2008 Jetta TDI sighted!!! (pics)

[jayp111]

Lets get it straight. Ostracizing SUV's serves great purpose and will effectively help the big picture.

TM

Now you're talkin' TM!

Wanna guess how many TDI's you can build from a single Ford Valdez <lol>

 

[Tin Man]

Now you're talkin' TM!

Wanna guess how many TDI's you can build from a single Ford Valdez <lol>

LOL!

Hey, that Audi 4wd ubercruiser wasn't an SUV!

TM

 

[jayp111]

If the 2008 CR TDI Jetta is successfully marketed in 50 states and Canada, it will spur competition in its segment for fuel economy.

What we really need, like rotarykid and others say, is a complete overhaul of all vehicle lines, not just large SUV's and light trucks.

But bashing SUV's will create the impression that that is our only vehicle related oil consumption problem. It is not.

TM

Yup, I would have to agree with all of the above but the SUV is the low hanging fruit and will by far make the biggest impact.

 

[jayp111]

LOL!

Hey, that Audi 4wd ubercruiser wasn't an SUV!

TM

No, but it gets ****e for MPG.....

<lol> "Ubercruiser" <lol>

 

[Tin Man]

Yup, I would have to agree with all of the above but the SUV is the low hanging fruit and will by far make the biggest impact.

Yeah, but where are the CR TDI Jetta's of the SUV/truck variety?

All we have are super expensive thirsty V10 Touaregs (yech!) and big bruisers from the likes of the big 2.5, Toyota, Nissan, and Mercedes. No CR for Joe pickup truck, yet. Have you seen what a joke the "light hybrid" GM trucks are!?

TM

 

[Tin Man]

Seeing that Fords Model T got the same mpg as the avg passengers cars gets today (25 mpg) and this country has been to the moon many times before I was born I believe theres forces behind suppressing this technology.

I'd love for a Twin Turbo in-line six diesel to be placed in an SUV....I'd have soooo much fun with it and get some serious mpg's

Good point. Trouble is, we can't even build a high tech Model T because of the extra weight the safety ****'s require. Look at Rabbits and Corollas as the new Model T's!

Oh, and an in-line 6 probably doesn't need a twin turbo, does it? A single turbo will do the job. But such vehicle won't really get great mpg's compared to a Pius.

TM

 

[jayp111]

Yeah, but where are the CR TDI Jetta's of the SUV/truck variety?

All we have are super expensive thirsty V10 Touaregs (yech!) and big bruisers from the likes of the big 2.5, Toyota, Nissan, and Mercedes. No CR for Joe pickup truck, yet. Have you seen what a joke the "light hybrid" GM trucks are!?

TM

V10 Toureg <ich>

I would <kill> for a Toyota hilux extracab diesel with a cap.....stripped....give me roll down windows and regular door locks......I only want 2 luxury items <A/C> and Cruise.

Lets be honest folks, a Diesel Subaru Wagon with a nice rugged clutch and a tow hitch would suit the vast majority of folks that feel the need for a Ford Valdez and anyone that claims that they need one b/c they have a "litter" of kids should go back to high school sex ed and review the lesson on contraception.

GM is a dinosaur unable to adapt and thrive.....its gonna die a slow death unless it learns to innovate and learn to be profitable on vehicles other than the SUV.

 

[AutoDiesel]

Nice car but it reminds me of a bumpersticker I saw the other day.

Support a Terrorist....Drive an SUV

You just live in the wrong part of the country.

98% of the oil I use is from either Alaska or Canada.

The other 2% is saved by only having a 4 mile commute.

That sticker is nothing but political hyperbole.

 

[jackbombay]

TinMan, do you honestly consider asking people to drive fuel efficient vehicles to be on par with asking people to not heat their homes during the winter? Home heating oil is a necessity, gas guzzlers are not...

 

[jayp111]

You just live in the wrong part of the country.

98% of the oil I use is from either Alaska or Canada.

The other 2% is saved by only having a 4 mile commute.

That sticker is nothing but political hyperbole.

It may be hyperbole to you but for the other 90+% of the US its an unfortunate truth.

 

[MrMopar]

You just live in the wrong part of the country.

98% of the oil I use is from either Alaska or Canada.

The other 2% is saved by only having a 4 mile commute.

That sticker is nothing but political hyperbole.

