VW Still Believes In Diesels; Unveils New 2.0 TDI Mild Hybrid

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
You need to get to the gym and do some right leg presses.

The amount of work done feathering along a car doing a 2 legged 3 pedal dance is way more than pushing/lifting from a powered brake pedal.
Funny, that seems like what you need. My quads are quite powerful thank you.


I am certain the best transmission is a manual for most applications. The car companies have made it a common belief, and enormous expense, especially since 0-60 time, which is better with automatics, is an almost meaningless statistic especially when comparing the two on the same car otherwise.


Cheers.


TM
 

DPM

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 16, 2001
Location
Newtownards, N. Ireland
TDI
2019 Rav4 AWD Hybrid, Citroen C4 BlueHDI
yet it becomes ever more difficult to comply with emissions regs with a randomer's right and left feet in control.
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
yet it becomes ever more difficult to comply with emissions regs with a randomer's right and left feet in control.
Yes. The EU and EPA fuel economy cycles are different and manufacturers can set it up for each market to get maximum fuel economy.

For example, our Lexus C200h had the same drivetrain and a smaller body/chassis yet the Prius got 4-5 mpg better. The C200h was a design for Europe which Lexus decided later to import to NA. We got the same fuel economy, easily over 50 mpg, with it.

TM
 

ranger pete

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Location
connecticut
TDI
2011 JSW 6MT
Funny, that seems like what you need. My quads are quite powerful thank you.


I am certain the best transmission is a manual for most applications. The car companies have made it a common belief, and enormous expense, especially since 0-60 time, which is better with automatics, is an almost meaningless statistic especially when comparing the two on the same car otherwise.


Cheers.


TM


TM,

I am not trying to make a case for autos. I prefer Manuals myself and driven properly, they do perform better, although the autos are getting very good. I just fail to see how all that clutching is easier than simply resting your foot on the brake, lifting it now and then to inch forward.

If you are referring to traffic that is very heavy, but moving continually, I see your point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
TM,

I am not trying to make a case for autos. I prefer Manuals myself and driven properly, they do perform better, although the autos are getting very good. I just fail to see how all that clutching is easier than simply resting your foot on the brake, lifting it now and then to inch forward.

If you are referring to traffic that is very heavy, but moving continually, I see your point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes. The new automatics, especially BMW/ZF 8 speed types, are pretty good - but that is not my preference either. I can see how one would get annoyed with multiple shifts, but my experience is this helps in other ways. I wouldn't buy a manual Suburban either although light and heavy trucks with manuals are still a thing. Autos are expensive to fix and maintain, and their cost is built in to new car pricing.

TM
 

ranger pete

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Location
connecticut
TDI
2011 JSW 6MT
Funny, that seems like what you need. My quads are quite powerful thank you.


I am certain the best transmission is a manual for most applications. The car companies have made it a common belief, and enormous expense, especially since 0-60 time, which is better with automatics, is an almost meaningless statistic especially when comparing the two on the same car otherwise.


Cheers.


TM
Been a while since I checked in on this thread.

Has there been any further discussion of a hybrid diesel? Seems to me that VW has gone all in on the EV bandwagon.

Still want to know where we are going to get all the raw materials for the trillions of lithium cells we are talking about? Or the electricity after we shut down all the evil carbon based generation. Imagine millions of EVs plugged in at night when all those PV cells are doing squat.

I know, we'll all have Elon's cool powerwalls hanging in our garage to charge them. There's another few trillion cells.

If we are gonna go all EV, we better pull our heads out of our asses and start building nuke plants again.

BTW, all that braking and clutching has nothing to do with quad strength. If you are using your quads, pretty sure you're doing it wrong. ;)
 

atc98002

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Location
Auburn WA
TDI
2014 Passat TDI SEL Premium (sold back), 2009 Jetta (sold back), 80 Rabbit diesel (long gone)
Yeah, I think VW isn't going to come back with a new diesel, especially in the US. The writing is on the wall, and EVs are the direction we're all going. I have to say I enjoy driving an EV almost as much as I enjoyed my torquey TDIs. I just wish I had the same range. Someday perhaps...
 

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
Wasn't part of the dieselgate settlement that VW had to invest a bucketload of money into the electric grid and vehicles in North America.
 

nwdiver

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Location
Eunice
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI (sold); 2012 Tesla Model S
If we are gonna go all EV, we better pull our heads out of our asses and start building nuke plants again.
Why? Wasn't the schtick against renewables that we don't have the storage? EVs are storage. So now the argument is that if we're going to have storage we need nukes?

