What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?

ruking1

..."Talk about idiocy, but that's DC I guess."...

Actually it gets "better". Wash DC (capital area) is powered by a (no new emissions mitigated and exempted by the senate) coal fired power plant.

stever

There's a nuke plant not too far away, VA iirc. So if it goes TMI, maybe we can bring the elected folks home and make them all work via telecommuting. Talk about crimping the lobbyists' style, imagine us citizens enjoying better access to the pols than they do.

In the news:

Diesels Gain Big As Alternative-Fuel Cars 5% Of Sales (Investor's Business Daily)

crkyolfrt

Since most people aren't motor-heads or car guys, unless someone tows, they probably aren't going to care much about torque.

I don't think it is so much a case of not caring, but more that they simply are ignorant and clueless. I am still amazed at some who seem to be sniffing around the prospects of going diesel, yet you rarely ever hear them refer to the torque figure. In their mind hp is still what is compared as how competent/ fast/quick etc the vehicle may be. And while in some cases the gasser equipped equivalent of the same vehicle with a diesel, 'may' get to 60 1 to 2/10ths seconds quicker, what is never taken into consideration is that those 0-60 times are always rated with just the driver. If you loaded these vehicles with their full payload capacity and then try the same 0-60 test, maybe THEN these skeptics might finally get it.

I keep using the gasoline locomotive analogy. That's right...there aren't any. When there is work to be done, diesel prevails and ALWAYS WILL. And is WHY there has never been and never WILL be a locomotive powered by gasoline. And given certain vehicles and their intended purpose, 'work' can also equate to 'urge' potential.

ruking1

I am glad for "more formal" studies of the % of (PVF) diesels (aka LESS than 5%) in the US markets. I am sure they had better access to more accurate statistics than anything I have had or continue to have to patch together. I actually had a feeling all along that 5% diesel was in my wildest imaginations, even as the patchwork numbers take the "light" trucks (really HEAVY) into account (@ 50% of that percentage) . Yet despite their access to more accurate statistics, it is interesting to note they do not break down (further) the %'s and numbers. After all, hybrids, plug ins and diesels are WAY different animals, albeit "alternative fuels" vehicles?

In 20/20 hindsight, my "swags" have been very close to the mark. So with 2% being hybrid and percentage wise" plug in's" being almost "immeasurable" diesels are @ app 3%.

Again this is in arrears, but NHTSA figures http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx put the 2011 passenger vehicle fleet @ app 257.512 M. So 3% would be app 7.72536 M passenger diesels.

ruking1

Indeed! When you factor in that CA charges .15 cents more taxation for diesel (not factoring in lower sales tax due to lower price) D2 is cheaper than PUG @ $3.84 for D2.

stever

Stop the next ten people you run into and ask them how many HP their car has. I bet most won't know that number either. Say "2.2l" to someone and their eyes will glaze over too.

And most people don't "work" their cars, and most people have cars with way more performance than they really need. Truth be told, most of us could get by with a golf cart 99% of the time.

ruking1

Your thought being true, vehicles like Tesla will have to rethink the almost head/neck snapping torque an electric motor has mated to the transmission it now uses. One focus would to be how to channell the zero to 60 times to something like longer battery life.

If one is a zero to 60 aficionado the Tesla is almost the only thing to have.

stever

Yep, a fast halo car that's supposedly going to make plenty of profits that will be used to help pay for development of a "regular" electric car.

How often does Tesla harp on torque btw? I wonder if that Porsche is still around that was shown in Detroit a few years ago - a gasser with motors on the drive wheels to add some torque from standing stops.

djm2

I would look at a car with a diesel "IF" it had at least 200 + HP, -- was clean burning, -- and quiet in operation and at idle. ------- I would like it to get at least 45+mpg on the highway. ----- I think the new Chevrolet Malibu, the Equinox and / or the Impala would be great with a four cylinder diesel engine, and the six speed auto transmission. ------ It would also be great "IF" GM would offer these vehicles with a six speed standard transmission behind the diesel engine with a "heavy duty clutch!" ----- Dwayne :shades:

crkyolfrt

Are you distinguishing between men and women owners? I'd say your forecast stat would be very much influenced by that alone. Next would be, how many weeks or months or years AFTER their actual purchase. I'd say you might be surprised how many would recall what the hp is if you asked during a recent vehicle purchase date. I'd be surprised if ANY knew their torque number, and often the mfgr is to blame as it often isn't mentioned or emphasized...until lately...when DIESELS are being advertised.

