Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?

1128129131133134473

Comments

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    This is bringing me farther back than I had planned, but I wonder again why hybrids and plug ins have not found applications in flight line operations.

    I used to over see 2 (16 hours and 3 (24 hours) shift operations where the majority of vehicles saw EXTENSIVE idling TO almost constant on and off, start stop, stop start and repeat endlessly. Of course both operations were in extremes of weather 90 degrees/90% humidity to - whatever to better than that windchill. So A/C and heaters became important.
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    Cabs have to accomodate a range of body sizes and shapes in the back seat. I don't think a Prius would qualify, given the expanding waistlines and fat heads in the DC area.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Ah job security for the Taylor's. :P

    Truly it makes me wonder what they will be able to do with it !! Man if they can post 84 mpg with a 43 mpg EPA Passat TDI ......
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    Not to toot CA's horn, but we have some of THE WORST highways in the nation !!! (thank you, thank you very much)

    Actually dry grip is better with less tread. Your racing/track experiences should tell you that. Now if you are doing that track stuff in the rain/sleet and snow, the opposite is true.

    If I was tracking anything, I'd have a slew of bench stock type things to include multiple sets of tires, brake pads and rotors, etc.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    I just can't fathom why we wouldn't get that here. Quicker, nicer, and more fuel efficient than a Prius. Why wouldn't it be a homerun? :confuse:

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    expanding waistlines and fat heads in the DC area

    So true! :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I wonder as well. Maybe VW is afraid the smaller TDI would only cannibalize the bigger (more expensive) one.

    Paris show is on so lots of diesel love coming....
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/27/2014-mazad6-paris-2012/

    Wagon is handsome.

    They say 43mpg for the 173hp 2.2l diesel, and no urea injection needed.

    D-segment so that would be a Passat alternative. DSG Passat is rated 30/40 here, manual a bit higher. So the Mazda at least ties it, if they meant EPA mpg.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/27/volkswagen-golf-paris-2012/

    1.8T gasser. Wonder if they will tune that to run on 87 octane, now that Ford, Hyundai, GM, and others have tuned them that way?

    TDI still a 2l, they say.

    220 lbs lighter is great news!
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    Rest assured, the US market versions are almost always DUMBED down. Now if they just got rid of those gimpy over sized wheels. I am sure the "customizers" are trying to find a way to put 25 in rims on em. ;)

    Mazda has been threatening for years to bring US market diesels. Ah, it/they is/are still not here.

    But then on the other hand the current MY VW Golf lists 19 options or variants. WOW ! MSRP goes from 18k to 29.4k. So I would say the 73.5 mpg Golf might have a more inside track. Still no GTD !? :lemon:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Maybe Audi wanted to save the performance diesel for the A3?

    Kind of would be nice to have a split personality miser/sleeper.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    Indeed.

    The limiting factors are really NOT diesel, i.e., We can look at the new MB GLK 250 2.0 L TTDI with 369# ft of torque ! It is more a question of what A/T M/T VW can cost effectively mate to it.

    Given the multiple models on a single platform, I think that may be a tad difficult. (bean counters being in charge)
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,759
    Show me the beans! :P
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    Indeed if MB puts that same sized 2.0 L TDI engine in both a (slightly) higher price point that any of the VW's sporting the 140 hp/236# ft of torque. VW will be seriously outgunned and the GTD @ 160/170 hp and 258 # ft will be a slight enhancement over the standard fare. The DSG's max capacity is @ 258 # ft. Another would probably have to be upgrades (to the already upgraded GTD) to the suspension systems and brakes.

    Again if I was starting fresh, 56% more torque would be pretty amazing.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Maybe VW is afraid the smaller TDI would only cannibalize the bigger (more expensive) one.

    Until some other automaker offers competition, they don't need the lower profit vehicles to sell diesels.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Indeed the smaller (fuel efficient model) and GTD would really round out the already 19 optioned offerings.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Cruze diesel is coming. I doubt they'll price it cheap, though.

    Diesels tend to be packaged with premium content. VW even uses the multi-link rear suspension from the GTI models rather than the cheap torsion beams from the cost-cut base Jetta.

    Insight and Prius C can peek in at just under $20k, imagine a Golf Bluemotion priced like that. Just the basic stuff, A/C and single CD player. They would sell tons. Heck I'd try one.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/27/2013-porsche-cayenne-s-diesel-paris-2012/

    627 lb-ft is adequate. ;)

    28mpg, too.

