RE: VW Golf GTE: Driven (briefly)
Discussion
alock said:
I think we need more than one number. Something to replace the urban, extra urban and combined.
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.
+ how about the COST of charging the batteries when plugged in as IIRC electricity in the UK is not free!! all this talk about miles per gallon bullsHow 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.
t figures for electric cars is rubbish as they also need to note the cost of each charge.We will not get into the carbon footprint of battery production before they even get to our shores as that is really boring.
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.
Too Complex and expensive to fix? The Toyota Prius (which this is VW take on it, from what i can read its a very similar principle), is that companies most reliable vehicle, why do you think that so many are Taxi's these days?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.
garypotter said:
+ how about the COST of charging the batteries when plugged in as IIRC electricity in the UK is not free!! all this talk about miles per gallon bullst figures for electric cars is rubbish as they also need to note the cost of each charge.
We will not get into the carbon footprint of battery production before they even get to our shores as that is really boring.
A little nugget to think aboutt figures for electric cars is rubbish as they also need to note the cost of each charge.We will not get into the carbon footprint of battery production before they even get to our shores as that is really boring.
The electricty needed to produce 1 gallon of petrol will let a pure electric car drive about 23 miles
MycroftWard said:
crosseyedlion said:
Just found out, apparently the 188mpg figure is from using a full battery then 16 miles of hyrid/engine power in addition, which works out to be around 63mpg if not running on battery only. Which isn't much different to the GTD is it? Bit of a scam.
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?
McWigglebum4th said:
Assuming you are correct then it will do more then 50% of all car journeys done in the UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The average trip length is 8.5miles
Yes, what a brilliant cost/benefit case that makes, not.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The average trip length is 8.5miles
JonnyVTEC said:
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.
I need to look at the VW Golf range... seems the 1.4 TSI already does 100MPG from the post above!!
Yes the GTE? Not the GTD. Don't get your point.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
And yes, a 1.4 TSI could be engineered to give 100MPG and similar performance, which would be a far more sensible solution.
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...)
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?
As JonnyVTEC said it's plugin, but also you will have some of the braking done by the electric motor and recharge the battery that way.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?
Not 100% recovery as you state, but some energy that would normally be converted to heat in the brakes.
Major T said:
McWigglebum4th said:
A little nugget to think about
The electricty needed to produce 1 gallon of petrol will let a pure electric car drive about 23 miles
I thought about it. And I don't see how you generate petrol using electricity.The electricty needed to produce 1 gallon of petrol will let a pure electric car drive about 23 miles
garypotter said:
+ how about the COST of charging the batteries when plugged in as IIRC electricity in the UK is not free!! all this talk about miles per gallon bullst figures for electric cars is rubbish as they also need to note the cost of each charge.
They do cost something to charge. t figures for electric cars is rubbish as they also need to note the cost of each charge.Electricity costs anywhere from 6 - 20p/kWh.
I'm not sure how many would be needed to charge the battery in this Golf.
Edit:
8.8 kWh battery pack so £1.76 on the most expensive tarrifs. If you have economy 7 then you'll pay about 6p a kWh overnight so 52p
VW claims it will do 31 miles on batteries alone, so if we assume this is unrealistic and say it will be closer to 20 then this still works out considerably cheaper than conventional fuel.
Edited by Devil2575 on Monday 31st March 13:41
Mr GrimNasty said:
Yes the GTE? Not the GTD. Don't get your point.
And yes, a 1.4 TSI could be engineered to give 100MPG and similar performance, which would be a far more sensible solution.
The diesel is the one with the complicated junk.And yes, a 1.4 TSI could be engineered to give 100MPG and similar performance, which would be a far more sensible solution.
If it was sensible VW would be releasing your made up product rather than this one.
Now have VW paid GM some money for the GTE moniker?, I'm old enough to remember that when Opel/Vauxhall bought out the Manta and Astra sports versions in the UK they had to be called GTE because VW had copyright on GTI, in Germany Opels were known as GSI. Therefore 30+ years on are VW going to have to rename the product if it reaches the UK e.g. GTB(battery), no Ferrari might have a claim on that 308GTB. GT?
Major T said:
McWigglebum4th said:
A little nugget to think about
The electricty needed to produce 1 gallon of petrol will let a pure electric car drive about 23 miles
I thought about it. And I don't see how you generate petrol using electricity.The electricty needed to produce 1 gallon of petrol will let a pure electric car drive about 23 miles
I forgot about magic petrol
Magic petrol is the petrol that magically appears in a cars petrol tank when someone is banging on about the enviromental impact of anything that uses electricty or batteries
McWigglebum4th said:
Ah magic petrol
I forgot about magic petrol
Magic petrol is the petrol that magically appears in a cars petrol tank when someone is banging on about the enviromental impact of anything that uses electricty or batteries
Would it be an idea to distinguish between the environmental impact for the fuel (i.e. extracting, refining and burning petrol vs generating and consuming electricity) and the environmental impact for creating the car to use it (i.e. manufacture of diesel car vs manufacture of hybrid with electric motors, battery packs, etc)? Because as I see it, hybrid/electric cars win on the former but lose on the latter.I forgot about magic petrol
Magic petrol is the petrol that magically appears in a cars petrol tank when someone is banging on about the enviromental impact of anything that uses electricty or batteries
Unless I am mistaken, you are combining both aspects in your point?
Domf said:
Now have VW paid GM some money for the GTE moniker?, I'm old enough to remember that when Opel/Vauxhall bought out the Manta and Astra sports versions in the UK they had to be called GTE because VW had copyright on GTI, in Germany Opels were known as GSI. Therefore 30+ years on are VW going to have to rename the product if it reaches the UK e.g. GTB(battery), no Ferrari might have a claim on that 308GTB. GT?
It's a good point, but you mean trademark, not copyright. There's a difference. But then VW don't even have monopoly over "GTi", so not overly sure GM own "GTE" from over 20 years ago
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/volkswagen-l...
The comment on the Civic is interesting. Honda announced they're ceasing IMA sales, as the 1.6d engine has less CO2 emissions.
http://www.businesscarmanager.co.uk/honda-hybrid-t...
http://www.businesscarmanager.co.uk/honda-hybrid-t...
cianha said:
The comment on the Civic is interesting. Honda announced they're ceasing IMA sales, as the 1.6d engine has less CO2 emissions.
http://www.businesscarmanager.co.uk/honda-hybrid-t...
Context is Europe.http://www.businesscarmanager.co.uk/honda-hybrid-t...
Is the new 1.6 EU6 compliant without urea? Probably I guess as they tend to make quite slippy cars.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff