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

ruking1

Here SEEMS to be the new Nissan Titan BAD boyz/gurlz !?

5.0 L V8 300 hp/500/600 # ft.

cumminsengines.com/pickup-truck

ruking1

Counter point !? 14 JGC TDI

usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/healey/2014/02/08/jeep-grand-cherokee-diesel/5267865/

stever

"The gas engine's rated 20 mpg for city/highway mix, so you could go 27,522 miles before spending enough extra on gasoline to match the higher cost of the diesel engine."

27k is less than two years for lots of drivers. We could do that in three even not having a commute.

ruking1

Actually we did pretty close to that (25,000) when the 03 Jetta TDI was new. So going on 11 MY's and miles that is "water under the bridge" WAY WAY back. So given Fuelly.com's 26 mpg vs 50 mpg, would one rather use 6,962 gals or 3,620 gals (181,000 miles) ? 3,342 gals @ 3.81 PUG ( .26 cents cheaper than ULSD ) is STILL $12,733 MORE.

BUT it is easy to see there is a WORLD of difference between the gasser V6 and the diesel TDI. Their assertion makes TOTAL sense IF one is going to dump the V6 in 2 years or less.

If NOT,... the real comparison is more direct against the V8 @ 17 mpg. So using the same pesky math that is 10,647 gals vs 7,240. Despite the numbers, It is also apparent which MOST will choose, even knowing Chysler's projected take rate on the JGC diesel of 15%. . Consuming more is BETTAH !

stever

We did 32k one year in the van. But that was our '99/'00 road trip, and gas was lots cheaper. 9k annually is about it now. We've burned about 9,000 gallons to date in the van and lifetime mpg is 21.6. A 40 mpg rig would have saved us about $10,000, give or take. Guess I should have tracked prices in addition to gallons.

elias

do we need a 'i drove the most miles per year' thread? you can crown me the king of that one.
i drove 60k miles per year , for about a decade. mostly via four VW TDIs but plenty on three slushbox-volvos and various manual-shift V8 GM cars. Recently i've cut down to a mere 25k miles per year. during most of the years I was driving 60k miles per year, ex-spouse was driving 40k per year. 100k per year, with 2 drivers. Done with 3 or 4 cars for the two drivers.... And most of the longhaul miles going onto the VW TDIs....

stever

That's just nuts. Not sure about Ruking, but at least we were driving for fun. Or perhaps you are too?

ruking1

In Elias'es case, 600,000 miles in 10 years, the "high bar" would have been to put those miles on ONE car: be it TDI or gasser. Admittedly that would have been tedious to impossible to almost obnoxious ? !!! But it is truly the same question: would you have rather used 12,000 gals (TDI/s @ 50 mpg) or 23,077 gals ????? Saved would be 11,027 gals or the gasser would use 92% more ! !!!! To take it one step obnoxiously further, 11,027 gals (saved) @ 50 mpg would be 551,350 miles MORE commute miles !! (can't resist this one) @ $3.81 PUG $42,013 saved.

Now the so called unintended consequences would have been even more obnoxious. So for example I have posted 30k OCI's and getting 113k miles from a set of tires....I will stop now. IT is fairly obvious some SERIOUS monies @ multiple levels can be/could have been saved or spent.

stever

You aren't calling that (other) Volvo guy obnoxious now are you?

I used to get high tread wear tires but never was happy with the performance. Longer OCIs are great.

gagrice

@Stever@Edmunds said:
That's just nuts. Not sure about Ruking, but at least we were driving for fun. Or perhaps you are too?

With one more trip to Indiana before the first year is up in the T-Reg TDI, it will be the most miles on one vehicle for me, probably ever. I should hit at leat 12k maybe closer to 15k. Buying the diesel will save me about $1300 over driving the Sequoia. Though we only averaged 5k miles a year on that gas guzzler. For me it is more about the pleasure of driving. The Sequoia was better than driving the Lexus, or MB Cruiser. Not even in a league with the Touareg TDI. I would not have even considered the V6 gas model if it was $10k less. Gas was from the beginning the fuel for the masses. The powers can manipulate the people with gas availability and pricing. Diesel is more essential to moving the nation's goods. I don't think we have ever had long lines for diesel, that I can remember. During Katrina gas was scarce and diesel was still plentiful. If you get stuck in a blizzard you have a lot better chance of survival than with a gasser. Both in time and much less chance of Carbon Monoxide poisoning. Fact is diesel is the superior fuel.

stever

Could be a different story if you moved back to Hawaii (nytimes.com, last paragraph)

gagrice

@Stever@Edmunds said:
Could be a different story if you moved back to [Hawaii]

Hawaii is at the leading edge of biodiesel from waste production. Oahu still uses some coal generation. They get their coal from Indonesia. Electricity is expensive in Hawaii as most is diesel generated. They just tore down a wind farm on South Point that was no longer viable. The real sad part for me is they are sitting on some of the best Geo Thermal sources in the World. They could have cheap renewable electricity, but for the superstitions regarding the volcanos.

Pele is a living deity fundamental to Hawaiian spiritual belief. She is the eruption, with its heat, lava and steam. Her family takes the form of forest plants, animals and other natural forces. But geothermal development interests see Pele as simply a source of electricity.

http://www.hawaiianvoice.com/products-page/spirit-of-the-land/peles-appeal/

stever

How many generations will it take to clean up the poison from that wind farm waste?

Pele - man, that guy had a killer bicycle kick.

fintail

Yesterday saw the stinkiest smoky yet not terribly old Dodge diesel 4x4. Then saw a late model Ford fire dept aid truck that was parked and idling (at what sounded like about 5K rpm) that was putting out a lot of fumes too - this thing couldn't have been more than a few years old. Two steps forward for every new diesel car one step back from the trucks.

ruking1

@fintail said:
Yesterday saw the stinkiest smoky yet not terribly old Dodge diesel 4x4. Then saw a late model Ford fire dept aid truck that was parked and idling (at what sounded like about 5K rpm) that was putting out a lot of fumes too - this thing couldn't have been more than a few years old. Two steps forward for every new diesel car one step back from the trucks.

Actually, it is more (WAY WAY WAY) widespread for gassers. There are many categories of RUG/PUG applications/rules that simply require NONE to little emissions control/s or simply have strict rules that STRICTLY allow (in effect) NO emissions control. That is about as strict an "order" as one can make it !!!! (in a perverse sort of way)

What really goes unsaid and it is mostly unknown is that RUG/PUG sulfur ppm is by law 30 to 90 ppm vs ULSD's 15 ppm nominally delivered @ the pump @ 5 to 10 ppm. Upshot is the RUG to PUG not only put out MORE emissions per mile driven but @ 2 times to 18 TIMES dirtier than ULSD !!

Indeed many regions and municipalities in those regions, ask folks (public service announcements) to report those 5% of "gross" polluters who cause close to 100% of the passenger vehicle fleet's EXCESS pollution.

Again paragraph's 1,2,3 (sans the quote) are all LAWFUL !!!!

So for example, CA has app 24 M (PVF) vehicles. 5% of that ( set by gov, gross polluters of all stripes) would be 1.2 M (potential gross polluters) vehicles. So 95% of those = 1.14 M, or those are RUG/PUG users and 5% are diesel polluters that leaves 60,000. Fully 50% or half are diesel light (but really heavier) trucks, leaving 30,000 diesel passenger CARS . So 5% of those would be more like 1,500 projected potential OFFENDERS. The ratio is ONE to 760.

To continue with the example, CA has two sets of smog testing places. By virtue of the age of two (gassers) of mine and 3 diesels mine are directed to the [non-permissible content removed] EST "SMOG ONLY" station. They are specifically looking to TUBE a non complier. My 18 to 20 year old gassers (long story short) essentially pass as "NEW". My diesels are just revenue padders.

So to use a hunting term, tag em and bag em.

stever

Update on Mazda and their diesel engines.

