Doggydog world, it depends how ubiquitous charging stations are. In the early days, charging at work or at the shops will significantly boost the amount of miles people do on EV.

Eventually they will probably be installed under every parking space and controlled by blutooth using induction charging.

I would be very interested to know the grams CO2/km with the new 1.2L three cylinder engine, deleting the electric propulsion, and then adding a full stop-start system with extra lead-acid batteries for engine-off A/C function. Would the difference in performance and CO2/km be significant? The cost surely would.

We've already gone WAY past the point that crude oil alternatives have become viable. In fact, I say within 15 years we'll be getting most of our diesel, heating oil, kerosene and possibly gasoline made from "growing" renewable oil-laden algae on a HUGE scale (using seawater is not an issue here!) and by the early 2020's crude oil will be used primarily as a base for plastics.

Doggydog world, it depends how ubiquitous charging stations are. In the early days, charging at work or at the shops will significantly boost the amount of miles people do on EV.

If you charge twice a day in 10 years you do 7300 full cycles. 3000 is a stretch for most battery chemistries. AltairNano claims 15,000, but it's hard to put much faith in such a flaky company.

Also, a 5 kWh pack is only 3-4 kWh useable, which implies 12-16 mile range. Even recharging twice a day you can't realistically get to 12k miles on that. The other problem is power -- even good chemistries have trouble with 5C rates at 80% DoD. That's only 25 kW with such a small pack, insufficient for even moderate acceleration.

Small packs don't really work for EREV type designs. They can work in "blended" designs which use the ICE for acceleration, high speeds, etc. But such designs only achieve 3-5k EV miles per year under typical use.

Ciao

[url=you-car-here.awardspace.com]New & Used Cars[/url]

JC, the powertrain that you describe is essentially that of the "3-litre" (per 100 km) version of the VW Lupo of a few years ago, which did not sell well. Same engine, similar gearbox (Lupo had a 5 speed DSG).

The TDI hybrid Golf actually uses a little more fuel (therefore higher CO2) than that Lupo did, but the Golf is a family car of useful size, and Lupo was regarded as too small (and is no longer produced).

Everyone talks about these imaginary charging stations has if they bloom from the trees like blossoms in the springtime. They cost money and someone has to pay for them. Do you expect the city to put them in like parking meters? Has your city committed to doing this? I did not think so.

I think everyone is looking at this from a bit of a distorted view.

I happen to believe that, even if this diesel hybrid Golf cost $25,900 base price, it would be worth it (even adding leather and goodies to equal $29,000) when I consider my NEXT vehicle. I currently drive a Honda Element, which I love, but it only averages 22mpg.

Lets say that this Golf Hybrid would be my next choice of car. I would be going from Averaging 22 to say, 62 since I do mostly highway driving. Now, you may think that all the Prius drivers switching to a Golf TDI Hybrid may not be a big deal, but what about folk like me driving 28,000 miles per year? Id say it would be great to get 62mpg even if diesel would go to $4.59gal and gas would be $4.09. I would still slice my dollars spent on fuel from $433/month to $173/month.

That $259 per month buys alot of TDI Hybrid. The TDI hybrid would have to be $14,000 more than a Gasoline Golf equivalent to NOT make financial sense in my world.

Lets give a little more slack to us folk who drive alot more than the typical tree hugger in a years time and stop whining about Prius vs. Golf TDI.

I find the Golf MUCH more visually appealing as well and probably wouldn't consider a Prius, even if it does get 45mpg. avg. The Golf TDI Hybrid gives someone like me a REAL choice in higher-mileage yeild PLUS appeal in one package.

Yes it costs more to run than the same car with a simpler driveline, but any well developed complex system is going to be more expensive than a generations old simpler system.

I think the point is to reduce fuel use and the reduced emissions, not to be cheaper to run.

Cheap to run is a $1000 diesel Rabbit.

But, cheap to run is supposed to be the goal too, you know.

Americans love cheap. Just look at our procurements from China. We love profits and we love cheap.

Why is this to be excluded on the sole basis of emissions? I dont know anyone whos died from diesel particulates. I do know many folk now dead from smoking cigarettes. Shall we not curb cigarette emissions over auto emissions then?

Is life going to be better with this emission control, throwing away potential fuel savings and cost savings? The middle class will be buying these cars, you know. The paycheck-to-paycheck folk. You speak as if they dont matter, and they will just have to cough up the money and enjoy life less, with less financial freedom, simply because some lofty EPA official thinks C02 is dangerous.

Nate

Funny how the posts from early march talk about $4 a gallon for regular unleaded as if it might come before the end of the year. 2 weeks later and it is $4.16 a gallon in the midwest....

Sign me up for a diesel hybrid. I love my wifes Jetta TDI and intend to keep it for a long, long time.

Give me an AWD version and I am happy as a clam.

So it's taken VW almost 10 years to get back to MPG the had in 1999! Not through weigh reduction but by adding a heavy battery that is a drag out of the city! Go back to Lupo 3L and A2

Well in the UK it's almost 9.10USD per US Gallon!!!!! Maybe that's why we like 65mpg plus diesel cars!

This is great. Anything over 50 MPG is a huge step forward.

--just throwing it out there:
can't you get solar panels to charge the electric car?
and isn't it possible to convert diesel to bio-diesel (the old french fry smelling kind)?
So wouldn't that make this the most amazing solution compared to anything else on the market?