I don't want to fan the flames, but your consumption of "American" oil means that someone else must be using foreign oil to counter your demand.

It's the same way that Congress regulates *everything* under the BS guise of regulating interstate commerce. A farmer who grows wheat on his own property and uses it to feed his cattle still has to comply with regulations (during the Great Depression) for federal crop price controls. The reasoning being that if the farmer didn't grow his own wheat, he'd have to buy from someone else. Thus, his use of home grown wheat means that his actions are connected to interstate commerce.

If you use 1,000 gallons of fuel a year (don't know your specific amount) you thus remove 1,000 gallons of fuel from the market for other people to buy. That means an additional 1,000 gallons of fuel must be made from imports, compared to the situation if (very unlikely) you used zero fuel.

Saying that the fuel you personally use doesn't come from foreign sources doesn't do a thing for reducing overall consumption. That being said, you're doing excellent work driving a TDI to keep your fuel consumption as low as possible

 

[MrMopar]

TinMan, do you honestly consider asking people to drive fuel efficient vehicles to be on par with asking people to not heat their homes during the winter? Home heating oil is a necessity, gas guzzlers are not...

I'd like to see some serious federal tax credits made available to help people remove oil fired furnaces, and replace them with geothermal heat pumps.

 

[jayp111]

I'd like to see some serious federal tax credits made available to help people remove oil fired furnaces, and replace them with geothermal heat pumps.

Lots of folks can't afford the investment.....I like the idea and think incentive is the right way to go but at the same time we should ALSO be pushing folks that cannot afford it to transition to Bioheat (Biodiesel offsetting some % of HSD that is used in furnaces).

 

[Bob_Fout]

I'd like to see some serious federal tax credits made available to help people remove oil fired furnaces, and replace them with geothermal heat pumps.

Today's furnaces are 98% efficient...geothermal heat here in IL...where?

 

[Tin Man]

Tin Man, do you honestly consider asking people to drive fuel efficient vehicles to be on par with asking people to not heat their homes during the winter? Home heating oil is a necessity, gas guzzlers are not...

Replace them with non-oil using heat, not eliminate heating altogether. I know the alternatives aren't that much better, but at least we won't be so dependent on imported oil.

I don't know of any new home builders that put in oil furnaces.

Sheesh.

 

[Txst]

Folks,
To actually know what a reasonable fully developed industrialized society should be using energy-wise is probably beyond the scope of this forum.

One thing that is not beyond the scope of this forum is stating the obvious: It is no secret that big trucks with huge fat tires and SUV's waste a great amount of fuel. No ifs, ands or buts about it. That is a known fact.

To parallel NickLockard, many of you can't even do basic Math.

It doesn't take a math expert to know that these vehicles waste huge amounts of fuel. Just takes some basic common sense and some eyes.

So lets just blame the US. Its a lot easier.

Haven't read anyone say it was only a problem here in the U.S. It just so happens that we live here and so can actually make a difference here. Other countries have to answer for themselves. Maybe we could actually lead something instead of running from the truth.

Sure, every bit helps.

Now you're getting it!!!

Lets shut down all entertainment, like racing, because it uses oil. No more movie stars taking their jets to remote locations. Oh, and next will be the RV people. Lets get them to scrap their hobbies. Fuggetabout antique cars, taking cruises, vacation travel, and building anything larger than 2000 square feet that is further than bicycle distance from work. Yay! Purity is a virtue, right?

Now don't completely lose it and go off the deep end. Lets start by making smart purchases of economical vehicles and turn away from the gas hogs that fill our roads. If we can accomplish that...we can greatly improve things, it's a perfect place to start. After that? Who knows, we might actually see other areas of improvement follow close behind. One step at a time in the right direction would be just fine,....keeping the status quo or going backwards is not.

Lets get it straight. Ostracizing SUV's serves great purpose and will effectively help the big picture.

Right on...you're really catching on now!!! And you didn't even need a calculator for it!!! There is hope after all!!

Texas T

 

[Tin Man]

One thing that is not beyond the scope of this forum is stating the obvious: It is no secret that big trucks with huge fat tires and SUV's waste a great amount of fuel. No ifs, ands or buts about it. That is a known fact.



It doesn't take a math expert to know that these vehicles waste huge amounts of fuel. Just takes some basic common sense and some eyes.



