Howdy, Stranger!

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





If you experience loading issues with the login/register form, please completely disable ad blocker or use an incognito or in-private window to log in.

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

1212213215217218788

Comments

  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 18,907
    edited September 2012
    Actually, it is the "socialistic/communistic" (world) system that keeps the pricing high !! Throughout the whole increasing fuel price discussion have you ever heard once of the government/s seriously discuss lowering the fuel taxation? If anything they at every level complain it is not ENOUGH. The President's own energy secretary ( Dr Steven Chu) thinks and is on record saying we should by hook and by crook have European like fuel prices in the US. ($10.00 US per gal) Well the good/bad news is we are close to half way there !! He would probably argue he needs another 4 years to complete the job :sick: :lemon:

    The enviro cons are and have been hard at work trying to close down the (Benecia, CA) refinery complex that help to win WW2 (Chevron is the most recognizable name) So in their wildest dreams come true, what do you think would happen to the price of fuel, if they are/were successful ? I am sure you see the consequences and corrective actions in this little example (but real life also). They just had a little break down and fire and prices almost over night went up .50 cents per gal.

    More on nexus: $1.85 (when Obama took office( /$4.35 (current) per gal/ 50 mpg = per mile driven fuel is .037 cents/.087cents (per mile driven fuel). that means under OBAMA's care and feeding was prices rose 235% or 59% PER YEAR in a little under 4 years.

    Now who the hell was saying he is incompetent? He is doing a damn fine job raising the cost of a basic commodity !! :sick: :lemon: ;)
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    edited September 2012
    Well you did take me seriously, but at least not personally, which is OK.

    I'm sure we could commandeer this forum in an interesting political debate about the energy policy and the future of America as we know it. From what I can tell, I suspect we'd agree more than not.

    That said, I'm not sure how much blame Obama deserves for gas prices being where they are. Some, for sure, but I'm not a fan of opening up the strategic reserve due to market conditions or even drilling everywhere that a rig can be transported. I'd like to see the nuclear industry get back on track - with small package plant reactor technology - and essentially wipe out the use of oil and coal for power plants. I'll stick with blaming Obama for hamstringing the country with $11 trillion in debt and heading towards $20 trillion if he gets re-elected. And being on the forefront of turning America into the land of entitlement from the land of opportunity. And....OK, you get the point.

    My infatuation with the Boxster S this Sunday notwithstanding, I also wish we could advance battery technology at a faster clip so that I could seriously consider the Tesla Model S that I've plopped down a $5,000 deposit on to get the #7000 +/- spot on the delivery list. At $55k the car is a steal. Unfortunately, having to pay $28k more to go from a 40kwh to 85kwh battery and get the performance edition means that I will likely be keeping my TL and sticking a Boxster S (or Cayman S) in my garage. No final decision just yet, but $84k+ to get the exact same car with a 250-300 mile range instead of a 125-150 miles range is just not reconciling with my checkbook.

    I'll get off politics and back to diesels now. Thanks to whoever suggested the MyGas Buddy. It takes a little research to find good diesel prices and I'm glad that there is already a tool out there to help.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 12,047
    I'd like to see the nuclear industry get back on track - with small package plant reactor technology - and essentially wipe out the use of oil and coal for power plants.

    Amen! If the Voyager spacecraft can operate for 35 years on their nuclear power plants, I'm sure we can package something with today's technology that will perform at least as well and as safely/reliably. For some reason, when people think about nuclear, it's all about big size with big (potential) consequences. How about small in scale but larger in scope? Heck, something like that would solve the energy crisis (yes, it is a crisis now) in rural Alaska and other remote areas of the world.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 18,907
    edited September 2012
    While it can be as exotic as that, Naval AirCraft Carriers and selective Submarines have been "nuclear powered" and for a LONG time. Oil or diesel @ least will be around LONG after folks like us are gone.
  • scwmcanscwmcan Niagara, CanadaPosts: 399
    They have talked about the small package reactors for isolated communities in northern Canada as well, I think it is a good idea, but of course some people are up in arms about having nuclear anything. They can run a whole community for years on these " suitcase reactors, and apparently they are well designed, so it makes a lot of sense, especially for remote communities.
    No back on topic, I really like my diesel car, but I do wish the promises from other car makers to bring their diesels to north America would come true sooner, rather than later.
    Also for the particulate issue, apparently the new has cars with direct ingestion have more particulate matter than diesels do now, and they may be required to has similar particulate traps in the near future, we shall wait and see.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited September 2012
    Probably won't take all that long.

    "First, a new emissions standard is set forth, and the OEMs say, “We can’t meet those requirements with what we currently have.” That’s when the engineers step in, take control of the product from the bean counters, develop a new technology, solve the problems, meet the standards, and the new product gives enthusiasts a new tool to extract more power from our engines."

    Diesel Power

    The best thing that could happen for diesel adoption in the US is for the price to consistently fall below the price of regular unleaded. People can't do the miles per tank math but they pay attention to the pump prices.

    Meanwhile Toyota is doubling down on hybrids, not to mention a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. (NY Daily News)
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 18,907
    edited September 2012
    Not a good sign especially for a 2010 design, and the fact ULSD has been mandatory since Oct 2006. Design wise they knew it was coming WAY before those mandatory implementations.

    VW ran into this issue when it was forced to run (mandatory) LSD (500 ppm sulfur to 140 ppm sulfur, CA) in a car designed for ULSD (30 ppm standard, nominally delivered at the pump from 5 to 10 ppm sulfur). This is a 10-15 year old design specification, that I know of (2003 VW Jetta TDI MY). There was a very easy remedy/corrective action, which the writer indicates he ignored..

    You made some interesting observations:

    ..."People can't do the miles per tank math but they pay attention to the pump prices. "...

    Yep and they are just fine paying 40k for a car (Volt is what I am thinking) for a car they should be paying less than 18 for, for the privilege of plugging in a car to an outlet for 10 hours or so. per mile driven equivalent is .11 electrical (for 30/35 miles range and 11.6 RUG after that range vs .107 RUG. vs .087 ULSD.

    It also made no sense for us in 2003/2004 (14,000 miles yearly commute) to pay 25,000 for a hybrid, when its competitor cost 12.6k.

    But yes diesel fuel does normally cost more per gal than RUG. PUG is about PAR (9% of vehicle fleet have a requirement for PUG)
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    edited September 2012
    The best thing that could happen for diesel adoption in the US is for the price to consistently fall below the price of regular unleaded. People can't do the miles per tank math but they pay attention to the pump prices.

    I would hope that at least the folks over on the "BMW X5 Lease Questions" could figure it out, given all the time they spend analyzing residuals, down payemnts and money factors to try to figure out the best deal. Here are the facts, based upon my driving assumptions (3 years, 36,000 miles, to equate to typical lease deal; I drive more);

    X5 3.5i gas: Estimate 18 mpg average (2005 MDX ave. 16 mpg) = 2,000 gallons premium unleaded @ $4.15; $8,300 fuel cost.

    X5 Diesel: Estimate 24 mpg average (currently 24.5 in 800 miles) = 1,500 gallons diesel @ $4.00; $6,000 fuel cost.

    Savings $2,300 = $63.90 / month. On 15k miles/year, it's $80/month

    For all of the brain damage some people go through to negotiate a lease deal that saves them an extra $20 per month over on that board, this seems to me to be an easy analysis. With the $4,500 eco-credit currently ofered by BMW on the diesel, it is roughly $1,500 cheaper than the gas model, similarly equipped. But even if it was $1,500 more expensive, the payback would be about 2 years. We intend to keep the vehicle for 8+ and 120,000+ miles. That's over $7,500 in fuel savings added to the $1,500 up front. Not insignificant.

