@bobw3 said:
I guess you missed the broader point, which is not to take one person's experience and try to generalize it. For example just because your car(s) run just fine on a 250k transmission fluid change doesn't mean that's the standard for everyone with the same make and model as yours. Particularly when some points seem far beyond the range of normal. Again, if your experience is "average" for a vw owner, then why doesn't CR, JDP, US News and other sources that report reliablity issues rank VW much higher? And does VW maintenance schedules for a new TDI Jetta match your recommendations?
No the point is really missed by you and perhaps that is why you keep going over old and obvious points. It is really tedious !! As for the 250,000 miles transmission oil change, VW states LIFE TIME. So no, in the example you cite . But as you know I am a belt and suspenders kind of guy, so I will be hyper active and PROBABLYchange it @ 250,000 miles. Now anyone can change it @ any time and any interval. The real question is what statistical effect it will or will not have on the transmissions performance. As for those other issues, they are just tools, FYI etc.
@bobw3 said:
Anyway, I know better than to go back and forth in this forum with you rucking1, so I'll just leave with my basic point of not to generalize a single individual's experience, even though it's hard to expect that individual not to generalize.
In that case, you really can not say anything about anything ? So.... what would be your real point?
@ruking1 said:
In that case, you really can not say anything about anything ? So.... what would be your real point?
>
OTOH, you keep bringing it up but resist telling us more specifics only other than to suggest that the more metal debris left in the oil, the longer you can leave it cuz it would seem that lubricity was enhanced with these extra particles!
Oils are made up from much more than just molybdenum..
If your theories are correct..hell..why not just take the oil filter right outta the equation?
@Stever@Edmunds said:
I've mostly fallen into "long" intervals on my van. Always did 7,500 ones, but I'm a slacker. I think the longest has been 12,000 miles. When the snow melts, I'll try to get the last 5,000 miles so I can break 200k and drive it off a cliff.
A lab report would be fun, but I'm too cheap to spring the $25.
30k intervals sounds lovely. I could even tolerate using synthetic or GM branded oil for that interval.
Aren't you diesel guys supposed to be using parallel filters and never changing the oil though? Just top it up and replace the filters?
Yes and no, and to the yes, there are LOAD's of TMI. This may or may not be on diesel topic. An easy answer to the recommended interval question is to double the sump. (if your sump is 4.5 L then 9 L's, for example). But then there are a host of unintended consequences.
If by parallel filters, you mean the 2 micron (bypass) oil filter system...... with the oem oil filters ! ?
@ruking1 said:
I just noticed on Edumunds.com on the 14 Jetta line that gasser Jetta's can come with 5 speed M/T's. Jetta TDI's can come with 6 speed M/T's.
I'm one of those who prefer the 5 speed H pattern (triple H?). I know I'd get used to the 6th gear and like the overdrive aspect of it, but dang, the setup on my '82 Tercel was perfect and I still have that muscle memory after tooling around in it for 17 years.
@ruking1 said:
I NEVER said oil was ONLY made up of molybdenum. ...Indeed I didn't even say that. Now, that might be what YOU take away.
"much more than just molybdenum." ....
You might want to look at bobistheoilguy.com if motor oils are of interest. They do have an active diesel section.
I only mentioned the molybdenum so that you had an indication that I was 'aware' that certain metals have lubricating properties. Nowhere did I say that you said that.
Sorry if I was a few steps ahead of you in the debate.
5/6/7 speed M/T seems to be what is in the inventory and the 6/7 will probably be the configurations of the future M/T. Since the writing on the wall for the DSG seems to be more than the 6 speed DSG and dry sump, who knows if VW will add a 7 speed M/T or not.
@crkyolfrt said:
Sorry if I was a few steps ahead of you in the debate.
Debate? There is not much of a debate. I offered you the chance to publish the results of a UOA and you didn't even answer. So de facto, NO is what I perceive. It is hard to DEBATE the ridiculousness of no objective results! ? So I am ok with whatever cycles you want to do or whatever you think. You have not said what it is you are actually doing (diesel engines), so there again there is no debate, other than you say 30k OCI's are ridiculous. I am ok with your opinion, but it is not based on facts.
I have been doing 20,000 miles OCI' on gassers for literally hundreds of thousands of miles. As it applies to diesels, up to 30,000 miles (and in some cases above) OCI's for 2 of the three diesels ( for 258,000 miles) . The 12 TDI got off the 30,000 miles service interval 14k miles ago. There has been absolutely ZERO drama for all to any of the three diesels for a total of 302,000 miles.
The VW 507/504 specifications products are very very very robust, so are BMW long life 04 and Mercedes Benz 229.31/229.51 specifications. ACEA C2/C3, API SL/SM. products. However, those that run these specification oils are the ones really likely to care.
As torquey as the Volt must feel (between 0 and 40) its numbers still show it getting to 60 slower than the diesel.
And if really long legs are what a person longs for at times, the diesel will deliver when the Volt will have been done ages ago..lost in the dust.
Most every article I read, public or private, the kick in the seat torque advantage of the diesel is rarely mentioned, and if it is, it's with, it's with reluctant credit.
Interesting that the "75 - 80" mile battery range first advertise in the Volt, ends up being only 40 something..and only 25 in the cold. I wonder if the Leaf's cold wx numbers are at a similar loss.
Well, in this case you're not going to be towing anything. If you're a stoplight racer, keep snapping your head back. Otherwise, how much do you need? The 200 lb·ft in my clunkier van has been overkill for me for 14 years now.
And the cold. Well, now you know why all the Teslas are running around California, not your neighborhood. Heating the battery pack and the cabin kills the range.
@crkyolfrt said:
Interesting that the "75 - 80" mile battery range first advertise in the Volt, ends up being only 40 something..and only 25 in the cold. I wonder if the Leaf's cold wx numbers are at a similar loss.
And the cost to charge the Volt does not change with the dimished range. So after the $7500 tax credit, if you are lucky enough to make that kind of money in this economy, you still pay a couple grand more for the Volt. For that you get less space for people and stuff. Less than half the range out on the highway..
I am really glad to see Chevy bringing out the Cruze diesel. Hope it is a big seller for them.
And for the green folk who favor the electric with batteries...
"Academic studies determine it’s a non-factor given that, over the life cycle of an EV, the energy needed to produce lithium batteries cancels out their gas emissions savings).
I was ridiculed in other forums when I pointed that out for a toyota Prius' total energy consumption footprint. But the special battery chemistry doesn't come "free."
I'm still not comfortable picking up a Cruze diesel. The Cruze is on my short list of replacement cars.