    I'd rather have that in a Q7 package, though. Still not used to the idea of Porsche making SUVs.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/27/volkswagen-golf-bluemotion-concept-paris-2012- /

    108hp. Won't be quick but torque will keep people behind you from honking.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    To look at the obvious application (commuting: to take away the suspense) of a vehicle able to post 73.5 mpg , I am sure one might think we get a lot of honking with an average speed of 18 mph to a "lightning" quick 36 mph (27 miles taking between 45 min to 1.5 hours). We already get STELLAR results, sans honking. ;) While we like 38 (gasser), 42, 50 mpg, 73.5 mpg is 47% to 93.4% is ... better. :shades:

    Indeed using the same ratios as the current 1.9 L TDI 90/155 # ft, 108 hp converts to 186# ft, or 20% more ft #'s of torque.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    Got to love the "liquid mercury look" gray metallic silver !!

    Well used, just the replacement tires, brake pads and rotors will keep your tire shops and mechanics in business !

    Folks on CUV boards already complain of tires lasting only 15,000 to 25,000 miles with far less torquey engines, albeit @ 1000 to 1,300 per set. Non ceramic brake pads and rotors and ancillary pieces, easily run 700 (parts only @ discount).
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Our 2 Foresters have had very low cost of operation.

    Where's the *#@%ing Forester diesel? :mad: Subaru may need it in this MPG obsessed segment. Current model is rated 21/27. Same numbers from 1998. They used the lead the segment, but they fell behind.

    New one is around the corner. Good time for a new powertrain intro.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited September 2012
    “The emissions requirements in the U.S. are significant,” he says. “And given the price of diesel fuel, where it is right now, it really does not pay to bring the vehicle into the U.S.”

    2010 quote by the top executive at Subaru of America.

    Doesn't seem like anything has changed.

    Any word about the reliability? They've had the diesel boxer for at least 5 years, right?

    Subaru Riding Positive Press (Ward's Auto)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    I think Subaru knew it could count on the "cult like"(US) following it has built up over the years. Obviously the platforms are old and the leadership does not perceive it can hold on to its market share or even slightly grow it without some sort of change, whatever that means or directions it will take.

    Tall Cotton @ US market share of 2.3%?

    So (swagging a lot of things that may or may not be true) if Subaru brings in a in the future) 322,000 cars (2.3% of market share,9.5 M to 14 M yearly), what percentage of diesels are they will to gamble will sell and sell enthusiastically? So say they want to be as aggressive as a much LARGER VW and decide on 20% or 64,400 cars? Longer story short, not much has probably changed for Subaru since the pronouncement in 2010. Of course everyone knows that Subaru's biggest advantage is that it actually has been selling diesels on the world wide market and for more than a few years.

    So really if any one needs a Kball study, it would b Subaru. Whatever % of diesel Subaru's, they can not afford to k ball even a small % of gasser Subaru sales. This would logically mean new customer or second vehicle sales.

    On the other hand VW knew/knows it had/has to sell (in addition to ITS past customer base) to new and second vehicle customers. The then new decontented Jetta was one iteration, and one of the first steps. It caused serious bru ha ha in the "cult" ;) . The Passat built in TN, US was and remains another. It is aimed squarely at the Toyota Avalon/Camry/Hybrid/ etc Acura/ Honda Accord and other products in that universe. It even has revived the 6 speed transmission in the midsize passenger car segment. This does not even count the HUGE mainlining of the TDI, etc.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Subaru demographics would be very accepting of a diesel, more so than most manufacturers.

    A lot of the guys in the Subaru Crew threads pine for a diesel. It fits with the image of the brand, too. I bet a bunch would even use biodiesel blends.

    I think the Forester and Outback would match up well with diesels, and those happen to be their 2 volume sellers here.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    LOL. You are making a VERY strong case for why they are not yet in the US market. They just do these teasers to keep their names in the ( for the price of a PR release- free) press.

    It is sort of like the Chicago Cubs, well, there is ALWAYS next year !! Going on 104 years and already one world series win !
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Heck, they even put the American media in a diesel Forester. Edmunds tested one.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,759
    Given the overlaps of models, I think they could even do something extreme like offer the Forester as diesel only (still make an XT gasser?) and keep all other models gas, and not cause too much strife.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Some markets are getting a 148hp 2.0l weakling as the base model. That would be a disaster here. My 1998 model had 165hp and was a bunch lighter, why go backwards?

