Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





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

1234235237239240460

Comments

  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,979
    edited November 2012
    But one car pool van getting 30% more than 27 mpg is certainly better. In that sense don't move that gasser guzzler an inch till it has 9 folks ! ;) But as I said in past posts, nobody (but you) really cares. :shades: Nor ultimately, does it really matter.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,309
    "Classic car owners in France are up in arms over sensational new proposals to ban their cars from Paris streets by September 2014.

    If the Socialist mayor of Paris, Bernard Delanoe, gets his wish, any cars built before 1995 would be outlawed from the city streets."

    Paris Looking To Ban Classics and Clunkers From City Streets (Inside Line)

    So what does this have to do with buying diesels?

    "Critics have also pointed out that the real cause of city pollution in France is the prominence of diesel cars, but taking decisive action there would be truly politically unpalatable and in the past has caused mass protests and strikes."

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,056
    How many French cars would still be running that were built before 1995? France will be like Greece shortly. Anyone with money would be crazy to stay. If we had let the Russians take them over they would have a whole different perspective on Socialism.

    Why don't they do like London? Just charge $15 a day to drive in Paris. That would cut down on traffic it seems. Of course the French would never adopt an idea the Brits came up with.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,309
    lol. You forgot the suggestion that they all have to drive in reverse. That'll slow 'em down a little too. Interesting that the Greens don't like the idea either and they aren't the ones pointing their fingers at diesels apparently.

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,056
    edited November 2012
    The Greens don't like it because they all drive 30 year old VW Micro buses. :shades:
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,309
    edited November 2012
    That burn biodiesel. From the French fries. :D

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,056
    Did VW ever offer a diesel bus? Do the French even grow potatoes?
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,979
    edited November 2012
    Having said that, three things that would seem to benefit a 9 passenger "mini" van would be indeed that diesel engine mated to a much more durable transmission and much better brake pads and rotors.

    For as versatile as a 9 passenger mini van has been/is/ remains and for a "high" mpg (Odyssey, EPA 28 H) as you say it delivers, one would expect a broader application, market share.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,056
    You can get up to 12 seats in the MB Sprinter van with a diesel engine. Should get pretty good mileage. I got 25 MPG with my Sprinter Conversion van that was longer and heavier.

    http://www.mbsprinterusa.com/sprinter/passenger-van/warranty/2500-standard-roof-- 144-wb/9
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,979
    edited November 2012
    Again another example of diesel engine and great transmission match offering a much better versatility. Indeed the mini van prices (Honda Odyssey Touring/Touring Elite ) overlaps (41,330 to 43,825) with the MB 12 passenger "people mover". The link provided starts off an MB @ 40,320 MSRP.

    Strictly on mpg/100 miles per "butt" 100 miles/28 mpg= 3.57 gals/9= .3968 gal per butt 51 oz vs 100 miles/25= 4 gals (obvious .43 gal MORE) /12 =.3333 gal or 42.67 oz , or 20% more GASSER fuel usage !? ;)

    So gasser: 1. 20% more fuel 2. less versatile, 3. can cost more to aquiire. 4. etc. ;) :lemon:

    So in my anecdotal case, that would be the whole Girls Volleyball team gear and three adults or Girls basketball team, bench and two adults gear. :shades: ;)
  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,003
    More old cars in France than Germany, but indeed, but I would easily guess less than 10% of the fleet is so old - and probably less on brutal urban streets. Desperation move by overmonied goody goody bleeding heart politicos who probably own multiple vehicles with large engines and live in undeserved energy swilling mansions.

    France is very lucky to have people who work living next door.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,979
    edited November 2012
    Modern urban planning has long since had the policy of separating the people's and the peoples living and working locations. In many cases , any to all systems are anathema to combine/combining them. France for example has many cities/urban locations 240 years and older. Needless to say this is older than our country (1776). Although, I have lived in places where people talk like The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was not a real long time ago.

