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?

1288289291293294460

Comments

  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,312
    Bethel fuel mix-up strands 2 dozen vehicles (adn.com)

    We're in this burg visiting an old friend for a couple of days so I'll try to get a pic of pump prices soon.

    Word on the street is that the fuel mix-up is typical for this particular station.

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

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,056
    Notice the driver was taking a different job. Could have been sabotage. Nothing would surprise me about Bethel. It is with good cause the ARM PIT of Alaska. Though many villages could challenge Bethel. Though in 25 years in the Arctic, I don't ever recall such a mixup in our 9 villages or Barrow. We did have a tech pump gas in one of our diesel PU Trucks. The station guy caught it before he started the truck.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,312
    edited April 2013
    Like any place, it's the people, and it's great visiting our friend. And we swung by the branch of the college to check out the bulletin board and, obviously looking like tourists, were immediately offered a tour of the "campus". Bethel is a hoot.

    This is a "painted" sign and I didn't pull up to the pump to double check:

    image

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

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,056
    Wow, a covered station. Nothing like that in the Arctic villages. You pull up to the storage tank above ground and pump your gas. That is about what we were paying when I retired in 06.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,312
    Checked another station and it was $7.11 for regular and $7.13 for diesel.

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

  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,980
    edited April 2013
    Kinda makes me glad we live in the" lower 48"! Here we are B & M ing about 3.95 per gal D2. :sick: :shades:
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,056
    edited April 2013
    General Motors Co. said Thursday its all-new 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Clean Turbo Diesel achieves an Environmental Protection Agency-rated 46 miles per gallon on the highway, which is the best highway fuel economy of any non-hybrid car in the United States.


    That beats the Volt on the highway by a long shot after 40 miles when the battery is depleted.

    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130418/AUTO0103/304180390/1121/auto01/New-C- - hevy-Cruze-diesel-gets-46-mpg-on-highway
  • alltorquealltorque Posts: 535
    Kinda makes me glad we live in the" lower 48"! Here we are B & M ing about 3.95 per gal D2.

    Meanwhile, her in England our local price for ULSD is now down to an almost bargain basement equivalent of $8.29 per US Gall. Mostly TAX + VAT, (i.e. tax on tax), of course.

    :sick:
  • flightnurseflightnurse 35K feetPosts: 1,648
    Kinda makes me glad we live in the" lower 48"! Here we are B & M ing about 3.95 per gal D2.

    Try $3.54/g here in Phoenix. D2 has fallen in price the last couple of months, this is less then premium unleaded and slightly higher than regular unleaded.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,980
    edited April 2013
    ..."Try $3.54/g here in Phoenix. D2 has fallen in price the last couple of months, this is less then premium unleaded and slightly higher than regular unleaded."...

    Time for a GC, AZ road trip! Got to get "charged up) @ Sedona ;) !!Well, don't forget: have to do a dual detour to LOST Wages. ;)

    On the SOS DD topic, 09 TDI still boring @ 42 mpg in 5 day sloughing commute traffic. 03 TDI still posting 50 mpg (48-52 mpg, of late 51 to 52 mpg). Had a very unfortunate thing happen to the 09 TDI. The drivers side head lamp gave up the ghost. (We had to R/R to avoid a FIT) I am firmly convinced the DRL mandatory (no good deed goes unpunished) has a lot to do with the 4 year (55,000 miles) operating life.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    46 mpg is very nice for the Cruze - 4 mpg better than the gas Cruze. 9.5% improvement.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,980
    edited April 2013
    Indeed, each of those VW diesel models has its' gasser variants.

    Probably more correctly each of those VW models has its' DIESEL variant. Given the fact the 09 is 4 MY's diesel has a 39% advantage (in arrears).

    While the 2013 Cruze posts 32.1 mpg (eco@ 33.1) gasser, the diesel version (mpg (real world) is not even listed (fueleconomy.gov).
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,056
    The Cruze automatic is only 39 MPG which gives the diesel auto a 15% advantage. I would imagine 50 MPG will be easily attainable with the Cruze.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,587
    edited April 2013
    You're in-state, Steve?! Any plans on going through Fairbanks? I owe you and your wife dinner, sir. ;)
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,312
    edited April 2013
    Not unless the jet diverts in a couple of days returning to Anchorage from Bethel. Never know though - another volcano could blow. Or maybe someone will put diesel in the plane instead of jet fuel. :shades:

    This is just a quick trip to use up the last of our air miles. Maybe we'll be able to do a drive up in another year or three and we can meet at the Pump House or somewhere.

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

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,056
    JetA is number one diesel or kerosene. Just a little better filtration. Unleaded gas would likely blow up. Or did you fly out in a piston prop plane?
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,312
    Not sure of all the possibilities, but the three morning flights out here are all 737 jets. We didn't even wind up on one of those combined cargo/passenger jobs.

    Pretty amazing to have any jets, much less several, serving a town of maybe six thousand people.

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

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,587
    edited April 2013
    Yeah, AK Airlines does a good job of serving the rural hub communities. But.... boy, oh boy, do you pay for it! :sick:

    I'm sorry you're missing the Interior, but we'll hold out for a next time. At least you weren't sick! ;)
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • eliaselias Posts: 1,938
    gas cruze mpg is nowhere near 42. pure highway is 36 mpg with 1.8L M6 cruze. i get 33 in mixed/lifetime mpg, with leadfoot, i floor it all the time.
    on pure highway driving it gets 36 at real highway speeds.
    1.8L motor, manual transmission.
    (for comparison, my 3 VW TDIs always got 45 to 48 mpg, tank after tank, except for the passat tdi which got 37 mpg, all with leadfoot-driving).
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,056
    Which indicates to me that real world and EPA world mileage is miles apart. Sadly I don't see Chevy offering the Cruze diesel with a manual transmission. I just wonder if our automotive engineers will ever be able to design a decent small diesel that can pass CARB regulations?

    It all starts with a 2.0L turbocharged clean diesel engine designed in Italy, built in Germany and installed in the Cruze at our factory in Lordstown, Ohio.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,980
    edited April 2013
    ..."gas cruze mpg is nowhere near 42. pure highway is 36 mpg with 1.8L M6 cruze. i get 33 in mixed/lifetime mpg, with leadfoot, i floor it all the time.
    on pure highway driving it gets 36 at real highway speeds.
    1.8L motor, manual transmission.
    (for comparison, my 3 VW TDIs always got 45 to 48 mpg, tank after tank, except for the passat tdi which got 37 mpg, all with leadfoot-driving)."...

    I am glad you posted this !! The real world really has a way of being well... real.

    We (4 adults and app 600#'s) decided to take the SOS DD trip (210 miles one way, after 8 pm). The projected "good" news: I was looking forward to just another SOS/DD. (posted in a few past posts, aka SMOOTH and no traffic sailing). This trip takes normally 3 to 3.25 hours (point a to point b). The real world? I surely KNEW we took the WRONG way this time as I stared at easily 1 to 1.5 miles of back up 4/5 lanes in EACH direction. Turns out the same trip took, between 4.25 to 4.5 hours. Seems there were massive choke points due to night road work, huge flows of night traffic and a accident site saw fit to post an accident, injuries and one fatality. (RIP I heard two helo's and numerous ambulances and other emergency vehicles). What added to the "mess" was Friday night tractor trailer work night (elephant races). Shifties SAC race ways didn't disappoint @ a 85/90 mph pace. Long story short, computer on a 3.0 L TDI posted 29.7 mpg on the (same) UPGRADE portion.

    This time on the mountain UPGRADE, I did happen to catch a 4 ship of seemingly faster moving traffic. I inadvertently (defacto) took the lead, as no one took time to pass me at numerous turn out areas and 2 lane per way passing lanes. @ higher altitude, I did make it a point to SLOW down to let (all three) 3 pass (one at a time it turns out) and take the 4th and last position just for the point of view. I was halfway expecting at least one to probably ALL to leave me in their long since cold RUG/PUG vapor trails. That projection never happened. I have gotten to know the twists and turns during the day, so normally do little to no braking. Again longer story short, I got to see massive and frequent braking and had to adjust downward a faster pace. Since I "lit" and "led" the way, they all could follow FASTER. I thought maybe I was the geezer in the lead. :blush: It was funny to see the reality from the 4th and last position, not even close. Will see what the downgrade posts. ;)
  • flightnurseflightnurse 35K feetPosts: 1,648
    Why do people drive their cars like an Indy race car driver? I don't get the magazine when they do the comparison test, just drive the cars like normal people so people can see what the typical drive would get. I had a 2010 Ford Fusion (company car) for a short time, I averaged 29 city/freeway but would get 35 on the open road.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,980
    edited April 2013
    For me, it is a good question that I do not have the collective answer for. Perhaps that is one reason why I like driving in the LA metro area. :blush: Let me also say I do not live there. :confuse: However one drives, I think it is easy to say the central issue is the diesels' mpg range is better. This is purely my .02 cents, but the secondary issue is diesels' SEEM better adapted over all for OUR highway systems. They surely are for critical transportation linchpins, i.e. tractor trailers et al. I say this having still driven the majority of both percentage & lifetime mileage in GASSERS. Diesel miles are close now to 265,000 miles.
  • scwmcanscwmcan Niagara, CanadaPosts: 394
    I don't believe the 1.8 is supposed to get 42 highway, that is only for the Eco version with the 1.4, the 1.4 non Eco is supposed to be somewhere around 38 I belive and the 1.8 lower still ( all with the manual not sure what the autos get). In any case I have a feeling you are actually doing quite well with the 1.8 I thought it was supposed to be around 34 or so, so it looks like GM may be actually reporting valid EPA numbers for its cars.
  • tifightertifighter WAPosts: 1,387
    edited April 2013
    "gas cruze mpg is nowhere near 42. pure highway is 36 mpg with 1.8L M6 cruze. i get 33 in mixed/lifetime mpg, with leadfoot, i floor it all the time.
    on pure highway driving it gets 36 at real highway speeds.
    1.8L motor, manual transmission.


