|
How did VW manage to keep the 2.5 such an underwhelming piece of poo poo for so long? Did they just not give their engineers any money to improve the thing?
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
The whole "2-2.5l NA" engine class isn't very popular outside of North America. Especially now that everything is Fi. In most other countries the 1.4t used in the hybrid is the base engine. VW doesn't sell that many cars in North America so it probably wasn't a high priority.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
There's also the fact that it's an Inline 5, which is a lovely compromise of an engine configuration no matter what you do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Q_res posted:There's also the fact that it's an Inline 5, which is a lovely compromise of an engine configuration no matter what you do. You take that back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
Q_res posted:There's also the fact that it's an Inline 5, which is a lovely compromise of an engine configuration no matter what you do. Hey, they're fine when you put two of them together. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Hey, they're fine when you put two of them together. Or slap a fuckoff turbo to one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
D C posted:You take that back. I'll do no such thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
SouthLAnd posted:How did VW manage to keep the 2.5 such an underwhelming piece of poo poo for so long? Did they just not give their engineers any money to improve the thing? There were a lot of issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
Tacier posted:Poor Sportwagen gets no love.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Q_res posted:There's also the fact that it's an Inline 5, which is a lovely compromise of an engine configuration no matter what you do. This simply isn't true, particularly for VAG. It's no inline 6 but the L5 isn't necessarily a bad configuration, it's just nobody has had reason to do a particularly good one for high volume production recently. Volvo and Audi both have had quite good five cylinders, and VW has something of a history of making unconventional cylinder layouts work. Speaking of, does anyone have that long, rambling post, tracing the history of Audi's inline 5 back to some deranged Axis scientists at Peenemunde obsessed with the number five? I think it was either an OP to an Audi Quattro thread or a post in a group B rallying thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
IIRC that was Muffinpox's inline five appreciation station thread, which I will now attempt to locate. edit: Yup. edit #2: it is loving adorable watching CommieGIR in there complaining about VAG idiocy. If he only knew then what he knows now.. 
Seat Safety Switch fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
My old Jetta had the 2.5 and the whole driving experience with that engine can be summed up in one word: Blah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
You can make some pretty big power on the 2.5, especially if you go FI. Terrible as the stock motor, mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
This kid I know used to brag about how fast his 2.5 base model was. Which would explain why he wrecked both his VR6 Jetta and 2.0T A4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
MarsellusWallace posted:This simply isn't true... the L5 isn't necessarily a bad configuration Yes, it very much is. Worse packaging and fuel mileage than an I4, but still horrible inherent balance compared to an I6. Just as a thought experiment, name one decent 5 banger that doesn't have a turbo strapped to it. The reason nobody has made a decent I5 as a regular engine isn't because they can't be bothered. It's because they're inherently inferior to I4s/I6s and it simply costs more to make them as good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
honda's I5 on the acura vigor was pretty solid, but not really an engine meant for a lot of performance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Devyl posted:My old Jetta had the 2.5 and the whole driving experience with that engine can be summed up in one word: Blah. "Goes like a 4, drinks like a 6" is what I've heard of the 2.5, which says to me that it combines the worst aspects of both smaller and larger engines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Since the Peugeot RCZ was discussed some pages ago, I thought it was a nice thing of them to make this.quote:We've been spoiled with stupidly powerful front-wheel-drive cars recently. Thanks to the Focus ST, Renault Megane RS and Astra VXR, front tyres have never been so scared. And now there's one more: the 270bhp Peugeot RCZ R, which is set to be unveiled at Goodwood this weekend. 1280kg, 270hp, torsen diff, good looks. That's a lot of good stuff in one car.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
Left Ventricle posted:"Goes like a 4, drinks like a 6" is what I've heard of the 2.5, which says to me that it combines the worst aspects of both smaller and larger engines. Oddly enough, that's pretty much what they said about the Mazda V6's from the MX-3/6, Ford Probe's in the 90's. Even in 2.5L form the V6 made 165hp, and sounded pretty awesome at 7,000rpm, but it swilled gas. I used to joke that the 3.4L V8 in my '98 SHO had the horsepower of a V6 and the fuel economy of a V8. It was basically a 2.5 duratec with two more cylinders tacked on, but it was still a dog. I just can't believe that VW made no appreciable horsepower advancements in some 20 odd years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 08:33
|
|
|
Some photos of a covered-up Prius prototype have been going around the internet, and it seems the 2015 model year will be the start of the 4th generation: http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2015-toyota-prius-spy-photos-news There have been rumors of Toyota planning to offer an AWD version and use lithium-ion batteries, but not much else (besides continuing to improve the fuel economy, of course). I also remember seeing a video advertising some fancy collision avoidance tech, but I can't find it now. Toyota is also planning on releasing a fuel cell car in 2015, which will carry about 300 miles worth of hydrogen and cost "in the neighborhood of $50,000": http://green.autoblog.com/2013/06/30/2015-toyota-hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-will-have-300-mile-range/ Is there really any reason to bother with fuel cells with battery technology as it is?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:
Until you can bring a car to full charge in under 10 minutes, absolutely. Range is certainly getting better for electric cars to the point where they are mostly usable for commuters. However, unless that range is easily and quickly extended, they can't take over ALL car roles and that's something they are going to need to do since many people can't afford (or have place for) more than one car. However, we don't really have a good source of hydrogen right now so it's going to be very hard to catch traction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
I had the impression that hydrogen is a chicken and egg problem. If fuel cell cars were sure to be huge in five years, the industry could arrange for stations to be there for them, using either hydrogen transport or hydrogen from natural gas. If the fuel stations were sure to be there in five years, fuel cell cars might take off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:I had the impression that hydrogen is a chicken and egg problem. If fuel cell cars were sure to be huge in five years, the industry could arrange for stations to be there for them, using either hydrogen transport or hydrogen from natural gas. If the fuel stations were sure to be there in five years, fuel cell cars might take off. Hydrogen cars ignore the biggest problems in the room, which are where do we get the energy to make hydrogen from, and how do we get that energy to the users?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Some photos of a covered-up Prius prototype have been going around the internet, and it seems the 2015 model year will be the start of the 4th generation: If they make it look anything at all like the NS4 concept, I would be all over that. In 6 years, when used ones start appearing, of course. Knowing Toyota, it'll have the exact same shape as the current one but with that angular face you see on the newest Rav4 and Camry.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Hydrogen cars ignore the biggest problems in the room, which are where do we get the energy to make hydrogen from, and how do we get that energy to the users? Right. For the moment, the cheapest and least energy intensive way to get hydrogen is actually reforming fossil fuels. So, we end up with less energy than we would if we just used the fossil fuel to begin with, and still have all the of bad effects of using fossil fuesl (carbon emissions.) On the flipside though, since the reforming of fossil fuels to get hydrogen would be done on a plant level, carbon sequestering becomes easier to do. But, that's all assuming that you don't end up releasing more CO2 from the additional fossil fuel extraction to begin with which is a common problem with extracting natural gas. At the end of the day, we need mass adoption of nuclear power and use the waste heat with electrolysis to mass produce hydrogen, but that's not likely to happen anytime soon. Having a hydrogen distribution infrastructure has a side perk as well. We wouldn't have to give up IC engines if we didn't want to. While I'm sure a ton of the mass commuters would go to fuel cells for efficiency sake, you would still be able to your big block V8 as a weekend cruiser relatively unmodified and you could use it guilt free. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
And my favorite part of fuelling a hydrogen car. Fill it up Friday, half empty when you start it on Monday. Venting is a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Until you can bring a car to full charge in under 10 minutes, absolutely. Some types of lithium iron phosphate cells are nearly there. Plus Tesla Motors has demonstrated a battery swap system for the Model S. bull3964 posted:Having a hydrogen distribution infrastructure has a side perk as well. We wouldn't have to give up IC engines if we didn't want to. While I'm sure a ton of the mass commuters would go to fuel cells for efficiency sake, you would still be able to your big block V8 as a weekend cruiser relatively unmodified and you could use it guilt free. Don't you give up a lot of horsepower running a gasoline engine on hydrogen?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Some types of lithium iron phosphate cells are nearly there. Plus Tesla Motors has demonstrated a battery swap system for the Model S. But there's a whole other problem with that. You can get the tech to accept that much energy that fast, but how in the hell are you going to power the "charge station" with enough current to charge up 20 cars at once in a busy corridor. The laws of thermodynamics are a bitch in this regard. The battery swap idea remains the most promising, but you still are going to have to fast charge those batteries to keep up with demand and then you are stuck with the same problem of providing enough utility power. I am also skeptical that we will ever get carmakers to agree to a standardized, cross/manufacturer swappable battery. Now, the argument could be made that "charge stations" will be less busy than gas stations since most people won't need them if they stay within the range of car and charge nightly at home. But there are still certain places that will have to be high volume. Cockmaster posted:
I'm not necessarily talking about a direct conversion of an existing design. I'm just saying that we could have IC hydrogen engines that would, for all intents and purposes, look and feel like existing IC cars for that whole nostalgia factor. As of 2009, BMW was able to make a hydrogen IC engine that was around 42% efficient which is on par with existing engines. It'll be a niche market, to be sure. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
I could happily use an electric car 95% of the time, and the other 5% may be negotiable, as rapid charging stations are becoming more common here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:I could happily use an electric car 95% of the time, and the other 5% may be negotiable, as rapid charging stations are becoming more common here. This is why I think cars like the Volt have a chance to get big if the tech gets cheaper and goes into more models.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
The Volt is extended range, though, the issue of whether or not you can charge it up at a given location is very minor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis of water. The wind turbines and tidal generators have excess production during off peak hours, especially nighttime. It's not the most efficient way of generating hydrogen but its pretty clean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:Since the Peugeot RCZ was discussed some pages ago, I thought it was a nice thing of them to make this. Money and also I live in The United States of America.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:The Volt is extended range, though, the issue of whether or not you can charge it up at a given location is very minor. I know, and it's perfect for the people who can use an electric car 95% of the time but worry about the other 5% like the person I quoted. If I had a place to charge it I'd have looked at them last year when I was buying a new car.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
iv46vi posted:Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis of water. The wind turbines and tidal generators have excess production during off peak hours, especially nighttime. It's not the most efficient way of generating hydrogen but its pretty clean. Even if you covered the country in wind turbines and tidal generators I doubt you could generate anything close to enough power. Not to mention the fact that you have to store it and hydrogen's not very good or efficient at that. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
iv46vi posted:Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis of water. The wind turbines and tidal generators have excess production during off peak hours, especially nighttime. It's not the most efficient way of generating hydrogen but its pretty clean. Electrolysis gains efficiency as temperature of the water increases. Because of this, it's a MUCH better match to baseline plants like nuclear stations as they have excess heat that's usually wasted and rather constant. "Room temperature" electrolysis as an efficiency of about 30% while HTE is in the 40%-50% range and above. Even then, it's not enough unfortunately. It would take an order of magnitude more nuclear plants than we have now to create the same amount of energy in hydrogen that we consume in gasoline per day. In the end, it would have to be a combination of many different methods to meet our energy demands with hydrogen. The future will likely be closer to the Volt with a hydrogen fuel cell taking the place of the IC engine and gas tank for extended range. That way, the demands for hydrogen itself will be lessened as commuters draw most of their power off the grid and only need hydrogen for extended trips.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Though PEM fuel cells are honestly still not very good, and also hydrogen storage is pretty difficult, too, with a lot of the current systems scaring the hell out of me. Even ignoring the difficulties of creating a distribution infrastructure, it's not a great option. Molten carbonate is promising for fixed applications because it's way more efficient, but even there it's not that useful and isn't a way of actually generating power. The future is gasoline for anything in our generation. Well, that and downsizing, public transport, and general deprivation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
The efficiency of the hydrogen technology is improving while gas prices continue to rise. Hopefully one day the alternative will become cost efficient. And it's not necessarily the US that will lead the implementation. India and China would benefit from a cleaner transport and have the manufacturing capacity to produce cheaply. Lots of smaller developing countries have minimal gasoline infrastructure, so putting either one is possible. I've seen Tata hydrogen powered trike taxi back in 06, they worked fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
iv46vi posted:The efficiency of the hydrogen technology is improving while gas prices continue to rise. Hopefully one day the alternative will become cost efficient. It's really not progressing that fast, honestly. Why are you so convinced hydrogen is a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
While reforming methane NG is certainly the best volume option, you can get hydrogen from reforming a whole lot of industrial hydrocarbon waste gases that just get oxidized / burned into the atmosphere anyway. So it ends up being carbon neutral. You can also use the same gas to power the fuel cell doing the reforming, and stil have electricity and heat to provide for the industry that generated the waste gas; do it right and your efficiency can be quite high. Water purification plants are a good example, clean efficient power from your own poop, the waste heat goes back to drive the digesters. One nice thing about reforming NG for hydrogen is that a lot of places have extensive NG infrastructure already. I really don't get fuel cell cars, though, hydrogen IC seems to make far more sense, just from a cost of materiel perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 03:48
|
|