Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

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

11112141617473

Comments

  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    I think I mentioned this before. I read an article in a business magazine about a company in the Midwest. They would only buy used MB 300 diesel cars for their sales staff. They looked for ones that were close to 100k miles in good condition. Usually bought for a song. They had their own mechanic and they ran them to 300k+ miles.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Yep, they're great. But being German cars, if some big thing went wrong (cracked cylinder head, bad automatic transmission) you probably have to throw the car away, as the repair is worth more than the automobile.

    Passenger car diesels don't like very high revs all the day long. These are not Peterbilt trucks with massive engine blocks. Many an old diesel goes down in the dirt because of that.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    If you own Japanese car in Japan, the engines planned "obsolescence is at 4 year or 50,000 miles (new engine required) There is/was a HUGE US (after) market for those so called "obsolete" engines. If you want to put a recognizable graphic current face on them; RICERS. Most did not buy BRAND new crate engines for their modifications.

    Indeed that is true !!! But really: So What? My current 03 (now old) Jetta TDI (Germ engine, US, Canadian, Mexico, Argentina and assembled in Mexico) can literally run all day and all night at (app) LESS than 2,900 RPMS @ app 100 mph, and clock 48 mpg, ( rounding down 585 miles/12.1 gals). Oil consumption is 1/4 to 1/2 quart per 20,000 miles (or so I have heard :blush: )

    I would also agree with you that I am a tad frustrated they still build IN notable and CONSISTENT FLAWS !!!! :lemon:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Yeah diesels seem to perform best at that RPM range 3000--4000.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    It is more than obvious that diesels (US market) have to fight an "uphill" battle, (diesel car passenger vehicle fleet at less than 1%.)

    Contrast that with Europe; where the DC PVF is greater than 50% with yearly sales @ more like 70% diesel.

    Of course the HUGE complexity of say this...Roadshow: Cost to replace on-and-off Prius headlights can run $950 — or nothing
    By Gary Richards

    Mercury News

    link title

    is hushed/downplayed, etc., !!!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    That's a nasty price to have to pay, but some models of Audi will cost $1000 for headlights as well. Besides the guy in that article who was complaining had 65,000 miles on his car and wants Toyota to buy him headlights?
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    And I was howling like a scalded dog when my (HB5 9007) low beam blew out. Got a two pack @ the local WallyMart for 8 (?) bux, aka, 4 bux each. I just replace THE *** one and the one not replaced is soldiering on just fine. However in all fairness, The Prius lamp issue IS a hit to Toyota, as I have a 15 year old SUV that STILL have the original halogen lamps (9005/9006- HB3, if I am not mistaken) ! :confuse: :shades:

    I still make it a habit for any vehicle (diesel or otherwise) to talk to the mechanics familiar with its maintenance and repair side. Seems being the "guinea pig" can be an EXPENSIVE proposition.
  • jlbljlbl Posts: 1,333
    When driving I use to keep my 335d coupe within the max torque range (1750-2250 rpm) far away from its max rpm (>4000). In 6th gear that converts into:

    1750 rpm = 68 mph
    2000 rpm = 78 mph
    2250 rpm = 87 mph

    (If I fancied revving from there it would go to:
    2500 rpm = 97 mph
    3000 rpm = 117 mph
    4000 rpm = 155.34 mph
    But then I would have a full wolf pack with all lights and dragnets behind me to take my license out. Better not to try.)

    Yesterday I came back home after driving with my wife 1,000 miles to and fro. In the end, highway average speed was 73 mph as a result to try cruising at 86 mph (2,200 rpm), with occasional peaks up to 100 mph to rock the engine. All in cold wether, ranging from -3ºC to 6ºC. Averaged consume (tank filled twice) was 33.5 miles per gallon.

    Regards,
    Jose
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    Indeed ! Also the BMW 335D is one of my dream cars !!

    The US market version Jetta TDI got one less gear (5 speed manual vs 6 speed manual) so the TDI engine in the 5 speed SCREAMED as compared to purred with a 6 speed. ;)

    I understand the 2009 TDI got corrected and now has the 6 speed manual (6 spd DSG also).

