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
I sat in the new Jetta, base model, and didn't like it at all. They took 2-3 steps back from its predecessor. I'd pay the extra $4 grand for a JSW. It is much, much nicer inside.
I get that they wanted prices with the cheaper Civic and Corolla, but it stops being a VW.
The Passat's design is a bit dull but they didn't cheapen it like they did the Jetta sedan.
Cargo volume is the only one in which the Focus produces a solid win. :confuse:
A friend at work has a Fiesta...the back seat is definitely tight. Then again I find the Golf and Mazda3 a bit small.
If you want a big back seat in a small car...uh, you may call me biased, so I'll let you guess which car I'm thinking of. :P
So in line with the 20/20 hind sight idea, I just did a comparison with the 03 (45 mpg)/04 (47.5 mpg) Priuses, 03 (46.5 mpg) TDI Jetta and 04 (32.4 mpg) Civic on www.fueleconomy.gov. The surprised was NOT the Jetta TDI @ 50 mpg for 7.5% better !!! ??? The 04 Honda is the real sleeper, ( it is consistently more, but call it 38 mpg) for 17.3% better !!!
I probably should not say this in print, as I am still waiting for Honda to give me a million+ plus dollars for being a pitchman,
(compared to the Jetta TDI it uses 1/4 to 1/2 qt in 30,000 miles)
Again the same thing, we drive it hard and put it away wet, BUT within longevity parameters.
Again, the Prius maintain the reputation of having to be driven BOTH with the egg between the right foot and throttle and electronic behavioral modification dash board software, to get the 52 + of which you speak. I do admit to now being curious again what I could actually do with the 03/04 Priuses.
The first one never sold that much. A guy here at work still has his. Never thought he'd keep it this long, go figure.
While cars have gotten heavier with new safety and emissions regs, technology has also made them more efficient. Or faster. Usually not both.
The 0-60 in 8.1 seconds for the new Jetta TDI tied several other cars in that test for quickest.
I remember when economical cars meant 12 second runs. 8 seconds was sporty not too long ago.
Think of it as gassing the spammers. :-)
So for another example for as long as electricity has been around, the more "enviro con" friendly energy source, nobody has documented how many folks have died from getting electrocuted , environmental damage due to electrical strikes, negligence, accidents, etc., etc., and will continue to die.
In less than a month, we've heard of the Porsche Cayenne Diesel and of the Audi Q5 TDI. And now, the 2013 Mercedes-Benz GLK 250 Bluetec.
In this case, Mercedes-Benz will be obliging Canadian GLK-Class buyers with a twin-turbocharged 2.1L 4-cylinder diesel mill. Fist pump!
This move is wholly logical as Audi is bent on introducing a TDI version of their popular Q5 sooner rather than later. We can therefore expect a similar move on behalf of BMW but we'll have to wait and see.
The GLK 250 Bluetec will be delivered with an identical 7G-Tronic Plus 7-speed automatic transmission as does the V6 350 GLK-Class. 4MATIC permanent AWD will also make its way under the vehicle's under-carriage.
Essentially, both 2013 Mercedes GLK-Class luxury CUVs are identical, save for the powerplant. That's a whole lot of win.
The 2.1L puts out 190 hp and 369 lb-ft of torque, 1 pound over Audi's 3.0L TDI. In fact, the 2.1L trumps most other turbo 4-pot diesel engines in both respects.
Acceleration times are impressive. The 1,925 kg (4,235 lb) CUV reaches 100 km/h in only 8 seconds all the while consuming an expected average of under 7L per 100 km.
On the contrary it is VALIDATION of " OLD, OFF the shelf" technology. It is of course (well) tweaked for its 2 primary objectives: 44.1 mpg, high torque (369 # ft) from small displacement (2.1 L 4 cylinder) diesel engine. One a (probably Garrett, Bosch) turbo, dah, TWO a turbo !!! .
Indeed the results (one being 44.1 mpg) makes the majority of so called "economy cars redundant. Using my" eco" commuter that gets 17% better mph than average @ 38 mpg, the MB gets 16% better than my 17% better !!
I say, what is not to like?
however, I certainly would say that 140 is more than adequate for interstate and intra-city use because it's really about the torque. peak horsepower numbers come into play when you are using wide-open throttle.
I'd take a Jetta Sportswagen TDI long before this beast.
The move by the Environmental Protection Agency won immediate support from environmental groups and public health advocates, who said the EPA was protecting millions of Americans at risk of soot-related asthma attacks, lung cancer, heart disease and premature death.
Soot, made up of microscopic particles released from smokestacks, diesel trucks and buses, wood-burning stoves and other sources, contributes to haze and can burrow into lungs. Breathing in soot can cause lung and heart problems."
EPA proposes stricter standards for soot pollution (Mercury News)
I'm not sure what the politics really are since it was a federal court that ordered the EPA to propose a new rule by midnight Thursday. Sounds like Obama is trying to appear greener than he is by "proposing" something the courts ordered.
Probably won't help the economy up here in the UP where wood burning stoves and furnaces are a big business, as is wood cutting.
The question now is whether the new rules will have any impact on diesel passenger cars.
For sure, all that/those NON diesel considerations, have their ...considerations.
So for example, on the 03 TDI, tires lasted app 112,300 miles on literally a 23/25 rated set. The second set @ 62k looks GTG to 120,000 miles @ 175,000 miles, I swag the rotors and pads to do a minimum of 250,000 miles for fronts and rears (huge back story here @ 2950 #'s). The only thing on the Civic that is anywhere near a neck and neck swag horserace are its oem DRUM's and shoes @ 280,000 miles (swag again) Even as the 09 TDI is FAR porkier, (don't quote me but feels like 300#'s more @ 3,250 #'s) #'s) the tires (probably worse than the oem 03's) will easily do (swag of course ) 85,000 miles. I am also swaging the rotors and brake pads will easily do 150,000 miles. To expect any of these numbers on the GLK 250 BlueTec (4,200#'s?), ML350 BlueTec (5,000 #'s), VW Touareg TDI (4974 #'s) , I am sure you would agree with me, are probably DREAMING ! :confuse:
This is sort of a long way of saying IF you are in the market for a crossover utility vehicle (CUV?4,200 #'s PLUS), it is a pretty darn good ticket.
If only it came with an economy car price...
Not too many people shopping for a Spark or Sonic can afford a GLK Bluetec.
One real premise all along has been the advocation of many more diesel options.
Since we are finally finding out we have been hoodwinked about being energy paupers vs better than the middle east (NATURAL GAS), I look to natural gas options becoming more viable past custom systems and the Civic Nat Gas option @ 4,000 per year and of course lip service.
TDI wouldn't be a bad choice if diesel didn't cost so much more around here. Plus used ones don't depreciate, same as hybrids around here.
Just drove to the Eastern Shore and saw gas for $3.22. I didn't think it would ever be that cheap again. Cheapest diesel I saw was $3.57. That's 11% more, but still cheap compared to the $4.09 in Potomac, MD.
Great efficiency given that's not even the point of the vehicle to begin with.
Did you guys see the diesel-hybrids? Unreal how quick they are. Scary quick.
I think that for both Audi and VW they have found the 2.0 L both a bullet proof and reliable work horse. At the same time, with not too much fanfare they have for a lot of years, set the bars again and again for both mpg (40 - 43) and torque (236 # ft). BMW has to in effect put out a TDI that has to fit between and among all the many superlatives products (X5 in the CUV's case) it has garnered over time AND hit better mpg targets.
It would seem that what MB has done with a 2.1 L CDI with 369 # ft, might be bested or even matched by Audi, VW and BMW with a 2.5 L 4 cylinder TDI. The Tiquan would be a natural. It would be a yippee yahoo with 275 -360 # ft of torque !! Upgrade that with a 7 speed DSG to 8 speed A/T. WOW !
Really a tad too close to call as the 6 cylinder 3.0 L TDI/CDI is not far away. I mean really there is not much difference from 369 # ft to 406 # ft, and 425 # ft with BMW 335 D monster. I think MB really needed it in that its 3.0 CDI puts out 455# ft. (monster) and is rated @ 27 H epa.
Really the 3.0 L TDI (VW Touareg) really moves deceptively and effortlessly FAST. That is on top of the 2.0 4 cylinder TDI ( Jetta) already moving deceptively and effortlessly fast.
I wish MB all the success with this engine. It's clearly superior but not at all surprising. It still won't be in a sedan or wagon under $35k, so VW has free rein in the high 20s, low 30s market where the Jetta and Passat live.
(a wholesaler might buy it from them within about a week, since typically a new car dealers won't want sell any used car with >50k or >75k miles.)
And lots of those dealers don't have mechanics familiar with diesels that can check them out in house.
So a dealer may take one in on trade and then flip it to a wholesaler. But the wholesaler has to sell it to someone. Can't imagine the pool is any bigger just because a dealer may take one in on trade to sell a new car. And if they know they won't keep it, they likely won't be as generous with the trade-in amount (or they won't deal on the new car price).
I slot them in the same category as manual transmission cars. Lots of rabid fans, but actual sales are a small percentage of the market. Same small buyer's pool too. If you're close to the deep end of the pool, great.
As more diesel cars are sold here the residual value relative to gas cars will probably drop some too. "Here" meaning some place like California where values are higher. Where I am, I doubt that I'd be able to easily sell a diesel car myself for a good price, even though there's diesel at the pumps and at least one diesel mechanic in town. But you just have to find the right buyer.
At the beginning of the 2012 MY (June 2011,) as I recall, it was a wait and see proposition, as we were coming out of a 10.5 M new car sales gig. ( a GREAT year being 15.5 M -16 M ). Then mid season, I read a few articles saying that we were on track for a 14.5 M year. Now as we are nearing the end of the season, we might not even hit 14 M.
The Touareg is the only TDI they have trouble moving. Earlier generations sold more v8s, but now that there is no v8 I would assume the TDI will get more interest. Anecdotally, I see more Cayennes than Touaregs on the road.
There's lots of factors for sure; flat economy, kids don't care about cars, high gas prices, cars last a lot longer so there's less reason to trade them in, people are sick of being in debt, you name it. Tough biz; makes you wonder how we manage to have 591 distinct vehicles on our Car Finder page. But only 24 of those 591 are diesels. More than twice that number are hybrids.
Same in Dallas. I can't remember the last Touareg I saw, I see Cayennes once a week or so.
Yes, actually one good reason for that being app 8,000 to 8,500 Touaregs for US production are projected for MY 2012 and that is UP from the 2011 MY, which also was the new design. So even if you do the "artificial" average /50 states, that "average is app 170 units per state. Naturally they are NOT distributed in that fashion.
Another reason might be: if one was Porsche/Audi/VW (which they are) and the Touareg/Cayenne/Q7 shares the same platform, would ONE (really, they) want to sell more units @ higher MSRP's (49k to 107k) or more units @ far lower MSRP's (47-58k)? I also read (Edmunds) the 2013 Porsche Cayenne will also offer the diesel option :shades:
Too funny, we have a load of X 5's, and a few less Cayenne's that resemble your remark in this neighborhood, aka the OTHER Indians.
So even before considering the Touareg, the "looks" of the X5 and Cayenne were at least in the sub conscious. At that time, the CUV's were not on my radar. Now I have begun to renotice.
I agree.
Perhaps in the case of the Tiguan, they think it would be too expensive? The Tig is already one of the more expensive in its class, a diesel would likely push the price up another $2 grand or so.
Audi and BMW have no excuse.
With the X1 starting at a cheap $31.5k, they could easily sneak in a diesel for mid $30s. I think they'd have a ton of takers.
To be honest the X1 is gonna sell like gangbusters with or without a diesel. Maybe wait until year 3 to launch the diesel, to renew interest?
Anyway, I think it would be possible to get FWD Tiguan TDIs for well under 30k. With 4Motion, most TDI trims/packages would be over 30k, though, and that's a lot for a tiny CUV like a Tiguan and it lacks luxury caché.
hey, here's a nice article about the lying liar CARB stooges and their lies about diesel particulates:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/ucla-professor-of-35-years-suing-to-keep-his-j- ob-after-challenging-environmentalist-status-quo/
byrn, the huge "tailpipe" you see on the new ford diesel trucks (and all other new diesel trucks) is actually a heat-shield around the real tailpipe, similar to the heatshield around catalytic-converters on both gas & diesels. On the diesel tailpipe it is there for heat dissipation due to the EPA-required mpg-lowering combustion from wastefully pumping fuel into the exhaust in order to "regen" the DPF.
Without these heatshields the EPA-mandated fuel-wasting diesel-exhaust system *will* start fires when parked on tall dry grass.
In an offroad/DPF-delete modern diesel truck, one could probably remove the cone-shaped-heatshield-over-tailpipe safely, with no increased-fire-risk. Or maybe swap in a custom 2006-like tailpipe.
Which do you prefer, telling your kid the facts so he can be a ford-h8r via his own deduction that GMs rule? Or will he be better off following your evidently misinformed/preconceived opinions?
*You* make the call!
sincerely,
a GM guy & respectful ford-h8r.
(never owned a ford, but a friend has a 2010 shelby GT500 that is interesting... )
however, i see many people with gasser-SUVs or cars doing the same thing.
whenever i see folks leaving their vehicles idling while they go into the store/whatever, it makes me realize fuel is still way too inexpensive in USA !
also i don't see guys with muscle cars that idle like dragsters EVER leaving their cars idling while they go into store, or whatever.
so it's not the sound of *power* that somehow gets drivers to idle their rigs.
however i do actually agree with you, Byrn, except for the part where i nitpicking your inaccurate use of the term "power" with regard to diesel engines.
i think it is the clanky diesel tough sound they like to "advertise"! it's obnoxious!
diesels don't run cleaner or not cleaner than gassers necessarily, but the diesel fuel in USA happens to be cleaner than gasoline in USA, so that is a big factor in why diesel exhaust is currently cleaner by many important metrics. but not all.
rmpierce1, what do you say when your kids ask why neighbors truck sounds like school bus?
maybe your kids actually want to know the details of the combustion and why the sound-waves sound that way (it's due to more "explosive" ignition rather than a smooth ignition. and currently-available-passenger vehicles use high-pressure fuel injection mitigates/eliminates that clanky old diesel sound. the big-3 diesel trucks probably retain the noisier/clankier approach since it yields more torque.
please don't expect an engine with 700 or 800 ftlbs of torque to be quiet - of course it's loud!
Wait a minute, are we talking trucks or Harleys?
the name connotes chick-car, but to me it looks sporty, like a TT.
the new-new-beetle has *awesome* styling - way nicer than previous 2006 new-beetle-TDI I bought for second-driver-in-household. I'd still probably prefer the golf or wagon form-factor, but the 2013 beetle looks fantastic to me....