Haven't read anyone say it was only a problem here in the U.S. It just so happens that we live here and so can actually make a difference here. Other countries have to answer for themselves. Maybe we could actually lead something instead of running from the truth.



Now you're getting it!!!



Now don't completely lose it and go off the deep end. Lets start by making smart purchases of economical vehicles and turn away from the gas hogs that fill our roads. If we can accomplish that...we can greatly improve things, it's a perfect place to start. After that? Who knows, we might actually see other areas of improvement follow close behind. One step at a time in the right direction would be just fine,....keeping the status quo or going backwards is not.



Right on...you're really catching on now!!! And you didn't even need a calculator for it!!! There is hope after all!!

Texas T

Unfortunately, Txst, I could not make myself any more clear. Sorry that you can't understand what is being said. It seems you have little regard for those that you think don't agree with you and little insight in understanding those that do.

TM

 

[jackbombay]

Today's furnaces are 98% efficient...geothermal heat here in IL...where?

"Heat pumps" don't need hot ground to function, they run like a refrigerator, but in reverse. I know of a few such systems around here, $400 to heat a 2,500 SF house for a year here, our winters are very long and cold. They are expensive systems to install though.

 

[Tin Man]

"Heat pumps" don't need hot ground to function, they run like a refrigerator, but in reverse. I know of a few such systems around here, $400 to heat a 2,500 SF house for a year here, our winters are very long and cold. They are expensive systems to install though.

Yeah, I wish it was a bit easier to convert to energy efficient tech. I looked into it too.

Being such a mobile society, it also makes less sense to put the money into a house that may be sold in 5 years.

TM

 

[nawlej]

I just want to get one of those CR 140hp TDI's in a Golf (with a 6-speed tranny too). That will be sweet ...

 

[Txst]

Unfortunately, Txst, I could not make myself any more clear. Sorry that you can't understand what is being said. TM

I understood perfectly what was being said. I just totally disagreed with your statements in that post and made it clear as to why. Nothing personal...it just didn't make sense. Others were trying to get through, but to no avail...so I added my view. You make good points in other posts...just not in this case. (That bit about many members here not knowing basic math was way out of line and uncalled for, even if it were true.)
Cheers

Texas T

 

[Tin Man]

I understood perfectly what was being said. I just totally disagreed with your statements in that post and made it clear as to why. Nothing personal...it just didn't make sense. Others were trying to get through, but to no avail...so I added my view. You make good points in other posts...just not in this case. (That bit about most members here not knowing basic math was way out of line and uncalled for.)
Cheers

Texas T

Trouble is, your posts seem to speak to things that were not even close to what was being said.

Example: Most of my posts refer to SUV's as guzzlers and try to solve the problem. Yet you then type nonsense about disagreeing with me by proclaiming that SUV's are wasteful as if somehow I said that they are not.

You need to get on the ball.

TM

 

[Tin Man]

TM, you were in the Philly/Balt/DC area for a few days while dropping off the daughter at college. Do you recall the insane # of SUV's that folks used to commute to and from work with NOTHING in them but a single driver?

By my guesstimate/observation in this area at LEAST 1 in 4 vehicles that I share the road with each morning/evening are 15 MPG SUV's and none of them are used for much other than commuting....what a waste.

I noticed a lot of insane things. Traffic up the wazoo. Everywhere you need to go requires a drive, often of at least a half hour. Sure, lots of SUV's but not perhaps one in four. I honestly had enough trouble finding my way with the crazy street signs and cow path routes to see how many passengers in each behemoth.

Maybe some of us are like my wife, who weighs 88 lbs. She picks out the fat person out of a crowd and amazes herself at their grotesqueness.

Lots of Piuses and VW's also, but not enough of them diesel it seemed. Too much braking. I'm spoiled around here where just about everything in town is 10 minutes away and traffic is 5 cars.

I believe VW may have a winner if their Jetta CD TDI can be properly marketed in this area since there are so many VW's.

TM

 

[Txst]

Trouble is, your posts seem to speak to things that were not even close to what was being said.

Example: Most of my posts refer to SUV's as guzzlers and try to solve the problem. You need to get on the ball.