    Indeed I do not expect most non diesel owners to really understand the max torque concept: yours @ 1750-2250 rpms, VW being @ 1750 rpms. 2500 or so RPMS seems to be the SWEET SPOT for longevity for the TURBO. RPMS much over that is sort of lost.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    it's tricky to calculate projected high speeds only by mathematics. The engine may not be able to pull the highest gear to the maximum RPM, due to aero effects, etc.

    As you increase speed, the HP you need increases exponentially, not linearly.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    Indeed your assertion is probably true. I suspect for Jose this is true also, but I will not put words in his mouth, but he (as well as I) are just reporting the reality rather than projecting.
  • jlbljlbl Posts: 1,333
    Yesterday I came back home after driving with my wife 1,000 miles to and fro. In the end, highway average speed was 73 mph as a result to try cruising at 86 mph (2,200 rpm), with occasional peaks up to 100 mph to rock the engine. All in cold wether, ranging from -3ºC to 6ºC. Averaged consume (tank filled twice) was 33.5 miles per gallon.

    That, as rucking1 has said, was reporting from reality.

    1750 rpm = 68 mph
    2000 rpm = 78 mph
    2250 rpm = 87 mph
    2500 rpm = 97 mph
    3000 rpm = 117 mph
    4000 rpm = 155.34 mph


    Those were products of multiplying rpm by respective gear multiplication factors. Yet most of them have been assessed by myself (only up to 3000 rpm :mad: ). In that, I merrily acknowledge my wife collaboration as a co-pilot; she wrote down the figures I simultaneously read on the speedometer and the 'cuentarrevoluciones' of my 335d. I can be very obsessed when checking the performance of my cars.

    As you increase speed, the HP you need increases exponentially, not lineally.

    I may be wrong, but I believe that when increasing speed the fuel burned to get the necessary HP and the HP itself is what increases not lineally. I was speaking of revs., not of HP or fuel necessary to obtain the speed/revs.

    Regards,
    Jose
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJPosts: 3,516
    Kinda why I love my Cummins Ram. My hp peak is just 2900 rpm (325 hp), so it's still making an insane 589 lb-ft at that rpm. (Torque peak is 610 lb-ft at 1500, so there's very little fall-off through the whole rev range.) In-gear redline is 3200, and I can hit it in every gear, including overdrive.

    kcram - Pickups Host
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    Good time to make a deal on Subaru diesels !!! This of course is a HUGE advantage for Euro oems, i.e.,: VW.
  • bumpybumpy Posts: 4,435
    This little buggy is fully US-legal as of yesterday.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    Love that front fence !!!
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    I have given them and the Land Rover diesels a thought. Once they are 20 years old they can be brought in legally. Strange laws we have.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    GEEZ -- we don't need a law to ban diesels, we need a law against push bars like that. I mean, if they can put crash bars on the back of trucks to protect us from being decapitated, how about sawing off the corral fence from the front of SUVs?
  • I'm not sure I would buy a diesel today. When you look at the added cost at the dealer and the added cost at the pumps and even most insurance companies charge more for diesels...................so not sure I would buy a new diesel today !

    84' Ford F250HD < Diesel !
    87' Ford Escort < Diesel !
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    Indeed it has never really been about using less fuel, it has been really about talking about using less fuel.

    Lots of folks get on their high horses about so called "gas sucking" SUV's. This of course would be a difficult case to make if those same diesel twin turbo suv's got 30-35 mpg !!! Indeed loads of folks with the (one of the best "small compact economy car") Civic do NOT get 35 mpg !!!
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    I don't remember the 84 that well. Was it set up to run on diesel 1 or 2?
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    Any diesel engine will run on number one or number 2 diesel. Number one diesel is basically kerosene or Jet fuel. It has a much lower freezing temperature. Most Northern stations mix #1 with #2 in the winter to prevent gelling. Number one does not yield as good a mileage. I don't think that Toyota ever imported the diesel Land Cruiser into the USA. Canada seems to have a lot of them and they come on eBay from time to time. Along with diesel Land Rovers.

    Modern diesel engines such as the new Mercedes and VW will need low sulfur diesel. Otherwise it will clog up the emissions very quickly.
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    The only ones I ever saw were in Kenya and whatever they were running on belched black smoke like a destroyer escort. But they seemed to run forever. I should post a picture of a gas station we stopped at in Kenya. The woman owner came out and hand cranked 25 gallons of diesel into our Toyota Mini Van. They had diesel mini vans made by just about everyone.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    Diesel that we used to get had a what ever PPM sulfur content of the crude it was distilled from. California limited the sulfur content in diesel sold here in about 1990. Even that was 130 PPM. Off road diesel is still higher content sulfur. With ULSD 15 PPM diesel you will not see that black soot, even in a vehicle without any particulate trap. The sulfur did not hurt the old diesel engines. Some countries still allow diesel up to 2000 PPM such as Russia and China. With 500 PPM in the major cities. There is an ongoing argument that ULSD does not properly lubricate older diesel engines. Adding 5% -20% biodiesel will take care of the lubrication and cut our use of foreign oil.

    Diesel engines are much more adaptable to a variety of fuels and alternative fuels, than gasoline engines.
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    You know I seem to remember back in 63 or so Chrysler had a turbine car that would run on just about anything that would burn.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Did you know that the first diesel engine ran on palm oil?
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    Actually when you go back into the history the "evolution" of both the diesel and the WASTE (RUG to PUG ) products makes a lot of sense. Diesel from barrels of oil has been and remains the "money" products. If you (EPA) dispose of either product; that action (epa approved disposal) inexorably drives up the cost of the remaining product. So it makes all the sense to have a balanced population of both RUG to PUG and so called oil burners (min of 23%) . It makes no sense in the pantheon of how the foreign oil dependency conundrum is framed to:

    1. continue to EXPORT D2, while charging the RUG to PUG users .50 to $1.00 per gal to do so.

    2. continue to import 60% foreign barrels of oil to meet an artifically created a min of 23% spike in RUG to PUG.

    2. artificially limit passenger diesel D2 to less than 1% when the natural product mix from a barrel of oil is (EIA.GOV data) 46% RUG to PUG and D2 23.4. %

    4.. The problem is structurally not solvable, (cut foreign importation of barrels of oil) if we continue down the path we have chosen.
  • Did you know that a bio company in Cal. has made a diesel fuel that burns 90% cleaner then reg. diesel and it does not JELL. But they are being force to make the factory in BRAZIL not in the UNITED STATES. WHY?

    The auto manufactors could make a 3-4 cylinder for cars that get 45mph to put in cars but they dont what to that other 10% can be put through a hepper filter just like on one of the Mercades cross overs. They are in the back pockets of the oil company. Just like Ford with the tire problem, they new the tires had a problem and did nothing about it untill they got caught.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    I don't think that the automakers and the oil companies are in cahoots about anything.

    Let's face it---American do not, nor have they ever, liked small cheap diesel cars. They barely tolerate diesel Benzes.

    Detroit doesn't build them because no one will buy them. That's been proven time and time again, at least to me. They are too expensive to build (not just the engines but meeting the emissions regs) and the market is too small to justify the capital costs.

    My opinion is that even if gas hit $10 a gallon, you will not get 99.5% of American car buyers into a diesel Daewoo with cardboard door panels and cloth seats, even if it got 75 mpg. You would get a few more into diesel Passats, but it would be a fractional market share gain, IMO.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    For my two cents, I am totally ok with Detroit so called " NOT" building diesels. What is totally disengenuous is the BIGGIE THREE lobbying to NOT allowing world wide diesels into the USA market !!! (even as they will concede they DO build world wide diesels) Indeed if you look I bet some diesels are "built" in the USA for (world wide) EXPORT !!!!

    I have read in passing VW will build a plant in Tenn which will build diesels models for the world wide markets including the "US " market.

    Given the recent bru ha ha, the big three and UAW did NOT testify in securing the permanent taxpayer bail out monies, what will take the place of pick up trucks and suv's !!! So that should be a fairly obvious signal they will continue to build them. Making them in turbo diesel to increase the mpg and torque, etc. is probably far too logical a leap.
  • The Ford flex would be the Idle car to put into. I work for ford so I can tell you witch one to put it in.

