Date:         Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:52:50 -0400
Reply-To:     Joachim Preiss <jp0815@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Joachim Preiss <jp0815@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: Turbo Diesel Power and Economy - global efficiency Q?
In-Reply-To:  <00fa01c27584$f9b00330$a67ba8c0@deus>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

EPA ratings may be arbitrary. TDI engines are among the worst in EPA's
statistics, even worse than any 10mpg guzzler, although their low fuel
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are matched only by ultralight cars
and hybrids. In Europe reducing greenhouse gas emissions is considered very
important, besides the fact that expensive fuel calls for better gasmileage.
TDI engines however emit particles which can cause smog. Technology is
available today to filter those diesel particles which are also considered
carcinogenic from the exhaust, but car manufacturers (VW!) refuse to install
them in their cars.

Greenhouse gas emissions hurt globally, particles locally.

In your 2 ton Westy you can probably achieve 20-25mpg with a clean burning
modern I4 gasoline engine, or 35mpg with a TDI. Your choice.

 Joachim
'85 Westfalia 1.9WBX 18mpg
'00 golf 1.9 TDI 45mpg over 45k miles



|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com]On Behalf
|> Of Wade Shen
|> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 22:29
|> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
|> Subject: Re: Turbo Diesel Power and Economy - global eficiency Q?
|>
|>
|> Check out www.fueleconomy.gov  This site has information about EPA fuel
|> efficiencies and relative polution as gauged by the EPA.
|>
|> Just taking a quick look, the Jetta 1.9 TDI vs Jetta 1.8 T, The TDI
|> emmits 3.4 tons less greenhouse gas (in co2 equiv.) per year, for the
|> same body and transmission.  However, the smog forming emissions are
|> much worse for the TDI (and generally for diesels).
|>
|> wade
|>
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM] On Behalf
|> Of Damon Campbell
|> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:38 PM
|> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
|> Subject: Re: Turbo Diesel Power and Economy - global eficiency Q?
|>
|>
|> I am trying to debate the merits between several different engine
|> conversions (although i don't really know why... my 1.9 is running like
|> a champ).  My main criteria is not a moderate HP increase (although an
|> extra 15 or so would be great), but rather the reduction of pollution to
|> the world.  So this question transcends (a bit) frank's lengthy
|> analysis, although inspired by it.
|>
|> What combinations of fuel and engine produce the least amount of
|> pollutants?  In this question, i am including the impacts of actually
|> producing/transporting/etc. the fuel, as well.  (i remember someone
|> mentioning this a while back, but can't find it in the archives).  How
|> does natural gas, or possibly even fuel cells weigh in to the
|> global-efficiency calc compared to your standard gas and diesel? It
|> sounds like a simple TDi is a viable option for these criteria, but i
|> want to see even *more* numbers! :-)
|>
|> Thanks,
|> -Damon
|>
|>  Frank Grunthaner <FrankGRUN@AOL.COM> wrote:
|> And frankly, the highly efficient TDi is probably the most effective
|> engine for the Vanagon. Turbo diesels are impressive, and the TDi
|> technology even more so.
|>
|> Sorry for the soapbox,
|>
|> Frank Grunthaner
|>
|> '84 Westy
|>
|>
|> ---------------------------------
|> Do you Yahoo!?
|> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more faith.yahoo.com