When there's sun or wind the energy from sun or wind is ~80% cheaper than the energy from new nuclear. And unlike most electric demand you can easily shift when EVs use energy to when there is a surplus of solar or wind. Why pay ~5x more per kWh for nuclear?
 

[486]

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Location
MN
TDI
02 golf ALH
Why? Wasn't the schtick against renewables that we don't have the storage? EVs are storage.
they are plugged in at night and not during the day
kinda the exact opposite of what is needed
 

nwdiver

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Location
Eunice
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI (sold); 2012 Tesla Model S
they are plugged in at night and not during the day
kinda the exact opposite of what is needed
Maybe in Southern CA... not in the other ~80% of the country. SPP has too much wind from ~midnight to 6am most nights now. The other day ~30GWh was curtailed. That could have charged ~600,000 EVs and cost nothing. It was energy that was simply wasted because it had no where to go. This is a 'problem' that is getting exponentially 'worse' with every GW of wind added to the grid.

But even in places with more sun than wind... my office had EV charging. Why not make that the norm? Plug in during the day at work.

 

atc98002

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Location
Auburn WA
TDI
2014 Passat TDI SEL Premium (sold back), 2009 Jetta (sold back), 80 Rabbit diesel (long gone)
Wasn't part of the dieselgate settlement that VW had to invest a bucketload of money into the electric grid and vehicles in North America.
Yes, that's where the initial funding for Electrify America and Electrify Canada came from. Not certain if they are still funding it or if they met the settlement requirements and it's now operating on its own. In my experience the network works fine, but reading EV forums there are a lot of complaints about non-functional stations.
 

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
Maybe in Southern CA... not in the other ~80% of the country. SPP has too much wind from ~midnight to 6am most nights now. The other day ~30GWh was curtailed. That could have charged ~600,000 EVs and cost nothing. It was energy that was simply wasted because it had no where to go. This is a 'problem' that is getting exponentially 'worse' with every GW of wind added to the grid.

But even in places with more sun than wind... my office had EV charging. Why not make that the norm? Plug in during the day at work.

You rehash the same old arguments. The issue is not power generation by either solar or wind but how to store it and make it available during peak demand.
 

nwdiver

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Location
Eunice
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI (sold); 2012 Tesla Model S
You rehash the same old arguments. The issue is not power generation by either solar or wind but how to store it and make it available during peak demand.
The first 'problem' is surplus. Storage is pointless without surplus and EVs can 100% help with that, newer cars with 'V2G' like the Ford Lightning can even do exactly what you're describing.

You're confused by how storage is best used. It's purpose is not to 'make it available during peak demand.' It is to 'time-shift' renewable energy. Take kWh when there's too much and discharge it when it's actually useful. EVs are perfect for that task. Gas Turbines are the tool you use to meet peak demand. Batteries are more incidental since the best time to discharge them so they can absorb more surplus is during peak demand.
 
Last edited:

ranger pete

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Location
connecticut
TDI
2011 JSW 6MT
Or wasting money on nuclear reactors...
Wasting money?

We already have stockpiles of fuel for latest generation nuke reactors in the form of "nuke waste". Building these plants kills two birds with one stone.

Nuke power is the safest form of power we've ever made. And they produce power WHEN it is needed. As for its cost, a good bit of it is in battling legal challenges from idiots who profess to be for "green" power. *** is green about clear cutting forests for solar farms? Or ginormous bird killers?

The idea that we can make enough batteries to power the grid is silly. Production of batteries is expensive and they are made using "precious" metals. There's a reason they're called precious.

Gravity storage is the only "green" form of storage. Trouble is, it only works in some places and on a large scale.
 

turbobrick240

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Location
maine
TDI
2011 vw golf tdi(gone to greener pastures), 2001 ford f250 powerstroke
Is iron a precious metal? Because that's the primary metal that is going into the LFP batteries that will make up the vast majority of future energy storage projects.
 
Last edited:

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
It's not the primary metal that's the issue. It's the auxiliary metals that are needed to control the stability of the change and the rates of charging and discharging.
 

nwdiver

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Location
Eunice
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI (sold); 2012 Tesla Model S
Wasting money?

We already have stockpiles of fuel for latest generation nuke reactors in the form of "nuke waste". Building these plants kills two birds with one stone.

