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?

1481482484486487626

Comments

  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,406
    edited June 2013
    You were curious about a similar gas sized car on a similar trip. 2013 Accord I4 6MT - actually slightly bigger than the MB at 101 ft3 vs 97 ft3.

    60 mile trip over rolling hills at 55-60 mph. Starting elevation about 200 ft above finish and with a 10-15 mph tailwind/crosswind. Averaged 51.1 on trip computer which has been pessimistic for 9 of my 10 fillups. Was 51.4 pulling into town, but had a hill to climb and a few lights.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,678
    How would the Accord do at Western speeds and big elevation changes. That is where small diesel engines have it over small gassers. I go from about Sea level to over 2000 feet with several drops back to 700'. And you will get run over going 55-60 unless you stay in the left lane behind the big trucks going 45-55. Even the cops all drive 70 in the 65 zone and 75-80 in the 70 MPH zones. Most of the interstate 8 grades heading out of San Diego are in the 7% range. From sea level to 4500 ft in about a 45 minute drive.

    No screaming 4 cylinder gassers for me. I don't even like the V8 gassers in our driving conditions. They gear them for better mileage on flat land.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,406
    Can't think of many situations where the Accord would not do better than the diesels talked about mostly here (E class, SUV's etc). The 2.1 in a C or E class would certainly change that.

    Can it touch a TDI Passat or Jetta under similar conditions - no. Can it get astounding mpg under certain conditions - absolutely.

    Current tank is about 37 mpg. That is after 4 weeks of small trips (.5 - 3 miles) around town and 3 short highway trips (60, 60 and 40 miles). Nearly 300 miles on tank and range shows just under 400 miles remaining.

    Itching for a long highway trip - took my '07 on my last one and averaged 42 mpg for 1,200 miles. And yes that was with big elevation changes. Started in SD at 1,500 ft and wound up in Wyoming at 7,100 ft. The '13 should do 2 or 3 mpg better.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,475
    edited June 2013
    You are comparing a I 4 gasser 6 speed M/T vs a 6 cylinder diesel A/T! ? I am not clear what you are comparing, given equalization variables? It would seem to me the V6 Accord CVT would be more in line? (EPA H of 34)

    Like I said in one post IF mpg is the gig...... Indeed you and I know why they keep 73 mpg Golf TDI's off the American markets (can you imagine what the Taylors could do with that puppy?) . The closer comparo to your I4 Accord would be the 84 mpg (set by Taylor's) Passat TDI 6 speed manual (EPA H of 43 of course) vs the 2013 I4 6 sp M/T (EPA H )36. Part of their protocol is @ the speeds you mention. For them it is 5 under the speed limit. (65 mph)

    Indeed the older 09 Jetta TDI I 4 easily gets between 42 to 44 on the road and if I keep it under 90 mph (DSG, so even I wonder how much better for a 6 speed M/T.!!??) I really do not know what it will do @ 55 to 60 mph. I do know I will not meet target legs or it will take far longer. ;) :shades: :lemon:

    @ steady 65 mph in the 03 Jetta TDI (only 5 speed M/T) the tank refills consistently posted 62 mpg and that was with the A/C blasting.

    Geez those speeds and distances were almost painful and certainly mind numbing.

    I have done any number of close to a 550+ mile leg @ 75 mph with bursts to 85 and with consistent posts of 59 mpg. The reason for the speeds were across a 3 state multiple HP car crack down. So I picked a speed (75 mph) that I was not likely to be stopped for doing. I was gunned muliple times till finally it was so frequent and annoying I just turned the radar detector OFF. So seemingly, that speed is relatively non magnetic to LEO's. By way of explanation speed limits out west can sometimes be 65/70 (rural). At those speeds I am in the extreme right lane with fully loaded tractor trailers looking to pass and normally LEO's have far more and bigger fish to fry.

    Now for my .02 cents your posting is certainly good for an Accord (gassers) . On a 04 Honda Civic we routinely post 38 to 42 mpg with its 4 speed slush box.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,406
    edited June 2013
    Ruking - you wondered what a gasser might post under condtions similar to fintails recent drive. I consider the Accord to be similar sized ( yes it is lighter and has a smaller engine ) as they are in the same EPA size class. That is why I posted my numbers.

    TDI's do very well - and I have always maintained that I can't match their mpg.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,475
    edited June 2013
    I also said a few other things (and multiple times) that you are conveniently ignoring ! But hey, its all good.

    So if we use YOUR logic, you may have missed an opportunity, not getting a 2013 Civic 4 cylinder with a 6 speed? ;) But then the other logic is.... this is a TDI thread?
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,885
    Are those interior dimensions or something? For 2013 models, a diesel E weighs about 4059 lbs, 191.7" long, 73" wide, 113.2" wheelbase. For the Accord, 3192lbs, 191.4" long, 72.8" wide, 109.3" wheelbase. They are pretty much a wash, but the MB is heavier due to the diesel engine and all of the gadgetry. Honda probably has more interior room being FWD. Automatic vs manual probably does a lot, too - I can't lug it in 6th at 50mph while drafting a semi even if I wanted to :P

    Speaking of gas E350 mpg, I rented one last year and went on a few road trips. Here are two results:

    This was between Jacksonville and the eastern Atlanta suburbs, a leisure drive where I did not touch an interstate (a very enjoyable and relaxing drive):

    image

    And this was an interstate drive between Macon GA and Gainesville FL:

    image
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,475
    edited June 2013
    ??? ..."For the Accord, 3192lbs, 191.4" long, 72.8" wide, 109.3" wheelbase. They are pretty much a wash, but the MB is heavier due to the diesel engine and all of the gadgetry..".

    Perhaps I am confused about the 867# weight difference? It is common knowledge (perhaps not so common given the post) that weight affects mpg a lot more on gassers than diesels. Be that as it may, so in effect to equalize the weight, all one needs do is to put an extra 4.335 persons weighing 200#s each for 5 to 6 people in an Accord against one driver in a MB E350 Bluetech and let the tests begin !? ;) With that "equalization" are we thinking the Accord would get even better mpg or....?
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,885
    All of the toys MB loads into NA market cars, and the heavier engine is probably enough to do it.

    Loaded up and with a skilled driver, the 6MT Accord still probably would do at least a little better, due to less displacement. It might not be as responsive when at that weight, though.

    I don't try to hyper-mile or anything, either. I just drive, and check my mpg at the end of the trip.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,406
    Fintail. Yes - interior dimensions - I got the interior ft3 off of the EPA website. Actually they list the Accord at 103 but that is without the sunroof so I looked up the sunroof model and it is 101.

    Not putting down the MB. Very nice vehicle. The diesel model is the clear choice for the E class. Looks like 10+ mpg better than the gas V-6. I just require a stick shift and the nearest MB dealer is 230 miles away. I would absolutely love an E with the 2.1 and a stick shift. Stripped down like a European taxi. Would probably be 5-600 lbs less as well.

    Ruking - Don't know why you would want to make the weight equal. Not Honda's problem the MB weighs more, but there are two ways to look at equalizing. We could also equalize the speed ;). An Accord 4 cyl. 6MT hits 60 mph in 6.6 seconds. Two seconds faster than the E. :)
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,475
    edited June 2013
    Indeed, that (your point) really gets to the point of why I have liked and continue diesels (even as how most diesels are "neutered to butchered" for the US market) , one can drive it how one likes (given understanding of diesels parameters of course) and like for like it will do better than (again like for like for the broader audience) gassers.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,475
    edited June 2013
    ..."Ruking - Don't know why you would want to make the weight equal. Not Honda's problem the MB weighs more, but there are two ways to look at equalizing. We could also equalize the speed . An Accord 4 cyl. 6MT hits 60 mph in 6.6 seconds. Two seconds faster than the E. "...

    We should move on, we are beyond the beating of a dead horse. Given your logic ,you did miss the boat not getting the Civic. Shame, you could have gotten even better mpg. ;)
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,038
    Heck, almost every Direct Injection engine is going to tap at startup. My Hyundai built 2.4 liter does it for about 2 mins on a cold start. In other words it only does it in the morning. Some Sonata and Optima customers thought the engine was bad or the valves were tapping. Nope, just the hi-pressure fuel injection system working just as it was designed.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,038
    edited June 2013
    Well, since the Dart is really a Alfa Romero Giulietta, shouldn't Dodge be offering a Fiat made TD to compete with the Cruze TD? The Cruze outsold the Dart 4 to 1!!! Chrysler was banking on 100,000 sales in 2012, but got 25,000 instead. OOOOPPPS! They thought it was going to be another Neon to magically restore them as small car champs. I dunno, I am not really a Chrysler hater, but they can't rely on 300, Charger, and Challenger sales much longer. They aren't getting any younger. I hope they succeed to be honest. -Chris
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,678
    An Accord 4 cyl. 6MT hits 60 mph in 6.6 seconds. Two seconds faster than the E.

    I think you got some bum scoop from somewhere. The E350 Bluetec with 7 speed auto does 0-62 MPH in 6.2 Seconds.

    http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/mercedes-benz/mercedes-benz-e-class-350-cdi-blue- efficiency-sport.asp

    The E250 Bluetec not sold here is about a second slower. But delivers 48 MPG US combined. That said comparing an Accord to a MB E is kind of silly. I rented an Accord and HATED the way it rode. Noisy and averaged 28 MPG for the two weeks I was stuck with it. And I say stuck because Budget promised me an Altima and sold it the day we flew in. I ended up with the Accord. I have rented a Camry and while it is nothing great, it did ride & drive better.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,406
    http://autos.aol.com/cars-Mercedes_Benz-E_Class-2013-Base__E350_BlueTEC_4dr_Seda- n/overview/

    8.8 seconds above - first one that came up on google.

    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1012_2011_mercedes_benz_e350_bluetec/- viewall.html

    Guess this is better at 7.5.

    I will believe the 7.5 by motor trend which is decent, but not feeling 6.2.
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,038
    I had a blowout the other day :cry: , and since the Optima EX has no spare tire, those run flats would have come in handy. I realize they are hard as a rock, but BMW has done a good job of tuning their suspensions to keep out most of the jarring hard stuff.

    Why does my car have no spare? Weight and MPG wars. Also, it's cheap!
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,885
    edited June 2013
    Per the brochure 0-60 is 6.7, per the German press (Auto Motor und Sport) 0-100kmh is 7.8. I suspect the adaptive transmission is at play here - if you drive it like a grandma for awhile, it will learn this, and then if you make a speed run, it will continue to act like grandma - where a new fresh car or one that has been reset will be faster. Somewhat like the variances one can find in 0-60 claims of MT cars, where one little miscue by the driver can easily add a second.

    E350 CDi is actually different from a Bluetec, and German press gives it an entire 1.6 second advantage in 0-100kmh (they rate it at 6.2 as well). They rate the E250 CDi at 7.7, but there was no E250 Bluetec at the time my magazine was printed. German press also rates the CDi to be about 20% more efficient.

    IMO, E350 Bluetec 0-60 is around 7 seconds - the car will get up and move, but you have to put some right foot into it, diesels don't like to rev, and MB accelerators are historically like stepping on a brick.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,885
    If only the 6-speed manual readily available on the 4cyl diesel E in Europe would come here. Especially as a 4Matic wagon, that would be a cool car. However, it's been 25 years since a manual E has been sold in NA, and I don't see that changing.

    Oh yeah, no diesel E wagon for 2014 from what I have recently been told - I had been told earlier that there would be a diesel wagon. Mistake by MB, as old diesel wagons are cult cars and a new one would sell.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,885
    That is a benefit - you don't have to hypermile it. Just go, and as long as you don't drive like a complete idiot, the mileage will be decent. For some cars, you have to get the manual and then obsess over driving to eke out the mileage.
Sign In or Register to comment.