By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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?