I think the Prius is still using NmH (except for their plugin) so not sure if its total energy consumption footprint is similar to lithium or not. Nonetheless, it's still significant one would think. I think the nickel used is still being mined in northern ON, just a few hours north of me.
So what is it that you are not comfortable with? Origin of the engine itself and potential reliability, or GM's numerous devices and systems used to make it meet our ridiculous emissions for diesels? That last one is one of my pauses. And I can include VW here too with some of their engines. Seeing how my friend's (2011) Golf TDI worked to rid itself of particulates in the cat, if it endured too many short trips around, raised my eyebrow a bit.
Finally got around to your article comparing the Volt and Cruze diesel.
Using the standard, 120-volt outlet in my garage, I typically used 11 kilowatt hours to recharge the Volt’s battery at a cost of 15 cents per kWh. Assuming an average range of 35 miles on a charge, that’s 4.7 cents a mile — or less than half the cost of the Cruze Diesel’s 11 cents a mile (diesel fuel: a pricey $3.80 a gallon), a savings of $940 at an average 15,000 miles a year.
He may have cheap electricity for today. I got news for him in Michigan. You are right behind CA in sticking it to the consumers. How well would he do with 37 cents per KWH? That is $4.06 to go 35 Miles. Now we are up to 12 cents a mile. While early Cruze diesel buyers are claiming 40-44 MPG at his $3.80 per gallon of diesel cost is about 9 cents per mile. Hmmm, that means he can never recoup the $5k premium of the Volt. We don't even have to talk resale, we know the Volt is worthless after a few years on the road.
Because the Cruze diesel is new we should compare the Prius to the Jetta TDI. New the Prius comparably equipped to the Jetta TDI is about $4500 more. At trade in time in 5 years that same Prius is worth about $7900. While the VW Jetta TDI is worth about $9300 all things being equal. So you take a hit buying and a hit selling the hybrid. And it is worse for a plug-in hybrid.
PS
The Cruze diesel has more US content than the Volt or Prius.
It turns out that my earlier post about a 33.5% LOSS (HUGE winter loss) of range for electric was WAY optimistic, given the 40.5% loss in the Volt vs Cruze TDI article !!!!!!!! It would seem it helps to bring a rubber ruler, democratic, republican and independent calculators, shamans and #2 pencils and more importantly BIG erasers to the math portion. Geez, seems more fun to take the GED, SAT, GRE, LSAT, OCATS in a day !
@imidazol97 said:
And for the green folk who favor the electric with batteries...
"Academic studies determine it’s a non-factor given that, over the life cycle of an EV, the energy needed to produce lithium batteries cancels out their gas emissions savings).
I was ridiculed in other forums when I pointed that out for a toyota Prius' total energy consumption footprint. But the special battery chemistry doesn't come "free."
I'm still not comfortable picking up a Cruze diesel. The Cruze is on my short list of replacement cars.
I think parts of the "green" agenda approaches a Madoff Ponzi scheme !
On a more rational (diesel) side what are the discomfort issues about the Cruze TDI ?
Folks need to chill in here before I accuse y'all of inhaling too many diesel fumes.
In the news:
"I know there are a lot of questions, but I can't say at this point that it will be in the Mazda6," Barnes said. "The delay has to do with matching the exhaust emissions to the engine's performance. We want the car to drive like we want it to drive."
Mazda said in an official statement released on Thursday that the launch of its Skyactiv-D clean diesel engine in North America is "being further delayed from its spring 2014 announced debut timing."
@gagrice said:
Finally got around to your article comparing the Volt and Cruze diesel.
It would appear to me that advocates of PLUG in electrical should state electric costs (cost $ per KWH) or "EQUIVALENT" mpg costs !! Or give the next (consumer) portion: the FORMULA used to calculate !
Until they do, anything said is SUSPECT at best.
Some years ago, a few posters in other threads, started to mention .08 cents per KWH. I believe that figure came from a poster in AZ. Last I looked at (my) CA electrical bill, I could easily pay .37 cents per KWH. to fuel a plug in electrical product of any stripe. This is also not to mention the various rate hikes that are either pending, in arrears or applied going forward or in arrears under a myriad of circumstances. Be that as it may, the difference between .08 cents and .37 cents per KWH (in this example) is easily 362.5% !!!!!!!
If you apply that to the cost of gas ($3.20 per gal) 362.5% more is $14.82 per gal !!!!!!!
So if I can pose the question: IF/WHEN more folks (percentage and volume) shift to electrical plug ins will costs per KWH go down? (swag: on a cold day in hell?) or UP? (SWAG" like this takes a lot of brain cells?)
@Stever@Edmunds said:
Folks need to chill in here before I accuse y'all of inhaling too many diesel fumes.
In the news:
"I know there are a lot of questions, but I can't say at this point that it will be in the Mazda6," Barnes said. "The delay has to do with matching the exhaust emissions to the engine's performance. We want the car to drive like we want it to drive."
Mazda said in an official statement released on Thursday that the launch of its Skyactiv-D clean diesel engine in North America is "being further delayed from its spring 2014 announced debut timing."
I wonder if it is to do with the physical volumetric size that the exhaust takes up? If they had the room, maybe use two manifold header types that run into dual exhaust. Of course to keep it (unreasonably) clean, might have to double up on everything including two cat$. Perhaps there will be more room in the CX5 (although a transfer case might use some of that up) and maybe we will see it in that model first? Of course Mazda may also just say fig it, they make it too damn hard in NA. I do give them credit though for even 'going there' in a time that much richer companies have decided to take a wait and see stance.
"I know there are a lot of questions, but I can't say at this point that it will be in the Mazda6," Barnes said. "The delay has to do with matching the exhaust emissions to the engine's performance. We want the car to drive like we want it to drive."
Mazda said in an official statement released on Thursday that the launch of its Skyactiv-D clean diesel engine in North America is "being further delayed from its spring 2014 announced debut timing."
On the one hand, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
I do not think this can be good for Mazda's diesel effort ! It would appear they are following a modified form of Honda's 2004 diesel effort model. History has shown that despite a load of Horse M----- and gun smoke, they did NOT bring a Accord TDI to the US market, which started with a promise of a CIVIC TDI. @ the time, they cited emissions non compliance for the Accord's A/T option. This would have begged the question: why not a Honda Accord TDI with M/T ? I would think Honda was glad things died @ the A/T option narrative.
On the other hand, I am reminded of that old adage, A bird in hand is worth two in the bush/es.
On the Jeep Grand Cherokee topic, I read an article in passing that model is up 13% this 13 MY @ app 174,000+ units. It is one of Chryslers best selling AND most profitable models, MSRP between $29k to 50 k. The article did not list TDI's nor its place in the planned expansion.
@Stever@Edmunds said:
In the news:
Mazda said in an official statement released on Thursday that the launch of its Skyactiv-D clean diesel engine in North America is "being further delayed from its spring 2014 announced debut timing."
It would seem the Japanese need to hire some German engineers to get the job done. Honda, Subaru, Toyota and Mazda all firing blanks on passing US emissions with their stinky diesels. They don't seem to mind polluting the rest of the World with these diesel vehicles. The Toyota diesel PU is the largest selling truck in the World from what I have read. GM took advantage of German Opel engineering to "Git er Done". Time for the Japanese to put aside they pride and get some help.
firstly, cryoforklift, it is wrong to assume that it's only expensive cars which are designed to run optimally on premium fuel, whether recommended or required.
second, 87 octane performs equally well as premium in normally aspirated cars for which premium is recommended, under many conditions, including extended highway cruising, where it returns more mpg than premium.
So far i've driven about 500,000 miles on premium-recommended cars, at least half of it with 87 octane. The math says i saved a couple grand by running the 87 half the time over half a million miles, in ~6 of the >25 vehicles I've owned.
Does $2000 help anyone understand why people use 87 octane even when premium is recommended? Happy/safe/enjoyable motoring to all, regardless of chosen octane or fuel type or vehicle.
question: what would it take me to buy a diesel?
answer: a legal way to remove the DPF/SCR/regen systems that reduce diesel mpg by 25%. Until then, it will be all gassers for me !
The other thing that reviewers (including prospective shoppers.. most prevalent if they are considering the diesel premium) rarely ever consider, is that the diesel equipped car probably feels much more satisfying to drive than its gasser version. And to those people I would ask, isn't that worth something?
yes it is. but gasser can feel even more satisfying to drive. (think V8 gasser & stickshift).
i'm actually looking at porsche cayenne suv for possible purchase - and if i buy one i'll undoubtedly select the stickshift 3.6 gasser instead of the automatic diesel, due to fun-to-drive/more-control aspect.
dollars to donuts, chevy cruze 1.8 M6 at $17k, 34 mpg, beats both the cruze diesel and the volt in terms of value-per-dollar/total-cost-of-ownership. so cruze diesel vs volt is a false automotive dichotomy.
answer: a legal way to remove the DPF/SCR/regen systems that reduce diesel mpg by 25%. Until then, it will be all gassers for me !
I don't think you can back that up with facts. The new Passat TDI uses the same basic engine used in the Jetta TDI. The Passat uses Adblue for emissions. That Passat is bigger and so far showing higher mileage than the smaller Jetta. And far better mileage than I got with my 2005 Passat Wagon TDI.
You should really give the Cayenne or Touareg TDI a good test drive. The V6 gasser I drove was anemic by comparison. Porsche claims 0-60 in 7.1 seconds with V6 manual transmission. Touareg TDI does it in 6.9 seconds and the Porsche TDI in 6.8 seconds. The Audi Q5 TDI was clocked at 6.5 seconds. If that is important to you.
@elias said:
firstly, cryoforklift, it is wrong to assume that it's only expensive cars which are designed to run optimally on premium fuel, whether recommended or required.
second, 87 octane performs equally well as premium in normally aspirated cars for which premium is recommended, under many conditions, including extended highway cruising, where it returns more mpg than premium.
So far i've driven about 500,000 miles on premium-recommended cars, at least half of it with 87 octane. The math says i saved a couple grand by running the 87 half the time over half a million miles, in ~6 of the >25 vehicles I've owned.
Does $2000 help anyone understand why people use 87 octane even when premium is recommended? Happy/safe/enjoyable motoring to all, regardless of chosen octane or fuel type or vehicle.
question: what would it take me to buy a diesel?
answer: a legal way to remove the DPF/SCR/regen systems that reduce diesel mpg by 25%. Until then, it will be all gassers for me !
While I agree cryofork sets up some false assumptions, really the optimum is to get a vehicle that runs the "correct" recommended octane. Then BOTH sets of the equation, so to speak are optimized. Indeed, one would also save even more monies not getting a premium recommended to required vehicle . Premium is normally used in cars that have the so called "performance" component. So if one practically does not use it to be ok with lesser performance, then savings on the cost of acquisition makes even more sense, be it new or used.
While I am sure a lot of folks have had passing thoughts of removing emissions equipment, the other side of one hand clapping (truth) is emissions equipment on gassers be they RUG/PUG also reduces mpg. Ethanol FURTHER reduces mpg and for a MUCH greater portion, for the overwhelming majority of passenger vehicles (95% +) that do the overwhelming percentage and number of miles. One check the NHTSA site to see the "Carl Sagan like" numbers. Defacto, RUG/PUG fuel consumption/miles are FAR and away WAY WAY WAY larger than passenger car diesel fuel consumption/miles miles.
So for example if you are asking me if I would rather get 25% more mpg over 50/41/31 mpg on TDI's TO 62.5/51.25/38.75 mpg, YES and ABSOLUTELY !!!
You can NOT help but notice the systems and requirements prevent that from happening in ALL fuel choices. This includes the "latest and greatest " plug in electrical.
@elias said:
dollars to donuts, chevy cruze 1.8 M6 at $17k, 34 mpg, beats both the cruze diesel and the volt in terms of value-per-dollar/total-cost-of-ownership. so cruze diesel vs volt is a false automotive dichotomy.
I guess that depends on what is important to you. The Amenities offered in the Cruze diesel and Volt are far better than the stripped down Cruze for $17k. You get what you pay for. I agree that stick shift can be fun to drive. They are becoming as rare as buggy whips. Too many other compromises have to be made to get one. The Cruze diesel comes out on top in terms fo value for money spent. Like leather heated and cooled seats standard on the diesel. Not even available on the basic Cruze.
I try to make it a habit to compare LIKE models, but even the most fair (diesel haters) like to compare apples to beef to rhubarb !! ?? ( I call it rubber ruler) As a practical adjustment, I am fully capable of doing that also. If I got a nickel every time the Prius was brought up against diesels in terms of so called "reigning MPG Kings/Queens" I'd be a rich man. I'd be richer still on the haters denials that the system makes entry of (still even) much higher mpg DIESEL vehicles anathema. Many folks refuse to acknowledge that the Prius exists for Toyota to sell its FULL to FULLER line of passenger vehicles. One guess, do you think every thing else Toyota sells gets better or worse mpg than.... Prius??????
IF Elias'es 25% mpg claim is correct, I already drive two of them that (sans emissions controls, ala Clark Kent ) handily BEAT the much less capable Prius. The kicker is ULSD is 15 ppm (nominally delivered @ the pumps @ 10 to 7 ppm.
It goes withouts saying that BIO diesel has sulfur content of ZERO ppm. For discussion and mathematical purposes, 1 ppm sulfur vs up to 90 ppm !!!!!! . That means that Prius fuel is up to 13 TIMES dirtier !!!!!! Compared to 1 ppm BIO diesel? 30 times DIRTIER by standard, 90 TIMES by off line fee adjusted realities !!!!!!!!!!!! This would probably explain why a 100% bio diesel ENGINE has never been specified/certified. DIESELS MPG structural will give like models MORE MPG !! Indeed a sub 5k # TDI CUV close to 4 times more powerful would get mpg close to what a Prius gets on a more aggressively driven one !!!
What kind of cars?
Even on MBs where PUG is "required", the car will run on regular - timing will be retarded with performance and mpg impacts, and in the long term I suspect there could be other issues. But the car will run and maybe seem fine to some drivers. But I've read accounts of very sickly cars in second world markets where fuel quality is poor and PUG isn't widely available. If I had something nice, I would spend the little extra to have something that runs better and ages better...if it was that big of a deal to me, I probably shouldn't be driving a highline car to begin with.
@elias said:
firstly, cryoforklift, it is wrong to assume that it's only expensive cars which are designed to run optimally on premium fuel, whether recommended or required.
second, 87 octane performs equally well as premium in normally aspirated cars for which premium is recommended, under many conditions, including extended highway cruising, where it returns more mpg than premium.
I bet the X5 is similar, too. The X5 6cyl gasser rental I had several months ago wasn't exactly a rocket, and if you drove it in a spirited manner, you could see the gas gauge going down. For that segment, a diesel is a no-brainer - I wouldn't even look at a gas ML or X5 etc.
@fintail said:
I bet the X5 is similar, too. The X5 6cyl gasser rental I had several months ago wasn't exactly a rocket, and if you drove it in a spirited manner, you could see the gas gauge going down. For that segment, a diesel is a no-brainer - I wouldn't even look at a gas ML or X5 etc.
I cannot see a single benefit to a gas powered SUV with the many diesel options available. Unless you can only afford a cheap A/J/K CUV.
Or if you just like burning fuel money and don't mind the cost and thirst of a Lexus LX or Range Rover (which have popular diesel variants in other markets). I don't see a gas benefit, either. There's no performance benefit for a vehicle like that.
And I still have to laugh. If someone is going to spend 70K on a car that says "PUG required" in the literature and right on the gas cap, and cheaps out for RUG, I don't know what to say.
@gagrice said:
I cannot see a single benefit to a gas powered SUV with the many diesel options available. Unless you can only afford a cheap A/J/K CUV.
And I still have to laugh. If someone is going to spend 70K on a car that says "PUG required" in the literature and right on the gas cap, and cheaps out for RUG, I don't know what to say.
As much as I hate paying premium for gas in our 24 year old Lexus, I go ahead and do it. It runs good on Costco premium. We have a note on the dash for family we loan it out to. Premium only. I think if you run RUG in it and it starts pinging you have probably done damage to the engine. In the future I will buy only vehicles that run on diesel. Local Shell wants more for PUG than diesel today. The Shell in the middle of El Cajon at the corner of Magnolia and Madison has RUG $4.19, Premium $4.39 and diesel $4.29
I can get diesel for $3.87 closer to home. It take a while to put 600 miles on a tank with around town driving. Can't wait for another road trip.
@crkyolfrt said:
The other thing that reviewers (including prospective shoppers.. most prevalent if they are considering the diesel premium) rarely ever consider, is that the diesel equipped car probably feels much more satisfying to drive than its gasser version. And to those people I would ask, isn't that worth something?
Sorry it took me so long to respond crky. I know exactly what you are saying. Wealthy people are usually smart, and don't get wealthy by throwing money away. I perfectly understand the mentality of saving money on fuel/cost of ownership, and even making a point of mentioning that it is a TDI among his peers.
Also, I was wrong on the specs. The 2014 A7 TDI has 448 lb ft (240 Hp is correct). The 2013 has 428 lb-ft.
Anyone in the market for a nice sized AWD sedan should look and drive the new E250 Luxury BlueTEC 4MATIC. I really enjoyed driving the GLK with that same engine. Should be a good choice for those wanting a full sized sedan capable of 40+ MPG under $50k.
**We logged 30 mpg, even though our test involved quite a bit of vigorous driving. In ordinary use, we’d expect even better results, and at a steady 70-mph cruise with the little diesel humming along at 1700 rpm, one could easily traverse Nebraska and have enough fuel left for most of Iowa or Wyoming, depending on your heading. Bathroom breaks are your call.
** http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-mercedes-benz-e250-bluetec-4matic-test-review
Some engines are made for it. Same for gasser MBs - they need premium. They will run on lesser, but not as they are intended. If you want the experience of a highline car, you have to pay the price. That old LS is in the same boat. It's technically a high output engine, and will be happiest with good fuel. Looking at all the other expenses the car has consumed, a little extra fuel cost is nothing.
Diesel is still mostly 3.99 here, showing that supply and demand is not behind it.
@gagrice said:
I can get diesel for $3.87 closer to home. It take a while to put 600 miles on a tank with around town driving. Can't wait for another road trip.
At 70mph crusing, that car should be in the mid 40s. Pretty impressive for a comfortable 4000lb+ tank, not a flimsy penalty box of a car.
We should have the C250 diesel too, I am awaiting more news on that. Sadly, I've read we won't get the wagon.
@gagrice said:
Anyone in the market for a nice sized AWD sedan should look and drive the new E250 Luxury BlueTEC 4MATIC. I really enjoyed driving the GLK with that same engine. Should be a good choice for those wanting a full sized sedan capable of 40+ MPG under $50k.
Took my 2011 "gasser" 328xi in for service today and was given a band new, 2014 328xd as a loaner car. I've driven it 45.6 miles so far and the OBC shows 40.5 mpg average. Even if its a little off, that's damn impressive.
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD
@nyccarguy said:
Took my 2011 "gasser" 328xi in for service today and was given a band new, 2014 328xd as a loaner car. I've driven it 45.6 miles so far and the OBC shows 40.5 mpg average. Even if its a little off, that's damn impressive.
And you can get it in a wagon. Audi & MB are going to have catch up. With MB barely beating BMW last year in the numbers game, it looks like BMW will get serious about Diesels here.
12 owners posting on Fuelly for the 328d. Looks like 39 MPG overall is most common with one poster hitting 49.9 MPG on one 613 mile tank. Almost 14k miles and his overall is 46.4 MPG. That is impressive for a luxury sedan. I don't think the Japanese have anything to compete.
i'll keep that in mind, gagrice, thanks. the usa-diesel facts seem pretty clear - the software in all USA diesel/DPF cars intentionally dumps fuel into the exhaust, enormously reducing mpg periodically.
testdriving 2-reg & nonstickshift cayenne will be fun, and i have until ~2015 to decide. wagon/suv form-factor is a requirement for me but i don't think a passat wagon is going to appear.
I got 37 mpg with my 05 passat tdi which got dimpled by hailstorm. Nice car but it had very bad/fatal engine design flaw - engine oil chain. the chain-system on my passat failed before VW established a program to pay for redesigned oil-gear replacement for customers.
that bmw 3 diesel awd wagon is quite attractive, alright.
so is the sedan 328- stickshift awd diesel is available! yee ha!!!
but no stickshift with the wagon.
as for the straw man which fintail reintroduced above, nobody has suggested running regular in a car for which premium is required, only in engines for which PUG is merely recommended and designed accordingly.
I got 37 mpg with my 05 passat tdi which got dimpled by hailstorm. Nice car but it had very bad/fatal engine design flaw - engine oil chain. the chain-system on my passat failed before VW established a program to pay for redesigned oil-gear replacement for customers.
I only kept my Passat TDI wagon for 13 months. Sold it for $3000 more than I paid new. I liked it, BUT it was too low to the ground and a bit rough riding with the 17 inch wheels. I also read some stories about that interim design that made it easier to sell. An 80 year old couple bought it for their two trips back East each year. last I heard they were over 100k miles. No mention of failures.
as for the straw man which fintail reintroduced above, nobody has suggested running regular in a car for which premium is required, only in engines for which PUG is merely recommended and designed accordingly.
Didn't Toyota get slapped by the Feds for doing their HP tests with Premium and then selling the car as being fine with RUG? I would imagine the modern computer systems in cars will compensate for the fuel. Was not always that way. I remember engines pinging and dumping in half a tank of premium to keep it running smoother. That was in the 1950s-70s.
While it might be tempting to base a view and or buying decision on an in the past experience (i.e.,05 Passat), VW's, I would hope and seems to be (going forward are) getting better, specifically better reliability and durability. This might be despite or maybe because of increased complexity/ies.
This is not new to me nor probably most of the folks who frequent this board, but my 3 VW diesels have been literal and proverbial troopers. I have also gotten a literal DOG of an example in a 85 Toyota Camry. Yet, that did not prevent me from buying other Toyota products.
First for me this morning. I was in a yuppie part of San Diego, Rancho Bernardo. In front of me at the stop light was a white Touareg TDI like mine. In the other lane was a MB GL350 Bluetec. Strange to see that concentration of diesel SUVs at one light. That is the first T-reg TDI I have seen on the road. There is a Cayenne TDI in my neighborhood and a couple Sportwagen TDIs.
While cruising around this morning I saw Diesel for $3.75. Same ARCO was selling RUG for $3.51
Comments
No the point is really missed by you and perhaps that is why you keep going over old and obvious points. It is really tedious !! As for the 250,000 miles transmission oil change, VW states LIFE TIME. So no, in the example you cite . But as you know I am a belt and suspenders kind of guy, so I will be hyper active and PROBABLYchange it @ 250,000 miles. Now anyone can change it @ any time and any interval. The real question is what statistical effect it will or will not have on the transmissions performance. As for those other issues, they are just tools, FYI etc.
In that case, you really can not say anything about anything ? So.... what would be your real point?
>
OTOH, you keep bringing it up but resist telling us more specifics only other than to suggest that the more metal debris left in the oil, the longer you can leave it cuz it would seem that lubricity was enhanced with these extra particles!
Oils are made up from much more than just molybdenum..
If your theories are correct..hell..why not just take the oil filter right outta the equation?
Yes and no, and to the yes, there are LOAD's of TMI. This may or may not be on diesel topic. An easy answer to the recommended interval question is to double the sump. (if your sump is 4.5 L then 9 L's, for example). But then there are a host of unintended consequences.
If by parallel filters, you mean the 2 micron (bypass) oil filter system...... with the oem oil filters ! ?
I'm one of those who prefer the 5 speed H pattern (triple H?). I know I'd get used to the 6th gear and like the overdrive aspect of it, but dang, the setup on my '82 Tercel was perfect and I still have that muscle memory after tooling around in it for 17 years.
I NEVER said oil was ONLY made up of molybdenum. ...Indeed I didn't even say that. Now, that might be what YOU take away.
"much more than just molybdenum." ....
You might want to look at bobistheoilguy.com if motor oils are of interest. They do have an active diesel section.
I only mentioned the molybdenum so that you had an indication that I was 'aware' that certain metals have lubricating properties. Nowhere did I say that you said that.
Sorry if I was a few steps ahead of you in the debate.
5/6/7 speed M/T seems to be what is in the inventory and the 6/7 will probably be the configurations of the future M/T. Since the writing on the wall for the DSG seems to be more than the 6 speed DSG and dry sump, who knows if VW will add a 7 speed M/T or not.
Debate? There is not much of a debate. I offered you the chance to publish the results of a UOA and you didn't even answer. So de facto, NO is what I perceive. It is hard to DEBATE the ridiculousness of no objective results! ? So I am ok with whatever cycles you want to do or whatever you think. You have not said what it is you are actually doing (diesel engines), so there again there is no debate, other than you say 30k OCI's are ridiculous. I am ok with your opinion, but it is not based on facts.
I have been doing 20,000 miles OCI' on gassers for literally hundreds of thousands of miles. As it applies to diesels, up to 30,000 miles (and in some cases above) OCI's for 2 of the three diesels ( for 258,000 miles) . The 12 TDI got off the 30,000 miles service interval 14k miles ago. There has been absolutely ZERO drama for all to any of the three diesels for a total of 302,000 miles.
The VW 507/504 specifications products are very very very robust, so are BMW long life 04 and Mercedes Benz 229.31/229.51 specifications. ACEA C2/C3, API SL/SM. products. However, those that run these specification oils are the ones really likely to care.
Do the math.
Green machines: Chevy Volt vs. Chevy Cruze Diesel (Detroit News)
As torquey as the Volt must feel (between 0 and 40) its numbers still show it getting to 60 slower than the diesel.
And if really long legs are what a person longs for at times, the diesel will deliver when the Volt will have been done ages ago..lost in the dust.
Most every article I read, public or private, the kick in the seat torque advantage of the diesel is rarely mentioned, and if it is, it's with, it's with reluctant credit.
Interesting that the "75 - 80" mile battery range first advertise in the Volt, ends up being only 40 something..and only 25 in the cold. I wonder if the Leaf's cold wx numbers are at a similar loss.
Well, in this case you're not going to be towing anything. If you're a stoplight racer, keep snapping your head back. Otherwise, how much do you need? The 200 lb·ft in my clunkier van has been overkill for me for 14 years now.
And the cold. Well, now you know why all the Teslas are running around California, not your neighborhood.
Heating the battery pack and the cabin kills the range.
And the cost to charge the Volt does not change with the dimished range. So after the $7500 tax credit, if you are lucky enough to make that kind of money in this economy, you still pay a couple grand more for the Volt. For that you get less space for people and stuff. Less than half the range out on the highway..
I am really glad to see Chevy bringing out the Cruze diesel. Hope it is a big seller for them.
And for the green folk who favor the electric with batteries...
"Academic studies determine it’s a non-factor given that, over the life cycle of an EV, the energy needed to produce lithium batteries cancels out their gas emissions savings).
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140109/AUTO03/301090030#ixzz2q0L3GmGb
I was ridiculed in other forums when I pointed that out for a toyota Prius' total energy consumption footprint. But the special battery chemistry doesn't come "free."
I'm still not comfortable picking up a Cruze diesel. The Cruze is on my short list of replacement cars.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think the Prius is still using NmH (except for their plugin) so not sure if its total energy consumption footprint is similar to lithium or not. Nonetheless, it's still significant one would think. I think the nickel used is still being mined in northern ON, just a few hours north of me.
So what is it that you are not comfortable with? Origin of the engine itself and potential reliability, or GM's numerous devices and systems used to make it meet our ridiculous emissions for diesels? That last one is one of my pauses. And I can include VW here too with some of their engines. Seeing how my friend's (2011) Golf TDI worked to rid itself of particulates in the cat, if it endured too many short trips around, raised my eyebrow a bit.
Finally got around to your article comparing the Volt and Cruze diesel.
Using the standard, 120-volt outlet in my garage, I typically used 11 kilowatt hours to recharge the Volt’s battery at a cost of 15 cents per kWh. Assuming an average range of 35 miles on a charge, that’s 4.7 cents a mile — or less than half the cost of the Cruze Diesel’s 11 cents a mile (diesel fuel: a pricey $3.80 a gallon), a savings of $940 at an average 15,000 miles a year.
He may have cheap electricity for today. I got news for him in Michigan. You are right behind CA in sticking it to the consumers. How well would he do with 37 cents per KWH? That is $4.06 to go 35 Miles. Now we are up to 12 cents a mile. While early Cruze diesel buyers are claiming 40-44 MPG at his $3.80 per gallon of diesel cost is about 9 cents per mile. Hmmm, that means he can never recoup the $5k premium of the Volt. We don't even have to talk resale, we know the Volt is worthless after a few years on the road.
Because the Cruze diesel is new we should compare the Prius to the Jetta TDI. New the Prius comparably equipped to the Jetta TDI is about $4500 more. At trade in time in 5 years that same Prius is worth about $7900. While the VW Jetta TDI is worth about $9300 all things being equal. So you take a hit buying and a hit selling the hybrid. And it is worse for a plug-in hybrid.
PS
The Cruze diesel has more US content than the Volt or Prius.
It turns out that my earlier post about a 33.5% LOSS (HUGE winter loss) of range for electric was WAY optimistic, given the 40.5% loss in the Volt vs Cruze TDI article !!!!!!!! It would seem it helps to bring a rubber ruler, democratic, republican and independent calculators, shamans and #2 pencils and more importantly BIG erasers to the math portion. Geez, seems more fun to take the GED, SAT, GRE, LSAT, OCATS in a day !
Us Midwesterners do the ACT.
I think parts of the "green" agenda approaches a Madoff Ponzi scheme !
On a more rational (diesel) side what are the discomfort issues about the Cruze TDI ?
Folks need to chill in here before I accuse y'all of inhaling too many diesel fumes.
In the news:
"I know there are a lot of questions, but I can't say at this point that it will be in the Mazda6," Barnes said. "The delay has to do with matching the exhaust emissions to the engine's performance. We want the car to drive like we want it to drive."
Mazda said in an official statement released on Thursday that the launch of its Skyactiv-D clean diesel engine in North America is "being further delayed from its spring 2014 announced debut timing."
Mazda Delays Skyactiv Diesel Engine Launch In U.S. Again
It would appear to me that advocates of PLUG in electrical should state electric costs (cost $ per KWH) or "EQUIVALENT" mpg costs !! Or give the next (consumer) portion: the FORMULA used to calculate !
Until they do, anything said is SUSPECT at best.
Some years ago, a few posters in other threads, started to mention .08 cents per KWH. I believe that figure came from a poster in AZ. Last I looked at (my) CA electrical bill, I could easily pay .37 cents per KWH. to fuel a plug in electrical product of any stripe. This is also not to mention the various rate hikes that are either pending, in arrears or applied going forward or in arrears under a myriad of circumstances. Be that as it may, the difference between .08 cents and .37 cents per KWH (in this example) is easily 362.5% !!!!!!!
If you apply that to the cost of gas ($3.20 per gal) 362.5% more is $14.82 per gal !!!!!!!
So if I can pose the question: IF/WHEN more folks (percentage and volume) shift to electrical plug ins will costs per KWH go down? (swag: on a cold day in hell?) or UP? (SWAG" like this takes a lot of brain cells?)
I wonder if it is to do with the physical volumetric size that the exhaust takes up? If they had the room, maybe use two manifold header types that run into dual exhaust. Of course to keep it (unreasonably) clean, might have to double up on everything including two cat$. Perhaps there will be more room in the CX5 (although a transfer case might use some of that up) and maybe we will see it in that model first? Of course Mazda may also just say fig it, they make it too damn hard in NA. I do give them credit though for even 'going there' in a time that much richer companies have decided to take a wait and see stance.
On the one hand, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
I do not think this can be good for Mazda's diesel effort ! It would appear they are following a modified form of Honda's 2004 diesel effort model. History has shown that despite a load of Horse M----- and gun smoke, they did NOT bring a Accord TDI to the US market, which started with a promise of a CIVIC TDI. @ the time, they cited emissions non compliance for the Accord's A/T option. This would have begged the question: why not a Honda Accord TDI with M/T ? I would think Honda was glad things died @ the A/T option narrative.
On the other hand, I am reminded of that old adage, A bird in hand is worth two in the bush/es.
On the Jeep Grand Cherokee topic, I read an article in passing that model is up 13% this 13 MY @ app 174,000+ units. It is one of Chryslers best selling AND most profitable models, MSRP between $29k to 50 k. The article did not list TDI's nor its place in the planned expansion.
No need for accusations, Steve! Truth is truth whether spoken or implied.
Shoot, with all these Skyactiv-D(lays), maybe Mazda will up the ante and offer a wagon version of the 6 when they do finally get the bugs worked out!
It would seem the Japanese need to hire some German engineers to get the job done. Honda, Subaru, Toyota and Mazda all firing blanks on passing US emissions with their stinky diesels. They don't seem to mind polluting the rest of the World with these diesel vehicles. The Toyota diesel PU is the largest selling truck in the World from what I have read. GM took advantage of German Opel engineering to "Git er Done". Time for the Japanese to put aside they pride and get some help.
Any help for this poster?
Seems like excessive consumption of AdBlue.
firstly, cryoforklift, it is wrong to assume that it's only expensive cars which are designed to run optimally on premium fuel, whether recommended or required.
second, 87 octane performs equally well as premium in normally aspirated cars for which premium is recommended, under many conditions, including extended highway cruising, where it returns more mpg than premium.
So far i've driven about 500,000 miles on premium-recommended cars, at least half of it with 87 octane. The math says i saved a couple grand by running the 87 half the time over half a million miles, in ~6 of the >25 vehicles I've owned.
Does $2000 help anyone understand why people use 87 octane even when premium is recommended? Happy/safe/enjoyable motoring to all, regardless of chosen octane or fuel type or vehicle.
question: what would it take me to buy a diesel?
answer: a legal way to remove the DPF/SCR/regen systems that reduce diesel mpg by 25%. Until then, it will be all gassers for me !
@crkyolfrt said:
yes it is. but gasser can feel even more satisfying to drive. (think V8 gasser & stickshift).
i'm actually looking at porsche cayenne suv for possible purchase - and if i buy one i'll undoubtedly select the stickshift 3.6 gasser instead of the automatic diesel, due to fun-to-drive/more-control aspect.
dollars to donuts, chevy cruze 1.8 M6 at $17k, 34 mpg, beats both the cruze diesel and the volt in terms of value-per-dollar/total-cost-of-ownership. so cruze diesel vs volt is a false automotive dichotomy.
question: what would it take me to buy a diesel?
I don't think you can back that up with facts. The new Passat TDI uses the same basic engine used in the Jetta TDI. The Passat uses Adblue for emissions. That Passat is bigger and so far showing higher mileage than the smaller Jetta. And far better mileage than I got with my 2005 Passat Wagon TDI.
You should really give the Cayenne or Touareg TDI a good test drive. The V6 gasser I drove was anemic by comparison. Porsche claims 0-60 in 7.1 seconds with V6 manual transmission. Touareg TDI does it in 6.9 seconds and the Porsche TDI in 6.8 seconds. The Audi Q5 TDI was clocked at 6.5 seconds. If that is important to you.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1304_2013_volkswagen_touareg_tdi_lux_first_test/
While I agree cryofork sets up some false assumptions, really the optimum is to get a vehicle that runs the "correct" recommended octane. Then BOTH sets of the equation, so to speak are optimized. Indeed, one would also save even more monies not getting a premium recommended to required vehicle . Premium is normally used in cars that have the so called "performance" component. So if one practically does not use it to be ok with lesser performance, then savings on the cost of acquisition makes even more sense, be it new or used.
While I am sure a lot of folks have had passing thoughts of removing emissions equipment, the other side of one hand clapping (truth) is emissions equipment on gassers be they RUG/PUG also reduces mpg. Ethanol FURTHER reduces mpg and for a MUCH greater portion, for the overwhelming majority of passenger vehicles (95% +) that do the overwhelming percentage and number of miles. One check the NHTSA site to see the "Carl Sagan like" numbers. Defacto, RUG/PUG fuel consumption/miles are FAR and away WAY WAY WAY larger than passenger car diesel fuel consumption/miles miles.
So for example if you are asking me if I would rather get 25% more mpg over 50/41/31 mpg on TDI's TO 62.5/51.25/38.75 mpg, YES and ABSOLUTELY !!!
You can NOT help but notice the systems and requirements prevent that from happening in ALL fuel choices. This includes the "latest and greatest " plug in electrical.
I guess that depends on what is important to you. The Amenities offered in the Cruze diesel and Volt are far better than the stripped down Cruze for $17k. You get what you pay for. I agree that stick shift can be fun to drive. They are becoming as rare as buggy whips. Too many other compromises have to be made to get one. The Cruze diesel comes out on top in terms fo value for money spent. Like leather heated and cooled seats standard on the diesel. Not even available on the basic Cruze.
I try to make it a habit to compare LIKE models, but even the most fair (diesel haters) like to compare apples to beef to rhubarb !! ?? ( I call it rubber ruler) As a practical adjustment, I am fully capable of doing that also. If I got a nickel every time the Prius was brought up against diesels in terms of so called "reigning MPG Kings/Queens" I'd be a rich man. I'd be richer still on the haters denials that the system makes entry of (still even) much higher mpg DIESEL vehicles anathema. Many folks refuse to acknowledge that the Prius exists for Toyota to sell its FULL to FULLER line of passenger vehicles. One guess, do you think every thing else Toyota sells gets better or worse mpg than.... Prius??????
IF Elias'es 25% mpg claim is correct, I already drive two of them that (sans emissions controls, ala Clark Kent
) handily BEAT the much less capable Prius. The kicker is ULSD is 15 ppm (nominally delivered @ the pumps @ 10 to 7 ppm.
It goes withouts saying that BIO diesel has sulfur content of ZERO ppm. For discussion and mathematical purposes, 1 ppm sulfur vs up to 90 ppm !!!!!! . That means that Prius fuel is up to 13 TIMES dirtier !!!!!! Compared to 1 ppm BIO diesel? 30 times DIRTIER by standard, 90 TIMES by off line fee adjusted realities !!!!!!!!!!!! This would probably explain why a 100% bio diesel ENGINE has never been specified/certified. DIESELS MPG structural will give like models MORE MPG !! Indeed a sub 5k # TDI CUV close to 4 times more powerful would get mpg close to what a Prius gets on a more aggressively driven one !!!
What kind of cars?
Even on MBs where PUG is "required", the car will run on regular - timing will be retarded with performance and mpg impacts, and in the long term I suspect there could be other issues. But the car will run and maybe seem fine to some drivers. But I've read accounts of very sickly cars in second world markets where fuel quality is poor and PUG isn't widely available. If I had something nice, I would spend the little extra to have something that runs better and ages better...if it was that big of a deal to me, I probably shouldn't be driving a highline car to begin with.
I bet the X5 is similar, too. The X5 6cyl gasser rental I had several months ago wasn't exactly a rocket, and if you drove it in a spirited manner, you could see the gas gauge going down. For that segment, a diesel is a no-brainer - I wouldn't even look at a gas ML or X5 etc.
I cannot see a single benefit to a gas powered SUV with the many diesel options available. Unless you can only afford a cheap A/J/K CUV.
Or if you just like burning fuel money and don't mind the cost and thirst of a Lexus LX or Range Rover (which have popular diesel variants in other markets). I don't see a gas benefit, either. There's no performance benefit for a vehicle like that.
And I still have to laugh. If someone is going to spend 70K on a car that says "PUG required" in the literature and right on the gas cap, and cheaps out for RUG, I don't know what to say.
And I still have to laugh. If someone is going to spend 70K on a car that says "PUG required" in the literature and right on the gas cap, and cheaps out for RUG, I don't know what to say.
As much as I hate paying premium for gas in our 24 year old Lexus, I go ahead and do it. It runs good on Costco premium. We have a note on the dash for family we loan it out to. Premium only. I think if you run RUG in it and it starts pinging you have probably done damage to the engine. In the future I will buy only vehicles that run on diesel. Local Shell wants more for PUG than diesel today. The Shell in the middle of El Cajon at the corner of Magnolia and Madison has RUG $4.19, Premium $4.39 and diesel $4.29
I can get diesel for $3.87 closer to home. It take a while to put 600 miles on a tank with around town driving. Can't wait for another road trip.
Sorry it took me so long to respond crky. I know exactly what you are saying. Wealthy people are usually smart, and don't get wealthy by throwing money away. I perfectly understand the mentality of saving money on fuel/cost of ownership, and even making a point of mentioning that it is a TDI among his peers.
Also, I was wrong on the specs. The 2014 A7 TDI has 448 lb ft (240 Hp is correct). The 2013 has 428 lb-ft.
Also, the starting price is $67 ,000.
Anyone in the market for a nice sized AWD sedan should look and drive the new E250 Luxury BlueTEC 4MATIC. I really enjoyed driving the GLK with that same engine. Should be a good choice for those wanting a full sized sedan capable of 40+ MPG under $50k.
**We logged 30 mpg, even though our test involved quite a bit of vigorous driving. In ordinary use, we’d expect even better results, and at a steady 70-mph cruise with the little diesel humming along at 1700 rpm, one could easily traverse Nebraska and have enough fuel left for most of Iowa or Wyoming, depending on your heading. Bathroom breaks are your call.
**
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-mercedes-benz-e250-bluetec-4matic-test-review
Some engines are made for it. Same for gasser MBs - they need premium. They will run on lesser, but not as they are intended. If you want the experience of a highline car, you have to pay the price. That old LS is in the same boat. It's technically a high output engine, and will be happiest with good fuel. Looking at all the other expenses the car has consumed, a little extra fuel cost is nothing.
Diesel is still mostly 3.99 here, showing that supply and demand is not behind it.
At 70mph crusing, that car should be in the mid 40s. Pretty impressive for a comfortable 4000lb+ tank, not a flimsy penalty box of a car.
We should have the C250 diesel too, I am awaiting more news on that. Sadly, I've read we won't get the wagon.
Took my 2011 "gasser" 328xi in for service today and was given a band new, 2014 328xd as a loaner car. I've driven it 45.6 miles so far and the OBC shows 40.5 mpg average. Even if its a little off, that's damn impressive.
2001 Prelude Type SH, 2022 Highlander XLE AWD, 2025 Camry SE AWD
And you can get it in a wagon. Audi & MB are going to have catch up. With MB barely beating BMW last year in the numbers game, it looks like BMW will get serious about Diesels here.
12 owners posting on Fuelly for the 328d. Looks like 39 MPG overall is most common with one poster hitting 49.9 MPG on one 613 mile tank. Almost 14k miles and his overall is 46.4 MPG. That is impressive for a luxury sedan. I don't think the Japanese have anything to compete.
i'll keep that in mind, gagrice, thanks. the usa-diesel facts seem pretty clear - the software in all USA diesel/DPF cars intentionally dumps fuel into the exhaust, enormously reducing mpg periodically.
testdriving 2-reg & nonstickshift cayenne will be fun, and i have until ~2015 to decide. wagon/suv form-factor is a requirement for me but i don't think a passat wagon is going to appear.
I got 37 mpg with my 05 passat tdi which got dimpled by hailstorm. Nice car but it had very bad/fatal engine design flaw - engine oil chain. the chain-system on my passat failed before VW established a program to pay for redesigned oil-gear replacement for customers.
that bmw 3 diesel awd wagon is quite attractive, alright.
so is the sedan 328- stickshift awd diesel is available! yee ha!!!
as for the straw man which fintail reintroduced above, nobody has suggested running regular in a car for which premium is required, only in engines for which PUG is merely recommended and designed accordingly.
I got 37 mpg with my 05 passat tdi which got dimpled by hailstorm. Nice car but it had very bad/fatal engine design flaw - engine oil chain. the chain-system on my passat failed before VW established a program to pay for redesigned oil-gear replacement for customers.
I only kept my Passat TDI wagon for 13 months. Sold it for $3000 more than I paid new. I liked it, BUT it was too low to the ground and a bit rough riding with the 17 inch wheels. I also read some stories about that interim design that made it easier to sell. An 80 year old couple bought it for their two trips back East each year. last I heard they were over 100k miles. No mention of failures.
as for the straw man which fintail reintroduced above, nobody has suggested running regular in a car for which premium is required, only in engines for which PUG is merely recommended and designed accordingly.
Didn't Toyota get slapped by the Feds for doing their HP tests with Premium and then selling the car as being fine with RUG? I would imagine the modern computer systems in cars will compensate for the fuel. Was not always that way. I remember engines pinging and dumping in half a tank of premium to keep it running smoother. That was in the 1950s-70s.
While it might be tempting to base a view and or buying decision on an in the past experience (i.e.,05 Passat), VW's, I would hope and seems to be (going forward are) getting better, specifically better reliability and durability. This might be despite or maybe because of increased complexity/ies.
This is not new to me nor probably most of the folks who frequent this board, but my 3 VW diesels have been literal and proverbial troopers. I have also gotten a literal DOG of an example in a 85 Toyota Camry. Yet, that did not prevent me from buying other Toyota products.
First for me this morning. I was in a yuppie part of San Diego, Rancho Bernardo. In front of me at the stop light was a white Touareg TDI like mine. In the other lane was a MB GL350 Bluetec. Strange to see that concentration of diesel SUVs at one light. That is the first T-reg TDI I have seen on the road. There is a Cayenne TDI in my neighborhood and a couple Sportwagen TDIs.
While cruising around this morning I saw Diesel for $3.75. Same ARCO was selling RUG for $3.51