    Every year ford send out a flyer on ideas and every year putting diesel in cars is always #1 but it never happens.

    Just like putting the alison trans. in the super duty. The motor is turned down so not to brake trans. Putting the allison 6speed and put a splitter so you can increase mpg would be the best thing. People around here do that after the warrenty runs out and put the chip in it
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    And there you have it! :surprise: :lemon:
  • I was stationed in Germany in the eighties and 90% of the vehicles were diesel and driving at over 100 mph in a 325i and still getting 45mpg back then. So you tell me why they did not bring deisel motors to the U.S.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    ..."and driving at over 100 mph in a 325i and still getting 45mpg back then. So you tell me why they did not bring deisel motors to the U.S. "...

    The 2003 VW Jetta TDI can easily do that and still deliver 48 mpg. On a recent 3 state and 45 min CN border stop and go trip (965 miles one way) I ran a steady 75 mph with bursts to 80 mph and it returned 59 mpg. So in comparison to a Jetta gasser which would struggle to get 29 mpg, the diesel for logical purposes is an absolute no brainer. It is such a no brainer than when even close friends ask me what I get in a diesel, I don't even say anymore. If they press, I just say well it could be better. :blush: :shades:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    the simplest answer is always the best.

    Americans don't like diesel cars and won't buy them.

    That's why the Big Three will not built them for domestic market, at least not the domestic market *as it is now configured*.

    If one does not agree that the government *punish* people until they do buy diesels, then you have to let the market dictate what is built by what is bought.

    You could not currently give away at 1/2 price a $35000 Chevrolet diesel sedan.

    You could not get an American driver into a Peugeot turbo diesel hatchback or a VW Rabbit diesel.

    You CAN (and have) gotten them into diesel pickups for hauling gravel, etc.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    Your post does not acknowledge the lack of choice. So it is 1. a circular argument 2. self fulfilling prophesy.

    So for example while we get a pretty good 38-42 mph on a(gasser) Honda Civic for a commute, I would buy a turbo diesel Civc that got 56 mpg !!! The unacknowledged problem is it is simply not available on the US market.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Fair enough but both Mercedes and VW have offered diesel cars for 30 years in America, as has Volvo, Peugeot and GM for shorter periods of time.

    Diesel passenger cars have never had more than 6% of the market.

    Why would an automaker pour hundreds of millions into such a niche market?

    To develop it? Into what? A market for cars that burn very expensive fuel? A market for an unspecified future time when fuel costs might (or might not) double or triple in price?

    It's not like with other emerging markets, like computers or iPods, when there was nothing like it one could buy in the early days----right now you can buy gasoline cars that get outstanding gas mileage.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    I brought a friend to an independent MB shop to have his MB gasser serviced and was absolutely stunned to see how many 1970's 1980's MB diesels still serviceable.

    Diesel passenger CARS are currently less than 1% of the passenger vehicle fleet. I read that 92.5% of the diesel passenger vehicle fleet (ie light trucks) are diesels. So the over all % diesel is @ 2%, down from less than 3%.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    that's because of their build quality, not just their engines. Most other 70s cars of that era would have fallen to pieces by now, even if their engines were still running.

    Besides, back then diesel engines made sense in a luxury car like an old 300---you could get small car mileage out of a large car. Remember this was an era when a) most large 4-door cars got 15 mpg and b) when diesel fuel cost less than regular gasoline.

    Neither of those market forces is now operative.

    Running a 70s Mercedes diesel today only makes sense in that you can buy them cheap and so you don't have car payments, and that they can still deliver reliable day to day transportation---and they look nice even now. But if the engine blows up you can throw the car away or spend more than the entire value of the automobile to fix it....not so smart.

    I think if you jumped on those old Benz owners and hit them up with truth serum and examined their service and repair records, you'd see that these are no cheaper to run than any other used car.
  • When ford came out with the ranger w/ a diesel motor they sold every one of them then quiet making them :confuse: Some of the proplem is epa I dont think people know that when mpg regulation is stablished it is based on colective of vehicles not on A vehicle. Get this Ford built a Paint department in Loran Ohio and never used it so when they do there pollution standered they add it to the average whitch is zero so there partical numbers are lower HMMMM!!

