RE: VW Golf GTE: Driven (briefly)
Discussion
cianha said:
V8A*ndy said:
I have a concern about these new breed of hybrids that the engine suddenly kicks in when you need the power.
Have engineers suddenly solved the problem of racing a cold engine or does the engine run from time to time like a sort of standby mode?
Not sure about the GTE, but other systems (Stop/Start for example) only kick in when the engine is up to operating temps, so the sample control logic could be applied here. Have engineers suddenly solved the problem of racing a cold engine or does the engine run from time to time like a sort of standby mode?
paranoid airbag said:
alock said:
MycroftWard said:
188mpg? 
If it arrives at the test fully charged and leaves with the batteries flat.It doesn't take much: just a simple rule that the energy from all sources other than the fuel tank be the same before and after the test - or, if not, that the energy from that other source be assigned the appropriate carbon cost.
IIRC the 'round trip' efficiency of such a system is around 50%, so in town driving it would be using approximately as much energy as a 760kg traditional car. Though I'm making some not entirely safe assumptions about the ICE efficiency there.
*okay, the committee.
MycroftWard said:
Good point.
Are there any hybrids that deliver better economy than the equivalent diesel? I've wondered why hybrids are based on petrol engines, surely a diesel hybrid would do better, economy wise?
Cos a hybrid diesel with EU6 compliance is a material cost nightmare that then prices smaller cars out of their sector. Plus the markets of the UA and Japan didnt typically use diesel fuel for passenger cars.Are there any hybrids that deliver better economy than the equivalent diesel? I've wondered why hybrids are based on petrol engines, surely a diesel hybrid would do better, economy wise?
Up to is misleading but fair enough. In reality if you use a Ampera for a 37 mile commute with only 4 on fuel using 0.08 of a gallon then it might suggest you did ~300mpg. Actually thats what I did when I used one.
cianha said:
Not sure about the GTE, but other systems (Stop/Start for example) only kick in when the engine is up to operating temps, so the sample control logic could be applied here.
If i had a PHEV the last thing I would want first thing in the morning is the engine to even start... let alone stop!Matthew Clarke said:
Now could this battery pack be fitted to my 335i please (with a few carbon/grp panels to offset the extra weight)
BMW do a halfway house...http://www.bmw.com/com/en/active_hybrid/overview.h...
donteatpeople said:
paranoid airbag said:
alock said:
MycroftWard said:
188mpg?
If it arrives at the test fully charged and leaves with the batteries flat.It doesn't take much: just a simple rule that the energy from all sources other than the fuel tank be the same before and after the test - or, if not, that the energy from that other source be assigned the appropriate carbon cost.
IIRC the 'round trip' efficiency of such a system is around 50%, so in town driving it would be using approximately as much energy as a 760kg traditional car. Though I'm making some not entirely safe assumptions about the ICE efficiency there.
*okay, the committee.
How about.
1) How far can the car go in an urban environment on a fully charged battery without using the engine.
2) How far can the car go on national speed limit roads on a fully charged battery without using the engine.
3) What economy can you expect in steady state driving, i.e. maintaining the battery charge as you drive.
My GCSE physics keeps on telling me that the car has to use energy to make energy for the battery, and that converting energy costs energy - it can't be 100% efficient. Fair enough, energy wiped away during deceleration is free energy, but more energy is spent increasing speed than decreasing speed...
So the battery will go flat, and you'll end up with a car that's less efficient than a 1.4tsi golf surely? Unless you plug it in. Or the car is designed to use a large portion of its petrol power to charge the battery, in which case it surely defeats the point (from an efficiency standpoint at least... Huge, instant torque for a sports car (P1) might be more desirable than extra top end power, and so the conversion to electricity might be justified in that scenario...)
Perhaps that fact that I'm using GCSE physics explains my lack of understanding/belief, but I keep thinking that a car that claims 188mpg should actually do just that. If you're having to plug it in to get that "free" energy, then the whole exercise becomes pointless in my opinion. You're just lugging around 200kgs, and then throwing away energy to create electricity... Surely this car is less energy efficient than a regular petrol car?
So the battery will go flat, and you'll end up with a car that's less efficient than a 1.4tsi golf surely? Unless you plug it in. Or the car is designed to use a large portion of its petrol power to charge the battery, in which case it surely defeats the point (from an efficiency standpoint at least... Huge, instant torque for a sports car (P1) might be more desirable than extra top end power, and so the conversion to electricity might be justified in that scenario...)
Perhaps that fact that I'm using GCSE physics explains my lack of understanding/belief, but I keep thinking that a car that claims 188mpg should actually do just that. If you're having to plug it in to get that "free" energy, then the whole exercise becomes pointless in my opinion. You're just lugging around 200kgs, and then throwing away energy to create electricity... Surely this car is less energy efficient than a regular petrol car?
crosseyedlion said:
I'd like to know the combined cycle without being plugged in. I'm sure the economy will be better than the non-hybrid but I'd like to know how much.
Plugging in overnight would be ideal but not viable for me at present.
Viable or not for people, it's still stupid having an engine onboard that theoretically is putting enough power out to keep the batteries charged (one is to assume). What an effort. Plugging in overnight would be ideal but not viable for me at present.
It's a pointless UN-ENVIRONMENTAL car born out of ludicrous government policy.
It does not do 188mpg and it does not emit just 35g/km - (which are probably hopelessly unrealistic anyway) simply because this does not include the electricity to charge the batteries.
If you cut out all the extra weight, you could probably get a realistic 100+ mpg with the same performance and just the engine.
This car will do UP TO thirty (30) miles on the battery at a max. of 80mph, at 75mph, you'll probably get 10 miles!
