Diesels have poor emissions vs gas ....
V6's make for better packaging and are inherently stronger than straight 6's . If the intention is racing then the v6 makes for a better power plant ..
A v12 is inherently smoother because it has an firing event every 60 deg. Vs every 120deg for a 6....
Unfortunately VW cant overcome their poor build quality , poor shifters , falling roof lines,window regulators , coils, dire plastic trim and electrics..
Transaxle cars -12- 15%
Rear driver - 18%
In the 70's Fiat made the best performing small cars 125S , 124 sport coupe , OK BDA Escorts were the dangles , but horrendously expensive ...
Very few modern cars excite , most are pretty good but , meh, exceptions of course, basic transportation newest is best , driving cars I favor most prior to 2000. Again there are some exceptions , few ...
Agree
Really ...... Very poor 914 driver ........
In fact, quite the opposite is true, at least in modern cars. Don't be fooled by what you see and smell as the black cloud behing a big truck. Almost all, except for the cheapest entry models, cars made in Europe today have particle filters installed, and their CO2 emission levels are typically lower to much lower compared to an equivalent petrol engine.
The recent trend of downsizing, which means many more petrol turbo assisted engines, have reduced petrol emissions to much lower levels, but even so, cc per cc, the diesel is still better, even if only by little.
A MOST questionable view. A straight six has 7 bearings, and a V6 has five. More bearings means smoother operation and less vibration. Try a BMW straight six - you actually have to look at the instruments to make sure it's turned on.
Again, a questionable assertion. V against straight - straight almost always wins because of more bearings. Of course, the V is used simply because haing a straight 8, let alone a straight 12, is simply highly impractical, as it would be far too long.
The V configuration is not better, it's simply much more practical. You should also look closely at boxer motors, which have a "V" of full 180 degrees; one could argue that they are the best because their cylinders and hence forces are directly opposing.
@Charles Darwin
According to the latest edition of Germany’s „Auto, Motor und Sport“ annual yearbook, listing all cars sold in Germany, Alfa Romeo’s 1750 engine develops 235 bhp at 5,500 rpm, with 300 Nm at 4,000 rpm. It powers a new Giulietta car (Golf class), weighing 1,395 kilos and does 0-100 km (0-62 milies) in 6.8 seconds, hitting 150 mph max, with an average fuel consumption of 7.6 litres and an emission of 177 mg CO2.
Since BMW just did a lot of engine changing, throwing out some older models and introducing brand new ones, I could not find a direct comparison any more, except for the series 5 limo. Their 2 litre engine produces 170 bhp at 6,700 rpm, with 210 Nm at 4,250 rpm, powering a car weighing 1,445 kilos from 0-100 km in 8.2 seconds, with a top speed of 142 mph. Consumption is claimed at 6.4 litres average, and exhaust is claimed at 144 mg.
From the figures, it’s fairly obvious that the BMW naturally aspirated engine is cleaner and uses up less fuel, but at the cost of considerable power, the Alfa’s engine being a solid 38,2% more powerful.
But, let’s try to compare nominal power for power. The same model is offered by Alfa Romeo with 170 bhp, i.e. the same as BMW, but from a turbo blown MultiAir 1.4 litre engine. Alfa states that this 1,368 cc engine, with just one OHC but still 16 valves, delivers 170 bhp at 5,500 rpm, with 230 Nm of torque at 2,250 rpm. It propels the 1,365 kg heavy car to 136 mph, doing 0-100 km in 7.8 sec. Nominal fuel consumption is 5.9 litres, and exhaust is 137 mg CO2.
This is one of the FIAT groups latest generation of engines, much cleaner and more cost effective than their old ones. They are slowly withdrawing the old generation and replacing it with the new – this same engine is available in several version, ranging from 120 to 170 bhp.
To make things more even, here’s a test result of BMW’s latest turbo blown 2 litre engine, installed in their X1 x-Drive 28i model. It delivers 245 bhp at 5,000 rpm, with 350 Nm at 1,250 rpm. The car, weighing in at 1,620 kilos, was propelled 0-100 km in 6.1 seconds, to a top speed of 150 mph.
BMW claims an average fuel consumption of 7.9 litres, but test results show that this was 10.8 litres. BMW cailms CO2 emissions as 210 mg, test results show 183 mg, considerably better than claimed, this is one VERY clean engine (as engines go).
Their model 320 sedan has a 2 litre diesel engine. It delivers 184 bhp at 4,000 rom, and 380 Nm of torque at 1,750 rpm. It is claimed to satisfy the future Euro 6 standards on emissions. The car does a very respectable 0-100 km sprint in 7.5 seconds, with a measured top speed of 146 mph. BMW sways the average fuel consumption is 4.7 litres, measured value is 7.1 litres. BMW claim emissions of just 129 CO2, measured value is 125 mg.
So, as we can see, diesel engines, albeit with a multitude of built-in filters, are in fact cleaner than petrol engines where it really matters. On the other hand, they are not nearly as economical in terms of fuel consumption as they are hyped up to be – for some reason, practically all manufacturers lie about their consumption much more than with their petrol counterparts.
This should not surprise anyone. From a humble barn workhorse, the diesel engine has been elevated to an almost racing status even in regular passenger cars, and with them, just as with their petrol bretheren, performance costs money. You wants lots of power, you have to pay, period.
Since I understand that all European governments have caught on to the diesel engine, and refusing to be diddled out of their tax income have now made diesel fuel equally or even more expensive than the regular Euro 95 petrol, the economy of the diesel has been lost to a very large extent. Yes, they use less fuel, but the initial purchase price difference, where diesels cost more almost like 1.5 metric TONS of petrol, the breakeven point has been raised much higher. So, for a low mileage per annum driver, a diesel version may actually be more expensive than the petrol version – I am such a driver, at least on the big car. After 8 years and 81,000 km on the clock, if I had a diesel, I would be about the breakeven point now. If however I was a taxi driver, or a travelling salesman, then a diesel would make sense, but not as much sense as natural gas, which is way cheaper than all of them.
A car will use up about 40...60% more natural gas for the same effect measured in litres, but its purchase price is below one half of the next cheapest fuel, so when you work it all out, it comes off as the cheapest ride around. However, differenet governments have different tax rates on natural gas, so what may make for good economy in one country may not be so in another.
Locally, since Serbia is a direly impoverished country, natural gas is all the rage. The government does not dare increase its tax rates, or they will face some serious troubles on the street, and besides, they would cripple half the country. The general elections (for president, parliament and local authorities) are on in May, reason more to play possum for the time being.
In closing, I must pat myself on the back. In 2002, I bet six of my friends that the future of automobiles in Europe lies in small displacement PETROL engines, which will get all the niceties thus far reserved for bigger engines (e.g. direct injection, allowing for higher compression ratios and better fuel efficiency) and will be turbocharged as is from the factory. By I reckon 2015, anyone with a 2 litre engine under the bonnet will be a rich man, because he’ll have about what he has today with larger capacity 3+ litre engines. The biggest engines will be long gone by then, perhaps one or two remaning for the richest among us. A good example is Nissan’s 3.8 litre engine, with twin turbos it delivers 480 bhp.
Anyway, I won the bet hands down. Today, small capacity turbocharged engines are the norm even in the economy class, or perhaps I should say especially in the economy class. Look at FIAT's latest economy engine - two cylinder, 900 cc, turbo blown engine, which behaves like it was a regular 1,600 cc engine, but uses less fuel - European engine of the year 2012.
Literally everybody who is anybody in cars in Europe is switching over. The VW groups (VW, Audi, SEAT, Škoda) has introduced a new 1.2 litre, SOHC 8V turbo blown engine, delivering 105 bhp, as their economy version. Renault of France has such a 1.2, 1.4 and 2.0 engines. Peugeot/Citroen group and BMW have their 1.6 normal and turbo versions of their jointly built 1.6 litre engine, as installed in the Mini, Peugeot, Citroen and just now into BMW Series 1 cars. The FIAT group (Fiat, Alfa Romeo and Lancia) are pushing their MultiAir technology. GM/Opel already have 1.4, 1.6 and 2.0 turbo blown, DOHC 16V, engines, ranging from 120 to 245 bhp. Ford Europe has new series 1.6 and 2 litre turbo blown engines, 150 ... 240 bhp now, soon with more power.
The Far Easteners, Japanese and Koreans, are thus far resisting the shift. Mazda has just announced its latest series of both petrol and diesel engines with a compression raio of 16.5:1, claiming that there is still much to be gained from developing the regular engines, no need for turbos just yet. In my view, they are mistaken, if for no other reason, than for sheer marketing power - they will end up being the only ones left behind. What is often missed is the fact that turbo engines recycle exhaust gasses to a point, providing for cleaner engines, easier able to keep up with rising Euro X standards.
And of course, there are the hybrids ...
I don’t think you Yankees will fare any differently, really, the downsizing will only come slower to you, but no less inevitably. It’s already started – Chevy Cruze is offered with a 1.4 turbo blown, 138 bhp engine from Opel’s Astra range. Oddly enough, that same car is being sold in Europe ONLY with a 1.6 124 bhp, 1.8 141 bhp petrol and 2 litre 163 bhp diesel. The 1.4 litre turbo engine is reserved for its European counterpart, Opel Astra (used to be sold in the US under the trade name of Saturn).
GM is in a bit of a rut here, they want to push both Chevy and Opel, but can’t afford to have them competing against each other in house. The 1.8 litre Cruze costs € 15,200 locally, with everything but the kitchen sink built in, while an equivalent Opel Astra, with the 140 bhp 1.4 litre turbo engine costs € 19,300.
Guess which sells better ...
According to the latest edition of Germany’s „Auto, Motor und Sport“ annual yearbook, listing all cars sold in Germany, Alfa Romeo’s 1750 engine develops 235 bhp at 5,500 rpm, with 300 Nm at 4,000 rpm. It powers a new Giulietta car (Golf class), weighing 1,395 kilos and does 0-100 km (0-62 milies) in 6.8 seconds, hitting 150 mph max, with an average fuel consumption of 7.6 litres and an emission of 177 mg CO2.
Since BMW just did a lot of engine changing, throwing out some older models and introducing brand new ones, I could not find a direct comparison any more, except for the series 5 limo. Their 2 litre engine produces 170 bhp at 6,700 rpm, with 210 Nm at 4,250 rpm, powering a car weighing 1,445 kilos from 0-100 km in 8.2 seconds, with a top speed of 142 mph. Consumption is claimed at 6.4 litres average, and exhaust is claimed at 144 mg.
From the figures, it’s fairly obvious that the BMW naturally aspirated engine is cleaner and uses up less fuel, but at the cost of considerable power, the Alfa’s engine being a solid 38,2% more powerful.
But, let’s try to compare nominal power for power. The same model is offered by Alfa Romeo with 170 bhp, i.e. the same as BMW, but from a turbo blown MultiAir 1.4 litre engine. Alfa states that this 1,368 cc engine, with just one OHC but still 16 valves, delivers 170 bhp at 5,500 rpm, with 230 Nm of torque at 2,250 rpm. It propels the 1,365 kg heavy car to 136 mph, doing 0-100 km in 7.8 sec. Nominal fuel consumption is 5.9 litres, and exhaust is 137 mg CO2.
This is one of the FIAT groups latest generation of engines, much cleaner and more cost effective than their old ones. They are slowly withdrawing the old generation and replacing it with the new – this same engine is available in several version, ranging from 120 to 170 bhp.
To make things more even, here’s a test result of BMW’s latest turbo blown 2 litre engine, installed in their X1 x-Drive 28i model. It delivers 245 bhp at 5,000 rpm, with 350 Nm at 1,250 rpm. The car, weighing in at 1,620 kilos, was propelled 0-100 km in 6.1 seconds, to a top speed of 150 mph.
BMW claims an average fuel consumption of 7.9 litres, but test results show that this was 10.8 litres. BMW cailms CO2 emissions as 210 mg, test results show 183 mg, considerably better than claimed, this is one VERY clean engine (as engines go).
