Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Although, some of the pure EVs have torque to spare too (Tesla at least), so I could see the gas hybrids upping that number.
Looking at the GMC hybrid 1500 and the small gas engine 1500. The non hybrid is rated almost double the towing capacity. Even though the hybrid is rated higher torque. I don't think that high torque is sustainable for any distance in a hybrid. That is why the Toyota/Lexus hybrid SUVs are not recommended for towing or off road. Very low tow ratings. And the highway mileage of the non hybrid GMC is higher.
When Ram offers a 1500 class PU with a diesel, Ford and GMC will be scrambling. I don't think Eco Boost will cut it.
We went from AK to NY to CA and home and put 20k on it in '89, hauling bikes, a canoe, and camping gear and still had room to drag an "heirloom" cedar chest back from NY. Calmed down after that. Lifetime mpg was 18.08, TCO was .32 a mile (traded with 89k). TCO would have been bad without the warranty.
My brother didn't opt for the Ecoboost in his new F-150, Dudleyr. He tows a big pop-up and a bass boat, but I think he was more concerned about the engine not being "proven" yet.
FWIW that was before it got DI.
10mph under the limit, or just draft a Semi.
Our Sienna can break 30 if you keep speeds down.
FWIW that was before it got DI. "
Also before it lost 200 lbs, improved aerodynamics, improved transmissions (CVT or 6 spd manual), electric power steering, LRR Tires, econ button (changes throttle response and a/c) and a few other minor tweeks.
So for example on the fuel efficient Acura MDX (using www.fueleconomy.com) VW Touareg TDI is 105 % better. The percentage better is a bit less (38.5%) for VW Touareg gasser. (20 mpg vs 13.5 mpg) As noted in other posts on this thread my side by side competitor experiences are more like 38.5%+ better (20 mpg vs 31 mpg= 55% BETTER)
There exists no like model diesel for him, no diesel minivan at all. There's nothing to discuss.
I just did it against one/two you CAN compare with. You are correct, YOU do have nothing to compare it with.
Next ride will be a big hatch or wagon though.
(Check out Forums Future-Member Feedback Please! btw.)
Way to cherry pick data from a tiny and bad sample!
The claim smelled very fishy so I checked, sample size TWO vehicles! Not significant at all.
That's for 2012, no sample at all for 2013, and the 2011 and the average is much better. 2010 MDX also better, 2009 MDX also better, 08 also better, sounds like a broken record, but let's ignore all the good numbers from the EPA site.
I could cherry pick data from fuelly, where the 2012s are getting 20.6mpg from a sample size 4 times bigger than yours.
Why intentionally mislead people?
The full sized van platform has always had its " issues". The "minivan" platform has had to correct a lot of those issues and because it is normally FWD had to correct its own "breed's" issues in addition.
My take is that is the way you chose to roll !! Why do you do it? YOU need to explain why.
If I don't pull the numbers, you say why don't you pull the numbers? If I pull the numbers and you don't like them, you say I am misleading. If I give the source, you don't like it :mad: . If I tell you what I did side by side like I did, you totally disregard the context in which I said what I said and how I said it.
My van is a 2007, so I'll look at that model year. What if I had picked a Quest, like Steve, and compared to a Toureg TDI?
Quest - 31.4mpg
TDI - 20.1mpg
OH MY GOD the Quest is 56% more fuel efficient than the diesel!
See?
It's meaningless.
Grab a bigger sample. Average out the MPG for all MDX of that generation, perhaps from multiple sources.
You will see that 13mpg is nowhere near the real average.
BTW, there was one MDX owner reporting 11mpg that year that threw the whole thing off. Would make sense to throw out the highest and lowest numbers in a case where you have such wild outliers, but with a tiny sample size of 2 that means you would be left with no data at all.
Insignificant.
I have no problem with the source, but you forgot to account for the tiny sample size and a single outlier that threw the numbers WAY off from the real average.
You can cite meaningless data, but it's still meaningless.
See my example above.
Also meaningless.
I think the 4 cylinder may have been easier on the transmission (although we didn't baby the thing and often had it loaded to the gills).
Actually that's long been the rap on minivans and Odysseys had a lousy transmission rep for many years too. The two my brother had/has have been fine though (an '05 and the current '12).
There's a marketing idea though. Since "reliability" is assumed, rightly or wrongly, for diesel engines, VW and the rest should do a Hyundai warranty on diesel drivetrains. Make it 200k and advertise the heck out of it.
Here is all the data for that generation MDX, in black & white:
2013 - no data
2012 - 13.5 sample of 2 (ruking1 uses JUST this data!)
2011 - 17.5 sample of 2
2010 - 17.4 sample of 2
2009 - 18.9 sample of 3
2008 - 17.2 sample of 5
2007 - 18.0 sample of 11
No one can look at the whole picture and conclude the MDX gets 13.5mpg.
Well, you can. :P
2007 models have the most miles and have been on the road the longest. That also happens to be the largest sample. Either use that, or do a weighted average for all model years.
The weighted average is 17.5mpg from EPA users. And Fuelly is higher.
No way, no how can you use 13.5mpg. It's simply ridiculous. Credibility, really? LOL
I am not saying gas cars get better mpg, but I do believe the delta is closer to 15 % (Maybe 20%) when comparing to modern gas cars designed for efficiency. Certainly not 105% better for the diesel.
It is pretty hard to compare - after all what is parity on the other performance parameters? Do they need to have the same 0-60 time (will favor gassers), the same top gear passing ability (favor diesels).
Yet that's the only data he used, and then he questions other people's credibility.
I think your 20% number is realistic. In some cases as much as 40% better, but that's usually because the gasser it's being compared to is not DI.
So if like model acceleration (better) is an important parameter, the best advice is to go with the one that has .... (better) acceleration. The price is normally less mpg.
On the difference/s: ALL EPA's are expressed in RANGES despite the tendency for most folks to PAINT the 2 ( C/H) EPA numbers as GOSPEL. To say there are NO ranges is to totally ignore reality and realities and the new car stickers on which ranges are actually... EXPRESSED.
So for example if you get 30 mpg on a Honda Accord gasser, you really need to get the same AVG for a like model diesel. The issue of course is there are no US market 2013 Honda Accord 6 speed manuals. I am sure you would agree that would be a more equalized comparison that most folks as a matter of realities do not do, and in this case CAN'T.
EPA numbers are nonsense.
No one here has said they're gospel, AFAIK.
We should use large, real-world samples.
And you do ! :lemon:
YEP and I copied it right from the www.fueleconomy.com web site and you vilified the very same thing that you ... advocate !!
This is about you.
There is a range, that's precisely my point.
You cherry pick the absolute lowest point of that range for the MDX.
Your bias against Honda/Acura is becoming obvious, since you previously attacked the Honda Fit as well.
Disclaimer - I've never owned a Honda or Acura product, new or used.
Nope.
fintail, gagrice - care to chime in here? You don't think it's unfair to use the 13.5 mpg number to represent the MDX?
No that has been my point !! So if you finally agree (about range) , then yes there is some progress, albeit not much.
This is about you. "...
Again you got it wrong. This is about YOU, YOUR ranting.
I posted several times about the (competitors gasser vs gasser) Acura MDX 20 mpg vs VW T TDI 30 avg/31 mpg for same trip. IF it was a perfect world you would have the MDX getting 30/31 mpg just like the VW T TDI. You ignore it and/or the realities or can't integrate it. That is YOUR problem. I do not have an issue with the MDX getting 20 mpg on PUG and neither does its owner.
You can rant about EPA numbers all you wish. The ones for the 2012 VWT TDI are 19c/28 h. The ranges are from 15 to 23 C and 23 to 33 H, I get in the RANGE/s. It also says "Your actual mileage will vary..."
Bias. Admit it.
You are back tracking now. LOL
13.5 didn't raise an eye brow to you? Honestly, you didn't look at any other model years?
Either you misled or you were very naive.
2013 - no data
2012 - 13.5 sample of 2
2011 - 17.5 sample of 2
2010 - 17.4 sample of 2
2009 - 18.9 sample of 3
2008 - 17.2 sample of 5
2007 - 18.0 sample of 11
Disclaimer - I've never owned a Honda or Acura product, new or used."...
I have owned two (new,new) Honda products. I still own one Honda product. I have said that more than once on this board . I also have gone into some detail, which you obviously have ignored or can not integrate. I have loved BOTH of them. IF Acura MDX had a diesel option, I could have just as easily gotten an MDX TDI. If anything, MDX sets a very high bar for this CUV segment. If anything , the choices would have been an almost complete toss up.
What you assert and claim is nonsensical. But then, that is par for your course. :surprise: :
I could see a new "FIT" if it were a TDI.
But then a 2004 Honda Civic TDI would have been BETTER ! 38-42 mpg is good over 150,000 miles . But then on the other hand a possible 52 mpg on a TDI would be.... even better.
What do you have against the MDX?
And you still didn't answer - was using only the worst data point fair?
You're just mad because you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
LOL. Seems that you do. What's wrong with 13.5 mpg?
Works for me. !!
You are mad because you are creating a twilight zone situation to deny the obvious.
We should have moved on a very long time ago.
Telling anyone to expect 13.5mpg from an MDX is misleading, no response will change that.
Can a diesel do better, yes. Should we tell people to expect 105% better?
That's silly.
And you have been !! Moving right along !! But yes if it was 13.5 mpg, it would be pretty easy to project that a diesel would have gotten app 17 mpg.
Let's move on, I agree 105% but first I have to stop for gas because all gas cars only get 13.5mpg and I'm out of fuel again.
There you go, .... being silly again. I take it it takes you a good bit to get out of a twilight ZONE.
Now that's funny.