TM

Let's see, you said that we should forget about them (the SUV's). Check out post #319 where you tell us twice to forget about SUV's! And now you claim that you are trying to solve the SUV problem? Hmmmmmmm, And you say that I need to get on the ball?! Are you OK? Do you read your own posts? I addressed the topic of discussion perfectly and it went right along with what others were trying to get through to you. And you did say that many here don't even understand basic math (your post #331). Did I misunderstand you on that as well? Or is this just a new game of escapism and denial?

 

[FL2AK-tdi]

Last time I checked earthmen have been using atomic energy to harness it's energy for far longer then they have ever used it to kill people.
What planet are you from?

We do use atomic power. We use it to power aircraft carriers so we can send planes to kill people. We use it to power submarines so we can launch missles to kill people.

We even use atomic power to generate elctricity. Oh wait..how many of those plants are there? Not many? Hmmmm...I wonder why.

I think that is the point I wanted to make. I wasn't saying that there are NO nuclear powerplants in the country. I wanted to say that we do not use that technology enough. There should not be a single petroleum based powerplant in America, anywhere.

With the newest technology, the need for heavy water cooling is eliminated, eliminating most of the safety hazard and the waste disposal problems.

Popular science did an awesome article on his in 1999, 2000, or 2001. I wish I had a link for it.

 

[nicklockard]

Vote for a carbon tax. Forget about SUV's. They will fall in line with everything else as the latest oil price spike has shown.

Did HE|| just freeze over? I *thought* I felt a chilly wind, oh my

I haven't got He||'s phone number at hand. Could someone call them and ask their temperature? I am agreeing with TM 100% here because a carbon tax is essentially EXACTLY what nhmike has been advocating in practice.

Yup, he|| MUST HAVE frozen over.

 

[MrMopar]

We even use atomic power to generate elctricity. Oh wait..how many of those plants are there? Not many? Hmmmm...I wonder why.

Not that many?

How about 104 commercial reactors in the United States, producing 97,400 megawatts of electricity - 20% of the electricity consumption in the United States. Even with 20%, our overall electricity consumption means that the United States is the biggest generator of nuclear electricity. 11 reactors alone are in Illinois (highest count in a single state in the USA) providing over 50% of the electricity in Illinois. That doesn't include the 3 that have been retired.

Look at other nations that are constrained by lack of fossil fuels. France has 58 plants supplying just under 80% of their electricity - the highest percentage of any nation. The United Kingdom generates just under 20% of their electricity with 23 reactors. Finland has 4 reactors, supplying 27% of their electricity. Lots of other countries in Europe depend on nuclear power to supply sizeable percentages of their electricity consumption, without any feasable way to harness other sources in short time frames.

Looking forward, the US Dept. Of Energy predicts electricity demand to grow by 25% in the USA by the year 2020. Expansion of nuclear power is all but guaranteed. When the nearest plant to my home was built in the 1980s, a second concrete foundation was poured to plan for a second reactor to be built. This never happened for various reasons, but that very plant has a site survey underway to plan for a new reactor in the next 10 years.

 

[AutoDiesel]

Saying that the fuel you personally use doesn't come from foreign sources doesn't do a thing for reducing overall consumption. That being said, you're doing excellent work driving a TDI to keep your fuel consumption as low as possible

I don't agree with your analogies, but I do understand were
you are coming from.
My point was a response to the "if you drive a SUV you must
be funding terrorists" comment. Which is BS.

Reducing consumption is easy.
It just takes choices that most people are not willing to make.
And is sure doesn't mean anyone has to make sacrifices.
I've even been using B20 in our Golf lately without much
ill effect.

And take that Audi A8.
I bet they will bring over their excellent 4.2L TDi version
in the next couple of years.

I just don't know if I can wait that long.

 

[MrMopar]

Today's furnaces are 98% efficient...geothermal heat here in IL...where?

Anywhere that you can bury a heat exchange coil. Or drill a couple of groundwater wells. Or maybe if your property has a deep enough pond, you can use the water as a heat sink/heat source.

Heat pumps use the constant underground temperature of a huge mass of soil as the energy source. In Central Illinois, the underground temperature is about 60 degrees once you get below the frost line (36 inches). In the summer, heat energy is pulled out of the air inside of the house and the coolant loop buried under the ground is used to dump that heat into the surrounding soil. In the winter, the heat is pulled out of the ground and used to heat the air inside of the house. This is a simple example of a buried coolant loop system.

