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

ateixeira

You are definitely incorrect, and I will happily provide figures.

You said cost per mile...

TCO for the X5d is $80,948 over 5 years and 75k miles, or $1.08 per mile.

For the MDX it is substantially lower at $62,532, or a much lower $0.83 per mile.

No contest at all, and that's even with 4 years of free service for BMW.

If you hyper mile the BMW and DOUBLE the mpg ratings, guess what? The Acura still wins in cost per mile.

If BMW gave you free diesel fuel for 75k miles you STILL would pay less per mile driving the Acura!

This is absolutely no contest. Fuel costs are only about 1/4 of your per mile costs.

ateixeira

Honestly with that type of driving a hybrid would likely do best. Then keep the diesel for weekends and longer drives.

I know you didn't mean it apples to apples and we should compare like models, some people just get carried away.

I just want to keep them honest.

ateixeira

Edmunds has the X5 gasser at $77k TCO in 75k miles, but indeed as you rack up the miles the diesel would likely close that gap and maybe pull ahead, especially with a $2000 credit up front.

gagrice

But you are stuck driving a Acura instead of an X5 for 5 years. I test drove the MDX when I bought the Sequoia. I was not impressed. It is still just a Honda with foo foo on it.

gagrice

Check with cyclone on the stock market thread. His RX450H quit in the fast lane going 70+ MPH. And after he got it to the side of the road it started again and the dealer cannot find any problem.

ateixeira

The topic was cost per mile.

A ridiculous claim was made and then proven wrong. Way wrong.

That is all. Lets move on.

ateixeira

A sample of one?

habitat1

Honestly with that type of driving a hybrid would likely do best.

I don't think hybrids offer the same advantage for larger 5-7 passenger SUV's as they do for economy cars like the Prius.

Notwithstanding the low fuel economy of our (now) mostly city relegated MDX, our X5d is likely to see a more balanced mix of highway and city driving over the coming years. A friend of mine in San Francisco has a 2006 Highlander Hybrid with 140k miles on it. Commutes 60 miles roundtrip against traffic from SF to near San Jose daily (i.e. 60+ mph, most of the way). His overall mpg since new is 22.5. I think the X5d would easily be 25-27+ under those mostly highway conditions. As he (a mechanical engineer) points out, the benefits of a hybrid are primarily all electric mode in short hop city driving. Otherwise, you are using a standard gasoline engine and carrying around the extra weight of the electric motors. He never gets worse than 20 mpg on a tankful, but he never gets better than 24. His Highlander would be a much better vehicle for my daughter's 5.9 mile city commute. Our X5d would be a better vehicle for his 60 mile roundtrip commute.

Everybody's math is going to be a little different depending upon their driving conditions/mix.

gagrice

A sample of one is good. I thought Toyota got that problem fixed with their hybrids many moons ago. And this was from a two Lexus owner. I think it shook his faith in the company a bit.

ateixeira

Do you need 2 utes?

We have 3 cars, each serving a distinct purpose. A city/fun car, a road trip van, and an all weather crossover.

For a 60 mile commute there's no doubt a diesel would be better suited.

ateixeira

Good thing no diesel has failed ever.

habitat1

Do you need 2 utes?

No, but when we decided to get the X5d, it was easier to just keep the 2005 MDX with 115k miles and pass it down for my daughter to use than sell or trade it for another more fuel efficient car. It's resale value is pretty low, so even at low fuel efficiency, it's the cheapest alternative. I'm working on teaching to her to drive a stick so she can take over my 2004 TL that only has 64k miles when I go for a new car. But in the meantime, I also like her in a bigger SUV in case some idiot decides to run a stop light and T-bone her (happened to friend of ours recently).

I like your 3 car strategy, which was similar to ours in the past. In 2003 our garage consisted of a Honda S2000, Nissan Maxima SE and Isuzu Trooper. All manual transmissions, BTW.

ruking1

Once again you are wrong about me being wrong. You even misunderstand and misrepresent what i really said. LIke you say lets move on.

ateixeira

At one point we had 3 manuals but the van didn't offer one. Not sure it makes sense in that vehicle anyway.

I test drove a Mazda5 but it is quite a bit smaller. I drive the basketball team around so the 8 seats have been essential.

Gotta go, some kids are here now!

ateixeira

I expect more maturity from my daughter and she's a teen.

ateixeira

Epic win.

Worth driving a van for games like that. :shades:

ruking1

Indeed, hopefully your expectation will rub off on you.

The math was clearly done and you neither corrected it nor added anything other than baseless accusations. The formula (that for whatever reason you think is wrong) is $ per gal diesel/ mpg= cost per mile driven: fuel.

Why you repudiate grade school math will have to remain mystery to me. Let's move on.

habitat1

I drive the basketball team around so the 8 seats have been essential.

Eight men out?? I guess you make the "Shoeless" kid walk??

I coached my daughter's basketball team, so I know what that's like. Although when my assistant showed up with his Expedition, I'd offer to take the offensive and defensive players of the game to the pizza parlor in my 911S with the top down. That was a pretty good motivator - we were 35-3 over 4 years. Although my selection process was generous enough to make sure that everybody got at least a couple of rides.

Now I play adult baseball. I don't' think our X5d has the towing capacity to pull our team, let alone the seating capacity to carry them.

ruking1

"I don't think hybrids offer the same advantage for larger 5-7 passenger SUV's as they do for economy cars like the Prius.

Notwithstanding the low fuel economy of our (now) mostly city relegated MDX, our X5d is likely to see a more balanced mix of highway and city driving over the coming years. A friend of mine in San Francisco has a 2006 Highlander Hybrid with 140k miles on it. Commutes 60 miles round trip against traffic from SF to near San Jose daily (i.e. 60+ mph, most of the way). His overall mpg since new is 22.5. I think the X5d would easily be 25-27+ under those mostly highway conditions. As he (a mechanical engineer) points out, the benefits of a hybrid are primarily all electric mode in short hop city driving. Otherwise, you are using a standard gasoline engine and carrying around the extra weight of the electric motors. He never gets worse than 20 mpg on a tankful, but he never gets better than 24. His Highlander would be a much better vehicle for my daughter's 5.9 mile city commute. Our X5d would be a better vehicle for his 60 mile round trip commute.

Everybody's math is going to be a little different depending upon their driving conditions/mix."

Absolutely, I think one also has to put the hybrid into context and how tuned/optimized. In that sense, it has at least two market applications.

So for example, VW Touareg has 3 V-6 engine options :

1. gasser EPA 16/23
2. hybrid, gasser EPA 20/24
3. TDI EPA 19/28

The EPA's indicate +4 mpg C/ 1 mpg h for the hybrid over the gasser. VW markets its hybrid: V-8 performance with V-6 economy.

In contrast, VW uses a hybrid on a (new 13) Jetta option and there is no mistaking the hybrid IS tuned MORE for economy.

Interesting example on your friend's SF/SJ, CA commute (22.5 mpg). On the same major route in reverse (H101?) and stopping short of SF (54 miles R/T), three diesels post the following mpg:

1. 12 VWT 30 mpg (range 29 to 34)

2.09VW Jetta 40 mpg (range 39 to 43)

3. 03 VW Jetta 50 mpg ( range 48 to 52)

(04 Civic 38 mpg , ( range 38 to 42) gasser obviously)

So the "closest like/competitive vehicle" is #1 VWT (30 vs 22.5) the VW T's curb weight is 4974# vs T HH @ 4070#'s.

As an aside, it might be interesting to note the T HH sports a CVT transmission (2006 to current 2013). On the other hand, the VW T sports an 8 speed A/T, aka slush box, sequential.

stever

As he (a mechanical engineer) points out, the benefits of a hybrid are primarily all electric mode in short hop city driving. Otherwise, you are using a standard gasoline engine and carrying around the extra weight of the electric motors.

I see that argument a lot and it makes sense at first glance -- but, I don't see any rides out there with as much room as the Prius v that get 40 mpg city or highway (or more). Diesels excluded of course. :shades:

Meet the 40 MPG Club

ruking1

While this is not my post, but a quote of another who appears to be quoting or summarizing a conversation he had with a friend: I would find it interesting to find out how much of a drag on mpg and performance the EXTRA (component parts) weight DOES consume/exert.

Per 100#s +/-, I have read is a delta of app +/- 1 mpg to a more extreme of 3 mpg.

I know in the sports car world the fight is literally and figurative tooth and nail to shave #'s ! This is not to mention the extra money thrown at less weighty "exotic " materials.

gagrice

8 more MPG and Honda will catch up with their 1984 CRX HF. EPA rated 47 MPG highway and 41 MPG combined. VW diesel engines have improved on mileage while many gas engines have not. Take the 1992 Chevy C1500 4.3L V6 automatic vs the 2012 C15 4.3L V6 automatic. Both rated 15 city/20 highway. 20 years and $billions of tax dollars later there is NO improvement in mileage.

A great example of diesel advancement is the Mercedes sedans with diesel. The 300D/SD/TD sold in the 1980s were all rated at 23 MPG highway. The new E350 Bluetec is rated 32 MPG and many have reported 40+ MPG highway.

Which would you rather cruise cross country in getting 40 MPG? An E350 Bluetec or a Honda Civic HF?

stever

Which would you rather cruise cross country in getting 40 MPG? An E350 Bluetec or a Honda Civic HF?

A minivan.

I could see me ripping off the "wind-cheating underbody panels" on that Civic the first week of ownership playing on those fun dirt roads we enjoy hunting for around the country. That's a big concern with getting a Prius too. You should see the dings on my oil pan on the Quest.

And what do sedan owners do - always rent bikes and kayaks and canoes and skis and snowboards when they want to play? But - you aren't a fan either, right?

ruking1

This probably has been covered before, but a TDI minivan would be a logical option. As good a mileage (EPA 19/28 13/22 per www.fueleconomy.com) as it does currently get and as versatile as it has been for more than a decade, even better mpg and drive line reliability, durability and my personal favorite- MORE torque would make it even more versatile.

stever

This gets back to Gary's point - I hit 29.9 mpg on my '99 Quest a couple of times. Not much progress in the last dozen years. So 28 doesn't excite me a whole lot, considering that my lifetime city/highway mpg is pushing 21.5 mpg.

ateixeira

Lets get the zip code and find the lowest price for diesel and premium in that zip. Costco has premium dirt cheap and they don't carry diesel.

Plus the owner has acknowledged the gasser spends more time in dense city traffic.

In your world 82 mpg is easy, you get 44 mpg in dense city bumper to bumper traffic, and fuel costs are 67% lower.

You should write fiction.

ateixeira

Kids are small so they have to sit in the back. I took 6, the assistant coach also drives.

ateixeira

Ok, read the post that started the thread and diesel was $3.79. Was that price temporary, like a Thrifty Thursday deal? I can't fine diesel for less than 3.93 on gas buddy.

Prices have gone up recently, though.

Costco on Rt 1 has premium for $3.57, FWIW.

So diesel still costs about 10% more than premium.

Any calculation of fuel cost has to account for that.

ruking1

On yes, Wash DC is (NON) fiction based. I am sure you don't have far to stumble to get a real load of ...it?. How are we liking our increasing fuel prices?

On topic: Beside you still refusing to get it, you NOT getting it has long since become ... BORING. Are you really SO afraid your 99 cent calculator shows you WRONG !!!! I am fine with anyone NOT running diesel, whether it is based on fact, fiction, whimsy, tradition, etc. Just don't limit mine ! I did the math, you dont like it or are incensed by it. I think we all have "gotten that". I say when the math changes: run it, compare it, then decide. You don't want the facts to get in the way, you have already decided.

Again, let's move on....

ruking1

Premium (per mile driven: fuel) normally is the most costly. (like model)

stever

I've been trying to avoid this part of the argument because my math skills aren't so hot. So help me out and tell me how this works:

Car A gets 25 mpg, and a 10 gallon fill-up is $33.50 at $3.35 a gallon.
Car B gets 50 mpg, and a 10 gallon fill-up is $38.50 at $3.85 a gallon.

Fuel cost per mile for Car A is ___ cents a mile.
Fuel cost per mile for Car B is ___ cents a mile.

It seems obvious, meaning I must be missing something lol. I always get confused at this point trying to figure if you divide 250 by $33.50 or if you divide 33.50 by 250.

gagrice

I think your math skills are fine. Your typing skills need fine tuning. Car B cost 7.46 cents per mile.

I think typo aside you make the case for Diesel at a lot more than RUG. I see OK has diesel down around $3.55 RUG $2.78. Still a better deal using diesel.

stever

This is handy:

Calculate how much your gas really costs...

As is this:

Gas Guzzler Calculator

ruking1

To stay with your example, PER MILE DRIVEN: FUEL costs ARE:

car A= .134 cents per mile driven ($3.35 per gal / 25 mpg=)

car B= .077 cents per mile driven ($3.85 per gal/50 mpg=)

ruking1

I think a lot of folks ALSO get lost in the "like model" cost comparison issue. So using a currently discussed example, (the Acura MDX @ 14.5 mpg PREMIUM) does not have a TDI option.

So for example, your CAR A/CAR B scenario suggests that you understand you are comparing (presumably) "LIKE models " with different mpg figures AND different fuel prices, albeit (presumably) RUG vs D2?

So if our eyes are not glazed over yet...... the mike is yours.....

stever

Well, you've been around here long enough to know that people are all over the map kicking tires on which car to buy. Someone will research the heck out of a Dodge Ram and the next thing you know they're tooling around in a Mini Cooper S. :shades:

In my case, if I go from the van to the v, I literally cut my per mile fuel cost in half. If I have to pay .50 cents more a gallon for the fuel and still get 40mpg, then I pay about two cents more a mile for the fuel price differential.

Now, whether that savings from year to year in either scenario amounts to much is another question.

ateixeira

DC is into fiction, we have politicians here, remember.

It's the assumptions you make and data you use, not your math, that are wrong. Garbage in, garbage out.

The result is not typical, the car is old and may be out of tune. I mentioned Fuelly has the most recent model year averaging 21.2 mpg. You can't compare a hand-me-down beater to a brand new vehicle, which Fuelly has at 21.4 mpg.

Plus I found premium for 10% less cost as shown above.

Your formula is for FUEL cost per mile, not total cost per mile. Cars are not free. Insurance is not free. Either include all those costs or specify file cost per mile, not cost per mile.

Your calculator is fine, you're just not putting the right numbers in to it!

habitat1

Ok, read the post that started the thread and diesel was $3.79. Was that price temporary, like a Thrifty Thursday deal? I can't fine diesel for less than 3.93 on gas buddy.

It was on Tuesday, January 1st. But it looks like that is still the price as of yesterday on Gasbuddy:BP Georgia and Connecticut Ave

houdini1

Depreciation is by far your biggest expense in car ownership.

habitat1

Per 100#s +/-, I have read is a delta of app +/- 1 mpg to a more extreme of 3 mpg.

I don't think the weight factor alone is anywhere near 1 MPG per 100 lbs, let alone 3 mpg per 100 lbs. Think about what that implies....three 200 lb passengers would lower MPG by 6-18 mpg over just the driver?? Never experienced anything remotely close to that.

Heck I remember driving my 1978 Datson B210 from Pittsburgh to Baltimore with at least 540 lbs worth of 3 fraternity brothers in the vehicle and the hatch loaded with luggage. We still got 40 mpg on the highway....on regular "leaded" gas and with a 4 speed manual transmission. The total weight of all of the passengers and luggage, me included, was close to 35%-40% of the curb weight of the car.

For highway cruising, added weight is not as much of a factor as aerodynamics, rolling resistance, engine quality/efficiency and driving conditions (temperature, altitude, etc.). Added weight will add to rolling resistance, but I'd be surprised if the weight difference of a vehicle loaded with passengers is more than 1-2 mpg at highway cruising speeds. On the other hand, we have found that throwing 50 lbs of two bicycles on the roof of our MDX knocks our highway mpg down by 2-3+ mpg, more at higher speeds, thanks to the negative aerodynamic impact.

Relative to sports cars, I'm pretty sure Porsche didn't fret over getting 75 lbs off the new Boxster and 911 in order to boost EPA ratings. Both vehicles now exceed 1.0g in lateral acceleration capability. In the case of sports cars, weight is a much bigger enemy of handling and nimbleness than fuel efficiency. Hell, I could tell the difference in how my 911 handled before and after a big meal. Just kidding, but you get the point.

ruking1

..."DC is into fiction, we have politicians here, remember."...

Well thank you. I would not agree with you that almost no one in the US would know that !?

habitat1

Depreciation is by far your biggest expense in car ownership.

Amen.

I had my beloved 1995 Nissan Maxima as my primary driver for 10 years and 150k miles. It's still sitting at our second home getting 1,000 miles a year as a back up car when we go there. I could have put Kettle One Vodka in the tank and still had a less expensive cost of ownership over that first decade than a few buddies that went through three cars during that time and took multiple depreciation hits.

Granted, I'm now looking at a Cayman S for the spring, and no matter how long I keep it, the depreciation will be at least 3-5 times that of the Nissan. But at least I won't be thinking about putting regular gas in the tank to save a few bucks.

ruking1

..."I don't think the weight factor alone is anywhere near 1 MPG per 100 lbs, let alone 3 mpg per 100 lbs. ?"...

As you can see there is VARIANCE. While you appear to disagree, you are afraid to put numbers you think it is in your case out there.

..."Heck I remember driving my 1978 Datson B210 from Pittsburgh to Baltimore with at least 540 lbs worth of 3 fraternity brothers in the vehicle and the hatch loaded with luggage. We still got 40 mpg on the highway....on regular "leaded" gas and with a 4 speed manual transmission. The total weight of all of the passengers and luggage, me included, was close to 35%-40% of the curb weight of the car. "...

So why didn't you post the mpg with OUT your fraternity in the car?

As a sport CAR driver, I am not sure why that is not known or intuitive to you. Indeed it is not my invention. It is literally refereed to everywhere in the automotive/industry media. I even referred to it. Anymore all you need do is google (geez this is a verb now).

Indeed it is pretty easy to test. Put 1 to 3 folks EXTRA ( you see you can put your fraternity back in) in a car and do tank fulls with/without (them) the weight. Do hot laps the same way. Let's put it this way with identical cars and race skills, all things being equal, I'd be glad to beat you on the track with you having 100 to 300 extra #'s.

IF for whatever reason you find this offensive, it is easy to put the shoe on the other foot. If I had 100 to 300#'s extra in identical situations, I would lose.

stever

3 fraternity brothers in the vehicle and the hatch loaded with luggage. We still got 40 mpg on the highway

Well, if you take it a step further, you were getting 3 x 40 or 120 mpg. :shades:

ruking1

..."It's the assumptions you make and data you use, not your math, that are wrong. Garbage in, garbage out. "...

I did the math you did not refute or correct. Let's move on.

You need to add a garbage disposal to the plumbing, especially if you keep the "spinning up"

You are projecting your assumptions onto me.

We all get it is hard for you to move on.

ruking1

..."Well, if you take it a step further, you were getting 3 x 40 or 120 mpg."...

This answer is of course off topic. Indeed those are the economies of scale airlines try to use. So for example on a 767-400 ER (Jet Blue) 375 seats (1 class) they try to fly with everyone in a seat, so the gal per seat fuel consumption (one goal) are fulfilled (aka correct revenues)

habitat1

Indeed it is not my invention.

Your "invention" seems to be taking something you "googled" and automatically assuming it's the absolute truth without applying any level of rational analysis to even see if it passes the smell test.

So, ruking, find me a single mass production car in the USA that in - identical normal driving conditions - loses 18 mpg with 600 lbs of passengers and luggage and I will buy you a friggin Cayman S.

Here is what I can tell you from keeping detailed mileage logs on my 1995 Nissan Maxima, 2004 Acura TL and 2005 Porsche 911: the added weight of passengers did not produce a difference in fuel economy that was as significant as the ambiant temperature outside. I got at least 2-3 mpg higher in 80 degree temperatures than in 20 degrees. I drove 2 guys, luggage and golf clubs weighing at least 500+ lbs back and forth from Augusta National last April in 60+ degree weather. Highway mpg was 30 on the nose. The best I have ever gotten for a similar trip with similar temperatures and no passengers is 31.4. I have gotten as low as 25-26 highway mpg in <20 degree weather with no passengers.

So come on, stop to think about your experience. Did you ever go from 40 mpg to 22 (or even 28-34) mpg on the highway just because you happened to have 3 passengers in your diesel whatever. If that passes your smell test, I suggest you "google" for a nose replacement.

houdini1

When my MIL passed away in 1999, her 1995 Maxima SE was handed down to us. It had about 18,000 miles on it. Great car. It went thru 3 generations as we passed it down to our son in 2004 and he kept it until 2009, so it had about a 14 year run with our family. After 14 years he sold it for over $5,000. It was still in great shape.

ateixeira

Actually I did correct you, providing up to date mpg on new models. Compare those instead of some beater hand-me-down with mpg WAY outside the norm.

ruking1

..."Your "invention" seems to be taking something you "googled" and automatically assuming it's the absolute truth without applying any level of rational analysis to even see if it passes the smell test. "...

Well no. I can understand someone saying that but it is a baseless charge. Indeed anecdotal commuting with 1 person/2 people and their "fixin's in two of three (on topic) diesels is app 1 to 1.5 mpg -/+.

Not sure why you refuse to even swag what your mpg would be sans the fraternity bros and their fixings.

Again on topic, I will easily drop 3 mpg when the (TDI) car is loaded with 4 total folks (and their fixings) vs me/driver/one person and their fixings, which incidentally was what I said in the first place. To expect to get the same 40/50 mpg would require me to alter driving speed. So in that sense to a certain extend , it can be compensated for.