CAFE standards aren't even real, so they are so abstract I doubt the general public even pays attention to them.
They pay attention to EPA testing, though.
Bottom line, not all aspects of car purchases are quantifiable. If people only bought cars based on quantifiable attributes, many of them would probably end up disappointed. This is why if you followed CR recommendations faithfully, and disregarded your own sensations about pleasure or beauty, you'd have a good chance of not being all that whoop whoop happy with your purchase.
So the cars with the best "numbers" in a certain area are by no means guaranteed to be the most popular.
Given the starting point of EPA testing, almost EVERY factor is in play, or can be used to come to a series of decisions and or compromises. There are also a lot of other factors that might not be in direct control by the OEMS.
So for example, some years ago it was a A/B comparison between a BMW M3 and a Z06 Corvette. The BMW M3 was 660 per six months in insurance and the Z06 was 215 per. Over ten years that is $8,900 more.
True, true. But I rather doubt that someone shopping for a BMW M would switch to a Z06 merely based on 5 year insurance costs. People buying those cars are probably making more than $100K a year anyway, easy.
CAFE is not intended to affect the "buying public" so much as it is intended to affect the manufacturers. To that end, I think that it is largely successful.
For example, pickup trucks (yes, even the gasoline-powered ones) get twice the mileage they did 25-40 years ago, and do so with more power and torque to boot. While some of that is due to always wanting to be on top (in the power game), some is also due to the need for them to bring their manufacturing average up.
Consider that while pickups and large SUVs have gone up over the years, small cars are stagnant (perhaps even gone down) over that same time. Our 1985 Camry used to get 35 mpg consistently on the highway, and we didn't take it easy on that car. Our 1992 Camry couldn't do that with a tail wind! A modern Camry might be able to match it, but I bet it would be hard-pressed to best it.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
It is true it impacted the auto makers. They played the game and built enough gas sippers to sell more gas guzzlers. It is also true the today's PU trucks get better mileage than they did 40 years ago. My 1972 Ford 390 would get 10 MPG on a good day. However my smaller 2008 Nissan V6 is lucky to break 17 MPG. It is faster for sure. I doubt it would pull the 12,000lb trailer with my tractor loaded on it, like the old Ford would.
My point of course is it would be simple to put a 2.5 L 4 cylinder diesel in my Nissan and get 30 MPG and pull more than the V6 would be capable of. No desire to save that much fossil fuel by the EPA. Why would that be??? Who owns the EPA????
What you are saying are really the results hidden in plain sight. If 75% of the passenger vehicle fleet are large cars to suv's to so called light trucks, getting way less mpg than the minority small cars, who again do not get very good mpg, EITHER then truly IS the proof in the pudding.
Until recently, the fault, I think, can be placed on the shoulders of the consumer. The perception of diesels was poor outside of applications where the high torque of the diesel motor is valued above all else. Diesel motors have thrived in full-size pickups for many, many years, especially those purchased for "work," meaning their owners intended from the start to use them for heavy duty pulling or hauling.
Emissions were not heavily regulated until the new age of diesel engine began to expand the market for diesels. Ten to fifteen years ago, I never heard people saying "I wish they offered that with a diesel." Diesel really started to catch peoples' attention when gas prices began spiking and diesel was significantly cheaper. Suddenly, better fuel economy plus cheaper fuel began to appeal on a wider scale. Shortly thereafter, ULSD was mandated, the price of diesel spiked, and demand was stifled through the combination of cost premiums for the diesel option (when available) and premiums for fuel. For a while, it didn't make sense to get a diesel unless you really needed the capability of a diesel.
In the truck market, regularly pulling heavy loads (or any load for that matter) was a no-brainer win for diesel simply due to the fuel economy hit of the gas engine under those conditions (that's not even considering the performance difference). For someone just driving a vehicle around, the benefit of diesel vs. gasoline was not so much of a win for diesel. Many times, the TCO over a five year period (or even longer) was still greater for the diesel option between the initial cost of the vehicle and the cost of fuel.
