Options

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

1102103105107108473

Comments

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well in a way you're right, though I don't think for those reasons...

    less gas burned = fewer tax revenues for highway infrastructure.

    So theoretically, the more diesels we buy the worse our roads will get :P
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,429
    With the way so much of should-be-hanged public sector officialdom burns money, gas taxes could be $5/gallon and roads will continue to decay.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Oh I don't know...lots of public sector jobs gone the last 4 years or so. Maybe the few that remain are spending more on themselves? LOL!

    Infrastructure repair is something no one in DC is doing anything about and won't for any foreseeable future no matter who is elected. This is extremely troubling to me and recklessly foolhardy IMO.

    I'm not kidding---they are going to have to start building cars like they did in Russia---tough, ugly and ready to roll on the raw tundra---you'll all heard of plenty of shattered alloy wheels I'm sure.

    Maybe we need the "urban safari junior land rover diesel SUV" that can take a 6 inch pothole in stride.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,429
    edited April 2012
    I am sure actual workers are the ones to be cut, and so-called "managers" and execs remain - just like in the real world.

    I'll say this - I will never buy another car with low profile tires, diesel or not. The decaying roads even around here - and this is one of the better areas of the country - are intolerable with thin tires. I guess giving aid to ungrateful nations (linked with the military-industrial money burning complex), bailing out the FIRE industries without real punishment, keeping insane social welfare policies alive, and giving undeserved breaks to the top few are more important. Soon, Russia will have better bridges and roads than us, too.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    What qualifies as low profile to you these days?
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,429
    The ones on the E55 - 245/40ZR18 in front, 275/35ZR18 in rear. Some roads I weave all over the place dodging ruts, poorly designed manholes/grates, and potholes.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited April 2012
    I got a very interesting (off the record) take during a re indoctrination (mainly software that support features, 45 min) during the 30 day inspection appointment.

    We received a 2.5 hour indoctrination on delivery ( sort of a readers digest form of preaching the 550+ page owner's manual). Evidently they send the big technical sales and TDI mechanical guns from Europe to probably all to most dealerships to give sales and technical classes for the TDI's and I would assume the same is true for BMW and MB.

    The upshot is mpg is less (US markets) for several variables all operating at once. One is the ADD BLUE is on a more consumptive cycle. The burn off cycles are on a higher RPM level, longer AND more frequent. Of course, the emissions controls are actually set on more mpg consumptive cycles than European cycles. For whatever reasons, the EPA is of the mind that more consumptive cycles are better than less consumptive cycles.

    While these are "estimates", add blue is app minus - 4 mpg hit. The higher burn off settings consume another - 2 mpg hit. USA/EPA "software mappings" bleed off torque and hp in addition to another MINUS -2 to -4 mpg.

    So I do not know how the cumulative MINUS - 8 (to -10 mpg) mpg relates to what you have been reading. BUT naturally, another 8 mpg WOULD put me (aka US market) closer to 44 to 39 mpg. Perhaps (STRICTLY my SWAG) a sub 5,000 # (4974#'s) that gets 44 to 39 mpg is upsetting to the US systems. There are literally some LIGHT economy cars that do not get this type of mpg, yet still are CALLED economy cars !! ?? Let me stress the VW Touareg's TDI EPA ratings are 19 C /28 H mpg.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    Not to get too far off topic, but the EPA numbers are a joke. They are self reported by the manufacturers and spot checked by the EPA. Some manufacturers push the numbers to the limit others do not. Hyundai comes to mind as pushing the limits. Actual tests by CR for highway mpg do not even reach the EPA numbers for most of their cars, while Honda (and many others) easily beat the EPA numbers. For example a Civic is EPA 39 highway and 47 on CR's highway test (8 mpg over EPA). The Elantra is EPA 40, yet only 39 on CR's highway test (1 mpg less than EPA).

    Germans are not immune. The BMW 328i was supposed to get 36 mpg Highway with the automatic. It was spot checked by the EPA and guess what - it is now rated 33 mpg highway. The manual stayed the same at 34 mpg. Of course there is no incentive to "fudge" the numbers on the stick because they sell fewer and they want to show that the more expensive transmission is superior. This is part of the reason it is always easy to beat the EPA numbers with a stick shift.

    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/20/bmw-forced-to-lower-2012-3-series-auto-fuel-e- conomy-to-33-mpg/

    Anyway the diesel just may not be conducive to the EPA testing procedures.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited April 2012
    ..."Anyway the diesel just may not be conducive to the EPA testing procedures"...

    Actually they are. Diesel have historically come out better when you factor in the real world results, such as on www.fueleconomy.gov . The fact they normally beat EPA postings, I would think over the longer term, works in diesels' favor. I also tend to think the real truths are in the back stories.

    I also would have seriously considered a manual shift VW Touareg (if it had been a US market option) . I just do not know if it would be a normal 6 speed M/T or a 7 or 8 speed. The MPG ( and other) RANGE (S) would have certainly been wider than the 8 speed A/T. Diesels give a real spanking with or without the choke offs.

    To address the gasser EPA controversy, OEM's pretty much have had to" buck up "so to speak gassers. This is in interesting contrast to having to choke off TDI's ranges for hp, torque and MPG.

    So in the 3 series case, the 2011's 335 D posts 425 # ft with EPA H 36 mpg vs the 2012 328 I 's 255 # ft with EPA H of 34, for 67% better torque. To add insult to injury, the 34 mpg is with a manual transmission and the turbo diesel is with an A/T. This is now AFTER BMW said the gasser spanked the diesels mpg figures !! :sick: :lemon:
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    edited April 2012
    Not conducive to EPA tests means that it does better in real life. ;)

    So I think we are on the same page.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,108
    I compared the Prius to the Jetta TDI reported mpgs at the epa web site, several hundred reports over the year, the TDI averaged about 44 mpg, the Prius about 48 mpg. Close, but add in the fuel cost difference and the Prius saves fuel $.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    But you have to drive a slug of a Prius to get that slight benefit. No Thanks, not in my weakest moment. At least the TDIs are fun to drive. I have ridden around in my buddies Prius enough to know I would never own one.
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    agree re the low-profile tires!

    regarding the lower-efficiency/lower-mpg mandated/programmed into modern USA TDIs, that is one reason I traded for a gasser....

    some day for demonstration purposes, maybe someone in the off-road crowd will mod a 2-reg tdi for "offroad use" with a keyboard and a hacksaw, making a 40 mpg offroad rock-crawler. ;)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited April 2012
    Sadly the EU has several including the Tiguan with DSG or 6 speed manual transmission. Rated over 40 MPG US combined. Then saving fossil fuel is a concerted effort in Europe and most of the World outside the USA.

    Many more young people travel to Europe now than when I was in my youth. They rent these high mileage cars and have to wonder why they are not sold here. Maybe the younger generation will shake out the cobwebs in the government agencies that are keeping US addicted to large amounts of fossil fuel.

    My favorite would be the Audi A4 allroad quattro 2.0 TDI quattro. What's not to like with 45 MPG out on the highway from a vehicle that will take you over most bad road, mud and snow? Plus handle like a sports sedan.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    I don't get the slug comments. Compared to a four cylinder Accord, both the TDi and the Prius are both really slow. They both have nice low end torque and nothing else. And if you are in it for handling, buying a front heavy diesel or a hybrid with its extra weight don't seem like a particularly good choices.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    edited April 2012
    Also, neither feels slow. The TDI has great torque once you get going, and the Prius' electric motor makes peak torque right at idle, so it steps off the line nicely.

    I'd pick the TDI for highway jaunts, the hybrid for the city. Until we get a start/stop function for the TDI, at least.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Yeah I too would defend the Prius as not being a "slug". True, true, it is not in the least bit sporty or fun, but I drove one over the Rockies from California and never felt the power was enough to cause me any anxiety. I did not try to pass tractor-trailers at 80 mph going up Donner Pass, true, but neither was I bogged in the slow lane. AND I got 47 mpg on the trip.

    The Prius is a formidable competitor to any TDI, like it or not.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,108
    I followed a new Jetta TDI wagon in to work this morning, never did I smell anything, and no puff of smoke from a standing start. If only the big diesel pickups I follow did the same!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Yep, you don't smell diesels anymore unless maybe you're on foot or on a bike--you can sometimes detect that faint odor. And I rarely see any exhaust on a VW---sometimes I see it on those big nasty pickup trucks, though.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Cleaner engines burning cleaner fuel.

    I remember when 80s diesels used to have the back side covered with soot. Perhaps the out-of-tune ones.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Biked to the post office this morning and got blasted by a diesel "tow" truck.

    Around here you never see VWs so that's not an issue. Thank goodness all the old GM diesels died an early death or we'd have a black Buick haze all over. :D
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,429
    edited April 2012
    In order to be "business friendly" (read: subsidize profits for a few), large trucks and commercial vehicles aren't held to any emissions standards, right?

    I've never seen smoke or smelled any from any diesel passenger car made after the year 2000 and maybe even earlier.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    SLUG was the best word I could come up with to describe what I consider the Prius to be. If most of my driving was smooth city streets, I may have a different take on the Prius. Only about a mile on the town end of my shopping sprint is city streets. About 10 miles is 75 MPH or get run over on Freeway, most posted 70 MPH. The last 3.6 miles to my house is winding back roads with 50 MPH speed limit on what should be no more than 40 MPH. Much of the back roads and in town are pocked with potholes. The Prius is miserable riding on rough city or back roads. Noisy when subjected to rough streets. VW does a much better job of handling those type adverse driving conditions. Though the lower profile tires are not helpful. The best solution is an SUV. So one that would get 30-40 MPG would be dandy. My drive home is mostly up hill going from 800 to 2100 the last 3.6 miles. Nothing handles hill driving like a diesel.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Heard on the radio today that as many people die each year from air pollution in Kabul as do from violence. :surprise:
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    no, finster, that is not the case for large trucks & commercial vehicles. instead, massive emissions controls required on modern USA bigrigs and all on-road trucks, similar/equivalent as for cars... from within a year of 2007 when cars were basically mandated onto the new DPF/Re-Gen/AdBlue type of systems. Same deal for trucks. Many fleets upgraded the year before the new requirements took effect. A good year to be selling bigrigs was 2006!

    But also along the lines of your question: I understand that there used to be no emissions controls for offroad/CONSTRUCTION equipment in USA but I think that too has changed recently.

    Btw, i should have capitalized earlier title ; I really did mean Turing not touring with regard to the Tou-a-reg TDI's engine programming.

    btw, i hear one can get into a Volt for under $30k now.
    A Volt (or Ampera) is something i would rather much rather try than a new TDI (been there done that x 4 :) .

    So to answer the forum headline question, what it would take for me to buy another diesel is for GM to stop selling the Volt !
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited April 2012
    Got gassed again (diesled?) on my 3rd bike ride to town this evening, this time by an International box truck. I trust the clean-up requirements are tricking up from the passenger fleets to the trucking rigs, but this fish supplier didn't get Elias's memo. The short haul guys who return to the same terminal every night would save money just by converting to natural gas.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,429
    Only 2007? Why are so many of these things smokers then? Maybe they are all older. Do they not have to be maintained or pass emissions equipment? I also wonder what percentage of the commercial diesel fleet predates 2007.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,429
    But that's not a particularly violent city today...and which EU funded ecoweenie foundation provided that stat? :shades:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited April 2012
    I got the stat wrong. It was 2700 civilians dead in all of Afghanistan in 2010, from war activity, vs. 3000 civilians dead in Kabul from air pollution (says the Afghan Health Ministry, for what that's worth).

    Actually, it's not just diesels and old cars causing the massive pollution--it's burning tires for fuel (!!!), wood burning, garbage burning and also the city's geography of course.

    you know, what happens in a failed state.

    KABUL

    image

    LOS ANGELES

    image
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,429
    I bet the crap they burn for fuel is the biggest part of it. Maybe they started importing our old control-free commercial vehicles too.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Ah yes, Obama speak?
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited April 2012
    Yes, I do not think anyone would begrudge anybodies choice of alternative energy vehicle choices. I take umbrage when self righteous Prius drivers spew lies and damned lies about diesel. Or when the history of the EPA has been to systematically exclude diesel and alternatives.

    At the same time, the very same governments spreads its half truths about global hostilities and so called foreign dependence on oil, when they are the very ones' creating global hostilities and all but MANDATING foreign dependence on, oil, etc. Then, in the same efforts, exclude cars that actually GET better fuel mileage ! Indeed some would say the real purposes in Afghanistan are to get a hold on rare earth metals critical in manufacture of so called ((disingenuously and ironically) earth friendly cars, such as Prius and Volt, and to secure the illegal drug pipelines (a sort of vertical integration) from growth to retail), both near and dear to liberal agenda's. The truth is neither 50 mpg choice, hybrid or diesel is the enemy, as they make it out to be. The whole task here is not to be WEDDED to one solution, aka RUG/PUG. Even that is subject to lies and damned lies, i.e., ethanol.

    They also fail to acknowledge that hybrids only provide a 20% emissions and mpg advantage over RUG, only because it has been dial in or allows it to be shut off to less used by the hybrid. There is really no rocket science in that concept. Now if they want to pay extra for that privilege, why so be it. Indeed hybrids can be dialed in to make a V6 engine perform more like a high performance V8's, ala VW Touareg Hybrid. One can not fail to note diesel hybrid locomotive engines which pull millions of #'s. Again electric motor technology has been around for literally generations, if not 100's of years.

    Indeed in CA Plug in electric is the RICH PERSON'S choice. So for example per KWH is .29 cents. This is not counting the penalties for over baselines' use.

    So for another example, those very same governments have been trying to suppress for literally generations that we are beyond the middle east when it comes to coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and are well endowed with oil. We can easily set our sights on (whatever or even at 100%) say 30 percent of the commercial and passenger vehicle fleets and in effect foreign dependence on oil would dry up literally as fast as the implementation. We are net exporters NOW !!!!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    If you want to be a superpower, you run on oil or you lose. That's reality.

    Whether this or that car is allowed into the USA makes little difference to the equation of need vs. supply.

    No amount of conservation can get us out of oil dependence---not even close.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    SLUG was the best word I could come up with to describe what I consider the Prius to be

    Didn't Al Gore's kid break 100 mph? LOL

    Only about a mile on the town end of my shopping sprint is city streets

    You're in the minority. Cities are sprawling and more and more people sit in traffic. That's why I'd like to see TDis with Start-Stop tech. They exist in Europe already.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It is amazing how fast you can make a Prius go on drugs. :shades:

    And I like being in the minority at the outer edges of the suburbs. If they do adopt stop-start tech, I hope they do a better application than GMC did with their lame hybrid. Every time you slowed down to go around a corner the engine would stop and then restart at quarter throttle causing wheel spin. Having the ability to disengage the S/S would be a must. I could not see any real savings in gas. The engine would start up at long stops to keep the AC cooling. Just more crap to fail as far as I am concerned.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited April 2012
    Your take is just another way of saying it is all BS, and that IS the reality. :sick: ;) China, Russia and India, etc are all vying to be stronger countries, better economies and lifestyles. So demand (energy) is way way up. Not many folks if they can help it want to live in tents and do the camping lifestyle as a way of life.

    Speaking of diesels, just filled today, 546 miles @ 10.6 gals for a 50 mpg tank. No real effort other than not to run into anybody during rush hour traffic and kept it under 90 mph when there is less traffic. I even run the A/C to make sure the seals stay supple. :shades:
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited April 2012
    I think the real effort is to increase the per mile driven (fuel) costs. What that in effect does is give the "green" segment/industry the monies (at all levels: tax credits, tax exemptions, direct and indirect subsidies, etc) This of course artificailly makes the higher per mile driven "green" alternatives seem either not that much more or to make sense at some level. It is artificial at BEST.

    So for example a Prius 8 MY's later makes sense, but not in the context of a Civic, Corolla, etc. So what do you do? You make those seem and be more costly. They actually make even less sense against a turbo diesel Civic, Corolla, etc. So in that sense they have dropped those diesels from the equation so you in theory can no longer come to that conclusion. :sick: :lemon:

    I have really come to the perspective that diesels (at whatever ones comparisons one wishes to make, like models of course) make even more sense for our roads than for European ones. First off we put in more average per year mileages, (67% more 9,000 European vs 12,000 to 15,000 miles USA) )we make more car trips, the scales are usually way different (US being a larger scale) and speed limits are lower (better mpg structurally) While admittedly a minority view, I have come to see 50 mpg/ 03 Jetta TDI/40 mpg 09 Jetta TDI/30 mpg Touareg TDI as way below potential and vigorish to the EPA, et al., mandating more consumptive mpg. Each of those has the no brainer potential to be 55/45/35 mpg. Mandating ethanol for RUG/PUG has to be another mpg abortion. It is a well known fact that 10% ethanol lowers mpg and easily 10-20%. Again not surprisingly it RAISES the cost per mile driven, fuel !! :sick: :lemon:

    An easy way to illustrate this graphically is who really needs a whiny VTEC to go 55/65 mph? Not only that that is SOOOO SOCAL and late 70's 80's with those reliving the glory years in the 90's. Sure someone can live out the car magazines fantasy that ZERO to 60 @ 4 seconds is supposed to be the solution to world peace or whatever blather is being espoused nowadays
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think the same situation exists today as it did 100+ years ago, when the automobile was just coming into it's own. When refining oil you get less distillates and more gasoline from a barrel of crude. What to do with all the excess gasoline. Burn it in cars, no matter how much less efficient. The demand for diesel is spread over trucks, tractors, trains, heating and power generation. A sudden rise in demand would raise the price. When diesel price goes up so does just about everything else we buy. There are forces unseen that have managed to keep diesel vehicles at a low level. You want one you pay the extra upfront cost. Which is fine with me.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited April 2012
    Indeed ! Gasoline AND diesel are almost two lower level and mandatory products from that refinery process (aka barrel 42 gals of oil). The EIA.gov own figures puts that product mix @ app 46% and 23% respectively. There are of course many more and lower quantities and higher sales priced products also (100%-69% or 31%). This is why diesel from a myriad of sources: i.e., algae and natural gas to name ONLY two, make SO much sense.

    While Obama, POTUS might have gotten gas (no pun intended) for pandering to alternative energy sources, one being algae diesel sources (he really does NOT intend for it to grow or become viable) he is spot ON about this issue. (hey nobody can be absolutely always wrong?) Another is also spot on and that is natural gas as a mainstream/stay fuel, aka Honda Civic Nat Gas 35/38 mpg RUG equivalent. Cost per gal (nat gas equivalent) is EXTREMELY low.

    ..."There are forces unseen that have managed to keep diesel vehicles at a low level. You want one you pay the extra upfront cost. Which is fine with me."...

    Indeed that has been true for me 3 separate times. If I am lucky or don't get bored in the process, these have the potential of being the last vehicles I ever buy. (sounds weird, even to me)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    What amazes me is after $billions wasted on a myriad of green alternatives he finally finds out about the R&D going on with algal fuel. We have been discussing it here on Edmunds for at least 8 years. So it has to have crossed the desk of the EPA administrators many times. Heck I bought stock in a biodiesel company 9 years ago. Still has not made me rich.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited April 2012
    Yes, your university is pretty steeped in biodiesel research (University of California @ San Diego).

    link title
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Putting algae in your gas tank sounds pretty crazy, doesn’t it? Well, guess what – you’re already driving on fuel made from algae. That’s because the crude oil miles below the earth’s surface was actually formed by layers of prehistoric algae blooms that settled on sea beds around the world.

    http://www.algalbiomass.org/
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    “We’re making real and steady progress in cutting dangerous pollution from the air we breathe,” said Charles Connor, American Lung Association president and CEO, in the organization's State of the Air press release. “We owe this to the ongoing protection of the Clean Air Act,” which has sought cleanup of major air pollution sources, such as coal-fired power plants and the fleet of older, dirtier SUVs, pick-up trucks, vans, and diesel engines."

    US air pollution hits 10-year low, report finds (csmonitor.com)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited April 2012
    For whatever reasons the software questioned the certification of the cited web site.

    While the act is credited, the fact of the matter is they screwed up when they exempted diesel fuel when they started to take the lead out of leaded RUG/PUG. sulfur removal should have been specified 40 years ago. This is also true for 30-90 RUG/PUG but as you know those current ppm sulfur figures ARE reality.

    Insofar as passenger diesel cars, the current fleet of sanctioned RUG to PUG passenger cars run on FAR ( minimum 200%) dirtier RUG/PUG than ULSD (msg # 5275). So for them to go over and over and over 70's, 80's even 90's passenger diesels is not only counter productive, but misleading. Also it makes no mention of the fact that passenger diesels are an EXTREME MINORITY vs an extreme majority of passenger RUG/PUG vehicles. Even they have benefited from that perspective from 15 ppm ULSD nominally served @ 7 to 10 ppm sulfur. That is akin to talking about 35 plus year old LEADED RUG/PUG. Do we even go over and over and over that? NO !!!! ???? It is sort of modern day asking how well a Prius would do if it ran on LEADED RUG !!!!!

    Indeed the analogy is like getting all bent out of shape finding and harping on the problems a hand full of sand causes. Especially when you are talking about the Sahara Desert.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited April 2012
    image
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Too funny, even Chevrolet, Ford and Chrysler can make good turbo diesels? .... Imagine that !! ;) :shades:
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,108
    The only one I question is "about half of US service stations offer diesel". Maybe including all those on the interstates, but in town (Dallas) it's WAY less than half.

    But overall I agree. Modern diesels have no real downside, except slightly higher purchase costs. For SUVs, pickups, and large cars they'd be my preferred choice over hybrid. Mid size and below, I lean towards hybrid, but if availability of diesel car models improved I might reconsider.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    2002/2003 research indicated 1/4 stations sold diesel fuel. So if Dallas, TX is normally distributed I would say it is still closer to 1/4 rather than 1/2.

    VW Touareg actually has a gasser V-6 Turbo hybrid. It in theory, it provides the V-8 kick and is EPA H rated @ 24 mpg vs 23 for a gasser turbo V6 alone. I have read in passing the hybrid turbo V-6 requires PUG. The cost as you would guess is WAY over a V-6 alone. VW has deleted both the V-10 and V-8 offerings.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Not sure that the cold weather myth is a myth. Truckers in Alaska might not agree with you.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,740
    I'm not sure I know of any stations in Jersey that DON'T sell diesel. So that probably helps up the overall average in the rest of the country. ;)

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S

This discussion has been closed.