Nuke power is the safest form of power we've ever made. And they produce power WHEN it is needed. As for its cost, a good bit of it is in battling legal challenges from idiots who profess to be for "green" power. *** is green about clear cutting forests for solar farms? Or ginormous bird killers?

The idea that we can make enough batteries to power the grid is silly. Production of batteries is expensive and they are made using "precious" metals. There's a reason they're called precious.

Gravity storage is the only "green" form of storage. Trouble is, it only works in some places and on a large scale.
It will cost ~$120/MWh to turn that fuel into electricity while wind and solar are now as cheap as $20/MWh and costs are still trending down. Look at Vogtle and VC Summer. $40B down the tubes, not a kWh to show for it and they had no significant 'legal challenges' from any environmental groups. Why not use solar as covered parking or on roofs then put wind turbines in range land or far offshore? No trees are cut, no birds killed and we'd still have more energy than we could possibly use.

Who says we need only 'batteries'? We just need to 'time shift' demand or supply so they match. You can charge your EV or split water into H2 or pump water up a hill or compress air in huge underground salt caverns... etc, etc. What's silly is this notion that storing enough energy to last ~2 weeks is some insurmountable technical challenge. Our entire society has been running on mostly stored sunlight for nearly 100 years. I... I think we can find a way to store ~2 weeks worth.

AND... nuclear would require storage just as much if not more than wind or solar. Look at the South Texas Project. It costs ~$600M/yr to keep the plant operational and it doesn't much matter whether it produces 1GWh or 20,000GWh. So obviously no one is going to invest in a $30B asset unless it's used at ~100% 24/7/365. Demand isn't flat, what would increase supply when demand increases when it gets cold or hot? Not nuclear.

When supply < demand storage isn't useful for nuclear, wind or solar... they all just use gas turbines to load-follow but $/$ wind and solar displace >4x more gas than nuclear. Economics matters.
 
Last edited:

turbocharged798

Veteran Member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Location
Ellenville, NY
TDI
99.5 black ALH Jetta;09 Gasser Jetta
Storing electrical energy is a major hurdle that really hasn't been solved. We simply cannot do it reasonably on mass scale yet. Its like saying that we must have a cure for cancer now so lets not worry about it anymore.

When texas has the major blackout and all nat gas peaker plants when down, nukes were the only ones that were still going.
 

turbobrick240

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Location
maine
TDI
2011 vw golf tdi(gone to greener pastures), 2001 ford f250 powerstroke
It's not the primary metal that's the issue. It's the auxiliary metals that are needed to control the stability of the change and the rates of charging and discharging.
I don't know which elements the Chinese are doping their LFP cathodes with in commercial production these days, but the total volume of any precious metals is extremely low. If they were using a significant amount of precious metals, the LFP chemistry would be much more attractive to battery recyclers.

 

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
I don't know which elements the Chinese are doping their LFP cathodes with in commercial production these days, but the total volume of any precious metals is extremely low. If they were using a significant amount of precious metals, the LFP chemistry would be much more attractive to battery recyclers.

I'm not disagreeing with you on either post. Just pointing out that the base metal, lead, iron, nickel, is not the controlling piece of the battery. It's merely the storage vessel, much like a fuel tank.
 

turbobrick240

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Location
maine
TDI
2011 vw golf tdi(gone to greener pastures), 2001 ford f250 powerstroke
I'm not disagreeing with you on either post. Just pointing out that the base metal, lead, iron, nickel, is not the controlling piece of the battery. It's merely the storage vessel, much like a fuel tank.
Lithium is very much the the key element in Li ion batteries. It's the transfer of Lithium ions from cathode to anode that releases the energy.

What exactly is the "controlling" piece of a LFP lithium ion battery in your view?
 

nwdiver

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Location
Eunice
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI (sold); 2012 Tesla Model S
Storing electrical energy is a major hurdle that really hasn't been solved. We simply cannot do it reasonably on mass scale yet. Its like saying that we must have a cure for cancer now so lets not worry about it anymore.

When texas has the major blackout and all nat gas peaker plants when down, nukes were the only ones that were still going.
Texas lost a nuclear unit as well. Nuclear isn't magic. And for the cost of 1GW of nuclear you can add 15GW of gas. Even if 50% failed you'd still have >7x more capacity. I mean... they were literally putting up enclosures of plastic and duct tape with space heaters instead of investing in a permanent structure to keep cold sensitive equipment from failing. But..... you think they should invest $15B per GW in nuclear???? When your old clunker breaks and you need reliable transportation you don't start shopping for Bugattis.

