..."when you look at the big picture like I do. "....
So what makes you think no one else looks at the big picture ??
You definitely think 45% more is better !! YOU are now saying it REPEATEDLY !! ??
Again it gets down to cost per mile driven: depreciation, insurance, whatever??? Again, SAME stuff I have have been saying all along. But outside of the diesel PORTIONS, not much to do with diesels. So yet again, LETS move on. I am sure this is as tedious for others, as it is for me. :sick: :shades:
Habitat 1 has em side by side and he has detailed his perspective/s on BOTH. So I am getting the feeling you are intentionally being tone deaf here.
"The most significant change comes under the hood, where the 2014 Grand Cherokee will offer the option of diesel power. Seems Chrysler's been talking about a diesel GC forever and finally the German competition's worst nightmare is reality: A 3.0-liter V6 turbodiesel designed and built by Italy's VM Motori (half-owned by Fiat) generates a bludgeoning 420 pound-feet of torque and will yank 7,400 pounds of trailer.
The diesel out-torques the Porsche Cayenne Diesel (406 lb-ft) and matches the Cayenne oil-igniter's 240 horses. And Chrysler must be pretty sure about the engine's frugality. Although the 2014 Grand Cherokee diesel doesn't hit showrooms until March, the company already is citing a 21 mpg city and 30 mpg highway fuel economy rating for rear-drivers and 20/28 mpg for all-wheel drive."
I would not doubt anyone's ability to do an easy 30 mpg on the new 2014 GC TDI, even if it is not yet IN the real world. I don't even try for mine. However I do know the operating parameters pretty well (especially after 250,000 miles on three diesels. VW T's are all wheel drives.
Hopefully they have made substantial improvements to the TDI's AND TRANSMISSIONS Chrysler uses. I only say that, NOT from personal experiences; but from past postings on this and other web sites. Indeed the EPA's are 2 mpg C/2 mpg H BETTER than the 2012 VW T. It would be a check on the PLUS side if the 8 sp A/T ZF transmission is as reliable and durable as the Aisin 8 speed A/T.
Off topic, a $600.00 chip mapping will easily boost the VW T's torque to more like 425# ft (same/same 420/425). I have been throwing it around for a couple of months.
MDX still has a lower total cost of ownership, and that's what matters.
If that is what matters a moped would be best. Pride of ownership, comfort, Mileage between fill-ups, performance, handling all mean more to me than TCO. If TCO was important I would drive a Yaris.
Chrysler's been talking about a diesel GC forever and finally the German competition's worst nightmare is reality
The GC offered a diesel in 07-08. It like the Liberty were not CARB approved. Not sure what happened to them. The GC shares the same chassis as the ML. So probably a good bet it will be cross shopped by more than just me. I doubt it will be as luxurious. Though it sounds like the 2011 update addressed the rear leg room I found cramped back in 2007. The diesel will only be offered in the top trims. I expect it will be up near $50k. That is when you get down to close scrutiny between the diesel SUVs offered. Who knows the EPA may offer incentives on Jeep diesels. There may be a mini-van with the same diesel engine soon.
The engine has a strange pedigree: It was commissioned by GM back when the company still had a stake in Alfa Romeo, and VM developed it to be used in both transverse and longitudinal applications. Since then, Fiat took back complete ownership of Alfa and also bought a 50-percent stake in VM Motori. Aside from the history lesson, this tells us that the engine should be able to be installed in front-wheel-drive vehicles too, so it’s not out of the question to think it could be offered in the Chrysler Town & Country or the upcoming large Dodge crossover intended to replace the Grand Caravan.
Mercedes-Benz GLK350 SUV 2012 Audi A8 Midsize Car Spring 2013 Audi A6 Midsize Car Fall 2013 Audi A7 Midsize Car Fall 2013 Audi Q5 SUV Fall 2013 BMW 7 Series Sedan 2013 Chevrolet Cruze Midsize Car 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV 2013 Mazda Mazda6 Midsize Car 2013 Porsche Cajun SUV 2013 Audi A4 Compact Car 2014
An example is best. And we'll use diesel only to keep things simple.
TCO for an X5d over 5 years is $80,898.
Now, let's say you have magical unicorns pushing your vehicle around and you do use half the EPA estimated amount of fuel. Fuel cost goes down by 50% but...
...your TCO goes down by 9% overall.
That's the number that matters.
MDX has a TCO lower no matter how little fuel he uses, even if he uses no fuel at all.
It will certainly be interesting to see how the new model/s / other oem's diesel entries fair in the 2013 market place. A good over all factor should be the predicted banner volume year of 15.3 M units .
This is just my .02 cents , but I would tend not to be a buyer of the first year's product. I have done that in almost NO first year models for gassers. Indeed my first diesel was gen 4, aka MK IV.
..."Now, let's say you have magical unicorns pushing your vehicle around and you do use half the EPA estimated amount of fuel. Fuel cost goes down by 50% but...
SPINNING x 5 ....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Take your meds. YOU are seeing and feeding the unicorns.....
...'However, I do agree, you should buy what you like even if the diesel costs more to own."...
Glad you agree with me., as much as the "anti" you want to appear to be.
In my case, it started off with app 236 dollars more for the 03 Jetta TDI than the 03 Jetta 1.8 T . The resale value (using the tmv) is 42.3, 44, to 50% better.
Locally in the real world there is a premium over that. I really don't have a reason to sell. It is really still a baby @ 180,000 miles and 11 MY's old.
You would have spent $70,000 on ignition coils with the 1.8T so your TCO was probably about 1/3rd vs picking that engine. LOL
They're brining back an engine of that size, in the Passat. I think that's a mistake. It had such a bad reputation that people will wonder if the new one is related.
Unicorns again? I did not put out a % to the post you are responding, or is the permanent saddle burl calling?
YOU need to answer it for YOU. This is what you have been avoiding. This of course is your problem and not mine. The DUH is ALL YOURS. What you do with your money in regards to vehicle choices is YOUR business.
Indeed my opinions have been anathema to you, and for a long time, so... ignore them. I think you will be better off if you do.
Diesels are NOT for everybody. I think you are a prime candidate to stay with gassers. Defacto you prove me correct: you own NO diesel and by your own confirmation.
He liked the MDX enough to buy it, and it's hardly a moped.
I don't think he will do that again... For me I looked at them. The one I drove was NOT comfortable and had a lot less space than my Sequoia and slightly better mileage using Premium gas. Plus the one I looked at was $10k over what I paid for the Sequoia. After 5 years the MDX is worth less according to Edmunds than my Sequoia. And gas was a very small part of the equation. Making the enjoyment of ownership a much higher priority than TCO.
The Acura MDX was the baseline "competitor", which I considered. The additional level of option complexity was of course the diesel option. For me the first decision anyway was diesel. There was no enthusiasm for getting a new SUV/CUV with only slightly better mpg than 16 to 19 year old TLC's @ 15/16 mpg.
I just ran the used car comparisons (basic) with 20k miles and despite getting the VW T cheaper, it is worth SLIGHTLY more than the Acura MDX on 2/3 prices PP/DR. It is said to be (-308) TI. So with lower insurance costs, registration and taxation and 242 gals LESS fuel consumption @ 3.73 PUG or $902. The math might be anathema to some folks. TCO or no TCO. Me? It is just icing on the cake to know there are $ savings.
The real kicker here (CA trans regulations winter mtn travel) is to not have to put on/off chains and or snow tires. If I could get a diesel CAR that chains are not required, I would have gotten IT. Indeed I would just run one of the two diesels I have NOW.
Indeed. It is one reason why running 17/19 year old TLC's makes ALL the sense (TS in Gagrice's case) . Each TLC STILL easily passes smog. Both of mine are IDENTICAL to NEW, even though the smog ONLY test stations have much more accurate and exacting test equipment. Indeed getting a smog for either or both is really a travesty. In any case, I hope to run each to @ least the 30 year mark. Each engine has more than 200,000 miles.
SUV's would have to do a minimum of 45 mpg for it to make ANY economic sense. SUV's CUV'a are not even close yet.
That's what I've been saying. I feel validated now.
So why is the price difference between gas and diesel important to you????
I like diesel for the torque out on the highway, long range between fill-ups and being free from the idiotic designer gas that we are forced to use in CA. Gas that cuts my mileage by 2-3 MPG compared to gas bought in AZ, CO & NM. All items that are NOT brought into the TCO equation.
Prices are important to everyone. Except maybe the ultra rich.
I've kept my cars an average of 7 years or so, so it would be nice to break-even within that time period.
I'm not saying is HAS to (break even). I'd still probably pick the one I enjoyed driving the most. You only live once.
Range is nice, you and I are definitely on the same page on that one.
Selfishly, if VA passes that bill, I can cross the border (2 exits away, and I'm there all the time) and get dirt cheap fuel. It's already cheaper than MD or DC, imagine if they eliminate that tax.
While I know you are not addressing me, being in Tahoe (special purpose i.e., operation @ 7,300 ft app road altitude, right now) is a GREAT case in point. Turbo diesel applications are absolutely exhilarating when accelerating UP grade and @ altitude vs a normally aspirated gasser engines.
In the TLC for the same trip dynamics I would have to fill twice as a minimum. I would be less than prudient if I didn't start with a full tank.
The diesel, as I said before, I started the trip with 5/8s of a tank and I can literally go home with NO filling.
I see that TCO is a straw man even to the person that makes a huge deal of it (not necessarily true on paper AND the real world, as it turns out following thru with the TMV. )
Alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles would have to pay a $100 annual fee.
Seems reasonable to me. CA and OR are toying with tax by the mile at 2.2 cents. That would be $330 per year on 15k miles. If the Prius gets 45 MPG tax at 67.1 cents per gallon tax the yearly cost would be $223. So that is about what is being proposed for VA Prius owners etc. Mileage tax for me would be a blessing. I would save about $350 per year over the gas tax I pay. :P
I had no idea WV had such high taxes. Of course I'm rarely out there. Funny thing is you can still get gas cheaper than you can around the DC beltway, probably a demand issue.
Looks like MD tax is 3.6 cents higher than VA but the actual different in gas costs is 5 times as much.
And DC is worse than MD!
If VA repeals the gas tax I'll fill up there. Yet another reason to desire long range per tankful.
Yet another reason to desire long range per tankful.
The difference in price of gas around here is wild. Over a dollar from highest to lowest today. All within a 20 mile radius. So for me having to fill at 300 miles or less on my PU truck means a trip to Costco 13 miles each way or pay up to 50 cents per gallon more 2 miles from home. Of course the local station owners know that it is 26 miles round trip and raise their prices accordingly. Today it is only 30 cents difference. So a 15 gallon fill is only $4.50 more at my local Shell. It takes approximately 1.6 gallons to drive to Costco. Which would cost me about $5.55 in gas. Now if I only filled half as often it would pay to drive to the cheaper stations down the hill. With diesel it is only 12 cents difference today. So not even worth the trip to town. Another reason to own a diesel. I spoke to a lady filling her GL diesel at the Shell station. She did not seem to mind filling it. She loves the vehicle.
One swag would be "be careful what you wish for, you might get it" consequences.
RUG/PUG consumption is now being acknowledged to be WAY off. EVEN as they claim we have WAY farther to conserve !!!! Higher RUG/PUG pricing and taxation are not mitigating "lost" revenues. As a result, the revenues are way OFF. So the last thing they want to do is to CRASH the "remaining" revenues, even further by bringing on fuel savings that over the years and notoriously have come in from "heavy" gasoline users like small/med to "larger" passenger vehicle trucks.
Another is they (EIA.GOV, no less) are starting to acknowledge that the US is WAY WAY WAY beyond the "Saudi Arabia" of oil. They have LONG known that about natural gas and COAL !!! Just KNOWN reserves in CALIFORNIA state (middle of state ONLY) holds THAT moniker !!!!!!!!!!! This is almost beyond "comprehension" !!!!! This might be one strong reason why they want to outlaw FRACKING. It is a strawman TOTAL distraction from the truth about just the middle of the state of CA being WAY to way way way beyond the Saudi Arabia of OIL !!!!
What this means in English is that even with BRAND new MONSTER refineries in SA they only need 2 dollars to 6 per barrel to B/E (Leslie Stahl on 60 mins interview) on a barrel of oil. As you know we are far above that right now .
Same here. The minivan has a huge gas tank so it can last nearly a month. If I'm under half tank and I see cheap gas, I usually go ahead and top it off.
I have $3.20something Costco gas in her now. Gas is around $3.57 locally, diesel and premium both over $4 bucks.
@ 17.8 mpg (www.fueleconomy.gov the 2012 HO, what does yours get?) that is price per mile driven fuel of 18 cents.
Even in an apples to oranges fuel comparison (CA vs VA) @ 3.95 D2= .13.6 cents per gal . RUG is @ 3.53
It is interesting that a person that thinks nothing of someone ELSE paying 45% more per mile driven (diesel/RUG/PUG), goes out of his way to buy, ....CHEAP gas !!!! The math however juxipositioned STILL shows you paying more per mld driven.
17.8 mpg sounds WAY too low. I looked it up and saw 20.5? Fuelly at 21.1, for the 2012 models.
I have an 07, those average 22.2mpg per fueleconomy.gov.
Mine is used for trips so I get around 27 or so, and I've broken 30 when I've kept speeds down.
Remember, though, gas is dirt cheap, Sam's has it for $3.21 right now. Diesel is rather painful at $3.85. (not my numbers these are from GasBuddy today)
Fuel cost per mile, for me, is $3.21/27 = 11.9 cents per mile, dramatically lower than your estimate.
Say the Sienne came in a diesel and I did 20% better, fuel cost per mile would be $3.85/32.4 = 11.9 cents per mile, identical to my cost now.
So the "break even" on fuel cost would required the diesel to do more than 20% better.
The diesel would likely cost more up front, but may actually beat my numbers by more than 20%. The real question is, how much more would it cost to begin with? And then how many years would it take to recover that investment, if indeed it exceeded my mileage by more than 20%?
There is no diesel Sienna so you'd have to make a lot of assumptions, so I won't even go there.
"Remember, though, gas is dirt cheap, Sam's has it for $3.21 right now. Diesel is rather painful at $3.85........"
Please ship some over here to U.K. Current fuel costs, converted to USD and USGallon are :
RUG : $7.85
ULSD : $8.33
Of course, the "Premium" products are more expensive. Duty + Tax, (on Duty), bears a lot of the blame.
Painful ? You guys obviously have a different definition of that word. Try plugging those numbers into your total cost stats. Could be quite interesting. :sick:
Even in this mild climate, I weave around like a drunk avoiding sunken or raised holes/covers, not to mention ruts and actual potholes. Don't do nearly as much of that in Yourup.
Next car won't have big wheels and low profile tires. Hmm...diesels rarely do.
That was the point of my post to get you to post your actual. I am also glad you picked up on the obvious, there is no diesel minivan to compare your 22.2/27/30 mpg with. Indeed, as a swag mpg would easily be 30% better. This of course easily exceeds your projection of 20% better.
You match my mpg as an apples to oranges comparison. It would be interesting to see what your mpg would be on the same Tahoe up hill leg @ 85 mph.
So lets just use your 22.2 mpg/$3.53 ( RUG out here) =.159 . cents per mile driven FUEL.
Given the 20 mpg/3.73 PUG MDX = .187 cents per mile driven. (she drives a lot slower also)
Given the 30 mpg/3.95 D2 VW T TDI= .13167 cents per mile driven.
Time warp back to 2007, when I chose the minivan...the 22.2 is from fueleconomy.gov, same source lists the Touareg V10 TDI at 19.5 mpg. It performs more but you've compared your Golf to my Miata, so...
$3.21/22.2 is actually 14.5 cents per mile for fuel at my local cost.
$3.85/19.5 would have been 19.7 cents per mile for diesel.
Double that to 39.5 cents per mile to take the team to practice. I'd need 2 vehicles to carry 6 kids.
Let's say I wanted to trade today, the X5 has a 3rd row, it still only seats 5 little kids but toss the ball hog in the trunk and fueleconomy.gov has those at 22.2 mpg, sticking with the same source for consistency, though I had to use the 2012 model because there's no data for 2013s.
X5d fuel cost per mile is $3.85/22.2 or 17.3 cents per mile diesel cost, more than I pay by 20%.
What other diesels offer 3rd row seating? Now I'm challenging myself to find one that can beat my van. Does the ML offer one?
Had to go back to 2010 to find user data on that one, they report 23.6 mpg, pretty decent.
$3.85/23.6 mpg is 16.3 cents per mile for diesel. Getting closer.
Lets keep trying, my van is hard to beat.
What about the E Bluetec wagon? Can you get a 3rd row on those? The little rear facing one? I could put the shorter guards there.
Found a Bluetec but it's a sedan. No diesel wagon?
I can't find a diesel vehicle with a lower fuel cost per mile that can carry my team.
Go to Europe and I cold probably find half a dozen!
Comments
So what makes you think no one else looks at the big picture ??
You definitely think 45% more is better !! YOU are now saying it REPEATEDLY !! ??
Again it gets down to cost per mile driven: depreciation, insurance, whatever??? Again, SAME stuff I have have been saying all along. But outside of the diesel PORTIONS, not much to do with diesels. So yet again, LETS move on. I am sure this is as tedious for others, as it is for me. :sick: :shades:
Habitat 1 has em side by side and he has detailed his perspective/s on BOTH. So I am getting the feeling you are intentionally being tone deaf here.
The diesel out-torques the Porsche Cayenne Diesel (406 lb-ft) and matches the Cayenne oil-igniter's 240 horses. And Chrysler must be pretty sure about the engine's frugality. Although the 2014 Grand Cherokee diesel doesn't hit showrooms until March, the company already is citing a 21 mpg city and 30 mpg highway fuel economy rating for rear-drivers and 20/28 mpg for all-wheel drive."
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Unveiled at 2013 Detroit Auto Show
Hopefully they have made substantial improvements to the TDI's AND TRANSMISSIONS Chrysler uses. I only say that, NOT from personal experiences; but from past postings on this and other web sites. Indeed the EPA's are 2 mpg C/2 mpg H BETTER than the 2012 VW T. It would be a check on the PLUS side if the 8 sp A/T ZF transmission is as reliable and durable as the Aisin 8 speed A/T.
Off topic, a $600.00 chip mapping will easily boost the VW T's torque to more like 425# ft (same/same 420/425). I have been throwing it around for a couple of months.
If that is what matters a moped would be best. Pride of ownership, comfort, Mileage between fill-ups, performance, handling all mean more to me than TCO. If TCO was important I would drive a Yaris.
The GC offered a diesel in 07-08. It like the Liberty were not CARB approved. Not sure what happened to them. The GC shares the same chassis as the ML. So probably a good bet it will be cross shopped by more than just me. I doubt it will be as luxurious. Though it sounds like the 2011 update addressed the rear leg room I found cramped back in 2007. The diesel will only be offered in the top trims. I expect it will be up near $50k. That is when you get down to close scrutiny between the diesel SUVs offered. Who knows the EPA may offer incentives on Jeep diesels. There may be a mini-van with the same diesel engine soon.
The engine has a strange pedigree: It was commissioned by GM back when the company still had a stake in Alfa Romeo, and VM developed it to be used in both transverse and longitudinal applications. Since then, Fiat took back complete ownership of Alfa and also bought a 50-percent stake in VM Motori. Aside from the history lesson, this tells us that the engine should be able to be installed in front-wheel-drive vehicles too, so it’s not out of the question to think it could be offered in the Chrysler Town & Country or the upcoming large Dodge crossover intended to replace the Grand Caravan.
Audi A8 Midsize Car Spring 2013
Audi A6 Midsize Car Fall 2013
Audi A7 Midsize Car Fall 2013
Audi Q5 SUV Fall 2013
BMW 7 Series Sedan 2013
Chevrolet Cruze Midsize Car 2013
Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV 2013
Mazda Mazda6 Midsize Car 2013
Porsche Cajun SUV 2013
Audi A4 Compact Car 2014
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/dieselnews.shtml
An example is best. And we'll use diesel only to keep things simple.
TCO for an X5d over 5 years is $80,898.
Now, let's say you have magical unicorns pushing your vehicle around and you do use half the EPA estimated amount of fuel. Fuel cost goes down by 50% but...
...your TCO goes down by 9% overall.
That's the number that matters.
MDX has a TCO lower no matter how little fuel he uses, even if he uses no fuel at all.
This is just my .02 cents , but I would tend not to be a buyer of the first year's product. I have done that in almost NO first year models for gassers. Indeed my first diesel was gen 4, aka MK IV.
He liked the MDX enough to buy it, and it's hardly a moped.
However, I do agree, you should buy what you like even if the diesel costs more to own.
SPINNING x 5 ....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Take your meds. YOU are seeing and feeding the unicorns.....
Not a thing to do with diesels.
No spin.
Glad you agree with me., as much as the "anti" you want to appear to be.
In my case, it started off with app 236 dollars more for the 03 Jetta TDI than the 03 Jetta 1.8 T . The resale value (using the tmv) is 42.3, 44, to 50% better.
Locally in the real world there is a premium over that. I really don't have a reason to sell. It is really still a baby @ 180,000 miles and 11 MY's old.
They're brining back an engine of that size, in the Passat. I think that's a mistake. It had such a bad reputation that people will wonder if the new one is related.
Fuelly.com for gasser 18/19 /diesel 25 mpg 2011/2012 Touaregs @ 15,000 miles per year. Lower fuel consumption diesel, Higher fuel consumption with gasser. No spin here.
Does it matter to you? Probably not. Does it matter to me? Probably not.
That would be a lot more useful that tossing out percentages.
YOU need to answer it for YOU. This is what you have been avoiding. This of course is your problem and not mine. The DUH is ALL YOURS. What you do with your money in regards to vehicle choices is YOUR business.
Indeed my opinions have been anathema to you, and for a long time, so... ignore them. I think you will be better off if you do.
Diesels are NOT for everybody. I think you are a prime candidate to stay with gassers. Defacto you prove me correct: you own NO diesel and by your own confirmation.
I don't think he will do that again... For me I looked at them. The one I drove was NOT comfortable and had a lot less space than my Sequoia and slightly better mileage using Premium gas. Plus the one I looked at was $10k over what I paid for the Sequoia. After 5 years the MDX is worth less according to Edmunds than my Sequoia. And gas was a very small part of the equation. Making the enjoyment of ownership a much higher priority than TCO.
I just ran the used car comparisons (basic) with 20k miles and despite getting the VW T cheaper, it is worth SLIGHTLY more than the Acura MDX on 2/3 prices PP/DR. It is said to be (-308) TI. So with lower insurance costs, registration and taxation and 242 gals LESS fuel consumption @ 3.73 PUG or $902. The math might be anathema to some folks. TCO or no TCO. Me? It is just icing on the cake to know there are $ savings.
The real kicker here (CA trans regulations winter mtn travel) is to not have to put on/off chains and or snow tires. If I could get a diesel CAR that chains are not required, I would have gotten IT. Indeed I would just run one of the two diesels I have NOW.
That's what I've been saying. I feel validated now. :shades:
eliminating Virginia’s gas tax
would maintain the 17.5-cent gas tax on diesel fuel
Alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles would have to pay a $100 annual fee.
Makes no sense, it's like they are encouraging you to drive gas guzzlers.
SUV's would have to do a minimum of 45 mpg for it to make ANY economic sense. SUV's CUV'a are not even close yet.
That's what I've been saying. I feel validated now.
So why is the price difference between gas and diesel important to you????
I like diesel for the torque out on the highway, long range between fill-ups and being free from the idiotic designer gas that we are forced to use in CA. Gas that cuts my mileage by 2-3 MPG compared to gas bought in AZ, CO & NM. All items that are NOT brought into the TCO equation.
I've kept my cars an average of 7 years or so, so it would be nice to break-even within that time period.
I'm not saying is HAS to (break even). I'd still probably pick the one I enjoyed driving the most. You only live once.
Range is nice, you and I are definitely on the same page on that one.
Selfishly, if VA passes that bill, I can cross the border (2 exits away, and I'm there all the time) and get dirt cheap fuel. It's already cheaper than MD or DC, imagine if they eliminate that tax.
Diesel is also cheaper in VA vs. MD or DC.
In the TLC for the same trip dynamics I would have to fill twice as a minimum. I would be less than prudient if I didn't start with a full tank.
The diesel, as I said before, I started the trip with 5/8s of a tank and I can literally go home with NO filling.
I see that TCO is a straw man even to the person that makes a huge deal of it (not necessarily true on paper AND the real world, as it turns out following thru with the TMV. )
Seems reasonable to me. CA and OR are toying with tax by the mile at 2.2 cents. That would be $330 per year on 15k miles. If the Prius gets 45 MPG tax at 67.1 cents per gallon tax the yearly cost would be $223. So that is about what is being proposed for VA Prius owners etc. Mileage tax for me would be a blessing. I would save about $350 per year over the gas tax I pay. :P
You do have cheap gas tax in VA...
http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/industry-economics/~/media/Files- /Statistics/Gasoline-Tax-Map.ashx
I had no idea WV had such high taxes. Of course I'm rarely out there. Funny thing is you can still get gas cheaper than you can around the DC beltway, probably a demand issue.
Looks like MD tax is 3.6 cents higher than VA but the actual different in gas costs is 5 times as much.
And DC is worse than MD!
If VA repeals the gas tax I'll fill up there. Yet another reason to desire long range per tankful.
The difference in price of gas around here is wild. Over a dollar from highest to lowest today. All within a 20 mile radius. So for me having to fill at 300 miles or less on my PU truck means a trip to Costco 13 miles each way or pay up to 50 cents per gallon more 2 miles from home. Of course the local station owners know that it is 26 miles round trip and raise their prices accordingly. Today it is only 30 cents difference. So a 15 gallon fill is only $4.50 more at my local Shell. It takes approximately 1.6 gallons to drive to Costco. Which would cost me about $5.55 in gas. Now if I only filled half as often it would pay to drive to the cheaper stations down the hill. With diesel it is only 12 cents difference today. So not even worth the trip to town. Another reason to own a diesel. I spoke to a lady filling her GL diesel at the Shell station. She did not seem to mind filling it. She loves the vehicle.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
RUG/PUG consumption is now being acknowledged to be WAY off. EVEN as they claim we have WAY farther to conserve !!!! Higher RUG/PUG pricing and taxation are not mitigating "lost" revenues. As a result, the revenues are way OFF. So the last thing they want to do is to CRASH the "remaining" revenues, even further by bringing on fuel savings that over the years and notoriously have come in from "heavy" gasoline users like small/med to "larger" passenger vehicle trucks.
Another is they (EIA.GOV, no less) are starting to acknowledge that the US is WAY WAY WAY beyond the "Saudi Arabia" of oil. They have LONG known that about natural gas and COAL !!! Just KNOWN reserves in CALIFORNIA state (middle of state ONLY) holds THAT moniker !!!!!!!!!!! This is almost beyond "comprehension" !!!!! This might be one strong reason why they want to outlaw FRACKING. It is a strawman TOTAL distraction from the truth about just the middle of the state of CA being WAY to way way way beyond the Saudi Arabia of OIL !!!!
What this means in English is that even with BRAND new MONSTER refineries in SA they only need 2 dollars to 6 per barrel to B/E (Leslie Stahl on 60 mins interview) on a barrel of oil. As you know we are far above that right now .
I have $3.20something Costco gas in her now. Gas is around $3.57 locally, diesel and premium both over $4 bucks.
Even in an apples to oranges fuel comparison (CA vs VA) @ 3.95 D2= .13.6 cents per gal . RUG is @ 3.53
It is interesting that a person that thinks nothing of someone ELSE paying 45% more per mile driven (diesel/RUG/PUG), goes out of his way to buy, ....CHEAP gas !!!! The math however juxipositioned STILL shows you paying more per mld driven.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I have an 07, those average 22.2mpg per fueleconomy.gov.
Mine is used for trips so I get around 27 or so, and I've broken 30 when I've kept speeds down.
Remember, though, gas is dirt cheap, Sam's has it for $3.21 right now. Diesel is rather painful at $3.85. (not my numbers these are from GasBuddy today)
Fuel cost per mile, for me, is $3.21/27 = 11.9 cents per mile, dramatically lower than your estimate.
Say the Sienne came in a diesel and I did 20% better, fuel cost per mile would be $3.85/32.4 = 11.9 cents per mile, identical to my cost now.
So the "break even" on fuel cost would required the diesel to do more than 20% better.
The diesel would likely cost more up front, but may actually beat my numbers by more than 20%. The real question is, how much more would it cost to begin with? And then how many years would it take to recover that investment, if indeed it exceeded my mileage by more than 20%?
There is no diesel Sienna so you'd have to make a lot of assumptions, so I won't even go there.
What's the fuel cost per mile on that bad boy?! :shades:
Please ship some over here to U.K. Current fuel costs, converted to USD and USGallon are :
RUG : $7.85
ULSD : $8.33
Of course, the "Premium" products are more expensive. Duty + Tax, (on Duty), bears a lot of the blame.
Painful ? You guys obviously have a different definition of that word. Try plugging those numbers into your total cost stats. Could be quite interesting. :sick:
Have a great weekend. TTFN.
Of course it's not low sulfur type.
My dad drives a manual trans Blazer diesel.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
There's a man hole cover at Canal Rd where it intersects with Arizona Ave.
You have to keep way right to avoid it. Must be a 2" drop and you hit a solid metal lip every time, BANG!
I'm sure DC will get it fixed. In 2016.
Optimist.
Erosion will happen before the DC government sends someone to fix it.
Next car won't have big wheels and low profile tires. Hmm...diesels rarely do.
SAME.
For sure.
On the Miata I had to get the big rims to get the Torsen. To this day I wonder if it was worth it.
Of course I could get a 2nd set of rims and then sell this set to an autocrosser or something.
You match my mpg as an apples to oranges comparison. It would be interesting to see what your mpg would be on the same Tahoe up hill leg @ 85 mph.
So lets just use your 22.2 mpg/$3.53 ( RUG out here) =.159 . cents per mile driven FUEL.
Given the 20 mpg/3.73 PUG MDX = .187 cents per mile driven. (she drives a lot slower also)
Given the 30 mpg/3.95 D2 VW T TDI= .13167 cents per mile driven.
The points have long ago been and tediously made.
They say YMMV, well my van gets better MPG than my Miata! City vs highway plus driving style differs a lot!
I would need two TDIs to transport my 6 hoop stars so double that cost per mile driven. 30% less fuel, but then 2 vehicles means more fuel used.
You can't beat a car pool.
If any car's fuel costs less than a penny a mile sign me up!
$3.21/22.2 is actually 14.5 cents per mile for fuel at my local cost.
$3.85/19.5 would have been 19.7 cents per mile for diesel.
Double that to 39.5 cents per mile to take the team to practice. I'd need 2 vehicles to carry 6 kids.
Let's say I wanted to trade today, the X5 has a 3rd row, it still only seats 5 little kids but toss the ball hog in the trunk and fueleconomy.gov has those at 22.2 mpg, sticking with the same source for consistency, though I had to use the 2012 model because there's no data for 2013s.
X5d fuel cost per mile is $3.85/22.2 or 17.3 cents per mile diesel cost, more than I pay by 20%.
What other diesels offer 3rd row seating? Now I'm challenging myself to find one that can beat my van. Does the ML offer one?
Had to go back to 2010 to find user data on that one, they report 23.6 mpg, pretty decent.
$3.85/23.6 mpg is 16.3 cents per mile for diesel. Getting closer.
Lets keep trying, my van is hard to beat.
What about the E Bluetec wagon? Can you get a 3rd row on those? The little rear facing one? I could put the shorter guards there.
Found a Bluetec but it's a sedan. No diesel wagon?
I can't find a diesel vehicle with a lower fuel cost per mile that can carry my team.
Go to Europe and I cold probably find half a dozen!