I've often throught the same thing. The old diesel Pontons got ~40mpg, what happened? Seems like we should be lightyears above that by now. Cars have gotten more efficient, but they've also gotten a lot heavier due to all the safey regulations, and other crap we "have" to have. A 1980 Jetta weighs about 1800lbs, a 2010 Jetta weighs 3200lbs, that 44% heavier. The two years still get pretty similar mileage, but I'd much rather get in an accident in a 2010 Jetta than a 1980 Jetta.

__________________

They didn't unveil anything new.

From 2002.
http://greatchange.org/footnotes-1-liter-car.html

So, in 9 years they managed another 22mpg...

I do agree with the weight coming from crash worthy mandates and creature comfort options. But moving two to four people with any type of piston, electric or hybrid with the fuel we have now..I think 260mpg is not realistically attainable. 100+ on the other hand is easily doable.

__________________
1987 300D (230,000 mi on a #14 head-watching the temp gauge and keeping the ghost in the machine)
Raleigh NC - Home of deep fried sushi!

The amount of energy released from a power plant is much more efficient than the power released from an internal combustion engine. They're not exactly a 1:1 ratio of efficiency.

Well they did make it look more like a car and not some Jetson future junk.

__________________
-Typos courtesy of my mobile phone.

1.Even in "Production" that chassis will not be any where NEAR $50K USD.
(More reasonable for the description would be $100 to 150K USD)
2.Most of the U.S.'s Electric Production is Coal Fired Generation.
(You have No Idea of Filthy,until you visit a CFGP in operation!)
3.Any "Plug-In" vehicle of any description is a Scam...'Wait until the first
bill from the Utility! [not to mention Battery Replacement Costs]

VW produced a 3 Cylinder Turbo-Diesel (With the 5 speed Tiptronic Autobox)
called the Lupo in the '90s that got almost 80MPG In Town.

__________________
'84 300SD sold
124.128

Old news just google mercedes diesel hybrid : http://gas2.org/2008/04/07/mercedes-40-mpg-diesel-hybrid-vision-glk-bluetec-suv/


I saw stuff about them making diesel hybrids a long time ago ......the reason mercedes made bluetec was because they said they could make a cleaner diesel that had better fuel mileage then any gasoline hybrid that was on the market at the time.



And yes the lupo is kick ass look up that up too i want one.


Last i heard they get 70-100 mpgs in the newer models.

__________________
Wie lange wird Ihr Auto leben?

This statement isn't based on reality or facts. Electric power plants are able to squeeze only 40% (at the very most) thermal efficiency from their fuel. Then there is another 5-10% lost in transmission of electricity. Then there are losses from converting the electricity into chemical energy stored in the batteries. Then losses getting the stored energy from the batteries back into kinetic energy through the electric motor in the car. When it is all said and done I would be very surprised if more than 15-20% of the thermal energy of the fuel going into the power plant is actually converted into kinetic energy at the wheels of an electric car. That's about the lowest level of efficiency of any modern internal combustion engine powered car today. The myth that electric cars are both emission free and efficient is one that only those who don't understand what it takes to get from fuel to motion would believe.

That's not to say they can't be cheaper to run than conventional cars, but most of the savings would be because the electric companies would love to see people start using more power overnight to "smooth out the demand curve" and make their investment in generating and distributing power payoff better. The incremental cost of generating power during off-demand hours is much lower because the infrastructure is already in place for them to supply much more power during the day when it has been traditionally needed. If they could get demand up at night to be charging all of those batteries it would be a huge windfall for them. But, of course, this would only be until the demand exceeded capacity, then prices would go up and the cost of operating an electric car would no longer be lower than a conventional one.

Let's not confuse efficiency (thermal) with operating costs. Taking a gallon of diesel fuel and burning it in a power plant 50 miles from your house and turning it into electricity to charge batteries in your electric car will not propel you farther down the road than putting a gallon of diesel fuel into my Jetta and driving down the road, period. There's no way electric cars can be more thermally efficient than econobox internal combustion cars because there are losses at every point of conversion and far more of them (fuel to steam, steam to electric power, electric power to chemical energy, chemical energy to kinetic energy) than in a conventional internal combustion driven car (fuel directly to kinetic energy). They can (and are) cheaper to operate, for now at least but still add to the emissions of CO2 and other pollutants and, are probably more polluting than conventional cars overall because of their inefficiency in converting energy into motion.

__________________
Marty D.

2013 C300 4Matic
1984 BMW 733i
2013 Lincoln MKz

What he said....

People can't do basic math...

which is more efficient?

Process A, one stage, 30% overall efficiency.

Process B, five stages, 75% efficiency per stage.

Answer, Process A, because process B is only 23.7% efficient overall.

Is anyone researching diesel electric engine like in locomotives for use in cars? I've heard that the diesel electric locomotives are very efficient, but I don't know anything about them.

__________________

I understand your point; but if you are going to make that argument you have to consider the entire system, including the thermal efficiency of distilling the oil into gasoline/diesel fuels and the energy associated with transportation of the fuel all the way to your local gas station.

Diesel - electric is the topic of the post, the question is battery vs. diesel and when to switch. Locomotives are very efficient based on economies of scale IE: tons moved per unit of fuel used. I think it's rated in fuel consumption per horsepower hour. AND, without the 'electric' component they would be even MORE efficient, like cargo ship engines. The very large Wärtsilä-Sulzer engines are more efficient than a diesel - electric drive of equal ability would be. It seems the trade off is torque and size. Max torque (getting the train rolling) is just off zero RPM for the electric motor and I'm not so sure an engine the size of a diary barn would fit in a locomotive.

__________________
1987 300D (230,000 mi on a #14 head-watching the temp gauge and keeping the ghost in the machine)
Raleigh NC - Home of deep fried sushi!

With railways you have bugger all rolling resistance and gradient, and you can forget 0-60 in 10 seconds....

We also seem to be forgetting that we can get our electricity from other sources. The long term solution would be to start switching to breeder style nuclear reactors and pulling all of the radioactive waste out for fuel.

An integral fast reactor removes the concern of a meltdown, but reactors of this type were never built because they don't create fuel for weapons.

__________________
-Typos courtesy of my mobile phone.

The efficiencies of rail transportation derive from the steel wheels on steel rails, virtually no rolling resistance. There is no inherent efficiency in their propulsion system, it's a simple and reliable way to get a 10,000 ton train moving from a stop.

Answer; Process C, rolling powerplant. AKA, a series hybrid.