One of the disappointments I had with the release of the mk3 was that there was no improvement in the drag coefficient for hatchback or combi over the mk2.

BUT the mk4 figures really step up to the mark, and so they should to differentiate them from the plethora of mobile agricultural sheds being marketed and regretfully bought.

 

I have always been an estate (wagon in local parlance) man and a claimed cd of 0.26 is remarkably good but I might be converted to buy a liftback with the claimed cd 0.24.

0.24 may not the lowest on the market but it certainly sets a benchmark at this price point for an ICE vehicle and makes you wonder what an EV version would achieve.

 

My interest of course is the benefit it provides on a longer run.

Pity we will have wait at least a year after release before it hits Australia, and there is always the question of what hybrid/phev variants will be released here.

Given the huge amount of other variables that can affect a cars fuel efficiency, the drag coefficiency wouldn't even factor into my buying criteria. 

1 hour ago, silver1011 said:

Given the huge amount of other variables that can affect a cars fuel efficiency, the drag coefficiency wouldn't even factor into my buying criteria. 

Well it certainly did not when you bought a Kodiaq

Your MB boasts a creditable 0.24/0.25 though.

I am sure you will change your mind about the importance of aerodynamics when one day undertaking a longer journey at speed in your EV.

Edited 11 November, 20196 yr by Gerrycan

I'm hoping that Skoda achieves these good aero figures and still maintain their reputation for both excellent outward vision and internal efficiency.

 

2 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

Well it certainly did not when you bought a Kodiaq

Your MB boasts a creditable 0.24/0.25 though.

I am sure you will change your mind about the importance of aerodynamics when one day undertaking a longer journey at speed in your EV.

 

It always makes me chuckle both on here and over on the various Facebook groups dedicated to the Kodiaq where people bemoan the Kodiaq's poor fuel efficiency.

 

It's a huge, brick-shaped, bluff-fronted 7 seater SUV 😂

 

I was told (can't remember when or by whom), that saloons offered the best drag coefficiency? Saying that I now wish I'd paid a bit more and gone for the estate. Saloons, especially mine without folding rear seats, are pretty impracticable.

 

The 2016 Mercedes-Benz manages 50mpg on my commute, almost identical to my old 2011 MkII Superb Twindoor, progress eh! 😂

 

11 hours ago, silver1011 said:

Given the huge amount of other variables that can affect a cars fuel efficiency, the drag coefficiency wouldn't even factor into my buying criteria. 

Says the man with a brick shaped Kodiaq.

Um, did you miss the several posts since!?

10 minutes ago, silver1011 said:

Um, did you miss the several posts since!?

I read them after my post, oops.

Looks far nicer than a Mk8 Golf.    Golf goes back from gas strut on bonnet to manual prop. Octavia gets gas struts.    Sometimes it's the small details which are important.

7 hours ago, StewartM said:

Looks far nicer than a Mk8 Golf.    Golf goes back from gas strut on bonnet to manual prop. Octavia gets gas struts.    Sometimes it's the small details which are important.

It does seem to out-do the Mk. 8 Golf. SWMBO suggested that I keep my Mk. 7 R for another year or so & consider swapping the Mk 2 Superb (my daily) for a new vRS Octy next year, rather than trading-in the Golf for a Cupra Ateca now.

Food for thought.........

Before anyone gets too excited about that 0.24 (hatch) or 0.26 (estate) drag coefficient they are from figures, not across range

 

In UK inevitably come with wider low profile tyres so that will push it up a bit.

 

I doubt many on this forum will be buying the basic standard version with small wheels

 

6 hours ago, SurreyJohn said:

Before anyone gets too excited about that 0.24 (hatch) or 0.26 (estate) drag coefficient they are from figures, not across range

 

In UK inevitably come with wider low profile tyres so that will push it up a bit.

 

I doubt many on this forum will be buying the basic standard version with small wheels

 

20% of Mk3 UK customers purchase the Vrs models with 225mm width tyres in 18" and 19" alloy diameters. Next year manufacturers have to sell cars with an average of 95g/km of co2 otherwise they will face large fines from the EU so a big push to sell more hybrids and EV's.

37 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

20% of Mk3 UK customers purchase the Vrs models with 225mm width tyres in 18" and 19" alloy diameters. Next year manufacturers have to sell cars with an average of 95g/km of co2 otherwise they will face large fines from the EU so a big push to sell more hybrids and EV's.

 

Yep it sucks, especially when the infrastructure for EV's is non-existent and hybrids are too much of a  compromise and the batteries are an environmental disaster in the making. It's pity hydrogen fuel doesn't have more backing and so few stations, clean and efficient and crucially better range than an EV and can be refueled in a few minutes not hours of charging. Also can be produced economically close to source. For example Orkney has its own hydrogen plant produced from the abundant tidal power available there. They use the hydrogen as means to store the renewable produced electric, then convert the hydrogen back into electricity for their own use when required. To charge the much higher than average number of electric cars there and the electric small island ferrys. 

Of course it would better still if the vehicles were hydrogen fuel cell powered then there would no need to convert hydrogen back into electricity to charge them. 

But as always the legislation we and manufacturers have to live with is driven by misinformed politicians. 

Edited 13 November, 20196 yr by Gmac983

7 minutes ago, Gmac983 said:

hydrogen fuel..... efficient

You are about that?  

 

Sure, huge hydrogen plant can be efficient. But the best fuel cell today are not much better than best ICE-mild-hybrid (eg Prius) in terms of efficiency. Former 50%, latter 40%. 

Meanwhile, plug-to-wheel efficiency of EV is over 80%. If we are going for a completely new technology that requires completely new infrastructure, it makes more sense to push the one that wastes the least amount of energy. 

