1.6 liter Ope Astral Diesel 2014

[NikatKimber]

Yep, small cars powered by small low power engines, with few comforts. No power windows, seats, mirrors, locks or even brakes and steering on a lot of small cars. And A/C was optional.

You can get leather and a sunroof on a new Chevy Cruze. Can you imagine asking for leather and sunroof on a 1978 Honda Civic?

 

[NightShade]

The thing I have seen for a long while is that diesel engines are plain more efficient but that has a lot to do with the fuel having more energy per gallon than gasoline. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf And in truth the process of running a diesel engine is simpler than a gasoline engine once it is running as no spark plugs or any systems that would control advance or retardation of the spark plug timing along with other systems associated are needed. And even though a gas engine is generally lighter with all the additional parts the way that gas engines process air requires restrictions at anything other than wide open throttle which inherently cripples their efficiency compared to a diesel.

I also have to agree that the way the EPA does things is truly incorrect. The Volkswagen vehicles that have recently been at the center of the scandals are likely much more efficient over the long term than many counterparts and the fixes that will be put into place will actually cause the MPG's to drop drastically they are only looking at one part of the picture most of the time when they should be looking at things overall for efficiency and pollution if you want to see backwards thinking simply look at plugin hybrids. While they are extremely efficient on the road they overall pollute more when you look at the source of the energy and the inefficiency of the storage systems requirement of more energy put in than what can be expended.

I know a lot of people who tout the little Prius hunk of junk as a highly fuel efficient vehicle but the jetta's have been beating them easily in real world use since most drivers can't stay out of the pedal. If they really wanted to increase fuel efficiency a diesel electric hybrid would be the better way to go. The one problem with most hybrids is that the battery technology plain sucks the batteries are expensive, heavy inefficient and wear out way too quickly hence the reason why the resale values of the electric and hybrid vehicles is pretty well junk compared to the equivalent non-hybrid vehicle. The current better solution is extremely large capacitors http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1057301_tesla-ceo-super-capacitors-trump-electric-car-batteries http://berc.berkeley.edu/storage-wars-batteries-vs-supercapacitors/ The capacitors are not as able to store energy for slow steady output unless banks are used and tapped in sequence but are able to more efficently charge when using regenerative braking compared to a battery which requires a higher input voltage to store than what is released.

Within ten years or so the hybrid vehicles will end up being a multi hybrid vehicle with an engine for long distance travel likely using diesel and/or natural gas, a battery solution for short trips and capacitors that are charged using the braking systems and then used to get started again. After 20 to 25 years wireless charging tech should be at a point where we will no longer need an internal combustion engine to charge the batteries or make long trips possible as well as not cause issues with vehicles that do not have the capabilities or need. Vehicles will be able to charge at points along the road at certain intervals to top off the batteries or capacitor banks. Battery powered vehicles will still likely have capacitors for the starting and stopping capability unless battery tech gets to a point that the charge/discharge cycle is much more efficient.

Add to that the weight reduction of improved accessory and feature design. Probably around one quarter to one third of a vehicle's curb weight is the stuff inside that is rarely used but many people see as status symbols. The built in GPS/WiFi/Bluetooth accessory package is an example. You have to pay extra for the data since while it is WiFi from your vehicle it also has a cellular modem to provide said WiFi and therefore adds more weight/cost along with the long term costs associated. The GPS while a nice feature if you will be going somewhere you have never went before is used probably around 10 percent of the time the other 90% it is dead weight. Bluetooth is nice but why does it have to be packaged with a bunch of other fluff you won't use not to mention that a lot of people don't even know how to set it up let alone actually put it to use. What about heated/cooled seats, are you really that spoiled that you can't eat a can of beans during the winter and allow nature's seat warmer to work as intended? And if you want to cool the seats stop and get out for a couple minutes which you should be doing every so often to go take a leak. Do you REALLY need all the leather and wood accents inside your car or is it just more status?

 

[4play]

Strict emissions is most of it, it takes a ton of money just to get an engine certified, then they have to certify the rest of the vehicle for safety etc. Plus the majority of the US doesn't want diesel micro vehicles, they want trucks, SUV's, bigger and faster cars. Anyway, the EPA uses live exhaust emissions data, not "x" amount per volume or per gal emissions, they don't care if said engine/vehicle gets 10 MPG or 100 MPG for exhaust emissions, it must produce less than their set limits. Diesel engines are cleaner now than they were 10 or more years ago but they are using more fuel and/or DEF to provide the cleaner exhaust.

So its possible a vehicle getting 100 MPG might fail to pass emissions for producing 0.1% more emissions vs a vehicle that gets 10MPG, even though it is by far more efficient in the real world.

 

[dennishoddy]

Strict emissions is most of it, it takes a ton of money just to get an engine certified, then they have to certify the rest of the vehicle for safety etc. Plus the majority of the US doesn't want diesel micro vehicles, they want trucks, SUV's, bigger and faster cars. Anyway, the EPA uses live exhaust emissions data, not "x" amount per volume or per gal emissions, they don't care if said engine/vehicle gets 10 MPG or 100 MPG for exhaust emissions, it must produce less than their set limits. Diesel engines are cleaner now than they were 10 or more years ago but they are using more fuel and/or DEF to provide the cleaner exhaust.

So its possible a vehicle getting 100 MPG might fail to pass emissions for producing 0.1% more emissions vs a vehicle that gets 10MPG, even though it is by far more efficient in the real world.

Sad situation isn't it....

 

[Glocktogo]

Big part of the reason? They were SMALL!

Curb weight 1986 Jetta: 1973 lbs
Curb weight 2016 Jetta: 3296 lbs

That's an over 50% weight gain.

The bloat is due to safety regulations. Can you imagine dropping today's powertrains into those lightweights? We might be getting 60-70mpg.

Meh, I drive an 8 year old, 4,000# luxury sedan with nearly 350hp. I get 24-25 mpg on every tank and do it in comfort. If I need power, it has all I need (I've had it up to 142mph), and I still get 23-24 after "blowing the carbon out".

 

[TwoForFlinching]

It's gotta be big oil kick backs. You can't tell me that the Mercedes diesel they're stuffing into the (US equivilent) 45mpg Jeep Wrangler can't pass US emmisions... They're running around Europe in those things.

 

[HiredHand]

It's gotta be big oil kick backs. You can't tell me that the Mercedes diesel they're stuffing into the (US equivilent) 45mpg Jeep Wrangler can't pass US emmisions... They're running around Europe in those things.

Last time I checked the US emissions standards were higher than the standards used in Europe.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

Last time I checked the US emissions standards were higher than the standards used in Europe.

When was the last time you checked? Higher isn't exactly a fractional term. We don't aim for 'cleaner' vehicles, we employ different tech for the same standards. We're talking the difference of the DEF systems, which are still regarded as 'questionable' around the globe. From what I've read following the diesel wranger over the years, the problem isn't chemical emissions (of which standards are very similar, EU and MOT clearly aiming cleaner)... it's the EPA's hard on for particulate and rolling coal.

 

[Dave70968]

When was the last time you checked? Higher isn't exactly a fractional term. We don't aim for 'cleaner' vehicles, we employ different tech for the same standards. We're talking the difference of the DEF systems, which are still regarded as 'questionable' around the globe. From what I've read following the diesel wranger over the years, the problem isn't chemical emissions (of which standards are very similar, EU and MOT clearly aiming cleaner)... it's the EPA's hard on for particulate and rolling coal.

This is my understanding as well.

 

[NikatKimber]

The bloat is due to safety regulations. Can you imagine dropping today's powertrains into those lightweights? We might be getting 60-70mpg.

Meh, I drive an 8 year old, 4,000# luxury sedan with nearly 350hp. I get 24-25 mpg on every tank and do it in comfort. If I need power, it has all I need (I've had it up to 142mph), and I still get 23-24 after "blowing the carbon out".

My luxo sedan is 15 years old, runs a 300hp V8, and has returned 28mpg on the highway (don't ask about city mpg ). It'll "blow the carbon out" similarly.