And as for working their vehicle, they do that every single time they load it with more than two people, go up a hill, pass another vehicle, fight a head wind etc etc.

The proof is that many modern mid-sized cars require no more than 20 hp and 15 ftlbs torque to move down a level road at 60 mph with no wind. But start into a grade or add a few passengers or just accelerate even gently to pass and see how quickly that hp and torque figure required, jumps.

crkyolfrt

I would look at a car with a diesel "IF" it had at least 200 + HP

I rest my case..

stever

Are you distinguishing between men and women owners?

Nope.

I'll ask my brother next time we chat. He got a new F-150 a few months back and he specifically didn't want the Ecoboost. But I'll be surprised if he knows the number, much less how much HP their Odyssey has. I'd ask my brother-in-law, but he doesn't drive, much less own a car. :-)

Not everyone who visits Edmunds is a "car guy" - I found this place back in late '98 just trying to get invoice prices so I wouldn't pay too much. I would have purchased my van if it had had 150 hp or 200 hp. I had to look up the torque rating earlier today (and I've done that several times over the years to insert the number into various posts here).

I did a lot of road trips back in the day with my 100 hp Voyager and it still ran rings around the old '69 VW Bus. I took both of them over Leadvile Pass back in the day.

[yet another edit] Just asked my wife how many HP our van has. After she quit laughing she said 6? Her next guess was 2,000, LOLOL.

crkyolfrt

We don't disagree about how practically no one needs much more than 150 hp and 170 ft lb of torque to operate most vehicles...some even in excess of 2 tons.

For years and years the engine that replaced your 4 banger (the 3.0 Mitsu V6) carried many a family up mountain ranges in an extended LWB Magic wagon..all with only 151 ft lb...or something like that..

stever

I was too cheap to spring for the V6 back in the day although it was an option. :-)

Michaell

My wife doesn't know horsepower from horse manure, but she certainly understands the push in your back feeling with a car that has enough.

And, since we've gotten the CX-7, she's starting to learn about the concept of 'turbo lag' - her previous two cars had V6's, and while the HP is about the same (250, give or take), the way the turbo 4 in the Mazda comes on is noticeably different to her.

stever

she certainly understands the push in your back feeling with a car that has enough

Exactly - now there's a marketing slogan people can relate to.

Michaell

One of the cars she really likes is the new Subaru Crosstek XV. I told her it has about the same HP as my ION.

So, she wants to know if there is a "go fast" version. I told her its the WRX - and that she's not really the target demographic for that model.

I'm not even sure she'd be happy with the 184HP in the CX-5.

She's not a speed demon but likes to merge and pass on the highway without any drama.

tifighter

Its too bad the next WRX will be sedan only...

Michaell

Though the Forester XT still offers the "go fast" engine....

ruking1

..."I would look at a car with a diesel "IF" it had at least 200 + HP

I rest my case.."...

Indeed, another that probably would NOT be happy.

Be that as it may probably be, using the same ratios, (as diesels, 3.0 L, 13 VW T TDI, 240 hp/406 # ft) a 455 hp gasser (Chevrolet 14 Stingray) would put out something like 770 # ft of torque. vs "ONLY" the 460 # ft, as it is currently rated on edmunds .com. BUT it does have @ least 455 hp ! ?

The point here is the difference is at least Dr Jekyll/ Mr. Hyde LIKE and a whole slew of dollars more or less as the case might be!

ruking1

..."My wife doesn't know horsepower from horse manure, "...

If she makes "HONEY DO" lists, she most certainly does !! She probably supervises enough to make sure YOU do.

gagrice

Yep, a fast halo car that's supposedly going to make plenty of profits that will be used to help pay for development of a "regular" electric car.

With an enormous emphasis on supposedly. Without the CA Carbon Credits from the other automakers, Tesla does not fare so well. They have already cut the cheaper models. Sales are down this last quarter. However their stock is going up like a rocket. So who knows? Musk has proven he can make money.

I found this place back in late '98 just trying to get invoice prices so I wouldn't pay too much.

