Will we ever get the diesel engine?

[dahoseman]

i think it would need a spark plug.

 

there are a lot of people injecting propane or even N2O in diesels to make a tonn of power ! so i think the potential is already there..

 

Diesels + propane = awesome. It's like nitrous on a gasoline vehicle, except without much side effect to the engine. My brother's old Dodge had propane injection on demand and it was impressive.

 

I do enjoy that (older) diesels are like the automotive equivalent of a goat, given a little work. I rigged up an alternative fuel system for my old Cummins. It started on any Diesel, but after that it could run on just about anything that burns when you squeeze it (propane, used motor oil, frier grease, etc). With $1/gallon grease from a local guy that filtered it, for a while it was more expensive to drive my '99 Forester than my 9000lb 500hp beast-truck that had the aerodynamics of a cinder block.

Edit: That was averaging a combined city/hwy of 16-17mpg on veggie grease. Mpg varied on fuel source.

[RyanGT]

the intent with all gear boxes to to keep the engine in the optimum rpm range for each particular engine load. there are pros and cons for each type.

 

Not entirely true...it really depends what the application is for. Multi-clutch automated gear boxes were first designed with the performance intent.

 

the dsg is good for overall efficiency but its sucky at shifting. the kick down shifts are pretty lousy.

 

..............

 

I have to ask you just as I have asked ehnils if you have any actual experience driving a DSG or is this your arm-chair observation from reading the interwebs? My experience with my Golf TDI has been that DSG software requires throttle inputs. If you're wishy-washy

with your throttle inputs, the software gets confused and yes the kick down shifts can be rough. But if you're assertive, it will do exactly what you want it to do and do it very quick.

 

I suspect if there is car model offered with both DSG and CVT options, I bet the CVT version will get better mpgs.

[ehsnils]

i think it would need a spark plug.

 

there are a lot of people injecting propane or even N2O in diesels to make a tonn of power ! so i think the potential is already there..

 

I was still going to use the diesel - and that would be used to ignite. So no need for a spark plug. The propane add seems to be an interesting alternative.

 

I just think that the problem would be the ECU going WTF on me...

 

B.t.w. - diesels that smoke are just wasted fuel going out in the air, so all those trucks with black smoke stacks are just "overtuned" and no longer efficient burners. They would definitely benefit from going to a solution of a secondary fuel.

[frank_ster]

Not entirely true...it really depends what the application is for. Multi-clutch automated gear boxes were first designed with the performance intent.

 

 

 

I have to ask you just as I have asked ehnils if you have any actual experience driving a DSG or is this your arm-chair observation from reading the interwebs? My experience with my Golf TDI has been that DSG software requires throttle inputs. If you're wishy-washy

with your throttle inputs, the software gets confused and yes the kick down shifts can be rough. But if you're assertive, it will do exactly what you want it to do and do it very quick.

 

I suspect if there is car model offered with both DSG and CVT options, I bet the CVT version will get better mpgs.

 

i have driven the volks tdi dsg, and the misubishi dsg both suck.

yes as you said you need to hold the pedal steady .. if you start jerking it , it becomes lost.

the cvt doesnt care.

 

only thing with the cvt its maximum shift out speed is a little slow. ie if your cruising and you stomp the throttle takes a few seconds to get down to the right gear.

and yes in racing they want to get into the right gear and shift fast its wht the dsg has 6-8 speeds to be as close to a cvt as possible.

a car could easily function with 3 speed or even 2 speeds as they have in the past .

 

 

and arm chair observation? me .. come on please... i dont read the internet i just impose everyone on the internet to my ramblings...

[frank_ster]

I was still going to use the diesel - and that would be used to ignite. So no need for a spark plug. The propane add seems to be an interesting alternative.

 

I just think that the problem would be the ECU going WTF on me...

 

B.t.w. - diesels that smoke are just wasted fuel going out in the air, so all those trucks with black smoke stacks are just "overtuned" and no longer efficient burners. They would definitely benefit from going to a solution of a secondary fuel.

 

they still make more power the more they smoke..

but more and more is wasted.

 

the propane can be problematic as if you inject to much it will actually detonate in the engine.. as my bro found that out the hard way.

 

nitrous oxide is actually the best and safest for diesels as the more you inject the cooler the egt's become its exactly the same as going up on the boost.

if there is any black smoke its cleared up by the nitrous

[hmmrdwn]

For some reason, I can imagine a diesel engine and cvt would take some tweaking to get optimum power. Audi finally is sending diesels over. All they had to do is rob the VW parts bin and modify slightly to one up VW. Great way to maximize profit on cheap platform/chassis. Look at the jetta. Sells for 16-17 with four stroke gas and 25k with diesel. You still have a 16-17k car. The diesel engine cost to build isn't that much higher. You are paying for the trendy diesel. With the cost of diesel fuel, it takes miles to justify cost.

