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

ruking1 · April 2013

I will of course have to differ to the "broader" European experience, as the US was far more focused/narrowed and with a way smaller percentage. I suspect the US markets also got the "Mr. Hyde version", the European version being more the Dr. Jekyll like.

I personally had/still have the 03 TDI or NON PD. It has been the proverbial trooper. So as you can see I have no skin in that game. . Most of what I know about it has either been through reading web sites and talking to 3/4 TDI guru's. They actually do /still do 04 R/R camshaft's. They actually do recommend the use of Mobil One TDI 5w40 oils.

tifighter · April 2013

Diesel benefits shrink as gas engines get more fuel-efficient, torquier

Guaranteed to get somebody fired up...

ruking1 · April 2013

ZZZZZZZZZ. Yes, 20 mpg + is FAR better than 30+ mpg !!!! I also have it on good authority that 265# ft of torque is FAR more powerful than 406 # ft of torque !! That ought to fire one up !!

gagrice · April 2013

The article is mostly spin from what I read. The promises of great mileage from DI engines along with massive torque is not happening. I think the automakers have figured out how to play the EPA mileage game. Which vehicles cost $5000 more with diesel option? Maybe if the dealers are heavily discounting the gas models that no one wants. If accurate mileage figures came from the EPA there would be no comparison.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2013

It's not really the MPG that we should be focusing on, in judging "who wins" in a diesel vs. gas engine "war". What we should be focusing on is "gallonage". If a consumer trades in a 30 mpg gasser for a 40 mpg diesel, he hasn't gained much at all in gallonage per year, but if he trades in a 16 mpg vehicle for a 40 mpg, he's doing quite well.

so it's not the MPG, it's the JUMP in gallons you gain per year that should determine if buying a diesel car makes sense to you.

If a 40 mpg diesel tries to compete with a 30 mpg gas car that costs $3,000 to $5000 less, it's going to lose that battle.

gagrice · April 2013

If a 40 mpg diesel tries to compete with a 30 mpg gas car that costs $3,000 to $5000 less, it's going to lose that battle.

I agree that going from a 15 MPG SUV to a 30 MPG SUV is the smartest choice. I am not convinced your above argument holds up on either the short or long haul. If you only keep a vehicle 3 years you will get most of the premium back on trade. If you keep a vehicle till it is worthless you will have spent less for fuel and more than gain back the premium. The other issue is too many people base their argument on base diesel vs base gassers. Most of the companies put their diesels in an upgraded model to start with. One of the most popular selling diesels now is the Passat with 34% of sales last month being diesel. People are realizing they make sense. The Sportswagen sell 85% diesel.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2013

"People are realizing they make sense"...

did you mean "people THINK they make sense"?

If it's their first diesel, how would they know beforehand?

What if: a) they realized that, for them, the difference in fuel savings from their old car wasn't all that much; b) that the Passat had too many problems to justify the fuel savings; c) that their neighbor's crossover reports MPG just a little less than their Passat?

Many a product has surged in the marketplace out of novelty or promise, only to fall back again.

stever · April 2013

Took a 50 mile trip in an '03 Ford Power Stroke this morning. Was a bit stinky idling when we popped in for coffee but it was fine inside the cab. Didn't even bother my wife.

ruking1 · April 2013

Essentially, I have covered that "gallonage" more than once.

But say we use a round number, 120,000 miles (first major tune for a 09 Jetta TDI, 12,000 miles per yr for 10 years, etc. ) 28.4/39.6 mpg (fuel.gov) will consume 4,225 gal /3,030 gal= 1,195 gals MORE. PUG will use 39.4% MORE. Just on the "extra gallonage" alone @ 4.15 per gal, it will cost an extra $4,959.25 to go the SAME 120,000 miles. One can scale UP/ DOWN (miles per month/qtr/yr lease period, etc, etc.) as the circumstances dictate/require.

The 2012 VW T gasser/diesel differences are even more dramatic, as Fuelly lists one gasser @ 19 (less than Acura MDX (20 mpg) used in a prior post's example) and one closer (better @ 30.9) to my 30 mpg.

So for 120,000 miles that is consumption of 6,316 gals/4,000 gals or 58% MORE. 2,316 gals @ 4.15 per gal RUG makes the extra "gallonage" cost $9,811 more,.... to go the SAME 120,000 miles. So, .... scale away !

Mr_Shiftright · April 2013

By my calculations a gasser getting 28 mpg will use 1,285 more gallons than a 40 mpg diesel over the course of 120,000 miles.

This works out to $520 a year; however, the diesel owner at least in my neck of the woods, paid 8% more for his fuel.

So if we knock 8% off the $520 per year we get $478 per year more to drive my 28 mpg gasser than your 40 mpg diesel.

given the $5000 more it costs to buy the Jetta Diesel Sportwagon over the gasser, this is all about a "break even" game.

If you got 1/3 of your $5000 premium back on resale ($1700) and let's day you saved $250 a year on maintenance (which is a generous assumption IMO), you are $4200 to the good over 10 years, or $420 advantage per year to drive the diesel when all the dust has settled.

That's okay, but for me, not compelling.

ruking1 · April 2013

Then I would say DON'T !! . Remember 95% PLUS + of the passenger vehicle fleet (258.4 m) are gassers !

While only 5% are diesels (12.92 M), fully half are light trucks (6.46 M). This would leave app 2.5% diesel CARS (6.46 M). I am just fine with folks paying more for gas !! It seems that 95% of the gasser owners AGREE, and have for a very long time !!! :shades:

Mr_Shiftright · April 2013

But...but...I'm really not "paying more" for the car + gas.

you know me, I'm a diesel lover, but I need more motivation. Perhaps when my MINI dies completely, and I'm forced to buy a new car anyway, then that will be the motivation.....but to swap a 30 mpg MINI for a 40 mpg VW TDI doesn't compel me at the moment.

ruking1 · April 2013

I think a lot gets lost in the so called emphasis on mpg. But then on the other hand, why should I get 19 mpg when I can get 30+plus? !??? I think we have driven home the fact the same folks/powers that be, who call for better mpg really like worse mpg.

The real priorities for me are the TDI's are better adapted for our roads than gassers. I think false but real divisions have been created. So a real question should probably be: why not have a choice in the first place between gasser/diesel MINI 's ????

tifighter · April 2013

I think we are all a little 'inside the fishbowl' on this one. Which means we are all enthusiasts on a car forum who are probably more aware the differences than the average consumer. I think the article is a bit simpler than all of this.

An average buyer needs a new car. Let's pretend they are replacing a 10 year old Civic or something and want something the same size. They find a base Mazda 3 skyactiv AT sedan that stickers at $19.2K and is rated at 28/40. And they find a base Jetta TDI AT that stickers for $24.1K and is rated for 30/42. Some buyers will take the next step to do further research. A lot of buyers will decide not to bother.

Ten years ago, the MPG gap was a lot bigger, and the differences were more obvious to the average buyer. I like diesels, have driven many and get the appeal. But I follow cars and the market; the average buyer doesn't and just wants something reliable, economical and easy. If the numbers look close, and its cheaper to buy, that's probably as far as most people go. And that's what I get from the article. Feel free to tell me how I don't get it, I'm expecting it.

ruking1 · April 2013

RIGHT !!

(per mile driven: fuel)

19 mpg/$4.15= .2184 cents
30 mpg/$4.13= .1377 cents

.2184 cents per mile driven IS cheaper than ..1377 cents !!!!

CA's budget by that calculation is in SURPLUS !!!

michaellno · April 2013

An average buyer needs a new car. Let's pretend they are replacing a 10 year old Civic or something and want something the same size. They find a base Mazda 3 skyactiv AT sedan that stickers at $19.2K and is rated at 28/40. And they find a base Jetta TDI AT that stickers for $24.1K and is rated for 30/42. Some buyers will take the next step to do further research. A lot of buyers will decide not to bother.

Ah, but those are base prices. You can option up the 3 to almost 25K when you go with the GT + tech package. Same with the Jetta.

Some will prefer the interior of the Jetta to that of the 3. Or the driving dynamics of one over the other.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2013

A gasser the same size and weight as a Golf will get a lot better than 19 mpg.

My Scion xA that I bought new in 2006 averaged 33 mpg and it had just as much (if not more) room than a Jetta Sportwagon.

If an automaker wants to lure people out of 30 mpg gassers it's going to have to offer 50 mpg diesel cars. I see that as a 'buyer's threshold" right now.

michaellno · April 2013

If an automaker wants to lure people out of 30 mpg gassers it's going to have to offer 50 mpg diesel cars. I see that as a 'buyer's threshold" right now.

I concur. My 2006 ION gets 25-26 MPG in mixed driving (EPA says 24/32). Getting a Mazda 3 (28/40) or a Golf TDi (30/42) won't really increase my mileage that much.

Ideally, I'm a good candidate for a Volt, but they are much too expensive for me.

ruking1 · April 2013

The 19 mpg /30 comparison was for like model VW Touaregs ! The 28/vs 39 was for like model Passats.

I do not think they really do want to lure them. This is not to say they will look a gift horse in the mouth. It is a long shot for one and why would they?

So for example, VW really just wants you to chose ... VW. Whether it be gasser or diesel and in the Jetta's/Touareg's case, gasser/hybrid. Even they know they sell more gassers, followed by diesels and bringing up the rear hybrids.

ruking1 · April 2013

The WSJ, oh in the past week or so, had an interesting article about how Toyota & Honda are losing market share, even as they have finely honed their durable, reliable "appliance" business model across 2 decades and across many markets. In Europe, European models and brands have eaten Toyota and Honda's lunch for literally years despite arguably being less durable and reliable. One underlying dynamic is that cars nowadays on the whole are much more durable and reliable anyway. So other competitive factors can and do chip away at their market shares. Another is the "midsize" car segment is a small minority (25%) of the market. So with the midsize Passat being a "hit" in either gasser/diesel with (Gagrice's reference of 34% US Passat diesel), that might be another market demonstration of the different factors @ work. Another one might be most "young folks" do not want Civic's, Corolla's, Accords/Camry's.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2013

Well in most of Europe they have tariff and tax systems which benefit local/regional automakers. it's something of a protected market. If the competition were more fair, the Japanese would probably do a lot better.

But having said that, I still think you're right--makers like Fiat and Renault have improved their products enormously and VW still has a great driving dynamic that Europeans appreciate.

ruking1 · April 2013

I think part of the truth is that I have been a fan and appreciative of the durability and reliability that some to all Japanese oems aspire to and have achieved. Two examples that stand out are Lexus, Subaru. CNBC even did a special on BMW and a CR VP was asked about the durability and reliability differences of Japanese oem's vs German oems. Without equivocation, he cited Japanese oems (Lexus in this case) as better executing reliability.

gagrice · April 2013

Feel free to tell me how I don't get it, I'm expecting it.

Again I agree with you that would be a tough choice to make. It may come down to looks or handling or interior. For me it would be the screaming gas engine on long up hill rides. I have not ridden in the Mazda so cannot make a call on it. Most 4 cylinder gas engines have to drop down in gear and go up over 4000 RPM to get up the highway I drive regularly. Not so with a diesel 4 cylinder. They just idle on up the hill at the speed limit which is 70 MPH in high gear.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2013

Which is why you don't see German electronics at Best Buy.

ruking1 · April 2013

The 2003 Jetta TDI, in 180,000 miles early on had its drivers side headlamp go out. It was followed much later with the passenger side headlamp going out. Much later than that it had one then two brake lamps fail. The 2009 Jetta TDI (under 60k miles) just had the drivers side headlamp go out. Hmmmm. These (5 lamps) of course have nothing to do with the diesel portion.

dudleyr · April 2013

You can't compare an efficient new diesel 4-cyl engine to an inefficient old school 5 cyl gasser. That is a cheap engine to bring the purchase price down. A nice new DI 4-cyl would split the difference between the two and cut the savings in half.

A modern 4-cyl like the skyactiv getting 28/40 is a much better comparison to a golf and the Altima at 27/38 is a good comparison to the Passat. Both are close enough in mpg that the fuel cost is almost a wash when you figure the extra expense for diesel - neither gasser requires premium. Toss in the new timing belts that the diesels need and the comparison gets even more complicated.

5 years ago the diesel advantage was much greater - right now not so much.

ruking1 · April 2013

Your information might be a tad out of date. Fueleconomy.gov shows 2012 MAZDA 3 DI @ 35.2 MPG vs Golf @ 32.4 mpg. Now, I do not know if those two cars are competitors or even the same ball park.

BUT at the same time, (per edmunds.com) 2013 Mazda3d is coming out with a (new) diesel which is real world (US market) untested !!! Its all good in my book, albeit "NOT bird in hand yet." Why this is still snoozeville is beyond me, but data puts # ft of torque for this little MONSTER @ 310 !!!!!!!!! The "SPORT" is listed @ 148 # ft or 109% BETTER !!!!

BUT in arrears, (2012 VW T gasser 19 mpg/diesel 30 mpg+ and Acura MDX 20 mpg) it might be true if you subscribe to the notion that 19/20 mpg is better than 30 PLUS+ mpg !!!!! BUT then on the other hand, 95% of the passenger vehicle fleet owners (defacto) ...DO

tifighter · April 2013

The 2014 MDX has improved on the MPG front with the new DI V6. Rated 18/27 with AWD, 20/28 FWD.

ruking1 · April 2013

And that would change what in my post? 2013 A MDX is still rated @ 16/21, 2013 VW T gasser 17/23 mpg.

Or are you just glossing over the 2014 VW T TDI/gasser are going to improve ALSO ?

Indeed the 12 VWT TDI does better than ITS' EPA ratings of 19/28. I suspect it would do even better @ 65 mph and under. I would suspect the same for the 2014 VW T TDI. But then I'd be fighting sleep and highway hypnosis. :sick: :lemon:

The truth is the relative with the Acura MDX really doesn't care that he posts 19/20 mpg for the same trip point A to B where we literally parked in the same garage, and really neither do I about his or mine for that matter. Both cars do what each of us bought the CUV's for. Both are fun to drive (for CUV's). MPG's are just points of discussion on this diesel board. I also suspect that most gasser owners really don't care also.

It actually amazes me that I can drive aggressively and UPGRADE and still post above EPA mpg ratings. I do like that the higher altitudes do not affect TDI's as much as normally aspirated CUV's like the MDX, for example. I actually was fighting him to get him to drive mine ! But he was in nirvana with an adjustable back seat all to himself, I iPhone and IPad and hot coffee, which was precisely why I wanted to switch with him. :sick:

tifighter · April 2013

Please point out where I said it changes anything in your post. Its okay, I'll wait.

I noted the MDX improvement because Acura announced it. And it needed it; the prior model was thirsty. VW, at the Detroit show, said that powertrains for Touareg are carryover for 2014. Could the MPG go up for 2014? Maybe. But they haven't announced it yet. Please point out how that is, and I quote, "just glossing over" anything. It's okay, I'll wait again.

Let me be crystal clear. Unlike some, I do not see the world or market as gas vs. diesel. Both sides have merit, and both technologies have appropriate uses. I have driven both in the US, Asia, Europe, and Australia. I would, as a buyer and enthusiast, consider both.

If I hear that someone buys a diesel because they like its benefits, I don't feel like I have to defend gas vehicles. If I hear someone buys a hybrid or gas vehicle for their benefits, I don't feel the need to defend diesel vehicles.

There are many people in the Edmunds community that I respect and know to be fair and open-minded individuals. I have seen some of those people come into this thread and get misquoted, and generally pummeled for trying to consider all sides to a topic. If I was only interested to sticking to one side, I'd join Congress.

I know, ZZZZZZ.

dudleyr · April 2013

Well put.

cdnpinhead · April 2013

. . . I do not see the world or market as gas vs. diesel. Both sides have merit, and both technologies have appropriate uses.

Nice post.

The diesels that I've enjoyed in Europe on business over the past 10-12 years simply aren't available over here, except for VW, and Audi to a limited extent.

What I want is a moderate displacement (1.9 - 2.5 litre) turbodiesel connected to a manual transmission. Sounds pretty straightforward, but it's not, or at least hasn't been so far. To top it off, even if a U.S. engine appears to be similar to one sold in the rest of the world, it probably has bags of well, let's just say stuff, that makes it less efficient and/or more of a PITA to maintain.

Oh boy.

ruking1 · April 2013

Then truly, we are pretty much in agreement, EXCEPT for the fact passenger car diesel choices are VERY limited, i.e, an EXTREME minority in US markets. The 5% diesel population with 50% of that (2.5%) being so called (American) light trucks is a very simple demonstration and/or metric.

So for example, if folks like you continue to rent (diesels) them in Europe and don't buy them HERE, defacto, it doesn't do much good.... here.

There is an obvious chicken and egg thing going on here. In that sense, it is not proactive to say the selection of diesels in US is close to nil, etc. however obvious and true. It is a bit like you wanting PINK cars. If you don't buy PINK cars, why should one be surprised there are very few PINK cars?