I found this place in 1998 looking for a Ford Ranger Diesel like I saw in Alaska. I am still looking. I have owned 3 diesels since 98. And will NEVER buy another gas powered vehicle. Hit me up side the head if I wander back to the Gas Sniffing Cult.

she certainly understands the push in your back feeling with a car that has enough.

Don't let her drive any of the current diesel SUVs. You will be sorry. That push you back in the seat feeling from 30 to 80 MPH is intoxicating. Not to mention quiet. How many gas SUVs can claim 64 decibels at 70 MPH like the Touareg TDI? I know my Sequoia Limited did not do it for me and was not as quiet. And I put quiet rated Michelins on the Sequoia.

Second fill up today. Only a slight improvement over the first tank. Logged 567 miles and used 22.444 gallons. 25.26 MPG. Paid $4.09 at Shell close to home. I noticed this diesel nozzle has a strange shut off system. It slowed way down the last several gallons. When I tried to top off it was full up the spout. It had a strange widget on the tip. The one downside is residual diesel on the handle. This one was not bad. I still use their paper towels when handling. I don't want to get any diesel on my steering wheel.

[Deleted User]

Very well thought out. Also, I like that you are aware of the zany Murano convertible. Kudo's to Nissan for having the guts to build it.

When I first saw the Murano Convertible, I thought of another, equally zany little sport-utility crossover thingy. It was called the Isuzu VehiCROSS. I think it is the true father of all crossover's. There is one in my area, as I see it on the road frequently. They were made from 96 to 2001, based heavily on the Rodeo and the Trooper. It had the Troopers 3.5 V6 and was pretty quick. I loved the way it looked. Isuzu did good with extensive use of the lower body cladding, unlike the Chevy Avalanche, which just looked like an avalanche of cheap plastic. awful. Also, I wouldn't buy a Wrangler with the current gas prices. 95% of owners never take it off road. The rest of the time you would just be driving a vehicle with a lot of 4x4 equipment as dead weight. I had a 99 Grand Cherokee V8 Laredo (loaded) and I only needed it's off road abilities two times in 4 years. I could have just as well stayed home.

Check out the VehiCROSS here!!!!!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isuzu_VehiCROSS

stever

Saw a nice blue Avalanche yesterday with temp plates on it. I'm thinking a neighbor in the next block may have bought it. Assume it's used since I didn't see any stickers, but GM is still making them for the 2013 year so maybe it's new.

I like them and they have lots of great cubbies for boaters - my kayaking nephew sticks his creek boat in the bed of his with the nose inside the cab, and then puts a lid on the bed to keep the gear secure. Pretty slick.

My nephew hates to see GM quit making them even though he doesn't like the gas mileage. His electronics are slowly dying at 275,000 miles.

And that last paragraph is your lead-in to say "too bad it wasn't available in a diesel".

[Deleted User]

Yes, but I bet none of us want to go back to the 1.9 liter engine with 90 HP and 155 lb ft!

I would much prefer the 140 HP and 236 lb ft in the current model!

With the heavy emissions gear required to pass US EPA regulations, the 2003 weighed in at 3100 pounds. What is interesting is that the 2013 TDI weighs in at 3200 lbs, only 100 pounds more than 10 years ago. So that extra 50 hp and 80 lb ft goes right to work on increasing performance.

The general public isn't aware that compression ignition engines have to be made more robust than gasser's, and that they also have to carry heavy and expensive emissions gear in order to meet EPA guidelines.

What VW has done is found a way to meet EPA guidelines w/o the need for the extra gear. As a former 1996 TDI owner, I can tell you that the performance increase was sorely needed!!!

[Deleted User]

This is the last year of Avalanche production.

The new Silverado looks great though. The front end is a vast improvement to the wall-o-cheap-chrome look of the previous generation. Now Chevy needs a competing engine to Fords highly successful, and very powerful 3.5 twin turbo ecoboost.

The October C/D compared the Ram, Ford, and the Chevy, and the Ford beat both the V8's to 60, coming in at 6.2 seconds!! This is on a quad cab, (Super-crew) 4x4 weighing 5,800 lbs. The Chevy? 6.7 secs.

That is unbelievable quick for 2 tons worth of metal. Only the actual MPG makes me still want the diesel option. C/D observed 13 mpg on all three, making the whole point of buying an EcoBoost totally mute.

My money would be on the Chevy with the 5.3 liter small b lock. If I am to get crappy MPG, I want it to at least sound as manly as possible. There is no substitute to a V8's growl!

ruking1

..."Yes, but I bet none of us want to go back to the 1.9 liter engine with 90 HP and 155 lb ft!

I would much prefer the 140 HP and 236 lb ft in the current model! "...

I have NO doubt that would be YOUR opinion ! Right ! Promises promises ! Or have you bought the one you prefer? I am swaging, I thought so ! ?

The popularity of so called "compact" cars belie (destain might be too strong a word) the sentiment, i.e., Smart Car, Fiat, Mini, etc. of your first quote.

50 mpg @ 90 mph is literally a slam dunk. 48-52 mpg are just the normal (awful) commute. On a road trip, if I keep the speeds to 75 mph with surges to 85 mph, 59 mpg is pretty easy to post. This was a normal gig over something like 185,000 miles. As you probably have deduced, I live with three diesel versions 155, 236, 406 # ft.

ruking1

In the real world the real question I would have about the ZERO to 60 difference of .5 sec (half a second) is SO what? If 13 mpg is the real world mpg, I would agree with your other points.

crkyolfrt

Actually, I could very easily live with 90hp and 155 lb ft and the affordable simplicity that comes with it. Don't forget, that torque comes in at rpms just above idle, which is often ignored when comparing to gas jobs. Often their (gassers) peak torque is at rpms no one uses unless intentionally being aggressive.

But then I don't live in a fast paced city any longer, altho do still travel to one at times and 155 ft lb has me still being able to merge just fine without holding up impatient ones who insisted on sticking in their slow lane. There are times I would flick the A/C off tho and thatis something you simply wouldn't have to do with the new ones. But with the new ones you have a LOT more complexity and cost to repair. My friend who, in 2011, finally retired his 86 TD Jetta, with a gazillion miles on it, and bought a new TDI GSW, said he is not really interested in owning this new car out of wty. Why is that so significant? Cuz he is a really good mechanic and knows diesel engines probably better than gas jobs. He admits that the complexity of the new car intimidates his wallet. He says, sure the torque is incredible and if you aren't careful you can have a highway level speeding icket, while still in town. That speaks volumes as to the urge that we, as consumers, get accustomed to over the years of progression. You can see it right here in these threads. There was a time we ewwed and awwed over 150 hp 160 ft lb in large cars. Now we are practically bored if it has less than 250, and to some 320 barely gets their spoiled juices flowing..

stever

Why not more three-cylinder diesels, like MB has in some Smart cars? VW announced one for the Polo a few years back.

In other news, those pesky clean air regs come up again:

U.S. Launch of 2014 Mazda 6 Skyactiv-D Delayed Until Spring

"The Mazda 6 Skyactiv-D clean diesel originally was expected in the second half of 2013. Mazda said in a statement that the diesel launch would be delayed "to accommodate final emissions testing and certification."

gagrice

Sounds to me like those rumors from Australia are not so far fetched. Or maybe like Honda they just could not pass emissions. So far we have had Honda, Subaru and Mazda all promising US diesel engines. As of today the Japanese are batting ZERO. Those folks anxiously waiting for the Mazda diesel may as well get the proven ones from VW.

tifighter

Fin's next car, we presume. And it can be yours starting at $54k.

ruking1

If there is anyone that is dialed into US emissions compliance, HONDA is one name that would surely come up !! ?? My take is they (Honda, Mazda, Subaru, etc.) are being SQUEEZED by both the legislature and regulatory agencies, et al. Another thing is the GIANT (toyota) is keeping the powder dry and letting the small guys (canary's in the coal mine) take the gas. If things are non toxic Toyota will probably go diesel and try to crush its "competitors".

gagrice

I think it is clear the only reason Honda built their fine Diesel engine was to sell vehicles in the EU. They were a non entity up until then. Toyota & Nissan have long had diesel options across the World. As long as the EPA is forced by CARB to keep raising the bar, it may be hard for the Japanese to bring a diesel to this market. Other thing is they have never been popular in Japan. It gives the Germans an open market and they are taking advantage of it. All the German automakers have at least 3 diesel entries and growing rapidly. Audi really pulled a quick one offering 6 choices across their product line. MB is up there with 5 in the line up and more on the way.

ruking1

Another would be I do not think the mainline Japanese brands consider any of the German diesel variants as competitors in their markets. Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, etc sales are UP. The VW Passat while doing GANGBUSTERS 2012. 2013 MY's is doing slightly less than robustly compared to its last years sales.

