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

cdnpinhead

If you know you get 20 miles to a gallon and you know the mall is 20 miles away, then you may decide to hit the local neighborhood store instead of spending $4 just to drive to the mall.

Yeah, and it'd be $8 if you want to come home as well.

ateixeira

RF tires are hideous

I got a Sienna and had to pass on the AWD I wanted because that mandates runflats. The driveshaft cuts right through where the spare goes on FWD models, so it was hopeless.

No regrets, though, run-flats are by far the biggest complaint in the Sienna threads.

texases

Besides the unending BMW thread complaints on ride and handling, one poster make a good case that the added weight and sidewall stiffness is at least partly to blame for the fairly common damage to BMW wheels, as seen in the C and D long term 5er test, for example...$$$$$

stever

Just a fyi:

"I KNOW the Diesel gets better mileage, but can't justify both the initial purchase price difference or the significantly higher cost per gallon of diesel"

Looking for real driver average gas mileage on a base 2012 VW Golf (not diesel) with manual transmission (Edmunds Answers)

ruking1

The best I can glean from the scenario is currently 30 mpg, with a yearly demand of app 11,000 miles. Even without the math, they are two to a possible three no brainers to stay with the current ride. One can do a quick and dirty on a www.fueleconomy.gov web site.

ateixeira

That was unbelievable - they had IIRC 6 wheels or tires damaged during their year with the car, requiring multiple unscheduled visits. Totally unacceptable.

ateixeira

I spent a few hours yesterday studying a what-if scenario, as in what if I got a city car.

Funny thing was I compared those 2, a SkyActiv Mazda3 6EAT with a Golf TDI DSG. Slushboxes, I know, but again this is a city car for B2B traffic.

Interestingly, on the EPA site the 2012 SkyActive actually has a better reported average MPG - 35.2mpg for the sample size of 6, vs. 34.0 for the DSG TDI (small sample, just 3), despite having lower EPA numbers.

So the SkyActiv seems to be overachieving, even if we ignore the fact that 87 octane costs a bunch less than diesel here.

I went a step further and priced them out at Fitzgerald Auto Mall (a no-haggle dealer that has VW and Mazda franchises).

A basic SkyActiv with the minimum equipment I'd want was $18.9k, a real bargain.

TDIs started at $25.7k, and that's no nav, no sunroof, no tech package.

So nearly $6 grand less and some folks are getting better mpg using cheaper fuel. Ouch.

gagrice

My banker has one of the little BMW coupes with Run Flats. He loves the car hates the tires. He cut one and it was $380 to replace. That was all it took for me to make that a top No No. Evidently MB has had a lot of problems as they dropped RF for 2012 models. Not sure where the spare is on the ML. Have to check next time I stop at a dealer.

ruking1

No real rocket science here. There is an 11,000 miles per year commute mileage. Simple formula: 1. highest possible mpg 2. lowest possible acquisition costs 3. pick the top ones on your list and to some extent what you like. A Golf gasser or diesel is not likely to be on that list, given the competitors.

It is good that Mazda is finally getting with the program. For too long they have made fun cars with less than ideal fuel mileage, but using turbo diesels seems inescapable,

..."What's New for 2013
The 2013 Mazda 3 will feature a new 2.2-liter turbodiesel four-cylinder dubbed "Sky-D." It's expected to produce 167 horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque -- both of which are considerably more than the output of the Volkswagen Jetta's TDI diesel engine. With estimated fuel economy of 43 mpg, Sky-D should be thriftier than a VW TDI as well. Look for the 2013 Mazda 3 to hit dealers in 2012, so check back later for complete buying advice and driving impressions."...

FINALLY !! Other competitors, but still TDI!! 310# ft on a sub 2900# car? Awesome !!! 43 mpg (EPA H)? Icing on the cake.

ruking1

It seems almost criminal with a well rated SUV tire Continental LX20 for the ML 350 is $209 @ tire rack.

ateixeira

I can't wait, too. I own a Mazda now (MX-5).

I'll probably go drive a SkyActiv Mazda3, but I'd really like to see that tech on a Miata.

I'll probably test drive that new diesel, too. Even the HP rating compares favorably to the SkyActiv gas engines.

qbrozen

I think I might have posted about this in CCBA, but I had 2 hairline cracks develop on one of my 135i wheels. The man at the shop who repaired it informed me that 75% of his wheel repair business is BMW and MB thanks to a combination of the thinly cut forged wheels, RFTs, and low profiles.

If I had known that ahead of time, I would have replaced them all with aftermarket wheels. Oh well. If it happens again, that's just what I'll do, though. Certainly doesn't detract from my love of the car.

ruking1

I may have dodged one bullet (actually a few) by passing on the BMW X5-35D and ML 350 (RFT's and forging issues. . I remember asking in passing if the Touareg had run flats. He said no but they had the so called "space saver" spare, as I VW has normally included full sized spares. The verdict is still out on my take of WAY lower profiles (55 vs 70) . But @ the same time I have less want and need to do off roading. Makes me wonder how many more I may have dodged also. Not many folks keep up on the 3 competitors in the segment, let alone compare and contrast.

A bit off topic but I recall the rear suspension was also different on the BMW X5-35D for those with the so called 3rd seat option and/or full sized spare options. We didn't get into that on the ML 350 bluetec test drive.

ruking1

It does make you wonder if it is so good (SkyActiv - gasser) , why it was not put on the most iconic ZOOM ZOOMER ?

gagrice

The standard wheel and tire on the ML350 BLueTEC is 19". I would much rather have a fatter 17" wheel and tire. Probably would not handle as well. I am in no hurry to spend the cash so just contemplating what I will replace the Sequoia with. I have a brand new set of Michelin LTX M/S tires on the Sequoia 17" OEM rims. I would rather have those than the OEM tires on the ML 350.

ruking1

It is both telling and interesting that even Michelin has not seen fit nor found a way to improve on the LTX M/S. (19 years in my case). My only fear is they might be temped to "dumb it down" so to speak. One can not help but notice they certainly have increase the prices. If I recall correctly the oem size on the 94/96 TLC's are 275 70 16 's. Really a superior tire that literally has withstood the test of time and mileage. I have seen as high as 95,000 miles on a set of these (have had 5 sets over the years). I doubt that any tire will come close made for the Touareg.

ateixeira

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/18/diesel-sales-jump-we-ask-how-high-35-percent/-

ateixeira

19". I would much rather have a fatter 17" ...

Today's wheel sizes are insane.

ruking1

In 3 to 5 year hindsight, I am actually "theoretically" disappointed the 2009 TDI was not made AdBlue compliant, despite a minus- 4 mpg penalty. I think the penalty is MORE for the DPF. To this day, I do not know what it is/was. I think that was one of the reasons for the 42 mpg H EPA for 2010, 2011, 2012 vs 40 mpg for the 2009 TDI , DPF, DSG (no gearing change). I also say this in light of the fact that once even hearing it was going to go to the AdBlue procedure, I was not an initial fan.

While still pretty outrageous, AdBlue @ 4.32 per gal, the cost per mile driven is app .00144 for the AdBlue.

ruking1

I do not doubt yours or anyone else's ability to smell diesel exhaust. There can be no doubt that ULSD has its own particular and or characteristic smell.

However, out of context, this could be taken to imply that gasoline does NOT have ITS' particular and characteristic smell. Or has somehow more pleasing smells. Do you agree this is NOT the case?

I would swag that percentage wise and probably more importantly VOLUME wise, more folks are reactive against/with RUG to PUG than ULSD, if not only for the fact that fully 95% of the passenger fleet uses RUG/PUG and overwhelming volume percentage differences. Another unknown is how many folks are reactive against/with the various other formulations IN RUG/PUG, i.e., ethanol, etc.

Now, whether YOU or I, or anyone else for that matter likes or dislikes either or both smells is a whole other different discussion. In short, diesel probably gets more blame for the real dirty work that 95% of RUG/PUG does and the overwhelming volume differences.

gagrice

The fact is raw RUG vapor when being pumped is dangerous to your health. That is the reason for the very expensive pump handles mandated in CA and elsewhere. To protect the person pumping gas from carcinogens. Diesel (ULSD) vapor is NOT dangerous to inhale. As no special pump handle is needed. I kind of like the smell of raw diesel and hate the smell of gasoline.

ruking1

This is Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety's take on gasoline exposure OSH, Candian

stever

I trust you aren't saying inhaling raw diesel fumes is any better for your health? (pdf file). OSHA regulates exposure to that stuff in work settings, like school bus barns.

ateixeira

Diesel fumes are harmful, too. Let's not kid ourselves...

http://www.aft.org/pdfs/healthsafety/fs_diesel0804.pdf

ruking1

Absolutely not, but it is less so and the overwhelming use in the passenger vehicle fleet 95% and volume is RUG/PUG, which is more dangerous.

It is also disingenuous that buses are not required to have seat belts and with the diesel nexus DPF or AdBlue mechanisms or face going to RUG to PUG, nat gas and or electric and or hybrid or biodiesel, or face closure of school bus services. Many school buses do not even have emissions devices which were in perfect compliance when they first came into service. Indeed the use of ULSD has cleaned them up significantly, even without modern pollution devices. Nobody wants to publicly admit/acknowledge it is cost driven, even as defect it is not done because it is ....cost driven.

stever

Near as I can tell gas exhaust is still cleaner than diesel exhaust. The raw fumes argument doesn't hold a lot of sway for me since I don't work in that environment and don't spend a lot of time at the gas pump. I do walk and bike around town a lot where I have no choice but to breath the fumes.

ruking1

Indeed all things being equal, (which let me be the first to say they are not) you are already breathing the overwhelming majority of RUG to PUG fumes. This is INXS of 95%.

Let me put it this way, if you could wave your magic wand and make all diesel school buses RUG/PUG buses, the complaints would get FAR worse.

In contrast, app 50% plus of the European passenger fleet is ULSD.

stever

I trust that you aren't suggesting that the air in the EU is all that great either? They have plenty of work to do too. (eea.europa.eu)

Mr_Shiftright

I was referring to the smell when you walk past a diesel car. I rarely smell gasoline from parked gas cars but I can always smell diesel fuel---probably because people spill it at the pump and the odor can linger for days. Worse yet, someone ELSE spills it and then you get it on the soles of your shoes, then track it into the car.

Been there, done that many times.

elias

walk by a modern non-smoking diesel vehicle when it's running and you might smell WATER VAPOR. that's what i smell, anyway, ever since the ULSD conversion.

spilled diesel stink does linger for days. spilled gas smell is worse imho, and also lingers.

to each his own preference for awful smells!

USA diesel is actually ridiculously clean compared to USA gasoline, about 3x cleaner. I don't know of any justification for why that is..
(diesel is ~3x cleaner than gas with regard to SULFUR which we will all certainly agree is one of the stinkiest/nastiest/polluting contaminants in fuel!!(?)!!!)

bpeebles

Lets be clear here... All liquid hydrocarbons have fumes which could be 'harmful' if mishandled.

Also, the results of combusting ANYHING which burns may give off fumes that could be 'harmful'.

In other words... ANYTHING could be 'harmful'. (Heck... beach-sand has been deemed hazardous in Calafornia!!!)

Personally, I LIKE the odor of exhaust when burning biodiesel. (popcorn!)

Lets get beyond trying to compare what is more 'harmful'.

I still cant believe that some otherwise intelligent people still think that CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) is in any way 'harmful'. Eventually, they will recall their 5th-grade teachings about how plants use CO2 as a fertilizer.

SURPRISE!! Carbon Dioxide is literally "green"

ruking1

..."USA diesel is actually ridiculously clean compared to USA gasoline, about 3x cleaner. I don't know of any justification for why that is..
(diesel is ~3x cleaner than gas with regard to SULFUR which we will all certainly agree is one of the stinkiest/nastiest/polluting contaminants in fuel!!(?)!!!)"...

Right you are !

From standard (RUG/PUG 30 ppm sulfur) to standard, (ULSD 15 ppm sulfur) RUG/PUG is 2 times dirtier. From nominally delivered at the pumps, RUG to PUG can be 30 to 90 ppm (higher than 30 ppm offset by offline FEES). In contrast, anything OVER 15 ppm for ULSD, however is heavily FINED, so it is delivered normally and nominally between 7 to 10 ppm. So the real world has RUG to PUG anywhere from 3 TIMES to 13 TIMES dirtier.

Mr_Shiftright

Yep, Carbon Dioxide heats up the atmosphere. This was figured out in 1913 by a Swede who I think won the Nobel prize for it. Basic science. Whether it's natural or man-made, that's what it does. So do other gases, of course.

Basically, solar radiation enters the atmosphere (short wavelength) and thermal radiation (longer wavelength) has more difficulty escaping, and the more greenhouse gases there are, then the less thermal radiation escapes. Core samples from polar ice show much higher levels of C02 than naturally occurring over the last 650,000 years. (385 ppmv vs. 'natural cycle of 190-310 ppmv).

Actually there may be quite a few benefits from this happening as well as adverse effects. Some islands will disappear and wildlife will migrate but new trade routes and mineral discoveries in the Arctic could be quite the new thing.

gagrice

That is how I look at it Go with the Flow.

elias

a few years ago i visited a pal in CA with my 06 Jetta TDI and apparently this inspired him to "go diesel". he bought an 06 benz E diesel soon afterwards.
and recently he bought a 1980s VW rabbit-diesel PICKUP ! he is MY HERO!

ruking1

Well, how are those two diesel vehicles working out for him?

Mr_Shiftright

Rabbit pickups are for fairly small people---for some reason they seem to have designed those for children. :P

bpeebles

I used to have one of those rabbit pick-ups.... It was a GREAT little truck. The load-height was low so I could load my snowmobile all by myself. (Just lift the skiis and slide it in) AND - They were manufactured in Pennsylvania USA.

Now, I have a Subaru Baha... another small pickup. Unfortunately, the Baha has 4 doors which make the bed only about 5 feet long (not long enough for snowmobile.) The Baha was also manufactured in the USA!

elias

Benz has been doing fine for him for the 3 years ; he was careful to select the year just prior to the 2007/ULSD/new-emissions-controls/DPF/urea/etc/etc ...

the VW diesel pickup is 'new' for him and needs major work...

ruking1

I probably should not leave out 100% bio diesel. Biodiesel's sulfur is really ZERO ppm. I normally refer to it as 1 ppm, so it does not totally make RUG/PUG look ridiculous, even as a lot of folks try to make ULSD use LOOK ridiculous.

The real question to ask in light of (in effect MASSIVELY GROSS) RUG/PUG standards (of 30 to 90 ppm) is what would be the individual and system costs to crash it to 7 to 10 ppm sulfur and/or crash it to ZERO ppm as biodiesel is already.

I think it is hard and upshot disingenuous for those that use and or want RUG/PUG to be the overwhelming choice to face up and admit to the fact they do not want to pay for those changes.

gagrice

The 2005 E320 CDI was an inline 6 diesel. The fellow I talked to with one claimed many 40 MPG tanks of diesel on his frequent Dallas to San Diego trips. He bought his in TX as they were not sold in CA. Though you could buy one here with 7500 miles on it. Crazy CARB rules.

ruking1

I would not doubt that at all. The VW Jetta dual record holders (husband and wife team) were asked at some point in their dual record breaking 59-68 mpg where was the area with the best mpg. They answered it was the TX interstate. Evidently there is a prevaling tail wind that is a great help.

58.8 & 67.9 mpg

I did a TX interstate run several years ago on the way to the Daytona Beach, FL area (return also). I was just happy to cruise along at 75 + PLUS mph, which is the speed limit. I have read in passing there are plans to make it 85 mph..

Mr_Shiftright

I can tell you from riding a bicycle long distances, that headwinds and tailwinds make a HUGE difference.

stever

Canoeing too. Nothing like making a lake crossing holding a poncho or tarp up with paddles in the bow and practically getting up on plane. We won't talk about going the other direction.

You're much more likely to smell diesel fumes on that bike however. :P

gagrice

It is the gas smell from the bike riders that is the real killer. :P

ruking1

Speaking of passed fumes after 1,440 miles, the Touareg TDI is posting 31 mpg. That includes 500 miles of gentle tire, suspension, brake pads and rotor break ins. It also includes herky jerky up to 3/4 rpm loaded romps to 80 mph and back down to 60 mph decelerations. It also includes no longer than 15 mins at one rpm. Mercifully, I am at more normal speeds now.

gagrice

That is great. I would be tickled pink if the ML350 Bluetec gets 31 MPG combined. That would be just double the average of my Sequoia. The 2012 engine is not the same at the previous version and is rated higher in the EU tests.

For some reason the EPA rates the 2012 350 Bluetec one mile per gallon lower than the previous version of the 350. Is it purely based on the higher performance or their wacky formula? The European tests give the new version a higher mileage rating to go along with the higher performance. Something is wrong when the EU rating of the E350 Bluetec is 52.3 MPG (43.55 US) highway and the EPA is 32 MPG highway. That is an error of about 27%. It is no wonder the American public are slow to buy diesels when the EPA stacks the deck against them. They did not fool me, I know from experience. My 2005 Passat Wagon TDI got just slightly better than the old EPA average, well above the current EPA rating. As did ALL the people posting for that model. EPA says 27 MPG combined. Average of 9 owners 34.5 MPG Combined. We need a Congressional hearing to discover what's up with that??? :P

Mr_Shiftright

Only the vegetarian models!

ateixeira

the Touareg TDI is posting 31 mpg

That's great.

I have a friend who just ditched a Touareg II V8 gasser because he said it was a guzzler. High teens for mileage. One repair cost him nearly $5 grand so he ditched it.

I bet the diesel is also far more reliable.

fintail

A government agency lies? Say it aint so.

Maybe they want people in gassers as they burn more fuel, hence creating more tax revenue.