Richard Smith wrote on 5/30/2022 5:57 AM:
Hi all
On this bright morning I thought to ask you here on r.c.m. if any of
you know what makes the difference for a diesel car between very good
fuel consumption and just good fuel consumption.
I am not a regular in this newsgroup but I once owned a VW Jetta TDI,
and I think I am knowledgeable enough on this matter to answer your
question.
Diesel fuel has higher "energy density" than regular gasoline (or
petroleum in the UK). In the oil distillation process in the oil
refinery, diesel fuel is less refined than regular gasoline, and thus contains more complex hydrocarbon molecules than regular
gasoline. Theoretical a tank of diesel fuel contains more heat energy
than the same volume of regular gasoline if you can burn the fuel
thoroughly through proper combustion.
A diesel engine does not use a spark plug to ignite the fuel in each combustion cycle. Instead it uses high compression to ignite the
air-diesel mixture, therefore a diesel engine requires stronger metal components, and thus lasts longer and costs more money to build.
Another advantage of using diesel is that diesel is technically
equivalent to Jet A1 fuel + motor oil. Jet A1 fuel is a common
aircraft engine fuel which is basically a fancy type of
kerosene. Because the less-refined diesel fuel has the engine oil
built into it, it actually lubricates the combustion chamber in each
stroke.
With the combined effect of better metal components in building a
diesel engine, a higher energy density of diesel fuel compared to
regular gasoline, and the innate lubricating power of diesel fuel
itself, a diesel engine is renowned to have better fuel economy and
last longer.
The disadvantage of using diesel engine in a car is that a diesel
engine is more sluggish in picking up speed compared to a gasoline
engine. If you want jack-rabbit starts after each red traffic light,
then a diesel car will disappoint you.
Diesel engines are the preferred choice for vehicles that require fuel economy and engine durability. That's why commercial trucks are almost exclusively diesel.
Hope that helps.
The punchline is - where is the extra 30+% fuel consumption going in a
"modern" car?
UK / Europe factor - every car mentioned has manual ("stick-shift")
transmission - five-speed or six-speed.
For nine years, I had a car which reached 20 years of age and went
everywhere, every day, at 63MPG (Imperial 10pint gallon (4.536L); 50.4
miles per US Gallon; 22.2km-per-Litre). With plenty of power -
delight to drive. Turbo spun-up and it surged forward no need for
gear changes.
Even a vibrating rattly tiny Fiat supposed to do 70MPG (Imperial) did
only 55MPG.
My current car mid-range (European style - probably very compact by US
standards) is super luxurious, has a six-speed gearbox, goodly amount
of power - no hills steep enough to keep speed below 70MPH when
cleaning out the engine with sustained accelerator to floor - but
"only" 48MPG (38.4miles per US gallon; 17km per Litre)
A few years ago I was told 60+MPG "is a thing of the past" "with new
emission reg.s" (!!).
The 63MPG car, built in late 1990's, was turbo-diesel, fly-by-wire
diesel injection, probably no filters or anything on the exhaust side
of the engine.
At 63MPG, it cannot have been throwing anything / much out of the
exhaust part-combusted - else it wouldn't be doing 63MPG...
It weighed 1~1/2tonnes - heavy for a smallish compact car.
However, whatever that weight was, it seemed to be involved in
something which nett left you advantaged.
That was 1.9Litres - quite large by UK / Europe standards - where my
more modern car is something like 1.6Litres capacity.
It sounded like a tractor, for sure, when at idle.
That car, the 63MPG car, was Spanish built and badged from the
Volkswagen stable. Someone told me it had the engine from the earlier
VW Golf GTD (turbo diesel performance model). When that was no longer
the new premium model.
So yes, if you could be happy with
a car which sounded like a tractor, you warmed it up slowly to be kind
to the environment, didn't mind that the heaters only worked after
about 3 miles of driving (if you aren't burning much fuel you are not
producing much heat, plus you have a big heavy engine to warm up)
then you got a totally delightful car.
But that fuel consumption... 63MPG (Imperial)
That is the possible.
Where is that extra 30+% fuel going in a "modern" car ???????
The 63MPG (Imperial) shows what is needed to do the job with a
"straight diesel" car. So you can use that as a reference and ask -
for a "modern" car, where is that extra 30+% of "un-accounted-for"
fuel going ???????
I would be very very interested to know.
I've had that question in my mind for since I found I couldn't
like-for-like replace the wonderful VW-family car.
Regards,
Rich Smith
Hi all
On this bright morning I thought to ask you here on r.c.m. if any of
you know what makes the difference for a diesel car between very good
fuel consumption and just good fuel consumption.
The punchline is - where is the extra 30+% fuel consumption going in a "modern" car?
UK / Europe factor - every car mentioned has manual ("stick-shift") transmission - five-speed or six-speed.
For nine years, I had a car which reached 20 years of age and went everywhere, every day, at 63MPG (Imperial 10pint gallon (4.536L); 50.4
miles per US Gallon; 22.2km-per-Litre). With plenty of power -
delight to drive. Turbo spun-up and it surged forward no need for
gear changes.
Even a vibrating rattly tiny Fiat supposed to do 70MPG (Imperial) did
only 55MPG.
My current car mid-range (European style - probably very compact by US standards) is super luxurious, has a six-speed gearbox, goodly amount
of power - no hills steep enough to keep speed below 70MPH when
cleaning out the engine with sustained accelerator to floor - but
"only" 48MPG (38.4miles per US gallon; 17km per Litre)
A few years ago I was told 60+MPG "is a thing of the past" "with new
emission reg.s" (!!).
The 63MPG car, built in late 1990's, was turbo-diesel, fly-by-wire
diesel injection, probably no filters or anything on the exhaust side
of the engine.
At 63MPG, it cannot have been throwing anything / much out of the
exhaust part-combusted - else it wouldn't be doing 63MPG...
It weighed 1~1/2tonnes - heavy for a smallish compact car.
However, whatever that weight was, it seemed to be involved in
something which nett left you advantaged.
That was 1.9Litres - quite large by UK / Europe standards - where my
more modern car is something like 1.6Litres capacity.
It sounded like a tractor, for sure, when at idle.
That car, the 63MPG car, was Spanish built and badged from the
Volkswagen stable. Someone told me it had the engine from the earlier
VW Golf GTD (turbo diesel performance model). When that was no longer
the new premium model.
So yes, if you could be happy with
a car which sounded like a tractor, you warmed it up slowly to be kind
to the environment, didn't mind that the heaters only worked after
about 3 miles of driving (if you aren't burning much fuel you are not producing much heat, plus you have a big heavy engine to warm up)
then you got a totally delightful car.
But that fuel consumption... 63MPG (Imperial)
That is the possible.
Where is that extra 30+% fuel going in a "modern" car ???????
The 63MPG (Imperial) shows what is needed to do the job with a
"straight diesel" car. So you can use that as a reference and ask -
for a "modern" car, where is that extra 30+% of "un-accounted-for"
fuel going ???????
I would be very very interested to know.
I've had that question in my mind for since I found I couldn't
like-for-like replace the wonderful VW-family car.
Regards,
Rich Smith
Hi all
On this bright morning I thought to ask you here on r.c.m. if any of
you know what makes the difference for a diesel car between very good
fuel consumption and just good fuel consumption.
The punchline is - where is the extra 30+% fuel consumption going in a "modern" car?
UK / Europe factor - every car mentioned has manual ("stick-shift") transmission - five-speed or six-speed.
For nine years, I had a car which reached 20 years of age and went everywhere, every day, at 63MPG (Imperial 10pint gallon (4.536L); 50.4
miles per US Gallon; 22.2km-per-Litre). With plenty of power -
delight to drive. Turbo spun-up and it surged forward no need for
gear changes.
Even a vibrating rattly tiny Fiat supposed to do 70MPG (Imperial) did
only 55MPG.
My current car mid-range (European style - probably very compact by US standards) is super luxurious, has a six-speed gearbox, goodly amount
of power - no hills steep enough to keep speed below 70MPH when
cleaning out the engine with sustained accelerator to floor - but
"only" 48MPG (38.4miles per US gallon; 17km per Litre)
A few years ago I was told 60+MPG "is a thing of the past" "with new
emission reg.s" (!!).
The 63MPG car, built in late 1990's, was turbo-diesel, fly-by-wire
diesel injection, probably no filters or anything on the exhaust side
of the engine.
At 63MPG, it cannot have been throwing anything / much out of the
exhaust part-combusted - else it wouldn't be doing 63MPG...
It weighed 1~1/2tonnes - heavy for a smallish compact car.
However, whatever that weight was, it seemed to be involved in
something which nett left you advantaged.
That was 1.9Litres - quite large by UK / Europe standards - where my
more modern car is something like 1.6Litres capacity.
It sounded like a tractor, for sure, when at idle.
That car, the 63MPG car, was Spanish built and badged from the
Volkswagen stable. Someone told me it had the engine from the earlier
VW Golf GTD (turbo diesel performance model). When that was no longer
the new premium model.
So yes, if you could be happy with
a car which sounded like a tractor, you warmed it up slowly to be kind
to the environment, didn't mind that the heaters only worked after
about 3 miles of driving (if you aren't burning much fuel you are not producing much heat, plus you have a big heavy engine to warm up)
then you got a totally delightful car.
But that fuel consumption... 63MPG (Imperial)
That is the possible.
Where is that extra 30+% fuel going in a "modern" car ???????
The 63MPG (Imperial) shows what is needed to do the job with a
"straight diesel" car. So you can use that as a reference and ask -
for a "modern" car, where is that extra 30+% of "un-accounted-for"
fuel going ???????
I would be very very interested to know.
I've had that question in my mind for since I found I couldn't
like-for-like replace the wonderful VW-family car.
Regards,
Rich Smith
Hi all
On this bright morning I thought to ask you here on r.c.m. if any of
you know what makes the difference for a diesel car between very good
fuel consumption and just good fuel consumption.
The punchline is - where is the extra 30+% fuel consumption going in a "modern" car?
UK / Europe factor - every car mentioned has manual ("stick-shift") transmission - five-speed or six-speed.
For nine years, I had a car which reached 20 years of age and went everywhere, every day, at 63MPG (Imperial 10pint gallon (4.536L); 50.4
miles per US Gallon; 22.2km-per-Litre). With plenty of power -
delight to drive. Turbo spun-up and it surged forward no need for
gear changes.
Even a vibrating rattly tiny Fiat supposed to do 70MPG (Imperial) did
only 55MPG.
My current car mid-range (European style - probably very compact by US standards) is super luxurious, has a six-speed gearbox, goodly amount
of power - no hills steep enough to keep speed below 70MPH when
cleaning out the engine with sustained accelerator to floor - but
"only" 48MPG (38.4miles per US gallon; 17km per Litre)
A few years ago I was told 60+MPG "is a thing of the past" "with new
emission reg.s" (!!).
The 63MPG car, built in late 1990's, was turbo-diesel, fly-by-wire
diesel injection, probably no filters or anything on the exhaust side
of the engine.
At 63MPG, it cannot have been throwing anything / much out of the
exhaust part-combusted - else it wouldn't be doing 63MPG...
It weighed 1~1/2tonnes - heavy for a smallish compact car.
However, whatever that weight was, it seemed to be involved in
something which nett left you advantaged.
That was 1.9Litres - quite large by UK / Europe standards - where my
more modern car is something like 1.6Litres capacity.
It sounded like a tractor, for sure, when at idle.
That car, the 63MPG car, was Spanish built and badged from the
Volkswagen stable. Someone told me it had the engine from the earlier
VW Golf GTD (turbo diesel performance model). When that was no longer
the new premium model.
So yes, if you could be happy with
a car which sounded like a tractor, you warmed it up slowly to be kind
to the environment, didn't mind that the heaters only worked after
about 3 miles of driving (if you aren't burning much fuel you are not producing much heat, plus you have a big heavy engine to warm up)
then you got a totally delightful car.
But that fuel consumption... 63MPG (Imperial)
That is the possible.
Where is that extra 30+% fuel going in a "modern" car ???????
The 63MPG (Imperial) shows what is needed to do the job with a
"straight diesel" car. So you can use that as a reference and ask -
for a "modern" car, where is that extra 30+% of "un-accounted-for"
fuel going ???????
I would be very very interested to know.
I've had that question in my mind for since I found I couldn't
like-for-like replace the wonderful VW-family car.
Regards,
Rich Smith
On 30/05/2022 10:57, Richard Smith wrote:
Hi all
On this bright morning I thought to ask you here on r.c.m. if any of
you know what makes the difference for a diesel car between very good
fuel consumption and just good fuel consumption.
The punchline is - where is the extra 30+% fuel consumption going in a
"modern" car?
UK / Europe factor - every car mentioned has manual ("stick-shift")
transmission - five-speed or six-speed.
For nine years, I had a car which reached 20 years of age and went
everywhere, every day, at 63MPG (Imperial 10pint gallon (4.536L); 50.4
miles per US Gallon; 22.2km-per-Litre). With plenty of power -
delight to drive. Turbo spun-up and it surged forward no need for
gear changes.
Even a vibrating rattly tiny Fiat supposed to do 70MPG (Imperial) did
only 55MPG.
My current car mid-range (European style - probably very compact by US
standards) is super luxurious, has a six-speed gearbox, goodly amount
of power - no hills steep enough to keep speed below 70MPH when
cleaning out the engine with sustained accelerator to floor - but
"only" 48MPG (38.4miles per US gallon; 17km per Litre)
A few years ago I was told 60+MPG "is a thing of the past" "with new
emission reg.s" (!!).
The 63MPG car, built in late 1990's, was turbo-diesel, fly-by-wire
diesel injection, probably no filters or anything on the exhaust side
of the engine.
At 63MPG, it cannot have been throwing anything / much out of the
exhaust part-combusted - else it wouldn't be doing 63MPG...
It weighed 1~1/2tonnes - heavy for a smallish compact car.
However, whatever that weight was, it seemed to be involved in
something which nett left you advantaged.
That was 1.9Litres - quite large by UK / Europe standards - where my
more modern car is something like 1.6Litres capacity.
It sounded like a tractor, for sure, when at idle.
That car, the 63MPG car, was Spanish built and badged from the
Volkswagen stable. Someone told me it had the engine from the earlier
VW Golf GTD (turbo diesel performance model). When that was no longer
the new premium model.
So yes, if you could be happy with
a car which sounded like a tractor, you warmed it up slowly to be kind
to the environment, didn't mind that the heaters only worked after
about 3 miles of driving (if you aren't burning much fuel you are not
producing much heat, plus you have a big heavy engine to warm up)
then you got a totally delightful car.
But that fuel consumption... 63MPG (Imperial)
That is the possible.
Where is that extra 30+% fuel going in a "modern" car ???????
The 63MPG (Imperial) shows what is needed to do the job with a
"straight diesel" car. So you can use that as a reference and ask -
for a "modern" car, where is that extra 30+% of "un-accounted-for"
fuel going ???????
I would be very very interested to know.
I've had that question in my mind for since I found I couldn't
like-for-like replace the wonderful VW-family car.
Regards,
Rich Smith
I forgot to mention in my other post but a mate recently raised the
issue where he was getting noticeably poorer fuel consumption on current
pump diesel than a few years ago. He runs a Nissan SUV, a FIAT camper
van and for work a Ford Transit, all diesel and the vehicles haven't
changed just he isn't getting the same distance out of a tank as he did
a few years back. He mentioned the rumour? that cheap diesel from the >supermarkets doesnt get you as far and was wondering if the main brands >where he buys his have changed the formulation somehow.
Hi allThe old car (tdi) cheated on the emissions - google "dieselgate" and
On this bright morning I thought to ask you here on r.c.m. if any of
you know what makes the difference for a diesel car between very good
fuel consumption and just good fuel consumption.
The punchline is - where is the extra 30+% fuel consumption going in a >"modern" car?
UK / Europe factor - every car mentioned has manual ("stick-shift") >transmission - five-speed or six-speed.
For nine years, I had a car which reached 20 years of age and went >everywhere, every day, at 63MPG (Imperial 10pint gallon (4.536L); 50.4
miles per US Gallon; 22.2km-per-Litre). With plenty of power -
delight to drive. Turbo spun-up and it surged forward no need for
gear changes.
Even a vibrating rattly tiny Fiat supposed to do 70MPG (Imperial) did
only 55MPG.
My current car mid-range (European style - probably very compact by US >standards) is super luxurious, has a six-speed gearbox, goodly amount
of power - no hills steep enough to keep speed below 70MPH when
cleaning out the engine with sustained accelerator to floor - but
"only" 48MPG (38.4miles per US gallon; 17km per Litre)
A few years ago I was told 60+MPG "is a thing of the past" "with new
emission reg.s" (!!).
The 63MPG car, built in late 1990's, was turbo-diesel, fly-by-wire
diesel injection, probably no filters or anything on the exhaust side
of the engine.
At 63MPG, it cannot have been throwing anything / much out of the
exhaust part-combusted - else it wouldn't be doing 63MPG...
It weighed 1~1/2tonnes - heavy for a smallish compact car.
However, whatever that weight was, it seemed to be involved in
something which nett left you advantaged.
That was 1.9Litres - quite large by UK / Europe standards - where my
more modern car is something like 1.6Litres capacity.
It sounded like a tractor, for sure, when at idle.
That car, the 63MPG car, was Spanish built and badged from the
Volkswagen stable. Someone told me it had the engine from the earlier
VW Golf GTD (turbo diesel performance model). When that was no longer
the new premium model.
So yes, if you could be happy with
a car which sounded like a tractor, you warmed it up slowly to be kind
to the environment, didn't mind that the heaters only worked after
about 3 miles of driving (if you aren't burning much fuel you are not >producing much heat, plus you have a big heavy engine to warm up)
then you got a totally delightful car.
But that fuel consumption... 63MPG (Imperial)
That is the possible.
Where is that extra 30+% fuel going in a "modern" car ???????
The 63MPG (Imperial) shows what is needed to do the job with a
"straight diesel" car. So you can use that as a reference and ask -
for a "modern" car, where is that extra 30+% of "un-accounted-for"
fuel going ???????
I would be very very interested to know.
I've had that question in my mind for since I found I couldn't
like-for-like replace the wonderful VW-family car.
Regards,
Rich Smith
On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:11:57 +0100, David Billington <djb@invalid.com>
wrote:
On 30/05/2022 10:57, Richard Smith wrote:
Hi all
...
I forgot to mention in my other post but a mate recently raised the
issue where he was getting noticeably poorer fuel consumption on current >>pump diesel than a few years ago. He runs a Nissan SUV, a FIAT camper
van and for work a Ford Transit, all diesel and the vehicles haven't >>changed just he isn't getting the same distance out of a tank as he did
a few years back. He mentioned the rumour? that cheap diesel from the >>supermarkets doesn’t get you as far and was wondering if the main brands >>where he buys his have changed the formulation somehow.
Thirty percent is pretty big. It would be hard to change diesel oil
that much without causing engine problems. I wonder if the firmware
has been reoptimized for low emission at any cost.
When VW was caught gaming the emissions tests, there was widespread
talk of VW being forced to do exactly such a thing - it was to evade
such a thing the prompted the cheating in the first place.
Joe Gwinn
The old car (tdi) cheated on the emissions - google "dieselgate" and
emitted more tiny particles than allowed today. The new car is also
slightly heavier (you said it was more luxurious - so more options and
more sound deadening material) and with a 1.6 liter engine trying to
do the same job the 1.9 did it is working harder - regardless of any
weight increase.
Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca> writes:
The old car (tdi) cheated on the emissions - google "dieselgate" andThe car from the late 1990's was first-principles technically
emitted more tiny particles than allowed today. The new car is also
slightly heavier (you said it was more luxurious - so more options and
more sound deadening material) and with a 1.6 liter engine trying to
do the same job the 1.9 did it is working harder - regardless of any
weight increase.
excellent.
It predated the highly presciptive emissions rules which might have irrationalities.
Still pondering - where does that extra 30+% of the fuel go?!
Richard Smith wrote on 5/31/2022 3:17 AM:
Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca> writes:
The old car (tdi) cheated on the emissions - google "dieselgate" andThe car from the late 1990's was first-principles technically
emitted more tiny particles than allowed today. The new car is also
slightly heavier (you said it was more luxurious - so more options and
more sound deadening material) and with a 1.6 liter engine trying to
do the same job the 1.9 did it is working harder - regardless of any
weight increase.
excellent.
It predated the highly presciptive emissions rules which might have
irrationalities.
Still pondering - where does that extra 30+% of the fuel go?!
As I have mentioned before, I owned a VW Jetta TDI that was recalled due
to the VW emission cheating scandal.
I noticed that the speedometer in my Jetta TDI was always 10% above what
was reported by my portable GPS unit I was using in the vehicle.
Since the Jetta TDI was computerized, the manufacturer can easily change
the parameter in the computer to show a 10% higher than normal
speedometer reading (the speedometer reading is proportional to diameter
of the tire for the same rpm.
The end result is that my tank of diesel would travel a fictitious extra
10% distance, and thus inflate the MPG value.
On Tue, 31 May 2022 12:15:40 -0400, Mighty Wannabe
wrote:
Richard Smith wrote on 5/31/2022 3:17 AM:Tire rolling diameter matters. Were the tires identical to those the
Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca> writes:As I have mentioned before, I owned a VW Jetta TDI that was recalled due
The old car (tdi) cheated on the emissions - google "dieselgate" and >>>> emitted more tiny particles than allowed today. The new car is alsoThe car from the late 1990's was first-principles technically
slightly heavier (you said it was more luxurious - so more options and >>>> more sound deadening material) and with a 1.6 liter engine trying to
do the same job the 1.9 did it is working harder - regardless of any
weight increase.
excellent.
It predated the highly presciptive emissions rules which might have
irrationalities.
Still pondering - where does that extra 30+% of the fuel go?!
to the VW emission cheating scandal.
I noticed that the speedometer in my Jetta TDI was always 10% above what
was reported by my portable GPS unit I was using in the vehicle.
Since the Jetta TDI was computerized, the manufacturer can easily change
the parameter in the computer to show a 10% higher than normal
speedometer reading (the speedometer reading is proportional to diameter
of the tire for the same rpm.
The end result is that my tank of diesel would travel a fictitious extra
10% distance, and thus inflate the MPG value.
Jetta came with? Correct air pressure?
Joe Gwinn
Joe Gwinn wrote on 5/31/2022 1:01 PM:
On Tue, 31 May 2022 12:15:40 -0400, Mighty Wannabe
wrote:
Richard Smith wrote on 5/31/2022 3:17 AM:Tire rolling diameter matters. Were the tires identical to those the
Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca> writes:As I have mentioned before, I owned a VW Jetta TDI that was recalled due >>> to the VW emission cheating scandal.
The old car (tdi) cheated on the emissions - google "dieselgate" and >>>>> emitted more tiny particles than allowed today. The new car is alsoThe car from the late 1990's was first-principles technically
slightly heavier (you said it was more luxurious - so more options and >>>>> more sound deadening material) and with a 1.6 liter engine trying to >>>>> do the same job the 1.9 did it is working harder - regardless of any >>>>> weight increase.
excellent.
It predated the highly presciptive emissions rules which might have
irrationalities.
Still pondering - where does that extra 30+% of the fuel go?!
I noticed that the speedometer in my Jetta TDI was always 10% above what >>> was reported by my portable GPS unit I was using in the vehicle.
Since the Jetta TDI was computerized, the manufacturer can easily change >>> the parameter in the computer to show a 10% higher than normal
speedometer reading (the speedometer reading is proportional to diameter >>> of the tire for the same rpm.
The end result is that my tank of diesel would travel a fictitious extra >>> 10% distance, and thus inflate the MPG value.
Jetta came with? Correct air pressure?
Joe Gwinn
OEM tires. All four tire specs were exactly as inscribed on the metal
plate inside the door jam. I was the first-hand owner. I'll say it was >deliberate. The speedometer reading cannot deviate by 10% due to tire >pressure.
My portable GPS unit is definitely correct because the speed from that >portable GPS unit always corroborates with the speedometer readings in
all the vehicles I have driven.
On Tue, 31 May 2022 14:14:14 -0400, Mighty Wannabe
wrote:
Joe Gwinn wrote on 5/31/2022 1:01 PM:OK.
On Tue, 31 May 2022 12:15:40 -0400, Mighty WannabeOEM tires. All four tire specs were exactly as inscribed on the metal
wrote:
Richard Smith wrote on 5/31/2022 3:17 AM:Tire rolling diameter matters. Were the tires identical to those the
Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca> writes:As I have mentioned before, I owned a VW Jetta TDI that was recalled due >>>> to the VW emission cheating scandal.
The old car (tdi) cheated on the emissions - google "dieselgate" and >>>>>> emitted more tiny particles than allowed today. The new car is also >>>>>> slightly heavier (you said it was more luxurious - so more options and >>>>>> more sound deadening material) and with a 1.6 liter engine trying to >>>>>> do the same job the 1.9 did it is working harder - regardless of any >>>>>> weight increase.The car from the late 1990's was first-principles technically
excellent.
It predated the highly presciptive emissions rules which might have
irrationalities.
Still pondering - where does that extra 30+% of the fuel go?!
I noticed that the speedometer in my Jetta TDI was always 10% above what >>>> was reported by my portable GPS unit I was using in the vehicle.
Since the Jetta TDI was computerized, the manufacturer can easily change >>>> the parameter in the computer to show a 10% higher than normal
speedometer reading (the speedometer reading is proportional to diameter >>>> of the tire for the same rpm.
The end result is that my tank of diesel would travel a fictitious extra >>>> 10% distance, and thus inflate the MPG value.
Jetta came with? Correct air pressure?
Joe Gwinn
plate inside the door jam. I was the first-hand owner. I'll say it was
deliberate. The speedometer reading cannot deviate by 10% due to tire
pressure.
My portable GPS unit is definitely correct because the speed from thatThe standard calibration approach is to use measured one-mile markers
portable GPS unit always corroborates with the speedometer readings in
all the vehicles I have driven.
on selected highways. No electronics involved, so clean and direct.
Joe Gwinn
Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca> writes:
The old car (tdi) cheated on the emissions - google "dieselgate" and
emitted more tiny particles than allowed today. The new car is also
slightly heavier (you said it was more luxurious - so more options and
more sound deadening material) and with a 1.6 liter engine trying to
do the same job the 1.9 did it is working harder - regardless of any
weight increase.
The car from the late 1990's was first-principles technically
excellent.
It predated the highly presciptive emissions rules which might have >irrationalities.
Still pondering - where does that extra 30+% of the fuel go?!
.........
I think possibly a fair chunk might be because comparative cars seem to
be now much bigger than they were and a lot more comfortable, quieter
etc, and presumably that is what the public wants? Quietness and
comfort (and crash resilience) are weighty and "small" cars now to my
eye are giants in comparison to comparative range models from earlier
years, you might research the comparative weights and aero efficiency.
Joe Gwinn wrote on 5/31/2022 4:26 PM:[snip]
On Tue, 31 May 2022 14:14:14 -0400, Mighty Wannabe
wrote:
Joe Gwinn wrote on 5/31/2022 1:01 PM:
My portable GPS unit is definitely correct because the speed from thatThe standard calibration approach is to use measured one-mile markers
portable GPS unit always corroborates with the speedometer readings in
all the vehicles I have driven.
on selected highways. No electronics involved, so clean and direct.
Joe Gwinn
You'll have to use a stopwatch to time it, then calculate the mile per >second, then convert to mile per hour. That will be a really tedious
task if you don't use a calculator. So you are wrong. Electronics will
be involved.
Joe Gwinn wrote on 5/31/2022 4:26 PM:
On Tue, 31 May 2022 14:14:14 -0400, Mighty Wannabe
wrote:
Joe Gwinn wrote on 5/31/2022 1:01 PM:OK.
On Tue, 31 May 2022 12:15:40 -0400, Mighty WannabeOEM tires. All four tire specs were exactly as inscribed on the metal
wrote:
Richard Smith wrote on 5/31/2022 3:17 AM:Tire rolling diameter matters. Were the tires identical to those the >>>> Jetta came with? Correct air pressure?
Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca> writes:As I have mentioned before, I owned a VW Jetta TDI that was
The old car (tdi) cheated on the emissions - googleThe car from the late 1990's was first-principles technically
"dieselgate" and
emitted more tiny particles than allowed today. The new car is also >>>>>>> slightly heavier (you said it was more luxurious - so more
options and
more sound deadening material) and with a 1.6 liter engine
trying to
do the same job the 1.9 did it is working harder - regardless of >>>>>>> any
weight increase.
excellent.
It predated the highly presciptive emissions rules which might have >>>>>> irrationalities.
Still pondering - where does that extra 30+% of the fuel go?!
recalled due
to the VW emission cheating scandal.
I noticed that the speedometer in my Jetta TDI was always 10%
above what
was reported by my portable GPS unit I was using in the vehicle.
Since the Jetta TDI was computerized, the manufacturer can easily
change
the parameter in the computer to show a 10% higher than normal
speedometer reading (the speedometer reading is proportional to
diameter
of the tire for the same rpm.
The end result is that my tank of diesel would travel a fictitious
extra
10% distance, and thus inflate the MPG value.
Joe Gwinn
plate inside the door jam. I was the first-hand owner. I'll say it was
deliberate. The speedometer reading cannot deviate by 10% due to tire
pressure.
My portable GPS unit is definitely correct because the speed from thatThe standard calibration approach is to use measured one-mile markers
portable GPS unit always corroborates with the speedometer readings in
all the vehicles I have driven.
on selected highways. No electronics involved, so clean and direct.
Joe Gwinn
You'll have to use a stopwatch to time it, then calculate the mile per second, then convert to mile per hour. That will be a really tedious
task if you don't use a calculator. So you are wrong. Electronics will
be involved.
Joe Gwinn wrote on 5/31/2022 4:26 PM:[snip]
On Tue, 31 May 2022 14:14:14 -0400, Mighty Wannabe
wrote:
Joe Gwinn wrote on 5/31/2022 1:01 PM:
My portable GPS unit is definitely correct because the speed from thatThe standard calibration approach is to use measured one-mile markers
portable GPS unit always corroborates with the speedometer readings in
all the vehicles I have driven.
on selected highways. No electronics involved, so clean and direct.
Joe Gwinn
You'll have to use a stopwatch to time it, then calculate the mile per >second, then convert to mile per hour. That will be a really tedious
task if you don't use a calculator. So you are wrong. Electronics will
be involved.
"Joe Gwinn" wrote in message >news:oere9h1jttrhl4f80k9k73nbpe0i8130ti@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 00:07:52 -0400, Mighty Wannabe ><👩??⚕?👨?⚕?👮👨??🚒👷@?.??🎖?> >wrote:
Joe Gwinn wrote on 5/31/2022 4:26 PM:[snip]
On Tue, 31 May 2022 14:14:14 -0400, Mighty Wannabe
wrote:
Joe Gwinn wrote on 5/31/2022 1:01 PM:
My portable GPS unit is definitely correct because the speed from that >>>> portable GPS unit always corroborates with the speedometer readings in >>>> all the vehicles I have driven.The standard calibration approach is to use measured one-mile markers
on selected highways. No electronics involved, so clean and direct.
Joe Gwinn
You'll have to use a stopwatch to time it, then calculate the mile per >>second, then convert to mile per hour. That will be a really tedious
task if you don't use a calculator. So you are wrong. Electronics will
be involved.
Umm, not so fast. Simply check that the car's odometer shows the same
number of miles traveled as the highway mile-markers indicate. No
stopwatch or calculator needed, mechanical or electronic.
Joe Gwinn
---------------------------------
The odometer is mechanically coupled to the wheels but an analog speedometer >isn't, and they may not agree. >https://www.howacarworks.com/accessories/how-a-speedo-works
Joe Gwinn wrote on 5/31/2022 4:26 PM:
On Tue, 31 May 2022 14:14:14 -0400, Mighty Wannabe
wrote:
Joe Gwinn wrote on 5/31/2022 1:01 PM:OK.
On Tue, 31 May 2022 12:15:40 -0400, Mighty WannabeOEM tires. All four tire specs were exactly as inscribed on the metal
wrote:
Richard Smith wrote on 5/31/2022 3:17 AM:Tire rolling diameter matters. Were the tires identical to those the
Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca> writes:As I have mentioned before, I owned a VW Jetta TDI that was recalled due >>>>> to the VW emission cheating scandal.
The old car (tdi) cheated on the emissions - google "dieselgate" andThe car from the late 1990's was first-principles technically
emitted more tiny particles than allowed today. The new car is also >>>>>>> slightly heavier (you said it was more luxurious - so more options and >>>>>>> more sound deadening material) and with a 1.6 liter engine trying to >>>>>>> do the same job the 1.9 did it is working harder - regardless of any >>>>>>> weight increase.
excellent.
It predated the highly presciptive emissions rules which might have >>>>>> irrationalities.
Still pondering - where does that extra 30+% of the fuel go?!
I noticed that the speedometer in my Jetta TDI was always 10% above what >>>>> was reported by my portable GPS unit I was using in the vehicle.
Since the Jetta TDI was computerized, the manufacturer can easily change >>>>> the parameter in the computer to show a 10% higher than normal
speedometer reading (the speedometer reading is proportional to diameter >>>>> of the tire for the same rpm.
The end result is that my tank of diesel would travel a fictitious extra >>>>> 10% distance, and thus inflate the MPG value.
Jetta came with? Correct air pressure?
Joe Gwinn
plate inside the door jam. I was the first-hand owner. I'll say it was
deliberate. The speedometer reading cannot deviate by 10% due to tire
pressure.
My portable GPS unit is definitely correct because the speed from thatThe standard calibration approach is to use measured one-mile markers
portable GPS unit always corroborates with the speedometer readings in
all the vehicles I have driven.
on selected highways. No electronics involved, so clean and direct.
Joe Gwinn
You'll have to use a stopwatch to time it, then calculate the mile per >second, then convert to mile per hour. That will be a really tedious
task if you don't use a calculator. So you are wrong. Electronics will
be involved.
The odometer is mechanically geared to count driveshaft revolutions, the >speedometer reading also depends on balancing spring tension against
magnetic pull. Tire size and wear affects both equally but the >proportionality between them is only as accurate as the speedo's factory >calibration.
I built a prototype receiver/decoder for this system: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Data_System
We were assured it would only handle traffic alert messages, not take
control of the car, although it could have.
I built a prototype receiver/decoder for this system: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Data_System
We were assured it would only handle traffic alert messages, not take
control of the car, although it could have.
I built a prototype receiver/decoder for this system: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Data_System
We were assured it would only handle traffic alert messages, not take
control of the car, although it could have.
If misinterpreted image data was able to alter the firmware, why can't Mazda >reflash it?
If misinterpreted image data was able to alter the firmware, why can't
Mazda
reflash it?
My guess is that the programmer quit in disgust and no one else knows how it >works.
I've been the stuckee for that thankless task three times. I've solved the >problem; written my own quick and dirty assembly code instead; and given up >as hopeless.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/11/blue-origin-jeff-bezos-delays-toxic-workplace/
Did you hear about NPR forgetting to add an image extension and
then bricking Mazda radios with their broadcast?
https://gizmodo.com/seattle-mazda-owners-radios-are-permanently-stuck-on-np-1848507907
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 508 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 233:36:59 |
| Calls: | 9,984 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,833 |
| Messages: | 6,359,841 |