Fuel prices

If a Toyota Pious battery is allowed to go flat, it's cactus. Allow
about $7000 for a replacement.

Personally, if I were looking for an economical car, with a low
environmental impact, I'd have a VW Golf turbo diesel.

 

How does a diesel have a low environmental impact?

 

Err... wasn't the grey motor 70 horse power?


G-S

 

The Mercedes-Benz B180 CDI diesel costs $45,800 + ORC and a B200 petrol
costs $45,800 + ORC and the diesel uses 5.7 l/100kms against the petrol
which uses 7.5 l/100kms.

Now that seems like a pricing structure that the other manufacturers
could take notice of


G-S

 

Compared to a similar petrol model? Easily


G-S

 

And when fitted with NOS they really haul.



Boxer

 

Which grey motor?

It started out at 132.5 cubic inch displacement (48-215) and finished
up at 138 c.i. (EK). There were also other changes made along the way
that affected power output.

AFAIK GMH never declared a precise figure for the early ones but some
sources had it as well below 60 bhp....
http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/classic_car_commercials_holden.htm

 

"...Just to see the country shimmer through the windscreen"

Bill

 

Sorry, but I assumed you actually *knew*

 

No, it's worse than that. They're paying for fuel to the detriment of
many of other government services that people in most countries _expect_
their governments to provide them. So, a rich minority of the
Venezuelans benefit from cheap petrol and fill the tanks of their 4x4s
for peanuts while the majority who can't afford to own a car benefit
neither from fuel prices nor government provided social services.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

Actually I I manage a fleet of heavy vehicle diesel vehicles and a small
fleet of light cars, and I'm responsible for purchasing.

I am actually familiar with the various emission characteristics of the
various types of engines believe it or not

Total environmental cost of diesel engined vehicles (taking into account
longer life, less fuel use and improved emmissions) *is* lower than
petrol engined vehicles with similar torque ratings.


G-S

 

And you seem to have successfully resisted that urge so far too!

 

We don't believe it, since you're obviously not familiar with the
engine characteristics that matter.

Flywheel torque taken in isolation means SFA.

Power (which is the product of torque) is the one that matters since
it's what transfers directly to the drive wheels.... Torque is
multiplied or divided (mostly the latter) by the drive ratios, whereas
power isn't

The only reason manufacturer's quote torque as well as power figures
is to indicate an engine's power band (for those who actually know how
to interpret performance figures). Diesels mostly fare very poorly on
that basis as well.

The only reason sales brochures quote torque figures (in isolation) is
to confuse the gullible!

 

I was waiting for that

This is true, but not the end of the story.

I'm not saying that it is not, but the intended use of most diesel
vehicles is A to B transport to which the midrange heavy power band of
the diesel is well suited.

On a performance basis where performance is rated in terms like 0 to 100
and standing 400 metres sure.

On a basis of delivering the most economical TCO engine platform that
will easily move a given vehicle from A to B the situation is different.

That's why I mentioned them to you in the first place


G-S

 

Aren't the Golf 2.0 petrol and 1.9 diesel the same price as well?

Golf 1.9 TDI Comfortline 5 Door 6 Speed Manual $29,990.00

Golf 2.0 FSI Comfortline 5 Door 6 Speed Manual $29,990.00

Fuel consumption 5.5 against 8.0

emmission 149 against 192


Theo

 

I forgot about those 2 ta


G-S

 

: In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:47:22 -0000
: > On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:24:41 +0900, Theo Bekkers wrote:
: >
: >> George W Frost wrote:
: >>
: >>> It's okay for people in the cities to buy a Prius or equivilant
: >>> vehicle, but for people in the provincial towns who do a lot of
country
: >>> miles, those greeen machines, are no good at all, they are
underpowered
: >>> for coutry driving
: >>
: >> A common argument. How did we ever survive with 40 hp VWs and 60 hp
: >> Holdens? These days you need at least 200 hp to drive on the same
roads,
: >> at slower speeds.
: >
: > And you need an "SUV" to do it.
:
: "where a sports car's next to useless
: running riverbeds and cattle grids
: we drove a van from 1963"
:
: Zebee

That's just "RED"
Wonder if it was PK or Juicyfruit?

 

: In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:47:22 -0000
: > On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:24:41 +0900, Theo Bekkers wrote:
: >
: >> George W Frost wrote:
: >>
: >>> It's okay for people in the cities to buy a Prius or equivilant
: >>> vehicle, but for people in the provincial towns who do a lot of
country
: >>> miles, those greeen machines, are no good at all, they are
underpowered
: >>> for coutry driving
: >>
: >> A common argument. How did we ever survive with 40 hp VWs and 60 hp
: >> Holdens? These days you need at least 200 hp to drive on the same
roads,
: >> at slower speeds.
: >
: > And you need an "SUV" to do it.
:
: "where a sports car's next to useless
: running riverbeds and cattle grids
: we drove a van from 1963"
:
: Zebee

http://www.sweetslyrics.com/394790.Redgum - The Last Frontier.html

I was at the "roll it on Robbie" tour when it hit Rocky, about a dozen
people showed up at Flamingos.

 

Please tell us the whole story then!

You're still missing the point completely.

Torque only matters when it converts to power. To convert it to power
you need to know the revs (which you haven't even seen fit to
mention).
The relationship is.... Power (kW) = Torque x rpm / 9549

Apply the same to petrol engine and it'll shit all over a comparable
diesel and have a broader power band to boot. Furthermore the
specific torque (Nm / litre displacement) will be about 15% higher for
the petrol engine. It will also be considerably lighter for the same
power output.

The only significant advantage of a diesel is that it can operate
efficiently on a "cheap" high energy fuel source (compared to petrol).

The real cost is _higher_ emissions, not lower. Particulates being
what really matter (as a health issue).

And on any other measure of performance that's available.

Some probably think the same about steam engines running on black coal
(which has a much higher energy content and costs a lot less than
diesel).

Then why mention it if _you_ don't believe it... because hardly anyone
else here does!

 

Actually I'm not

Power bands don't matter significantly when a modern transmission like a
CVT is used.

Particulates are only one part of emmisions and *far* from the most
important. Have a look at the new euro IV diesels and you'll see that
in most comparisons they are ahead.

If you can produce a modern steam engine that costs less to own and run
that produces a euro IV compatible output on black coal then go for it!

It wasn't mentioned in *isolation* but rather mentioned in comparison to
other alternative petrol motors.

I compared the MB B series 180CDI to the B series 200 petrol in another
post in the thread.

The 320i 2.0 petrol vs the 320d diesel offers a similar comparison.

The point being that 'other things being equal' (the car!) it's easy to
obtain real world comparisons between diesel and petrol alternatives.

In both of the above metioned cases the general consensus seems to be
that the diesel alternatives are preferable.

If you disagree then feel free to explain why, I'm willing to listen


G-S