Their model 320 sedan has a 2 litre diesel engine. It delivers 184 bhp at 4,000 rom, and 380 Nm of torque at 1,750 rpm. It is claimed to satisfy the future Euro 6 standards on emissions. The car does a very respectable 0-100 km sprint in 7.5 seconds, with a measured top speed of 146 mph. BMW sways the average fuel consumption is 4.7 litres, measured value is 7.1 litres. BMW claim emissions of just 129 CO2, measured value is 125 mg.
So, as we can see, diesel engines, albeit with a multitude of built-in filters, are in fact cleaner than petrol engines where it really matters. On the other hand, they are not nearly as economical in terms of fuel consumption as they are hyped up to be – for some reason, practically all manufacturers lie about their consumption much more than with their petrol counterparts.
This should not surprise anyone. From a humble barn workhorse, the diesel engine has been elevated to an almost racing status even in regular passenger cars, and with them, just as with their petrol bretheren, performance costs money. You wants lots of power, you have to pay, period.
Since I understand that all European governments have caught on to the diesel engine, and refusing to be diddled out of their tax income have now made diesel fuel equally or even more expensive than the regular Euro 95 petrol, the economy of the diesel has been lost to a very large extent. Yes, they use less fuel, but the initial purchase price difference, where diesels cost more almost like 1.5 metric TONS of petrol, the breakeven point has been raised much higher. So, for a low mileage per annum driver, a diesel version may actually be more expensive than the petrol version – I am such a driver, at least on the big car. After 8 years and 81,000 km on the clock, if I had a diesel, I would be about the breakeven point now. If however I was a taxi driver, or a travelling salesman, then a diesel would make sense, but not as much sense as natural gas, which is way cheaper than all of them.
A car will use up about 40...60% more natural gas for the same effect measured in litres, but its purchase price is below one half of the next cheapest fuel, so when you work it all out, it comes off as the cheapest ride around. However, differenet governments have different tax rates on natural gas, so what may make for good economy in one country may not be so in another.
Locally, since Serbia is a direly impoverished country, natural gas is all the rage. The government does not dare increase its tax rates, or they will face some serious troubles on the street, and besides, they would cripple half the country. The general elections (for president, parliament and local authorities) are on in May, reason more to play possum for the time being.
In closing, I must pat myself on the back. In 2002, I bet six of my friends that the future of automobiles in Europe lies in small displacement PETROL engines, which will get all the niceties thus far reserved for bigger engines (e.g. direct injection, allowing for higher compression ratios and better fuel efficiency) and will be turbocharged as is from the factory. By I reckon 2015, anyone with a 2 litre engine under the bonnet will be a rich man, because he’ll have about what he has today with larger capacity 3+ litre engines. The biggest engines will be long gone by then, perhaps one or two remaning for the richest among us. A good example is Nissan’s 3.8 litre engine, with twin turbos it delivers 480 bhp.
Anyway, I won the bet hands down. Today, small capacity turbocharged engines are the norm even in the economy class, or perhaps I should say especially in the economy class. Look at FIAT's latest economy engine - two cylinder, 900 cc, turbo blown engine, which behaves like it was a regular 1,600 cc engine, but uses less fuel - European engine of the year 2012.
Literally everybody who is anybody in cars in Europe is switching over. The VW groups (VW, Audi, SEAT, Škoda) has introduced a new 1.2 litre, SOHC 8V turbo blown engine, delivering 105 bhp, as their economy version. Renault of France has such a 1.2, 1.4 and 2.0 engines. Peugeot/Citroen group and BMW have their 1.6 normal and turbo versions of their jointly built 1.6 litre engine, as installed in the Mini, Peugeot, Citroen and just now into BMW Series 1 cars. The FIAT group (Fiat, Alfa Romeo and Lancia) are pushing their MultiAir technology. GM/Opel already have 1.4, 1.6 and 2.0 turbo blown, DOHC 16V, engines, ranging from 120 to 245 bhp. Ford Europe has new series 1.6 and 2 litre turbo blown engines, 150 ... 240 bhp now, soon with more power.
The Far Easteners, Japanese and Koreans, are thus far resisting the shift. Mazda has just announced its latest series of both petrol and diesel engines with a compression raio of 16.5:1, claiming that there is still much to be gained from developing the regular engines, no need for turbos just yet. In my view, they are mistaken, if for no other reason, than for sheer marketing power - they will end up being the only ones left behind. What is often missed is the fact that turbo engines recycle exhaust gasses to a point, providing for cleaner engines, easier able to keep up with rising Euro X standards.