If there was high demand in past decades, auto makers would have met that demand. The fact is there wasn't, and, now that demand is on the rise, the cost of entry into that market is pretty steep. Steep enough, obviously, that many makers are not yet ready to risk it.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
For an illustration, I think the diesel passenger vehicle markets (all sizes) are seeming to shape up to be like the (now "mature" ) 12% (gasser) SUV markets (progression). When I first started to do research in late 1986 for the 1987 MY SUV, I remember trying to even get a percentage was difficult. I later found it it was like 1 to 2% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
So if we F/F to 2012 and a diesel passenger vehicle fleet @ 5% (again all sizes), we are yet to really hit the so called "boom times"@ 12%. My op/ed would be 23-26% passenger vehicle fleet diesel, would be ideal, starting from of course 5% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
That would be fantastic and is likely not an unrealistic target. The question then becomes "when?" Perhaps 10 or more years? Less?
It seems like manufacturers are dragging their feet right now between which forms of technology to pursue. The longer it takes for a technology to hit pace, the more obstacles crop up in the meantime.
With companies like FHI realizing record sales year-over-year, it disappoints me that they are bringing vehicles like the XV and BRZ to market rather than offering their diesel in this market.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I think that at some "critical" future point, the oems seem to jump on the bandwagon, just as they did with SUV's. Ford came out with their (1987?) Explorer and that seem to signal the launch of the category, even as GM had their suburban for years to decades before. Then suddenly everyone seemed to have an offering. The 1987 TLC that I wound up buying, imported less than 2,000 that year into the country.. It had a diesel version, but I recall it being sent in even smaller percentages and numbers to CN and defacto, not here.
You can bring one of those diesel Land Cruisers or Land Rovers to the USA and register if older than 20 years. The ones I have seen listed were pricey.
Probably easier to have a diesel installed in your own vehicle. Or just go buy a new one. Probably cheaper in the long run.
With limited production and not cheap prices, it might not get too much of a youth market - more like relatively recent college grads who have landed decent enough jobs and want to pretend to be younger. Subaru version might get more of a following, better badge.
Exploder came out early in the 1990 calendar year as a 1991 model. What made it important was size - it wasn't as huge as a Suburban, and drove pretty much like a car. It was also pretty sharp looking for the day, which made it trendy. Suburban was really antique in 1990, had to wait until 1992 to look modern.
Canada got all kinds of weird stuff then, and you can import all kinds of weird stuff there today.
True, we are looking for Quality not quantity in our vehicles. That pretty much eliminates the Japanese, Korean and USA name plates.
I could buy 2 Prius for the price of one ML350 Bluetec. What would I have? Two cheapo Japanese hybrids. Neither of which would offer the comfort and driving pleasure of the Mercedes. Its a No Brainer for me.
PS I have ridden several times in a Prius. It is Cheap transportation to da max.
For most youngsters not living off parental largesse, a new Prius is about as attainable as a Bugatti, and a new ML is alien. But eventually for many, the Pruis becomes affordable...not so much the ML.
yeah but a Prius us upscale from a TDI Golf. It's a much bigger, more posh car. The driving experience is NIL, but you get more car for less $$$.
And you don't need money to buy a $20,000 car anymore. You can probably do that in an hour with very little down, if you want, if you have a job and good credit.
I don't think your average young adult finds the diesel concept very attractive. It's certainly not "cool", unless you wear a pony tail and like using used cooking oil from restaurants. :P
Indeed. 2 years ago I read that the average age of Honda Civic owners was something along the lines of 44 years old. !! I about hurt my jaw when it dropped. I guess I was shocked in the context of ours costing less than 13,000 new. A relative just recently got a 2012 Prius. So at 37,000 that must be totally weird.
At the time of the 2004 Civic, the 2004 Prius was 25,000 and there was a 6 mo waiting list. Mercy was selling @ MSRP. It normally went for 5k over MSRP. They are in the same league, albeit, not same price. The purpose for the compare and buy was to do 14,000 miles per year commuting.
The Prius C and Golf TDI are not even in the same league, albeit closer in price. The price for the 2012 Prius (IV?) I mentioned was through a discount warehouse store. He did say he was getting 41/42 mpg.
