diesel being 5% more per gallon than gas is stopping you from buying 335d compared to nondiesel 3-series?
It appears that you have identified a reason USA people don't buy diesel cars: they don't consider the cost(s) per mile driven, or the # of refuel stops, or the increased resale value. Your indication appears consistent with that of USA buyers, primarily considering the extra cost per gallon of the fuel and extra cost up front.
In my case recently, as a four-time, ~100k each, diesel-VW owner, I am aware of all possible arithmetic re gas vs diesel car ownership yet still selected a gas Cruze instead of waiting for diesel Cruze.
A factor for avoiding current diesels in USA for me was all the "regen" nonsense: pumping fuel into the exhaust just for emissions purposes, dropping mpg 20% or 50% (!) overall in some driving situations. Previously the EGR hack on USA diesels caused enough trouble - and now "regen" as well as EGR are both mandated? Ugh. That is unacceptable for me as a buyer, considerably defeating a major purpose of the diesel. "Adblue" or SCR are both fine with me in a new diesel vehicle, but the only way I would consider a post-2007 USA diesel car or truck is along with doing a DPF-delete & regen-delete - keeping the old parts & ECM so it could be returned to stock. I'd register the vehicle where state-inspection allows such deletes - evidently my state does allow such.
I wonder how difficult it would be to remove all the emissions crap from a new Mercedes Bluetec? It may be a big undertaking with the computer interaction. Though in both VW and MB diesels they seem to be improving the mileage along with making them cleaner burning. I would not want to be an early Cruze diesel buyer. If they did not design the engine with US emissions in mind to start with.
A lot of spin here (no offense intended) about how clean diesels are. Apparently the newer ones are so clean you can suck down the emissions and be better for it. YetI thought the oil derived content in their emissions was higher?
Anyway, seems now matter how new a Ford with it's huge tail pipe is it always reeks. Like I tell my kid,
Not saying anyone here so don't jump down my throat, but there seems to be this strange subset of drivers out there which apparently view it as a macho thing to leave their diesel running, fouling up the air for fifty ft around while casually standing nearby as if diesel fumes were the most natural thing in the world to breathe.
I don't mind people doing that to themselves if that's what they choose, but I have a kid in elementary school and it really irks me when people driving these huge trucks pull up alongside the curb in front of the school refusing to turn them off while waiting to pick up their kid, all the while callously belching horrible fumes that dozens of children have to walk through. Seems kind of rude to me.
The neighbor's nephew did that last summer - showed up at 6 am and went in to chat. Left his diesel truck clattering for a good 15 minutes.
Idling in any rig irritates me though. Love to have a remote control gizmo that would shut down the engine in those situations (and one for cell phones and TVs, Harleys...). Idling is illegal in many places but rarely enforced. Maybe you need to donate one of these to your school.
The real spin is in spite of the facts, most still think diesels are cleaner than gassers. !! For some reason, you acknowledge Ford (gassers) being "dirtier", but haven't made the logical transition in the case of cleaner diesel fuel and way less diesel emissions. As you indicate, no offense intended. I will go back to not confusing people with the facts, as it is more than apparent 95% of the folks vote with their pocket books for dirtier fuel (RUG/PUG). I actually still own gassers. Martyrdom is the FARTHEST thing from my mind and universe.
So for example, even if I got 15 mpg with my 16/18 year old gassers with diesel, the torque would be utterly wild. We pretty much had/ continue to drive them fairly conservatively to get 15 to 17 mpg (gassers) (125,000 and 225,000 miles respectively) . FF to 2012 with the same weight (but TDI) machine, the torque on the TDI is absolutely (still) staggering (fun is my translation), much more capable and road worthy and the mpg is more like 31 to 36 mpg and way less of a need to drive "conservatively" to get 31 to 36 mpg aka to 107% to 112% better fuel mileage. :shades:
Again it is demonstrated time and time again that really nobody cares that any one gets 15 mpg, nor does anyone care that the same weighted vehicle can now get 31 to 36 mpg. However I do and was willing to make the RUG/PUG switch. If anyone is not, pretty simple, DON'T switch.
The fact that there is a market for upcoming 44 mpg crossover suvs (albeit lighter) is very exciting for potential and diesels' consumers.
Why do diesel owners do this? I once heard someone say something about diesels being hard to start or other but I don't know.
I have an unemployed relative who, I hear, likes to go out every morning and start up his chain saw then just leave it idling even though he has no actual chainsaw work to do. Makes him, and the neighbors I assume, feel like he's doing something productive.
In the case of diesel owners I suspect it has something to do with the sound of power they have. A way to impress others, and we all know how American consumers have been flooded with the message that your car has to look and sound POWERFUL, something Europeans have not fallen for. Seems like a waste of gas to me though. All that supposed gas mileage betterment going up in idling. Plus it's annoying to live next door to one. Can't go outside without being overwhelmed by fumes, and forget peace and quiet.
We own a "gasser", a 97 Nissan 200 SX. It has around 325,000 miles on it and still runs good. Smooth and quiet. Not only that but it gets 37 miles to the gallon.
..."We own a "gasser", a 97 Nissan 200 SX. It has around 325,000 miles on it and still runs good. Smooth and quiet. Not only that but it gets 37 miles to the gallon."...
Several questions. So what is wrong with that? (we have a 04 Civic @ 140,000 miles and hope it goes 4 tune ups or 480,000 miles. It currently gets 38-42 mpg in a 54 miles daily R/T commute)
But at the same time while 37 mpg is good, what would be wrong with a diesel (using the same ratios as VW 2003 1.9 TDI( 46.5 mpg) to VW 2003 gasser 2.0 (29.9 mpg) ) 58 mpg? So in your case is using 8,784 gals vs 5,603 gals (+/-3181 gals more/less) better or worst? You of course stated what you have chosen .
It kind of depends on where you live. I worked 25 years in the Arctic and we left our gas and diesel trucks running 12 hours a day during the 7+ months of winter. When we had a service call we did not have the luxury of warming a truck for 30 minutes or more. It would have been nice to have a heated garage to keep them in. Places like Fairbanks AK in the winter about half the cars in the shopping malls will be idling while folks shop. It causes a lot of ice fog with not great air to breath.
That said I do not believe you will find a new diesel car sold in the USA today that is as dirty emissions wise as you 1987 Nissan. Your gripe seems to be with people driving big honkin diesel PU Trucks. Which is completely the fault of the US government. They have blocked all smaller diesel PU trucks from being sold since the 1980s. And you can blame your local government for making it unsafe to let your kids walk or ride their bikes to school. Parents do not want their children molested by all the perverts the courts turn loose in our towns. And they charge around here a fortune for a kid to ride the bus. And if it is a cold climate, a diesel will not use as much fuel idling as a gasser. You could go to the Army/Navy and buy a gas mask. :shades:
byrn says, "We own a "gasser", a 97 Nissan 200 SX. It has around 325,000 miles on it and still runs good. Smooth and quiet. Not only that but it gets 37 miles to the gallon. "
Wow. I owned a 1980 200SX and got 323,000 miles before trading it in for $300.
I didn't know they were STILL made that well though !!!
My '99 Nissan only has 176,000 miles. Gets no respect. :-)
Motortrend compares 40 mpg cars and the Jetta TDI falls in the middle in their estimation.
"Diesel fuel inherently packs about 10 percent more energy into each of its gallons, so you need to lower the TDI's mpg by 10 percent for a fair mpg comparison with its gas alternatives. On the other hand, diesel #2 is now costing about 8 percent more than regular grade gasoline (i.e., you're still slightly ahead of the game). But if we compute the Jetta's fuel cost per mile, the Volkswagen's actually beaten (though only slightly) by the Civic and Cruze. Worse, the TDI's base price is over $2000 dearer than those two. If these high-tech gasoline-powered cars are a headache for cost-penalized hybrids, the same goes for diesels."
Not sure why they needed to lower the TDI's mpg by 10 percent for the comparison though.
they would have to stop making gasoline engine cars. I know diesels get way better MPG. I know they have more "power". I know they run "cleaner". I just can't stand the way they sound. Period. My neighbor has a modern diesel pick-up. My kids have asked me why his truck sounds like their school bus. No way I'm spending $45K for a car that sounds like a school bus.
Basically, (the article was really beyond sound bite able) one glaring spin off is the profitability (net income in billions/US market share) of 8 manufacturers on a graphic "Getting Less Out of More". (in order of most to least profitable, reversed of the title obviously)
1. VW ($ 20.6 B per 2.8% US market share, 16% M/S GAIN) 2. Hyundai ($ 6.9 B per 4.9% M/S, 2% M/S LOSS) 3. Ford ($ 20.2 B per 15.6% M/S, 6% M/S LOSS) 4. Nissan ($ 4.3 B per 8.1% M/S, 1.2% M/S LOSS) 5. GM ($ 7.6 B per 17.8% M/S 10% M/S LOSS) 6. Honda ($ 2.7B per 9.6% M/S, 3% M/S LOSS) 7. Toyota ($3.6 B per 14.5% M/S, 9% M/S GAIN) 8. Chrysler ($ .2B per 11.2% M/S, 14.3% M/S GAIN)
How does this apply to US diesel market share? This was not a part of the article. But we know that VW wants to have a min of 25% diesels of its US market share.
So which $45k car sounds like a school bus? Modern diesel PU trucks are antiquated by automotive diesel standards. That is because they do not have to play by the same rules on emissions. And yes when my neighbor had an older Ford Power stroke and let it warm up a few minutes at 5AM it was loud. His newer 10 year old Chevy DuraMax I never hear. So there is a lot of progress in diesel engine technology.
"VW also has raised its fuel-economy projection for the new diesel-powered Beetle, to 32 mpg in city driving and 41 mpg on the highway.
The engine makes 140 horsepower and 236 pound-feet of torque, and can be mated to either a six-speed manual gearbox or a six-speed DSG dual-clutch automatic with Tiptronic manual shift capability."
Under $27k even loaded up with Navi, moonroof, DSG, and Fender audio. Not bad, but I'd still pick a Golf 5 door or Jetta Sportwagen (are they still making those?).
If they make a convertible every teenage girl here in Potomac will buy one. Maybe not the diesel, though, as they slip around in high heels at gas stations.
- unable to negotiate on price due to demand. every salesperson I've talked to has a list of customers waiting on particular colors and options. some of them even have placed deposits. a TDI that takes 'a while' to sell here in Wichita sits on the lot for 2 weeks.
- it does have ample torque to get around town very well, but passing on a 2-lane highway is miserable. I've done it on a test drive. every time I go on vacation I'll be driving at least some 2-lane highway... sometimes a lot of it.
- we don't drive enough miles for the TDI's efficiency to matter. my wife and I carpool 4-5 days a week (our places of employment are ~3 miles apart) and between our 2 cars we did fewer than 15,000 miles (total) last year.
v6 for me. if I don't buy a passat, I'll be buying someone else's v6 or turbo 4 midsize sedan.
I really like the New Mexico and AZ areas and love to hit places like Monument Valley, etc., etc. I have never had issues with 2 lane passing. Probably the nexus here are underpowered engines, be they gassers or (in later miles) torquey diesels. But really, a lot of folks driving WAY more powerful cars have exercised poor judgement and gotten (or have caused others to be) fatally injured. An example would be trying to execute a 12-15 second pass with 6 seconds of reality.
But I would agree, those areas with the iconic ( or perhaps infamous ) 2 lane "black tops", one should ( as a minimum) be "focused". It is definitely "game on". For sure, it is bad enough to get one's self fatally injured. It is beyond unconscionable to take out someone else, whose only "crime" was to be in the gunsights of someones' poor judgement.
Off this topic, but on diesel topic, I understand the MB diesel buzz are the GLK 250's are entering MB dealership pipelines ! 43k MSRP.
In light of multiple decades (if not a generation or two) of anemic gassers forced on by "misguided enviro cons" (I think this is what the other poster was stating a macro for) it is exciting to see a 2.1 L (CDI) machine that gets 44.4 mpg driven "reasonably". Of course 369 # ft of torque is simply amazing. For the gasser afficionados that might consider diesels unrefined, a translation might be: ... GRUNT. :P :shades:
I think it's interesting that they removed hybrids/EVs from the equation. Plus a few of those are actually fun to drive, too.
I came close to getting a SkyActiv 3, but the kids held a mutiny in my house, didn't want to let me sell the convertible. Funny. I was offered one for $17,612 (not a typo, and that includes freight) with the loyalty rebate.
Same dealer's cheapest TDI was about $24k (fitzmall), and that was a Jetta sedan. The JSW starts at around $28k.
Seems like Mazda could offer a diesel 3 for low 20s. If the gasser is close to 40mpg, imagine the diesel...
Fortunately, there are other noticeable benefits to cohabitating with the Jetta. Its light and happy handling recalls that of early 3 Series BMWs, and its looks are attractively conservative (to some eyes) in a category recently gone bodywork-wild. Non-trivial points, these.
I realize that this might be an acquired attitude, but if one has an ongoing need/requirement etc. for mileage, I have found it best to look at ANY vehicle for and in the longer term. Any car, any more is really made to go a minimum of 100,000 miles before a so called "major tune up". Consumable items have always been and remain consumable items, albeit some to all engineered with greater/longer life.
So for going on 10 years and 170,000 miles I have actually been satisfied with the 2003 VW TDI. Comparing it to a 2004 Civic @ like mileage (140,000) is almost a night and day exercise, even as I am NOT dissatisfied with the Civic. Perhaps I did know before I bought the Civic (even Honda hints at this in the fine print) that Civic consumables wear "pretty fast". (front rotors and pads, tires, A/T and coolant fluid, etc.)
The easiest way to say this is: I/we have 4 average cars/examples.
Well, ... I think in my case, I/ you would have to believe that lightning has to strike the same place three times (3 TDI's) . Or if you are a craps betting person, you have to believe in rolling 12's, three times in a row. I do not, but that is a personal op/ed.
In addition, you would have to believe in an atypical experience with the Civic gasser AND its correlation to ME/WE TDI's owners. This is not supported by experiences, the statistics or even a sotp swag.
Now we, 1 to 4 drivers are common to the TDI's, gasser experiences, but I think you see what I mean. All know for example each car has its parameters and to drive in such a way as to take advantage of each cars parameters.
..."I'm hearing a lot about high pressure fuel pump issues on the newer ones."...
The percentage documented for VW TDI's is very small. However the recent history of the HPFP issues cuts across diesel gasser lines. For example, BMW GASSERS (same sub vendor/contractor) had both a rash and a documented NHTSA recall due to the HPFP issues. So it is taking a while, etc to flesh out.
I am sure I can probably get 55 -60 mpg when I drive like Lemmer in his wife's (2003-2012) Prius. Whether I would want to do so consistently from tank full to tank full is a probable NO !!!
I am thinking that if I had got the Prius, I would be happy with 40-45. I certainly knew one had to not only drive with the proverbial egg between the right foot and throttle AND do the behavioral electronic modification (during R & D phase 11 years ago). But then on the other hand, I am happy with a more average 50 mpg in the 03 TDI (commute ranges of course from 48-52). AND @ 170,000 miles STILL !! Drive it hard and put it away wet.
My more direct comparison (04 CIVIC) @ even less than half the price AND @ 38-42 mpg in similar commute, makes the 45 to possible 50 in the Prius a good bang for the buck.
if I had got the Prius, I would be happy with 40-45
Why?
If you routinely crush the average MPG reported for a 2003 TDI (which is 45.7). You claim to come close (44) in bumper to bumper city driving loaded with people and luggage with the A/C on and in traffic.
Naturally, you should expect to beat the Prius' average, too.
Average is 52.5 mpg so you should easily break 60.
the Jetta seems misplaced in that group, considering its size relative to the others. not that the Golf TDI is any cheaper, but it would make more sense to me.
I'm guessing both MT and VW were uninterested in the long-unchanged Golf running in place of a recently refreshed (2011, right?) Jetta.
Golf TDI does start in the same ballpark, $24k or so. Passat TDI at $28k, but no more wagon.
What I like about the Passat is the huge gas tank, for incredible range between fill-ups. That's crucial when diesel costs what it does here in Potomac. The only diesel on my commute route still costs $4.09.
Diesel fumes cause cancer, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency declared Tuesday, a ruling it said could make exhaust as important a public health threat as secondhand smoke.
The risk of getting cancer from diesel fumes is small, but since so many people breathe in the fumes in some way, the science panel said raising the status of diesel exhaust to carcinogen from “probable carcinogen” was an important shift.
“It’s on the same order of magnitude as passive smoking,” said Kurt Straif, director of the IARC department that evaluates cancer risks. “This could be another big push for countries to clean up exhaust from diesel engines.”
Since so many people are exposed to exhaust, Straif said there could be many cases of lung cancer connected to the contaminant. He said the fumes affected groups including pedestrians on the street, ship passengers and crew, railroad workers, truck drivers, mechanics, miners and people operating heavy machinery.
The new classification followed a weeklong discussion in Lyon, France, by an expert panel organized by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The panel’s decision stands as the ruling for the IARC, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization.
The last time the agency considered the status of diesel exhaust was in 1989, when it was labeled a “probable” carcinogen. Reclassifying diesel exhaust as carcinogenic puts it into the same category as other known hazards such as asbestos, alcohol and ultraviolet radiation.
The U.S. government, however, still classifies diesel exhaust as a likely carcinogen. Experts said new diesel engines spew out fewer fumes but further studies are needed to assess any potential dangers. “We don’t have enough evidence to say these new engines are zero risk, but they are certainly lower risk than before,” said Vincent Cogliano of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He added that the agency had not received any requests to reevaluate whether diesel definitely causes cancer but said their assessments tend to be in line with those made by IARC.
boy, that's awfully ambiguous. You'd think they could narrow down WHAT in the "fumes" is a problem. I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say that the water vapor is OK and the CO2 is no more harmful than CO2 produced by any other fuel.
'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
Comments
It appears that you have identified a reason USA people don't buy diesel cars: they don't consider the cost(s) per mile driven, or the # of refuel stops, or the increased resale value.
Your indication appears consistent with that of USA buyers, primarily considering the extra cost per gallon of the fuel and extra cost up front.
In my case recently, as a four-time, ~100k each, diesel-VW owner, I am aware of all possible arithmetic re gas vs diesel car ownership yet still selected a gas Cruze instead of waiting for diesel Cruze.
A factor for avoiding current diesels in USA for me was all the "regen" nonsense: pumping fuel into the exhaust just for emissions purposes, dropping mpg 20% or 50% (!) overall in some driving situations.
Previously the EGR hack on USA diesels caused enough trouble - and now "regen" as well as EGR are both mandated? Ugh. That is unacceptable for me as a buyer, considerably defeating a major purpose of the diesel.
"Adblue" or SCR are both fine with me in a new diesel vehicle, but the only way I would consider a post-2007 USA diesel car or truck is along with doing a DPF-delete & regen-delete - keeping the old parts & ECM so it could be returned to stock. I'd register the vehicle where state-inspection allows such deletes - evidently my state does allow such.
That's an interesting one. I've read lots of posts where people enjoyed great resale on their diesel cars.
But the pool of prospective buyers is, I presume, a lot smaller.
Anyway, seems now matter how new a Ford with it's huge tail pipe is it always reeks. Like I tell my kid,
You can always smell a Ford.
I don't mind people doing that to themselves if that's what they choose, but I have a kid in elementary school and it really irks me when people driving these huge trucks pull up alongside the curb in front of the school refusing to turn them off while waiting to pick up their kid, all the while callously belching horrible fumes that dozens of children have to walk through. Seems kind of rude to me.
Idling in any rig irritates me though. Love to have a remote control gizmo that would shut down the engine in those situations (and one for cell phones and TVs, Harleys...). Idling is illegal in many places but rarely enforced. Maybe you need to donate one of these to your school.
This is an interesting one too.
So for example, even if I got 15 mpg with my 16/18 year old gassers with diesel, the torque would be utterly wild. We pretty much had/ continue to drive them fairly conservatively to get 15 to 17 mpg (gassers) (125,000 and 225,000 miles respectively) . FF to 2012 with the same weight (but TDI) machine, the torque on the TDI is absolutely (still) staggering (fun is my translation), much more capable and road worthy and the mpg is more like 31 to 36 mpg and way less of a need to drive "conservatively" to get 31 to 36 mpg aka to 107% to 112% better fuel mileage. :shades:
Again it is demonstrated time and time again that really nobody cares that any one gets 15 mpg, nor does anyone care that the same weighted vehicle can now get 31 to 36 mpg. However I do and was willing to make the RUG/PUG switch. If anyone is not, pretty simple, DON'T switch.
The fact that there is a market for upcoming 44 mpg crossover suvs (albeit lighter) is very exciting for potential and diesels' consumers.
I have an unemployed relative who, I hear, likes to go out every morning and start up his chain saw then just leave it idling even though he has no actual chainsaw work to do. Makes him, and the neighbors I assume, feel like he's doing something productive.
In the case of diesel owners I suspect it has something to do with the sound of power they have. A way to impress others, and we all know how American consumers have been flooded with the message that your car has to look and sound POWERFUL, something Europeans have not fallen for. Seems like a waste of gas to me though. All that supposed gas mileage betterment going up in idling. Plus it's annoying to live next door to one. Can't go outside without being overwhelmed by fumes, and forget peace and quiet.
We own a "gasser", a 97 Nissan 200 SX. It has around 325,000 miles on it and still runs good. Smooth and quiet. Not only that but it gets 37 miles to the gallon.
Several questions. So what is wrong with that? (we have a 04 Civic @ 140,000 miles and hope it goes 4 tune ups or 480,000 miles. It currently gets 38-42 mpg in a 54 miles daily R/T commute)
But at the same time while 37 mpg is good, what would be wrong with a diesel (using the same ratios as VW 2003 1.9 TDI( 46.5 mpg) to VW 2003 gasser 2.0 (29.9 mpg) ) 58 mpg? So in your case is using 8,784 gals vs 5,603 gals (+/-3181 gals more/less) better or worst? You of course stated what you have chosen
That said I do not believe you will find a new diesel car sold in the USA today that is as dirty emissions wise as you 1987 Nissan. Your gripe seems to be with people driving big honkin diesel PU Trucks. Which is completely the fault of the US government. They have blocked all smaller diesel PU trucks from being sold since the 1980s. And you can blame your local government for making it unsafe to let your kids walk or ride their bikes to school. Parents do not want their children molested by all the perverts the courts turn loose in our towns. And they charge around here a fortune for a kid to ride the bus. And if it is a cold climate, a diesel will not use as much fuel idling as a gasser. You could go to the Army/Navy and buy a gas mask. :shades:
Wow. I owned a 1980 200SX and got 323,000 miles before trading it in for $300.
I didn't know they were STILL made that well though !!!
Impressive, Nissan, impressive.
Motortrend compares 40 mpg cars and the Jetta TDI falls in the middle in their estimation.
"Diesel fuel inherently packs about 10 percent more energy into each of its gallons, so you need to lower the TDI's mpg by 10 percent for a fair mpg comparison with its gas alternatives. On the other hand, diesel #2 is now costing about 8 percent more than regular grade gasoline (i.e., you're still slightly ahead of the game). But if we compute the Jetta's fuel cost per mile, the Volkswagen's actually beaten (though only slightly) by the Civic and Cruze. Worse, the TDI's base price is over $2000 dearer than those two. If these high-tech gasoline-powered cars are a headache for cost-penalized hybrids, the same goes for diesels."
Not sure why they needed to lower the TDI's mpg by 10 percent for the comparison though.
40 MPG Compact Sedan Comparison
a gallon of diesel fuel contains 147,000 British Thermal Units (BTU) of energy. Gasoline contains about 125,000 BTU of energy per gallon.
That whole MT comparison was confusing and illogical. I guess you have to consider the source. Look what they have picked as cars of the year.
Basically, (the article was really beyond sound bite able) one glaring spin off is the profitability (net income in billions/US market share) of 8 manufacturers on a graphic "Getting Less Out of More". (in order of most to least profitable, reversed of the title obviously)
1. VW ($ 20.6 B per 2.8% US market share, 16% M/S GAIN)
2. Hyundai ($ 6.9 B per 4.9% M/S, 2% M/S LOSS)
3. Ford ($ 20.2 B per 15.6% M/S, 6% M/S LOSS)
4. Nissan ($ 4.3 B per 8.1% M/S, 1.2% M/S LOSS)
5. GM ($ 7.6 B per 17.8% M/S 10% M/S LOSS)
6. Honda ($ 2.7B per 9.6% M/S, 3% M/S LOSS)
7. Toyota ($3.6 B per 14.5% M/S, 9% M/S GAIN)
8. Chrysler ($ .2B per 11.2% M/S, 14.3% M/S GAIN)
How does this apply to US diesel market share? This was not a part of the article. But we know that VW wants to have a min of 25% diesels of its US market share.
The engine makes 140 horsepower and 236 pound-feet of torque, and can be mated to either a six-speed manual gearbox or a six-speed DSG dual-clutch automatic with Tiptronic manual shift capability."
2013 Volkswagen Beetle TDI Starts at $24,065 (Inside Line)
Of course the new one is selling like crazy...beam axle and 2.slow!
- unable to negotiate on price due to demand. every salesperson I've talked to has a list of customers waiting on particular colors and options. some of them even have placed deposits. a TDI that takes 'a while' to sell here in Wichita sits on the lot for 2 weeks.
- it does have ample torque to get around town very well, but passing on a 2-lane highway is miserable. I've done it on a test drive. every time I go on vacation I'll be driving at least some 2-lane highway... sometimes a lot of it.
- we don't drive enough miles for the TDI's efficiency to matter. my wife and I carpool 4-5 days a week (our places of employment are ~3 miles apart) and between our 2 cars we did fewer than 15,000 miles (total) last year.
v6 for me. if I don't buy a passat, I'll be buying someone else's v6 or turbo 4 midsize sedan.
But I would agree, those areas with the iconic ( or perhaps infamous ) 2 lane "black tops", one should ( as a minimum) be "focused". It is definitely "game on". For sure, it is bad enough to get one's self fatally injured. It is beyond unconscionable to take out someone else, whose only "crime" was to be in the gunsights of someones' poor judgement.
Off this topic, but on diesel topic, I understand the MB diesel buzz are the GLK 250's are entering MB dealership pipelines ! 43k MSRP.
In light of multiple decades (if not a generation or two) of anemic gassers forced on by "misguided enviro cons" (I think this is what the other poster was stating a macro for) it is exciting to see a 2.1 L (CDI) machine that gets 44.4 mpg driven "reasonably". Of course 369 # ft of torque is simply amazing. For the gasser afficionados that might consider diesels unrefined, a translation might be: ... GRUNT. :P :shades:
It got the highest mpg, but in cost per mile it only took 3rd, and it cost the most by far.
Overall they gave it 3rd place.
I think it's interesting that they removed hybrids/EVs from the equation. Plus a few of those are actually fun to drive, too.
I came close to getting a SkyActiv 3, but the kids held a mutiny in my house, didn't want to let me sell the convertible. Funny. I was offered one for $17,612 (not a typo, and that includes freight) with the loyalty rebate.
Same dealer's cheapest TDI was about $24k (fitzmall), and that was a Jetta sedan. The JSW starts at around $28k.
Seems like Mazda could offer a diesel 3 for low 20s. If the gasser is close to 40mpg, imagine the diesel...
Fortunately, there are other noticeable benefits to cohabitating with the Jetta. Its light and happy handling recalls that of early 3 Series BMWs, and its looks are attractively conservative (to some eyes) in a category recently gone bodywork-wild. Non-trivial points, these.
So for going on 10 years and 170,000 miles I have actually been satisfied with the 2003 VW TDI. Comparing it to a 2004 Civic @ like mileage (140,000) is almost a night and day exercise, even as I am NOT dissatisfied with the Civic. Perhaps I did know before I bought the Civic (even Honda hints at this in the fine print) that Civic consumables wear "pretty fast". (front rotors and pads, tires, A/T and coolant fluid, etc.)
Base Jetta get an inferior twist beam axle in the back. Straight out of my minivan. :sick:
I'd pick the TDI if I were getting a Jetta anyway.
It's great that your diesel has been reliable, though, and generally speaking they are lower-maintenance.
I'm hearing a lot about high pressure fuel pump issues on the newer ones.
I am getting 45 or so when I drive I drive normally like Lemmer.
Well, ... I think in my case, I/ you would have to believe that lightning has to strike the same place three times (3 TDI's) . Or if you are a craps betting person, you have to believe in rolling 12's, three times in a row. I do not, but that is a personal op/ed.
In addition, you would have to believe in an atypical experience with the Civic gasser AND its correlation to ME/WE TDI's owners. This is not supported by experiences, the statistics or even a sotp swag.
Now we, 1 to 4 drivers are common to the TDI's, gasser experiences, but I think you see what I mean. All know for example each car has its parameters and to drive in such a way as to take advantage of each cars parameters.
..."I'm hearing a lot about high pressure fuel pump issues on the newer ones."...
The percentage documented for VW TDI's is very small. However the recent history of the HPFP issues cuts across diesel gasser lines. For example, BMW GASSERS (same sub vendor/contractor) had both a rash and a documented NHTSA recall due to the HPFP issues. So it is taking a while, etc to flesh out.
I am thinking that if I had got the Prius, I would be happy with 40-45. I certainly knew one had to not only drive with the proverbial egg between the right foot and throttle AND do the behavioral electronic modification (during R & D phase 11 years ago). But then on the other hand, I am happy with a more average 50 mpg in the 03 TDI (commute ranges of course from 48-52). AND @ 170,000 miles STILL !! Drive it hard and put it away wet.
My more direct comparison (04 CIVIC) @ even less than half the price AND @ 38-42 mpg in similar commute, makes the 45 to possible 50 in the Prius a good bang for the buck.
Why?
If you routinely crush the average MPG reported for a 2003 TDI (which is 45.7). You claim to come close (44) in bumper to bumper city driving loaded with people and luggage with the A/C on and in traffic.
Naturally, you should expect to beat the Prius' average, too.
Average is 52.5 mpg so you should easily break 60.
I'm guessing both MT and VW were uninterested in the long-unchanged Golf running in place of a recently refreshed (2011, right?) Jetta.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/12/rheinmetall-defense-outfits-volkswagen-amarok- -for-world-conquest/
What I like about the Passat is the huge gas tank, for incredible range between fill-ups. That's crucial when diesel costs what it does here in Potomac. The only diesel on my commute route still costs $4.09.
Here's more fuel for the fire, but as we know, the diesel side will scream "Global Warming Lefties !!" about this I'm sure:
Tell us something we don't already know....
Diesel fumes cause cancer, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency declared Tuesday, a ruling it said could make exhaust as important a public health threat as secondhand smoke.
The risk of getting cancer from diesel fumes is small, but since so many people breathe in the fumes in some way, the science panel said raising the status of diesel exhaust to carcinogen from “probable carcinogen” was an important shift.
“It’s on the same order of magnitude as passive smoking,” said Kurt Straif, director of the IARC department that evaluates cancer risks. “This could be another big push for countries to clean up exhaust from diesel engines.”
Since so many people are exposed to exhaust, Straif said there could be many cases of lung cancer connected to the contaminant. He said the fumes affected groups including pedestrians on the street, ship passengers and crew, railroad workers, truck drivers, mechanics, miners and people operating heavy machinery.
The new classification followed a weeklong discussion in Lyon, France, by an expert panel organized by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The panel’s decision stands as the ruling for the IARC, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization.
The last time the agency considered the status of diesel exhaust was in 1989, when it was labeled a “probable” carcinogen. Reclassifying diesel exhaust as carcinogenic puts it into the same category as other known hazards such as asbestos, alcohol and ultraviolet radiation.
The U.S. government, however, still classifies diesel exhaust as a likely carcinogen. Experts said new diesel engines spew out fewer fumes but further studies are needed to assess any potential dangers.
“We don’t have enough evidence to say these new engines are zero risk, but they are certainly lower risk than before,” said Vincent Cogliano of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He added that the agency had not received any requests to reevaluate whether diesel definitely causes cancer but said their assessments tend to be in line with those made by IARC.
'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
The Elantra was the biggest, Civic second biggest.