The extra environmental impact of building this tub of lard will never be recouped from reduced fuel use, and the car will probably be scrap after 5 years, too complex and expensive to maintain.
If this is the future of cars, the world has truly gone mad.
It does not do 188mpg and it does not emit just 35g/km - (which are probably hopelessly unrealistic anyway) simply because this does not include the electricity to charge the batteries.
If you cut out all the extra weight, you could probably get a realistic 100+ mpg with the same performance and just the engine.
This car will do UP TO thirty (30) miles on the battery at a max. of 80mph, at 75mph, you'll probably get 10 miles!
The extra environmental impact of building this tub of lard will never be recouped from reduced fuel use, and the car will probably be scrap after 5 years, too complex and expensive to maintain.
If this is the future of cars, the world has truly gone mad.
Mr GrimNasty said:
It's a pointless UN-ENVIRONMENTAL car born out of ludicrous government policy.
It does not do 188mpg and it does not emit just 35g/km - (which are probably hopelessly unrealistic anyway) simply because this does not include the electricity to charge the batteries.
If you cut out all the extra weight, you could probably get a realistic 100+ mpg with the same performance and just the engine.
This car will do UP TO thirty (30) miles on the battery at a max. of 80mph, at 75mph, you'll probably get 10 miles!
The extra environmental impact of building this tub of lard will never be recouped from reduced fuel use, and the car will probably be scrap after 5 years, too complex and expensive to maintain.
If this is the future of cars, the world has truly gone mad.
You're right, lets just give up. Its the new British way.It does not do 188mpg and it does not emit just 35g/km - (which are probably hopelessly unrealistic anyway) simply because this does not include the electricity to charge the batteries.
If you cut out all the extra weight, you could probably get a realistic 100+ mpg with the same performance and just the engine.
This car will do UP TO thirty (30) miles on the battery at a max. of 80mph, at 75mph, you'll probably get 10 miles!
The extra environmental impact of building this tub of lard will never be recouped from reduced fuel use, and the car will probably be scrap after 5 years, too complex and expensive to maintain.
If this is the future of cars, the world has truly gone mad.
Why don't they just quote the normal MPG figures with the standardised testing we've been using to inform purchases for years and a separate figure of battery range. Its stupid and deceiving.
Im not against electric cars or hybrids, infact i'd love one. I would, however like to see my miles per gallon being just that, miles per gallon of fuel. Not everyone can plug in to charge up, but we can all get to a petrol station.
Im not against electric cars or hybrids, infact i'd love one. I would, however like to see my miles per gallon being just that, miles per gallon of fuel. Not everyone can plug in to charge up, but we can all get to a petrol station.
Mr GrimNasty said:
It's a pointless UN-ENVIRONMENTAL car born out of ludicrous government policy.
It does not do 188mpg and it does not emit just 35g/km - (which are probably hopelessly unrealistic anyway) simply because this does not include the electricity to charge the batteries.
If you cut out all the extra weight, you could probably get a realistic 100+ mpg with the same performance and just the engine.
This car will do UP TO thirty (30) miles on the battery at a max. of 80mph, at 75mph, you'll probably get 10 miles!
The extra environmental impact of building this tub of lard will never be recouped from reduced fuel use, and the car will probably be scrap after 5 years, too complex and expensive to maintain.
If this is the future of cars, the world has truly gone mad.
Assuming you are correct then it will do more then 50% of all car journeys done in the UKIt does not do 188mpg and it does not emit just 35g/km - (which are probably hopelessly unrealistic anyway) simply because this does not include the electricity to charge the batteries.
If you cut out all the extra weight, you could probably get a realistic 100+ mpg with the same performance and just the engine.
This car will do UP TO thirty (30) miles on the battery at a max. of 80mph, at 75mph, you'll probably get 10 miles!
The extra environmental impact of building this tub of lard will never be recouped from reduced fuel use, and the car will probably be scrap after 5 years, too complex and expensive to maintain.
If this is the future of cars, the world has truly gone mad.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The average trip length is 8.5miles
PunterCam said:
My GCSE physics keeps on telling me that the car has to use energy to make energy for the battery, and that converting energy costs energy - it can't be 100% efficient. Fair enough, energy wiped away during deceleration is free energy, but more energy is spent increasing speed than decreasing speed...
So the battery will go flat, and you'll end up with a car that's less efficient than a 1.4tsi golf surely? Unless you plug it in. Or the car is designed to use a large portion of its petrol power to charge the battery, in which case it surely defeats the point (from an efficiency standpoint at least... Huge, instant torque for a sports car (P1) might be more desirable than extra top end power, and so the conversion to electricity might be justified in that scenario...)
Its designed to be plugged in at the wall and use grid electricity.So the battery will go flat, and you'll end up with a car that's less efficient than a 1.4tsi golf surely? Unless you plug it in. Or the car is designed to use a large portion of its petrol power to charge the battery, in which case it surely defeats the point (from an efficiency standpoint at least... Huge, instant torque for a sports car (P1) might be more desirable than extra top end power, and so the conversion to electricity might be justified in that scenario...)
Mr GrimNasty said:
The extra environmental impact of building this tub of lard will never be recouped from reduced fuel use, and the car will probably be scrap after 5 years, too complex and expensive to maintain.
If this is the future of cars, the world has truly gone mad.
The review is about the new GTE product... not the GTD. Irony of course is that the petrol bit with VW history is probably the bit that will fail anyway.If this is the future of cars, the world has truly gone mad.
I need to look at the VW Golf range... seems the 1.4 TSI already does 100MPG from the post above!!
Edited by JonnyVTEC on Monday 31st March 12:53
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff