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

fintail

Car design is not very imaginative. Oh, it also lost the heritage themed ponton-style rear fender detailing. I think I dislike that loss a lot.

I guess that's right. I really didn't care for the W212 at introduction (I called it a German Acura), but I accepted it, and it aged well. Maybe it will make for some blowout lease deals on leftover 2013 models, as the facelift will have high demand.

ateixeira

Now that you said that I can tell you the split headlights reminded me of the old Avalon.

The new one has all the lights in one overstyled (?) enclosure.

The look may translate better to a coupe.

ruking1

I would agree you have a hard time reconciling RESULTS ! ? :surprise: 18 days left in 2012 and only 2,411 units left !! Let's move on to the 2013 MY !! Correction: its down to 2,406 !

fintail

They were just an evolution from the 4 round lights that MB used on the E for almost 15 years :shades:

The new look is reminiscent of current stype CLS lights, which seems to be the template now - upcoming S-class will borrow cues from it too.

And on topic, I think the E250 diesel is the volume leader in Germany - no reason what couldn't work on their roads wouldn't work here, as conditions are more demanding there.

ruking1

I am thinking the MB 2.4 L BlueTec (or so, with 369 # ft) will be pretty exciting when it hits the US diesel market. With 47 mpg in a CUV or car should be an instant hit.

gagrice

And on topic, I think the E250 diesel is the volume leader in Germany - no reason what couldn't work on their roads wouldn't work here, as conditions are more demanding there.

I agree. The Mercedes dealer just called me about my GLK250 Bluetec inquiry. Said at least 8 months as they are having some CA emissions issues. And of course CA being the most important place on the planet, well you can understand. :sick:

I assume they will have to use urea (adblue). I should have asked about the E250 Bluetec while I had him on the phone. Probably same issues. Is the GLK built on the E chassis?

fintail

I'd like to see that 47mpg C-class. I know it is possible, as I drove a smaller 4cyl diesel E in Germany that averaged something like 43mpg, including 100mph autobahn runs. Acceleration was kinda slow, though.

fintail

Maybe some other places can get it first. But dealers can sometimes give sketchy info - I was told the C diesel was coming in just a few months - this was 2 years ago or maybe more.

GLK is C-class based.

ruking1

The difference in acceleration (model to model) heretofore has always BEEN one trade off. But I think it is LARGELY oxymoronic especially on American roads to have a " 4 sec zero to sixty" as a "hot benchmark" with a 65 mph speed limit. I think much can be made of a straw man safety issue. But as you know, those "slug" diesels do just fine on unlimited speed European autobahns; and the "over population of diesels (read in passing 50% +) in Europe are as safe or safer statistically than our already US stellar records with only 5% diesels.

fintail

This car (E200) was around 10 seconds. It reminded me of my old car. You had to plan ahead. Maybe too much for the average driver, who lacks much thought capacity at all. But then again...would the average driver choose that car to begin with. Hmmm.

gagrice

Yes the E200 CDI is the old 4cylinder diesel model. Much slower than the E250 Bluetec. At least to 60 MPH. They are still listed for sale on the UK website. They also have the E220 CDI and the new E300 Hybrid which uses the 2143cc diesel engine as base power.

habitat1

This car (E200) was around 10 seconds. It reminded me of my old car. You had to plan ahead.

My 1984 Toyota Supra, a pretty hot car for its day, was 8.3 seconds 0-60. And my 1978 Datsun B210GX, a not so hot car for it's day, was somewhere north of 15 seconds. Or, on an uphill grade, never.

As for planning ahead, I had an episode test driving an M3 with SMG awhile back that really stuck with me. Waiting to take a left turn in traffic, I saw an opening. Hit the gas. But from a dead stop with the engine just idling at 700 rpm, there was a pregnant pause. I slammed on the brakes and waited for a bigger gap. My 2004 Acura TL, with a six speed manual, would have allowed me to take that left without any drama. Just have the engine revving at 3,000 and engage the clutch when the path clears.

Vehicles that boast 4.5 second 0-60 times with automatic or DSG transmissions but require you to go through a multistep "launch procedure" to achieve them are, IMO, a joke. Give me a three pedal manual with a 7 second 0-60 time and I will be much more comfortable with the everyday driving situation I described.

Wishful thinking, I know, but I'd love to see MB or BMW come out with some diesel sedan options that include manual transmissions. That would be one way to combine lower horsepower, higher fuel efficiency diesel engines with - at least for me - better drivability.

ruking1

It is funny how that works.

VW offers the 6 speed M/T in almost all TDI's. For my 1.5 cents the 6 speed M/T is the best diesel transmission combination.

(Touareg TDI offers only 8 speed A/T, but that is a model outlier anyway (less than 10,000 units 2012 US market). I do like it very much and is probably one of the best A/T- diesel combinations on the market

MB to my knowledge (luxury moniker) not a one.

BMW diesel options are 100% A/T.

fintail

My old car does 0-60 around 12 seconds. But because of gearing issues (2nd gear start, long legged 4th that engages under 30mph), some driving requires thought and timing, and manual shifting that eventually wears out the linkage. Darting out into traffic or accelerating to highway speeds from 25-30 or so can be trying. I suppose the modern car might have a more intelligent transmission, and alleviate some of these issues. Diesel torque also helps.

I am used to my E55, which has so much torque, there are no problem areas - just point and shoot. No launch control there, just a big old fashioned engine in a car that is light by 2012 standards.

I suspect the modern 7 speed unit used by MB would be well suited to these smallish (under 3 liter) engines, in a smaller car like a C. C250 in 7th gear on the highway should be able to get upper 40s, or so I would guess. Living in a hilly area with dense idiotic traffic, I don't have much desire for a manual.

plekto

Vehicles that boast 4.5 second 0-60 times with automatic or DSG transmissions but require you to go through a multistep "launch procedure" to achieve them are, IMO, a joke. Give me a three pedal manual with a 7 second 0-60 time and I will be much more comfortable with the everyday driving situation I described.

I hear you. Most auto magazines and manufacturers get those figures by revving the car to redline and dropping it into 2nd gear (manually). Then not shifting until it gets to 60mph.

And, of course, they operate the accelerator like a toggle switch during maneuvers.

Completely unrealistic. With a manual and halfway decent gearing, you're already wound up and don't have to hammer the pedal to the floor trying to launch into a gap in traffic. In fact, when I had a 2 ton 4Runner with manual, and a whopping 140hp (it had a 4 cylinder plus exhaust and intake mods - 15hp more than stock! :P ) I'd routinely blow past new cars and even some sports cars. Because while they would be running around in automatic mode, I'd be thinking ahead and be already in gear and ready to go. Even vs people shifting their automatics, I'd do better since it's a necessity for me versus a part-time choice for them. Ie - I had no fallback mode or way TO be lazy. I blew a shift, I crunched my gears or stalled out. So I had to be on my game at all times. Immediate reaction speed plus lack of shifting lag meant a 1-2 second gain any time I wanted to do anything.

4000lbs. 0-60 in at least 15-20 seconds. 140hp and the torque of a kid's wind-up toy. Yet it beat yuppie toys around town.

Needless to say, I'm no fan of automatics or DSG or any of that idiocy. I've driven them all and a good manual still does better in city traffic. And even in a traffic jam, believe it or not. Hint - put it in 2nd and leave it there. Drive like a semi would and ignore gaps unless they get to be excessive. Plus, it sounds great and annoys the other drivers when you're running around at 3K rpm all the time.

ruking1

Diesel's mated to one's choice:
1. 6 speed manual
2. 4 speed to 6 speed A/T slush box
3. DSG dual clutch A/T
4. 8 speed A/T,
5. etc.

CAN be (and should , my .02cents) be driven differently.

The diesel engine has different dynamics !!! Diesel engineS are also different also Each of the transmission choices ALSO have their own dynamics. Indeed as you imply, the T4 Runner with a manual had ITS own dynamics. Indeed on Edmunds.com you cant even get a M/T with a T4 Runner anymore (5 speed A/T) !?

I wonder out loud how long it will be before Aisin (subsidiary of T) brings its FAB 8 speed A/T to the T 4 Runner?

stever

"The new 2014 Transit full-size van has three body lengths, two wheelbases, three roof heights and comes as a van, wagon, chassis cab or cutaway for commercial use.

Ford said the Transit will achieve an average of 25% better fuel economy and haul at least 300 pounds more than today's E-Series.

It will be offered with a 3.7-liter V6 gasoline engine or a new 3.2-liter Power Stroke diesel option."

Ford unveils redesign of Transit, Transit Connect (Detroit Free Press)

elias

~1999, gasoline was 89 cents per gallon, diesel was 48 cents per gallon - prices had been gyrating wildly but mostly low.
It was just after Iraq invaded Kuwait with one reason/pretense being due to oil prices being too low. Financial mission accomplished there, eh?
Shortly after the brief sub-dollar gas prices ended, the math helped me decide that a diesel would be one of my next new vehicle purchases, and a method to provide less funding to the anti-USA/anti-womens-rights/anti-freedom/anti-Semitic/anti-Christian governments which sell us oil.

I had figured oil prices would actually rise much faster but the increase has indeed been impressive the last 4 years too.

To sum up, I'm leaning diesel again for next purchase.

I might like to trade one of my gasser vehicles and get a diesel, or get a third vehicle as soon as I get 2 drivers here in the household (1.7 years from now).
TOUAREG TDI is at the top of my list.
AUDI Q5 TDI also will be on the list. Audi diesel wagon please?

gagrice

Audi diesel wagon please?

Yes, bring US the Audi A4 Allroad Quattro TDI 2.0L. Looks like the Q5 has the same mileage ratings with the 2.0L TDI. About 40 MPG combined US gallons.

xwesx

25% better fuel economy and haul at least 300 pounds more than today's E-Series.

That's darn impressive. It's really too bad that they won't take the extra step of offering the TransitConnect with a small turbodiesel offering as well. That could make for a potent pair.

ateixeira

To be honest I don't even remember, but I doubt that was low-sulfur diesel.

Brazil sells diesel dirt cheap, too, also about half the cost of gas, but it's not clean enough for most European cars so they're not sold there.

Never seen a single Golf TDI in Brazil, come to think of it, though the Golf is sold there. My cousin owns a red one (and works at a VW dealer).

ateixeira

http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2012/12/gm-fundamentally-in-favor-of-expanding-u- s-diesel-line-up/

ruking1

I think they sanctioned that just to keep up the PR interest, competitors off balance and have someone to blame in case the flag got shredded by and with fragmentation (@ the flagpole , raising the trial flag/s). It is surprising they let such a high level spokesperson give his/their "personal" opinion. Many a folk expressing their "personal" opinion/s" have lost six to seven figure jobs for doing EXACTLY that.

VW, Toyota , GM play musical chairs with the #1, and #2 world wide positions, so it is almost a no brainer the competitor being AIMMED @. I think the real sticking point for GM is they will have to upgrade (higher cost/s) the transmission /s paired with the diesel option.

gagrice

I am skeptical that GM can get it right. It took them a long time and the help of Izusu and Allison to get a diesel/transmission package to compete with Dodge and Ford. GM having the Feds on their side could probably pull some strings that would make emissions easier to pass. Though they would still have the CARB cabal to over come. I think for now the Germans have the corner on diesel vehicles. Which is fine, as they are the best. Even in the EU where GM sells diesel cars they do not get the mileage of a German competitor. Face it we are a devolving 3rd World country.

ruking1

For certain "history" is certainly on GM's side. 59 years ago, theV- 8 cylinder engine was used for the 1955 Chevrolet ? small block FF, I guess I should count my lucky stars the Z06 ended up with a "TREMEC" 6 speed M/T and one of the "technological peaks" for a V-8 350 cu in push rod engine (circa 2000)?.

Why they have so much technological trouble with a sub 4.3 L engine is mystifying at best. Good transmissions are another mystery. They have been doing diesel (V-8, 6.6L on down ) "light trucks" for literally decades.

When you combine it with the Federal, Union/s and political ownership of GM, those are broader and other mystifications. That is especially so if one does not think the policies are ANTI diesel. :lemon: :shades:

Perhaps the bru ha ha with the changing of the EPA MPG TEST to let the 2004 Toyota hybrid do better: with diesels showing artificially low mpg was a BIG chit to cash.

On the practical side, I have no issues running 15,000 to 20,000 miles OCI's on gassers. I do not run many miles over that in that gassers generally consume way more oil. So as a practical matter, I just change the oil when it gets both close to the mileage AND approaches a qt low.

On the other hand, I have no issues running 20,000 to 30,000 miles OCI's on the 1.9/2.0 L TDI's. (same reasoning different/lower consumption rates at higher mileage.)

So in either scenario : diesel or gasser, (in my case, BOTH) THESE ARE the good ole days !

stever

"Mazda will launch an unprecedented diesel offensive at the 2013 Tokyo Auto Salon in January.

At an aftermarket show that's normally all about raw power, noise and excitement, Mazda is trying something new with an array of new-generation models that all have one thing in common — they have "clean" diesel power onboard."

Mazda Pushes Diesel Power at 2013 Tokyo Auto Salon

Gas prices here in Michigan are creeping back up ($3.35 here) but over the holiday I found some regular for $2.97. Most diesel was still pushing $3.85 or worse. At sixty to eighty cents difference, it would have cost me an "extra" $6 to $8 to fill up my Outback last week.

ruking1

I guess that is code for: why NOT to get a diesel nor a Mazda diesel especially? This is not to mention there are absolutely NO Mazda diesel's in inventory, let alone the Mazda 3 TDI which is what they are saying will be their US market offering? :lemon: :shades:

stever

Just more in the vein of stuff we can't get here. Yet.

Who knows, when diesel prices get competitive again, maybe Mazda will decide to ship some Skyactiv-D models over.

What's the price differential out in CA these days?

ruking1

Actually a good question. I will preface that with each of the four products are boutique in nature. I wish we could pay the other 49 states prices. :lemon:

(ONE) Corner Store:

USLD $3.99

PUG $ 3.73

MGUG $3.63

RUG $ 3.53

gagrice

Today in San Diego diesel is selling at many stations for $3.89. Most discount gas is $3.43. That is about as far as the spread gets. In Summer diesel can be cheaper.

That means to drive my Sequoia 15,000 would require 1000 gallons of gas@ 15 MPG. Which is what I average and it matches the EPA site.

If I buy a MB ML350 Bluetech I can be assured of at least the EPA estimate of 23 MPG combined. Which would take about 652 gallons of ULSD to travel 15,000 miles. At todays price that is about $900 savings in fuel alone. With the price of the ML350 Bluetech only $1400 more than the premium burning V6, the diesel is a no brainer. I could pay $7,000 more and get the V8 and not match the torque of the MB diesel.

habitat1

Drove by the BP Station at Georgia and Connecticut Avenue the other day and was pleased to see the price of diesel was 3.79, which is 15 cents LESS than premium there or at the Shell station around the corner ($3.94). We have 5% discount credit cards for both BP and Shell, so that's all we usually shop at, given the nearly 20 cents/gallon savings that equates to.

Still not sure why diesel is 15 cents higher than premium at Shell station in Rockville, 15 cents less than premium at a BP station 5 miles away. We've only had 6-7 fill ups in the 4 months of ownership, but it makes having Gasbuddy on the i-Phone a valuable tool.

After calculating our actual fuel cost for our MDX and X5d for 2012, the X5d has averaged 22.4 mpg in mixed driving, the MDX 14.3 (city mpg on the MDX is miserable). Diesel prices would need to be about $2.00 higher than premium gas for the X5 and MDX to be equivalent cost per mile in mixed driving.

ruking1

CLOSE ENOUGH !! .

(By your figures )

3.79/22.4=16.92 cents per mile driven

vs

3.94/14.3=27.55 cents per mile driven

By the same token, many folks totally ignore the fact that PUG costs 63% MORE ( per mile driven fuel, per your examples) !!!! :sick:

ateixeira

You average 14 mpg?

I've heard complaints but that seems low.

stever

That's all well and good but you're talking to a guy who'd be reluctant to own a car that required premium gas. :shades:

ruking1

I think you would be in danger of missing the comparison, or perhaps that IS the intent. Same drivers (and I would assume similar conditions) are 56.6% better mpg for diesels. 22.4 vs 14.3 mpg.

ruking1

The example was on PUG. You could have run the numbers and percentages for RUG.

habitat1

To each their own - I'd be reluctant to buy a low compression gasoline engine that could get by on regular octane gas. It's hard to compare apples to apples on this, but most higher performance engines (measured in both efficiency of horsepower per liter and fuel economy) are higher compression engines. So you may think you are gaining something in saving on premium gas, but what you are likely giving up is horsepower and performance in exchange for cheaper gas.

