08 VW models

Is this the place to find out more info related to the VW TDI diesels?

I've been watching the group for a few days... Might be interested in buying a 08 VW Jetta.

Any other good VW newsgroups?

----------- Elbert snipped-for-privacy@me.com

Reply to
Elbert
Loading thread data ...

Sure, why not.

Close friend of mine just bought a brand new TDI Jetta. Hell of a car if you ask me. Real clean, it's a nice cruiser. The new diesels run much cleaner and quieter than ever.

No.

Reply to
Madesio

formatting link

Reply to
Jim Behning

As Jim noted, tdiclub has a great deal of information on VW Diesels past present and future.

That said there really is not much available about VW diesels for 2008 yet. A lot will depend on the EPA testing that has not been completed yet.

Reply to
Joseph Meehan

That is amazing that 2008 model testing has not been completed but I guess they are not shooting for 4 months early delivery that used to be an American tradition. Used to be as some new models are available

6 months before the calendar year starts.
Reply to
Jim Behning

I've heard the new TDIs will be early 2009 models, not 2008.

Reply to
Al Rudderham

That is certainly the case in Canada; I don't know about the US.

At issue is the fuel that is available. Briefly (and horribly oversimplified), the older type of diesel fuel has some substances in it that are incompatible with newer filter technologies. Those filters are what enable the diesels to achieve lower emissions than what diesels have traditionally put out. Europe has been making great strides in diesel fuels for many years, but North America did not adopt those standards. For instance, the EU rule was a sulphur limit of 50 ppm by 2005, with availability of 10 ppm. By 2009, only 10 ppm fuel will be allowed for highway vehicles. Canada would only guarantee availability of < 500 mg/kg fuels as of Sept of this year, although 15 mg/kg fuel was available below the northern service area by last year. Automakers have had to test only their old technologies, because with the general availability of high-sulphur fuels (and no way to guarantee someone couldn't accidentally fill up with them, causing expensive to repair emission-control problems), automakers have been reluctant to import their latest technology. The result is that they can't pass the current emissions limits using diesels, so they can't sell the engines.

Part of the reluctance in North America has been attributed to the trucking industry, which didn't want expensive changes imposed. Since it was overwhelmingly a stronger diesel consumer than passenger cars, it had a much greater say in the direction of the industry. Whether this is an accurate attribution is something I can't say, since I'm not an industry person.

Note that the older diesels _don't_ get all the emissions benefits of the new fuels as they come available -- several of the benefits come from both the filters and some very clever exhasut and catalyst systems that will gradually become available. Interestingly, though, with the right technology, a lightweight diesel could easily surpass the fuel use of current hybrids, with relatively similar emissions. Hybrids are heavy, due to their batteries, and by putting smaller engines in very lightweight cars, diesels could be a good alternative. (That won't happen, of course, because the trend in automaking is for heavier cars. People want giant pillows and huge piles of steel around themselves, in case of collision. All thoughts of road design, driver training, and handling are secondary to this naive conception of "safety". But that's a rant for another day.)

For lots of interesting stuff about diesels in general, I suggest

formatting link
It's an industry forum, note, so you don'tget all the criticism that is perhaps justified. Best regards, Andrew Sullivan pull bell to reply by mail.

Reply to
Andrew Sullivan

formatting link

Worth a look.

Baz

Reply to
Baz

That was an outstanding post!

Reply to
Joseph Meehan

I don't know if it was on this group or not but someone posted a diesel technology article. They talked about new exhaust stuff that would practically eliminate the aftermarket chips and exhaust that make cars and trucks belchmasters. They have neat exhaust pipe that works like a jet engine throwing flames out the side of the vehicle. Technology is a wonderful thing.

formatting link

Reply to
Jim Behning

I see that link in the tdiclub archives, anyway. (If you're interested in the TDIs, that's an excellent resource. What a buncha car geeks we are.) It's a very cool article.

It's not quite "throwing flames out the side of the vehicle" ;-). It's basically just heating the soot so that it burns up to be ash. If you have a self-cleaning oven, you'll know what I mean: the crap that fell on the oven wall doesn't go away; it just gets turned into a fine white powder as opposed to the former black stain.

I suspect the book remains open on whether this will actually be an improvement in emissions. We'll go from soot heavy on carbon to some kind of ash with properties we'll be learning about in the future. It might turn out to be worse in some ways -- the heavy particulate that is the carbon soot in traditional diesel exhaust might be more easily trapped and disposed of by our respiratory systems than is a fine, very light ash that will inevitably blow around. After all, basic physics and chemistry tells us the material doesn't _go away_. It just changes form in some way.

This is not entirely dissimilar to the issues that cropped up after the introduction of catalysts to gasoline engines. It's true that they reduced NOx emissions, and also that as a nice side effect, we dramatically lowered lead concentrations in the air (lead's a nasty neurotoxin, and there's compelling evidence that eliminating lead in gasoline was a much more significant improvement to public health than the current panic around accidentally smelling tobacco smoke as someone walks by on the street will ever produce). On the other hand, we now have wrecking yards that have yet another serious source of extremely toxic industrial waste. You do _not_ want the stuff inside failed catalytic converters getting into the air or water.

Every tech fix comes with its own set of problems. Overall, if we want cleaner transportation, we need to drive less (and fly less, actually, which means just moving around less in practice). But that doesn't mean we should do nothing. It just means we should be sceptical of solutions that promise to solve everything. What these new technologies do is meet the requirements of the stuff we're already measuring. It could be that what we're not measuring (because it isn't there yet) is far more dangerous.

Best, Andrew Sullivan pull bell to reply by email

Reply to
Andrew Sullivan
[quote] the trend in automaking is for heavier cars. People want giant pillows and huge piles of steel around themselves, in case of collision. All thoughts of road design, driver training, and handling are secondary to this naive conception of "safety". But that's a rant for another day.) [/quote]

Yes!, Preach brother!

oh.... sorry.

Never mind.

TBerk

Reply to
TBerk

Elbert wrote in news:q8f0h3t5oihe7sbq76vi7fujo7lk2h9b3l@

4ax.com:

Another good VW discussion group is

formatting link

Reply to
Greg

The sulfur in US on-road diesel fuel was supposed to be limited to

15ppm (versus the older 500ppm limit) by late 2006, in time for 2007 model year cars.
Reply to
Timothy J. Lee

It was. The _problem_ is twofold:

  1. There was no plan to replace all storage, filling, and transport technology, no guarantee that allowable high-sulphur diesel uses (marine fuel, IIRC) from the same period wouldn't be carried in the same transport on different occasions, and no requirement that any of thise stuff be taken out of service and cleaned prior to changeover to the new fuel requirements.
  2. Failures of the emissions systems due to fouling in the first [mumble] miles are the responsibility of the manufacturer, and must be fixed under warranty.

The combination of the above means, in effect, that the automaker can't be sure owners will not, quite by accident, use the wrong fuel. This was solved in the switch from leaded to unleaded gas by a requirement that the fuelling necks be different sizes (you couldn't put a leaded nozzle into an unleaded filler neck). That worked because for some time leaded and unleaded gas were both available, so the infrastructure was built clean. Not so with the diesel stuff.

In effect, then, the regulators were asking the auto makers, who would have to pay for mistakes, to trust that none would be made. If you were the automaker, how hard would you work under those circumstances to pass all the tests necessary to certify by 2007? Keep in mind that a wholesale replacement of all the emissions equipment on a car these days can effectively wipe out the profit on the vehicle. You also have to get the dealer network to co-operate, and they don't like to do warranty service because they're often stuck paying part of the cost. So the dealers will all balk, and the car buyers will be angry that they're getting shafted.

On the whole, it's just easier to take longer to bring the diesels back to market under safer conditions. This is a classic example, by the way, of how regulation can have somewhat perverse effects. It was probably better than the alternative ("do nothing"), but it still caused the elimination of one cleaner option from the market for some period of time. "Economics 101" doesn't work in the actual ecomomy, and "Government 101" doesn't work in the actual political environment, and what we get in reality is the union set of the worst alternatives each can produce :)

Andrew "me, cynical?" Sullivan Toronto, ON Pull bell to reply by mail

Reply to
Andrew Sullivan

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.