Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

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

1208209211213214788

Comments

  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    Producing 204hp and 369 lb. of torque, the smallest engine will likely become the mpg leader of the three. In European testing it can achieve 36-39 mpg. Whether Mercedes will offer the ML 250 in the US is not yet known, but they should.

    http://dieseldig.com/2011/06/07/2012-m-class-gets-two-bluetec-diesels/
  • flightnurseflightnurse Valley of HellPosts: 2,178
    A couple of the car mag's here in the states have reported it will be the GLK230 with a 2.1L 4 cyl making 190hp and 3XXlbs of torque it will have 4 matic, and be the lease expensive GLK.. A bargain in my book... We aren't to get it until Jan or Feb of 2013...
  • flightnurseflightnurse Valley of HellPosts: 2,178
    I believe the European testing for MPG is different then how the cars are tested here in the states. The 3rd generation ML with the 350 BlueTec is rated nothing higher then 30 on the highway, which to me is not excitable, it should be more in the low to mid 30s.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited September 2012
    The most obvious thing is the USA EPA is almost literally anti diesel, and it ... shows. Diesels in Europe are roughly 50% +. The US is more like 5% with 60% of that (3%) being American so called "light trucks". This of course leaves app 2% diesel passenger cars. With registered passenger fleet @ 2010 257.5 M that is app 5.15 M passenger diesels. NHTSA

    US Diesel " light trucks" (the majority @ 7.725 M) do not have to meet the same emissions requirements as diesel passenger cars. Indeed American diesels have literally some of the most potent V-8 small block (app 350 cu in) to BIG block diesels: 5.7L, 6.0L, 6.6 L. American diesels are easily a min of 2 x . to 2.2 x bigger

    As a comparison, a very potent V6 Touareg TDI @ 406# ft ( torque figure is certainly NOT best in class, BMW X5 425, ML350 Bluetec 455# ft) is a 3.0 L or 181 cubic in motor. They have to meet passenger car diesel emissions standards. The US EPA's anti diesel sentiment also gives rise to much less mpg for total over kill emissions requirements. It is well known (to any consumer that really follows European trends) that the US markets do not get the European "fuel sippers" options.!? It is also well known that the American markets are the European car "dumping ground" for their fuel (gasser) GUZZLERS.

    An example: for a small car , the US market BMW 3 series, the mph has almost been hideous. It is only the last 2 or so MY's that names such as BMW have begun to get out of the mentality of US market as fuel guzzler dumping ground. Lastly, your post ALSO reflects what I have been saying about substantive to radical differences of US markets of literally the "same European model's".

    Here is an easy one that I actually found out about literally years later. European 03 VW Jetta TDI version gets 52 mpg with bigger injectors (more 110 hp/ 187 # ft torque and better legs) 6 speed M/T. USA 03 VW Jetta TDI gets EPA 42/49 (47 to 48 for most folks 90 hp 155# ft) with smaller injectors and a 5 speed M/T.
  • flightnurseflightnurse Valley of HellPosts: 2,178
    The most obvious thing is the USA EPA is almost literally anti diesel, and it ... shows. Diesels in Europe are roughly 50% +. The US is more like 5% with 60% of that (3%) being American so called "light trucks". This of course leaves app 2% diesel passenger cars. With registered passenger fleet 2010 257.5 M that is app 5.15 M passenger diesels. NHTSA

    How about the fact that in Europe Diesel and Gas are priced the same, and here in the US, diesel is priced anywhere between 30-50 cents more a gallon then Premium Unleaded.

    Why would I buy a car/suv with a diesel engine when I have to pay a premium of the car and more for the fuel, the saving of driving the car goes out the window.

    I remember when MB priced their diesel's as entry level cars, today that isn't happening.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited September 2012
    The answer is in the quote. It is also in the difference in the miles per gal and the cost per mile driven.

    Again using (like models) the 03 TDI (46.5 mpg) vs the 03 gasser turbo (27.5) corner store fuel prices @ 4.42 ULSD 4.25 PUG. It should be obvious that 4.42 is more than 4.25. What is less obvious that taxes on diesel fuel (79.5)ARE more than RUG/PUG (69) = 10.5 CENTS MORE in CA.

    Now I know what most folks chose (95%). However the questions are which is more expensive and by now much/what percentage?

    4.42/46.5=.095 cents per mile driven

    vs

    4.25/27.5=.15.5 cents per mile driven

    15.5 cents - 9.5 cents = PLUS .0595 cents more or 63% more !! So over a 100,000 miles cycle one is $5,950 more.

    So it is probably obvious the system wants one to consume MORE while professing to want you to consume less. When you ACTUALLY consume less, they want and do require you to pay .... MORE. (4.42 vs 4.25)

    sidebar: 100,000 miles /46.5/27.5 mpg= 2,151 gals/ 3636 gals. 69% MORE consumption !!!! ?????

    Indeed I would rather my 04 Honda Civic get 52 mpg with a turbo diesel engine instead of 38 mpg with a gasser. I would rather have used 1923 gals vs 2632 gals per 100,000 miles. I would agree with you.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    app 45.44% L/T's

    OK, but isn't the overall market closer to 50%?

    Seems like Toyota sells less than their share.

    10.33% light trucks [for VW]

    VW much less. Let's see them figure out a way to bring the Amarok TDI here.

    My cousin married a guy who owned a VW dealer in Brazil. I wanted to test an Amarok, but I was too late - he sold it and opened a used car dealership instead.

    The VW Gol is Brazil's best selling car.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited April 2012
    The Germans have proven they can build a large robust SUV that gets 30+ MPG with very respectable 0-60 MPH results. Why is it so hard for the Japanese, Koreans and US automakers to do the same?

    It's risky - they're really building large SUVs for only one market - the US.

    How many diesel MLs and GLs does M-B sell in a year? I doubt they could amortize costs for a huge diesel Tundra that wasn't sold in other markets.

    M-B has better global penetration so they can spread costs more.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    GLK230 with a 2.1L 4 cyl making 190hp and 3XXlbs of torque it will have 4 matic, and be the lease expensive GLK

    Now that's music to my ears.

    Seems like so many diesels are not only more costly, but also packaged with a lot of stuff you may or may not want.

    I prefer the ML's styling over the boxy GLK but I'd actually test drive one.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,059
    edited September 2012
    I suspect Toyota sells SUVs on every continent too. Not buying that excuse. A diesel Landcruiser powerplant could be dropped into other vehicles.

    ML and GL are very much NA-aimed products.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I'm sure they have a diesel Land Cruiser, but they would have to get it to pass CARB emissions and not cost six figures.

    I don't think the LC is made in North America, either.

    Just as M-B was reluctant to offer hybrids at first, Toyota may be reluctant to sell diesels. It's almost as if doing so acknowledges the other tech.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,059
    Emissions equipment isn't that tough. Either way, Toyota could do it, but doesn't. They have the ability.

    That last part has some truth, which is also sad when a diesel hybrid might be the best of both worlds - cruising ability with city economy.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Cost is also a big issue. They would be making a unique powertrain just for the USA.

    What we really need to see is CARB adopt similar emissions standards as Europe, at least long-term. Crazy to make everyone build to varying specs.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,059
    I am surprised there aren't more unified standards, as the one worlders want us all to be linked in other ways. It would greatly increase the diversity of available cars - but at the same time, those same people don't want the bottom 98% to be driving at all.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited September 2012
    I am not sure of your reference point for 50%? I just did the math for Toyota. I would guess the % is greater for oems like Ford, GM, Chrysler.
  • flightnurseflightnurse Valley of HellPosts: 2,178
    The answer is in the quote. It is also in the difference in the miles per gal and the cost per mile driven.

    Again using (like models) the 03 TDI (46.5 mpg) vs the 03 gasser turbo (27.5) corner store fuel prices 4.42 ULSD 4.25 PUG. It should be obvious that 4.42 is more than 4.25. What is less obvious that taxes on diesel fuel (79.5)ARE more than RUG/PUG (69) = 10.5 CENTS MORE in CA.


    So lets talk gas/diesel prices....

    unleaded $3.63 Diesel $4.13 (in Phoenix) a 50 cent difference

    Passt SE gas $25,840
    Passt Se TDI $29,290 these are at one dealer here in Phoenix.

    The break even point if driven 12K/yr for the TDI is roughly 4 years... Now for people who lease cars, owning a lease for anything more then 3 years is not a good deal.

    Now again, if we did what Europe does and price premium and Diesel the same (these would be the only two grades sold (how many people really buy mid-grade) then the cost of ownership would be less and the break even point would be far less and then the attraction to diesel engine cars would be greater....
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    your reference point for 50%

    Overall market. At one point Americans were buying more light trucks than cars. Oil got expensive and that was dialed back a tad, but it's close.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Break even is even shorter when you consider the diesel's better resale.

    Having said that, someone shopping for a fuel efficient sedan may not even consider a Passat SE.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    Here in San Diego Premium and Diesel are running the same price just 20 cents over RUG.

    Unless you like the other features of driving a diesel such as torque up the long hills and 700 miles between fuel stops, buying a diesel is not for you. For me I expect the diesel SUV I buy to get at least 80% better mileage than my Sequoia. So even if diesel cost 80% more I would still have the advantages I like about diesel vehicles. I just filled up my gas hog PU and it cost me $4.05 at Costco. With that same tank I could get a lot more miles between fill-ups. Even if diesel was $7.29 per gallon it would be a breakeven on cost. The GLK250 Bluetec should get 120% better mileage at least.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited September 2012
    Indeed, I, like you have said that so much that I really have stopped saying it. Reinventing the issues every other post can be tiring and unnecessary. If 69% more consumption is fine with most folks (95%), then it has ALWAYS been fine for me ! I am really ok with consuming less. In effect I want even more choices. I really wish they would stop teasing us and actually plop the (higher mpg cars) 73 mpg Golf on the US markets: or even the celebrated GTD (turbo diesel- GTI) While 42 mpg on current TDI Golf's are probably one of the best in its class, 73 mpg is better, albeit 74% ;) :shades: It is also 121% better than a gasser Golf @ 33 mpg !!

    As for the 4974 # 30 + mpg CUV, It sure beats the 15 mpg I have posted for 25+ years on gasser TLC's, albeit 200 % better !!! Indeed to post over 15 mpg, I had to really TRY. 30 mpg without trying is even (much) BETTER !! 81 mph will post better than 30 mpg. To get 30+ all I do is keep it @ 90 mph and under ! Life is good !!!!

    The corollary is it makes one feel like the fuddy duddy old FART, when even the CA highway patrol try to climb up your six @ 85 mph in the EXTREME (slow) lane, aka #4/ of4 lanes. I have had to use the shoulder in more than one case.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,078
    My son called from Seattle today. They just drove down from Alaska.

    Visiting, or did they actually call it quits with Alaska? If so, I hope he's able to find his better life down south!
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    They are leaving for at least a year. Rented their home for the year. It was a struggle to survive. He worked as a chef at the Mosse's Tooth until it went out of business then as a carpenter for low pay. I tried getting him into the Teamster's. He did not want to work back in Prudhoe. He did 5 years up there before I retired. Moving to Indiana where his sister is with lots of contacts. Much cheaper living than Wasilla.
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    ...picked it up last Wednesday at the BMW Perfomance Delivery Center and drove it home to DC area (510 miles) non-stop.

    Regarding MPG: Averaged 29.4 mpg for return trip at just under 70 mph average speed (varied, per break in instructions, between 60 and 80). I was slightly over 30 mpg, until hitting midnight construction on Capital Beltway. The absolute best I could have expected out of our MDX for a similar trip was 22-23 mpg. The new (SH-AWD) MDX gets even less - maybe 21.

    Regarding Fuel Prices: First fill up at Shell (60 miles outside of DC in Virginia): Regular unleaded, $3.64; Mid $3.79; Diesel $3.85; Premium $3.95. Seems that most places I've looked since, diesel is running between mid grade and premium. Anything else we would have bought would have required premium, so we are actually saving money both ways - better mpg and cheaper fuel.

    Regarding Performance: 0-35 from a standstill is probably comparable to the MDX and other vehicles we were considering. After 40 mph, and especially at 60-70 on the highway, acceleration with 425 ft-lbs of torque is FAR superior to our old MDX. Going through the Shenandoahs, the steepest grades that would have resulted in the MDX straining a bit and downshifting were a complete breeze with the X5.

    Range: Easily above 550 miles on the highway, and proportionally 30-40% higher than our MDX in city / mixed driving (it's lucky to get 14 mpg). That means that my wife won't be overpaying at high price stations nearby or spending $5 in gas to drive 15+ miles to save 20 cents a gallon in the outer suburbs during the week. We can take our time and fill up when our normal driving takes us out that way every other weekend.

    I'm not sure if I am ready to cut a great deal on a leftover 2011 335d, but there is no way I would ever consider a gas SUV in the future after just one week with an X5D.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    Great review. I know my impression test driving the X5 D, it was a rocket compared to my slug of a Sequoia. Good to hear that 30+ MPG is easily attainable with a big SUV like the X5.

    Keep us posted.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited September 2012
    It is good to hear that app 30 mpg is a good metric for the 3 to 4 diesel V6 competitors (BMW X5, MB ML350, VW T, Audi Q7, and soon to be Porsche Cayenne) SUV's have been 12 to 14% of the population going on a good many years (good/bad news= stable/boring). (2010 NHTSA puts the registered passenger fleet @ 257.515 M ( SUV's-30.9 to 36.09 M)

    Diesel SUV's make all the sense in the world. This is probably why the system tries to limit them. I think the attitude is along the lines of: if you want or need an suv, we are going to make you pay, AND a lot EXTRA. It is as simple as my very stark comparison/example 15 mp TLC's vs 30 mpg VW T, even as they are driven differently, ala apples to oranges, and over 100,000 miles 6667 gals vs 3333 gals. (nexus here being similar weight app 4950 #'s)

    The newer MB GLK 250 with a 2.1 L 4 cylinder and 369# ft of torque really shatters the old standards and sets the bar ever higher (mpg and torque wise). Of course, the almost minus -1000 #'s makes a HUGE difference.

    It almost makes one wonder how a 4,000 # suv/CUV would perform with a V6 TDI with 406, 425, 455# ft of torque. Reviews seem to indicate 37 with a 2.1L 4 cylinder. On the lower weight alone, combined with the (more powerful) V6 engine should easily be good for an increase of mpg between 5 to 8 mpg. Of course the down side would be a total strengthening/redesign for the use of a more powerful engine and transmission and the suspension components.
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    ...as part of the (exceptional) Performance Delivery Center pick up, we got a tour of the BMW plant in Spartanburg. The X5/X6 side was off limits, as they are in the midst of a model change. But we did get the compete X3 plant tour.

    Interesting set up. Every BMW is "made to order" with their just in time inventory and assembly process, whether ordered by a customer like us or by a dealer for their inventory. And they essentially make them in sequence as the orders come in - from all over the Entire World.

    So after walking though about 1.5 million square feet of factory and watching each step in the assembly process, here's what we saw coming off the line at the very end and heading to shipping:

    X3 2.8i gas
    X3 2.0 gas
    X3 3.0 gas right hand drive
    X3 3.5i gas
    X3 3.0d right hand drive
    X3 2.0d right hand drive

    On the X5 side, add 4.0d and 5.0d options to the engine choices that go to the rest of the world.
    .....

    BMW has a heck of a lot of diesel experience and technology that is only limited in the US by customer demand - whether real or perceived. The entire worldwide production of X3's and X5's are made in the good old US of A in South Carolina. I'm now on a first name basis with the plant supervisor and will be slipping him a nice Christmas bonus to sneak an M 5.0d engine into our next X5 so I can give the track instructors a run for their money in their M3's.
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    edited September 2012
    I think I've read some here question the price premium one pays for a diesel vs. gas model?

    In the case of the X5, ours had a starting MSRP of $63,845 (Sport Activity, Premium Pkgs & other options). That's $1,200 higher than the comparably equipped "Sport Activity" gas model which includes 20" wheels or $3,600 more than the "Premium" model, which cannot be optioned with the sport package.

    But...with the current $4,500 "Eco-credit" BMW is offering only on the diesel model, the MSRP is effectively reduced to about $2,500 LESS than the comparable gas model, even adding the 20" wheels to the diesel to make it apples to apples. We negotiated a $3,500 dealer discount to the sales price, had a $1,000 Olympic test drive coupon and ended up with a final selling price, not including sales tax, of about $54,700. Again, approximately $2,500 less than the comparably equipped gas model. And, if you don't care about memory seats, keyless entry, navigation system or the sport package stuff, you could uncheck those package boxes, knock $6,000 off the MSRP and get a basic X5D for under $50,000. Not necessarily cheap, but its a very solid vehicle. If I tried to put our MDX through the BMW off road loop we did at the delivery center, it would tip over or be broken in half before the finish line.

    Frankly, I don't know why anyone would buy the gas model X5 3.5i. The diesel works out to $2,500 less up front, in 12,000-15,000 miles a year, will save at least $500-750 per year in fuel, gives up 35hp (265 vs. 300) and some off the line acceleration, but has an enormous 125 ft-lb torque advantage and better highway acceleration, and was even slightly less to insure ($37/year).

    Sorry, I really don't work for BMW. I just like to share good deals.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    I wonder if MB will come up with an eco credit? That makes the X5 look better to me. I just don't get in a rush. With more choices promised. I also like the option of going to the factory to pick up my vehicle. Make a vacation out of it.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 13,078
    Sorry to hear that, but all the best to them! There were quite a few folks that headed south this year, and many more who "threatened" to do so. His situation was a little unique compared to many, but just the high cost of fuel (for heating, primarily) is turning folks away. In Fairbanks, we're still waiting to see what will happen with Eielson AFB. If they end up moving out the F16 squadron, I suspect there will be quite the housing glut.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited September 2012
    It dodged the first (closure) bullet in 2005. It appears it is being kept open for "political " reasons. It appears its now claim to fame is one of the largest air space playground.

    Even in the so called "best" of an area's reconfiguration for other than defense department applications is a (FAST) 20 year to more like 40 year process (fast normal). Normally after a "closure," they keep it open with no real mission anywhere from 5 to 20 years.

    link title

    I was stationed @ one northern base 38 years ago. @ that time it seemed to be easily 10-20 years passed its useful life. After it made the first cut (closure) it was decommissioned (formally- whatever than really means) 18 years AFTER I left.
This discussion has been closed.