And of course, there are the hybrids ...
I don’t think you Yankees will fare any differently, really, the downsizing will only come slower to you, but no less inevitably. It’s already started – Chevy Cruze is offered with a 1.4 turbo blown, 138 bhp engine from Opel’s Astra range. Oddly enough, that same car is being sold in Europe ONLY with a 1.6 124 bhp, 1.8 141 bhp petrol and 2 litre 163 bhp diesel. The 1.4 litre turbo engine is reserved for its European counterpart, Opel Astra (used to be sold in the US under the trade name of Saturn).
GM is in a bit of a rut here, they want to push both Chevy and Opel, but can’t afford to have them competing against each other in house. The 1.8 litre Cruze costs € 15,200 locally, with everything but the kitchen sink built in, while an equivalent Opel Astra, with the 140 bhp 1.4 litre turbo engine costs € 19,300.
Guess which sells better ...
re VW: For 2009, I would agree 100%. That was why I bought the Mini, it was the second worst car out there. I have zero complaints about my 2011. Zero.
re: bearings: Not all. The TR-6 had 4 mains. It would whip like a snake over 6000, or 6500 if you put in the short GT-6 crank. Group 44 could keep them alive at 8000 just long enough to win a race. BTW, Wally is not doing well. A great wrench and good guy.
re: smooth at idle, my RSX I had to look at the tach at idle. I-4. The TR-6 that was originally in the TVR, no. ( the 350 HP 5.0 that I replaced it with was smoother) Still if you want smooth, it was a Rolls I-6 that made famous balancing a nickel in the valve cover.
re diesel vs gas: Now we finally have the "clean" small modern diesels here, they still stink, still puke soot, and the cost of diesel is about the same per mile as gas. They are far better than they were, but far from gas and the small soot has been shown to be very very bad for you. Understanding the pump price is largely set by tax rates in most of the world. I looked at the TDI as the torque was nice, but no diesel at my local station to next to my office.
We are only a few years from electrics that will work. As an electric produces max torque at stall, they have big advantages. It's the batteries. In the lab, there are several developments that have the energy density to give us the US market required 300 mile range. It is just about bringing it to durable production. You lose a lot in conversion, but the power plants burn the fossil fuel at about 90% efficiency. Even with the 40% line loss, you are ahead. charge rate is a problem, but that could be solved by liquid electrolytic exchange. We still need to get the weight down. My GTI weighs twice what several of my older cars did. We need to get back to 2000 Lb and less. It's that old mass times distance thing.
re: bearings: Not all. The TR-6 had 4 mains. It would whip like a snake over 6000, or 6500 if you put in the short GT-6 crank. Group 44 could keep them alive at 8000 just long enough to win a race. BTW, Wally is not doing well. A great wrench and good guy.
re: smooth at idle, my RSX I had to look at the tach at idle. I-4. The TR-6 that was originally in the TVR, no. ( the 350 HP 5.0 that I replaced it with was smoother
) Still if you want smooth, it was a Rolls I-6 that made famous balancing a nickel in the valve cover. re diesel vs gas: Now we finally have the "clean" small modern diesels here, they still stink, still puke soot, and the cost of diesel is about the same per mile as gas. They are far better than they were, but far from gas and the small soot has been shown to be very very bad for you. Understanding the pump price is largely set by tax rates in most of the world. I looked at the TDI as the torque was nice, but no diesel at my local station to next to my office.
We are only a few years from electrics that will work. As an electric produces max torque at stall, they have big advantages. It's the batteries. In the lab, there are several developments that have the energy density to give us the US market required 300 mile range. It is just about bringing it to durable production. You lose a lot in conversion, but the power plants burn the fossil fuel at about 90% efficiency. Even with the 40% line loss, you are ahead. charge rate is a problem, but that could be solved by liquid electrolytic exchange. We still need to get the weight down. My GTI weighs twice what several of my older cars did. We need to get back to 2000 Lb and less. It's that old mass times distance thing.
A.Wayne,
If you don't know the old V4, it was an industrial engine designed for rail car coolers. It had very low peak HP, but monster torque. The Sonnet was lighter and had far more low end torque, so the steep long grade out of the lot gave me an advantage. The 914 had a lot more tire, wider, and more gear, so he could get me after the first curve. Don't confuse the later 2.0's. Much faster. The Saab had 165-80-15's, so not much total grip.
If you don't know the old V4, it was an industrial engine designed for rail car coolers. It had very low peak HP, but monster torque. The Sonnet was lighter and had far more low end torque, so the steep long grade out of the lot gave me an advantage. The 914 had a lot more tire, wider, and more gear, so he could get me after the first curve. Don't confuse the later 2.0's. Much faster. The Saab had 165-80-15's, so not much total grip.
Nope, typical Btu/kWh run from 10,000 to 6,000 : expressed as efficiency that tops out around 54% with the most modern gas-fired supercritical steam boilers. See:
http://www.npc.org/study_topic_papers/4-dtg-electricefficiency.pdf
Don't like the numbers go on wiki and fix them.
According to wiki the energy contained in 1L of petrol is 34.8MJ and for diesel 38.6MJ. For comparison for BioDiesel it's 35.1, Ethanol 23.5, Kerosene 37.6, liquified natural gas 25.3 and liquid hydrogen 9.3.
As for diesel being popular in Europe that is because it is cheaper to run a diesel. It used to be that it only worked out once you've done 20 000km a year. In continental Europe diesel is a cheaper than petrol but the govs impose taxes based on engine size (you pay x amount for every 100cc) and fuel type (let's say a petrol engine is taxed at $15 per 100cc, a diesel would be taxed at $30 per 100cc for example. That at least was how the german tax system worked last time I had a look)) but the advances possible with diesel economy far outstripped the advances in petrol economy despite the manufacturers best efforts.
And that boils down to the ignition system I guess. One could conceivably build a self-igniting petrol engine but this would not be an incredibly efficient petrol engine. It would by definition be a petrol powered diesel engine as a diesel engine is not restricted to the fuel type but the fact that ignition is achieved by compressing the fuel mixture enough to cause it to self-ignite.
Either way diesels have become popular in Europe because of the new engines, the engines did not come about because diesel was popular already as you stated.
My 18-year old Audi TDi still produces pretty much exactly the numbers stated by Audi for the car when it was new.
Someone else mentioned diesel producing dirtier exhaust fumes but the emission regulations, which are comparable to many US states except California, are the same for both. However this does require high quality diesel fuel which appears to have so far been unavailable in the US.
Note that not all flat engines are boxers. For example Ferrari never made a boxer engine and despite the cars moniker of 512 Berlinetta Boxer the engine it used was in fact technically a 180deg V12.
Essentially in V engines opposing pistons share a crank pin while in a true boxer they don't.
Porsche at times made both: The 911 motor was a boxer while the one from the 917 race car was a 180deg V.
Actually, modern diesels have no visible fumes coming out of their exhaust, but as Charlie Darwin pointed out, in Europe, people use the Euro diesel version, which is a refined version of diesel.
That notwithstanding, fumes we think stink are not the very bad guys (unpleasant smelling as they are), CO2 emission is THE culprit, and here, diesels generally do better than even moder petrol engines. The difference has shrunk rather a lot after they started turbocharging the petrol engines as well as diesels, but it's still diesels in the lead.
As for availablity of diesel fuel in USA, I think that is not a problem at all. If more people asked for it, it would soon be everywhere, after all, the people at the gas station wnat to make their dollars too, and will sell what the people will buy. But I agree that is a problem for the early birds.
Regarding electric cars, there is no doubt that the future belongs to them. The only key problems we face are twofold. The technical problem is, if you think about it, really not there at all. And is in tight connection, ubillical cord like, with the economic aspect. Imagine for a moment, if you will, that by some miracle, the world manages to define say three types of batteries for passenger cars - your stop at the "petrol station", now an "electrical station", would be to stop, open up the battery compartment, deliver your empty batteries and receive charged ones in return.
This could be done RIGHT NOW.