Storing electrical energy is not a 'major hurdle'. The main reason we don't have GWhs of storage is because there's currently no rational use for GWhs of storage. Why spend $2B on storage when $500M on winterization would accomplish the same task? What exactly would storage be used for now? To supply the grid when there isn't enough wind or solar? What charges the batteries? Wind or solar? So we should use renewables to charge a battery to displace 0.9MWh of gas later instead of 1MWh of gas now? ..... why? Do you see why we don't have storage?

It's just math. Do you spend $1M to add 1MW of wind or solar to reduce gas use by ~4GWh/yr saving $120,000/yr in fuel OR do you spend it on a battery to save ~$15,000 in capacity costs? $120k vs $15k. Storage will make sense when there is sufficient wind or solar curtailment that it makes sense. As I sit here I could not kill a bear. Does that mean killing bears is a 'major hurdle' or that I have no need to kill a bear? When I was camping in Montana I had the ability to kill a bear. When we're throwing out ~30GWh of surplus wind or solar every day.... we'll have ~30GWh of storage.
 
Last edited:

turbocharged798

Veteran Member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Location
Ellenville, NY
TDI
99.5 black ALH Jetta;09 Gasser Jetta
Texas lost a nuclear unit as well. Nuclear isn't magic. And for the cost of 1GW of nuclear you can add 15GW of gas. Even if 50% failed you'd still have >7x more capacity. I mean... they were literally putting up enclosures of plastic and duct tape with space heaters instead of investing in a permanent structure to keep cold sensitive equipment from failing. But..... you think they should invest $15B per GW in nuclear???? When your old clunker breaks and you need reliable transportation you don't start shopping for Bugattis.
Only one nuke went down, so you just proved my point. If it wasn't for the nukes, there would have been a complete grid failure. Nat gas plants are based on a single point of failure, the fuel source. Loose that source and its all over. Yes you should absolutely invest in nukes, they will outlast nat gas plants many times, the problem is that ROI on nukes is much higher but the initial investment is very high so the payback is much longer. Investors don't like that risk and rather would have a shorter but less payback. Nat gas plans have their purpose but are not a replacement for nukes.
Storing electrical energy is not a 'major hurdle'. The main reason we don't have GWhs of storage is because there's currently no rational use for GWhs of storage. Why spend $2B on storage when $500M on winterization would accomplish the same task? What exactly would storage be used for now? To supply the grid when there isn't enough wind or solar? What charges the batteries? Wind or solar? So we should use renewables to charge a battery to displace 0.9MWh of gas later instead of 1MWh of gas now? ..... why? Do you see why we don't have storage?
If that's the case then you should tell all the companies that are investing millions into energy storage research that its just not needed. You have solar panels that work in the dark too? So your plan is to put 100% reliance on nat-gas plants to provide when solar and wind don't. That will work great if the gas network goes down and the grid will basically collapse.
It's just math. Do you spend $1M to add 1MW of wind or solar to reduce gas use by ~4GWh/yr saving $120,000/yr in fuel OR do you spend it on a battery to save ~$15,000 in capacity costs? $120k vs $15k. Storage will make sense when there is sufficient wind or solar curtailment that it makes sense. As I sit here I could not kill a bear. Does that mean killing bears is a 'major hurdle' or that I have no need to kill a bear? When I was camping in Montana I had the ability to kill a bear. When we're throwing out ~30GWh of surplus wind or solar every day.... we'll have ~30GWh of storage.
I thought you said we don't need storage? So why are we talking about storage? I agree with your statement about math. When you overproduce you need to save it for periods of underproduction. Oh that sounds like we need storage now. Oh wait, lets put all the eggs in one basket and when our nat gas system fails for any reason we will have complete and total destruction of our energy grid.

This thread has been seriously derailed....
 

nwdiver

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Location
Eunice
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI (sold); 2012 Tesla Model S
This thread has been seriously derailed....
Blame Ranger Pete. I'm just correcting misinformation. Texas lost ~25% of nuke capacity and ~25% of gas capacity. It's not like gas was gone and with proper winterization they would have been fine. I'm guessing that if insulating a few pipes isn't something they're interested in spending money on they're REALLY not going to want to invest in a fission plant that cost ~15x more than a gas plant....

Point is that any investment in nuclear would yield ~4x more in gas, wind, solar and eventually storage in terms of emissions reduction and reliability. Nuclear is just welfare with extra steps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top