    A diesel as base and then a 2l Turbo XT would make for a good lineup.

    I think they'll use the FB25 from the Legacy, though. Short-term.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,759
    edited September 2012
    They already have the FB25 in it, don't they? If they stick with gas, I think they should intro DI on that block, as well as move the automatic from the 4EAT to the CVT. I think the JDM article indicated a 6-speed manual, so yes, bring that over from the Outback, too, and it would make for some good fuel economy and performance improvements at the same time.

    Oops... going way off topic here. Still, my preference is to nix the gasoline option (make the Outback the platform for intro of new tech there) and go diesel in the Forester with either a 6-speed MT (throughout the lineup) or a CVT as the tranny options.

    Since I'm dreaming, how about bringing the dual range transfer case from the Aussie spec Forester over as an option? :shades:
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Let's see...2011 I think, yeah.

    None of the FBs are DI, though. Toyota massaged it and they ended up with the FA, but they don't have larger displacements yet, and I'm not sure a high rev engine with little torque would be suitable for the Forester.

    That's why a diesel may be a better choice.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Square Five?

    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/28/2013-audi-sq5-paris-2012/

    This is the first in what I predict will be an onslaught of performance diesels.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    It certainly will not be the "FIRST" performance diesel, even as it might probably be welcomed by a lot of" first" time diesel buyers, by way of the mpg metric. It might be a first "S" whatever that means. I am sure that if one digs deeper it is probably based on something like the Tiguan platform (small CUV to midsize to large, etc.) , whatever the technical designation for that class is and from which a slew of variants are based on. While I and probably you keep abreast about what is hitting the European markets, it is an ultra long and torturous (economci punishment) gauntlet to hitting the US market place.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That's their first S series diesel, right? That's what the article said anyway.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    As I indicated, "S" really holds no magic for me?
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,759
    until now, buyers were unable to pick up spots-oriented models with a TDI badge.

    Spots-oriented. Is that age spots, freckles, or what? I'm not sure what sort of demographic Audi is after, here. :P
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Very impressive vehicle. I would still prefer Touareg TDI or Cayenne diesel. Audi needs to enter a few big rough terrain races to prove they can win on and off road. Right now VW Touareg owns the king of the off road title.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    I really do have to say that after 11 k miles, this Touareg really exceeds my expectations. It is SERIOUSLY fun to drive. My perception is it is getting (ever so) slightly better mpg even as I drive it a bit more aggressively. (30.5 mpg in 502 miles, 16.3 gals) But then it follows in the foot steps of 2 other diesels @ the 10,000 miles breaking in mark. The other app 3k miles ago passed the 40 k mark and again the mpg seems to be getting (ever so) slightly better 401 miles/9.5= 42 mpg. (45,000 miles is the mid way point for final break in between 30,000- 60,000 miles)
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    edited September 2012
    I wouldn't give Audi credit for being the first. There is already an "onslaught" of performance diesels already hitting or about to hit the European markets" BMW M Diesel, Cayenne S Diesel and now the Audi SQ5.

    The question I have is when we will see some of them in the US and will they sell well enough to achieve a profitable market share here. IMO, they can completely replace vehicles like the ML63 and BMW X5M with high performance diesels. But those are not big sellers to begin with. What really needs to happen is that almost all SUV's need to go to "performance" diesels. That performance can be tuned for solid acceleration and great fuel efficiency at the entry and utility, or great acceleration and very good fuel efficiency at the high performance level.

    I am all for a free revving 8,000 rpm high horsepower, lower torque engine in a 2,900 lb sports car. But a gas sucking V8 in a 5,000+ lb SUV is becoming complete dinosaur IMO given the direction and progress of diesel technology. And if BMW, Porsche and Audi have their way, it may become a dinosaur in the arger end of the 3,800- 4,000+ lb luxury sport sedan segment as well.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    But a gas sucking V8 in a 5,000+ lb SUV is becoming complete dinosaur IMO given the direction and progress of diesel technology.

    I totally agree with you. My taste goes more toward the lower performance SUV with higher MPG. I would love to own a ML250 Bluetec that is capable of 40 MPG on the highway. It has almost 100 ft-lbs more torque than the V6 gas version ML. I am more of a get out on the backroads and highway driver and cruise at 70 MPH to my destination. My Sequoia on the best RUG will only get about 17.5 MPG on the highway. The ML250 Bluetec is HWY rated 50.4 MPG on the UK tests. That is 42 MPG US. In a 5000 lb vehicle that is tow rated for 7200 lbs, what else comes close. And it is cheaper than the V6 gasser.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK5tmUtAFQA
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    I think a 40-42 mpg CUV really blows the covers off the "fuel sucking SUV LIES" that have been told and mantra'd for literally 30 years PLUS. The keeping out of other European fuel sipping models are another confirmation.