[TwoTone]

For some reason, I can imagine a diesel engine and cvt would take some tweaking to get optimum power. Audi finally is sending diesels over. All they had to do is rob the VW parts bin and modify slightly to one up VW. Great way to maximize profit on cheap platform/chassis. Look at the jetta. Sells for 16-17 with four stroke gas and 25k with diesel. You still have a 16-17k car. The diesel engine cost to build isn't that much higher. You are paying for the trendy diesel. With the cost of diesel fuel, it takes miles to justify cost.

 

 

At least get the comparison right.

The 17k Jetta is a base stripped model. The cheapest TDI @$23,195 is a SE model w/ connectivity and a 6sp manual.

The gas SE w/ connectivity and a 5sp manual is $20,420.

So the difference is only $2775 for the TDI and a 6 spd vs. the gas and a 5sp.

 

Nothing trendy about a VW diesel. I inherited my dad's 1980 rabbit diesel with about 300k on it when I joined the Navy.

 

Lot more to it then just EPA numbers, you can drive a diesel hard and it will get great mileage, you can't say the same about gas.

 

The reason it's taken so long to take off here is because GM screwed it up so bad in the 80's and cheap gas. That GM engine was a POS and my dad has always regretted buying that Buick instead of another VW.

[frank_ster]

^ yea i had a mid 80's gm wagon thing it originally had a 350 diesel in it .. apparently gm paid to put a 305 gas in in its place..

 

but yes the diesels have amazing mpgs when driven hard!

[hmmrdwn]

At least get the comparison right.

The 17k Jetta is a base stripped model. The cheapest TDI @$23,195 is a SE model w/ connectivity and a 6sp manual.

The gas SE w/ connectivity and a 5sp manual is $20,420.

So the difference is only $2775 for the TDI and a 6 spd vs. the gas and a 5sp.

 

Nothing trendy about a VW diesel. I inherited my dad's 1980 rabbit diesel with about 300k on it when I joined the Navy.

 

Lot more to it then just EPA numbers, you can drive a diesel hard and it will get great mileage, you can't say the same about gas.

 

The reason it's taken so long to take off here is because GM screwed it up so bad in the 80's and cheap gas. That GM engine was a POS and my dad has always regretted buying that Buick instead of another VW.

 

It's still a 17K car at it's frame. Yeah it's optioned up with fancy plastic and other max profit stuff. Still just a 17K platform. The old VW diesel was a dirty, noisy dog of an engine. Yeah they went a long ways, but they were intolerable to live with on a daily basis. Time makes the heart grow fonder, but if you think back, you will remember 0-60 times of 18.0 seconds and a cloud of black smoke and rattling like a engine about to die. LOL

 

The new diesel is far better, but not financially worth the upgrade unless you put on a ton of miles. The added cost of buying a diesel engined Jetta would take a long time to offset. Go to fuel economy.gov and run the calcs. You save about $100 a year over a base gas Jetta with a manual (at 25,000 miles per year and current fuel costs). The base five cylinder gas engine is probably just as fast as the diesel too. So you can say the diesel is fast, but heck you can get similar fuel costs and all the performance at much less cost.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32716&id=32721&id=32720tab1

 

More expensive cars start with better platforms. It's a great way for a manufacturer to exploit a hot commodity. Put a high demand engine in a base platform and option it up. Would you buy an expensive lawn tractor because it's got a great motor, but sits on a cheap frame?

[hmmrdwn]

Those old VW diesels were snail like. Thankfully the new ones have improved in too many ways.

 

http://www.zeroto60times.com/Volkswagen-VW-0-60-mph-Times.html

[ehsnils]

More expensive cars start with better platforms. It's a great way for a manufacturer to exploit a hot commodity. Put a high demand engine in a base platform and option it up. Would you buy an expensive lawn tractor because it's got a great motor, but sits on a cheap frame?

 

The Jetta platform was pretty decent for the 70's and 80's compared to many other contemporary cars. One step up was the Audis and BMWs at the time and yet another step up was Mercedes. Today all cars are loaded to the max and the difference to the buyer is more about the badge in the front. Meanwhile the margins are so tight for car builders that they don't earn money on sold vehicles but on the aftermarket; expensive parts, pay to you bleed services etc.

