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?

1297298300302303466

Comments

  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,447
    Don't forget Mazda. They are jumping into the VW niche and it looks like they are planning diesels throughout their lineup.

    Maybe my wife would like a diesel Mazda5 with the stick shift in a few years. :surprise:

    BTW recent anecdotal mpg with my Accord suggests DI gas engines can be pretty darn good these days. Yesterday a 20 minute round trip through town gave me 40.9 mpg. That is with 12 stop signs and two traffic lights. All at 35 mph or under. Not too shabby. Still less than 3k on the engine. Hope to get some highway trips in soon.

    Don't forget electrics - CR just rated the Tesla S as the best car they have ever tested. they said it handled like a porsche and rode like a lexus with 84 mpg equivalent.
  • jayriderjayrider Posts: 3,399
    The biggest issue with diesel passenger cars are simply that they are different and diesel costs more.. The masses are reluctant to embrace "different" and won't do their due diligence to make an informed decision. Hybrids have the same problem but car manufacturers have seen them as the future and people are more likely to consider one. Folks seem very worried about the expense of replacing the battery pack when we discuss my Prius. 200k miles on one is not unusual and the cost of replacing it has dropped dramatically. But whether diesel or hybrid, different is harder to sell.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,322
    edited May 2013
    Hey, I am new here, as I normally post in mid-size sedans 2.0, but I owned a 96 Passat TDI (manual of course) in the past, and I loved it.

    It was one of the best handling cars, and the Turbo churned out a good amount of torque in order to keep up with traffic. However, it was not the cleanest, had only 90 HP, and after 5 years it was falling apart.

    I now own a 2012 Kia Optima EX, but the new Mazda 6 is going to offer a 2.2 liter T/D in the fall. It will have 173 HP and 310 lb ft. With an estimated 45 mpg, and with a 30k sticker. this very much interests me. The car is beautiful, drives FANTASTIC, and I think it will be my next car. ( I already drove the 2.5 L Touring in early March).

    Here's how Mazda's modern Diesel was made light, powerful, and affordable:

    http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/videoController.action?op=playVideo&playlistId=4- 85DC4B7EAB238F2&videoId=cK5SQkEUBdo

    That's what it takes for me to buy a diesel! It is more affordable that other hi-performance Diesel sedans from BMW and Audi. With 3 kids and a mortgage. a $50 k diesel 3 series just wasn't in the budget.

    Have a good weekend guys, and don't forget mom on Sunday!!!

    Chris Skalski: Network Engineer 2012 Kia Optima EX

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited May 2013
    Welcome, cski..

    While your 90 hp Passat might have smoked a bit more than today's TDI's, seems to me it still had reasonable torque for such a heavy car of that generation. I know it was no ball of fire, but if you loaded up the car with 5 passengers and then started into a nice long hill, against the same setup only with VW's 2.0 is it? The old 8 valve cast iron block NA, requires a timing belt, engine. I'll bet your old diesel would beat it to the top. ANd today's TDI would absolutely annihilate it. Probably hook a 1000 lb trailer to it and the 5 passengers and STILL beat your old diesel.

    But that said, this new Mazda engine does sound really intriguing. We were just talking about it here this morning. After seeing the apparent positive results with Mazda's gas job SkyActiv's I'm inclined to trust that they have also done an admirable job on the low compression diesels. Still there are not a lot of miles on the gas SkyActivs yet so we'll have to wait and see still..and aluminum block on the new diesel...hmmmm..good for handlng no doubt, but...we'll see. If they have a good process and faultless casts, could be ok. But then Honda didn't have much luck for their 1.8 Civic blocks for a stretch there.. And whatever forces a gas job imposes, the diesel will up that anti handily.

    I can't think of any two (affordable) driver's cars that suit a modern TD better than both VW and Mazda. I predict VW will have the quietest of the two. Both have similar good quality steering. The VW will probably edge out the Mazda for ride compliance and not feel quite as harsh at times as the Mazda does, yet still do very respectable swerve test times/speeds..

    I think I might trust the Mazda though in other reliability aspects of the car, over the VW. VW has been making strides apparently, but thet still have a reputation laying over their head. (your experience is a firsthand example most recently).

    Boy that 310 ft/lbs though...now THAT sounds fine..
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 15,047
    edited May 2013
    I say what is NOT to like?

