I think in a real sense (in CA anyway), the EV (Volt, Tesla, Prius-plug in, etc) is really a variant of natural gas and coal fired power plants; to the extent that coal fired plants are still used. However at the prices of electrical power (PER KWH) the cost per mile driven is actually higher for electrical (.29 cents per KWH and UP in CA) than RUG/PUG. It is just that the marketing has been able to disguise the electrical cost per mile driven.
In addition it is no accident that CR has given one of its highest ratings to a $100,000 Tesla EV.
The back story here is that natural is is both WAY cheaper and the US is absolutely more than totally abundant in natural gas and the technology ever needed to cost effectively pull it out of the ground. Indeed we are EXPONENTIALLY bigger than the middle east. Conveniently using the same tools in the quiver or lack there of, it is hard to put a figure per mile driven for natural gas.
I think the problem that both you and Shifty have is both of your insertions of "conspiracy". It creates a dark air of paranoia, fear and distrust etc. which tends to blow things to hysterical proportions.
If you haven't figured it out by now, it is LEGAL for Toyota to do what they do. It is LEGAL for the EPA to alter, change, doctor their test protocols, even as they choose a goal as realistic or illusionary as "real world 1960's or 2008's driving HABITS".
So for example, what the 2012 VW Passat TDI achieved 84+ mpg, (and per Edmunds.com EPA test protocol article) was MERELY to go 5 mph over the EPA test procedures speeds circa 1960's, aka 5 mph under the then and now current speed limit of 65 mph.
For God sakes, this is NOT rocket science or the single magic bullet theory of the democratic Warren Report, its .... fuel ECONOMY !!! ????
I think the problem that both you and Shifty have is both of your insertions of "conspiracy".
Actually I don't either of us have ever initiated such a claim. Diesels have a historical reputation for being noisy and smelly and the fuel is still oily and smelly if it gets on your hands, and the exhaust emissions have been associated with lung cancer and asthma. Facts do get a bit hysterical I suppose. :shades:
I don't understand the comment I saw in one of the articles either that said it was illegal for VW to advertise their "better" mpg. They have to put the EPA ratings on the Monroney but I don't know why VW can't claim that many of their owners get great mpg.
That's really what burned Honda when they settled that hybrid class action when everyone's mpg went down after they did a computer flash. They tried to hide behind the EPA but their ad copy said otherwise. Ditto Hyundai and their run-ins with people not getting their expected mpg. But jeeze, VW should ride along with you to Tahoe and put a video camera on your dash readout and on an "officially" calibrated ScanGauge. Would make great ad copy.
Regular and premium gas have had an historical reputation for being smelly and noise and emitting copious amounts of lead (aka PUG/RUG vs LEADED regular/premium GASOLINE) and being highly toxic. You have gotten over that ! You also need to get over diesel @ greater than 15 ppm sulfur too.
Msg # 9185 !!????? There is NO conspiracy to wrap your head around !!!!! ???? GEEZ. Pretty soon you are going to attribute what you posted to ME !!!!! ????
I certainly haven't accused the EPA of bending over backward to help (or hurt) hybrid manufacturers.
Oh, I'm not exactly thrilled with gasoline either. Highly flammable, and not real healthy either. I'm loving my electric mower and I have nothing that burns gasoline except my cars (not counting a propane canister for one of my camping stoves). A long range EV would be pretty sweet (right now I'm sitting in a McDonald's an hour from home getting some new shoes for the van - couldn't get home without a recharge if I had a Leaf).
Lets try this out. The 2012 VW Passat TDI, a mid to almost large sized car is already capable of severely exceeding the forward mpg figures of 50 + mpg @ 84 mpg +. AND right now by 68%.
11 MY's ago and MORE, in a 03 Jetta TDI, I could get 50 mpg going 90 mph in a driving rain storm !! I did one tank sub 65 mph (speed limit) and it posted 62 mpg and that was with the A/C BLASTING. I have already posted numerous tanks and times about a steady 75 mph and putting down 59 mpg.
HS /gunsmoke , smoke/mirrors and rubber rulers !!!!! ???
Well really that is not the point in reference to the EPA and the standards going forward.
There are exponentially more folks that have adverse responses to air borne plant SEX !!!Indeed your wife might be one of those. What is the EPA doing about that? :P
The whole VW Passat gets 84 mpg thing is getting ridiculous. That is an outlier if there ever was one. Under controlled conditions the Passat gets 51 mpg at 65 mph. I think we all know that Mr. and Mrs. suburbia are not going to get 84 mpg with their Passat. Yes plenty of people will get low 50's in a Passat and plenty will also get mid 40's in an Altima.
The Taylors also got 65 mpg over 9,500 miles in a Chevy Cruze. That was with many more cold starts and longer mileage meant it was harder to take advantage of the weather (wind is huge in mpg).
To compare vehicles fairly you have to use the same source with a valid sample size or the same route driven by the same people.
That is like me saying my Accord is faster than a Corvette because it can hit 60 in 6.6 seconds and a 1979 Corvette takes about 8 seconds. It is not apples to apples.
And you don't think that your smelly hands type comments don't reveal a bias against owning a diesel while sitting at the breakfast table deciding which dealerships you might visit to demo a car? It's like you practically suggest, that in comparison, gasoline is like a lavender hand lotion! So is it any surprise that your wife has the potential to be an easy non-sale of a diesel?
It really is a cheap shot to keep bringing up the smelly exhaust blah blah blah, when that stereo-type crap is so easy to keep alive in our ignorant world. You and Shiftright bring up age old crap, knowing full well it is an easy sell to new ignorant readers, and by so doing you knowingly perpetuate the ignorance towards diesel and diesel fueled cars even though it is year 2013 even though technology has progressed at an even faster rate than gasoline fueled cars!
