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?

1432433435437438628

Comments

  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,489
    edited April 2013
    To address your main point, perhaps that is good reasoning why they are BANNED in US markets. :sick: ;) Indeed www.fueleconomy.GOV lists 2012 Prius as posting 183 grams. The Prius, a much less powerful car pollutes 16% MORE.

    ..."1000 miles on a tank full of Diesel is my idea of good range. "...

    This might be WAY TMI, but unless the VW T TDI tank (26.4 gals) is @ 1/4th of a tank or below, I don't even look to take on fuel for that (SOS/DD) 210 miles one way trip at home. Diesel is normally cheaper almost anywhere else than the closest and cheapest diesel station near my house. It is as much as minus- .38 cents cheaper in NV cities, rural NV areas being CHEAPER still (up to minus- .57 cents). If I start with a 1/2 tank (13.2 gal) or more, I can do a R/T without taking on fuel. The flexibility and opportunity cost of only 800 miles is not only cool but up to .38 cents (.57) cheaper per gal can be $10 ($15.) bux cheaper per fill.

    Over (a year's time aka) 15,000 miles, ( US drivers AVG mileage) the costs can be as much as MINUS- $288. CHEAPER.
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,648
    FE is pretty good even with the pulley reduction of 15%---I get, reliably 26 mpg mixed and 31 mpg highway. It's premium fuel, but the car performs very well for that kind of MPG.

    "They" say that combined mpg with the turbo version is 28, but I can't imagine that unless you drive very conservatively---which is definitely not me. :P
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,489
    edited April 2013
    For sure that has been a pipe dream in US markets and for a long time ! ;) It is funny that this new "diesel technology" is coming from Volvo, a car company that is barely holding on !? We also know how innovative China (state/country) owned companies are? :surprise: (get in lock step, or the next destination be the GULAG. Well autumn is coming? Is Autumn here yet?) And we thought Japan was the international COPY expert, decades ago?
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,346
    In trying to interpret your driving style (and thru previous posts I've gotten what I believe to be a pretty good idea) 26 real world combined does sound quite impressive...especially when you fact the fun quotient. It's too bad about the compulsory premium fuel..otherwise 31 driven fairly aggressively would be great. As it is it's still not too shabby. Premium is such a rip-off though...absolute thievery..so is diesel :(

    So if they rate the turbos at 28 mixed, it sound to me that if it was driven similarly to the way you drive yours, they couldn't match your 26. And that is surprising because the one thing turbos have going for them that blowers don't, is they don't tap engine power reserves to spool.

    I admit I am darn curious to drive a MINI. I have still never tried the new ones. Could you get the AWD with the blower? How many years ago...or rather, what were the years that blowers were used? I think the AWD's came along after only when they had switched to turbos if I recall.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,346
    VEA features diesel engines that can monitor and adapt the fuel injection for each individual combustion chamber. It uses pressure feedback from each injector (shown above) instead of the traditional single-pressure sensor. In this way, Volvo says it can cut fuel consumption and increase power. Crabb described the design Òas the second step in the diesel revolution."

    This may sound good at first...but there's something here I'm just not understanding...or maybe I should say, not buying..I find it hard to believe that there could be so much variance in tolerances and operation from one injector to another. And all other ICE aspects being equal, isn't the idea of a well designed/tuned and balanced engine design ensure that all cylinders and pistons do equal work? With today's tech, we basically have smoothed and polished and use deliberate measures to ensure all tracks are sized to length with intake and exhaust manifold design right from the factory...all in the effort to create equal flow both in and out.

    If I'm interpreting what Volvo is trying to say here, is they are suggesting that one piston is/could be actually doing more work than the one beside it, and their electrification tech would help balance the load. What a load of rubbish..someone enlighten me maybe??
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,489
    edited April 2013
    ..."I find it hard to believe that there could be so much variance in tolerances and operation from one injector to another."...

    This is not to add to, take away, justify, etc. the article, nor offer a criticism to your response: but it is absolutely true there is SO very much variance from one injector to another, IF optimization is the goal. Indeed some of the coating technology is in problem solving application to the "poor US D2 fuel issue", I believe YOU and other have highlighted. So much so that Bosio ( 1927 Italian injector company) is emerging as almost a "go to" aftermarket company for diesel fuel injectors.

    On a more gross or macro level, I can literally "wake up" any to all 3 diesels, just with an injector swap (well 4 actually 6 on the VW T) and calibrations and keep the mpg pretty close to the same, unless I really use (get on) it, the extra torque producing capacity. On two of them, I will be moderately to severely overreaching the transmissions safety zone. This will also probably apply, at that power upgrade to the suspension systems, tires and brakes.

    So for example on a 90 hp/155 # ft of torque 03 TDI, JUST with so called slightly bigger nozzles (PP-520's, aka .184 stock to .205 ), they (stage one) will push hp to 100 hp- 140 hp. Maintaining the same ratios, that will put torque @ 172 # ft -240 # ft. Then as the logic goes, IF I am going to increase the structural output capacity, I might as well chip it to further (again) optimize. This will put a so called "upgrade clutch" to being marginal, AGAIN. In addition to the extra power, as a min, I would need to make 5th gear higher or optimally( again) drop in a 6 speed manual. My goal is 400k Plus miles from the (current) clutch, so I am doing none of the above... SOON anyway.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,346
    Interesting. One thing that did occur to me after posting is that one constantly variable parameter that can't be kept even and equal, is air flow from the airbox as air filter starts to collect debris. So in that way I can see potential variance from one injectors firing to the next. But it sounds like regardless of that, that injectors do have a lot of tolerance difference from one to another. Amazing..I never would have thought that would be acceptable in today's modern ICE, especially with so much other emphasis there is on, tip atomization, rail PSI, air control, etc etc etc.

    So it sounds like some interesting tech to follow. That said though, it does seem a bit ironic that a car company who has always had a fair degree of challenges when it comes to down-the-road wiring/electronics longevity/issues, would discover electronics on this level before certain other competitors.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,489
    edited April 2013
    Scary to me too !!! :confuse:

    But as you can probably glean, TDI's have a modularity or "Leggo" ness that gassers do not.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,679
    I think MB already has a 4 cylinder diesel that makes the V8 gasser a dinosaur. The 2.5 L Bluetec with 369 ft lbs of torque in the heavy ML is capable of running at freeway speeds all day. And likely give the owner close to 40 MPG out on the highway. Will the Gas tax people allow such vehicles into the USA.

    Volvo does have a lot of experience with diesel trucks, heavy equipment and marine engines.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,489
    edited April 2013
    It is true that Volvo has been in the ww diesel market segments (bigger trucks markets) to name a few segments, and for a while. link title

    It would appear that Geely sees its future going forward in diesels.
  • tifightertifighter WAPosts: 1,350
    I was looking at the MB USA website and found the GLK 250. First time I've seen the EPA numbers, listed at 24/33. If anyone was curious.
  • scwmcanscwmcan Niagara, CanadaPosts: 388
    So the EPA numbers are a lot lower than the numbers from transport Canada then, I guess that once again shows the EPA tests are quite possibly really not correct for diesels ( too low) while apparently still incorrect for some hybrids and apparently turbo fours ( possibly too high). Oh well it is only another way to make diesels seem less desirable than they really are by the US Gov. Though we will have to see what owners get in the real world to know what the car is really capable of.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,679
    The EPA site does not list it yet. I would expect real world mileage to be closer to 30/40. Also interesting that it is still a 2013 model. I am not a fan of the smaller GLK. I would prefer MB to offer the ML250 Bluetec here in the USA. The EU rates the ML250 diesel at 50.4 MPG which is about 42 MPG US. I would prefer that over the V6 Bluetec getting around 30 MPG on the highway.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,346
    Oh well it is only another way to make diesels seem less desirable than they really are by the US Gov.

    I sorta know why you say that, but really...when I want to see a more accurate indicator of what a vehicle gets, I check EPA. Annually I get the Cdn guide, but moreso because it has so much other info like reg vs premium gas, who offers a diesel option, # of tran speeds, type of tran, size and config of cyl etc etc. You would think they would have a column showing whether a turbo or not, especially since there are more and more examples where you can't use the octane of fuel used or the greater consumption figures as a clue.

    But hell...they hire anyone now I guess...not only were the guides FOUR months late! (and still doesn't show the newest Mazda6 available or the Jeep GC diesel).. they managed to get it stapled together inside out/ upside down with French covers for English and vise versa..

    Anyway, our guides are wildly optimistic, barely more accurate than they were 10 years ago. And inside, they announce they will finally be adopting 5 cycle testing.."5 cycle testing will be implemented by 2015". :roll eyes: why wait Cda? What's the big deal...get off your butts and do it next year?? Idiots..

    It also says this:

    "CAUTION ON USING U.S. FUEL ECONOMY DATA
    Fuel consumption ratings in Canada (expressed in litres per 100 kms or miles per imperial gallon, differ significantly from fuel economy ratings in the USA. The U.S. fuel economy ratings are based on 5-cycle testing procedures, are listed in miles per U.S. gallon (well DUHHH) and reflect U.S. sales and adjustment factors."

    Idiots... since it isn't rocket science that a 3.785 litre gallon will show fewer mpg than a 4.546 litre gallon, why don't they actually TELL us something we don't know...like... exactly what these sales and adjustment factors are, and why are they any different? And in saying that, I get that a car driven in summer temps year round will probably post better figures than one driven in 8 months of winter, even with A/C use, but what is ridiculous is border towns. In Niagara Falls ON you get the Cdn Guide (optimistic..and wildly in some cases) and across the river a few hundred feet away, sits Buffalo, NY with their EPA guide. Each other's weather and seasons are identical.

    But here is a random example and at least they got it fairly close as per ruking1's results: 2013 VW Touareg 10.8/6.7 (26/42 mpg) They don't do combined anymore because no ones combined is going to be the same anyway. Much better to let the consumer estimate their own percentage and do the math. Someone commuting the 401 in TO, 5 days a week, sure knows that their weekly average doing that is gonna pale in comparison to what they would get doing the 400 NB to the cottage on the w/e...err...well once it opens up and doesn't look like the 401..

    But we know that ruking's most common mpg is 32. Real world. And our guide suggests 42 hwy. EPA says 20/29. So 29 x 20% = 34.8. His 32 x 20% = 38.4. That is getting pretty close to the 42 in our guide. Given his description and the aggression with which his trip is done (pretty aggressive freeway speeds on the upgrade, and assumedly similar but easy miles downgrade) I could easily see getting over 42 on a run into town with his rig here. Speeds never much go over 55 to 60.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,346
    That 4 cylinder engine they put in that thing sounds like one impressive mill. Powerful, relatively smooth (it is a MB afterall and their diesels are second to none) and super efficient. What a sensible package. Room, AWD, efficiency, assumedly a good drive and can tow.

    I have been debating how I could rationalize springing for the base base diesel Touareg, but the MB 250 would have plenty of power and be considerably more efficient still. Problem is though, being a MB, it'll probably not be much fewer $ than the V6 VW T..
  • scwmcanscwmcan Niagara, CanadaPosts: 388
    The thing is the EPA numbers do seem to be generally too low to diesels and too high for hybrids and apparentlt turbo gas engines as well. I think they are much more accurate than our numbers for normal gas engines though, the problem is in the calculations, I be
    I'd've our numbers are closer to the numbers used for the US CAFE calculations, and yes for normal gas engines are widely optimistic ( though on most of my cars I have managed to beat even our numbers without too much effort). My diesel smart easily meets or exceeds the transport Canada numbers and I do not even try, just drive it normally with the flow of traffic, so I think for diesels they are much closer as you pointed out for Rucking's touareg. my matrix on the other hand is very difficult if not impossible to get the transport Canada numbers for ( I'll have to actually drive it slow to see how I do, but unlike the Mazda3 I used to own and managed to beat the transport Canada numbers with, just by driving no faster than 110 km/hr, the Matrix seems like it will be a bit harder.
  • scwmcanscwmcan Niagara, CanadaPosts: 388
    I haven't looked at the price of the VW in Canada, as I posted somewhere above the diesel GLK is aprox $45,000 up here ( don't rember the exact price) which as I recall was $1600 less than the V6 gas version, The touareg starts at about $50,000, but I don't know if that is for the gas version on not, and don't know how equipment levels compare ( the VW site uses flash, and since I am using my IPad right now I can't look at more than the first page). I suspect that comparably equipped it look the the VW would be at least a few thousand more ( as maybe it should be as it is a larger C/SUV).
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,679
    Went to the big Jeep dealer yesterday for information. They will start taking orders for the JGC diesel next month. While there I checked out the 2013 Overland Summit gas model. They have some really nice saddle brown leather seats in the top of the line Summit. Some question if the 2014 will have those Napa leather seats. Very comfy and good back seat legroom. Nice vehicle. They really load the Summit to the max and still beat the ML by about $15k.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,489
    edited April 2013
    Really guys, I can't wait to hear peoples' take on the new JGC TDI !!!

    I was off internet due to structural interior massive cabling signal failure and subsequent re configuration (upgrade). Advertised speeds are now being met. Glad to be back, albeit FAR faster now.
Sign In or Register to comment.