    If the cited figures (45 mpg vs 38 mpg) are true, not only does the Mazda 6 TDI get 18% better fuel mileage than the (like model) gasser, but torque is 68% better. It goes without saying that to get 68% better torque in a gasser one really have to do RADICAL stuff: like add 2 to 3 cylinders and beef up a lot more components than probably Mazda is NOT willing to do. (Mazda's V6 has 269# ft vs the 310 in the TDI) Needless to say that with far more torque to match the diesel for example the gassers gas mileage would most like fall further than the 38 EPA.

    I would swag it would be like other diesels, being capable of posting far better mpg than ( like model) gassers. (+ 14% to 53%) Truly it is Mazda's to win / lose, depending on execution and customer's response, among other variables. A + 3,000 greater MSRP, would give the competitive edge to VW Passat.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,576
    edited May 2013
    You haven't stood next to a MB or even VW TDI lately with the hood up have you?

    From that GLK250 link I think I posted in here the other day:

    "You can tell the GLK250 Bluetec is a diesel when you are outside the car and it is idling, but the telltale diesel clatter caused by the powerful combustion events going on inside the block is minimal. Mercedes has done a nice job of sound-deadening, and the noise can't be heard at all from inside if the windows are up."

    Contrast that to our test drive of a new Sienna back in '98 - tried to crank it and it was already running. :blush:

    VW's reliability is still a bit suspect but their dealers are getting better. I'm not so sure that Mazda is holding up to their prior standards since they split from Ford (my Mom's 80-something Protege was a terrific car) - sure see a lot of complaints in the CX discussions here, especially the CX-7.

    Diesel is running around $4.10 here (RUG is $3.79 to $3.88).

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

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited May 2013
    My comment about listening to it idle with hood up, was meant to be in contrast with my other numerously mentioned points that when extracting the full torque figures, the diesel accomplishes that with little fuss and muss (rpms) yet your quiet idling Sierra, creates a lot more raucous when not idling and then attempting to tap into its peak torque figures. Not sure why my point continually seems to not be communicated or understood/heard...unless of course you are again attempting to spur "forum activity"? Ya...I guess that's it.. :P :sick:

    And yes I read that link front to back...it served to support my point even further.

    edit - and diesel price collusion...for whatever its corrupt price premium (in certain states, certainly not all) still doesn't cut the math for any informed/intelligent prospective purchaser, as ruking1 has painstakingly pointed out in vivid detail numerous times.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,576
    Well, I don't want to stereotype minivan moms but a rattling engine at idle might dissuade some on a test drive.

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

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    On the other hand, why not inform those fickle females the convenience of not having to refuel in the pouring rain about half as often.. I can't help but think that the new hair-do having its full as-left-the-salon-shape would further support the oil burner advantages..
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,576
    Might make a good marketing scheme.

    Get Vin Diesel to portray the hair dresser. :shades:

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

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited May 2013
    hahaha, Steve, you and Shiftright can be a real hoot at times.. :thumb up:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,645
    edited May 2013
    "only does the Mazda 6 TDI get 18% better fuel mileage than the (like model) gasser,"....

    that's not enough to be a market changer--it's chump change for someone switching from a 27 mpg minivan gasser to a 36 mpg minivan diesel, for example.

    Seems to me the only shopper to be tempted by a diesel minivan is someone who owns a very old gas hog minivan.

    really now, would you trade in a good running, paid-for minivan for a diesel so that you could save $450 a year? OR, say your minivan is dead--would you pay extra for the diesel engine to save $450 a year?

    the problem as I see it is that diesels are not 'sexy' like hybrids. Hybrids are driven partly by "feel good marketing" and "the next new thing", as well as fuel-efficiency....but the poor diesel has none of this going for it. It has to rely on fuel economy to sell itself, and 18% improvement is not enough IMO.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Oh come on, Shiftright..reveal the minivan that yearly averages 27 mpg.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,645
    2013 Odyssey---28 highway, 19 city, if you did exactly half and half, that'd be 23.5.

    Still chump change.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    So that is one van, that uses complicated and fussy tech to work...and also has a reputation for engine oil burning and other issues..
    And that is not considering the REAL WORLD whereby most owners are enjoying full displacement go..at a much reduced real world FE figure..
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    And I suppose if we were talking p/u trucks, your next example would be Ram's MDS...haha...I know a FEW owners of those and in the REAL WORLD, MDS has failed them big time..