    Ford has a diesel motor in Europe that get I think 50 plus mpg Yes old motors nocked like hell.But this new motor is quiet :D. There are more then 2 dozen tankers off the gulf coast because there is a glutten of oil at the refinerese. If you noticed when the price of gas was way up the price of motor oil at you're local auto zone and other places only went up a few pennies HMMM?? Also a diesel motor will last 2-3 hundred miles gas motor will last only 150. People with vehicles that better then that never drove over 45mph
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    I don't think that statistically you will find that great a difference in longevity between a gas and light diesel engine. If I recall correctly, Australia did a rather large study on this subject and found that estimated longevity for a modern gas engine was 175K and for a modern light diesel 225K. If you add 10% error each way (presuming this study is somewhat accurate) then really the average buyer would experience no difference in longevity...especially since so few people keep a car in the USA beyond about 10 years---so that's maybe 150K in miles.

    The Ford Ranger diesels are ancient history, and anyway, they weren't American engines. Perkins and Mitsubishi, from the 1980s.

    A compact diesel pickup isn't a bad idea actually.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,726
    It's not like with other emerging markets, like computers or iPods, when there was nothing like it one could buy in the early days----right now you can buy gasoline cars that get outstanding gas mileage.

    I beg to differ. Apart from the anti-car, AKA Prius, there isn't a gas-powered car on the market that will average better than 40 mpg. We shouldn't judge all diesels by the unimpressive VW model - if automakers tried just a little to excel in diesel offerings, they could blow away all gas-powered cars except hybrids on the fuel economy front, and for about the same price premium as a hybrid car.

    But they haven't, and with the Japanese fading back out of the diesel picture in recent months they probably won't, given that the consumer's first thought is going to be for the current price of diesel when they go to buy the car. As it has been for much of the year, diesel is still WELL above regular unleaded in price in my area.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    I don't think that the automakers and the oil companies are in cahoots about anything.

    Let's face it---American do not, nor have they ever, liked small cheap diesel cars. They barely tolerate diesel Benzes.
    ****
    The real problem is that when you mix capitalism, government, and commodities, you don't get the most efficient outcome. You get the most profitable for the least amount of money spent. And the public basically has to buy what you make, thanks to the government only allowing certain cars into the U.S.

    It's a captive market.

    In such situations, free market idealism and theory goes right into the dumpster along with idiocy like the Chicago school of economic theory and supply and demand. Because government and greed always makes it all work very differently than in a classroom or in a research paper. Usually to the public's detriment as we've seen with this bailout.

    We need cars that will help us get out of this mess. The problem is that these same cars are the least likely to be made, because the auto makers aren't in the business of building cheap, reliable, and affordable cars.(I'm talking 100mpg, hardly ever breaks, and under $10K). They are in the business of making their shareholders wealthy and keeping their stock prices high.

    I think the solution will either come from new players in the industry who have a different agenda, or from companies that pretty much only do diesel and other technologies. (VW and a few others, for instance) The D3? Don't bother. Just move on and look elsewhere.
  • The f-150 is suppose to get a diesel engine in the 09 half year module some time in april.
    The only thing I am concerned is that some dumm @$$ is going to use a 5th wheel camper behind it when they should have been using a f-350 see to many trucks that way. They are over there weight limit and DOT cops only pulls over company trucks not the mom and pop :cry: who should not be pulling the item behind them.
    Get this!! seen a guy pulling a pontuine party boat with a minni van not made for that little white sticker on drivers door tells you what you're total weight is that includes the people and materials you are carrying not just what you are towing
  • bumpybumpy Posts: 4,435
    The Ford Ranger diesels are ancient history, and anyway, they weren't American engines. Perkins and Mitsubishi, from the 1980s.

    Really? Not Mazda?
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    That is really the key point. Even as the Big 4 have asked for bail outs, they STILL are not building a significant % and number of cars that the US market wants to buy, albeit at the price they can continue to make an over all profit !! The bail out also almost guarantees they will REMAIN CLUELESS, going forward !!!

    So in that sense, the Big 4 have and continue to misread and manipulate operative market forces. I think it is intimitating at whatever levels to the big four that diesel SUV's (not theirs) are capable right now of getting the forward looking 2012 35 mpg literally YESTERDAY. They literally spend the moneys on "useless" additional accessories, sheet metal changes, and redesign after poor initial design rather than confront head on the higher mileage issues. They suffer from unreliability from making things too complicated, so what do they propose to do? Make it even MORE complicated, ie, hybrids, untried battery packs, etc.

    Indeed I am surprised the circular argument you present is one that you don't see! I also think you are marginally acknowleding the points !!

    So for example, if I buy a gasser American car, even though I want say a turbo diesel model American car, it is an absolute no brainer to interpret my actions as: see, the American public (1 each- me) does NOT want a diesel, therefore that is why we don't make diesels. So if I REALLY want an American diesel, the best thing to do is NOT to buy American, till they actually have a turbo diesel model. The problem of course has been the big four volume/profit wise have been so out of touch with the American buying public and for a very long time, and it SHOWS !!!! (in my case out of touch for a min of 39 years)

    Of course they REALLY know the answer (in the bowls of the organization), which is why they have banned diesel cars Euro and Asian, etc. Of course it takes a 100 M plant, VW Tennessee USA, i.e., when the VW builds diesel models on our sources to bring it to the fore.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    This might make more sense. (delete the above last paragraph) replace with.

    Of course they REALLY know the answers (in the bowls of the organization). One spin off is the logistical system is they have banned diesel cars Euro and Asian, etc. Of course it probably takes a $ 100 M plant, VW Tennessee USA, i.e., when VW will build diesel models on our shores to bring turbo diesel cars to the fore.

    On the other hand, they have (for literally decades) and probably will continue to charge the American public a 5,000 dollar mid sized truck premium on top of already 15,000 dollar profit for a heavy duty turbo diesel
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Well I think part of your argument is quite correct, in that Americans who want diesels should buy foreign ones----just like they taught Detroit a lesson by buying small foreign pickup trucks and 4-door sedans that did not maneuver like blocks of ice with steering wheels attached.

    My point about gas cars being the equivalent of diesel cars takes into account the unfortunate reality that in my part of California, diesel fuel is going to cost you .60 cents more a gallon than regular gas.

    Buy a diesel, pay a penalty.

    So you can forget about diesels becoming popular in the northern half of California in the year 2009 unless something changes radically in the oil market.

    As for hybrids, you are correct again that they are as complex and expensive as diesels to build, if not indeed more so---but Toyota pulled off a great PR coup, even if they didn't make much money on each hybrid. They look like visionaries, "greens", technical leaders, and an automaker that can make a car that is dead reliable.

    Try pinning those labels on the Big 3 with any credibility. Not going to happen.

    It also won't happen by introducing diesel cars, as they are not perceived by the American public as a new technology or a mainstream solution.

    Americans have "embraced" hybrids but I suspect they will just "sniff around" new diesel cars, like they have in the past.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,826
    UPSHOT: best time ever to try to get a new diesel @ invoice !!!!

    Secondly, your clarifications/explanations, when you point to the objective examples makes sense, or has come to the fore. To the extent that it represents a "majority" opinion indicates again the LACK of seriousness about the foreign oil dependency issue. So if they were "serious" they would for example, make diesel .60 cents CHEAPER than RUG. Hopefully the reasoning would be obvious. The reasoning/s to the logistics system/s is SO obvious and is actually part of the reasoning to make it .60 cents MORE !!!! :lemon:

    As an aside, as you probably know, the American public is already charged an extra .50 cents to 1 per gal on RUG to PUG (tax credits, depreciation, special dispensations, etc.) to EXPORT US made D2 for the world wide markets !!!???? YUP you can tell we are serious :P :P about cutting foreign oil importation.

    The operative term for another example given diesels 20-40% fuel use efficiency over RUG to PUG might be: Why use less, when you can use more, and talk about using less. Its the Hollywood, LA LA land way !!!
This discussion has been closed.