Now purely from a diesel owners point of view (by definition an outlier position) any additional oems and models are welcomed additions.

crkyolfrt

re "squeezed" - I totally agree with this and was about to post the same. The fact that GM's (NA) Cruze got the go ahead, just supports this.

And I agree with your theory of Toyota just standing-by to see what-will-be also..
You nailed it. No mystery to me...unfortunately

stever

I'm sure the fact that GM has been making diesels in NA for the North American market for decades has nothing to do with. There couldn't be any emissions or diesel engineers worth their salt in Detroit could there?

Of course, you can make a case that the earth is flat too (yep, thinking of you when I found that link Gimme, although it really belongs over the GW discussion). :-)

crkyolfrt

Well, they didn't actually source their diesel for the Cruze from Detroit did they? What it's going into counts..

As for your link, lol, with a name like that..this time it didn't even pique my curiosity..haha

stever

Oh, it's a good one from Isaac Asimov. :-)

ruking1

..."There couldn't be any emissions or diesel engineers worth their salt in Detroit could there? "...

I am glad you AGREE with US !

..."The Cruze is assembled in Lordstown, Ohio, but the diesel engine comes from GM's Opel division in Germany. While it has the typical chatter of a diesel, the distinctive smell is non-existent.

GM hasn't built a car with a diesel engine for nearly 30 years. A lot has changed since that time, and engine technology has greatly improved."...

http://www.abc12.com/story/23268832/gm-offers-twin-turbo-diesel-engine-in-2014-c- - - - - - - - hevy-cruze

Who is the one that seems to always post that "US diesels" "poisoned the well in the 70's and 80's with THEIR diesels? As IF car buyers 40 years old and under remember it clear as day?

But yes, I agree with your feelings/sentiments as GREAT manufacturing can be an integral part of US economic strength ! (US based) Cummins has to be one of the WORLD's best diesel engine oems. So when was the last time you drove a "berry picker"?

http://www.cummins.com/cmi/navigationAction.do?nodeId=2&siteId=1&nodeNam- e=Engine+Business&menuId=1001

So who was that guy looking for @ least 200 hp?

http://cumminsengines.com/cummins-5L-V8-turbo-diesel

gagrice

I'm sure the fact that GM has been making diesels in NA for the North American market for decades has nothing to do with. There couldn't be any emissions or diesel engineers worth their salt in Detroit could there?

Very likely there are none worth what we are paying them. They couldn't even build a decent diesel truck engine that did not need to be clean. They went to Izusu for the Duramax engine design. Many of the 3 million unfilled jobs in the USA are for engineers. My Nephew was hired before he finished his engineering degree at UCSD. Will be working for some gas company in Utah. Most every R&D program is looking for engineers. Many getting H-1B engineers from India. A great source for superior engineers.

[Deleted User]

The Chevy Suburban is the government vehicle of choice because of three reasons.

1) It holds a lot of people and gear for not much $. (fleet sales)

2) It can be easily made into an armored vehicle.

3) There are a vast amount of other "official" modifications made for it, much like the Crown Vic.

Speaking of fleet sales, it looks like the Taurus is the new official police vehicle where I live, right outside DC.

[Deleted User]

I own a 96 Passat TDI, so I also was willing to have 90 HP and 155 lb ft in order to get 45+ mpg. It is still in the family. My niece drives it in college, and it is still in my name. Since you bought newer diesels, it seems YOU prefer more power and torque also. (406 sounds like the Touareg V6 TD).

My money is on the 2014 Mazda 6 TD. When I first started posting here, that was the car I wanted. By the time the pricing on the Mazda 6 TD is advantageous, my Optima will be almost paid for. So, it looks like the 2015 model year will be my time to buy. That is what it will take for me to buy another diesel.

So, just because I am waiting to make another diesel purchase, it doesn't make me any less of a a Rudy enthusiast.

