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
Chattanooga is proud of their record car being built there.
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/may/08/chattanooga-made-vw-passat-sets-milea- ge-record/
I never have seen a clarification as to why with a similar TDI engine and MORE weight (+199 #'s 3360-3161) they were able to get 84 + mph vs the earlier 58/60 something. I think this speaks well of the 6 speed manual transmission. I suspect they did both earlier records with the DSG. Again even as the DSG's EPA H is the same, the 6 speed manual is probably the best match for a diesel. It seems to have much wider mpg RANGE. I know this is very true for the 5 speed manual.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
And now you know why I can't make it past 50 miles anyway. :P
Looks like the writer of the FreePress article has been reading us:
"Diesel fuel sells for more than gasoline. In Chattanooga on Monday, diesel sold for an average of $3.95 a gallon compared to $3.56 for regular unleaded gasoline, according to AAA’s Fuel Gauge Report.
Also, the diesel Passat costs more than a comparative gas-engine model. According to VW, the TDI SE model sells for $25,995 while a gas-burning SE goes for $23,725."
You know you can IV that coffee
By the way the Taylors were able to eek out 64.62 MPG from a Cruze Eco last Summer. World record for a gas non hybrid vehicle. EPA rated it at 42, in reality it is 20 MPG less than the Much bigger more powerful Passat TDI they rated at 43 MPG. .
I do like stopping at Flying Js.
'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
'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
Diesel engineers as one can surmise, also have to looki for ways to make diesels even more efficient. The ubiquitous slush box A/T has to buck up or face literal death. Even VW went to a more fuel efficient, albeit more expensive DSG. As most folks know, the DSG is not a slush box, but a dual clutch manual: automatic.
I was shocked to hear that a relative paid 34k (not including tax) for a level IV Prius @ a "discount" warehouse car buying service no less. He was happiest with the technological do dahs ! My expectation was for the price to go down, given the cheer leading we have heard about hybrids on various threads. Fuel mileage is 41 mpg on a car rated for 51 C/ 48 H ?
We were trading car stories and he asked what the Jetta TDI did mpg wise. GEEZ I didn't have the heart to even say and for 11,000 cheaper. :sick: I truly just bit my tongue. I didn't even go to the Passat TDI SEL @ 26k MSRP posting H EPA 43 mpg? I think either (FYI) would have taken the edge off the new car experience. Then to hear about 84.2 mpg? That would have definitely taken the wind out of the sails.
Seems to me diesel/hybrid is the answer to all since diesel runs at incredible efficiency when at cruising speed and electric takes care of the around town stuff.
Theoretically hydridization adds 15% efficiency, yes? So take a 40mpg diesel and hydridize it for 46mpg.
I think maybe the real problem is the law of diminishing returns. In this case, you're "only" saving 50 gallons of gas/yr. That's a LONG time to recoup just that $1500 extra for the added electric equipment.
But, hell, that argument has stopped people from paying for the technology so far.
'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
MPG.
Gasoline hybrids can't match it.
Straight diesels can't match it.
EVs can sometimes match it, but then there is the "range" problem.
A Volt with a diesel generator versus the gasoline generator onboard might add a few MPG and would not likely add significant costs.
Diesel Hybrid Humvee:
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/05/07/fed-bravo-is-hybrid-vision-next-humvee- /
The result is that the FED Bravo prototype is twice as fuel-efficient as the traditional diesel Humvee whose duties it is designed to take on. The Army says it achieves 8.2 mpg in city usage and 14.2 mpg on the highway, versus the 3 to 6 mpg delivered by a Humvee.
The problem, as mentioned before, is getting the COST down to where it makes sense that people will BUY them.
sounds like a lose/lose situation to me.
I think the Ford Eco-Boost engines are more costly than a more efficient diesel would be. Just easier to get past the EPA/CARB. My understanding is Eco boost will give you more power or better MPG. Not both at the same time as does diesel.
VW/Audi being the leaders in racing diesels, have just entered a diesel hybrid for LeMans.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-57428329-48/audi-to-field-first-diesel-hybr- id-at-le-mans/
it costs a staggering sum of money to develop a new engine for a new market.
The F150 with Eco boost V6 the price is $2000 more than the standard V6 and $1000 more than a V8. I cannot find mileage figures at the EPA for the EcoBoost Fords.
Fair comment, and the simple answer is that for me it would take an enormous drop in the cost of diesel fuel, since around here it carries a significant premium.
The irony is I found gas close by for $3.859 but that station does not have diesel, so for me it's still $4.399 or drive 10.8 miles to find relatively cheap diesel.
That's what it would take. :shades:
If this isn't a hybrid thread, and I'm not allowed to talk about them, then why can you attack them like this? Total double standard.
First off, he got ripped off, if that price is even correct. You can get a no-haggle price of $26k with Navi and Entune. $34k is ridiculous.
Out of 51 Prius in stock at fitzmall the most expensive one is $31.8k, so you'd have to be incredibly naive to pay $34k. Remember that's no haggle and the price includes freight.
Plus mileage on fueleconomy.gov is over 50.
So can we clarify the rules? Hybrid talk is not OK, unless it's critical and unfair? Gimme a break.
I think a diesel with start/stop would be a good compromise. Not too much cost but it would get those city numbers way up.
Remember, most driving is done in the city.
Yes, it's nice that a couple drove across the country on one tank of gas, but most of us will never do that, yet we all commute 5 round trips per week, probably 48 to 50 weeks a year.
Roads trips happen the other 2-4 weeks.
Hence the start-stop idea for the more common driving we do day in day out, which would pay off big dividends.
You don't need a break, just stay on the diesel topic. Want to talk about hybrids? Start a hybrid thread and hang out there.
MSG#5535 is dead bang on .
Now if you quit being childish we can get back to diesels.
No more cheap shots at hybrids, k?
I looked and didn't find anything close to a price advantage for diesels.
TDI anything with DSG and Navi runs very high 20s. You can get a better price with a ... let's just say you can get alternatives for mid 20s.
Unlike Michigan the gas stations here offer a plastic glove to keep your hands clean when pumping diesel.
I can get alternatives for city use under $1000. So that is not relevant to what it would take to buy a diesel. For a person that wants a diesel there is NO GOOD ALTERNATIVE. Why is that so hard for people to understand. That brought me to Edmund's in 1998 and keeps my coming back in hopes that the USA someday considers the waste of fossil fuel important enough to sell small diesel PU trucks and SUVs. I don't find that unreasonable wanting a PU truck that gets 35-40 MPG instead of 15-20 MPG. Ford and Toyota build them and sell them everywhere but here.
Here's your city alternative.
Also, given that it takes more oil to make a gallon of diesel fuel, ( I read somewhere about 25% more?) when we do comparisons on energy efficiency, we should include an 'energy equivalency".
In other words, that gallon of diesel fuel you burn cost more in resources.
Needless to say CA standards are the STRICTEST in the US.
Emissions testing isn't to test cars in good shape--they are designed to catch cars in bad shape. So obviously your car was in good shape.
I don't really think a smog technician cares whether you pass or not. You should be thankful he wasn't very familiar with diesels.
No stock diesel vehicle built after 1998 should have ANY trouble passing the California diesel emission test. The ones that do have trouble are the ones who have modified their engines and have failed to disguise same---either by adding on conspicuously radical equipment, or by not dialing back the power with their driver-controlled tuning devices.
So no diesel owner should fear the California emission test---most diesels breeze through it.
Also California does not direct diesel cars to diesel-specific smog stations, giving them an even better chance of passing. So CARB is either not the diesel owner's boogey man, or they are really lousy conspirators. :P
If CARB wanted to bust your...pistons...they'd force you to go to a dealer-specific smog station, where they'd be sure to catch any modifications.
But regular smog stations have little experience with diesels--you could probably get away with quite a lot without hardly trying.
In other words, that gallon of diesel fuel you burn cost more in resources.
I would love to see that study. So you are saying the Oil Companies out of the goodness of their hearts are selling diesel at below their cost? From what I know working around oil production for 25 years, distillates are the easiest part of the refinement process. In fact some crude oil coming out of the ground in the Arctic will run fine in a diesel truck or generator.
on the commodity market heating oil which is diesel and will run in most diesel engines that do not require ULSD is now cheaper than gasoline, which also needs special treatments depending on where it is sold.
Yes diesel has more energy per gallon than gas. I cannot believe it takes more to refine than gasoline.
Carrying your argument to the conclusion. We would outlaw all gasoline and diesel engines and only allow Natural Gas as that is cleaner than any gas or diesel engine or combination with electric. I think they have pushed small diesel engines in the USA beyond the point of diminishing returns.
Even with testing gas engines I learned the hard way. I took our old Mazda down the street to a smog test only station. Less than a mile from home. It failed some test and I had to take it to a repair and test facility about 10 miles away. It passed fine with no work after a 10 mile drive. I paid double for that mistake on my part. And the lousy CA system.
You are talking about comparisons from the fuel pump (how many gallons of diesel do you buy vs. how many gallons of gasoline I buy) in order to calculate the cost to drive.
By adding energy equivalency into the equation, we are then also measuring the *supply chain* in entirety.
Now, some people may claim, and rightly argue, that when it comes to basic consumer information, or EPA numbers, that judging the supply chain has no place.
But the yield is, in fact, different for gasoline and diesel.
Right now, a barrel of oil (42 gallons) can make either 19.2 gallons of gasoline or about 10 gallons of diesel, says the EIA, and then should know.
http://205.254.135.7/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=327&t=9
That's probably one reason it costs more.
Right, so I guess they tested a 1 year old TDI because they thought it probably was not in good shape? Preposterous !! REVENUE x 7 is the rule !
He was familiar as he needed to be under the law. He actually went to very extensive diesel smog testing classes.
California emissions STANDARDS are the problem. California has a unique geography, a big valley, that could be argued necessitates unique emissions levels. However, some very populous states have decided to adopt the same standards as CA, without having the same unique need. Since these ~ 10 states represent about half the US population, car manufacturers won't sell a diesel here unless it meets both the federal and CA standards. NOx is the problem, not particulates.
"Diesels are still playing catch-up because they have *different* barriers to overcome than gas engines. They are getting real good at reducing CO2 per mile driven but they still have to deal with particulate issues."
Particulates are at least controlled in diesel vehicles. Particulates have, to date, been uncontrolled in Stoich SI engines, because particulates volumes have historically been low for that technology. However, DI changes that. A 2012 diesel with particulate control emits far fewer particulates than a 2012 DI gasoline engine, which has no mechanism for trapping or eliminating particulates. Like 10-20 times fewer by mass on an FTP cycle. Fewer than a PFI LEV II gasoline engine, in fact, according to a 2010 CARB report. Again NOx is the sticking point for diesels, and perhaps we're being too stringent with that (CA's central valley notwithstanding).
"Right now, a barrel of oil (42 gallons) can make either 19.2 gallons of gasoline or about 10 gallons of diesel, says the EIA, and then should know. "
Key phrase, 'right now'. Over a 100 yrs timeframe, refineries have been optimized to maximize gasoline output. It doesn't have to be that way. We've seen the History Channel program that explained that when we first started refining, the focus was distillates (like diesel), and not knowing what to do with the gasoline, they dumped it.
For lux brands that's often the case.
Makes the case for diesels far more compelling.
Yes. I am not sure why CA gets the lead dog role over the Fed EPA. When you look at the passenger vehicle fleet, it is app 24 M cars. Now the US PVF is 258.8 M (NHTSA 2009 figures) so CA is only 9.2% of the PVF. Diesels @5% of the PVF is 12.94 M DPVF.
Again this is a SWAG, but if diesels are NORMALLY distributed in the over all PVF, statistics hold then CA should have app 1.2 M diesels (5% of 24 M PVF) . When you factor that 60% are so called light trucks, CAR diesels are less than .480 k or 480,000. CA counties acknowledge that most of the so called extra pollution is done by 5% of scofflaw smokers who are ALL GASSERS.
You have anything to back that up? It doesn't sounds right to me.
California emissions standards aren't for revenue---again, that's a conspiracy theory---california standards are to control our sometimes horrible air quality problems. We aren't making this up. :P
As for some states adopting standards which are stricter than they need for that state---this is undoubtedly true, but it's better than playing catch-up.
If you don't get ahead of the game in emissions standards, you'll soon be so far behind it'll take decades to catch up.
Los Angeles is a perfect example. Without emissions standards in place, I could see that city going back to the worst air quality in America in a year or two.
Diesel emissions standards are just part of the larger picture. There's no conspiracy against diesels. Someday, even jet skis and lawn mowers will have to comply....maybe even cows, I don't know.
California is now in the forefront to combat global warming and develop substantial sources of renewable energy. This time the oil industry fought them tooth and nail, in a 2010 ballot initiative, and they lost, too.
California doesn't always get it right, but they usually lead the way.
Given the massive automobile market in CALIF, the automakers have to pay attention.
That of course, is California's hole card.
The enviro cons (CA) and the auto industry AND auto unions (Michigan) are thick as fleas, aka ACTIVE in same (democratic) party. Perhaps they wanted the distance between the two states as a proper (in the British style) fence. The principle here being good fences make good neighbors.