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.
Options

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

11516182021473

Comments

  • I can assure you London has no such diesel smell as you imagine. They have had better diesel fuel long before we got it here in the US, and their emission controls are such that the very cleanest cars are diesel. Particulate standards apply to trucks (lorries) and buses as well. It's a wonderful place to visit...you ought to go. Now, if you want to smell something, try out Mumbai for example. India is only now starting to think very seriously about reducing emissions. I love traveling there, but seeing a country develop western conveniences and products without having an infrastructure for refuse removal and recycling can make for lots of big messes.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I don't know about all THAT. London is still among the worst polluted air cities in Europe:

    Pollution Tax Not Effective

    Kelly's team now plans to determine whether the new restrictions improve the air - and people's health.

    "If you can demonstrate a health benefit, then you would imagine the public would be more enthusiastic for a scheme where they would have to dip into their pockets every day."


    London's poor air quality tackled with launch of Low Emission Zone

    The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "Thousands of Londoners suffer ill-health from pollution released by traffic fumes and seven out of ten Londoners are concerned about the impact of air pollution.

    The new study looked at the effects on 60 people with mild and moderate asthma of walking along the western end of busy Oxford Street in London, where only diesel-powered taxis and buses are permitted.

    The researchers, from Imperial College London, the New Jersey School of Public Health, and other international institutions, found that both during and after a two hour walk along Oxford Street, the test volunteers experienced increased asthmatic symptoms, reduced lung capacity, and inflammation in the lungs. It took a few hours for these to return to their normal levels.

    The researchers confirmed their results by comparing how the same people were affected by a two hour walk in the traffic-free, western part of London's Hyde Park. Here, the volunteers experienced some of the same problems but to a far lesser degree.

    This is the first study to investigate in a real-life setting, outside of the laboratory, if traffic fumes make symptoms worse for people with asthma. Two thirds of people with asthma believe this to be the case, according to Asthma UK.

    The researchers believe that diesel exhausts cause problems for people with asthma because of the particulates - minute particles of dust, dirt, soot and smoke - which they release into the air. Particulates come in different sizes but those of less than 2.5 microns, and the tiniest "ultra fine" ones, can interfere with the respiratory system, because they are so tiny that they can be inhaled deeply into the lungs. Ultra fine particles can also be absorbed in the blood, which may have damaging effects.


    Until clean diesel engines circa-2007 and later are the norm, diesel exhaust will still be a major problem in tightly-packed European cities.

    You can love diesel cars all you want, but don't try to ignore the health issues caused by diesel exhaust in the process of your love affair.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."I don't know about all THAT. London is still among the worst polluted air cities in Europe: "...

    Actually that goes back hundreds if not at least a thousand years (read BEFORE automobiles.)
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    One of the stories I found but could not post (it was pay-per-view) abstracted that 87 percent of London's air pollution was from motor vehicles.
  • You miss my point. Of course diesel exhaust, especially prior to the clean diesel controls, particulate traps, urea injection systems, etc. has been detrimental to health. I was wondering why pick on London. It is a huge city of course with all the concommitant problems that brings, but hardly more remarkable than New York, Rome, Athens, Paris, Tokyo... And my experience is that a walk in London is far more pleasant on the lungs than a stroll in Mexico City, Bogota, Quito, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok (which has gotten much better than it used to be), Mumbai, Delhi... Anyway, it was a small point and maybe not even worth mentioning. Certainly not worth stirring up any animosity here.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I was just responding to the poster who said "London air not so bad" and in fact, it IS bad.

    'Sall I'm Sprayin.............
  • DynasDynas Member Posts: 5
    :) -- jikes my post got some heat both good and bad.. Don't get me wrong me and hubby love cars (especially US cars), so I'm not exactly a tree hugger with a cycle ;-)..

    I just don't like diesel that much because most of what I seen of it hasn't impressed me. What I'm especially unimpressed with is the complexity. That we can have pretty clean gasoline powered cars is pretty evident and it's not especially complex systems. It's basically decent EFI (with 02 sensor) , catalysator and EGR and you have a pretty clean car. This setup isn't that complex and will in most cases live for quite a few years before it need some repairs. Compare that with how hard it is to clean a diesel engine, I simply don't' think (kind of know) they will last that long before needing repairs and guess what people will be driving them for a year before a smog test will catch them... It's kind of simple to figure out they will dirty down more since they will require repairs more often hence will run more often with bad emissions than a gasoline powered car...

    --
    ."I don't know about all THAT. London is still among the worst polluted air cities in Europe: "...

    Actually that goes back hundreds if not at least a thousand years (read BEFORE automobiles.)
    ---

    Well they though it was a good thing to burn coal in fireplace so every single household had one or two fireplaces where they burnt coal -- creating those nice and red sunset and fog (smog) that London was famous for :-)...

    Well got to run, so see you folks another day :)...

    Cheers Dyna

    PS: Like the "You can love diesel cars all you want, but don't try to ignore the health issues caused by diesel exhaust in the process of your love affair." comment.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Thanks Dynas for your kind words, and thanks for providing an alternate perspective for us here in the US of A.........:)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    My take is YOU have a choice of diesel or gasser. It is operatively demonstrated by your passenger vehicle percentages.

    With less than 1% of the US market being diesel cars there is little to no defacto choice.
  • DynasDynas Member Posts: 5
    Thanks, well been living all over the world so seen both bad and good ways -- just could not resist to give a bit of a different perspective on the diesel stuff and green alternatives...

    So far both me and hubby are very happy with our LPG (SGi) powered 1999 Cadillac Seville --- lets just hope it's not to much electronic stuff that will go south. Probably will do LPG on some of our Classics too (the very thirsty once) as long as it can be somewhat hidden (don't like intrude on original look).

    The cycle/train/sneakers is fine but it's more for daily commute to work. To be honest I don't really believe in public transport unless it's scheduled things like going to and from work at the same time day in and day out. I simply can't stand waiting 30 min for e.g. a bus. Beside don't think it's that green to have a double decker bus with a massive diesel engine transporting a single passenger..

    Cheers Dyna :)
  • To be honest I don't really believe in public transport unless it's scheduled things like going to and from work at the same time day in and day out. I simply can't stand waiting 30 min for e.g. a bus.

    I agree with you on part of your point. Most of the US relies on buses for public transport (such as it is) and I don't use them. I hate buses, except for chartered ones. I don't like waiting either, and I don't like not immediately knowing the fare structure, the routes the zones, teh wait times, all that crap.

    I DO however like using subways, metros, trolleys, and skytrains in cities around the world. These are usually fast, run frequently, are inexpensive, and easy to figure out even if I am not familiar with it. I save money, time and parking over trying to drive in these areas. If Iran the world, light rail would be available everywhere.

    Unfortunately, most of the US is only set up for individual cars, and it is likely to stay that way. Constructing rational transport that people will really use has now become prohibitively expensive. It could only be done with things like tacking a $2 tax on each gallon of gas/diesel, and who is going to go for that, save the few voices crying in the wilderness? I think it will eventually come, even to the US, but things have to get much, much worse here first in terms of congestion, bad roads, godawful commutes and so on before the groans about light rail proposals die down.

    In the meantime, I can be as selfish as the next guy. If I have to drive because I live here and the whole thing is set up around the car, then I want to use less fuel. I've gotten my best fuel cost per mile from a TDI. Now, I realize if diesels ever did take off in this country as they have elsewhere, people would probably drive even more, do longer commutes and exacerbate some of the very problems we already have. The earth's oil would last longer as well, and that would delay the development of suitable alternatives. Every situation has its drawbacks.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    I don't understand why people think adding a urea cannister that pumps slowly into a catalyst suddently requires a nuclear physics degree to operate a diesel.

    Its just a urea cannister that pumps slowly into a catalyst...

    My gasoline-powered car has 3 catalytics in series. Technically, my gasser is more complex.

    Doesn't seem like its likely to 'dirty down'. Doesn't seem likely to break. It might empty and be required to be refilled at Jiffy Lube, but thats about as complex as I think it gets.

    What else is confusing about the clean diesel engine?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Well, that's one more thing you have to fool with. What's the interval? Seems like I read 30,000 miles but maybe it's been stretched out. Other than a set of tires, I've gone longer on my gasser without going to a mechanic (just doing my own oil changes).
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    OK, so this tank lasts longer than your windshield washer fluid and consists of a chemical mix similar to Windex. Both will need to be refilled, Oh noes! :surprise:

    IMO, those that don't like diesels are using the complexity of the Windex dispenser as justification for their life-long hatred of diesels.

    Some people just don't like certain cars. No justification necessary!
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    That reminds me - nothing came out of the driver's side windshield washer the last time I used it and I plumb forgot about it. I don't have to use it much here so I never remember to check the fluid level in the thing. ;)
  • reality2reality2 Member Posts: 303
    My plan as my next vehicle will be one of Audi's diesel vehicles. I had a chance to experience the A6 3.0TDI while in Germany recently and came away extremely impressed by its frugality and its level of performance. Quiet and very clean.
  • wvgasguywvgasguy Member Posts: 1,405
    I had a 5 series BMW diesel and loved it. However with today's diesel prices the choice now would be a sinple economical comparison between the gas and diesel version of the same vehicle.
    If diesel prices were the same as regular like it used to be I would be interested in a diesel again.

    The other considerations I would have for a diesel would be in SUV's where a hybrid is not an option. I would be willing to lose out a little on the cost rather than drive my 14 mpg Expedition. If it had an 18 mpg diesel that would have been in my garage, even at the significant initial cost difference.

    With vehicles at a higher FE rating the savings of a diesel in real monthly costs are not all that much if any.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Spotted diesel today in San Diego at $2.21 same as that station was charging for Premium. So on an X5 35d there would be a serious savings. Especially over the V8 that the diesel will compete with. I think your Expedition with a 3.0 L diesel would get 30 MPG highway with little effort. The driving experience would be so much better and the long haul between fuel stops is one of the biggest pluses.
  • bpeeblesbpeebles Member Posts: 4,085
    Are you aware that the VW green-diesel DOES NOT use urea injection?.... Instead VW chose to use a technology which does not need to be refilled like BMW and MB does.

    I beleive that part of the decesion to go with a NONurea technology is because the US EPA was balking at the need for the owners to fill-up a tank every couple of years.

    BTW: My windshield-washer fluid has to be filled about once a month for Feb, March, April as the salt on the roads tends to get on EVERYTHING. (Cars, Trees, Houses, Small animals...etc) Only after the spring rains have washed away all the salt from the roads does my windshield-washer use subside.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    BMW includes that in their free service agreement. I believe the Mercedes does also. The sales person I talked to at BMW says they top the urea off at 12k mile oil changes. I would rather have the system like VW has. Not sure if their V6 coming in the Touareg will use urea to get past the knuckle draggers at CARB.
  • wvgasguywvgasguy Member Posts: 1,405
    My Expedition was my first lease. I didn't want to have to own this wondering what gas would do near the end of my lease. I can aways turn it back in. My hopes was that there would be a large hybrid or diesel available by then. I like having at least one large family hauling vehicle in my fleet but don't want the 14 mpg.
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Member Posts: 5,618
    My plan as my next vehicle will be one of Audi's diesel vehicles.

    Good luck with that.

    I've been waiting 8 years (so far) to buy a diesel Audi like the ones I drove in Germany. Not even a hint of anything over here yet, especially in the 1.9-2.0 litre size I'm primarily interested in.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    That reminds me - nothing came out of the driver's side windshield washer the last time I used it and I plumb forgot about it. I don't have to use it much here so I never remember to check the fluid level in the thing.

    You're welcome ;) LOL.
  • scwmcanscwmcan Member Posts: 399
    Sorry to say that the VW 6 in Touareg will be using urea, it is only the 4 in the Jetta that doesn't need it so far. (read an early review just the other day about it).
    Scott
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Personally I would be happier with the Tiguan using the same engine as the Jetta.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Saw an ad today for a new 2009 Jetta TDI for $20,700 here in Phoenix.

    Problem: You had to qualify for "VW Owner Loyalty" program and you have to have a 760 Fair Isaac score to get that price and financing.

    Good deal for those who qualify, however.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I just don't think I would like it. It is just too low to the ground. We have potholes that Ahnold has just left go that will swallow that little thing right up :blush: That is a good buy though. I see 2009 Prius for under $20k listed here. It is a buyers market. Nothing should sell for over invoice. I really think I will try to find an exceptional 2008 GL or ML320 CDI with 7500+ miles. I don't like that Urea tank business. Should be able to save about $10 grand now that they are not a big deal here in CA.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Thanks for the head up. It would be worth the flight/drive, if they do not at least match that locally !! I take it that would be a 6 speed manual, no sunroof? Last I checked, the "hot" financing deal was 5.9% :confuse:

    Hard to beat .09% on a Acura MDX !!!
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Sorry, the ad had no more details. Camelback VW.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Man, today I inadvertently dodged a min 3 to 4 in DEEP gouged out RECTANGULAR?? hole about the depth, L & W of a college chemistry book !!! A split second after I made the input, I caught a glimpse at how deep it was !!!!!

    My swag was a min of a 100 Plus alignment, to perhaps tire,suspension damage ! yuck! :lemon: Of course those 65 mph pungie sticks (mini spears) were not inviting either !!!
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    This one is being cleaned after just coming off the truck!!! 6 speed manual !! They seem to be real nice folks.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I have read in passing that the state of Connecticut will (not sure what the correct word describing the procedure is.. but) "exempts" the states sales tax on the 2009 VW TDI. Now that is/are at least two steps in the direction of being diesel serious here!! So if you happen to be a Connecticut resident, you are eligible for a 2 fur of benefits. CA talks serious, but Connecticut backs it up !!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    If the Dweebs in Sacramento would do that it would save a buyer about $2000. Most places around here are sitting at 8.25% sales tax. Most states only tax on the difference between the new vehicle and the trade-in. It is no small amount when buying a vehicle.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Well the disfunctinal democratic crew in SACRAMENTO does not want to cut spending one iota, so increases in car/related taxes, up to 1.00 per gal, (best to have low mpg) registration, related "personal value fees" in lieu of CA state yearly taxation... are being touted. Of course the main political motivation is what they can sneak by the voters. Funny how the demo legislature put 2/3 majority into law and then blame the minority republicans on a du jour basis, being as they do regularly have thinking democrats that vote against rampant spending. That is probably why they allowed a repub in democratic clothes to get electec governor.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Funny how the demo legislature put 2/3 majority into law and then blame the minority republicans on a du jour basis

    I was curious about this and went looking - just to inject a little fact into this discussion, the 2/3 budgetary requirement in California actually dates to a Depression-era constitutional amendment (passed in 1933). It was basically put in place to limit spending increases, given the effects the Depression was having on the state's finances. Indications are that it was widely supported by everyone, not surprisingly.

    Of course, the question becomes whether a Depression-era amendment is still good to have, given how the sociological context has changed - lots more people without healthcare today, at the same time the expectation of good healthcare has increased tenfold. Lots of funding for all sorts of social programs and schools was available from the federal government at that time, and no longer is. There are needs now that will not be met unless the state pays for them. On the flip side, spending must match revenues - how complicated is that concept? The "no tax increases" people and the social programs people need to compromise - some reductions in services, some increases in taxes or fees.

    It was a recommendation of the California Constitutional Commission in 1996 that 2 changes be written to the constitution (among others):
    1. the budget must be balanced every year, no borrowing allowed to cover deficits,
    2. the 2/3 requirement must go away.

    Of course, all their recommendations were roundly ignored, millions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet for no public benefit.

    I would be in favor of eliminating the 2/3 requirement, even if it is replaced by a 55% requirement rather than 50% + 1.

    And all of this has little to do with diesels, which will be required in Europe to be cleaner than CARB's requirements by the middle of the next decade.

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

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    While you did cite the facts the "fairy tale" version: :lemon: the alternate reality (the REAL reason why the 2/3rds was/were voted in) was because the democrats at that time once they won the majority could now enact legislation, since the repubs were the so called dominate party before they were able to get enactment. Keep in mind it is VERY easy (from the point of view of actually HAVING the 2/3rds majority) to do as you say. You see abject stupidity now, as you have pointed out. Once they pass the 51 % majority, it will be then be TOTAL.

    Lets see 1.00 tax on a now 2.25 per gal of diesel and that has NOTHING to do with diesels???? Well I vote folks that feel that way and want the 1.00 tax, pay all my diesel fuel taxation !! ;)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Not sure who goofed. But it looks like NY and WA have taken over the top gas tax spots. Four states have CA beat on diesel tax which is 6 cents more from the Feds.

    http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/January_2009_gasoline_and_diesel_- summary_pages.pdf
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    @ 2.05 per gal-.537/1.513 per gal=)

    and they would like to raise it another $1.00 per gal.