You don't think that as moderators you don't have a greater potential influence on readers coming here to get some input/info on the prospects of considering a diesel for their next purchase, than... say.. a few isolated but regular posters with no nomenclature associated with their username? NOT a rhetorical question, BTW.
The forum is called "What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?"
I think this thread should be renamed/more accurately named:
LET OUR MODERATORS ATTEMPT TO TALK YOU OUT OF ANY DIESEL PURCHASE
The VW Passat TDI in American passenger vehicle markets is a statistical outlier even with a" fuel guzzling" 43 mpg EPA H. But the VW Passat TDI was used in the context mentioned in my post.
So for example, IF I were to buy and use a Passat TDI in my/our current universe of driving scenarios, I would swag a more likely + 5% (45 mpg) .
I'm not exactly sure what the complaint is here. :confuse: :confuse:
I've read quite a few longterm tests from owners and magazines on running a Golf TDI, and the results seem quite consistent:
A few excerpts, if you'll bear with me:
Road And Track
" More important, in its stay here at Road & Track, the Golf TDI fitted with the standard 6-speed manual transmission averaged a laudable 38.9 mpg. "
Paul Vachier:
"Long Term Road Test @ 50K Miles: Still getting 42city - 47hwy MPG all around. "
Automobile Magazine:
"Granted, you likely won't see the same 50-plus mpg I got in my old Rabbit, but today's diesel engines are light-years ahead of where they were three decades ago in both refinement and reliability."
Hybrid Cars: (car tested in Germany)
"With our automatic-equipped tester, we achieved an impressive 39.8 miles per gallon...If our test had occurred on more speed-limited American highways, it’s likely that our combined mileage loop would have beat the EPA’s highway rating of the car."
Auto Savant:
"The Golf TDI is rated 34/41 MPG city/hwy by the EPA, and 34 MPG combined. I managed to beat the combined rating by quite a bit, returning an average of 37.5 MPG over nearly 500 miles driven. Long freeway jaunts predictably had even better fuel economy, with one sixty mile leg (at speeds between 65 and 75 MPH) turning in an average of 46.0 MPG. "
So, once again, EPA "estimates" are 42 mpg hwy, based on how they test.
So I would say that the EPA rating is pretty good.
Perhaps you could explain to me what is "biased" about the above statements?
I'm genuinely puzzled by the source of your irritation with these numbers.
Also genuinely puzzled that such observations that diesel fuel a) often costs more than regular gas b) that you pay a premium for a diesel engine over a gas engine in the same car, or c) that hybrids have a "feel good marketing" advantage----that these are all "age old" objections? How so? They seem pretty modern to me.
Should we moderators "edit" the MPG results in order to encourage people to buy diesels?
How exactly did we get blamed for what other organizations achieved in their testing?
I just don't get "the beef".
I see no reason to discount the EPA numbers for this car.
If diesel cars were so vastly superior to gassers, they wouldn't need any defenders, would they?
It would depend on speed. I am sure you could do well over 50 mpg if you wanted. Also the stick will do better than the automatic in the real world, so that also factors in.
You don't think that as moderators you don't have a greater potential influence
Actually I don't think that. I go to people's houses for socializing all the time, knowing that their politics/religion/whatever is 180° different from mine. I (usually) enjoy hearing their POVs. Sometimes something they say will even nudge my thinking.
One thing that initially attracted me to the forums here is that it's not a fanboy site. So instead of getting shouted down for having a contrary opinion, whether it's about fuel or about a Chevy SS, you'll get to hear all sides of the issue. It's not all tea and roses.
I'd rather not get any fuel on my hands, but diesel does seem to smell more and seems a lot harder to wash off. "Age-old" crap goes to the perception thing that the automakers have to fight to convince newbies that diesels are worth considering.
Instead of attacking those of us with differing views, it moves the conversation along by pointing out where our thinking may be wrong or how the fuel has advanced. Everyone else can read the posts and decide for themselves. It's not about you or me, it's about the topic.
I don't know that diesel tech has outpaced gassers either, not even considering the success to date of teaming gassers up with electric motors and batteries. Lots of advancements have happened with gas ICEs (DI perhaps being the biggest recent example).
The market DEPRESSORS in the US is PRECISELY the opposite as Europe, mostly economic. Again it is pretty simple, lower priced gas/diesel prices (than Europe) and higher mpg yields less revenue per mile driven.
The formula as anyone can infer is again pretty simple lower price fuels need to have lower mpg yields. So if one gets 50 mpg in Europe as an average and gets 25 mpg average in the US what has to be the price of fuel to yield the same tax per mile driven? Keep in mind the WW price of a barrel of oil is a global price.
If people realized how silly and fuddy-duddy some of the mods here can be, they might not be so influenced :shades:
It would be interesting to see the opinions of people under 40 or even 30 when it comes to diesel cars - people who have no exposure to some of the fun rides of the malaise era. The bad old days created a lot of prejudice, much of it justified. I can say my car has no exhaust or noise issues - hell, some of the poorly isolated modern DI cars are no quieter than my car, even at cold idle. I've had no filthy scenes when refueling, either.
I also wonder if EPA testing might be based on some kind of dumbed down American driver style, ie: jackrabbit starts, uneven speeds, long idling periods, etc. That can kill mileage. While those of us above the lowest common denominator that the bleeding hearts embrace can do much better.
Well, It looks like Mazda is only offering two choices with the Mazda 6 in the U.S. You either get the 2.5 with 185 HP or the 2.2 Diesel with 173 HP. I think Mazda has a lot of guts to offer the Diesel powertrain and it makes perfect sense to try and take some of VW's mojo....and their sales!
I think the reliability will be right on par with VW. Mazda has been racing with their Skyactive Diesels so I hope (with my fingers crossed) that they have worked out the kinks. I really really like the idea of the Diesel, and can't wait to test drive it this fall.
Actually if I were in the market for another diesel, I almost have myself talked into being a "test monkey" for the first years (US) model. I would get a manual transmission.
At the end my turbo was cutting out and I had to switch the car off, then on again, so it would re-engage. Without the turbo, it was totally unable to accelerate on an incline in any gear over 2nd. I got it fixed so my niece could drive it, and if my mother-in-law didn't work for a car dealership I could never have afforded it. I get a kick out of seeing it at family get together's.
To answer about the Mazda diesel transmission options, I don't know for sure on US spec cars, but knowing Mazda's "drivers car" marketing and the fact that a 6 speed manual already fits in the car, and WILL be deployed in Europe; I would say yes. The details have not been finalized.
USA Today had an interesting article on this subject:
some excerpts:
"There are rational arguments against diesel: expensive, foul-smelling fuel; higher vehicle prices; different driving characteristics; noise. But a simple generation gap could wipe out those concerns, some of which were formed when diesel engines for light cars and trucks were much less sophisticated.
"Unlike older consumers who still have a negative perception, younger buyers like the cleaner technology, higher fuel efficiency and smoother delivery of torque" that diesel engines provide, says Eric Lyman, a vice president at ALG, which studies the industry and forecasts used-car values."
Green Car Reports weighs in on diesel vs. hybrid for the young buyer:
"Diesel cars have made massive leaps over the last decade or so, and they're certainly no longer the slow, noisy and unclean beasts they once were. That's thanks to a whole lot of clever new technologies, though unfortunately these do add to the price of your average diesel vehicle.
If you spend most of your time on the highway, we can thoroughly recommend a diesel vehicle for reducing your fuel bills, though we'd suggest that if much of your driving is done in the city, hybrids are still cleaner and more efficient, and quieter too."
I've known a few people personally who have owned modern diesel VWs - all of them no older than their 30s, who wanted something with economy but also some form of handling and mechanical feedback. Although younger people are more distanced from being gearheads than ever these days, there is still a younger contingent who finds a hybrid, a Prius especially, to be soul-destroying boredom. Some younger people don't put a lot of value in "quieter", and the roly poly handling, sometimes iffy comfort, dim performance, and even style can be cons. Of course, this segment of the car buying population is a minority.
A good old friend of mine who currently has a Prius has told me he likely won't buy another. He likes the city mpg, dislikes just about everything else. Generational progress might help the diesel. It will never be dominant, but it should grow.
Yes the EPA absolutely does dumb down the test results. The unadjusted numbers (available on the EPA website - fueleconomy.gov ) are quite a bit higher - E350 blutec for example is 45.6 mpg unadjusted highway. VW Passat is 62.8. If you drive slow enough and everything is in your favor you can hit those numbers.
To throw a gasser in for comparison, the Altima is 56.1. Gasoline E350 is 41.8.
45.6 huh....oh, now I feel less special :shades: The dumbed down highway number is 32 - I can approach that in suburban driving if there's no congestion. Their 22 city rating is only obtained by me in the worst traffic.
I'd bet the upcoming E250 diesel would be into the 50s then.
The EPA doesn't use "off the shelf" gasoline though for the testing. It certainly doesn't have ethanol in it like the stuff at the corner station. Don't know what elixir they use for testing diesels.
Oh..ya..an engine designed to be turbo'd but with an inoperative one is going to be quite the slug. My 77 Rabbit was NA, and it was no ball of fire even being designed to run without the turbo. But turboing is THEE SINGLE BEST thing you can do for a diesel engine to enhance performance on all levels drastically. And it doesn't have some of the negative ramifications that turboing gas job has...like incredibly higher heat numbers..
I understand about enjoying seeing it at family get togethers. I used to enjoy seeing my Pathfinder until my nephew finally sold it to a friend who sold it to another guy after a year and that guy blew it up prematurely
As for trannys, I suspect that a standard that'll work well with the 6 diesel, which puts out so much torque, will have very little in common with the present 6 speed they off with the gas job. I'm thinking it'll be beefier (more/bigger bearings) from one end to the other, with thicker case walls too.
Heh, if you think there's some long-standing reputational issues with diesels among the unwashed masses, it must be double for turbos and superchargers.
Good point, I need to remind myself of that little tidbit more often :sick:
It would seem they are both in agreement with each other (naturally) that being a mod on a forum such as this one in particular, would have no influential effect whatsoever on a new reader. What isn't being acknowledged though, is that with internet, it is more common than not, i.e. the assumed norm, that moderators are chosen for a forum due to their level of experience or knowledge/interest on that forum topic. eg. It's not reasonable to make a steam fitter a moderator of an electronics forum. If that is done, then a reader is going to assume that the mod knows a thing or two about electronics, not how to service his boiler in the basement. And if the steam fitter is chosen to moderate because of his interest, then wouldn't it make more sense that he would post more questions than opinions?
The same can be said here, IMO. Naturally there is no absolute prerequisite for a mod on a diesel forum to be all things informed, but they should...especially when it is shown they have a bias against diesel use in cars..attempt to remain more neutral than vocal in voicing repetitive perceived (their perceptions, not the masses per se) cons. I could go through both mods posts and pick out specific and numerous quotes that have adjectives and other basic slanted or influential wording, that reveals, in general, a negativity towards diesel use in a car. I wouldn't have to back more than 3 days. But I'm not going to waste my time because it will be just that, a complete waste of time and effort. Their suggestion that new readers can "read for themselves" doesn't cut it, because we know that it is human nature to be lazy and wanting quick answers. Most newcomers start basically on they day they discover the forum. I, on the other hand, have invested days of reading prior to posting on these forums. I have literally read a few thousand posts FIRST, before posting on some threads. And that is no exaggeration. I read over 1500 posts before posting on the Matrix std transmission woes. About the same or more posts before posting on CRV A/C black death issues. Etc Etc. But that is not the norm and this is proven numerous times a day when someone goes on a 'help' type forum, seeking help but were too lazy to even go back a week's worth of posts. And often the answer they searched for could have been found in just a few days to a week's worth.
As for this forum...I absolutely guarantee you that you (a new reader here) take EPA numbers for a Golf TDI stick, then read a few of the mods posts, and they're going to be steered AWAY from what might be actually the PERFECT car for their use, simply if for no other reason than they believed the negative (and often inaccurate press) here.
They keep saying that EPA is fair and a representative comparison...and if we were talking jus tgas jobs, I'd agree, it's actually pretty helpful most times. But the disconnect happens when they post EPA for basically ALL the diesels, be it the Golf, VW T, JGC, Bluetecs...you name it. They actually post the Cruze Eco stick as 46.8 yet the Golf TDI at 42. What utter horse%^#. And it doesn't help if mods keep supporting EPA like numbers. Cuz like I said previously..."gee, they wouldn't have a moderator moderating a forum they know nothing about dear, so maybe we should buy the Cruze instead of the VW TDI"...
Anyway..They (you/anyone) can claim there is no conspiracy, and maybe there isn't, but there IS a disconnect that... coincidently then, (:rolls eyes:) is there when comparing diesel and gas figures. Call it whatever ya like..
All comments in this post are not being directly asked of or directed to, fintail. Just happened to end up putting my final opinions on this, in a reply to one of his.
I'm not aware of any diesel that was supercharged. They might exist, I just don't know myself.. edit- OH! yes I do! And they were a fuel gobbling, torqueless wonder...in big trucks, many of Detroit's 2 stroke diesels used a blower in them...and were turbo'd I believe..they have long since been replaced with a 4 stroke and turbo, the way God meant them to be..
As for turbos, I have stated before and will again, that, IMO, there isn't enough idiot/ignorant-proofing in turbo equipped cars. (like not having a gravity feed..{cuz it's cheap and dependable} oil feed for turbo bearings after engine shutdown) But whatever potential liabilities are imposed on any turbo diesel owner, be it out of ignorance or not, they are at least 2 or 3 fold with a turbo gas job and that same ignorant/uninformed owner. HEAT is a biggie as one issue...one of the biggest in fact..
I don't know about the mod criteria here, but that's something for another discussion But, Edmunds does have general hosts, not ones for specific threads. And with diesel enthusiasts being uncommon, it's understandable. The diesel bias is understandable too, as in the past, smoky slow old MBs were the good ones, and few others were even tolerable.
Maybe the motoring public, especially enthusiasts, should be taught to discount EPA claims. I mean, the government does so little else right when it comes to cars, chances are they aren't going to be 100% accurate with this, right?
I think diesel is taxed higher than gasoline, so one would think the powers that be would actually conspire for it - but then again, it's not a logical group with their fingers on the button :shades:
You may be begging the question here, sometimes called "circular reasoning". It's a very common form of argument. This means a person states something as fact (e.g. there is "bias", statements are "inaccurate"), without proving those statements, and then uses those statements as if it were a fact to make a conclusion.
So,, the complete circular argument would be: " because person X has made biased and inaccurate statements, therefore all visitors to the website will be mislead. "
I don't see any bias at all going on here, sorry. If I did, I'd attempt to correct it.
The EPA doesn't use "off the shelf" gasoline though for the testing. It certainly doesn't have ethanol in it like the stuff at the corner station. Don't know what elixir they use for testing diesels.
It may be irrelevant what fuel they use. Don't forget my letter from the EPA claimed they only test about 10% of new models. The automakers test using the EPA RULES.
They actually post the Cruze Eco stick as 46.8 yet the Golf TDI at 42. What utter horse%^#.
Just looked at the EPA site for the Cruze diesel. They do claim 46 MPG hwy. But kick them down to 27 city. With a combined 33 MPG. That is below the much bigger Passat TDI that got 30 city 40 hwy and 34 combined. Just as a point of reference 13 people posted on the EPA site for the 2013 Passat TDI. Their average was 41.9 MPG overall. That is significantly better than the 34 MPG from the EPA. A good salesman will point that out. Though my experience has been sales people trying to convince me the gasser they had sitting on the lot was better than the diesel models they have a hard time keeping in stock. Which tells me the average diesel buyer has a lot more to overcome than negative comments by Edmunds mods.
How about Smelly, Noisy and expensive? All of which have been debunked. I personally take it all with a grain of salt. I have debated on Edmunds since 1998 over why it has taken so long for US to get what the rest of the World enjoys in vehicles. Ford diesel Rangers allowed on our roads with out of country plates. OK for the Brazilians to drive their diesels the length and breadth of the USA. But a citizen such as myself is denied the same privilege.
I have been threatened with personal harm by a hybrid nut job over a debate on which is best. One of the longest running debates here was over SUVs.
So feel free to say what you like against diesels, I will do my best to debunk any erroneous claims.
Diesels cost more than their equivalent gas engine models
Misconception. I paid less for my new 2005 Passat TDI Wagon than most were paying for the gas version at the time. You also get most of it back on resale. If you don't keep it till the wheels fall off.
Diesel fuel does smell, relatively to say mango juice or roses
Smelling raw diesel is not as hazardous to your health as smelling raw gasoline. CA has mandated special nozzles to protect us from dangerous gas fumes. None of the states we just passed through protect you from those awful gas fumes while filling your vehicle. Gasoline is NASTY stuff.
