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
The bad news is that it is no where near being fully broken in (full compression). Normally in these TDI engines, we are talking 30,000 miles (fast) to 60,000 miles (slow). If if follows in the footsteps of my 2 other diesels (anecdotally), we are talking a slow improvement to and of 2 mpg.
(tank fills, so this is not a MFD or measuring error)
The average (BIG , aka 10,000 miles) evens out the situationals (tank fills).
I also know that if I do try I can get up to 36 mpg (for 10,000 miles)
The TDI engine has been proven (by way of methodical compression-testing) that full engine compression takes many-many miles to achieve. Only then can one expect to see the best MPG numbers.
Of course, the same compression-testing has also shown that POOR DRIVING HABITS during the breakin process can result in glazed cylinders which *refuse* to allow full ring-sealing. These engines tend to consume oil and have poorer MPG numbers.
This is the very reason I religiously followed the breakin procedure recommended by the folks who know.
I continue to enjoy up to 56 MPG on long trips with a car full of luggage and people and the AC blowing. (Yes, I still have spreadsheet which counts every drop of fuel ever pumped into my TDI.)
Since I run gassers also, it still amazes me that TDI's still get good mpg and a good percentage over gassers. Gassers of course get better mpg, the LESS aggressive you are with them.
To add to your observation, diesel engines actually benefit from being run slightly to moderately aggressively.
The BlueTec units prices range from $51.3k to 73k with app 8 "unpriced"
I had read in passing (Edmunds.com?) the goal was to sell 36,000 units of the 2012 MB 350 (2011 sales of 35,838), BlueTec percentage unknown. No word as to real world sales units of the 2012 ML 350 and bluetec.
'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
Right today I see 12 ML Diesels in all of So CA. None at my dealers in San Diego. I don't see any 2013 MY yet.
Sales of the company's BlueTEC diesel models were up 38.9% for the year at 10,717 compared to the 7,717 diesels sold over the same period last year.
The nexus news is that there has been a considerable increase in MB ML 350 diesel #'s (potential for 10,865 in CDI sales_ and percentage (41%).
Probably someone like you and me would be interested consumers of this 2012 MY product. It is just not compelling to factory/custom order a then to be delivered 1 my year old crossover suv. So in my case, (@ this part of the cycle), I would (factory) order the 2013 version with 90 days in mind (Dec, Jan delivery), or assign a 2013 build to my name for (whenever) delivery. Now if they had a 2012 MY (1722) in the inventory that filled my "requirements" and they were in the deal making mood, then that would be on the table.
But indeed I am still curious as to what the MB ML 350 bluetec EOY model sales will be.
At the front of the 2012 MY, MB dealers (my local three to 5) didn't even have a MB ML 350 bluetec demo. Long about mid April? , I got a call or two to see if I was still interesting in a test ride, as they had a demo product due in. I still went even as I had already bought the Touareg.
I was not real impressed with BMW marketing as exemplified by local and more national chain dealerships.
2.2-litre diesel engine
The EU5 2.2-litre diesel engine replaced the EU4 2.4-litre diesel in 2012, matching it for power, torque and fuel consumption, whilst a full acoustic engine cover replaced the previous splash cover, reducing radiated engine noise and improving driving refinement.
The 2.2-litre diesel engine produces 122PS@3,500rpm and torque of 360Nm@2,000rpm, giving a 0-60mph time of 14.7 seconds and a top speed of 90mph. CO2 emissions on the combined cycle are 266g/km for the Defender 90 and 295g/km for the 110 and 130.
The GFT MT 82 six-speed gearbox has an excellent ratio spread, high top gear for cruising and enhanced low-speed crawl capability. The lower first gear offers low crawl speed making towing on-road and off-road much easier. The low-down engine torque also helps in-gear acceleration and the tall sixth gear ensures excellent real-world cruising, refinement and fuel economy. Ground gears in both the gearbox and transfer box help contribute to the refinement of the transmission.
The (VW) 2.0 I4 and 3.0 V6 TDI's are proving to be very durable and reliable. I have not been keeping up with the Toyota Landcruiser's diesels, as they CONTINUE (26 years, not that I am counting) to not be commonly available in the US markets.