You really did not have to go into as much verbiage if you just posted the link. But I agree with you, Acura had to get better, it is losing market share along with Toyota both in Europe (in relation to diesels), and Asia. I also have read in more than one article they do not do as well against European gassers as well. Newer diesel options are probably another threat to their market shares in the US.

Even if the 2014 TDI is a carry over, the real world on the 2014 Acura MDX gasser will probably still post lower real world mpg than the "older" diesel technology.

ruking1 · April 2013

BUT a little of a wrinkle. The 2012 VW T TDI posted 32.5 mpg R/T, with 32 mph on the 210 miles UPGRADE loaded with 1000 #'s . I caught a very little traffic bubble on the way UP. This is also on the same fill where it went to interior NV state with another peak road crossing of 7,385 ft. and a VERY curvy 6/7 % down/ upgrade (15 miles one way).

On the return downgrade leg in the mountains, I caught a rare "no traffic distance bubble" (in front especially, behind as a kicker). Coming down out of the mountains (200#'s load) it posted on the computer 39.7 mpg. That rare little traffic distance bubble continued and the down grade leg posted 33 mpg. :surprise:

crkyolfrt · April 2013

I caught a rare "no traffic distance bubble" (in front especially, behind as a kicker).

I have no idea what this means? Have never heard the term.

You seem to always go 'up' with weight (a lot for a passenger car, unless the 1000lb load you refer to is the load of 5 people+ luggage, but then if that's the case you always take a load of people 'up' but never once have you come back with them?) and come back empty...what...are you runnin' whiskey or something??

:P :confuse:

ruking1 · April 2013

With no one in front or behind, I could go whatever speeds I wanted or stop in the middle of the roads. I just didn't know what to call it.

Fintail in another thread laments that there is always some one in back and front of his travels.

No people this time. It was (dead) weight ONLY.

dudleyr · April 2013

If there were no people, then who was driving?

crkyolfrt · April 2013

Oh..got it. I usually call that being the lone car on the road. It happens often here, although more often someone will come up behind me. If they are closer than than 4 or 5 car lengths, I don't let them hang on to my draft. Pulls the FE down noticeably. And if I'm a lone car and then see I am gaining on someone, I usually back out of it if they are just a bit slower, to preserve my lone status. For a number of reasons actually, but a big one is I don't like sandblasting the windshield, front hood, lower A/C condenser etc.

I am really impressed the degree of greater (than EPA) mpg you are getting with that Touareg, especially considering the speed you often maintain. I was looking at our fuel charts (they are always wildly optimistic compared to EPA, even prior to 5 cycle tests) and noticed that the ML350 is rated just a tad more efficient than the VW T. I wonder if it stands up in real world tho..

I am pretty envious..but by only comparing my gas-guzzling (by comparison) CRV to your VW T. You have a supreme ride, great roomy seats, quiet comfort and luxury and are getting way more mpg than I do with a smaller, lighter, cruder, noisier, slower SUV. And the mileage I do get, I have to work my butt off in proactiveness

Who says money can't buy happiness??

I have been reading over on CCB thread, and how they are rationalizing (and perhaps rightfully so in some of the circs) to live a little...ya can't take it with you, etc etc, and all I can ever think when I read that, is that I am pretty concerned with running outta money before I kick off. Hell...I haven't even come close to being able to finish the house I started building over 20! years ago...and now the ol' body is starting to slow my potential down even farther. The only way I could go out and drop 55k on a new car is if the doc told me I only had 5 years to live..

ruking1 · April 2013

..."I am really impressed the degree of greater (than EPA) mpg you are getting with that Touareg, especially considering the speed you often maintain"...

This is probably TMI, but when the county sheriff passes one going 85 mph......, I know who the "oldster" was in that case. No it was not donut time, potty break or codes a blaring or lights blazing...(me specifically, not that I am ANYONE special). :shades:

Yes, truly it amazes me also. UP/down grades there are a hefty number of so called CA "turn outs" and lesser number of two lane per direction "passing lanes". On the one lane each way, one really does not want to "mess up" so to speak. Trees and granite mountains/walls/portions do not move much, when hit.

On a very scenic and iconic Lake Tahoe highway (highway is a kindness,) it is one lane each way, one side solid granite and the other side... 1,500 ft DROP to the first landing. I got passed on the left by a coded ambulance. I tried to stay 6 in from the granite wall, to give IT as much room as possible. TMI he gave me the lean on the siren salute. Again, if one takes the DROP, they might not find one till SPRING, if @ all !? :lemon:

Sadly, I happened onto the accident scene IT was rushing to.

dudleyr · April 2013

The CRV will probably match the VW when it gets the new DI engine and CVT.

Edit - checked on fuelly and the CRV is about 1 mpg better in the hands of the average driver on that site. So CRV will be better still with the new drivetrain.

gagrice · April 2013

I cannot imagine anyone cross shopping a CRV to a Touareg. The CRVs are a couple comfort levels below a Ford Escape. The CRVs seem popular with the over 80 granny set.

xwesx · April 2013

I may be ten years behind you on the house-building, but I'm right there with you in spirit. I'll not say "never," but I don't foresee the day I spend that kind of money on a car. :sick:

ruking1 · April 2013

..."but I don't foresee the day I spend that kind of money on a car. "...

Nor would I !

fintail · April 2013

Just move to Seattle, work in the city or eastside, and be single. No way you'll ever be able to afford a detached house within a reasonable commuting distance to employment centers, unless you are a doctor/lawyer or receive parental coddling, so then cars become more attractive.

Besides, for cars in that 50K+ range, leasing these days might be the best way to go, when longterm resale is low and the leases are often less than simple real world depreciation.

Speaking of diesels, took a drive today that involved all kinds of roads from stop and go city hell to freeway cruising - 33.7mpg per the car. Not shabby.

ruking1 · April 2013

Indeed. But insofar as the vehicles, it is about total cost per mile driven.

So in my anecdotal scenario , @ $4.09 ULSD per gal/32.5 mpg= .126 cents per mile driven: fuel.

crkyolfrt · April 2013

I cannot imagine anyone cross shopping a CRV to a Touareg.

I wasn't..it just happened to be what I own, outta necessity.

The CRVs are a couple comfort levels below a Ford Escape.

Uhhh, wrong.

The CRVs seem popular with the over 80 granny set.

Oh, I get it, 70% of your post was meant to insult me. Ok, mission accomplished... if it makes ya feel better.

crkyolfrt · April 2013

Perhaps the newer ones..but not if you drove around with a load or tow a trailer always or regular habit was fairly aggressive. Gas simply can't compete when work is being done.

As it is, the last 2 generations (07 to present) supposedly get better MPG than my 05. Plus I have a stick and their final drive gearing is considerably lower (apprx 1100 revs at 75 or so) than the autos which is all you can get since 06. The main2 perks is that is actually quite quick for a CRV and will out handle the autos. I could tie gagrice's pre 2013 Escape in absolute knots in any race he chooses. And also out corner him in any twisties he chooses.. And enjoy a lot longer life for fewer $ and fewer hassles along the way. Mind you I am speaking for my generation. Since then Honda made a lot of cheaper choices..suspension, chassis rigidity etc so my comments are about pre 07.

gagrice · April 2013

Oh, I get it, 70% of your post was meant to insult me. Ok, mission accomplished... if it makes ya feel better.

Not at all. Two ladies in our church both bought new CRVs in the last year. One is 80 the other 85. I rode in the one and compared to my BILs Escape it was noisy and rough riding. Both little old ladies love them. So that is what counts. I hate the idea of spending $55k for a vehicle. But I don't see myself at 70 suffering in an uncomfortable vehicle so my kids can buy a $55k vehicle when I kick off.

dudleyr · April 2013

Sure the diesel will tow better.

Escape is a gas hog. New one is supposed to handle well, but I doubt it rides better than a CRV. Might be quieter though.

gagrice · April 2013

After riding in both they would not be for me anyway. If you are going to plunk down $30k cash for a CUV, why not dig deeper and get some real luxury for your money. Can't take it with you. I would like something smaller than my Sequoia. But not as small as the Escape or CRV. I want at least 30 MPG on highway and would be happier with 40 MPG like with the GLK250 Bluetec. Problem with the GLK is I am back down to CRV size. My choices are down to the ML350 BLuetec, Jeep GC diesel with the Touareg TDI possible. I will get serious over the next 12 months before the 7 year warranty is up on the Sequoia.

PS
There is a lot I like about the X5 diesel. Great power, handling and local dealer. The hard seats and Apple electronics leave me cold.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles