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

crkyolfrt · May 2013

acceptable mileage

So you're trying out to be featured as Jay Leno's next stand-up comic I presume?

If we had colored text options, I'd have posted that in green..

gagrice · May 2013

Speaking of Ads. When MB offered the 2005 "E" with diesel the ad showed a guy traveling 800 miles without stopping for fuel. With your mileage you should be good for 900 miles.

crkyolfrt · May 2013

Indeed if I tailor my speeds to get 43 mpg (posted that for 80/90 miles in the mountains coming out of highway 50 from South Lake Tahoe, not freeway ) that would be closer to 54% BETTER than its EPA (my swag is 5 mpg under the speed limits or 60 mph)

I hear ya, but sometimes there are anomalies associated with various displacement and gearing choices. Plus all the other numerous factors like injector nozzle sizes, pump psi, etc etc.
I say that because I am reminded of the mileage I got with my old Land Cruiser wagon (weighed more than your T or an ML) with an inline big 4, NA'd. Was a 3.4. And I am comparing it with my 89 Toyota P/U (also 4x4) that weighed over a 1000 pounds lighter, yet couldn't come even close to the mpg of the big wagon (which also was only a 4 speed with top cog direct vs the 5 speed in the P/U) even though it was a full litre less displacement, but was turbo'd.

ruking1 · May 2013

Yes that is the interesting thing I have done the same trip any number of times in any one of 5 TLC's. So needless to say, I know the drill in a gasser SUV (4800#'s, aka CUV being 174#'s heavier) Also it is scary to go the speeds in the SUV TLC gasser than the CUV. To cut to the chase, I know if I went the same speeds as the TDI in the gasser SUV's, the mpg would deteriorate much further than the 14 to 17 mpg I CAN get, albeit going far slower.

TMI factoid is the TLC's tranny is made by Aisin. The one 4 speed manual I had I do not remember who was said to have made it. I assume it was probably Aisin also.

crkyolfrt · May 2013

To clarify, those two were both diesels. The p/u turbo actually being even more rare than the wagon. It might have been an 87? The old brain is starting to forget...I almost think it was an 87 not an 89 cuz by 88 we were hard-pressed to find diesels.

crkyolfrt · May 2013

I assume it was probably Aisin also.

Probably. I know the front hubs were Aisin on both.

The tranny in the wagon was really sweet. It had quite a long stick, but not too long a throw and just snic snic'd..if only they had used as much galvanizing in the sheet metal as they do now. Gosh it was a great SUV. If only I had owned it from new I KNOW it would not have been as rusty as it had gotten..It even had rusted-through rain gutters

ruking1 · May 2013

I am hearing you. In some ways, I am VERY curious to see how "the marbles in the can days of old diesels" integrated into the newer diesels (25 to 1 compression ratios). So for example 19 to 16 to one are the current "NON" (diesel) sounding diesels compression ratios. Just that difference alone can be responsible for both more power and mpg.

crkyolfrt · May 2013

Yes..and the new Mazda diesels low CR amazes me. It is barely higher than their gas jobs..or at least the smaller displacement ones in EU. It seems to me that..at the very least, it would make them a little more cold-blooded when the temps really drop. That said, I guess lower CR's allow for a bit faster spinning speed during start up, but still..

fintail · May 2013

I was trying to be modest :P

It makes me doubt the trip computer sometimes, but that number is pretty amazing. To cruise in comfort and relative luxury with near-hybrid mpg.

fintail · May 2013

21 gallon tank, definitely should be able to beat 800. Gotta love it. Runs like that make me not mind the payment as much :shades:

ruking1 · May 2013

I think the lowering of the compression ratio was in response to the focus groups complaints/complaining about diesels sounding like .... a diesel.

My .02 cents:

I basically find that a tad oxymoronic, but hey if you want to convert even a portion (of a then) 98% gasser population and "representative" focus groups tell you they want it to sound like a gasser, as IT (sounding llike a diesel) is an obstacle to conversion.... well, I guess you have to do what you have to do if you are in a position to do it.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2013

I would think that a diesel engine would be somewhat obnoxious in a minivan--the perfect echo chamber. But I guess that can all be padded out.

Besides, that type of engine choice seems to jangle with the typical minivan demographic.

Minivan people are shopping "amount of room per dollar", not so much mpg. I don't see them paying for the diesel engine premium here in the states. You don't need 400 ft/lbs of torque to haul 4 little kids around.

ruking1 · May 2013

Perhaps all that "happiness"(in the narrow niche minivan segment) and the ability to charge VERY high dollars (with no real upgrades) are one STRONG reason to leave well enough alone? So for example, the Toyota Sienna offers 12 interations (from MSRP 28k to 42k) ? Another popular well rate mini van Honda Odyssey offers 7 iterations from 29k to 44k . In addition, (or perhaps more correctly) the precursor for a "proper" diesel (as they say in the UK); they would have to upgrade as a minimum, the rotors and brakes, suspension, transmission and other subsystems and parts way too numerous to mention. I don't think minivan oems would be overjoyed at any level to HAVE to do that.

crkyolfrt · May 2013

I would think that a diesel engine would be somewhat obnoxious in a minivan--the perfect echo chamber.

You haven't stood next to a MB or even VW TDI lately with the hood up have you?

Besides, that type of engine choice seems to jangle with the typical minivan demographic.

And comments like your opening one, unfortunately.. help to propagate that ignorance.

Minivan people are shopping "amount of room per dollar", not so much mpg.

This is hilarious Shiftright! Did you see what you just wrote??

You don't need 400 ft/lbs of torque to haul 4 little kids around.

Now that one you got RIGHT.. you don't. 250 ft/lbs is plenty. This 150 ft/lb dollar and engine weight lightening all help to keep the price of admission down...that is if we can stop the diesel-haters/fence-sitters from spreading false or degrading info.

FWIW, one of the reasons 400 ft/lb are being used in those vehicles that have it, is so they are attractive on all levels, since usually those same vehicles demand a premium..even the JGC. So if you want a consumer to get on board and open the wallet wide, you make sure they give up nothing else. You give them go and give them power to tow etc.

And that 250 ft/lb in the family minivan hauler?? Just happens to be a full HUNDRED more ft/lb than just 20 or so years ago. Chrysler's use of the Mitsubishi V6 had just 150 or 155 ft/lb and did just fine for over a decade and a half. Consumers are getting spoiled with power, and they are becoming desensitized to it. I have to laugh when I read on some of these forums that a guy wouldn't even consider buying a car with less than 250 hp nowadays. Hell, this morning I read a post saying a guy would rather walk than drive a Prius, hahaha

And another point on that 250 ft/lb. That amt of torque created by a turbo diesel feels a whole lot better being created and usable at rpms barely higher than idle, than does the same figure being created by a gas job whereby you have to really deliberately stuff your foot into it in order to extract that torque. Which is more conducive to a pleasant relaxed drive..(since we are not race-tracking it everywhere we go during our daily excursions) a drive where you have lots of urge without even really trying hard to get to it, or one where you are constantly flooring it in order to try to get the same amt of go?

And finally, consider this...which sounds more raucous, an engine being revved near its limit all the time, or one that is operating just a bit off idle?

Now factor in the mpg savings, longer exhaust life, safer fuel to be storing on board etc etc and it really should be a no-brainer...but we need to stop negative propagation of comments from those who simply don't like diesels for whatever reasons...probably most/all stemmed from some previous age-old poor experience.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2013

"
You haven't stood next to a MB or even VW TDI lately with the hood up have you?"

Of course I have...it's louder than a gas engine, considerably. True, not like the "old days" but if you're taking the position that modern diesels "purr silently like a Lexus", that's a stretch to say the least.

How can you say I don't like diesels? :confuse: ...I've probably owned more of them than most people on this topic.

Let's not get into a "diesel cult" where criticism of any kind is not permitted.

All technologies have their plusses and minuses.

crkyolfrt · May 2013

Not trying to get into any cult like topic, but I did notice you didn't comment on the primary points I raised, which was the fact that there is raucous torque extraction, and then there is relaxed torque extraction. Your main beef seems to be with db levels. I would like to see some stats on this. Take fintails bluetec at a given ft/lb, and then take a reading with a gasser in that same car at that same ft/lb, and see what the real world numbers are. Perhaps the diesel might be louder, but you are completely not acknowledging the relaxed driving nature of not having to be as proactive with the throttle in like for like situations.

Plus, surely you would agree that at least some compromise has to be swallowed in the interest of $ savings? Hell, I know people so poor they can't afford to run A/C.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2013

I'm actually trying to take the place of the average consumer and THEIR prejudice against diesels, not mine. Concepts like 'torque' are totally lost on 80% of the buying public, and probably 99.9% of the minivan buying public.

I'm also trying to take the place, or view, I should say, of the automaker. Why produce a diesel engine for a weak marketing segment? Why not "build an audience" from the most likely candidates, rather than the least likely?

Diesels are de facto noisier than gas engines because they are a compression-ignition engine. Also diesel engines don't like much back pressure from their exhaust systems.

There is simply no way to make a diesel as quiet as a gas engine for this reason; however, a good deal of progress is being made on quieting them down, playing with injection timing for instance, or lowering compression ratios.

It's interesting, I think, that articles like these, about the "myths about diesel engines", do *not* attempt to deflate the claim about noise---they leave that one alone. Why do you think that is?

http://phys.org/news/2011-06-myths-diesel.html

Mr_Shiftright · May 2013

re: your comment: "Plus, surely you would agree that at least some compromise has to be swallowed in the interest of $ savings?"

Absolutely! And, along those lines, it is my two cents that the minivan shopper, in particular, is *least* likely to make those compromises for the sake of what, we must admit, would be modest savings at best.

I could be very wrong about this, but you know, automakers are no dummies--if they had seen a market for a diesel minivan, that would have been the first one out of the gate. But instead, they are all sniffing around 1/2 pickups and big SUVs, with the exception of VW, who has a nice niche (and maybe all the niche that exists) for small diesel sedans and wagons.

ruking1 · May 2013

..."I'm actually trying to take the place of the average consumer and THEIR prejudice against diesels, not mine. Concepts like 'torque' are totally lost on 80% of the buying public, and probably 99.9% of the minivan buying public. "...

Indeed it is "NON" magnetic in the US markets. However I am guessing the mini van Euro market (or what passes for a mini van in those markets) are fully 50% + diesel. If any have seen a Honda Odyssey up close lately, it could easily pass for a small bus in Europe.

crkyolfrt · May 2013

we must admit, would be modest savings at best.

No! This is where I think that while you maintain you are speaking on behalf of the masses, I don't think you are. The savings are considerably more than modest, and would be even more impressive if diesels were being produced in larger numbers. I commend MB lately, for starting to offer diesels for no price premium. It wasn't that many years ago, VW had same pricing.

with the exception of VW, who has a nice niche (and maybe all the niche that exists) for small diesel sedans and wagons.

Sorry, I can't even agree with you here...I have read numerous posts right here on Edmunds, and not just on this thread, that there are many customers who would prefer to buy an Asian diesel over a VW. And from the number of these posts, I don't think the opinions on this are with concerns over the engine reliability/longevity per se, but rather the entire rest of the car, even including auto transmissions.

dudleyr · May 2013

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.

jayrider · May 2013

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.

[Deleted User] · 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!!!

crkyolfrt · 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..

ruking1 · 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.

stever · 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.

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).

crkyolfrt · 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.

stever · May 2013

Well, I don't want to stereotype minivan moms but a rattling engine at idle might dissuade some on a test drive.

crkyolfrt · May 2013

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..

stever · May 2013

Might make a good marketing scheme.

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

crkyolfrt · May 2013

hahaha, Steve, you and Shiftright can be a real hoot at times.. :thumb up:

Mr_Shiftright · 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.

crkyolfrt · May 2013

Oh come on, Shiftright..reveal the minivan that yearly averages 27 mpg.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2013

2013 Odyssey---28 highway, 19 city, if you did exactly half and half, that'd be 23.5.

Still chump change.

crkyolfrt · May 2013

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..

crkyolfrt · May 2013

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..

stever · May 2013

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.

crkyolfrt · 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..

gagrice · May 2013

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.

elias · May 2013

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..

ruking1 · 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.

ruking1 · 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_Shiftright · May 2013

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?

crkyolfrt · 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_Shiftright · May 2013

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.

crkyolfrt · May 2013

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.

stever · 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.

crkyolfrt · May 2013

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?

crkyolfrt · May 2013

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.

stever · 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.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles