235 mpg VW

[WhiteBlue]

If it´s useful to have a turbo diesel Range extender? whatever a range extender is in stationary drive -running at a single speed (at maximum efficiency hopefully) all the time -is this the useful modus operandi for a turbo? My gut feeling is a turbo would be more useful to provide the extra power when needed -so that´s not the idea behind a range extender?

Turbodiesels are simply the most efficient class of engines on the market. Petrols have a long way to go to meet the power output per fuel quantity. BMW will use small turbodiesels in their i-class cars. I'm actually not 100% sure how the VW utilizes both drives. I'm just assuming they use the ICE as range extenders. I will investigate.

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/4714 ... ncept.html

It is actually a plug in hybrid with both drives working in parallel into one gearbox. Chassis is RTM (resin tranfer molding) technology. That is an automated way of composite manufacturing.

The concept was supposed to have 75 hp combined from ICE and electric at a weight of 795 kg. Max speed 100 mph.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4tMIvou ... e=fvwberel[/youtube]

http://www.shortnews.de/id/924723/VW-Ve ... jetzt-fest

Price is announced at €35k

[marcush.]

for a parallel hybrid ,I agree .
The range extender -there must be more efficient alternatives -I´m not starting a discussion on linear generators here -or should I?

[autogyro]

for a parallel hybrid ,I agree .
The range extender -there must be more efficient alternatives -I´m not starting a discussion on linear generators here -or should I?

Well this VW does use a 'layshaft' earbox ;-(

We can do much better than this and for a fraction the cost.
Will soon be looking for major investment, if this is all the big guys can achieve.

To be fair it is pretty good second generation.
It is the price of 35,000 quoted that is way to high.
Why is it that nearly all EV's and Hybrids pitch at this 35,000 figure.
Do they base it on bank executives bonuses or something?

[Tommy Cookers]

we seem to be entirely concerned with running etc cost in money terms (not in carbon cost terms) ?
(235 mpg says that electricity carries no carbon cost ? so government fraud is ok ?)

diesel is 'fairly' priced in the USA (and UK and Poland), being taxed the same as petrol/gasoline, it costs more at the pump
everywhere else in Europe diesel prices have a lower tax (ie money taken from the pockets of the petrol buyer)
this has given us the diesel car

officialdom in the EU intends to equalise the tax
(European fuel refineries now 'dump' petrol and import diesel, which is crazy)

diesel economy in mpg flatters the diesel (because the fuel is denser), cents/mile or miles/kg (and miles/carbon unit) are fairer
the Prius etc has a (synthetic) Atkinson cycle, the Fiat Twin-Air and Multi-Air have advanced beyond this, they are intended to be better than diesels ?
this VW has a 48 bhp ICE, any 48 bhp ICE is more efficient in use than 148 bhp or 248 bhp

this 'range extender' concept demands a big generator (and a big Emotor), together these won't be cheap

one day (when EV takeup is enough) they will tax EV fuel

[Ray]

I was referring to the EV versus ICE comparison. One is new and emergent, the other is mature and commoditised.

I'm not sure if your post is a complaint about buying new cars as opposed to EV versus ICE? Also there are some US specific issues in your post. Most EU cars have relatively low volume 4 cylinders engines, 35 to 40 mpg is the baseline. My dad's Renault estate was running 37 mpg in 1985 (I know its a different definition of mpg, but you get my drift)

The success of this sort of car will be functionality for a family, how does it compare to a Golf or Focus? If it attracts less tax, uses less fuel ( US$9/gallon) and you can zoom past city congestion controls then people will be prepared to pay a bit more.

I don't have anything against EV's. I think they are incredibly interesting because of the geek factor that goes along with charging, and power systems to get them moving. However. Doing rough calculations, I can refill the 26 gallon tank in my truck every 3 days, even at only $3 a gallon for the swill they pass off as gasoline, for an entire month before I come anywhere near close to the cost of what one of these would be. Between a car payment, insurance, and the minimal fuel cost this car or one like it would require, it's simply not economically sound for me. I usually fill up about every two weeks currently, I don't drive all that much because I live really close to the school I attend, and buying one of these cars or something similar is a downgrade and a huge cost to me. With the US economy like it is, a very expensive and extremely range limited pure EV is an economic nonentity. I don't hate EV's, or hybrids for that matter, but they are too costly. With the low amount of miles that I drive it doesn't work. Getting 15mpg city and around 19mpg highway my truck looks like a fuel cost nightmare, but I simply don't drive enough to warrant buying one of these. I might start to save fuel costs 6-7 years from now, but I don't care enough to go $40k+ in debt to satisfy other peoples desires to be "green." I'd love to have a diesel car that gets 40+ mpg on the highway, or even higher in this vehicles' case, but going into massive debt is something I'm not going to do. I like sea lions and bears, but someone else can go ahead and be perpetually in ebt in a bad economy to save them, I'm not going to. If the cost was reasonable and the vehicle lost most of it's shortcomings I might think about it, but for the foreseeable future I simply am not interested.

[WhiteBlue]

diesel is 'fairly' priced in the USA (and UK and Poland), being taxed the same as petrol/gasoline, it costs more at the pump everywhere else in Europe diesel prices have a lower tax (ie money taken from the pockets of the petrol buyer)

It is true that petrol has higher direct taxes in Germany (the biggest economy in Europe). But there is a motor vehicle tax which is higher for diesel cars than it is for petrol cars to compensate that effect partially. I also think that diesel deserves lower taxation due to the higher fuel efficiency and the contribution that diesel drivers make to the conservation of resources. They pay a higher price for the engines to make this efficiency happen.

diesel economy in mpg flatters the diesel (because the fuel is denser), cents/mile or miles/kg (and miles/carbon unit) are fairer

Turbodiesels have lower carbon emissions than petrol cars due to their higher fuel efficiency. That is an undeniable fact.

One can calculate the true miles per gallon rate not including the electric charge by looking at the reach of the car and the size of the fuel tank. The electric reach is 35 km and the total reach on the 10L fuel tank is 550 km. The net reach for the ICE is 515 km with 10L. This computes to 1.94 L/100km or 121 mpg (US). It is still a fantastic figure for the worst case that you run the car with diesel only and no electricity. If you have a solar panel and utilize the plug in hybrid drive for medium length commuting trips you obviously get much closer and above 200 mpg. A nice piece of automotive engineering but at € 35k not for the average income driver.

[Tommy Cookers]

I was referring to the EV versus ICE comparison. One is new and emergent, the other is mature and commoditised.

IMO this (fashionable ?) argument is most often advanced by those without a technological background

others say that computors etc are basically made from sand, but EVs etc need large amounts of Copper, 'rare earth' magnetic materials, and battery materials (all commercially 'spoken for'), and are thereby locked-in to a high cost base

the price of a model T Ford had 100 years ago fallen to average US earnings, since then cars have become better (and pointlessly complicated ?), but no cheaper
until recently the fashionable argument was that 'capitalism' will always generate 'need', to keep our wallets empty

does anyone have a credible cost forecast ?
clearly also (after the big sales breakthrough) EVs will have to pay their (major) share of vehicle-based taxation

[Tommy Cookers]

I also think that diesel deserves lower taxation due to the higher fuel efficiency and the contribution that diesel drivers make to the conservation of resources. They pay a higher price for the engines to make this efficiency happen.

Turbodiesels have lower carbon emissions than petrol cars due to their higher fuel efficiency. That is an undeniable fact.

in the EU diesel use has expanded to the point where there is no further conservation benefit
(because refineries cannot produce more diesel without loss of (resource and commercial) efficiency, they are right now economically 'dumping' unwanted petrol, hence the policy intent to progress to equality of taxation)

presumably VW etc and Fiat have different ideas concerning carbon efficient engines for our cars
(Fiat have in mass production eliminated both of the (thermodynamic) impediments to partial power efficiency in petrol engines)
(car diesels have greater (bearing and piston friction) at all powers and greater losses to coolant at high powers)

some say that HCCI is the (near) future (ie convergence of petrol and diesel designs - and fuel stocks ?)
looking at the big picture, the global jury has yet to return a verdict ?

BTW Dr 'VW' Porsche was involved with Lohner petrol/electric vehicles, the latest thing about 100 years ago

[Edis]

Mpg figures for range extended hybrids always have to be taken with a pinch of salt. The figures can be cooked up to look better than real life situations. Which being fair, test duty cycles to make fuel consumption figures look better then real world too.

Typical practice is to 'not count' the battery powered milage, or choose a range that requires only a small amount of range extension.

So for e.g. if you have 100 miles EV-battery range. And a 30mpg range extender engine.

Doing 130miles, = 130mpg.
Doing 160miles = 65mpg.
etc.