    So for example, the modern day "outer edge" so to speak is app 1.5 miles per trip 3.0 miles R/T (radius/SL). Another reality check is out of say 100 folks who follow this board what is the break down of folks who live @ or less than 1.5 miles? Out of those that actually do live 1.5 miles or less to work, what percentage of those actually do walk?

    Since you have politicized the discussion, i.e., how many MAYORS of say major cities (NYC, WASH DC, Chicago, SF, LA, Boston, etc) walk to work?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The Ody Touring is overpriced, most vans sell for high 20s low 30s. Mine was just $25k.

    The Sprinter is not refined enough, too big, too costly to be truly mainstream.

    I'd be more interested to see Ford's new small van with a diesel.

    Fuelly's average is just 16.9 mpg for the Sprinter, not exactly numbers to brag about.

    I'll be nice and not compare those average to my 30+mpg trips since that's apples to oranges.

    But no way, no how is a Sprinter using 20% less fuel than I do. Far from it.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,979
    edited November 2012
    Yes I think that point is past painfully made, albeit, unknown consequences to Honda.

    Sprinter not refined enough? I think you are ignoring the bullet proof ness and purpose built attributes.

    It seems that attitude is rampant, in Ford diesels' case prohibited from hitting US markets.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,056
    Where did you find mileage figures for the MB Sprinter diesels. I think they are better suited to airport shuttle and Fedex delivery. Though my RV conversion was quite comfortable out on the highway. With this one you could take the whole team in luxury.

    http://sprintervans.fusz.com/?gclid=CMazyJfs27MCFXCmPAodw3IAZg
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It's a sledge hammer when most people just want a regular claw hammer.

    I'd rent a Sprinter if I had a large group of more than 8, though.

    For day to day use, it would be a squeeze to fit in my car port and I'd have to move the recycling bin and trash cans.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Just used fuelly, I'm not surprised since they are a lot bigger, too big for most uses.

    I agree with you that they make a perfect shuttle.

    I've rented Ford E series vans for big family reunions and those are awful - trucky, bouncy live axles that make the kids get car sick after a while. We had 2 kids get sick last summer in that manner.

    We had a caravan with my Sienna, and rented Sienna, and older 2002 Ody, and a big E series van. The kids would virtually fist fight to see who got to ride in the other vans.

    If we did that trip again I'd look for a Sprinter instead of the E series, which feels like a 30 year old design.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,979
    edited November 2012
    We obvious disagree here, even as if it is bigger. If that had been available in (1987/1991/1994) another time frame, I would have actually have gotten IT, instead of the various TLC's. Larger (15/150/1500 etc) large vans were available then as now (time era that you describe). They were and remain far, far "more crude" than the MB Sprinter TDI you label as "crude".

    This is just a guess on my part but given its 25 mpg (vs anywhere from 10-15 mpg) it would have been way more economical to keep it for 400,000 miles+ !! Again just on mileage and mpg that is 16,000 gals vs 40,000 gals to 26,667 gals.

    On the mpg metric alone @ 4 per gal the savings are anywhere from$ 42,668 to $96,000. I think you would agree that would be a no brainer.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/19/honda-unveils-new-diesel-for-overseas-civic-w- ill-it-come-here/

    118 horsepower and 221 pound-feet of torque. It is made up of aluminum block and cylinder heads, and according to Honda, is the lightest diesel engine in its class.

    fourth-generation Garret turbocharger, which features a variable-nozzle design. The speed of the turbo is also electronically controlled to optimize fuel efficiency and minimize turbo lag


    The first RD-X had a turbo like that and turned out to be not-so-good on gas, so we'll see.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I'm comparing the current Sprinter, which is very much a truck. A nice truck, sure, but still a truck.

    Then look at the car-based Odyssey, drive then back to back. It's like driving a tall Accord, not at all trucky.

    There's no way the average soccer mom (or dad) would be as comfortable driving a Sprinter.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587

    Audi of America will begin offering 3.0-liter V-6 diesel engines in the A8, A7 and A6 cars and the Q5 crossover beginning next year.


    Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/20121119/OEM04/121119884#ixzz2ChwuH3JL
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,056
    It takes a big family to justify a Sprinter over a garden variety Mini Van. If you need to tow something it moves back to the front of the list. The Sprinter is rated at 5000 lbs towing. Some people were getting about 22 MPG overall. That was where I was when I sold mine. I only owned it for 5028 miles. Never got under 20.5 MPG never over 25.5 MPG.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,979
    edited November 2012
    In terms of the US markets, this is a total PR piece: marketing, softball, teaser only, movie trailer. It is wonderful "coming to the US ?" fantasy.

    In terms of " Garrett turbo's", VW has been using the brand for years. is under the "Honeywell" Corporation umbrella.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,003
    Sorry this is blurry as camera phone was hard to use while driving and DSLR was a handful - but mid size diesel + lots of gears = wafty loafer:

    image
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    If you're the photographer, who was driving? :P
  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,003
    Funny, I can do both for short periods.

    When I first drove on the Autobahn (diesel of course), I even shot video. Maybe iffy, but the road was pretty empty and I only got up to about 100mph - which was a long term cruising speed in that A8.
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    So let me get this right, 200 kmh = 124 mph = 2,500 rpms. That's roughly 1,200 rpms at 60 mph. Essentially idling. I'm wondering if that transmission would ever shift into top gear on US roads (i.e. under 75 mph)?
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,979
    edited November 2012
    Yes, I think the essential difference is the optimization for the markets.

    So for example, the (2011/2012/2013 VW T TDI's seemed to be optimized (US markets) for 81 mph @ 2,100 rpm) for app 32 to 34 mpg. The nexus for that rpm is that is a more optimium speed for the turbo and proper operation over all, albeit 16 mph over most speed limits. This is a guess for I have never done a tank @ that speed and rpm. The computer bounces around from 25 mpg to 45 mpg. Since you have an BMW X5 35 D there might be a parallel. I would like to hear your response, since I do not know and you have a 6 speed instead of a 8 speed. If this is too arcane for the board at large, I am ok with that also.
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    edited November 2012
    BMW has the little mpg meter in the bottom of the instrument cluster. If it's accurate, it seems that about 72-75+/- is the optimum cruising speed for maximum mpg. It starts to drop a little after about 75, but you don't seem to gain much trying to cruise at a steady 55 or 60 vs. 70 to 75. In fact, if I'm cruising at 75 and hit a slight uphill run, it seems to hold the gear and mpg doesn't suffer much. If I'm at 55, it tends to downshift and the mpg goes down more. This is NOT scientific, however, and my observations (or the meter) may be off.

    As for six speeds vs. eight, I really wonder about how much 2 more gears adds to fuel efficiency in a high torque diesel with a fairly wide torque band. Going through 7 gear changes to get to a 75 mph cruising speed seems a little excessive. It may help in city driving where you have more gears to choose from based upon speed and conditions.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,979
    edited November 2012
    The two VW computers (I have) are very accurate also. However, I have always based the reported (on this board anyway) on actual gals taken on first click off and hand calculated. Then, I compare it with the computer (average) readings. The instantaneous (option) mpg is good if one is trying to maximize mpg with ones' situational conditions. In effect, to maximize mpg to always or consistently take the best mpg throttle position. Obviously the more of these one strings together, the better the mpg. (given any set of conditions) and with or without no fuel draw on use of gears on sequential shifting.

    Actually the two extra gears (CAN to ) makes a lot of difference, both in theory and practice (real world) Without the ability to A (8 sp)/B (6 sp) test, it is a bit hard to give you hard mpg numbers. I have posted mpg ranges with the 8 speed.

    Since the computers in either case (BMW/VW) does the shifting (U/D) in either case (6 or 8 speed) it doesn't matter too much, unless one likes to use the sequential shifter. In an earlier post msg# 7176, I did describe a brutal R/T to SFO and the mpg actually got better using the sequential shifter. The other benefit was it kept me off the brakes in HEAVY stop and go traffic. A benefit I can not quantify, because my brake lights did not come on with any consistency, followers at my six gave me WAY more car lengths, which again, in theory is "SAFER".
Sign In or Register to comment.