    Some folks over there have said they don't like the "sound" of the diesel or think it's unresponsive compared to the gas. Either they have better ears than me or haven't driven the car. The gas (barely) wins the 0-40 drag race, but the diesel solidly wins the 50-75 passing maneuver. On the highway, I can barely tell the engine is running. I guess I can be thankful that BMW has to offer a $4,500 eco credit to overcome the bozo's that can't do the math or have preconceived notions having never driven the current X5d, Cayenne Diesel or comparable vehicle.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited September 2012
    Yep and they are just fine paying 40k for a car

    Cars are new and shiny sitting on the showroom floor and they look nice sitting in your garage or in front of your house.

    You can spill an ounce of gas or diesel on the asphalt in the moonlight and enjoy looking at the swirly rainbow colors (Gomer Pyle :shades: ), but otherwise it's just a necessary evil. No one is going to slow down in front of your driveway to admit that new 5 gallon can of gas. Fuel offers no joy of purchase and you have to keep buying it over and over, and the price keeps going up. Plus it adds weight to your car and messes up the driving dynamics.

    When electric cars get range and cheaper power, one of the other triggers that will sway folks away from ICE will be the ability to avoid going to a gas station. Even better when they can charge them by induction and won't have to do anything special to top up the batteries.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    The 50-75 MPH is the most important acceleration figure for me. And I cannot imagine the Gasser V6 being nearly as quick as the Diesel. I know if I kick my Sequoia to pass it has to downshift and race up to high rpm to get around in any reasonable fashion. After test driving the X5 diesel and getting back into the V8 Sequoia it felt like a slug.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    When electric cars get range and cheaper power, one of the other triggers that will sway folks away from ICE will be the ability to avoid going to a gas station.

    I hope you are not holding your breath. That niche will be smaller than diesel for at least 20 more years. Without heavy government subsidies they would be non existent right now. Toyota is getting out of the EV mess. Just not wise money being spent.

    Drawing a dramatic line in the sand for a global auto industry that has continued to invest heavily in all-electric vehicles, a top Toyota executive today simply said what a lot of people are thinking: EVs don’t make business or financial sense at this point.

    And then Toyota Vice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, also head of Toyota R&D, announced in Japan that the company was backing up its dramatic conclusion with equally decisive action: Toyota killed plans for a volume launch of its second all-electric car, the eQ, a version of the iQ minicar, and said that it hopes for only 2,600 sales worldwide of its other EV, a RAV4 version, over the next three years.


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2012/09/24/toyota-calls-emperor-on-no-cloth- es-essentially-kills-evs/
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 18,907
    edited September 2012
    ..."Fuel offers no joy of purchase and you have to keep buying it over and over, and the price keeps going up. Plus it adds weight to your car and messes up the driving dynamics.

    That is and has been true for almost any fuel purchase, including electrical. Indeed one would have to buy electricity DAILY, given a 30-35 miles (electrical) range on a good day. It is far less in reality. Charging times for the Volt are 10 hours. So right away that is a 365 additional purchase cycle. The math indicates you will add 3650 hours to your routine per year. Gas purchases would be estimated @ 19 for a total of 384.

    On the adding of pertro fuel systems weight to the car, there can be no denial. OEMS have made that opaque to consumers. Again why are we listening to the sound of one hand clapping, when a simple fuel system weight comparison will illustrate that electrical fuel systems weight far more !? Indeed they do not get any lighter with consumption ! Again, are you saying electrical fuel systems have NO weight? Are they signicantly less?

    If I just use my Honda Civic as a sample: 40. If you hated stopping at a gas station 40 times a year (3.33 times a month) what about going to an electrical station 384 times or 960% more motivates one? One also has to to go to still purchase gas, albeit on a longer cycle.

    Indeed on another post, I mentioned how the price of fuel has gone up app 59% per year, for just under 4 years. So really, are you wanting to go on record as saying electricity is free and will NEVER go up in price? Or that it will actually go down in price, just because the goal is to switch 100%(in someones dreams) electrical? Or electrical gives ZERO pollution? OR?

    ..."When electric cars get range and cheaper power, one of the other triggers that will sway folks away from ICE will be the ability to avoid going to a gas station. Even better when they can charge them by induction and won't have to do anything special to top up the batteries."...

    When electric cars get range and cheaper power, one of the other triggers that will sway folks away from ICE will be the ability to avoid going to a gas station. Even better when they can charge them by induction and won't have to do anything special to top up the batteries."...

    Are you doing a futuristic add for 1950's and 1960's DisneyLand? ;)

    I hate to break your bubble, but when that happens and a significant percentage of the passenger vehicle fleet are electrical, the price of electrical power will go even higher. Indeed the most logical place to co mingle electrical "fuel" vendors will be ... gasoline stations.

    Indeed the price per mile driven that I used WAS from a highly "punished" price per KWH (in CA case .295+ cents per KWH). Again anything over base line is severely punished (246% more) . I would not be surprised if in the future almost any one will be categorized a gross user for going over base line (.12+ cent), with penalties over the penalties, which are already STIFF.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited September 2012
    The 50-75 MPH is the most important acceleration figure for me. And I cannot imagine the Gasser V6 being nearly as quick as the Diesel

    To be fair we should compare turbo/intercooled DI diesel to turbo/intercooled DI gas, same displacement.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 18,907
    edited September 2012
    That is an absolute no brainer. 03 Jetta TDI/1.8T.

    It is also hard to compare and really not representative, as many oems and models do not have equivalent diesel models. VW (to their credit) does have a few. MB might be another.

    Things are always a trade off. To say they have to have the SAME ( zero to sixty times in this case) is dreaming to unrealistic. They don't and never have. They are different in some other ways, also. Now if those variables (zero to 60 times) are important, then the trade off is a min of 27.5 mpg vs 46.5 mpg. Now if one is a "darter," one should not have gotten the TDI. One can dart in a TDI, albeit, not as well. If one is a commuter, over 100,000 miles, one can use 2,151 gals vs 3,636 gals or 1,485 gals LESS. @ 4.19 PUG darting and better zero to 60 times cost $6,222.00 more.

    Actually 200,000 miles is fast approaching for me, so really it is more like 2,970 gals SAVED or MINUS- $12,444.00, CHEAPER.

    Sidebar: actually that is not true, it is more like app 3,272 gals SAVED (@4.19 PUG= $13,710. as my longer term average is more like 50 mpg, 46.5 mpg on wwwfueleconomy.com)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Gary's point was that passing times are more important.

    I bet the diesel won't match the 1.8T but it's probably closer than it would be in 0-60 times.

    Just a SWAG.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 18,907
    Correct, I think we both got that. As a "darter" those passing (50-75 mph) times are probably not as important as zero to 60 times. ? !
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited September 2012
    Did a quick search, this is 2nd hand info but thought I'd share:

    Diesel Car quotes times of 7.7 secs for 30-50 in 4th and 11.5 secs for 50-70 in top gear for a 90hp TDI Golf. The only gasser times quoted are 6.4 and 9.2 respectively for a 1.8T Golf.

    source:

    http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=2400

    So 30-50 the difference was pretty small.

    At higher speeds you have to plan ahead more with the TDI.

    Of course the TDI would win if the 1.8T blew an ignition coil. ;)
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 18,907
    I think you are really posting some of the trade offs ! ?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I'm trying to keep it apples to apples, both forced induction.

    Of course that's impossible, it's diesel vs. gas, after all.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 18,907
    edited September 2012
    This is purely personal, but I would not have gotten a VW 1.8 T. (gasser/turbo) As you probablly know and would agree, most of the VW reliability issues are with the gasser engines (1.8 T and 2.0 L normally aspirated).

    I have been more than pleased with the brake pads and rotors. @ 178,000 miles, the pads have more than half of the material left. I also have been impressed with tire life (112,300 from 28/32 rated tires ) :sick:, and also alignment cycles.(100,000 miles per cycle and barely a need) I did one @ 100k just to get back to new car base line.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    As a "darter" those passing (50-75 mph) times are probably not as important as zero to 60 times.

    I think the 50 to 75 times are more important but you rarely see that marketed.

    I don't pull out in front of 60 mph traffic from a standing start too often, but around here you often need to pass on a two lane when the driver in front is poking along at 5 mph under the limit. A little oomph makes the pass quicker and safer.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 18,907
    edited September 2012
    There is nothing that sharpens the senses as that fully loaded 80,000# truck coming AT you when you pull over into HIS lane to pass !!!

    I think you also illustrate a past point how almost utterly inconsequential the zero to 60 times really are. I say this in the context of having a vehicle that CAN do a 4 second zero to sixty. Ah, needless to say it is not a hopped up diesel. ;)

    YOu are absolutely correct. Passing times (50 to 75 mph in this example) are almost never mentioned, by either gassers or diesels . I think some of the car mags in the interest of having some more to blather about, sometimes do mention it. But then in over 50 years, I have yet to read a car mag article about the mechanics of how to pass "safely" on 2 lane roadways.

    Funny how you can find stuff on the internet
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited September 2012
    The problem around here is by the time you are around the slowpoke and are pushing 70, you spot a deer on the shoulder.

    So, for diesels or gassers, the real important number is the 70 to zero time. :D

    Diesel drops nearly a nickel, still 30 cents over last year (Land Line)
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 18,907
    Cars are actually better than bullets for that purpose. :sick: :blush: :lemon:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Supposedly the 2.5l is better than the older gassers but VW really does best with its turbocharged engines, especially the diesels.
  • I would by a diesel car if I went deaf and couldn't smell anymore, or if someone said Gasoline
    won't burn anymore. Nobody knows what happened , but it just won't burn.
  • I own 2 diesels and 1 gasoline vehicle. Both of the diesels are quiet, have exhaust tips that are soot free and give great torque, power and fuel mileage.
    The only time I can actually hear the diesel is at start up and idling. My gasoline vehicle is louder when cruising on the highway and has soot around the exhaust tip. The only detectable smell is an occasional ammonia like smell
    when the car is cleaning any accumulated soot from the cats.
    The diesel vehicles are a 2011 BMW 335d and a 2009 VW Jetta TDI. The gas vehicle is a 1996 4-Runner which happens to be the most reliable vehicle I have ever owned.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 18,907
    edited September 2012
    I wish my 94/96 TLC's had been turbo diesels (whatever Toyota calls them). I would have much preferred getting 25 mpg (I have read this is true for NON US market diesels, so IF Toyota had brought diesels to the US market that MIGHT be the figures) instead of 14-15 mpg. I first got interested in diesels when I read an article about the CN 1987 TLC turbo diesel. I think something like 1,500 units were let in to that country (total swag on my part).

    Not to beat a dead horse, but over 100,000 miles (early on the third go arounds) that would be 4,000 gals instead of 6,666 gals per 100k miles. We are shooting for 25 to 30 years of service, whatever the miles happen to be. With hindsight being 20/20, I probably wold not have bought VW diesels, if I was already getting 25 mpg on a TLC.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 18,907
    edited September 2012
    US market VW diesel strategy

    5 other follow on articles.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited September 2012
    From "page 2" of your link:

    "Once we introduce the Jetta hybrid, the Jetta will be the first volume model with a choice of gas, diesel, and hybrid in the US. We are interested to see what happens there. This is why I love reading what people say in online forums about their cars."

    Mr. Spira must love you and hate me. :) Will be interesting to see the Jetta "take" numbers in a few years.

    It's always fun seeing the VW pics in the Chattanooga area. That fireworks store is in Jasper TN; really on I-24 near where I'd always cut off to go to Alabama back in the day.
This discussion has been closed.