    NEXT..
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,576
    I think a good hook for a few minivan owners would be mpg and mountain towing of their pop-ups. But probably not a big segment. And most minivans can already tow 3,500 pounds if you want to trust the transmissions, and that should be plenty for a pop-up.

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

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited May 2013
    Sure, Steve, but at what fuel use penalty?

    I'm confident a good enough hook, would be those users who regularly fill their minivan with people and loads. A rated full vehicle capacity load is sort of on a similar scale to towing a small trailer...actually it's a direct comparo (plus extra aero and tire drag) for the majority who pull 1000 lb. And for those who pull a foldup camper, it's just no contest..those things are as aero as a barn door...only better than a full height (heavier still) travel trailer...diesel territory with any rational thinking.

    I maintain, it's the same old adage....when there is work to be done, a diesel excels. And technically, minivan even with one lone driver is doing work..
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,090
    really now, would you trade in a good running, paid-for minivan for a diesel so that you could save $450 a year? OR, say your minivan is dead--would you pay extra for the diesel engine to save $450 a year?

    I would trade in my "Paid For" 2007 Sequoia Gasser with 33000 miles on a diesel SUV if I get what I want. Torque, range and most of all getting away from CA designer gas with ethanol. The Feds will not be happy until they are destroying older gas engines with E20 or E30. I will do it even if they raise the taxes more on diesel to try and discourage US from buying diesel vehicles. Then I am not part of the mindless masses in this country.
  • eliaselias Posts: 1,941
    for 2013 odyssey half-city, half-highway, it's not 23.5, it's 22 mpg.
    example: 10,000 miles - half highway, 28 mpg, half city 23.5 mpg.
    5000 miles / 28 mpg = 178 gallons
    5000 miles / 19 mpg = 263 gallons
    so that's 10000 miles / 441 gallons = 22 mpg
    fwiw..
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 15,047
    edited May 2013
    I would agree with you. I have two relatives that have gotten 2012/2013 Mazda 3's. Great buzz and I absolutely LOVE that liquid mercury look color. Color and even the allure of the "SKYACTIV" would not induce me to buy. They like to scream like Honda Civic banshee engines. However they are simply gutless. I do understand why they each bought one.

    As for the upcoming diesel? I think I would have to hear almost glowing reports on this web site and this thread in particular. Evidently there are HUGE prices for cheapening out the diesel parts bin and the compromises necessary to forgo the use of ad blue, even as the use of ad blue has a hit to mpg, etc.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 15,047
    edited May 2013
    The 2012 VW Touareg TDI (going on 26,000 miles and 13 mo of ownership) has had ZERO issues. It was delivered with ZERO issues. At a 30 day inspection and Q&A visit, it also had ZERO issues. The local dealership where the vehicle was purchased continues to provide excellent service experiences, albeit paid for upfront "included" maintenance. I have been getting the (included) 10,000 miles oil and filter intervals @ app 12,500 miles.

    One anomaly has been DECREASED (1/8 of a liter) oil consumption (4.25 oz) for the 2nd oil change interval (12,500 miles/25,000 total miles) . The first oil change (12,500 miles) was closer to .5 to .75 L (17 oz to 25oz) which still didn't trigger nor necessitate adding oil. Break in and continued operation has been slightly to moderately aggressive.

    The only thing that I swag will happen would be some unforeseen TSB (technical service bulletin) which would necessitate bringing the vehicle to the dealer for some upgrade/update/correction. Other than that, I hope it bypasses the curse of the drivers side headlamp going out as Zenon lamp replacements costs are far higher than halogen lamps ! :sick: :shades: So far knock on wood, it has bypassed the stone chips on windshield curse that the other two diesels have had.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,645
    Hey, how did you do that? :P I was just taking the average between 28 and 19, but you're right, it comes out to 22.7 mph, not 23. 5.

    STILL chump change however :P ...$650 bucks a year in fuel savings, IF...if...your area does not charge a premium for diesel fuel over regular. (some do, some don't).

    I'm just trying to rationalize a serious *market* scenario in the USA. By what means could diesel EVER make the jump from narrow teensy niche market to levels approximating Europe?

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    edited May 2013
    Your math suggests that you are using EPA figures which, I assume you must be familiar with their bias against diesel, since you are posting with such adamancy here, are known to falsify diesels real world capabilities. Why not use what we know is a lot closer to a real world difference of at least a 12 mpg difference. Using a 20000 annual mile figure equates closer to a $1200 difference. You must do quite well for yourself if you consider that chump change.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,645
    I lost you when you went to 20,000 miles annual usage and an EPA conspiracy against diesels.

    Let's stay grounded in reality, that being without too much speculation.

    Again, you are shooting the messenger. I'm just telling you why the diesel market isn't big in the USA.

    On a $35,000 investment, $650 a year in savings is kind of chump change. Calculate the payback. It's worse than the math on solar panels for your house.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    A messenger delivers the message without personally chosen adjectives.

    I got 20000 I guess from most posts I read... that seems to be what you guys do annually. So much chat about 2 year old cars with 50 k on them. Even ruking is at 26000 in 13 mo.

    So you believe the EPA figures to be fair numbers with diesels? Why would you resist acknowledgment of real live figures? Ruking1 easily surpasses the EPA even driving loaded all the time AND aggressively AND in high altitudes, and his numbers are way way WAY better than EPA with two completely different types of diesels.
    Are you suggesting that he isn't being honest? I suppose it is possible, except that I have my own first hand knowledge of what a 2012 VW T TDIl, and a 2011 Gold Wagon TDI gets in the real world, and those figures are much the same as ruking1's findings.

    Your suggesting that America's avg gas usage is 27 in minivans by using one brand, that doesn't actually even accomplish that number in the real world for more than a few miles here and there on flat ground, shows a bias against diesel. You are far more than just being a messenger. Would it not be more fair to take an average of ALL gas minivans used in America with real world use..all the idling and city stop and go soccer mom's etc etc and compare that figure to a real world diesel figure? Then the message that you'd be delivering would be more helpful, since it would be more representative of the FE a prospective diesel purchaser might expect to actually get.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,576
    edited May 2013
    I get better than EPA (old or new) for my minivan. 21 combined vs 18 EPA combined. Ruking and I are obviously brilliant drivers. ;)

    For comparison purposes you have to pick a baseline, some baseline and not just focus on a couple of brilliant drivers here and there.

    Thanks to a ~36k first year, I'm averaging about 13,000 miles a year.

    Edmunds uses 15k a year for most of the TCO kinds of calculators here.

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

  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    How can you say I don't like diesels? ...I've probably owned more of them than most people on this topic.

    I'd be interested to know your past 'personal' diesel experiences?
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,345
    Steve, it's not just a couple of brilliant drivers here and there. You can see for yourself on Golf's Real World mpg threads here. They ALL without exception, all get way better than the EPA!

    I know a Realtor here, who drives quite aggressively and idles all the time and he regularly exceeds EPA with ease with his VW T TDI.

    And I have compared past diesels I have had with EPA and driven in different styles and conditions, found that EPA can be beat with ease.

    Your 21 mpg, is much much closer to a fair number to be used as the base line you refer to. And it sure wouldn't be unreasonable to use 35 as an American baseline for the VW T TDI given that the conditions with which ruking's trips it is delivering real world of 32 and 33.

    Even if we use 15000 miles/yr and 35/21 above, at 3.85/gal it is still $1100. And, shiftright...using 35k$ as an average for American minivans, also is an indicator that you are more than just a messenger. You are trying to pooh pooh diesel availability options, on just about any level of conversation.

    Now we know that this forum is for all opinions, both ye and ney for diesels, but don't be surprised then if defenders of diesels defend their position if someone against them uses inaccurate/exaggerated wording/figures in an attempt to denigrate diesel options.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,576
    edited May 2013
    Your 21 mpg, is much much closer to a fair number to be used as the base line you refer to.

    I don't think so. I'm a laid back driver and don't carry junk around in my van unless I'm on the road. The 18 EPA probably is closer to real world.

    I wish more owners would report their mpgs here, or at fueleconomy.gov or somewhere. I could even live with the car calling home with those numbers - if really would be great to see what the whole fleet is getting in the real world.

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

Sign In or Register to comment.