[hmmrdwn]

The Jetta platform was pretty decent for the 70's and 80's compared to many other contemporary cars. One step up was the Audis and BMWs at the time and yet another step up was Mercedes. Today all cars are loaded to the max and the difference to the buyer is more about the badge in the front. Meanwhile the margins are so tight for car builders that they don't earn money on sold vehicles but on the aftermarket; expensive parts, pay to you bleed services etc.

 

In the US, we have "loss leaders" that are base model strippers. They use those for advertising new car sales and leases. The cars are available and people on a budget buy them. The dealers want to sell the loaded cars. A diesel turbo costs more to build due to extra parts of higher quality. They option them up for increased $ sales. Can you imagine the volume of sales for a basic diesel car? It would be high!

[TwoTone]

It's still a 17K car at it's frame. Yeah it's optioned up with fancy plastic and other max profit stuff. Still just a 17K platform. The old VW diesel was a dirty, noisy dog of an engine. Yeah they went a long ways, but they were intolerable to live with on a daily basis. Time makes the heart grow fonder, but if you think back, you will remember 0-60 times of 18.0 seconds and a cloud of black smoke and rattling like a engine about to die. LOL

 

The new diesel is far better, but not financially worth the upgrade unless you put on a ton of miles. The added cost of buying a diesel engined Jetta would take a long time to offset. Go to fuel economy.gov and run the calcs. You save about $100 a year over a base gas Jetta with a manual (at 25,000 miles per year and current fuel costs). The base five cylinder gas engine is probably just as fast as the diesel too. So you can say the diesel is fast, but heck you can get similar fuel costs and all the performance at much less cost.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32716&id=32721&id=32720tab1

 

More expensive cars start with better platforms. It's a great way for a manufacturer to exploit a hot commodity. Put a high demand engine in a base platform and option it up. Would you buy an expensive lawn tractor because it's got a great motor, but sits on a cheap frame?

 

You really are clueless, were do you come up with this stuff.

 

Might as well say a Legacy GT is just a 20k car, why pay 30k for one, it's a rip off.

 

I don't need to go to a website to run numbers, you're one of 'those' paper people. You look at things on paper and think you know what you're taking about.

 

I had a 05.5 Jetta TDI before the Legacy. It's not just the number on paper- that is something people like you will never get .

 

First, you apparently don't even understand the numbers you're reading. It is well know that the EPA test format tends to return better mileage numbers for gas and hybrids while it returns WORSE numbers for Diesels.

 

Yes that's right off the paper and in the REAL world diesels are getting higher than EPA estimates. So the gap is much smaller than your paper calculations indicate.

 

Secondly, drive and gas engine hard and the drop in mileage is large. driving a diesel hard that there is a much smaller drop in mileage.

So you can't measure the fun factor.

[hmmrdwn]

You really are clueless, were do you come up with this stuff.

 

Might as well say a Legacy GT is just a 20k car, why pay 30k for one, it's a rip off.

 

I don't need to go to a website to run numbers, you're one of 'those' paper people. You look at things on paper and think you know what you're taking about.

 

I had a 05.5 Jetta TDI before the Legacy. It's not just the number on paper- that is something people like you will never get .

 

First, you apparently don't even understand the numbers you're reading. It is well know that the EPA test format tends to return better mileage numbers for gas and hybrids while it returns WORSE numbers for Diesels.

 

Yes that's right off the paper and in the REAL world diesels are getting higher than EPA estimates. So the gap is much smaller than your paper calculations indicate.

 

Secondly, drive and gas engine hard and the drop in mileage is large. driving a diesel hard that there is a much smaller drop in mileage.

So you can't measure the fun factor.

 

No, I'm not clueless. Neighbor has had two Jetta diesels and loved them when the cost of diesel was below gas. Like I said, the old vw diesel was a dirty, rattley and anemic old dog of an engine that struggled to get to 60 in 17,9 seconds. That is a fact. It's also a fact that the new diesels are cleaner, stronger engines that cost more to make. No bs there. The cost of diesel fuel is higher too. The diesel Jetta isn't faster than the gas Jetta either (diesel 8.7 vs. 8.0 for gas). It's also a fact that the diesel is only paired with the SE and higher packages.

 

The Legacy GT gives true performance (0-60 1/4 mile). People are willing to pay for that. The GT 0-60 time is subtantially better than the diesel. Subaru just needs to figure out if the public will pay a premium to get the diesel engine that performs the same as a gas version in exchange for slightly better mileage with the same fuel costs....due to the higher cost of diesel. VW was able to sell it to people like you and may be able to sell it to Subaru buyers too. I just wouldn't pay a premium for it. The diesel might be good for towing or use in a mountainous area.

 

Yeah, so if you want a more expensive car that has the same performance and very slightly better fuel costs, go for the diesel over the gas. VW has done a good job of selling the fun to drive aspect of the diesel, when in actuality you have to rev it up all the time to even get anywhere. Don't be fooled, they aren't much faster (if at all) than the naturally aspirated version either.

[seabass07]

But you are still ignoring the mileage differences when you drive hard.

[ehsnils]

The diesel is no GT, but it's not as out of breath as a NA car either for ordinary driving.

 

The main difference is that a gasoline engine has the maximum torque on a relatively high rpm where you usually don't are when you are doing normal driving while the diesel has the max torque in the range where you are when you drive. This means that you get almost instant torque and acceleration when you punch it while on a gasoline engine it has to rev up and for the GT spool up the turbo before you get any result.

 

This doesn't really matter for people that likes to drive aggressively all the time and use the S# mode, but when you do daily driving the almost instant torque will make a difference - and when towing even more so. I can drive around with mine below 2000 rpm almost everywhere all the time and still get decent performance.

[hmmrdwn]

There are positives to a diesel. Manufacturers still load up diesels raising the cost, diesel costs more per gallon and the performance isn't any better than a n/a car. I definitely would buy a diesel if they didn't load it up with a bunch fancy plastics and electronics that will be outdated in six months.

[TwoTone]

But you are still ignoring the mileage differences when you drive hard.

 

The diesel is no GT, but it's not as out of breath as a NA car either for ordinary driving.

 

The main difference is that a gasoline engine has the maximum torque on a relatively high rpm where you usually don't are when you are doing normal driving while the diesel has the max torque in the range where you are when you drive. This means that you get almost instant torque and acceleration when you punch it while on a gasoline engine it has to rev up and for the GT spool up the turbo before you get any result.

 

This doesn't really matter for people that likes to drive aggressively all the time and use the S# mode, but when you do daily driving the almost instant torque will make a difference - and when towing even more so. I can drive around with mine below 2000 rpm almost everywhere all the time and still get decent performance.

 

Thank you, people that get it.

[hmmrdwn]

I think the tdi has been better for VW than the gas version other than the fuel rail and stalling problems. I think there has been some issues with Subarus diesel. You guys are right, there are many positives to a diesel. I really wanted a Jetta diesel when it first came out. I just wanted more zip for the money and got another euro car with a gas turbo.

 

I was just trying to look this from a Subaru perspective. They haven't brought the diesel over for a reason. Hopefully they do and they don't price themselves out of sales. I think Subaru is aware of their customer demographics.

[hmmrdwn]

Good article discussing Subaru bringing over the diesel...

 

http://allwheeldriveauto.com/should-subaru-develop-a-diesel-vehicle-for-the-us/

[ehsnils]

The CNG version already exists and has been on the market here for a few years.

 

That is based on the 2.5i engine, but I wonder how well it would do if CNG was combined with the diesel engine.

http://www.subaru.se/ImageResize.axd?filename=/commonmedia/images/models/2012/cng/boxercng.jpg&width=900&height=285&crop=auto

 

Google translated page here: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.subaru.se%2Flineup%2Fboxer-cng%2Fversion%2Fversion_boxer-cng

("mil" is the Swedish "mile" which is 10km...)

 

And natural gas can be used on diesels too (http://www.westport.com/products/engines/15) the difference is that Westport uses liquid natural gas (LNG) instead of compressed (CNG), but that's more a difference in storage technology than engine type.

[lunamees]

diesel stinks ! smog !!! Cancer !!!!!!!!!

[frank_ster]

diesel stinks ! smog !!! Cancer !!!!!!!!!

 

you have never driven a subaru boxer diesel !!!! or any other new diesel have you...

 

no smog .. no smell what so ever..

 

and everything causes cancer..

[hmmrdwn]

I think that was sarcasm on his first post ever.

[frank_ster]

The CNG version already exists and has been on the market here for a few years.

 

That is based on the 2.5i engine, but I wonder how well it would do if CNG was combined with the diesel engine.

http://www.subaru.se/ImageResize.axd?filename=/commonmedia/images/models/2012/cng/boxercng.jpg&width=900&height=285&crop=auto

 

Google translated page here: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.subaru.se%2Flineup%2Fboxer-cng%2Fversion%2Fversion_boxer-cng

("mil" is the Swedish "mile" which is 10km...)

 

And natural gas can be used on diesels too (http://www.westport.com/products/engines/15) the difference is that Westport uses liquid natural gas (LNG) instead of compressed (CNG), but that's more a difference in storage technology than engine type.

 

yea you can convert any gas car to lpg or cng or lng. i have a video if my car running from a lpg tank. and i just need to get of my ass to install the kit i built up...