I think if I were buying on price it would be between a Honda, Kia, Hyundai, etc. Toyota Corolla would serve as one of the baselines. None of those brands see fit to do US market diesels.
Well I wouldn't call a $6000 difference exactly "close" in price. It's over 30% more in MSRP.
Yep, you're right, a 2004 Civic and 2004 Prius are similar except of course the Prius weighs a lot more; however Prius resale is at least 25% higher now.
Is it really that much higher than a Golf? You can load up a Golf pretty dearly, and the common Jetta diesel wagon wasn't/isn't cheap either. I guess I can't see a Prius as posh unless it is loaded to the gills and passing the 30K barrier. A job and good credit aren't what they used to be for the under 25 crowd anyway...I think none of these cars appeal to youth, not just the diesels. I do see younger people in well-loved old W123s often.
I think in many ways some of the examples on the used markets make way more sense. I would consider a Golf now, but it would be a GTD, which is not available on the US market. Basically it is a tricked out GTI only in a TDI.
This would defeat the purpose of higher mpg, but it is a highly adaptive diesel road car.
Payments should be anathema to a young person with good credit and a job.
Latest CandD compares the 'big 3' HD diesel pickups - $60k each! WOW! And under the hoods they look like a shot of the space shuttle insides. Nothing about that says 'long term reliability' to me.
Very basic Prius C TMV $19,441 with steel wheels. Can you get out of your own way with only 82 ft Lbs of torque in the Prius. Compared to the Golf TDI with 236 ft lbs. Looking around So CA I see one entry level Prius C for sale. Mostly the 3 model at $23k.
I can't really imagine anyone cross shopping a Prius and a VW TDI. To me they appeal to an entirely different demographic. I did test drive a Prius when they first hit the shores and thought it was quite interesting. I totally lost interest when the second series came out in late 2003. Now the wagon has a minor appeal with the HSD system well tested. However at $30k the Prius Wagon is over priced when you match it to the VW Sportswagen TDI loaded. We know getting 50 MPG on the Highway with the TDI is common. Not so sure you could get that with the Prius wagon. Everything else matches pretty close.
It really can be hard to get a good sense about a Prius's real life mpg. So I was hearten when my relative mentioned in conversation that he got more like 41/42 mpg. He is a very very careful driver. I almost know for certain that if I drove the 2012 Prius like I drive the 03/09 Jetta TDI's, I would probably get far less than 41/42 mpg that he gets.
Again if I drove the TDI's like one seemingly has to drive the Prius, I am almost certain I would get far better than the 40-44 on the 09 and the 48-52 on the 09. So in that sense, we selected the best cars for US.
I get just about the same MPG reports from Prius friends and TDI friends. I'm always buggin' them for updates. The magic number seems to be about 44 mpg for everyday workaday lives.
As you have posted, I am rapidly getting the sense that they are pretty much neck in neck mpg wise, but with WAY different driving dynamics. I really have had that sense since test driving it back in early 04 for a whole day and reading the owners manual. I just haven't put more than 500 miles on one, or have had a 210,000 miles contrasting perspective.
A Prius gets very good mpg when driven properly. My father has a Prius and his average mpg is 59 (DC area driving). My mother has a Jetta TDI ( dsg ) and she is closer to 40. My mother does drive much faster than my father, but I have driven both on similar trips and the while I love the Jetta the Prius gets better mpg.
I am sure the Jetta would do better with a stick (according to CR it does anyway). Taking any stop and go out of the equation would also help the jetta.
In 2003, essentially one of the issues was whether we wanted/needed a city car (Prius) that was adequate for the highway or a highway car (Jetta TDI) that was adequate for the city. The stated tasks/goals at the time were for a 80-90% highway commute (14000 miles ) with occasional city driving and like percentage non commute driving.
With 20/20 hindsight/history, that worked out to be 25,000 miles per year: 20,000 to 22,500 highway and 2,500 to 5,000 miles city. So in that sense, for the first 4 years, the results fulfilled the goals. Or more correctly the goals and fulfillment pretty much were demonstrated by reality.
A person should take into consideration where they will be driving most, in picking a vehicle. If you have the average CA commute of 32 miles round trip mostly stop and go an EV or Hybrid would probably be your best bet. If you travel 100+ miles RT as a lot of CA commuters do, at 75 MPH freeway driving, you would probably be better off with a VW TDI.
..."Yep, you're right, a 2004 Civic and 2004 Prius are similar except of course the Prius weighs a lot more; however Prius resale is at least 25% higher now."...
The latest appraisals run on Edmunds.com, do not agree with you. Based upon the prices in 2004 for the Civic (12,564) and the Prius (25,000), the Civic (percentage wise) holds a 10.1%( residual value of 37.8% vs 27.7 %) lead over the Prius ( residual value of 4,746/6,927). In addition, the monies put up are far less for the Civic to do the same old commute, minus - $12,436 less. (25,000/12,564). The real kicker was zero percent to borrow the monies. Toyota would not even consider coming close to that rate. So in effect, I walked off the lot with the Civic with my signature ( no monies down).
For those whose eyes glaze over, the Civic cost 81.44 per month in depreciation vs 188.26 per month for the Prius. So to do the same monthly job the Prius cost 231% more.
To stay on diesel topic, formulas being the same for diesel, it cost 114.81 per month to own. So given 14,000 miles per year fuel mileages at 44/38/50 @ 318 g/500g/ 280 g, and at current per gal prices of 4.15/4.41 diesel the per month 109.98 prius/172.92 per mo Civic/ 102.90 Jetta TDI folks can do the math if further interested.
Again, to each their own, but I think we made the correct decision for US.
Apples to oranges. You aren't picking the top of the line Civic, which is comparable to a Prius, but rather the car rental model..but you are picking a fully loaded Prius. A top of the line Civic would MSRP at nearly $20,000, not $12K. So the numbers are way skewed if you do it that way.
Both cars have good resale value, so the point is rather moot anyway.
Point is---if you try to justify buying a diesel car today *strictly* on MPG, you'd have some stiff arguments that a hybrid or regular gasser's fuel efficiency can offset the higher cost of the diesel engine.
Again, if you check, Toyota did NOT offer a stripped Prius !!! I would have used IT if it did ??? Indeed the price mentioned WAS the "STRIPPED " price !! ?? In that sense, TOYOTA made themselves NON competitive. Indeed the Civic price, defacto said that.
I made no claim of apples to apples. The figures/tasks here is and remains the daily commute (14,000 miles per year) and their monthly depreciation and fuel costs. Again no mention of fruits here.
The point is not moot if it is YOU that is coming up with the additional monies AND additional percentages to borrow it. Indeed with zero percent interest, it almost made no sense to USE my own monies. Not so with the Prius.
Well no the point was not to justify solely on diesel savings alone it is depreciation AND fuel costs. As you know I have both a (gasser) Civic and TDI. The various monthly depreciation and fuel costs were broken out to show a more longer (8/9 years) distance consequence. So in terms of lower depreciation and fuel costs: TDI, Civic, Prius. In terms of lower depreciation costs: Civic, TDI, Prius. In terms of lower fuel costs: Jetta TDI, Prius, Civic.
That's what I said. You were using a stripper Civic against a full-pack Prius.
Also nobody can match your TDI numbers, so your conclusions would be only for your situation, not the general public.
If we go by autotrader, and do a nationwide search, we find that a 2004 Prius average asking price is $10,427, and average asking for a 2004 Civic (including hybrids btw) is $8112, and average asking price for a 2004 Golf TDI is $9468.
So they are all pretty close, and my guess is that over the years, if you include repair costs where the VW is at a disadvantage statistically, that cost-to-own in reality, is pretty similar.
Certainly no difference dramatic enough to influence the average buyer on the cost to own basis.
He/she sees these three cars as broadly "economical" and I suspect, thinks the Civic the most reliable---be it true or not.
We are both saying the same thing. However for whatever reason you are disregarding the fact that THEN you could not GET a stripped Prius !! Indeed you have mentioned several times on this board and others that Toyota offers a stripped version 2012 Prius C. aka 8 MY's LATER !! ?? So really there was NO financial need nor requirement for me to buy the sexist 04 Civic to match and probably exceed the Prius ! ?? So really that is your theoretical requirement, not mine. I already stated what mine was/is/remains, and the results.
TDI numbers for that MY 2003 could only be matched by at most 9,000 units as that is all they produced that MY. :lemon: :shades:
Again given your take on current diesel prices, all the more reason and extremely logical to KEEP the current TDI (actually the Civic also, as a cracker jack shop is within walking distance) . Again the assumption here is the higher residual values and even slower depreciation and NEED for low cost future miles, i.e, @ the 50 mpg rate.
Hmmm...I'm not disregarding it. I'm only saying that since you want to compare a 2004 Civic and a 2004 Prius, it's more logical to compare cars of equal content.
as for the Golf TDI mileage, I was going by what owners reported to the EPA for a 2004 model with 5-speed transmission. It was 43 mpg.
I tend to trust those numbers reported by owners because I looked up my own MINI, and the cumulative MPG average reported was exactly the same as my logbook, to the decimal point. I was impressed!
I was doing some searching on the VW site, just to see what they have in the way of TDI offerings these days. I thought they had brought back the "Rabbit" nameplate, but apparently that was a short-lived exercise?
Then, I took a look at the Jetta Sportwagen TDI (6MT), which has a base MSRP of $25,540 and an EPA fuel economy rating of 30/42. Sounds pretty good. After that, I took a look at the 4-door Golf TDI, with the same engine and transmission, and it has the same economy rating, for $24,935.
Am I missing something? Why would I even want to consider the Golf, for a mere $600 less, giving up a significant amount of space in the car?
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I guess some folks just don't want a wagon. Aside from the extra space out back, they're pretty much identical, right? I haven't seen any preview of a Jetta wagon on the new chassis.
Comments
They pay attention to EPA testing, though.
Bottom line, not all aspects of car purchases are quantifiable. If people only bought cars based on quantifiable attributes, many of them would probably end up disappointed. This is why if you followed CR recommendations faithfully, and disregarded your own sensations about pleasure or beauty, you'd have a good chance of not being all that whoop whoop happy with your purchase.
So the cars with the best "numbers" in a certain area are by no means guaranteed to be the most popular.
So for example, some years ago it was a A/B comparison between a BMW M3 and a Z06 Corvette. The BMW M3 was 660 per six months in insurance and the Z06 was 215 per. Over ten years that is $8,900 more.
For example, pickup trucks (yes, even the gasoline-powered ones) get twice the mileage they did 25-40 years ago, and do so with more power and torque to boot. While some of that is due to always wanting to be on top (in the power game), some is also due to the need for them to bring their manufacturing average up.
Consider that while pickups and large SUVs have gone up over the years, small cars are stagnant (perhaps even gone down) over that same time. Our 1985 Camry used to get 35 mpg consistently on the highway, and we didn't take it easy on that car. Our 1992 Camry couldn't do that with a tail wind! A modern Camry might be able to match it, but I bet it would be hard-pressed to best it.
As it turns out, given the price of fuel today and marginal gains in air pollution remedy in some cities of the US, it was a good idea.
My point of course is it would be simple to put a 2.5 L 4 cylinder diesel in my Nissan and get 30 MPG and pull more than the V6 would be capable of. No desire to save that much fossil fuel by the EPA. Why would that be??? Who owns the EPA????
A '92 Camry was rated at 18/25. I wonder why it was so low.
A new Camry is rated at 25/35.
Emissions were not heavily regulated until the new age of diesel engine began to expand the market for diesels. Ten to fifteen years ago, I never heard people saying "I wish they offered that with a diesel." Diesel really started to catch peoples' attention when gas prices began spiking and diesel was significantly cheaper. Suddenly, better fuel economy plus cheaper fuel began to appeal on a wider scale. Shortly thereafter, ULSD was mandated, the price of diesel spiked, and demand was stifled through the combination of cost premiums for the diesel option (when available) and premiums for fuel. For a while, it didn't make sense to get a diesel unless you really needed the capability of a diesel.