 

EV charging can take minutes. But most importantly, it gives you options. You no longer need to go somewhere specifically to refuel. I feel this is the best thing to happen to cars since invention of wheels. Every morning the EV has a full battery ready for the day. 

 

 

On topic: 

0.24 is fantastic. I'm sure the PHEV version will make full use of this. I'm really interested in the PHEV version, wonder how much EV-ness it will be. 

 

A coworker told me his PHEV turns on the engine when it gets cold and heat is demanded from air vents. It's essentially a normal ICE car with limited EV capabilities. Totally pointless. 

22 minutes ago, Gmac983 said:

 

Yep it sucks, especially when the infrastructure for EV's is non-existent and hybrids are too much of a  compromise and the batteries are an environmental disaster in the making. It's pity hydrogen fuel doesn't have more backing and so few stations, clean and efficient and crucially better range than an EV and can be refueled in a few minutes not hours of charging. Also can be produced economically close to source. For example Orkney has its own hydrogen plant produced from the abundant tidal power available there. They use the hydrogen as means to store the renewable produced electric, then convert the hydrogen back into electricity for their own use when required. To charge the much higher than average number of electric cars there and the electric small island ferrys. 

Of course it would better still if the vehicles were hydrogen fuel cell powered then there would no need to convert hydrogen back into electricity to charge them. 

But as always the legislation we and manufacturers have to live with is driven by misinformed politicians. 

News today on the BBC with plans to start mining the seabed of the Pacific Ocean to collect Cobalt which is just lying there waiting for humans to convert it into batteries for these hybrids/EV's. Not very good idea for all the creatures because huge amounts of sediment would be stirred up during the process.

Edited 13 November, 20196 yr by shyVRS245
WRONG WORD

12 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Sure, huge hydrogen plant can be efficient. But the best fuel cell today are not much better than best ICE-mild-hybrid (eg Prius) in terms of efficiency. Former 50%, latter 40%. 

Meanwhile, plug-to-wheel efficiency of EV is over 80%. If we are going for a completely new technology that requires completely new infrastructure, it makes more sense to push the one that wastes the least amount of energy. 

 

Charging in minutes is subject to a functioning fast charger being available, not on a standard 13amp plug that many so called charging points use. 

 

What about whole life efficiency in regards production of an EV's batteries? I recall reading an article about the prius when it first came out that as far as whole life efficiency and environmental impact an old series 2 or series 3 land rover doing sub 20mpg for its 30 year life was better for the environment than a "green" prius. 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, I very much like the idea of EV's as well as fuel cell ( just not hybrids) but the infrastructure is decades away from cover the UKs motoring needs. 

Edited 13 November, 20196 yr by Gmac983

As I said on another thread...

 

I do high mile journeys, so an EV just doesn’t work for me until it does a real 400 miles and recharges from nearly empty to full in about 15-30 minutes.

 

i want an EV, but it just doesn’t work due to the above and the lack of power infrastructure.

 

Give me a fuel cell car with hydrogen at petrol stations (easy to do) and I’ll change tomorrow.

 

that means cleaner air in cities right now and not in a decade.

Might as well totally hijack this thread. 

 

For example windfarms and tidal arrays are being paid to stop producing electricity at low periods. Why not utilize this time to produce hydrogen, either to be used as a fuel or to store electricity for peak periods. 

 

Swerving back on topic. 

Worrying about a few points of an improvement on drag coefficient is pretty daft really. When many people will junk the useless eco tyres supplied with the car for more suitable all seasons or winters or indeed summer tyres that grip worth a damn and therfore reducing rolling efficiency and negating any slight advantage that the reduce aerodynamic drag figure will give. Also how many people motor around with kgs of superfluous stuff in the cars as well. 

Edited 13 November, 20196 yr by Gmac983

this makes the fallacy of battery cars all to clear:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49759626

 

 

"If you want to make a fast change, you need cobalt quick and you need a lot of it - if you want to make a lot of batteries you need the resources to do that."

His view is backed by a group of leading scientists at London's Natural History Museum and other institutions.

They recently calculated that meeting the UK's targets for electric cars by 2050 would require nearly twice the world's current output of cobalt.

 

interestingly, whatever fuel you use, slippery is good as it requires less of it. That plus it makes for a quieter car too.

 

so changing the tryes applies to all cars. Yes the car is unlikely to be that good in the real world, but the fleet of brick style cars we seem to have at the moment is daft too.

Edited 13 November, 20196 yr by cheezemonkhai

2 minutes ago, Gmac983 said:

Why not utilize this time to produce hydrogen, either to be used as a fuel or to store electricity for peak periods. 

Vast infrastructure investment costs, mainly  I should think. Does seem sodding wasteful not to though.

@ least if driving in and around Dundee there is the EV charging infrastructure, and around Aberdeen EV charging and Hydrogen Filling available.

Amazing what millions and millions of Grant money via the EU can do when Local Authorities went for it early.

 

PS,

Norway sitting waiting until they get back into Cobalt mining in a big way, 

and then Scotland can start mining for what is there, no point getting it out until the price is higher as the actress said to the producer.

Edited 13 November, 20196 yr by Roottootemoot

I looked into it and actually it’s pretty easy to do it at home, assuming you had a safe tank to store it and looked to be pretty inexpensive.

 

petrol stations could actually quite easily make their own.

 

 

The EU are currently funding the Cobalt mining testing off the coastline of Malaga in Spain.

If some of the petro-giants diversified into hydrogen (or were forced to by gov legislation as a carbon offset) it could be done no problem. If there's money to be made the oil giants would be all over it. 

Edited 13 November, 20196 yr by Gmac983