The current test practice for extended range hybrids can make it difficult to judge how much fuel and electricity the car actually need. For instance the official fuel consumption of the Chevrolet Volt in Europe is 1.2 litres per 100 km (196 mpg). Since the car in extended range mode consume about 7 liters per 100 km (34 miles per gallon) you can only reach the official figure if you rarely use the combustion engine. The official figure also exclude electricity use, and the official CO2 emissions figure only include tailpipe emissions (despite the fact that electricity production in Europe on average cause about 400 g CO2 per kWh).

we seem to be entirely concerned with running etc cost in money terms (not in carbon cost terms) ?
(235 mpg says that electricity carries no carbon cost ? so government fraud is ok ?)

diesel is 'fairly' priced in the USA (and UK and Poland), being taxed the same as petrol/gasoline, it costs more at the pump
everywhere else in Europe diesel prices have a lower tax (ie money taken from the pockets of the petrol buyer)
this has given us the diesel car

officialdom in the EU intends to equalise the tax
(European fuel refineries now 'dump' petrol and import diesel, which is crazy)

diesel economy in mpg flatters the diesel (because the fuel is denser), cents/mile or miles/kg (and miles/carbon unit) are fairer
the Prius etc has a (synthetic) Atkinson cycle, the Fiat Twin-Air and Multi-Air have advanced beyond this, they are intended to be better than diesels ?
this VW has a 48 bhp ICE, any 48 bhp ICE is more efficient in use than 148 bhp or 248 bhp

this 'range extender' concept demands a big generator (and a big Emotor), together these won't be cheap

one day (when EV takeup is enough) they will tax EV fuel

In the U.S. diesel is taxed higher than gasoline, in Europe diesel fuel is taxed lower but partially compensated for by a higher road vehicle tax. Since road vehicle fuels are very highly taxed in Europe I think a lower diesel tax have been neccessary to keep freight costs down, trucks are after all powered by diesel engines. If the tax on diesel fuel for passenger cars was higher than diesel for trucks I think I think it would cause a lot of cheating, hence the solution with lower diesel taxes and higher road vehicle taxes for diesel fueled cars.

Globally, the demand for diesel have been increasing while demand for gasoline have been decreasing. This is not a trend limited to Europe but can also be seen in North America, Asia and other places. U.S. refineries have increased diesel output from roughly 22% to 27% in recent years, and the sales of hydrogen crackers is increasing at the cost of catalytic crackers; the former is used to increase diesel production and also to offer a greater flexibility. Production capacity of Gas-To-Liquid diesel aswell as hydrotreated vegetable oil is also increasing, although from low levels. New emission laws for shipping is also increasing the demand for diesel. These new laws require lower emissions of SOx and a lower sulphur content in the fuel. This means ships are switching from heavy bunker oil to diesel, at first in "senstive areas", but it's use till increase.

It can also be worth to note that diesel is the same distillate product as home heating oil, demand for which have decreased.

In terms of efficiency the diesel is still unmatched. A passenger car diesel engine will offer a maximum efficiency of about 42%, this can be compared to the 37% that the Prius engine is capable to reach. That's a 14% difference, and this difference is greater at part load.

A range extender vehicle doesn't have to have a large generator and a large motor. Take the Voltec powertrain as an example, when run on battery power the engine driven generator can disconnect from the engine and operate as motor, assisting the second larger motor to drive the car. When operating on the gasoline engine, the engine can assist the electric motor directly in some operating points.

[Lurk]

In the U.S. diesel is taxed higher than gasoline, in Europe diesel fuel is taxed lower but partially compensated for by a higher road vehicle tax.

Maybe in Germany, not in France. Here diesel is taxed lower and the fewer CO2 rejects are, the lower you pay when buying a car (you even get some bonus below 120g/km). Thus diesel engines always win, especially small displacement ones which are mainly used in towns.
Prius may have a smaller maximum efficiency than diesel but by its usage, it is far more efficient than a - let's say - diesel Fiat 500.


BTW I defy the VW XL1 and its tiny tank to do Nice (French Riviera) - Isola 2000 - Nice without refuelling. It is less than 180km round trip but Isola is a 2000m high ski resort in Alps. So the road is kinda steep.

P.S. Did it some years ago in a 2.4 JTDm Alfa Romeo 159 (200HP diesel engine) with 3 people onboard, we were around 12mpg (20/100km).

[WhiteBlue]

I defy the VW XL1 and its tiny tank to do Nice (French Riviera) - Isola 2000 - Nice without refuelling. It is less than 180km round trip but Isola is a 2000m high ski resort in Alps. So the road is kinda steep.

That would be interesting to find out. You might be surprised how cars with modern energy saving systems reduce consumption on the downhill leg. I certainly am whenever I drive in the Alps.

[FoxHound]

@Lurk

I'm going there(Cannes/Nice/Monaco) in 5/6months, but would like to ask the conditions of the road on your trip?
I assume it was cold, and the road wet?
And as you went to Isola 2000, Im sure the where steep gradients too. Along with 3 people, skiing gear and luggage the poor Alfa was on a hiding to nothing.

[Lurk]

It was cold (mid-december) but not wet. Plus we don't have many luggage as we were only there for one weekend and skis and snowboards were rent at Isola. I worked for a company which do holiday rentals and it was the company christmas. So it was all inclusive and free Plus I practice winter sports only 2 or 3 times so I didn't have skiing gear anyway (except hot clothes).

Concerning your trip, 5/6 months is something like April/May (Cannes Film Festival and Monaco GP?) so it should be mild, but could be rainy during the Festival or 1-2 week before - it always rain a few days 1st half of May. But April and 2nd half of May is generally OK and cloud rarely stay for several days. It is more a "big shower" rain (don't know the english word, if any) than british rain .
BTW it is rarely cold and wet here as long as you stay near the sea, even in winter. 20°C and sun this mid-november afternoon!


@WB: I didn't have the opportunity to test these kind of system, but as you said, a car like the Volt is given to consume 1.2l/100km on mixed cycle, but 7l in extended range. As XL1 will have a smaller engine, maybe we can expect 3-4l/100km. On a flat road. In mountain roads, I don't think you'll go below 10l/100km with that car, especially with 2 people (+120 to 150kg to a 800kg car) and with heating on because it is cold in winter up there, not as cold as "beyond the wall" but you'll still need heating. So 90km to go to Isola: 9liters. It left 1 liter to return to Nice.

So what kind of people would spend 40K€ on a car which is not practical at all: 1 passenger only, trunk more than tiny, 10l tank avoiding any kind of medium to long trip except with perfect condition? It could only be used in towns, where subway/trolley, bicycle and bus should be prefered to any car (air & noise pollution, parking & traffic problem).
Except people who already have a 100K€ SUV, I don't know.

Doing some effort to do car than pollute less is great, but XL1 - sorry if I offend someone - looks like a toy for me. It reminds me the south park episode "smug alert": having an hybrid just to have one and show it. There is better things to do IMHO.

At least with a 40K budget to buy a car which can carry only 1 passenger and have a small trunk, I'll go for a 4C to use during weekend and take the bus to go to work. Or maybe I'd choose a 20-year old car like 993 or Chimaera

[WhiteBlue]

@WB: I didn't have the opportunity to test these kind of system, but as you said, a car like the Volt is given to consume 1.2l/100km on mixed cycle, but 7l in extended range. As XL1 will have a smaller engine, maybe we can expect 3-4l/100km. On a flat road. In mountain roads, I don't think you'll go below 10l/100km with that car, especially with 2 people (+120 to 150kg to a 800kg car) and with heating on because it is cold in winter up there, not as cold as "beyond the wall" but you'll still need heating. So 90km to go to Isola: 9liters. It left 1 liter to return to Nice.

You are massively off for your flat base figure. A realistic figure is below 2L/100km as you can read in this thread. Heating is no issue as it always uses waste heat anyway. Of course the upwards leg will see considerably higher consumption for lifting the mass of the car and passengers to the high level of Isola 2000 but on the return leg you will be using a lot less petrol and may be even able to do regenerative braking in some sections. I still do not believe your estimate is correct. Regarding the value for money consideration I agree that such a car isn't for the average user. It is a kind of mega Prius for rich and famous people. They will only do a few hundred of those. VW group has a tradition of pushing the envelope with low energy cars.

One of their best historic jobs was the aluminium based A2. It was well worth it's money and it still retains high value as a used car today. The XL1 will probably also hold its value due to the exotic nature and the premium marketing scheme.

[marcush.]

The Lupo 3l is similar in consumption to the A2 3l and shares the complete drivetrain and does weigh just 855kg with magnesium rear door frame ,aluminium doors ,hood and fenders ,magnesium brakedrums ,aluminium suspension hardware ,thinwall glass ,Startstop,automated manual gearbox(!) and it still drives perfectly these days! I got to know as it is my daily comuter car with real 3l per 100km
and that little beast is also fun to drive...

The thing I don´t get is :Why does the new up! not even come close to these figures? Or a just normal lupo/ polo of those days with the AMF 3Cylinder TDI engine...

RTM -Resin transfer molding is in no ways a new technology ,it is just one possibility to achieve "industrial" cycle times in production .The real challenge is not production of parts with good quality but achieving a class A surface finish out of these production methods.
The process is based on duroplastic resin systems in combination with temperature -so the parts have a limited recycling capability ...not very environmental friendly....
The future will certainly go towards thermoplastics composite manufacture which will reduce scrap to zero more or less.