My parents are looking at replacing their 15 year old furnace and air conditioner, and they're taking a good look at a heat pump for environmental concerns along with energy costs. The system they're studying is one that uses water from wells because the water table is very high on their property. In this case, two wells are drilled about 100 feet apart. Water is pumped out of one well, and is used either as a heat source in the winter or as a coolant source in the summer. The water is then discharged into the second well, or discharged on the ground if that's environmentally feasable such as if you live near a stream or creek. My parents house is very near a stream, so they'll probably drill one well and discharge the water into the drain that carries the rain gutter water back into the woods.

The last choice is using a pond as a heat sink. Water decreases in density as it cools until it reaches 4 degrees C. That means in a pond that doesn't freeze solid, the coldest the water will get at the bottom is 4 degrees C. If the pond is deep enough, it will be even warmer because the deep water will be warmed a bit by the heat from the earth. The way to use the pond as a heat sink is to have a heat exchanger set at the bottom with pipes running the coolant through it. The water is used as a heat sink in the summer, and as a heat source in the winter (because the water is warmer than the surrounding air).

The single downside to all this is the upfront cost of installation. The system my parents are looking at will run about $4,500 from their quotes. That includes drilling a well for the water source, and all the hardware. Buried coolant loop systems are more expensive to install, and can't be easily added to existing construction in some cases. It's easy to have this built into a house during initial construction, and then the cost can be spread out over the morgage too.

The upside of the cost my parents will pay is that heating and cooling costs for their 1970s 1,400 square foot house with very poor insulation will run about $30-40 per month. That's the cost of the electricity to run the pumps, and perhaps a little electric boost heat on some very cold winter nights when the pump won't be able to keep up with peak demand. I think they currently pay about $170 monthly for combined electric and gas, so figure maybe on a savings of $80-100 per month. With a lower savings of $75, figure a 66 month ROI for $5,000 upfront cost. After that, it pays money directly into even more future savings.

The expense is why I said I'd like to see massive tax credits available for converting to geothermal energy. Cut down on homeowners tax bills so that they can put the money directly into the heating and cooling system. Coupled with some low interest government loans, the savings could pay back the loans and from that point on utility bills would be lower for the homeowners.

Replace them with non-oil using heat, not eliminate heating altogether. I know the alternatives aren't that much better, but at least we won't be so dependent on imported oil.

Not really feasable. The reason most people have oil heat is that they live in rural areas of the Northeast where natural gas isn't available because pipes don't exist. Three sources of non-oil heat exist: propane, electricity, and coal.

Propane isn't cheap, and it has fewer BTUs per gallon delivered to the house.

Electricity isn't cheap either. Probably $0.15 per kWh in the Northeast, or even higher rates. That, and direct heating by electricity isn't environmentally friendly. Most of the electricity is generated remotely by fossil fuel generators. Up to 2/3 of the energy in the fuel can be lost at the power station and in transmisson of the electricity. Here in Central Illinois the electric company has space heating rates of $0.025 per kWh for five months of the year, but that's mainly to keep up demand for electricity during the winter so they can operate their nuclear plants at 100% capacity to maximize operating expenditures. That, and the rate hikes coming January 1st from deregulation (50% rate hikes!!!) means that electric heating is going to get more expensive. No guarantees that the electric company will keep their separate space heating rates in place.

Coal is probably cheap for some people in the Northeast, but it's really a pain in the butt. My parents have a wood burning stove that can also burn coal, so for quite a few years we'd get truckloads of coal from coal mines nearby in Central and Southern Illinois. Stoking the fire was easy because we usually used the fireplace during periods when people were home for long times, but coal was still dirty and heavy to handle. Lots of manual labor required means that you can't really depend on coal as your primary heating source. Other methods mean you can set the thermostat and walk out of the house for a week on business.

 

[AutoDiesel]

Trouble is, your posts seem to speak to things that were not even close to what was being said.

Example: Most of my posts refer to SUV's as guzzlers and try to solve the problem. Yet you then type nonsense about disagreeing with me by proclaiming that SUV's are wasteful as if somehow I said that they are not.

You need to get on the ball.

TM

It's no good TM.

He's not worth arguing with.

There is no rational thought there.

Hopefully he'll just move on soon to his
next cause célèbre.

We will just continue driving our diesels as we have been
doing for a long time and watch as more choices arrive on
the market providing a great new number of diesel vehicles
to choose from in the next few years.