A diesel engine is noisier than most gasoline cars
At idle maybe. Out on the road my VW TDI was much quieter pulling hard than the new Subaru I test drove. The screaming emitted by that gas 4 banger, to maintain speed up a long grade, was horrible. Hopefully people don't stand around listening to an idling engine. People need to drive one before they make up there mind.
These are all simply facts--they are not "negative"
They are not facts, only your negative opinions, based on old anecdotal experience.
Besides all that, I'm the one who created this topic and the former owner of 3 diesel cars!
I checked the True Cost to Own feature on Edmunds and after 5 years the gas vs diesel Passat is about the same. To me, this means the decision to diesel or not to diesel appears to be personal preference and not much else. I hope this won't end the discussion because watching you guys tangle is actually pretty entertaining. I would like to hear a few details about the Peugot you owned.
Never underestimate the entertainment value. On the subject of costs (per mile driven), even truck drivers can do the math and not many have chosen RUG/PUG tractor trailer rigs. In fact, IF the government does not monkey with it there will probably be a radical switch to natural gas, until the government once again mucks up THAT transformation. Now I personally have driven GASSER tractor trailer rigs, but they were owned by the very same agencies that has run up trillions of dollars of DEBT. The differences are whole different discussions.
As for personal preference, that is for sure ! If you want to spend more monies per mile driven: fuel, I personally have no issues with you spending more or even less. One basic thing I have always opted for was the choice to pay less. You must be in the camp that feels paying more is more ....better.
So on the VW Jetta 03: gasser 27.5 mpg@ 4.07 PUG= .148 cents per mile driven vs TDI 46.5 @ 4.07 ULSD==.0875 cents per mile driven. PUG costing .0605 cents more. So I take it you are just fine with paying 69% more per mile driven !!!!!
In closing, it is entertaining to see that 95% of the vehicle fleet chose RUG/PUG. I think the math must be compelling !! (you must have missed all my rehashes) Getting 13.5 to 21 mpg in a gasser competitor (Acura MDX) is more and more beddah than 32/33 mpg TDI (cost of mdx is higher than the VW TDI version by the way)
I think that in effect you delineate some of "the problems trying to be solved difference" with the turbo/super charger gasser diesel combination.
So an outlier will be in the VW Touareg line with a super charged PUG hybrid combination. The other being TDI with turbo charged ULSD. Another option is indeed is the turbo charged PUG option. I think it is fairly well described in edmunds.com and Steve has access to that.
For all I know they could be using Nitro-methane 20% like my R/C car does. You want to talk about costly? A gallon was $38 last time I bought it. Most people don't know that (almost) ALL scale R/C cars are diesel's. Here is a pic:
You know, if Mazda offered a diesel model that made 225 Hp and 310 lb-ft, I think I might run over there and buy one!!! Maybe a 2.7 liter displacement could get those figures.
As far as my preference to pay more -- I do. I buy the car that fits my needs within the price range I can afford. As far as operating costs, since depreciation is the major expense no matter what you buy, I get what I like. My Buick LaCrosse gets mid to upper twenties mpg highway and gets me to my destination in comfort and quiet. I place value on the quality of the ride experience that is higher than crunching numbers on the economics related to the experience. :shades:
Comments
In addition it is no accident that CR has given one of its highest ratings to a $100,000 Tesla EV.
The back story here is that natural is is both WAY cheaper and the US is absolutely more than totally abundant in natural gas and the technology ever needed to cost effectively pull it out of the ground. Indeed we are EXPONENTIALLY bigger than the middle east. Conveniently using the same tools in the quiver or lack there of, it is hard to put a figure per mile driven for natural gas.
I am no fan of CR. But my bet is they do a better job of real world mileage than the over paid underworked flakes at the EPA.
I keep having trouble wrapping my head around the Toyota/EPA conspiracy theory.
Seems like if Toyota was conspiring with the EPA, their hybrid ratings would not have fallen from 60 to 40mpg. That's favorable?
That may shut up some owners who got lousy mileage but it didn't help their marketing.
:confuse:
If you haven't figured it out by now, it is LEGAL for Toyota to do what they do. It is LEGAL for the EPA to alter, change, doctor their test protocols, even as they choose a goal as realistic or illusionary as "real world 1960's or 2008's driving HABITS".
So for example, what the 2012 VW Passat TDI achieved 84+ mpg, (and per Edmunds.com EPA test protocol article) was MERELY to go 5 mph over the EPA test procedures speeds circa 1960's, aka 5 mph under the then and now current speed limit of 65 mph.
For God sakes, this is NOT rocket science or the single magic bullet theory of the democratic Warren Report, its .... fuel ECONOMY !!! ????
Actually I don't either of us have ever initiated such a claim. Diesels have a historical reputation for being noisy and smelly and the fuel is still oily and smelly if it gets on your hands, and the exhaust emissions have been associated with lung cancer and asthma. Facts do get a bit hysterical I suppose. :shades:
I don't understand the comment I saw in one of the articles either that said it was illegal for VW to advertise their "better" mpg. They have to put the EPA ratings on the Monroney but I don't know why VW can't claim that many of their owners get great mpg.
That's really what burned Honda when they settled that hybrid class action when everyone's mpg went down after they did a computer flash. They tried to hide behind the EPA but their ad copy said otherwise. Ditto Hyundai and their run-ins with people not getting their expected mpg. But jeeze, VW should ride along with you to Tahoe and put a video camera on your dash readout and on an "officially" calibrated ScanGauge. Would make great ad copy.
I certainly haven't accused the EPA of bending over backward to help (or hurt) hybrid manufacturers.
Oh, I'm not exactly thrilled with gasoline either. Highly flammable, and not real healthy either. I'm loving my electric mower and I have nothing that burns gasoline except my cars (not counting a propane canister for one of my camping stoves). A long range EV would be pretty sweet (right now I'm sitting in a McDonald's an hour from home getting some new shoes for the van - couldn't get home without a recharge if I had a Leaf).
Lets try this out. The 2012 VW Passat TDI, a mid to almost large sized car is already capable of severely exceeding the forward mpg figures of 50 + mpg @ 84 mpg +. AND right now by 68%.
11 MY's ago and MORE, in a 03 Jetta TDI, I could get 50 mpg going 90 mph in a driving rain storm !! I did one tank sub 65 mph (speed limit) and it posted 62 mpg and that was with the A/C BLASTING. I have already posted numerous tanks and times about a steady 75 mph and putting down 59 mpg.
HS /gunsmoke , smoke/mirrors and rubber rulers !!!!! ???
Great gas mileage isn't the sole consideration for getting people to consider a diesel.
There are exponentially more folks that have adverse responses to air borne plant SEX !!!Indeed your wife might be one of those. What is the EPA doing about that? :P
The Taylors also got 65 mpg over 9,500 miles in a Chevy Cruze. That was with many more cold starts and longer mileage meant it was harder to take advantage of the weather (wind is huge in mpg).
To compare vehicles fairly you have to use the same source with a valid sample size or the same route driven by the same people.
That is like me saying my Accord is faster than a Corvette because it can hit 60 in 6.6 seconds and a 1979 Corvette takes about 8 seconds. It is not apples to apples.
It really is a cheap shot to keep bringing up the smelly exhaust blah blah blah, when that stereo-type crap is so easy to keep alive in our ignorant world. You and Shiftright bring up age old crap, knowing full well it is an easy sell to new ignorant readers, and by so doing you knowingly perpetuate the ignorance towards diesel and diesel fueled cars even though it is year 2013 even though technology has progressed at an even faster rate than gasoline fueled cars!
You don't think that as moderators you don't have a greater potential influence on readers coming here to get some input/info on the prospects of considering a diesel for their next purchase, than... say.. a few isolated but regular posters with no nomenclature associated with their username? NOT a rhetorical question, BTW.
The forum is called "What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?"
I think this thread should be renamed/more accurately named:
LET OUR MODERATORS ATTEMPT TO TALK YOU OUT OF ANY DIESEL PURCHASE
So for example, IF I were to buy and use a Passat TDI in my/our current universe of driving scenarios, I would swag a more likely + 5% (45 mpg) .
I've read quite a few longterm tests from owners and magazines on running a Golf TDI, and the results seem quite consistent:
A few excerpts, if you'll bear with me:
Road And Track
" More important, in its stay here at Road & Track, the Golf TDI fitted with the standard 6-speed manual transmission averaged a laudable 38.9 mpg. "
Paul Vachier:
"Long Term Road Test @ 50K Miles: Still getting 42city - 47hwy MPG all around. "
Automobile Magazine:
"Granted, you likely won't see the same 50-plus mpg I got in my old Rabbit, but today's diesel engines are light-years ahead of where they were three decades ago in both refinement and reliability."
Hybrid Cars: (car tested in Germany)
"With our automatic-equipped tester, we achieved an impressive 39.8 miles per gallon...If our test had occurred on more speed-limited American highways, it’s likely that our combined mileage loop would have beat the EPA’s highway rating of the car."
Auto Savant:
"The Golf TDI is rated 34/41 MPG city/hwy by the EPA, and 34 MPG combined. I managed to beat the combined rating by quite a bit, returning an average of 37.5 MPG over nearly 500 miles driven. Long freeway jaunts predictably had even better fuel economy, with one sixty mile leg (at speeds between 65 and 75 MPH) turning in an average of 46.0 MPG. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -----------
So, once again, EPA "estimates" are 42 mpg hwy, based on how they test.
So I would say that the EPA rating is pretty good.
Perhaps you could explain to me what is "biased" about the above statements?
I'm genuinely puzzled by the source of your irritation with these numbers.
Also genuinely puzzled that such observations that diesel fuel a) often costs more than regular gas b) that you pay a premium for a diesel engine over a gas engine in the same car, or c) that hybrids have a "feel good marketing" advantage----that these are all "age old" objections? How so? They seem pretty modern to me.
Should we moderators "edit" the MPG results in order to encourage people to buy diesels?
How exactly did we get blamed for what other organizations achieved in their testing?
I just don't get "the beef".
I see no reason to discount the EPA numbers for this car.
If diesel cars were so vastly superior to gassers, they wouldn't need any defenders, would they?
Actually I don't think that. I go to people's houses for socializing all the time, knowing that their politics/religion/whatever is 180° different from mine. I (usually) enjoy hearing their POVs. Sometimes something they say will even nudge my thinking.
One thing that initially attracted me to the forums here is that it's not a fanboy site. So instead of getting shouted down for having a contrary opinion, whether it's about fuel or about a Chevy SS, you'll get to hear all sides of the issue. It's not all tea and roses.
I'd rather not get any fuel on my hands, but diesel does seem to smell more and seems a lot harder to wash off. "Age-old" crap goes to the perception thing that the automakers have to fight to convince newbies that diesels are worth considering.
Instead of attacking those of us with differing views, it moves the conversation along by pointing out where our thinking may be wrong or how the fuel has advanced. Everyone else can read the posts and decide for themselves. It's not about you or me, it's about the topic.
I don't know that diesel tech has outpaced gassers either, not even considering the success to date of teaming gassers up with electric motors and batteries. Lots of advancements have happened with gas ICEs (DI perhaps being the biggest recent example).
Also, there is a big difference between "biased" information and information one just doesn't like :P
"Bias" requires motive, just like "conspiracy" requires motive.
Given that I was not bitten by a diesel as a child, and having owned 3 of them, I think I can be pretty even handed about them.
And Steve is right----the "Edmunds Moderator's Influence on Diesel Buyers", PLUS $2.50, will get you a rid on any New York subway.