    And to totally bore you all. per mile driven on like models 29 mpg/.537 cents=.0185 cents taxation per mile driven 49/.636 cents = .013 or 42.3% more.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Protected from Brain Fade During Refueling

    "BMW wants to ensure the warmest possible reception for the 2009 BMW 335d and 2009 BMW X5 xDrive35d, so the company has made it impossible for you to make the number one most aggravating mistake: accidentally refueling your diesel vehicle with gasoline."

    I was under the impression that a lot of pumps had the same size nozzle these days for both diesel and gasoline.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    They look and feel the same. I always make sure to look for the GREEN silicon cover. I have never crossed them, but the 09 tank port seems to let in less of the diesel hose. It felt weird the first time, like it was not going in all the way in and was going to fall out.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Senate votes to give a tax break to new car buyers


    By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer

    link title

    And... a $1300 dollar diesel jetta tax CREDIT !! Woo Hoo !!
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Sales tax deduction and car loan interest deduction - we're getting there. Now throw in a clunker rebate for me, please. :shades:

    I eyeballed a diesel nozzle this morning while filling up the wagon. I was too chicken to try to cram it in the filler tube. The sizing is similar at first glance but the diesel nozzle was obviously bigger, so you'd have to be daydreaming or preoccupied not to notice. The green handle helps too.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Sniff the nozzle. The nasty smelling one is unleaded gas. Don't sniff too hard RUG is carcinogenic.

    PS
    Some stations have two sizes of diesel nozzles. The larger one for big trucks would not fit in my Passat TDI. I think the new ones will not allow the modern gas nozzles that have to go all the way down over the seal to get that far in a diesel spout. The new gas nozzles at least in CA help protect you from the deadly fumes that Gas puts off.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I filled today, the hose nozzle rested further inside the (older ) tank than the newer 2009 tank. I guess without trying it to verfy, what you all are saying is a good swag.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I put the pump on auto and walk away so I don't have to breathe the fumes in the immediate area. Usually check the oil or wash the windshields. I'm waiting for the class action suits in OR and NJ from the gas attendants who are required to deal with pumping fuel on their jobs.

    As far as it being an actual problem, that link I posted yesterday says that there are 5,000 "misfueling" incidents in Germany every year. So it's a real, if small issue.

    I didn't notice my shoes smelling like diesel after I filled so I guess no one had used the diesel side of the pump lately and hadn't spilled any on the ground. :P

    If cars and ICEs were invented today, the EPA probably wouldn't let them on the road because of the health hazards.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    How do you like flies. We could go back to the horse and buggy. GM could build pooper scoopers in the UAW factories. I like horses. Except they eat even when you ain't ridin' em. Does a team of horses put out more GHG than a Jetta diesel car?
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    All these would be hits if they were 35-40 mpg diesels.

    link title
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The mpg ratings aren't especially impressive.

    Bimmer's U.S. Clean Diesels Qualify For Clean-Car Tax Credits From IRS

    image
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I would agree! However the BMW 335 D (36 mpg ) is 10 mpg better than the 335 I (26 mpg), or 38.5% better.

    But it is almost stunning if you compare it against the M3 (20 mpg) or 80% better.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think in the real world you will find the EPA numbers are low for the BMW diesels. Same as the VW diesels. There is no way the X5 35D should be compared to the 6 cylinder gas version. It compares or beats the V8 in almost every area. And is $6k less than the V8 model X5. After my test drive of the X5, I can tell you it will blow the socks off of any SUV in its size class. It is rated at 6.9 seconds 0-60 MPH. It seems SO much faster than my V8 Sequoia, that is rated 8.5 seconds. Just light throttle shot me out of a crowd on the freeway and up to 85 MPH. It should be easy to get close to 30 MPG out on the highway keeping in that under 75 MPH range. It is much more responsive handling and acceleration than the GL320 CDI that I drove. The transmission is smoother than the Mercedes. It is not as plush as the Mercedes or my Sequoia limited. I also checked out the NAV in the BMW. I think I would pass on that. I don't like the one in the Sequoia and the BMW was even less impressive.

    I am very undecided at this time. I did have someone wanting to buy my Sequoia. So I may have to decide sooner than I was planning. I think right today I would opt for the pre Urea 2008 ML320 CDI. They are around and about $10K less than the new one. Or I may just keep trying to wear out the 20 year old Lexus.

    PS
    I could not find the amount of the incentive in your linked article.
This discussion has been closed.