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
Off topic, my CPA also complains about the (his) BMW 3 series eating tires. He doesn't even commute. I should even tell a CPA joke here.
BTW my 330i does not have RFT.... My 2011 does and I do not like them...
Indeed if BMW puts an 8 speed in a newer diesel MY 2013 +, albeit I6 twin turbo or I4 with whatever configurations, you might even regret NOT waiting. I have to say I am more than satisfied with the 8 speed A/T, even as I think a 6/7/8 speed manual would have been outstanding. (I think only Porsche has a 7 speed manual. )
All the best, whatever you decide.
This is WAY off topic (non diesel) , but just got back one of the commute cars 04 H Civic from my fav Japanese oem repair facility. The ace mechanic and service advisor are both telling me that @ 140,000 miles, the oem rear brakes have app 70% LEFT . So even if I take them to 10% (leaving a lot on the table so to speak) the rears are projected to go a total of 280,000-300,000 miles. !!! ?? The tires got rotated and @ 66,000 miles on the 2nd set, (crappy oems changed @ 74,300) again looks to be able to go a min of 120,000 miles total. He also did a 23,000 miles OCI.
So I guess the "bad news" is the Jetta TDI (to get back on topic) is LESS maintenance INTENSE.
$43k ain't cheap, but they managed 44.4mpg in their test.
That's over double the highway number for the GLK350 (EPA 16/22).
The GLK is a bit small but still. My sister is looking for something like that right now, though her price range is about half as much.
S350 is also AWD, I wonder if it will be an xdrive here.
Those GLK epa numbers are pitiful, I hope they perform better in the real world.
44+ mpg on a crossover (admittedly smaller) further demonstrates diesels' value, if power (torque) and mpg are important variables. Two important signposts are the 2.1 L CDI engine and 369 # ft of torque. The 2.0 TDI has already been shown to be a workhorse standard and @ 236 # ft.
?? The RX is 188" long, the GLK is 178", and most interior dimensions are larger for the RX. The GLK is about the same size as a Forester.
Ninja edit > me.
I can't imagine the ML diesel would cost a lot more than $44k. Save up and get that.
Yeah, but that'll be stripped. Can't imagine many going out the door for less than $50K, given how MB sets up the options.
As a comparison/contrast, VW is looking to sell 2012 VW Touaregs over (their 2011 MY of app) 7,532 units.
One would have to be financially retarded to pay cash for one unless they were going to keep it for 20+ years. Depreciation is stupefying.
New ones don't tend to attract self-made wealth anyway.
You are probably right about the lease bit. I have no business to write off the lease so it does not work for me. I have heard that the big sales we are seeing in cars is leases and sub prime auto loans. Here we go again.
Look how many 3-4 year old highline cars are on the used lots. Lease returns. Smart money often leases, not only for the writeoff (which in many cases is undeserved), but as the leases are subsidized and barely cover depreciation, if that. Keep it for 3 or so years and walk - always under warranty.
Seeing how much of the nation technically has subprime credit, that has to be in the recent sales boom too. Probably not on many diesel cars though, they tend to be more expensive.
I hate being behind a diesel on the road, the fumes fill up the car, and that's when the diesel is 100 ft ahead. Hate having to hold my breath until I can get by. I don't know why it's even legal to have a diesel when gas cars have to pass stringent smog tests to be allowed on the road.
That's an outdated stereotype.
Edit: you own a 1986 Mazda B2000, per your post in another thread. If you locked yourself in a garage, what do you think would kill you quicker? A new, clean diesel, or your 80s truck?
Seriously...
No doubt a new TDi or bluetec pollutes less than a 26 year old car.
Now, if it is a choice between what you dislike/ like better; ULSD or RUG to PUG, EVERYBODY has their preferences. I also realize the above opinion is probably more prevalent, even as for whatever reasons "smellier" RUG/PUG users are tolerated and in some to a lot of cases, welcomed. As for greater toxicity and actual pollution, the majority of gassers make both volume and percentage much more. One sign post is ULSD get way better fuel mileage than GASSERS RUG/PUG. (aka, burn LESS????) As for the so called noxious fumes, I do not think anybody will say that diesel and RUG PUG do not BOTH emit.
So for example, RUG to PUG is delivered @ the pump from 30 ppm sulfur to 90 ppm sulfur (with off line FEE mitigation) ULSD is delivered from 5-7 ppm sulfur, with a standard of 15 ppm. So standard to standard, RUG/PUG is 2 times dirtier than ULSD. (30 ppm to 15 ppm) In terms of nominally delivered at the pumps, it can range from 6 to 18 times dirtier than ULSD. When you factor in biodiesel @ ZERO ppm sulfur, the figures almost become mathematically meaningless. But for conversational purposes, with a (artificial) value of 1 ppm biodiesel, RUG/PUG is actually more like 30 to 90 TIMES dirtier.
So defacto, many more people LIKE the smell of much dirtier RUG/PUG air while professing DIESEL/s being "dirtier." So really the opinion is not supported by the facts. I do know that many people when made aware of the facts are still of that expressed opinion.
Air quality districts have gone on record time and time again (CA metropolitan areas, i.e., LA, SF, SJ, ) saying that 5% of gasser polluters cause the majority of "over" pollution. Hence they encourage the general public to call specific phone numbers to report "GROSS" (assumption being gasser) polluters.
I tested that just this last month. I drove home right behind a new VW TDI one day, and a new Mercedes diesel the next. In neither case did I smell anything, nor did I see the slightest puff of smoke.
I had your concerns with old diesels, I hated being behind them. But there is no reason to worry about the new ones.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/08/ram-1500-poised-to-get-diesel-grunt/
Why? Simple reason - trucks use more fuel. Saving 20-40% of "more" means more savings.
Occasionally you'll see a gasser smoking like a foundry too, but seems like they are way outnumbered by the smoking diesels (generally pickups).
Might be another two decades before most of them fade away.
I'm sure my wife could stand at a 4 way stop blindfolded and wearing earplugs and still be able to identify the diesel rigs stopping and going.
I doubt the Benz powertrain is cheap to produce.
After the Jeep CRD fiasco, going Italian may not be a bad idea.
Not really all that many smoking gas clunkers on the roads any more. Plenty of smelly diesel rigs around here though.
I do notice caricature MONSTER trucks( diesels or even gassers) in this "neck of the woods" very few are so called "smokers".
When so called "CAFE" racing was popular for (gasser) ricers, LEO's would actually stop vehicles for emissions inspections and impound, if there were too many non certified equipment, without the proper EPA numbers.