The formula as anyone can infer is again pretty simple lower price fuels need to have lower mpg yields. So if one gets 50 mpg in Europe as an average and gets 25 mpg average in the US what has to be the price of fuel to yield the same tax per mile driven? Keep in mind the WW price of a barrel of oil is a global price.
Converters
So 6.71 per gal diesel Germany and in one of the highest price places for fuel $3.79 per gal diesel, CA
It would be interesting to see the opinions of people under 40 or even 30 when it comes to diesel cars - people who have no exposure to some of the fun rides of the malaise era. The bad old days created a lot of prejudice, much of it justified. I can say my car has no exhaust or noise issues - hell, some of the poorly isolated modern DI cars are no quieter than my car, even at cold idle. I've had no filthy scenes when refueling, either.
I also wonder if EPA testing might be based on some kind of dumbed down American driver style, ie: jackrabbit starts, uneven speeds, long idling periods, etc. That can kill mileage. While those of us above the lowest common denominator that the bleeding hearts embrace can do much better.
I think the reliability will be right on par with VW. Mazda has been racing with their Skyactive Diesels so I hope (with my fingers crossed) that they have worked out the kinks. I really really like the idea of the Diesel, and can't wait to test drive it this fall.
Manual transmission available?
To answer about the Mazda diesel transmission options, I don't know for sure on US spec cars, but knowing Mazda's "drivers car" marketing and the fact that a 6 speed manual already fits in the car, and WILL be deployed in Europe; I would say yes. The details have not been finalized.
USA Today had an interesting article on this subject:
some excerpts:
"There are rational arguments against diesel: expensive, foul-smelling fuel; higher vehicle prices; different driving characteristics; noise. But a simple generation gap could wipe out those concerns, some of which were formed when diesel engines for light cars and trucks were much less sophisticated.
"Unlike older consumers who still have a negative perception, younger buyers like the cleaner technology, higher fuel efficiency and smoother delivery of torque" that diesel engines provide, says Eric Lyman, a vice president at ALG, which studies the industry and forecasts used-car values."
Green Car Reports weighs in on diesel vs. hybrid for the young buyer:
"Diesel cars have made massive leaps over the last decade or so, and they're certainly no longer the slow, noisy and unclean beasts they once were. That's thanks to a whole lot of clever new technologies, though unfortunately these do add to the price of your average diesel vehicle.
If you spend most of your time on the highway, we can thoroughly recommend a diesel vehicle for reducing your fuel bills, though we'd suggest that if much of your driving is done in the city, hybrids are still cleaner and more efficient, and quieter too."
A good old friend of mine who currently has a Prius has told me he likely won't buy another. He likes the city mpg, dislikes just about everything else. Generational progress might help the diesel. It will never be dominant, but it should grow.
To throw a gasser in for comparison, the Altima is 56.1. Gasoline E350 is 41.8.
I'd bet the upcoming E250 diesel would be into the 50s then.
I mean, think how good you feel when you "beat the numbers" and how awful you would feel when your Passat doesn't average 62 mpg.
My 77 Rabbit was NA, and it was no ball of fire even being designed to run without the turbo. But turboing is THEE SINGLE BEST thing you can do for a diesel engine to enhance performance on all levels drastically. And it doesn't have some of the negative ramifications that turboing gas job has...like incredibly higher heat numbers..
I understand about enjoying seeing it at family get togethers. I used to enjoy seeing my Pathfinder until my nephew finally sold it to a friend who sold it to another guy after a year and that guy blew it up prematurely
As for trannys, I suspect that a standard that'll work well with the 6 diesel, which puts out so much torque, will have very little in common with the present 6 speed they off with the gas job. I'm thinking it'll be beefier (more/bigger bearings) from one end to the other, with thicker case walls too.
It would seem they are both in agreement with each other (naturally) that being a mod on a forum such as this one in particular, would have no influential effect whatsoever on a new reader. What isn't being acknowledged though, is that with internet, it is more common than not, i.e. the assumed norm, that moderators are chosen for a forum due to their level of experience or knowledge/interest on that forum topic. eg. It's not reasonable to make a steam fitter a moderator of an electronics forum. If that is done, then a reader is going to assume that the mod knows a thing or two about electronics, not how to service his boiler in the basement. And if the steam fitter is chosen to moderate because of his interest, then wouldn't it make more sense that he would post more questions than opinions?
The same can be said here, IMO. Naturally there is no absolute prerequisite for a mod on a diesel forum to be all things informed, but they should...especially when it is shown they have a bias against diesel use in cars..attempt to remain more neutral than vocal in voicing repetitive perceived (their perceptions, not the masses per se) cons. I could go through both mods posts and pick out specific and numerous quotes that have adjectives and other basic slanted or influential wording, that reveals, in general, a negativity towards diesel use in a car. I wouldn't have to back more than 3 days. But I'm not going to waste my time because it will be just that, a complete waste of time and effort. Their suggestion that new readers can "read for themselves" doesn't cut it, because we know that it is human nature to be lazy and wanting quick answers. Most newcomers start basically on they day they discover the forum. I, on the other hand, have invested days of reading prior to posting on these forums. I have literally read a few thousand posts FIRST, before posting on some threads. And that is no exaggeration. I read over 1500 posts before posting on the Matrix std transmission woes. About the same or more posts before posting on CRV A/C black death issues. Etc Etc. But that is not the norm and this is proven numerous times a day when someone goes on a 'help' type forum, seeking help but were too lazy to even go back a week's worth of posts. And often the answer they searched for could have been found in just a few days to a week's worth.
As for this forum...I absolutely guarantee you that you (a new reader here) take EPA numbers for a Golf TDI stick, then read a few of the mods posts, and they're going to be steered AWAY from what might be actually the PERFECT car for their use, simply if for no other reason than they believed the negative (and often inaccurate press) here.
They keep saying that EPA is fair and a representative comparison...and if we were talking jus tgas jobs, I'd agree, it's actually pretty helpful most times. But the disconnect happens when they post EPA for basically ALL the diesels, be it the Golf, VW T, JGC, Bluetecs...you name it. They actually post the Cruze Eco stick as 46.8 yet the Golf TDI at 42. What utter horse%^#. And it doesn't help if mods keep supporting EPA like numbers.
Cuz like I said previously..."gee, they wouldn't have a moderator moderating a forum they know nothing about dear, so maybe we should buy the Cruze instead of the VW TDI"...
Anyway..They (you/anyone) can claim there is no conspiracy, and maybe there isn't, but there IS a disconnect that... coincidently then, (:rolls eyes:) is there when comparing diesel and gas figures. Call it whatever ya like..
All comments in this post are not being directly asked of or directed to, fintail. Just happened to end up putting my final opinions on this, in a reply to one of his.
edit- OH! yes I do! And they were a fuel gobbling, torqueless wonder...in big trucks, many of Detroit's 2 stroke diesels used a blower in them...and were turbo'd I believe..they have long since been replaced with a 4 stroke and turbo, the way God meant them to be..
As for turbos, I have stated before and will again, that, IMO, there isn't enough idiot/ignorant-proofing in turbo equipped cars. (like not having a gravity feed..{cuz it's cheap and dependable} oil feed for turbo bearings after engine shutdown) But whatever potential liabilities are imposed on any turbo diesel owner, be it out of ignorance or not, they are at least 2 or 3 fold with a turbo gas job and that same ignorant/uninformed owner. HEAT is a biggie as one issue...one of the biggest in fact..
Maybe the motoring public, especially enthusiasts, should be taught to discount EPA claims. I mean, the government does so little else right when it comes to cars, chances are they aren't going to be 100% accurate with this, right?
I think diesel is taxed higher than gasoline, so one would think the powers that be would actually conspire for it - but then again, it's not a logical group with their fingers on the button :shades:
So,, the complete circular argument would be: " because person X has made biased and inaccurate statements, therefore all visitors to the website will be mislead. "
I don't see any bias at all going on here, sorry. If I did, I'd attempt to correct it.
It may be irrelevant what fuel they use. Don't forget my letter from the EPA claimed they only test about 10% of new models. The automakers test using the EPA RULES.
Just looked at the EPA site for the Cruze diesel. They do claim 46 MPG hwy. But kick them down to 27 city. With a combined 33 MPG. That is below the much bigger Passat TDI that got 30 city 40 hwy and 34 combined. Just as a point of reference 13 people posted on the EPA site for the 2013 Passat TDI. Their average was 41.9 MPG overall. That is significantly better than the 34 MPG from the EPA. A good salesman will point that out. Though my experience has been sales people trying to convince me the gasser they had sitting on the lot was better than the diesel models they have a hard time keeping in stock. Which tells me the average diesel buyer has a lot more to overcome than negative comments by Edmunds mods.
I have been threatened with personal harm by a hybrid nut job over a debate on which is best. One of the longest running debates here was over SUVs.
So feel free to say what you like against diesels, I will do my best to debunk any erroneous claims.
Diesels cost more than their equivalent gas engine models
Diesel fuel does smell, relatively to say mango juice or roses
A diesel engine is noisier than most gasoline cars
These are all simply facts--they are not "negative", any more than saying "it's cold outside" is a negative comment on the weather.
Besides all that, I'm the one who created this topic and the former owner of 3 diesel cars!
GEEZ :surprise:
Misconception. I paid less for my new 2005 Passat TDI Wagon than most were paying for the gas version at the time. You also get most of it back on resale. If you don't keep it till the wheels fall off.
Diesel fuel does smell, relatively to say mango juice or roses
Smelling raw diesel is not as hazardous to your health as smelling raw gasoline. CA has mandated special nozzles to protect us from dangerous gas fumes. None of the states we just passed through protect you from those awful gas fumes while filling your vehicle. Gasoline is NASTY stuff.
A diesel engine is noisier than most gasoline cars
At idle maybe. Out on the road my VW TDI was much quieter pulling hard than the new Subaru I test drove. The screaming emitted by that gas 4 banger, to maintain speed up a long grade, was horrible. Hopefully people don't stand around listening to an idling engine. People need to drive one before they make up there mind.
These are all simply facts--they are not "negative"
They are not facts, only your negative opinions, based on old anecdotal experience.
Besides all that, I'm the one who created this topic and the former owner of 3 diesel cars!
So ONE Brownie point for you :shades:
As for personal preference, that is for sure ! If you want to spend more monies per mile driven: fuel, I personally have no issues with you spending more or even less. One basic thing I have always opted for was the choice to pay less. You must be in the camp that feels paying more is more ....better.
So on the VW Jetta 03: gasser 27.5 mpg@ 4.07 PUG= .148 cents per mile driven vs TDI 46.5 @ 4.07 ULSD==.0875 cents per mile driven. PUG costing .0605 cents more. So I take it you are just fine with paying 69% more per mile driven !!!!!
In closing, it is entertaining to see that 95% of the vehicle fleet chose RUG/PUG. I think the math must be compelling !!
So an outlier will be in the VW Touareg line with a super charged PUG hybrid combination. The other being TDI with turbo charged ULSD. Another option is indeed is the turbo charged PUG option. I think it is fairly well described in edmunds.com and Steve has access to that.
http://traxxas.com/products/models/nitro/5507jato33
You know, if Mazda offered a diesel model that made 225 Hp and 310 lb-ft, I think I might run over there and buy one!!! Maybe a 2.7 liter displacement could get those figures.