight weight...

You NEVER win this game if you play it the "add more material" way.

Today's metals used in cars are much stronger while also being lighter. Think of it like this: Before tempering steel for a sword, the steel is rough, brittle, and hard to handle. After tempering, that same steel is now much harder, smoother, and can be used in combat. Add some other metals into the mix, such as aluminum, and know you have reduced weight without reducing effectiveness of your weapon.

I'd like to hear not that we are reducing weight to increase MPGs, but that we are maintaining weight while increasing safety. So take your high tech steel and put another bar in the cage, and put the airbag on my knee and hip like Mercedes does. Don't play the tin can game when we've got MPG, torque and value to spare, instead, become the superior safety cars too.

If I had a choice, I would prefer to keep the current Tdi engine design in the new vehicle until the new unit can be proven to survive with the nasty diesel we seem to get in this country (especially California!)

ssamalin said:

I'd like to hear not that we are reducing weight to increase MPGs, but that we are maintaining weight while increasing safety.

Click to expand...

That approach is NOT VIABLE. Society as a whole MUST reduce its consumption of natural resources and that means vehicle weight MUST come down. And it will.

Also, it is very possible to make a bodyshell too stiff, so that instead of absorbing collision energy (by strategically crumpling), it transmits it to the occupants.

The approach towards safety in the future is to make vehicles safer TO DRIVE. All sorts of driver aids are being added. Electronic stability control is just the beginning. Active crash prevention or mitigation strategies are already starting to show up and they will be mainstream in a few short years. If the driver doesn't brake when there is an obstacle ahead, the car will do it by itself. If the driver tries to pull out of an intersection into cross traffic, the car won't. If the driver falls asleep at the wheel, it won't go out of its lane.

If you make the car and driver together safe enough to drive, you don't need crash protection any more.

Reality is overwhelming presence of trucks and SUVs, not Jetsons robots. I want a chance with hip airbags to survive today's 33% rate of occurrence of utterly unpreventable side impact collisions for example. I'd like to have a knee airbag since my knee is pretty well jammed on the dash.

thebigarniedog said:

Stated differently, it is my opinion that it is a marketing mistake by VW to do this, in that you suppress people from buying the current mk6 design with the current problems and the current tdi engine and you allow people who decide to waite to consider other car options during this time period (ie Mazda/GM 2014 diesel offerings as an example).

Click to expand...

I don't think the timing is going to be that big of an issue since it appears that the Golf VII should be on market about the same time as the Mazda sky-active D and the Chevy Cruise D. Assuming of course that the mazda and chevy actually make it here and that the Golf VII introduction into North America doesn't get delayed by a year, which has happened in the past.

Simply put, weight costs fuel efficiency, and weight costs $$$ in extra material costs. It used to be that extra mass in a car would somewhat improve safety, as long as you hit a lighter car, as you would not decelerate as quickly as it would. Then came crash testing, which helped designers understand what was happening, but it was always too late in the development cycle to do much good until the next design came out. But these days, because of the extensive use of entirely modeling of entire cars in CAD, proior to manufacture, and the ability to run very accurate crash simulations virtually, cars can be made with specific high-strength materials only where needed, and then lightened wherever possible. In reality, physical crash tests now are done as much to verify the software crash algorithyms as anything else. Different materials and structure designs can be added and then crashed virtually to judge their worth. Anyone who has been driving for 40+ years can testify to how much safer cars are today then back in the day, and they continue to get better. Bottom line...cars CAN AND WILL continue to get lighter while also getting even safer (and more fuel efficient as a result). The only real trade-off is that costs will continue to rise.

50 year technology gap: 59 Chevy vs 2009 Malibu crash test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

Hey guys, what about more air bags? Hip, knee? Even Cruze is keeping up with Mercedes with 11. VW is chintzing on safety. I'd pay more gladly.

Cars aren't like iPhones. It's not easy to cover up when a new model will be released and it's generally fairly clear when a new model won't be released. I don't see a marketing mistake here. I see the automotive business. I'm sure VW is fully aware of the relationship between early release of model info vs. sales rates.

ssamalin said:

Hey guys, what about more air bags? Hip, knee? Even Cruze is keeping up with Mercedes with 11. VW is chintzing on safety. I'd pay more gladly.

Click to expand...

The MQB platform can be equipped up to 20. There are MB models that go up to 28, future models ask for up to 32.

But it's mainly not about number of airbags these days, but sensing and discrimination performace. You would not believe the complexity of a modern crash algorithm.

So airbag count is expected to increase in the MQB?

According to vw.com:

- Jetta TDI: 3,161 lbs.
- Golf TDI: 2,994 (2-door); 3,073 (4-door)
- JSW: 3,283 lbs.
- Passat: 3,360 lbs.

All lowest trim level, manual transmission. Folks here report MT uses less fuel, and that the Golf seems to get significantly better FE than the JSW. So weight matters. Adding airbags or other safety stuff will add weight. But I guess we'll get what we get.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

Folks here report MT uses less fuel, and that the Golf seems to get significantly better FE than the JSW. So weight matters. Adding airbags or other safety stuff will add weight. But I guess we'll get what we get.

Click to expand...

I see a mile or two better with my golf than the jsw. Not sure that's significant.

Maybe not for you. Weight can matter more or less depending on driving style and conditions. It's just like folks who do (and don't) lose FE when going to larger, heavier wheels and tires. The change you see will vary depending on a lot of factors. But all other things being equal a lighter car will use less fuel than a heavier one. I agree with earlier posts that making cars more fully equipped and heavier is at odds with increasing fuel economy.

Our drivetrains are way more efficient than, say, 20 years ago. But since our cars are heavier we haven't seen huge gains in FE. The Lupo (out of production) was pretty similar in size and weight to a MKI Rabbit. The Rabbit diesel got about 42 MPG. The Lupo got as much as low 70s.

I wish my '12 Golf was smaller. I would have bought a diesel Lupo in a heartbeat if it had been available. If VW makes that MKVII cars lighter that's a big plus in my book.

ssamalin said:

So airbag count is expected to increase in the MQB?

Click to expand...

Well, not all are "airbags", but "active devices". Seatbelt pretensioners, steering column collapsing devices, active headrest actuators, pedestrian protection hood actuators etc... all add into that count. Frontal airbags count for 2, as they are dual-stage.

Generally, yes, count is going up over the years at all carmakers. But again, the major improvement comes from algorithms from now on. There is pre-crash detection and activation. There are *very* sophysticated roll-crash algorithms in the market. Side algorithms are pre-armed by vehicle dynamics information. Algortihms that follow pitch-over events and airborn vehicle dynamics.

I'm not at liberty to discuss specifics (I have a couple of VW MQB airbag control units on my desk, as well as others, as I write this), but take it from me, there is definitely progress in safety despite the weight reduction.

If I hear anymore GTD news i'll be posting it on this Thread. I'll also be attending the VW FreeDriving Tour in Toronto. Anyone else going?

Also, if weight reduction is a problem (won't be for the vast majority of users here, I suspect), there are always plenty of other choices available to you on the market. Could always move up to a Passat. No one is forcing you to opt for a Mk7.

I, for one, welcome the reduction - better mileage and much more nimble for starters..

manual Passat or Tiguan MKVII, knee and hip airbag, AWD = ssamalin-mobile 2014. Don't forget the "Mr Fusion" drive.

if weight= safety, then why not go the whole hog for a Mack or Kenworth. They are diesel, after all.

sent an email to vw canada requesting gtd. we're coming at'em from all angles. looks promising. finally something to satisfy my diesel mid-life crisis since the beemer msport tri-turbo wagon isn't showing up!

I don't even wanna know what VW will price the GTD at if they bring it over, lol.

because you don't have to have a CDL to drive a Jetta.

2dr,awd, dsg,turbo diesel. Bring it and I'll buy it.