It's not because we face a bloody standards war, because each and every company, even entire countries, would battle it out for their system to be made standard. The benefits are obvious, you get to collect the royalty in vast amounts. Philips showed the way first with the compact cassette, and then with the CD.
I can't remember which model was it, but I seem to remeber reading about somebody having a range of 460 km (or 290 miles) on batteries alone right now. I would consider that range as quite reasonable even today, it's not too far removed from regular gas station stops even today.
Mass of vehicles is till a problem, though. Batteries aside, they are still really heavy, as they must be - just look over the Euro 5 safety requirements. They impose tremendous demands on the car industry, and mass is the price you pay for reinforced bodyworks capable of absorbing very large collision forces, pedestrian friendly front ends, etc.
As an example, a current Ford Fiesta weighs in at 1,150 kilos in middle equipment group; in 1967, Ford Escort weighed in 30 kilos LESS than a Yugo, at 790 kilos. The Cosworth street legal version weighed in at 890 kilos only, so no wonder its 1.6 litre DOHC engine, delivering 122 bhp, made it a pocket rocket. The Lotus Elan, with the same engine, weighed in at 690 kilos (if memory serves), so it's advertised 0-60 mph in just 7.5 seconds was very probably quite accurate. But then, Colin Chapman wasn't just anybody.
And ultimately, quite beside the industry, trends and safety regulations, it's also us. Today, we simply will not do without a host of amenities in a car which we didn't evebn dream of 30 years ago, starting with the air con. Heck, I first wouldn't buy a tourer without an air con. That system can weigh anything from around 40 to around 80 kilos. A turbo setups, incuding the air cooler, also weighs about the same - used to be more, before they came up with variable wing geometry (actually known from the venerable "VW Bug" of airplanes, Douglas DC-3 Dakota - loved it then, love it today, a work of genius).
That notwithstanding, fumes we think stink are not the very bad guys (unpleasant smelling as they are), CO2 emission is THE culprit, and here, diesels generally do better than even moder petrol engines. The difference has shrunk rather a lot after they started turbocharging the petrol engines as well as diesels, but it's still diesels in the lead.
As for availablity of diesel fuel in USA, I think that is not a problem at all. If more people asked for it, it would soon be everywhere, after all, the people at the gas station wnat to make their dollars too, and will sell what the people will buy. But I agree that is a problem for the early birds.
Regarding electric cars, there is no doubt that the future belongs to them. The only key problems we face are twofold. The technical problem is, if you think about it, really not there at all. And is in tight connection, ubillical cord like, with the economic aspect. Imagine for a moment, if you will, that by some miracle, the world manages to define say three types of batteries for passenger cars - your stop at the "petrol station", now an "electrical station", would be to stop, open up the battery compartment, deliver your empty batteries and receive charged ones in return.
This could be done RIGHT NOW.
It's not because we face a bloody standards war, because each and every company, even entire countries, would battle it out for their system to be made standard. The benefits are obvious, you get to collect the royalty in vast amounts. Philips showed the way first with the compact cassette, and then with the CD.
I can't remember which model was it, but I seem to remeber reading about somebody having a range of 460 km (or 290 miles) on batteries alone right now. I would consider that range as quite reasonable even today, it's not too far removed from regular gas station stops even today.
Mass of vehicles is till a problem, though. Batteries aside, they are still really heavy, as they must be - just look over the Euro 5 safety requirements. They impose tremendous demands on the car industry, and mass is the price you pay for reinforced bodyworks capable of absorbing very large collision forces, pedestrian friendly front ends, etc.
As an example, a current Ford Fiesta weighs in at 1,150 kilos in middle equipment group; in 1967, Ford Escort weighed in 30 kilos LESS than a Yugo, at 790 kilos. The Cosworth street legal version weighed in at 890 kilos only, so no wonder its 1.6 litre DOHC engine, delivering 122 bhp, made it a pocket rocket. The Lotus Elan, with the same engine, weighed in at 690 kilos (if memory serves), so it's advertised 0-60 mph in just 7.5 seconds was very probably quite accurate. But then, Colin Chapman wasn't just anybody.
And ultimately, quite beside the industry, trends and safety regulations, it's also us. Today, we simply will not do without a host of amenities in a car which we didn't evebn dream of 30 years ago, starting with the air con. Heck, I first wouldn't buy a tourer without an air con. That system can weigh anything from around 40 to around 80 kilos. A turbo setups, incuding the air cooler, also weighs about the same - used to be more, before they came up with variable wing geometry (actually known from the venerable "VW Bug" of airplanes, Douglas DC-3 Dakota - loved it then, love it today, a work of genius).
@DVV,
I'd Did not say a v6 was smoother , I said it was stronger , makes for better packaging and if the intent is motorsports and big BHP then it's a no brainer over a straight 6....
Diesel emissions is more harmful to the environment, I'm doing my share with a sport VW TDI wagon , avg 42mpg ..
I'd Did not say a v6 was smoother , I said it was stronger , makes for better packaging and if the intent is motorsports and big BHP then it's a no brainer over a straight 6....
Diesel emissions is more harmful to the environment, I'm doing my share with a sport VW TDI wagon , avg 42mpg ..
Electric cars have too big an carbon footprint to be our future , hybrid cars will be the Main stay over the next decade. When we can have roofs made from solar panels good enuff to charge batteries and enuff regenerative charging while running , they make no sense ....
Hybrids with KERS ....
Hybrids with KERS ....
Please explain how is this possible. I would have thought that an engine which shares its output over 7 bearings would be quite a bit more strudy than another which does the same over 5 bearings.
Its downside is its considerably larger size than its V counterpart.
Please explain. This flies in the face of the entire Europen motor legislation.
No doubt hybrids will be the first step towaeda fully electric - in fact, they already are.
Unfortunately, they also seem to suffer the electric bug - relatively poor range. I will never buy a car which cannot get me to my summer vacation destination in Greece, exactly 850 km (530 miles), my doorstep to hotel doorstep. This may include a stopover, which we (wife and I) will make anyway, in Macedonia, near a lake, for lunch. It also may include exchange of batteries if required along the way.
But I just love the idea of electric motors. No torque curve, maximum torque from 1 rpm. Silent. Non-emission. Then you tune your car by rewinding the electric motor(s).
Imagine the possibilities, they are mind boggling. For example, individual wheel drive, each wheel has its own e. motor - that could, after some development, imrpove on current all wheel drive quite a bit.
Current european emissions regulations are nearly identical for petrol or diesel.
They are allowed the same amount of particulate matter, hydrocarbons and NOx (although for petrols it is subdivided into HC, THC and NOx but the total allowed is the same).
The only difference being that petrol cars are allowed to emit twice the amount of carbon monoxide of diesels.
So I too would like to know how diesel emissions are more harmful than petrol ones.
They are allowed the same amount of particulate matter, hydrocarbons and NOx (although for petrols it is subdivided into HC, THC and NOx but the total allowed is the same).
The only difference being that petrol cars are allowed to emit twice the amount of carbon monoxide of diesels.
So I too would like to know how diesel emissions are more harmful than petrol ones.
Seems we are going full circle.
Ferdinand Porsche designed and built a four-wheel drive electric car with one motor per wheel in 1899!
That was 4 years before the dutch Spijker brothers built the first 4wd car powered by an internal combustion engine in 1903, the Spyker 60HP. It was also the first ever car with a 6 cylinder motor.
Comparing bio- diesel to regular gas , compare bio fuels to bio- fuels.
And full load emissions..
Fuel advance at full load on diesels is still a problem ..
.
Last edited:
@dvv,
We are a long way from such , maybe KERS on all 4 wheels with an 600cc gas/ diesel eng pulling 180mpg . Full electric is not possible with current battery technology and large carbon footprint.
Bio-gas is also an alternative (algae) would allow 20:1 cr , clean breathable emissions and leaner mixtures, TQ of diesel with gasolene hp .
We are a long way from such , maybe KERS on all 4 wheels with an 600cc gas/ diesel eng pulling 180mpg . Full electric is not possible with current battery technology and large carbon footprint.
Bio-gas is also an alternative (algae) would allow 20:1 cr , clean breathable emissions and leaner mixtures, TQ of diesel with gasolene hp .
Could you elucidate a bit more since I can not make any sense from this post at all?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.