I seem to recall from many years ago that Saab gave horsepower and performance ratings for its 900 Turbo for both regular 87 and premium 91-93 octane gas. The difference was something like 10-15 horsepower (145-150 vs. 160?) and something like a half second 0-60. I think the redline and engine fuel cutoff may have been lowered by the engine management computer as well.

I guess you can take the approach that you are willing to accept a lower performance gasoline engine to get the lowest possible $/gallon gas price with regular. But when I look at something like my old Honda S2000 that got 120 horsepower per liter out of a high compression 9,000 rpm redline engine, the fact that it required premium gas was a small price to pay for the performance - vs. say a GM engine that needed 50% more cylinders, twice as many liters to generate the same horsepower with 25% lower fuel efficiency using cheaper regular gas.

ruking1

I think you make a series of very good points. Since most of the passenger vehicle fleet is 95% gasoline with 9% requiring PUG and with an untold and unknown % of folks using RUG in a PUG car: I think it may be lost on NON enthusiasts (86%) but not on people who know and probably more importantly care enough to both buy cars (requiring PUG) and use PUG.

ateixeira

Turbos crave octane, but other engines where premium is recommended have smaller differences in output.

If you're after fuel economy and low cost of operation you're more likely to pick a car that doesn't require premium. The ForTwo uses premium fuel and I always thought that was just crazy. Of course look how many they sell....

habitat1

You average 14 mpg?

Unfortunately, yes, as our true city mileage inside the DC beltway has been well below EPA City estimates for the MDX. As well as most of our cars over the last 15+ years. Here's what I would estimate were the real world city mpg's for an tankful of heavy city driving vs. 70 mph highway cruising for my current and previous cars (vs. EPA)

1995 Maxima SE 5-speed: City: 19, Highway 28 (EPA 22/27)
1996 Isuzu Trooper 5-speed: City 13, Highway 20 (EPA 15/22)
2002 Honda S2000: City 19, Highway 30+ (EPA 20/26)
2004 Acura TL 6-speed: City 16, Highway 30 (EPA 20/29)
2005 Porsche 911S: City 15, Highway 27 (EPA 18/25)
2005 Acura MDX: City 12, Highway 21 (EPA 17/23)
2012 BMW X5d: City 19, Highway 29 (EPA 19/26)

In the case of most of my vehicles, we exceed the EPA highway estimate for 70 mph cruising and are below the city estimate for heavy (DC) city driving. But the MDX (and former Trooper) were the worst of the bunch. The X5d and former S2000 come close to hitting the EPA city estimate in DC driving.

The new MDX has even lower EPA ratings than our 2005, based partly upon what I have heard is a very fuel thirsty AWD system. I don't know of anyone with a X5d, ML350 Bluetec, Q7TDI or Cayenne diesel that isn't happy with their actual real world fuel efficiency, even in DC traffic. That cannot be said for most of the gasoline SUV's, that get low teens or worse in the city.

habitat1

If you're after fuel economy and low cost of operation you're more likely to pick a car that doesn't require premium.

Agreed....you're more likely to pick one that requires diesel.

stever

The example was on PUG.

Yeah, but it was in response to my comment that regular, that my wagon takes, was under $3 a gallon on my recent road trip to Chattanooga, while filling up a 10 gallon tank on a diesel would have been 60 to 80 cents a gallon more.

Even with the new tires on it, the Subie is pretty fun to sling around on the snow. :shades:

ruking1

While I would concur the Subie line is very good, your example is meaning LESS; as there are not as many diesel comparisons, which was the point anyway. More meaning FULL is the cost per mle driven: fuel; in Habitats examples, the Acura MDX, BMW X5 35D D and the (follow on) VW Touareg TDI are in some parameters comparable, albeit competitors.

stever

Most people tire-kicking buying a diesel (for other than enthusiast or towing reasons perhaps) are going to think that a $6 a tank "premium" for filling up with diesel is going to eat up most savings on mpg. And while comparing like for like makes sense, we're really talking about what it's going to take "you" to consider buying a diesel. High diesel prices compared to regular is a checkoff in the negative column.

Hopefully the price of diesel will fall some more; no offense but I'd just as soon that regular doesn't get close to the price of diesel again by going back up to $4 a gallon. :shades:

xwesx

That it is!

And, when it truly comes down to it, the discussion of which fuel makes more sense (from a consumer standpoint) only really applies when a vehicle purchase is being considered.

That's when the TCO (including fuel) really makes a difference. It would always make zero sense to dump a current, paid off vehicle and rush out to buy something more fuel efficient.

Even then, there has to be an option of different fuel types and/or economies in the class/price of vehicle being shopped! :sick:

ruking1

I think it is more than obvious using any series of metrics that the majority of US gasser car buyers prefer to pay a lot more: per mile driven (per past post example of 67% MORE.) But the other truth is, I am totally fine with it, albeit as long as I have the freedom of choice to chose the cheaper option . :shades:

ateixeira

Does the MDX end up doing most of your city driving?

Neighbors get closer to 18 or so around town.

ateixeira

Wait, aren't you the one who insists on comparing "like models"?

The MDX has a 3rd row.

Not to mention 14 mpg is very atypical. Fuelly.com says 21.2 for the 2012. In fact it's so far off it makes me think something is wrong with that particular car.

3rd, you have to factor the price of the fuel, which varies by region.

4th, the per mile driven cost includes a lot more than just the fuel cost, so no way no how anyone will EVER lower per mile cost by 67%, it's ridiculous to say so.

We're going to have to call you Spin Doctor.

ruking1

Interesting that it is you doing the spinning and YOU calling me the spin doctor!? You are right it is ridiculous ! Is the spinning clouding your judgement? If you don't like the math IGNORE IT. If I did it incorrectly, post the correct figures.

The curb weight of the Acura MDX is 4,594#'s vs the 598 # heavier BMW X5 35D @ 5,192 #'s. I probably don't have to draw you the picture. Oh by the way, the BMW X5 35D CAN have the third seat option. I don't know if either to neither of his has third seat options, you might want to ask him IF you are so interested.

I am not sure why you are not okay with paying more when you .... freely pay it?

habitat1

Does the MDX end up doing most of your city driving?.....Neighbors get closer to 18 or so around town.

Yes, the MDX is used mostly for city driving now, which is why the weighted average mpg is so low. The other issue is that our "city" driving is probably about the worst you can get, short of being a taxi driver in Manhattan. My daughter uses the MDX to drive to high school, 5.9 miles one way. Twenty three traffic signals and at least twelve four way stop signs. On a very lucky morning, she might be able to go one stretch of 1/2 mile without having to stop and start again. Average time (non-rush hour) is 25 minutes (under 15 mph).

I don't really trust on-board computers for accurate mpg readings for short trips, but for the fun of it, a coupe of weeks ago I reset the MDX for the run to my daughters school and got 10.8 mpg. On the X5d, 17.2 mpg. What you can definitely notice on their respective "meters", is that the MDX needs to get into 3rd gear to get above single digit instantaneous mpg, which only occurs a few times in the entire 5.9 miles. The X5d's meter under the speedometer has it hitting 20-25+mpg as soon as you take your foot off the accelerator. A return trip through Rock Creek Park showed the MDX getting about 14 mpg, the X5d getting 20+ mpg at a more steady 25-30 mph with half as many stop/starts. "City" driving in my home town in PA would produce substantially better mpg, since there is much lower traffic congestion and the frequency of stoplights/signs is far lower. A buddy in the outer suburbs of DC (outer Prince William County, VA) brags that his TL automatic gets better mpg than my TL 6-speed. But he needs to drive 30 miles to go to a restaurant in Georgetown, I drive 6. Who wins??

Let me apologize to everyone that the MDX vs. X5d comparison was not meant to be apples to apples. The X5d was $13k more than a 2012 MDX Tech. Even at 10 years and 150k miles, we probably wouldn't make up more than 80% of that difference in fuel cost savings by my rough calculations. We bought the X5d over the MDX because it is built like a bank vault, is two rungs up the ladder in handling and we were looking for a change. The fact that some of the price premium would be offset by fuel savings was a bonus.

What IS a fair comparison is the X5d to the X5 3.5i. In that case, at 150k miles, I expect to be at least $10,000 ahead with the X5d (including $2,000+ purchase price savings with eco-credit), and have better highway acceleration to boot. When I am reminded of that benefit by the slight diesel engine noise at low speeds, it is music to my ears!