In the truck market, regularly pulling heavy loads (or any load for that matter) was a no-brainer win for diesel simply due to the fuel economy hit of the gas engine under those conditions (that's not even considering the performance difference). For someone just driving a vehicle around, the benefit of diesel vs. gasoline was not so much of a win for diesel. Many times, the TCO over a five year period (or even longer) was still greater for the diesel option between the initial cost of the vehicle and the cost of fuel.
If there was high demand in past decades, auto makers would have met that demand. The fact is there wasn't, and, now that demand is on the rise, the cost of entry into that market is pretty steep. Steep enough, obviously, that many makers are not yet ready to risk it.
So if we F/F to 2012 and a diesel passenger vehicle fleet @ 5% (again all sizes), we are yet to really hit the so called "boom times"@ 12%. My op/ed would be 23-26% passenger vehicle fleet diesel, would be ideal, starting from of course 5% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
It seems like manufacturers are dragging their feet right now between which forms of technology to pursue. The longer it takes for a technology to hit pace, the more obstacles crop up in the meantime.
With companies like FHI realizing record sales year-over-year, it disappoints me that they are bringing vehicles like the XV and BRZ to market rather than offering their diesel in this market.
Probably easier to have a diesel installed in your own vehicle. Or just go buy a new one. Probably cheaper in the long run.
Canada got all kinds of weird stuff then, and you can import all kinds of weird stuff there today.
I could buy 2 Prius for the price of one ML350 Bluetec. What would I have? Two cheapo Japanese hybrids. Neither of which would offer the comfort and driving pleasure of the Mercedes. Its a No Brainer for me.
PS
I have ridden several times in a Prius. It is Cheap transportation to da max.
Prius is a wonderful toastercar.
And you don't need money to buy a $20,000 car anymore. You can probably do that in an hour with very little down, if you want, if you have a job and good credit.
I don't think your average young adult finds the diesel concept very attractive. It's certainly not "cool", unless you wear a pony tail and like using used cooking oil from restaurants. :P
The Prius C and Golf TDI are not even in the same league, albeit closer in price. The price for the 2012 Prius (IV?) I mentioned was through a discount warehouse store. He did say he was getting 41/42 mpg.
I think if I were buying on price it would be between a Honda, Kia, Hyundai, etc. Toyota Corolla would serve as one of the baselines. None of those brands see fit to do US market diesels.
Yep, you're right, a 2004 Civic and 2004 Prius are similar except of course the Prius weighs a lot more; however Prius resale is at least 25% higher now.
This would defeat the purpose of higher mpg, but it is a highly adaptive diesel road car.
Payments should be anathema to a young person with good credit and a job.
Very basic Prius C TMV $19,441 with steel wheels. Can you get out of your own way with only 82 ft Lbs of torque in the Prius. Compared to the Golf TDI with 236 ft lbs. Looking around So CA I see one entry level Prius C for sale. Mostly the 3 model at $23k.
In terms of size and fuel mileage, Prius has the edge price-wise.
Of course, these are quantifiable characteristics---which is often not the best way to buy a car.
Again if I drove the TDI's like one seemingly has to drive the Prius, I am almost certain I would get far better than the 40-44 on the 09 and the 48-52 on the 09. So in that sense, we selected the best cars for US.
I am sure the Jetta would do better with a stick (according to CR it does anyway). Taking any stop and go out of the equation would also help the jetta.
With 20/20 hindsight/history, that worked out to be 25,000 miles per year: 20,000 to 22,500 highway and 2,500 to 5,000 miles city. So in that sense, for the first 4 years, the results fulfilled the goals. Or more correctly the goals and fulfillment pretty much were demonstrated by reality.
People wanting high mileage cars.
People who want those can be in two categories:
1. People who care MOSTLY and ONLY about high mileage
2. People who want high mileage but care also about handling, road feel, etc.
There are definitely people who shop both Prius and TDI.
The latest appraisals run on Edmunds.com, do not agree with you. Based upon the prices in 2004 for the Civic (12,564) and the Prius (25,000), the Civic (percentage wise) holds a 10.1%( residual value of 37.8% vs 27.7 %) lead over the Prius ( residual value of 4,746/6,927). In addition, the monies put up are far less for the Civic to do the same old commute, minus - $12,436 less. (25,000/12,564). The real kicker was zero percent to borrow the monies. Toyota would not even consider coming close to that rate. So in effect, I walked off the lot with the Civic with my signature ( no monies down).
For those whose eyes glaze over, the Civic cost 81.44 per month in depreciation vs 188.26 per month for the Prius. So to do the same monthly job the Prius cost 231% more.
To stay on diesel topic, formulas being the same for diesel, it cost 114.81 per month to own. So given 14,000 miles per year fuel mileages at 44/38/50 @ 318 g/500g/ 280 g, and at current per gal prices of 4.15/4.41 diesel the per month 109.98 prius/172.92 per mo Civic/ 102.90 Jetta TDI folks can do the math if further interested.
Again, to each their own, but I think we made the correct decision for US.
Both cars have good resale value, so the point is rather moot anyway.
Point is---if you try to justify buying a diesel car today *strictly* on MPG, you'd have some stiff arguments that a hybrid or regular gasser's fuel efficiency can offset the higher cost of the diesel engine.
I made no claim of apples to apples. The figures/tasks here is and remains the daily commute (14,000 miles per year) and their monthly depreciation and fuel costs. Again no mention of fruits here.
The point is not moot if it is YOU that is coming up with the additional monies AND additional percentages to borrow it. Indeed with zero percent interest, it almost made no sense to USE my own monies. Not so with the Prius.
Well no the point was not to justify solely on diesel savings alone it is depreciation AND fuel costs. As you know I have both a (gasser) Civic and TDI. The various monthly depreciation and fuel costs were broken out to show a more longer (8/9 years) distance consequence. So in terms of lower depreciation and fuel costs: TDI, Civic, Prius. In terms of lower depreciation costs: Civic, TDI, Prius. In terms of lower fuel costs: Jetta TDI, Prius, Civic.
Also nobody can match your TDI numbers, so your conclusions would be only for your situation, not the general public.
If we go by autotrader, and do a nationwide search, we find that a 2004 Prius average asking price is $10,427, and average asking for a 2004 Civic (including hybrids btw) is $8112, and average asking price for a 2004 Golf TDI is $9468.
So they are all pretty close, and my guess is that over the years, if you include repair costs where the VW is at a disadvantage statistically, that cost-to-own in reality, is pretty similar.
Certainly no difference dramatic enough to influence the average buyer on the cost to own basis.
He/she sees these three cars as broadly "economical" and I suspect, thinks the Civic the most reliable---be it true or not.
TDI numbers for that MY 2003 could only be matched by at most 9,000 units as that is all they produced that MY. :lemon: :shades:
Again given your take on current diesel prices, all the more reason and extremely logical to KEEP the current TDI (actually the Civic also, as a cracker jack shop is within walking distance) . Again the assumption here is the higher residual values and even slower depreciation and NEED for low cost future miles, i.e, @ the 50 mpg rate.
as for the Golf TDI mileage, I was going by what owners reported to the EPA for a 2004 model with 5-speed transmission. It was 43 mpg.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=19679&browser=tru- - e&details=on
I tend to trust those numbers reported by owners because I looked up my own MINI, and the cumulative MPG average reported was exactly the same as my logbook, to the decimal point. I was impressed!
Then, I took a look at the Jetta Sportwagen TDI (6MT), which has a base MSRP of $25,540 and an EPA fuel economy rating of 30/42. Sounds pretty good. After that, I took a look at the 4-door Golf TDI, with the same engine and transmission, and it has the same economy rating, for $24,935.
Am I missing something? Why would I even want to consider the Golf, for a mere $600 less, giving up a significant amount of space in the car?