    The latest NHTSA safety figures which post the SAFEST statistics in literal recorded history exposes the lies about the PU/SUV segment being "mass killers" etc. Indeed the vehicle fleet population has ALWAYS been closer to 75%+ larger cars and 25% smaller cars. The real lies perpetrated in the push to smaller cars, show smaller cars being the more dangerous !!!
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    edited September 2012
    gagrice, maybe i should re-read your posting where you told us what you thought of the X5 diesel. or maybe you have additional thoughts in hindsight about the X5. i seem to like everything i know about them except about the cracking blocks/heads/manifolds in extreme cold weather, or some issue they have like that. the diesel SUV i like better is the Cayenne of course. I may have to put a deposit down on one, unless I go for the stickshift gasser Cayenne. :}
    (in my dreams, either one, i suppose, but the future is uncertain...)
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    now that was funny!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited September 2012
    I enjoyed my test drive in the X5 diesel. It handled very well, had gobs of power. I was not thrilled with the seats that seemed hard by luxury standards. The rear seat was a bit crowded with the drivers seat back where I like it. I think if driven modestly it is capable of 30 MPG on the highway.

    My only test drive of the ML320 CDI was a 2007 model. Very comfortable ride. Good handling though not up to the X5. The MB transmission would downshift radically when you let off the accelerator. I like to coast more when I let off the fuel feed. I like driving a performance vehicle a lot. I like getting good mileage even more. Given a rocket like the X5 diesel I would probably get speeding tickets. Way more power than needed for my average driving needs.

    PS
    I really like the looks of the Touareg better than the Cayenne. Though I would bet the Porsche is a great driving SUV.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    The new Chevy Cruze Diesel will be out early next year as a 2014 model and if I can get a great lease on a LTZ, I'll be a buyer! :shades:

    -Rocky
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Rocky,
    Congrats again on your new job. It will be good if GM offers a diesel to get in on the competition.
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    Chrysler and Cummins have upped the ante with the 2013 Cummins-powered Ram 3500 that will be introduced this winter.

    The 2013 6.7L Cummins ISBe, as available only in the 3500 pickup with an extreme-duty Aisin AS69RC 6-speed-automatic, is rated at 385 hp @ 2800 rpm - just slightly behind the competition, but produces a house-yanking 850 lb-ft at 1600 rpm... 50 better than Ford, 85 better than GM.

    That's 142 lb-ft per cylinder... more than many economy car engines in total.

    Just for comparison...
    - my 1996 Ram 3500 Club Cab 4x4 dually: 5.9L Cummins 12-valve mechanical-injection was rated at 180/420
    - my (current) 2005 Ram 3500 Quad Cab 4x4 dually: 5.9L Cummins common-rail EFI is rated at 325/610

    So should I opt for this new powertrain, I will have more than doubled both hp and torque from my 96, and had increases of 18% (hp) and 39% (torque) from my 05.

    My best tank in the 1996 was 24.3 mpg (3.54 axle), and my best in the 2005 is 21.5 (3.73). The new Ram offers a 3.42, which combined with the use of DEF and a new front-axle disconnect system on 4x4s could get me close to 24 again.

    Expect a response from Ford and GM in their 2014 models.

    kcram - Pickups/Wagons/Vans+Minivans Host
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Really sad none of the domestics can put a 350 ft-lb torque 4 banger diesel into a 1/2 ton PU for the masses to get 30 plus MPG.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Thanks, Gagrice! Yeah, I read they are thinking about putting the diesel as an option in the Malibu, in the future which would give it 40+ MPG's

    Agree with you on the diesel 4 banger in pick-up application..... ;)

    -Rocky
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    Chrysler is reportedly evaluating the VM 3.0L V6 that will go into the Grand Cherokee next year for the Ram 1500. With the ZF 8-speed, that would do very well mpg-wise... if the Pentastar/8-speed can get 25 mpg highway, a diesel should have no trouble reaching 30+.

    kcram - Pickups/Wagons/Vans+Minivans Host
This discussion has been closed.