Reality Check: Volkswagen made a 50 mpg car almost 20 years ago!

The car companies could make more efficient vehicles if they wanted to.

In 1991, VW decided to market to the environmentalists and make a car that is super efficient. They tweaked around with their already efficient diesel Jetta motor and came up with the Eco-Diesel. They sold it for two years and then discontinued the model. Who really knows why.

According to specs, the car gets 46 mpg, but I've heard of 50 or more on the highway. This is better than most hybrids today.

The diesel motor also lasts longer (something the car companies don't necessarily like) because it runs at a slower RPM and there is no electronic system to create a spark.

The diesel can also run on alternative, "green," and carbon-neutral fuels like locally produced biodiesel and waste vegetable oil.

I just bought one of these cars for $2000. It has 250,000 miles on it but it is still running strong. It doesn't smell brand new and a few minor things need attention.

But this raises a question... if they could make a car that gets nearly 50 mpg almost 20 years ago, what the heck has happened in the last 20 years? This proves the car companies have just had no motivation to build efficient cars, and if they did, they could have been doing it all along. We'd probably be driving 100mpg cars by now if that were the case.

Why are we building hybrids that have much more embodied energy and much more complicated systems and cost much more when this simple technology has been around for 20 years?

When this car first came out, I was driving one of those air-cooled VW microbuses. I had so many problems with it, I swore I'd never own another Volkswagen. Here I am buying a car now that was built back then, and at the time was probably the most efficient passenger car ever built. The sad thing is that 20 years have gone by and people are still driving cars that get 25 mpg, and I can find few logical reasons why.

That may not be the official rating but I had friend with a 90's model Geo Metro that got 50mpg on the highway.
The technology exists to do better than we're doing now and the car companies choose not to use it.

so the technology has existed all along. they just haven't even tried.

Today's cars are much heavier. Largely with additional safety features: airbags (the mechanics rather than the bag itself), side impact bars, anti-lock breaking, etc. And also a lot more electronics from the engine computer to toys like GPS. For that matter, I believe fuel injection systems are considerably heavier than a carb.

The more weight, the less mileage.

Engine size/power is more of a factor.

See rebirth of the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car">muscle car."

http://musclecars.howstuffworks.com/muscle-car-information/how-muscle-cars-work8.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-X

I still miss my CRX almost 10 years later, I should have never sold it.

There are whole groups dedicated to some of these cars, how to maintain them etc. The late 70's Diesel Rabbit was the first, AFAIK, production VW in the US to routinely get over 50MPG. In recent years the Diesel Jetta seems to be more popular among the devoted enthusiasts. But despite this being, if not common knowledge very easily found, the carsw have never had much more than a cult following.

got 40 miles to the gallon..I know cause we had one.

My brothers both drove them.

Clean. Unless you are burning grease. Most bio diesel is 90% regular diesel.
Any engine with 250k miles is a stinker.
A brand new clean diesel puts out 3x as much greenhouse gasses as a new Hybrid.
Gasoline is 25% cheaper than diesel.

Diesels are not the answer.

Where did you get that a new Diesel puts out 3x as much CO2 as a Hybrid?

Your Hybrid will get better efficiency with 22:1 COmpression than the 9.5 typical of current Otto Engines.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/

http://www.google.com/search?q=diesel+coronary
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december12/agudiesel-1212.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070911092135.htm

the problem is that there are millions of large trucks out there getting 3 mpg or less on diesel, putting lots of diesel exhaust into the atmosphere.

again, the nice thing about diesels is that they can run on other fuels. that's why I got one. biodiesel produced from algae has the potential to produce large amounts of fuel for our nation, and reduce greenhouse gases. the emmissions from biodiesel have much less carcinogens and other toxins than regular diesel.

nothing is "the" answer. nothing is perfect. electric vehicles and hydrogen cars might have zero emissions at the tailpipe but they still need to get their electricity from somewhere.

http://www.google.com/search?q=diesel+global+warming
http://www.google.com/search?q=diesel+health+effects

http://www.epa.gov/ne/eco/diesel/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3786067/

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.full

The problems you cite reflect the older engines. Newer ones with Catalytic Converters are n ot supposed to have the particulates issue. And on the plus side they run at higher compression and don't have a throttle, both which give better thermal efficiency throughout the driving cycle.

It does no good to say, "Newer engines are better," if most of the diesels on the road are older.

self delete

why are you ranting to me about other cars and trucks that are burning regular diesel? I don't advocate people to buy diesels and burn regular diesel in them and I never have. Notice my OP said "locally produced biodiesel." biodiesel has MUCH less particulate matter in the exhaust. so you are talking about apples and oranges. biodiesel and vegetable oil are the right way to rund a diesel car. that's what I'm in favor of and that's why i bought another diesel car and there is a huge potential for locally produced biodiesel to supply a significant portion of our fuel demands.

Did you see the subject of this message:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=184880&mesg_id=184906

You http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=184880&mesg_id=184902">wrote:
Surely, you weren't talking about biodiesel. (Right?)

What share of diesel fuel being sold today is 100% biodiesel? Because, if the majority of it is not, talking about how eco-friendly biodiesel is just doesn't mean much. It's sort of like saying that burning coal isn't bad, because in theory new plants could capture and sequester the exhaust.
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/

Yeah, well, in the meantime, coal is dirty, and until there are more "clean coal" plants than conventional coal plants, it will remain dirty.

Right now, the reality of diesel is that it still is dirty.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=184977&mesg_id=185016

allow me to correct you on each of your misconceptions

most biodiesel is not 90% regular diesel. biodiesel comes in all different blends, from 2% to 100%. I burn 100% biodiesel as much as I can. I will be running on grease in a few months.

all older engines are not "stinkers." I checked this out and the exhaust is clear. Running on biodiesel the only "stink" is the french fry smell.

A brand new clean diesel puts out 3x more greenhouse gases....? that's complete hogwash. if you include the embodied energy of a hybrid, studies show it does nothing for the environment whatsoever. diesels are more efficient and offer the use of alternative fuels that reduce greenhouse gases.

right now gas is cheaper than diesel but it hasn't always been that way and it shouldn't. diesel is cheaper to produce.

the only thing you said that is true is that "diesels are not the answer." Nothing is "the" answer. Diesels are however, part of the solution as we transition to electric vehicles and air cars.

that said I don't see diesel dropping below the price of gasoline for the foreseeable future. The truth is that the industrialization of the third world has greatly increased the demand for the "fuel oil" fraction of petroleum production and I doubt we will see a reversal. Offshoring contributes since in many cases raw resources are transshipped and finished products as well.Enter into this blend less restricted (environmentally) and efficient (environmentally) factories and increased demand at the producing sites and the change in relative importance becomes clear...until enough consumers in the producing countries also purchase enough gasoline consuming devices to offset current balance of use the diesel/fuel oil fraction should remain at minimum, on par with gasoline.

if we only focus on price we are dead.

if the price is within the same range of regular fuel, that's good enough for me.

right now, biodiesel, diesel, gasoline, and vegetable oil are within the same range, so I don't care which is cheapest. I make my choices according to environmental impact. I bought the diesel so I could run biodiesel and vegetable oil and minimize my contribution to global warming and help farmers instead of Exxon and Cheney.

if people want to save 40 cents a gallon so they can help exxon and cheney and pollute more, go ahead. but i think that's the old way of thinking.

At one time, diesel was less expensive to produce than gasoline, since it was less refined. However, with the introduction of "ultra-low sulfur diesel," http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ulsd/chapter3.html">new technologies must be used at the refinery, and the cost of production has gone up.

Ignoring price and/or practicality (say, for a family of four), here's an interesting 2008 list from discovery.com