quattro digest, Vol 1 #3109 - history, etc (NAC)

[Larry C Leung]

Some final thoughts

The difference in measurable vs. percieved power (especially on US
overcrowded, speed limited roads) is not that great, at least driving say
a Jetta or neu-Beetle TDI. Note that the typical quoted 0-60 times of
these cars are around 11 seconds or so, not great, but the 0-30 values
are certainly little different from their gasoline counterparts. When
driven, the extra torque (149 lb-ft vs 127) makes for a strong launch
that obviously isn't as sustained as with the later peaking gas engines.
But, the launch is better, which for 'merican tastes seems just fine. 

Another point, the refusal of US oil refiners to reduce or eliminate
sufides in diesel fuel does seem to inhibit the major European
manufactures trom sending us their best, in this case the 110 HP TDI
(96%). So, given time or economic insentive either the car builders or
oil refiners will reach an acceptable compromise. 

As for the Hydrogen fuel cars, fuel isn't stored in the form of gaseous
Hydrogen due to flammability and pressure reasons (and weight to contain
a "safe" pressure vessel). Instead, the typical Hydro powered car stores
fuel in Metal Hydride Matrix cells, which safely stores the fuel in the
metal matrix. BMW and Nissan have pioneered the use of this technology in
their experimental fleet vehicles, the problem being the life of the
matrix and the volumetric inefficiency of them. The other difficulty is
the relative mass inefficiency of hydrogen fuel. It may be cheap to burn
and can be made to be relatively powerful, but the range per "tankful" is
still rather limited, and the fueling process (compared to gasoline or
diesel) is rather longish, though nowhere near as time inefficient as
electric vehicles. 

LL - NY


>pay extra to burn diesel.  A car example: the VW Jetta.  Here the 
>diesel 
>costs only $1295 extra (7.5% of the base vehicle of $17,400.) It gets 
>much 
>better mileage 42/49 instead of 24/31, however it has only 90 HP 
>instead of 
>122 HP (Less than 75%.)  So that's the trade off in that situation: 
>significantly less power.  Part of the problem is the poor track 



>The hydrogen idea is a very poor one, in my opinion (a tiny amount 
>makes a 
>pretty big boom, I remember from Chemistry.)  Just what we want is a 
>bunch 
>of vehicles containing a tank of highly explosive gas (you have seen 
>the 
>pictures of the Hindenberg explosion?)
>