I believe it will be called GLK250 Bluetec, this is one SUV I am waiting for, the current ML350 Bluetec doesn't get the mileage one would expect from a true diesel engine, however, from the reports I have read, the engine in the GLK250 has been posting some impressive number for a SUV of its size and weight. I'm also surprised that MB will offer the GLK250 in AWD and it will less then the GLK350. I wish MB would go back to the days when the diesel powered cars were the entry level model and priced accordingly.
This is not to take anything away from a 4 cylinder getting 35 mpg and 369 # ft of torque. (way different animal from a V6.) in my case over 10,000 miles @ 30.48 mpg I would have only saved 47 gals or 200 @ todays ULSD price @ 4.25 per gal. That is of course assuming the GLK 250 actually can post 35 mpg for over 10,000 miles. For that amount of difference, I do REALLY like the V6 TDI.
While I would wax nostalgic for what you are saying of the MB "good old days", the price range of the ML350 BlueTec of $53,000 to $74,000 are more the "unrealistic" realities, albeit the cheaper product being in SHORTER supply. I too want, need, require 3/4's or more of what is considered "de rigueur" now a days.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/06/deep-dive-2013-range-rover-bows-in-london-die- - sel-hybrid-confir/
Nice update, especially the drop in weight. Headlights echo the tails, very cohesive design yet still totally identifiable as a Range Rover.
Diesel + hybrid + lighter means good mileage and likely excellent range. Have your cake and eat it.
Excited?
Not for USA. Of course! :sick:
It also is just ANOTHER example of the watering down of models that do hit the USA markets.
45 imp gal translates to 54 mpg !!!!!!!
..."but we'd like to see the new 3.0-liter V6 diesel on sale (254 hp/442 lb-ft), or even the larger 4.4-liter with 334 hp and 516 lb-ft "...
Most of our so called fuel "economy cars" dont get 54 mpg !!!! We in the US markets should be totally outraged as to the utter BS heaped.
(US gals @ 128 oz)
What does 45 mpg imperial translate to?
Hint - the answer is less than 45 not more.
I think you converted that backwards.
45 imp gal translates to 54 imp gallons. Not miles per gallon.
45 imp MPG = 36.5 US mpg.
Still amazing and takes nothing away from that Rover.
Source may sound familiar:
http://www.tdiclub.com/misc/conversions.html
STILL(even with the math adjustment) you can drive a truck through it !!! (figuratively and literally) :sick: :lemon: Crossover SUV's that post 30 to 37 mpg are probably seen as the enemy. The neatest thing about Prius' are they allow for many many more full sized (Tundra in the Toyota case) trucks to be sold on the US market. EPA 13 C 17 H !!! Fully 75% of the passenger vehicle fleet are "large" cars. No less a personage and government official, VP Biden gave a shout out to how well GM is doing (with is massive SUV and PU truck sales). The XL and tahoe are the government transporters of choice.
The rest (25%) are so called small cars, despite running out of oil, .... since the late 1970's (we are supposed to be officially OUT years/decades ago
They don't sell very many Tundras.
Any how, putting a diesel in a vehicle that consumes more fuel makes more sense, because you're saving a larger amount of fuel.
They need to close the loopholes so that large vehicles have to be efficient, not just offset by small ones or hybrids.
Then maybe we'll see more diesels.
Once dissected most would (after a long while) come to the conclussion that if most (75%) of the vehicle fleet being large cars i.e. and aka 15 mpg average the greater to greatest savings would be if most of the cars that got the least mpg got better mpg.
So if you use the gasser "small car" translation VW Jetta gasser 24.1 mpg vs TDI @46.5 one use 4149 vs 2,151 gals = 1,998 savings
My example is pretty easy: which would anybody chose a TLC (gasser) that gets 15 mpg or a VW Touareg (TDI) that gets 30 mpg, over 100,000 miles= 6,667 gals vs 3,333 gals.= 3,334 gals SAVINGS?
Practically speaking most (app 70 to 75%) continue to select the 6,667 gal option .
Well that is indeed relative. When you bundle together SUV and PU trucks, the numbers are indeed huge. 2011 MY sales were at 1,644,661 vehicles, Light truck sales posted with year-end sales of 649,976 units. Another 97,371 Lexus light trucks for app 45.44% L/T's.
These figures are from the Toyota web site.
Volkswagen reported a 2011 full-year sales mark of 324,402 units. Of that amount 7535 Touareg CUV's were sold add in 25990 Tiquans or app 10.33% light trucks.
True. Ultimately the simplest way to do this would be to tax gas and diesel like they do in Europe, so you'd get a natural incentive to move to vehicles that consume less fuel in absolute terms. But then you'd have riots on your hands in the US!
SelectiveRationality
So for example a 37 mpg Landie with 10 USD ULSD costs .27 cents per mile driven. A 15 mpg PU truck @ 4.05 per gal costs .27 cents per mile driven.
They probably place SEVERE limits on the VW T TDI CUV, as it gets 14.2 cents per mile driven. (4.25 per gal/30 mpg) A 15 mpg truck costs 1.9 x more to operate per mile driven.
20/20 hindsight seems to have indicated \ HUGE advantages to so called earlier adopters, i.e., on the 2003 TDI's. Looking back, it almost seemed silly to run a B/E calculation with a $236 premium.
One disadvantage was the cars back then were NOT designed to run LSD, the US market mandated fuel, when ULSD was the fuel specified. Yet if one took corrective action, most to all resulted in no to little issues.
That is 73 MPG US. And the new lines are cleaner than the old with a CD of .027.
140-160hp and over 200 lb/ft torque would be nice.
Which is imminently possible with diesel engines nowadays.
The fact that the new Golf is conceptually based on the Modular Transverse Matrix has far-reaching consequences: this Golf has been completely redesigned in practically every area - the vehicle body, the interior, the engines, all of the information and entertainment systems and the numerous new driver assistance systems. Elements carried forward were in the main technical features that were already future proof in the previous model - for instance the six- and seven-speed direct shift gearbox (DSG). Everything else is new. And that 'new' really means new! For example, the engines: none of them was carried forward unmodified. To be precise, Volkswagen developed two completely new engine generations for the Golf. Every version is fitted as standard with a Stop/Start system (reducing fuel consumption by up to four per cent) and brake energy recovery mode (cutting CO2 by around four per cent). With all measures combined it was possible to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 23 per cent.
The diesel engines
Everything is also new on the diesel front. The diesel injection engines, also four-cylinder, four-valve versions and here too generally turbocharged, initially deliver 77 kW / 105 PS and 110 kW / 150 PS. Just how efficiently the diesel engines work in the new Golf is shown by the TDI base model with 105 PS and average fuel consumption of just 3.8 l/100km (99 g/km CO2). The Golf Mk6 achieved this figure only with the BlueMotion model, not however with the base model as is the case with the new Golf. In addition, the VW Golf's 150 PS TDI is also extremely efficient, as underlined by its average fuel consumption of 4.1 l/100km (106 g/km CO2). The best figures are ultimately delivered once again by the Golf BlueMotion: making thorough use of all the individual solutions in Volkswagen's technological toolkit, the new Golf BlueMotion emits just 85 g/km of CO2 and consumes on average only 3.2 litres of diesel per 100 kilometres, thus setting new standards - a typical example of Volkswagen's innovative strength, demonstrating, after all, that the company always incorporates the findings of one BlueMotion generation into the next production model and thus delivers constant enhancements.
2013 Golf TDI
Perhaps the three upshot vilification reasons being over priced, unreliable, lack of durability. Now, perhaps I would half way to 70% agree with the price issue, but across 5 (VW 2 gassers, 3 TDI's) products and 43 years, they have all been reliable and durable. The odds of me getting 5 "A" products and having the "good" history is improbable at best or impossible, IF those products have been unreliable and not durable over the 43 years. So for the record, it is more likely I have gotten their statistical "C" products, aka AVERAGE. Now do I discount those who have had "BAD" German experiences? Absolutely not.
They do tend to drive more economical cars.
US is the cheapest developed nation in the world for many cost of living inputs. It has to be, as the working class here have been gutted more than in similar first world locales.
Well, that's good to know. Portions of what you say are certainly valid, but there's much else.