Its not just Europeans who like diesel...

E92

The Americans have joined in on the action too! According to What Car?, the new generation of diesels on sale in the US since only this time last year now account for 1 in every 5 new E-classes sold there. And bear inmind that they are not available in 5 of the 50 US states.

The new generation of diesels will be on sale in Europe in time for the start of 08.

But, it seems we'll be left waiting for a while though, if we will get them at all.

I'd say its a question of when we'll get the new Euro 5 diesels from Merc.

Looks like BMW's, VAG's, Honda's, Ford's and even Chrysler/Dodges/Jeep's decision to sell diesels in the US will be the right one then, doesn't it?

I'm glad to see that when everything seems to be getting more and more Americanised or should that be Americanized(better start spelling centre/metre/litre as center/meter/liter and rumour as rumor then hadn't I:eek: ?), that the US is getting somewhat Europeanised in its choice of fuel.

I have to say I am surprised that the US has started taking to diesel so quickly, I thought it wouldn't be for another few years before 1 in 5 E-classes would be fueled by the black pump in the US.

I think my bold prediction some months back here on boards that for every 5 new cars bought in the US in 2010, 1 would be diesel might have been a tad conservative now:D .

Max_Damage

Only recently the Americans introduced low sulpher diesel, which is FAR cleaner than the crap they had before hand, and thus many diesel cars didn't pass their strict emission laws.

The notoriously bad Oldsmobile/Cadillac V8 diesel engine (which was a converted petrol engine originally) from the 1970's & 1980's was what really turned many Americans off diesel cars. The newer generation of motorists wouldn't remember those days, and so the perception of crappy diesel cars won't be stuck in their head.

JHMEG

Also interesting

Mercedes-Benz Details Product Roll-Out and Timeline for 6 Hybrids and Fuel Cell Vehicle

Biro

Having been to the US only 3 months ago, there's no way I'd buy a diesel over there! Not one Diesel pump to be seen at any petrol (sorry, Gas!) station over there! Not even hidden around the back. Just "Regular" which is watered down 92 octaine muck, and "Premium" which is same as our 95 Octaine.

Altreab

Max_Damage wrote:

Only recently the Americans introduced low sulpher diesel, which is FAR cleaner than the crap they had before hand, and thus many diesel cars didn't pass their strict emission laws.

If im not mistaken diesel in the USA is cleaner than we have here now.
The main problem with the take up of diesel in the USA will be the lack of diesel pumps as mentioned earlier. Then again if the demand is there the oil companies will convert petrol tanks to diesel VERY quickly.

E92

The ironic thing about it is that US diesel is infinately cleaner than our diesel.

And US emission laws are far stricter than ours.

And VW say they will have a diesel available in all 50 states next year.(Jetta 2.0 TDI, with that recently launched common rail unit from VAG)

E92

JHMEG wrote:

Also interesting

Mercedes-Benz Details Product Roll-Out and Timeline for 6 Hybrids and Fuel Cell Vehicle

Link not working.

bushy...

Biro wrote:

Having been to the US only 3 months ago, there's no way I'd buy a diesel over there! Not one Diesel pump to be seen at any petrol (sorry, Gas!) station over there! Not even hidden around the back. Just "Regular" which is watered down 92 octaine muck, and "Premium" which is same as our 95 Octaine.

The larger lazier engines over there will run happily on it though.

E92

Biro wrote:

Having been to the US only 3 months ago, there's no way I'd buy a diesel over there! Not one Diesel pump to be seen at any petrol (sorry, Gas!) station over there! Not even hidden around the back. Just "Regular" which is watered down 92 octaine muck, and "Premium" which is same as our 95 Octaine.

Isn't regular just 87 octane:eek: , and premium 91? There is also I think super premium which is 93 octane?


I think though US octane ratings are different to ours though?(I know they call it octane, whereas we call it RON, which stands for Research Octane Number).

Actually having just looked at Wikipedia, I see you're right, 87 Octane in the US is equivalent to 91 RON here, and their 91 is equivalent to 95 RON here. So their 93 is probably about 97 or 98 here, so that is equivalent to super unleaded in this country.

JHMEG

E92 wrote:

Link not working.

Ironically, neither does your's!

Fixed mine now.

E92

It should be working, I just checked it twice there and it's fine on my computer anyway.

E92

Interesting to note which fuel all these Hybrids are(bar 2 of them), and the fact that the diesels will be available in all 50 states.

They are not full blown Hybrids like a Civic IMA or Prius either, apart from the ML450.

What are those mpg figures in our mpg? i know US mpg is less than ours, but I'm not sure by how much.

The reason I'm wondering is because some of those mpg figures are not great tbh, and definately the CO2 emissions are nothing special tbh, taking a quick example, the E300 Bluetec has CO2 emissions of 134 g/km, the non Hybrid BMW 520d produces a mere 2 g/km more of CO2. It also has almost as much power too, at 177 bhp as opposed to the E300's 204 bhp.

Similarly the C300 produces 124 g/km of CO2, a 320d produces 129 g/km of CO2. Now I know that the 320d has less power again, but the C300's engine is a 2.2 4 cylinder, so its not like a 6 cylinder Hybrid of 3 litres is more economical than a non Hybrid 2.0 4 cylinder.

The S400 Hybrid's 190 g/km is only 9 g/km better than an Audi A8 2.8.

The ML450 looks very impressive though, but 1 swallow doesn't make a summer.

The S300 is to be fair very impresse, as in better than even many small cars like a Corolla etc, I'm not lying when I say that 142 g/km is no mean achievement in such a big car, only 2 g/km short of the target for the average CO2 emissions for 2008(which of course won't be met), but there is a compromise, and that is that 2.2 litres(even with 204 bhp) in a car of that size won't make for luxury car motoring. 4 cylinders is simply not going to be refined enough in a luxury car. One of the reasons why luxury cars have so many cylinders in them is for smoothness and no amount of balancer shafts from fewer cylinder engines can ever hope to give. You can tune up engines with fewer cylinders, but you can't make them as nice sounding or as refined as those with more cylinders. It is physically impossible. There is only so much twisting the laws of Physics allow! They can't be defyed!

I know that it will be a roaring success when it arrives here though, it has that relatively puny engine which is all important in the Irish market(to see how small can you go:D )

astrofool

An American friend of mine has just got a CLS 55 AMG, and was offered a 4year lease at a very good price, he refused and took a 2 year one (still at a good price), because he doesn't want a big petrol engine in 2 years time. He'd have a Diesel already if he was able to.

Capt'n Midnight

E92 wrote:

They are not full blown Hybrids like a Civic IMA or Prius either, apart from the ML450.

...

One of the reasons why luxury cars have so many cylinders in them is for smoothness and no amount of balancer shafts from fewer cylinder engines can ever hope to give. You can tune up engines with fewer cylinders, but you can't make them as nice sounding or as refined as those with more cylinders. It is physically impossible. There is only so much twisting the laws of Physics allow! They can't be defyed!

{insert rant about petrol hybrids being pointless compared to diesel and the only real hybrid would be diesel - electric}

If you want smooth power you won't beat electric.

How smooth are deltas - especially if running at constant speed and using the electric for acceleration ?
(again you won't beat an electric motor for instant power)

Capt'n Midnight

E92 wrote:

The ironic thing about it is that US diesel is infinately cleaner than our diesel.

And US emission laws are far stricter than ours.

It's only very recently been cleaner than ours.

Pity the emission laws don't apply to SUV's :mad: :mad: :mad:

JHMEG

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Napier_deltic_animation.gif

Was gonna say dammit I know that engine from somwhere but I see from the link it's a Napier deltic (train and other stuff) engine. Odd that the bottom crank turns clockwise while the top two turn anti-clockwise.

E92

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Pity the emission laws don't apply to SUV's :mad: :mad: :mad:

Indeed it is a great pity, you're absolutely right, then again they're not even considered cars in the US, they're "trucks" according to the US Government.

AFAIK Euro 4's and Euro 5's etc only apply to cars(including SUVs) and thats it. Vans are included too, but I don't know about trucks etc.


And this 4 cylinder diesel Hybrid is a MILD Hybrid, which means the engine is on all the time, except when the car it at a stop.

Only full Hybrids can run on electricity alone. The Electric Motor in a mild Hybrid [as per the Honda Insight and first generation Honda Civic IMA(the second one is a full blown Hybrid AFAIK)] is only there to assist the engine under hard acceleration.

So you have the diesel clatter and the unrefinement of 4 cylinders all the time, except when you're at a stop:D .

Electric power is much worse than Hybrid power. I could write a thesis on why electric power is definately NOT the way to go.

But the fact that there is no power from it to pardon the pun, not terribly enviornmentally friendly, is ridiculously expensive, and has no useable range whatsoever, makes no noise, which means nobody will hear you coming and is therefore a safety risk for obvious reasons are very good reasons why electric power sucks.

JHMEG

E92 wrote:

Electric power is much worse than Hybrid power.

I'm almost thinking with a comment like that that you're trolling. Either that or this could start a whole other argument deserving of it's own thread, but...

1. there is no power from it to pardon the pun
The Tesla Roadster does 60 in 4 seconds!
The GM EV1 did 60 in 9s; not too shabby by current standards.

2. not terribly enviornmentally friendly,
A helluva lot better than any diesel or petrol or hybrid. Infintely better if charged from a renewable source like solar, wind or hydro.

3. is ridiculously expensive
Doesn't that funny looking REVAi start at something like 13,500 incl VAT and VRT?

4. and has no useable range whatsoever
Enough range to get 90% of commuters to work and back (88% of Californians -- see "Who killed the electric car")

5. makes no noise,
No engine noise, and 90% of people would see this as a good thing. There is still tyre noise.

6. which means nobody will hear you coming and is therefore a safety risk
And the Luas mows down people by the hundreds in Dublin every day.:D

Capt'n Midnight

JHMEG wrote:

Was gonna say dammit I know that engine from somwhere but I see from the link it's a Napier deltic (train and other stuff) engine. Odd that the bottom crank turns clockwise while the top two turn anti-clockwise.

don't think the direction makes much difference

the amazing thing is that they were used on aircraft


Still we all know the stirling engines will sort everything out
External combustion engines ftw , they will run on anything that burns

cancan

Why would you buy a diesel in the us?

Petrol is about 2 euro a gallon, diesel is more expensive than petrol, and you can't get it anywhere.

The only reason diesel is popular in europe is because of the tax system

Honestly, if all things were equal, would you buy a diesel over a petrol?

It's a compromise whose main strength is making people save a few quid at the pumps (because of tax man), at the expense of adding weight and cost to the initial the purchase, while reducing driving pleasure.

What you gain in CO and HC reductions, you give back in NOx and particulates increases with diesel.

E92

JHMEG wrote:

1. there is no power from it to pardon the pun
The Tesla Roadster does 60 in 4 seconds!
The GM EV1 did 60 in 9s; not too shabby by current standards.

The Tesla has a range of 250 miles. Super. It takes 3.5 hours to recharge. At least in a normal car of that performance, you can fill it up in only a few minutes, so a supercars' lack of range is more of an inconvenience than an actual problem. Oh I can't wait for that, I can't even go from Cork to Dublin and back without taking a 3.5 hour pit stop in between. What good is 0-60 or even 0-100 in 4 seconds if I can't go that far in it? That said 4 seconds is very impressive though!

JHMEG wrote:

2. not terribly enviornmentally friendly,
A helluva lot better than any diesel or petrol or hybrid. Infintely better if charged from a renewable source like solar, wind or hydro.

Electric cars are the only vehicle I know that use more fuel at speed. A proper car is terribly inefficient in town, but remarkably efficient on a motorway.

The G-Wiz produces CO2 emissons equivalent to 63 g/km btw, and thats if you drive the thing a 2 mph, and don't use the radio or any power sapping device. In a proper car, the amount of extra fuel used for a basic creature comfort like a radio is so small that it can't be measured.

So they're great in town, but dare I say it so is a hybrid, you can drive around town in a (full)Hybrid without polluting the air too. So the electric car answers a question already answered.

Out of town, a normal car(non Hybrid) becomes remarkably efficient. Electric cars suck out of town. Hybrids are no more efficient than a normal car out of town(because they are going fast enough to have to use the petrol or diesel engine at this stage).

JHMEG wrote:

3. is ridiculously expensive
Doesn't that funny looking REVAi start at something like 13,500 incl VAT and VRT?

Oh ffs. Its a covered in motorcycle! Its like those Ligier Ambra pos's. I wouldn't pay 1350 for one. That thing has a top speed of 40 mph and a range of 40 miles! Thats very useful in this country, isn't it?
Mind you, I wouldn't feel safe in merely sitting one. Have a look at this.

If that were a normal car the G-Wiz would cost about 4 or 5 grand max. So you've very much verified my comment that those things are ridiculously expensive, thanks:D .

JHMEG wrote:

4. and has no useable range whatsoever
Enough range to get 90% of commuters to work and back (88% of Californians -- see "Who killed the electric car")

250 miles from the Tesla Roadstar. 40 miles from that G-Wiz thing.
Unlike a proper car, electric cars use up all their "fuel" the faster you go. So the only way you'll actually ever get the claimed range is if you driuve at walking speed. These quoted range statistics are in optimal conditions, which means they will never be achieved in reality.

JHMEG wrote:

5. makes no noise,
No engine noise, and 90% of people would see this as a good thing. There is still tyre noise.

6. which means nobody will hear you coming and is therefore a safety risk
And the Luas mows down people by the hundreds in Dublin every day.:D

I don't find your comment amusing at all actually. And you're lecturing me about trolling! The Luas has had several near misses, it often collides with trucks etc, its a miracle actually that nobody has died from it yet AFAIK.

And the Luas makes big loud noises so that there is absolutely no doubt that it is coming(its a nice yoke actually, and yes I've used it, several times in fact).

E92

cancan wrote:

The only reason diesel is popular in europe is because of the tax system

Honestly, if all things were equal, would you buy a diesel over a petrol?

Well things are most certainly NOT equal at the moment, and I would as a rule buy a diesel, yes. Things at the moment are ridiculously biased towards PETROL's in fact.

The fact remains that because cars are taxed on engine size, and because diesels by and large have bigger engines than petrols, they are penalised by our tax code a lot more than they deserve to. In other countries you get a tax break in the form of a 20c/litre redction in the price you pay at the pump. We only get about 10 cents, and every year you are saddled by extra road tax, and the extra cost of buying a new diesel because 99% of the time its in a higher VRT bracket. Even when both a petrol and diesel are in the same VRT bracket, because VRT makes a car so expensive, you still pay a lot more for a paraffin stove than for a petrol.

Most modern cars are simply too heavy, and the heavier a car is, the better suited to diesel it is. You don't see things like petrol trucks for instance.

Now, if money were no object, I'd have fast petrol instead of a diesel every time(i prefer the sound of petrols for a start, and there is a certain satisfaction in giving a petrol the beans, which you just cant get from an oil burner),but the problem is that in a normal car, petrols are very slow compared to a diesel, because they don't have that torque at low revs like a diesel has.

JHMEG

E92 wrote:

What good is 0-60 or even 0-100 in 4 seconds if I can't go that far in it? That said 4 seconds is very impressive though!

Commuting.

E92 wrote:

Electric cars are the only vehicle I know that use more fuel at speed. A proper car is terribly inefficient in town, but remarkably efficient on a motorway.

Commuting?

E92 wrote:

So they're great in town, but dare I say it so is a hybrid, you can drive around town in a (full)Hybrid without polluting the air too.

Nearly. A full hybrid's range on the motor is very very small. It requires periodic charging from the petrol engine.

E92 wrote:

Hybrids are no more efficient than a normal car out of town(because they are going fast enough to have to use the petrol or diesel engine at this stage).

Yes they are, as their petrol engines have features and technologies not available in non-hybrid cars.

E92 wrote:

That thing has a top speed of 40 mph and a range of 40 miles! Thats very useful in this country, isn't it?

Commuting. Average speed of traffic in Dublin is 8km/h. 90% of commuters live within 20 miles of work.

The Luas has had several near misses, it often collides with trucks etc, its a miracle actually that nobody has died from it yet AFAIK.

That would make the Luas, which btw is electric and virtually silent, the safest mode of transport in this country.

E92 wrote:

And the Luas makes big loud noises

From things called horns. Electric cars have them too.

You really should watch "Who killed the Electric Car" to see what people who owned/leased electric cars thought of them, and to see the reason why they were killed off (all except 300 or so RAV4 EVs).

Capt'n Midnight

cancan wrote:

The only reason diesel is popular in europe is because of the tax system

Honestly, if all things were equal, would you buy a diesel over a petrol?
....
What you gain in CO and HC reductions, you give back in NOx and particulates increases with diesel.

petrol engines use lower pressure in the cylinders
and so use less metal because they don't need to be as strong as a diesel.
this means they are lighter and so more responsive and they can rev faster, at a very simplistic level you can get twice the power out of a petrol if it revs twice as fast, if you turbocharge it to double the air and fuel in the cylinder you can get twice the power.

A petrol (otto) engine burns fuel at constant volume - one bang from the spark and all the fuel should burn instantly
A diesel engine burns fuel at constant pressure - ideally the fuel would burn over the full time it takes the piston to move

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_cycle - from the link you will see there are two different formula's to calculate efficiency depending on the type of burning used

The additional complexity for the diesel formula comes around since the heat addition is at constant pressure and the heat rejection is at constant volume. The Otto cycle by comparison has both the heat addition and rejection at constant volume.

Comparing the two formulae it can be seen that for a given compression ratio (r), the Otto cycle will be more efficient. However, a diesel engine will be more efficient overall since it will have the ability to operate at higher pressures. This is down to the composition of the diesel fuel since it will not self-ignite at higher pressures. If a petrol engine was to have the same pressures then knocking (self-ignition) will occur and this will severely reduce the efficiency.

if you were able to stop petrol knocking, you could burn it in a diesel and get more power out of it.

Petrol engines are used , where you want a light/cheap engine and efficiency is not critical. They are used in private aviation because they are light and cheap, once get to commercial aircraft you are talking turbofan/turboprop which deliver 4 times the power to weight ratio. For private motoring they are used because they are cheap/light/nippy. Commercial use of petrol is more or less limited to vans and smaller.

Back in WWII you had tanks with petrol engines. one of the reasons was that most fuel was used by jeeps and aircraft, so it simplified logistics if everything used the same fuel.

But this leads on to another reason not to use petrol , it's dangerous.
Petrol is as safe as methanol or hydrogen.
But methanol mixes with water so much easier to put out.
Hydrogen burns easier, but a non luminous flame means less likely to cause other things to burn and because it's lighter than air it will quickly disperse if the tank in punctured.

Diesel on the other hand won't burn unless it's really hot or you use a wick ( though clothes and car seats might do) You could stand in a basin of diesel and drop lighted matches into it all day.

The Irish tax system means that a 2L petrol engine might give 4 times as much power as a 2L diesel but be rated the same for tax purposes (it would also give out a LOT more C02

cancan wrote:

The only reason diesel is popular in europe is because of the tax system

Honestly, if all things were equal, would you buy a diesel over a petrol?
....
What you gain in CO and HC reductions, you give back in NOx and particulates increases with diesel.

petrol engines use lower pressure in the cylinders
and so use less metal because they don't need to be as strong as a diesel.
this means they are lighter and so more responsive and they can rev faster, at a very simplistic level you can get twice the power out of a petrol if it revs twice as fast, if you turbocharge it to double the air and fuel in the cylinder you can get twice the power.

A petrol (otto) engine burns fuel at constant volume - one bang from the spark and all the fuel should burn instantly
A diesel engine burns fuel at constant pressure - ideally the fuel would burn over the full time it takes the piston to move

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_cycle - from the link you will see there are two different formula's to calculate efficiency depending on the type of burning used

The additional complexity for the diesel formula comes around since the heat addition is at constant pressure and the heat rejection is at constant volume. The Otto cycle by comparison has both the heat addition and rejection at constant volume.

Comparing the two formulae it can be seen that for a given compression ratio (r), the Otto cycle will be more efficient. However, a diesel engine will be more efficient overall since it will have the ability to operate at higher pressures. This is down to the composition of the diesel fuel since it will not self-ignite at higher pressures. If a petrol engine was to have the same pressures then knocking (self-ignition) will occur and this will severely reduce the efficiency.

if you were able to stop petrol knocking, you could burn it in a diesel and get more power out of it.

Petrol engines are used , where you want a light/cheap engine and efficiency is not critical. They are used in private aviation because they are light and cheap, once get to commercial aircraft you are talking turbofan/turboprop which deliver 4 times the power to weight ratio. For private motoring they are used because they are cheap/light/nippy. Commercial use of petrol is more or less limited to vans and smaller.

Back in WWII you had tanks with petrol engines. one of the reasons was that most fuel was used by jeeps and aircraft, so it simplified logistics if everything used the same fuel.

But this leads on to another reason not to use petrol , it's dangerous.
Petrol is as safe as methanol or hydrogen.
But methanol mixes with water so much easier to put out.
Hydrogen burns easier, but a non luminous flame means less likely to cause other things to burn and because it's lighter than air it will quickly disperse if the tank in punctured.

Diesel on the other hand won't burn unless it's really hot or you use a wick ( though clothes and car seats might do) You could stand in a basin of diesel and drop lighted matches into it all day.

The Irish tax system means that a 2L petrol engine might give 4 times as much power as a 2L diesel but be rated the same for tax purposes (it would also give out a LOT more C02

I'll have a look at this later but IIRC diesel is has a better well to wheel efficiency than petrol. In the us on average it's 83% - 17% of the energy taken out of the ground is used by the time you fill your tank. Or another 20% of the fuel in your tank.
Petroleum refining and distribution efficiency = 0.830
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_cycle_assessment#Well-to-wheel
big pdf http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-14446-filed.pdf

E92

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

I'll have a look at this later but IIRC diesel is has a better well to wheel efficiency than petrol. In the us on average it's 83% - 17% of the energy taken out of the ground is used by the time you fill your tank. Or another 20% of the fuel in your tank.
Petroleum refining and distribution efficiency = 0.830
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_cycle_assessment#Well-to-wheel
big pdf http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-14446-filed.pdf

Indeed it does, a petrol engine only uses 30% of the fuel it burns for powering the vehicfle, a diesel uses 40%, which explains in very simple English why they are more efficient than a petrol car.

E92

JHMEG wrote:

Nearly. A full hybrid's range on the motor is very very small. It requires periodic charging from the petrol engine.

I am aware of that. The Prius for instance can only go a mile on electric power(it can go further, but Toyota have the electric motor programmed so that it must keep at least 60% of its charge).
What about brake energy regeneration, isn't that what charges up the electric motor normally?(I know the combustion engine performs this role as well). In stop start traffic there is plenty of braking.

Thats why I said you can drive around town without polluting the air in one.

JHMEG wrote:

Yes they are, as their petrol engines have features and technologies not available in non-hybrid cars.

I don't think so. They feature Brake Energy Regeneration, an alternator which only works when its needed, and stop start technology. They often have special LRR(low rolling resistance) tyres and a more aerodynamic body as well. They also detune the engine to make it more economical too(a Prius has only 71 bhp from its 1.5, a 1.0 Yaris has 68 bhp).

Actually the Prius doesn't even direct injection(and that is claimed to reduce fuel consumption by as much as 8% according to Toyota).

A non Hybrid car can have all of these features as well. Why do you think new petrol BMWs are more efficient than rival's diesels(and even Hybrids, the 530i is more efficient and less polluting to the enviornment than a Lexus GS 450h)?

Its just that nobody apart from BMW has bothered yet.

JHMEG wrote:

From things called horns. Electric cars have them too.

I know what those things are. So what you're saying is that I should blow them, so that people will know I'm coming?

Then I'll be making a lot of noise, and since I've been told that one of the "benefits" of electric power is that they make no noise(I actually like listening to the noise of an engine, even a 3 cylinder is more intersting to hear than a milk float), that defeats the purpose then doesn't it?

JHMEG

E92 wrote:

I don't think so.

You really should do some research before coming out with sweeping statements.

The Civic IMA uses a special form of VTEC to leave all valves wide open while decelerating or going down hill. This means there is nothing for the piston (still driven by the crank) to compress, saving energy. This system is not in any non-hybrid. The injectors are also turned off, but this happens in most cars anyway, but there still is the resistance of an unnecessary compression stroke. Civic IMA also uses sequential ignition with 2 plugs per cylinder. This is done in similarly in the Jazz, but not with the fine tipped iridium plugs as in the IMA.

Toyotas are even more special: they don't even use the Otto cycle engine! Instead they use the Atkinson cycle. From this wikipedia article you can see what kind of cars Atkinson is used in. Atkinson are more efficient owing to the power stroke being longer than the compression stroke.

E92 wrote:

I know what those things are. So what you're saying is that I should blow them, so that people will know I'm coming?

Do I really need to spell out how use the horn appropriately?

And for all BMW's efficiencies it's funny how their CEO in the US states that the short-term solution is diesel. The medium-term is hybrids. And the longer-term is hydrogen internal combustion engines..

Gatster

Originally Posted by E92
That thing has a top speed of 40 mph and a range of 40 miles! Thats very useful in this country, isn't it?

Originally Posted by JHMEG
Commuting. Average speed of traffic in Dublin is 8km/h. 90% of commuters live within 20 miles of work.

What about people who don't live in Dublin? 40 miles range is pathetic, and for the price it's scandalous.
Do you realistically expect someone with €13.5k to spend on their primary mode of transport to buy a G-Whiz?:eek:?

colm_mcm

E92 wrote:

I don't find your comment amusing at all actually. And you're lecturing me about trolling! The Luas has had several near misses, it often collides with trucks etc, its a miracle actually that nobody has died from it yet AFAIK.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the Luas is on a track. the only way a pedestrian can get hit by a Luas is by walking on the track,

Any time a Luas collides with a truck or a car is down to the truck or car driver ignoring red lights or stopping in the yellow box. Nothing to do with the Luas being silent.

JHMEG

Gatster wrote:

What about people who don't live in Dublin? 40 miles range is pathetic, and for the price it's scandalous.
Do you realistically expect someone with €13.5k to spend on their primary mode of transport to buy a G-Whiz?:eek:?

Look, I don't sell them so I don't expect anyone to do anything. What percentage of commuters are more than 20 miles from work? And doesn't everyone live in Dublin anyway?:D