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?

1215216218220221788

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Maybe Audi wanted to save the performance diesel for the A3?

    Kind of would be nice to have a split personality miser/sleeper.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited September 2012
    Indeed.

    The limiting factors are really NOT diesel, i.e., We can look at the new MB GLK 250 2.0 L TTDI with 369# ft of torque ! It is more a question of what A/T M/T VW can cost effectively mate to it.

    Given the multiple models on a single platform, I think that may be a tad difficult. (bean counters being in charge)
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 12,996
    Show me the beans! :P
    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
    Indeed if MB puts that same sized 2.0 L TDI engine in both a (slightly) higher price point that any of the VW's sporting the 140 hp/236# ft of torque. VW will be seriously outgunned and the GTD @ 160/170 hp and 258 # ft will be a slight enhancement over the standard fare. The DSG's max capacity is @ 258 # ft. Another would probably have to be upgrades (to the already upgraded GTD) to the suspension systems and brakes.

    Again if I was starting fresh, 56% more torque would be pretty amazing.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    Maybe VW is afraid the smaller TDI would only cannibalize the bigger (more expensive) one.

    Until some other automaker offers competition, they don't need the lower profit vehicles to sell diesels.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    Indeed the smaller (fuel efficient model) and GTD would really round out the already 19 optioned offerings.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Cruze diesel is coming. I doubt they'll price it cheap, though.

    Diesels tend to be packaged with premium content. VW even uses the multi-link rear suspension from the GTI models rather than the cheap torsion beams from the cost-cut base Jetta.

    Insight and Prius C can peek in at just under $20k, imagine a Golf Bluemotion priced like that. Just the basic stuff, A/C and single CD player. They would sell tons. Heck I'd try one.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/27/2013-porsche-cayenne-s-diesel-paris-2012/

    627 lb-ft is adequate. ;)

    28mpg, too.

    I'd rather have that in a Q7 package, though. Still not used to the idea of Porsche making SUVs.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/27/volkswagen-golf-bluemotion-concept-paris-2012- /

    108hp. Won't be quick but torque will keep people behind you from honking.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited September 2012
    To look at the obvious application (commuting: to take away the suspense) of a vehicle able to post 73.5 mpg , I am sure one might think we get a lot of honking with an average speed of 18 mph to a "lightning" quick 36 mph (27 miles taking between 45 min to 1.5 hours). We already get STELLAR results, sans honking. ;) While we like 38 (gasser), 42, 50 mpg, 73.5 mpg is 47% to 93.4% is ... better. :shades:

    Indeed using the same ratios as the current 1.9 L TDI 90/155 # ft, 108 hp converts to 186# ft, or 20% more ft #'s of torque.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited September 2012
    Got to love the "liquid mercury look" gray metallic silver !!

    Well used, just the replacement tires, brake pads and rotors will keep your tire shops and mechanics in business !

    Folks on CUV boards already complain of tires lasting only 15,000 to 25,000 miles with far less torquey engines, albeit @ 1000 to 1,300 per set. Non ceramic brake pads and rotors and ancillary pieces, easily run 700 (parts only @ discount).
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Our 2 Foresters have had very low cost of operation.

    Where's the *#@%ing Forester diesel? :mad: Subaru may need it in this MPG obsessed segment. Current model is rated 21/27. Same numbers from 1998. They used the lead the segment, but they fell behind.

    New one is around the corner. Good time for a new powertrain intro.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    edited September 2012
    “The emissions requirements in the U.S. are significant,” he says. “And given the price of diesel fuel, where it is right now, it really does not pay to bring the vehicle into the U.S.”

    2010 quote by the top executive at Subaru of America.

    Doesn't seem like anything has changed.

    Any word about the reliability? They've had the diesel boxer for at least 5 years, right?

    Subaru Riding Positive Press (Ward's Auto)
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited September 2012
    I think Subaru knew it could count on the "cult like"(US) following it has built up over the years. Obviously the platforms are old and the leadership does not perceive it can hold on to its market share or even slightly grow it without some sort of change, whatever that means or directions it will take.

    Tall Cotton @ US market share of 2.3%?

    So (swagging a lot of things that may or may not be true) if Subaru brings in a in the future) 322,000 cars (2.3% of market share,9.5 M to 14 M yearly), what percentage of diesels are they will to gamble will sell and sell enthusiastically? So say they want to be as aggressive as a much LARGER VW and decide on 20% or 64,400 cars? Longer story short, not much has probably changed for Subaru since the pronouncement in 2010. Of course everyone knows that Subaru's biggest advantage is that it actually has been selling diesels on the world wide market and for more than a few years.

    So really if any one needs a Kball study, it would b Subaru. Whatever % of diesel Subaru's, they can not afford to k ball even a small % of gasser Subaru sales. This would logically mean new customer or second vehicle sales.

    On the other hand VW knew/knows it had/has to sell (in addition to ITS past customer base) to new and second vehicle customers. The then new decontented Jetta was one iteration, and one of the first steps. It caused serious bru ha ha in the "cult" ;) . The Passat built in TN, US was and remains another. It is aimed squarely at the Toyota Avalon/Camry/Hybrid/ etc Acura/ Honda Accord and other products in that universe. It even has revived the 6 speed transmission in the midsize passenger car segment. This does not even count the HUGE mainlining of the TDI, etc.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Subaru demographics would be very accepting of a diesel, more so than most manufacturers.

    A lot of the guys in the Subaru Crew threads pine for a diesel. It fits with the image of the brand, too. I bet a bunch would even use biodiesel blends.