There is one more diesel on the horizon that is interesting (to me). The 2015 Golf GTD. Hoping VW A/G brings it over to the States.

ruking1

.."Since you bought newer diesels, it seems YOU prefer more power and torque also. (406 sounds like the Touareg V6 TD). "...

The short and long answers are yes and no. While one might be tempted to come to that conclusion, it is really non sequitur: the essential US market issue is the relative lack of choice.(diesel engine arena, compare to European and world wide markets) Now granted VW has brought over very reliable and durable 2.0 L and 3.0 L TDI's. Sure, I could have NOT bought it, but that would have left me with a choice of unappealing gassers.

If you have saving coins for the 14 Mazda 6 TDI, I (we) will be VERY curious about your 100,000 miles (from new) experiences. Given some of the smoke signals, I would not be a first adopter.

stever

So, you think Mazda hasn't had enough experience with their diesels yet to know how good they are? I figured they'd be "importing" them from their other markets and tweaking them for NA - you know, like GM does. :-)

ruking1

This may mean nothing to a full "READ" between the lines, but the Mazda response (press release) was WEAK at best. Even as it was not unlike the Honda response when Honda (decided/failed ) to bring their TDI (concept to product: a fine achievement in anyone's metric) to the World and European markets and NOT go the extra mile to get an A/Y TDI emissions certified for the US 2004 MY.

I think also we might not want to DISCOUNT the scale here. A more apt comparison would be GM/Toyota/VW

gagrice

So, you think Mazda hasn't had enough experience with their diesels yet to know how good they are?

I would think they would have had all the testing done and approved before announcing the debut in the US market. Although Honda did the same thing back in 2008??? I got it, I ain't got it.

I like the way Audi did it. No fanfare just bring em in when they are ready to sell. This is not the way to give potential buyers confidence.

"The on-sale date for Mazda6 Skyactiv-D clean-diesel has been moved to late-spring 2014, to accommodate final emissions testing and certification....More information on the Skyactiv-D clean diesel Mazda6 will be available closer to the on-sale date."

I dropped my desire for the Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel when they pulled the same stunt. Now December/January and they still don't show up on the EPA site as ready to go. Could be the new EPA director is dragging their feet approving diesels. They think diesels are only for people in the Tea Party. :sick:

stever

I think also we might not want to DISCOUNT the scale here.

Yeah, I've wondered if Ford cutting ties with Mazda has impacted Mazda's reliability, but they seem to have good engineers and stylists.

Gagrice, since using diesel saves oil resources, I figured it'd be the champion fuels of the Greens, at least right up there with hybrids. Could have some strange bedfellows before long, especially as the emissions keep getting cleaner. :-)

[Deleted User]

Japanese cars are known for their durability, and in the last 10 years, so has VW. I am not going to bash brands or tell folks their choices are bad and mine are better. I simply love cars. No matter what make or model they are, I can always find something I like (or don't like).

If I had not already purchased a new car in late 2011, I would be down at Mazda or Honda scooping up a new car.

This thread is about what it would take for me to buy another diesel. Simply said, I want Japanese reliability, diesel FE, and good horsepower. I don't want much, do I?

I mentioned both Mazda 6 and the Golf GTD as contestants. I am leaning toward the Mazda at this point, but I am not going to run over to Mazda and pick up the first diesel off the boat. I plan on buying in 2015, as I mentioned.

I never buy a new car in it's first model year. Also, I wait until it is advantageous for me to buy...traditionally right after Christmas. I bought my 2012 Optima on December 28th 2011 for example. Same thing for my Jeep. Worked out well. We all wore Santa hats.

gagrice

Gagrice, since using diesel saves oil resources, I figured it'd be the champion fuels of the Greens, at least right up there with hybrids.

I would think so as well. EXCEPT in CA. And California decides which are approved and which are not. The EPA are puppets to CARB. At least that is what it seems. In spite of the SC saying otherwise. To some CARB management, diesel is right up there with coal. And of course the tax and spenders don't want anymore low fuel tax vehicles than they already have. With Prius being as common as cockroaches in the state legislature, they have enough loss to deal with. Can you imagine if 50% of the vehicles in CA were getting 40 MPG+??? Bus riders would have to start paying their own way.