    Cruze 1.8 MT - EPA is 25/36. Sounds like you are hitting the ratings. 33 mixed with a leadfoot sounds pretty good.

    15 Leaf / 08 RDX

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    I found this post particularly interesting and useful. Rarely does anyone post (and elaborate) their level of lead-footedness. When I see "floor it all the time" that really says a LOT. What I am absolutely amazed with is the 1.8, rugged all the time, gets 33 mixed/lifetime mpg. I guess what I am curious about now is about what percentage accounts for the highway figure in order for the average to end up being 33? It simply sounds way too good to be true...actually..even if that was ALL highway with sustained higher than speed-limit speeds and rugged lane passing...(my interpretation so far). . That said, I am not saying I don't believe you...just incredible is all..

    FWIW, I believe the numbers mentioned before for the Cruze, is usually the turbo 1.4, which is known to use less fuel than the 1.8. And of course, especially when comparing max potential with other vehicles, it's not only the 1.4, it's also the Eco, which has the lower rolling resistant tires and the grill shutter, among other lesser influential mpg increasing touches. (slightly less weight).

    That said, I suspect that if the 1.4 was rugged all the time, it has not only the ability to draw a lot of tickets, but I'm pretty sure like any gas/turbo (unlike a diesel turbo...or certainly not anywhere near the same league of) if you are heavy footed all the time, they have the ability to burn a lot of fuel. So in your case, I'll bet your 1.8 would get considerably higher mpg driven your usual style. The fact that it gets such impressive mileage rugged all the time..considering the Cruze weight too, the engine ssounds like it has a very pro-active self-regulating output, even when pressed. Probably why many say that engine with the auto feels lethargic. (not me, but then I credited its urge (or lack of...and it wasn't that bad at all) considering all the factors. Yes, the turbo would be my pick I think, but maybe not if I start hearing of longevity issues and we don't know that yet. Same with all those Ford Ecoboost engines..
    Is the 1.8 a good engine? In terms of...let's say...being the absolute polar opposite of GM's 2.4 which they use in even as new as 2010 Equinox's? What a disaster THOSE poor excuses for an ICE are.

    What year is your Passat? A stick?

    The new ones must be geared perfectly, cuz they actually claim higher mpg in top cog (stick) than in a Golf, which is a far narrower, lighter car. From what I hear, they're getting it too. The majority new Passat owners I've seen have the stick. And surprisingly (to me anyway) about a full half of them are women. I think one was a Real Estate Agent. I'll bet the only thing she longs for in that car in this area is an AWD option. But this is VW we're talking about, and getting an AWD turbo diesel in a car on this side of the ocean, is akin to pulling teeth..
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited April 2013
    Great minds...I saw your post here after I posted mine...about the 42 probably being the 1.4..

    I agree. If he had a 1.4 rugged all the time, I don't think it would post anything nearly as impressive has his 33 lifetime avg so far. Just amazing.

    The Cruze is one car that doesn't penalize you too much with auto vs stick. The auto gets almost as much as the stick on the hwy. This suggests to me that the regular stick (not the Eco which has noted higher final drive gearing still) has a similar final drive as the auto. Something which has been rare in the past.

    edit - does anyone know what makes a low rolling resistant tire what it is? I assumed it was a more flexible sidewall and used usual PSI figures. But I have read a comment in past that suggested the LRR tires use 50 psi and up. Is that true? And it probably still must have a more flexible sidewall. If not, what a challenge to tune the suspension so that it's not choppy on stutter surfaces or expansion joints.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,056
    Good catch. Looking at the UK carpages. The Cruze sold there is a 1.6L and gets a combined 32 MPG UK. The diesel offered there is a 1.7L and gets 62 MPG UK combined. The gasser takes 12.3 seconds getting to 62 MPH and the diesel only 9.8 seconds. My guess is the 1.4L eco model sold here probably takes about 15 seconds.
  • tifightertifighter WAPosts: 1,387
    edited April 2013
    The gasser takes 12.3 seconds getting to 62 MPH and the diesel only 9.8 seconds. My guess is the 1.4L eco model sold here probably takes about 15 seconds.

    Car and Driver test on the US 1.4 Eco: 0-60 in 8.4 sec.

    15 Leaf / 08 RDX

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited April 2013
    The Eco 1.4 is also turbo'd. Hence the numbers posted above.

    The engine has VERY useable torque, from about 1600 revs and up. I think peak is around 148 lbft at 1850 or something. Pretty useable and does not at all feel like a slouch.
Sign In or Register to comment.