    I think the Forester and Outback would match up well with diesels, and those happen to be their 2 volume sellers here.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited September 2012
    LOL. You are making a VERY strong case for why they are not yet in the US market. They just do these teasers to keep their names in the ( for the price of a PR release- free) press.

    It is sort of like the Chicago Cubs, well, there is ALWAYS next year !! Going on 104 years and already one world series win !
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Heck, they even put the American media in a diesel Forester. Edmunds tested one.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 12,996
    Given the overlaps of models, I think they could even do something extreme like offer the Forester as diesel only (still make an XT gasser?) and keep all other models gas, and not cause too much strife.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Some markets are getting a 148hp 2.0l weakling as the base model. That would be a disaster here. My 1998 model had 165hp and was a bunch lighter, why go backwards?

    A diesel as base and then a 2l Turbo XT would make for a good lineup.

    I think they'll use the FB25 from the Legacy, though. Short-term.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 12,996
    edited September 2012
    They already have the FB25 in it, don't they? If they stick with gas, I think they should intro DI on that block, as well as move the automatic from the 4EAT to the CVT. I think the JDM article indicated a 6-speed manual, so yes, bring that over from the Outback, too, and it would make for some good fuel economy and performance improvements at the same time.

    Oops... going way off topic here. Still, my preference is to nix the gasoline option (make the Outback the platform for intro of new tech there) and go diesel in the Forester with either a 6-speed MT (throughout the lineup) or a CVT as the tranny options.

    Since I'm dreaming, how about bringing the dual range transfer case from the Aussie spec Forester over as an option? :shades:
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Let's see...2011 I think, yeah.

    None of the FBs are DI, though. Toyota massaged it and they ended up with the FA, but they don't have larger displacements yet, and I'm not sure a high rev engine with little torque would be suitable for the Forester.

    That's why a diesel may be a better choice.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Square Five?

    http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/28/2013-audi-sq5-paris-2012/

    This is the first in what I predict will be an onslaught of performance diesels.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited September 2012
    It certainly will not be the "FIRST" performance diesel, even as it might probably be welcomed by a lot of" first" time diesel buyers, by way of the mpg metric. It might be a first "S" whatever that means. I am sure that if one digs deeper it is probably based on something like the Tiguan platform (small CUV to midsize to large, etc.) , whatever the technical designation for that class is and from which a slew of variants are based on. While I and probably you keep abreast about what is hitting the European markets, it is an ultra long and torturous (economci punishment) gauntlet to hitting the US market place.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That's their first S series diesel, right? That's what the article said anyway.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    As I indicated, "S" really holds no magic for me?
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 12,996
    until now, buyers were unable to pick up spots-oriented models with a TDI badge.

    Spots-oriented. Is that age spots, freckles, or what? I'm not sure what sort of demographic Audi is after, here. :P
    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
    Very impressive vehicle. I would still prefer Touareg TDI or Cayenne diesel. Audi needs to enter a few big rough terrain races to prove they can win on and off road. Right now VW Touareg owns the king of the off road title.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    edited September 2012
    I really do have to say that after 11 k miles, this Touareg really exceeds my expectations. It is SERIOUSLY fun to drive. My perception is it is getting (ever so) slightly better mpg even as I drive it a bit more aggressively. (30.5 mpg in 502 miles, 16.3 gals) But then it follows in the foot steps of 2 other diesels @ the 10,000 miles breaking in mark. The other app 3k miles ago passed the 40 k mark and again the mpg seems to be getting (ever so) slightly better 401 miles/9.5= 42 mpg. (45,000 miles is the mid way point for final break in between 30,000- 60,000 miles)
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    edited September 2012
    I wouldn't give Audi credit for being the first. There is already an "onslaught" of performance diesels already hitting or about to hit the European markets" BMW M Diesel, Cayenne S Diesel and now the Audi SQ5.

    The question I have is when we will see some of them in the US and will they sell well enough to achieve a profitable market share here. IMO, they can completely replace vehicles like the ML63 and BMW X5M with high performance diesels. But those are not big sellers to begin with. What really needs to happen is that almost all SUV's need to go to "performance" diesels. That performance can be tuned for solid acceleration and great fuel efficiency at the entry and utility, or great acceleration and very good fuel efficiency at the high performance level.

    I am all for a free revving 8,000 rpm high horsepower, lower torque engine in a 2,900 lb sports car. But a gas sucking V8 in a 5,000+ lb SUV is becoming complete dinosaur IMO given the direction and progress of diesel technology. And if BMW, Porsche and Audi have their way, it may become a dinosaur in the arger end of the 3,800- 4,000+ lb luxury sport sedan segment as well.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    But a gas sucking V8 in a 5,000+ lb SUV is becoming complete dinosaur IMO given the direction and progress of diesel technology.

    I totally agree with you. My taste goes more toward the lower performance SUV with higher MPG. I would love to own a ML250 Bluetec that is capable of 40 MPG on the highway. It has almost 100 ft-lbs more torque than the V6 gas version ML. I am more of a get out on the backroads and highway driver and cruise at 70 MPH to my destination. My Sequoia on the best RUG will only get about 17.5 MPG on the highway. The ML250 Bluetec is HWY rated 50.4 MPG on the UK tests. That is 42 MPG US. In a 5000 lb vehicle that is tow rated for 7200 lbs, what else comes close. And it is cheaper than the V6 gasser.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK5tmUtAFQA
This discussion has been closed.