Mazda: Didn’t Want to Damage Clean-Diesel Reputation (wardsauto.com)

ruking1

..."O’Sullivan says Mazda currently can meet EPA and California requirements without after-treatment on the 2.2L diesel."...

AKA in an anti diesel climate Mazda has found a way to duck out , albeit "gracefully"

..."performance goals have been tougher to meet."...

..."believing the lock Volkswagen has on the segment in the U.S. isn’t unbreakable."...

The (directly) above is probably akin to saying the Denver Bronco's COULD have beaten the Seattle Seahawks. (just because I am a (secondarily) Broncos fan, doesn't mean I do not recognize reality)

Yes, ... there is ALWAYS next year.

I think the truth is more like they were glad they got off the hook with their LIVES !

ruking1

@Stever@Edmunds said:
You aren't calling that (other) Volvo guy obnoxious now are you?

I used to get high tread wear tires but never was happy with the performance. Longer OCIs are great.

Yes higher UTQG rated tires present interesting compromises !! ???

ruking1

mercurynews.com/traffic/ci_25080485/green-carpool-stickers-could-hit-40-000-limit

So much for REAL carpooling !!! aka, if you really are carpooling, why do you need a sticker?

We REALLY car pool and we get Rodney Dangerfield' ed !! And,... have to put up with that D...ed Prius going slow to try to met his absurd mpg numbers achievable at turtle speeds.

gagrice

@Stever@Edmunds said:
Update on Mazda and their diesel engines.

It sounds to me more like they did not do their homework. If they were going without urea and now they may have to. Sounds more like an emissions problem than performance. And they would have plenty of torque for that car. Sounds like Honda diesels all over again. I don't think the Japanese have the expertise to put a diesel in our market. Could be the fact they have been shunned in Japan all these years. Europe has the engineering prowess when it comes to diesels.

stever

May have to qualify that to limit it to emissions engineering.

Top 10 Diesel cars in India (motortrend.in)

Toyota is #1, then a couple of Hondas mid-list and another Toyota in tenth spot.

Didn't realize that Brazil, where they push ethanol, banned diesel passenger cars. (Green Car Congress)

fintail

Oh no doubt, I was trying to say that stinky commercial vehicles still hurt the image of diesel cars. I never understood the logic of holding commercials to different emissions standards, more of the "business friendly" BS we've been force fed, I guess.

I am sure gasoline commercial vehicles and other RUG consumers/polluters (lawn equipment has to be huge) are a bigger part of the problem, but perception still favors them.

@ruking1 said:
So to use a hunting term, tag em and bag em.

ruking1

In terms of the current diesel emissions landscape, I used to think it was better to run the engine without AdBlue. In a more tolerant legislative/regulatory scenario, I still believe that to be true/best conditions. Given the realities, running with AdBlue would appear to solve the current issues as delineated (opaque to consumers).

ruking1

In terms of reliability/durability (not diesel related) , on the 03 Jetta TDI, I started to have to use the wipers, normal ON, instead of intermittent, settings 1,2,3,4., during a heavy rain storm last night. This morning after 10.5 years (ALMOST 11) , on inspection, I finally changed both windshield wiper blades. A slight tear manifested itself on one of the wiper blades.

gagrice

@Stever@Edmunds said:
May have to qualify that to limit it to emissions engineering.

For sure emissions. Or we would have Honda, Mazda, Toyota, Subaru diesels being sold. Refined clean diesel is still the Germans to take. VW is still the only one with an engine that does not require urea. Though limited to their smaller entries. It would be nice if we could get along with other countries and set one standard for emissions. Save us all money.

ruking1

@fintail said:
Oh no doubt, I was trying to say that stinky commercial vehicles still hurt the image of diesel cars. I never understood the logic of holding commercials to different emissions standards, more of the "business friendly" BS we've been force fed, I guess.

I am sure gasoline commercial vehicles and other RUG consumers/polluters (lawn equipment has to be huge) are a bigger part of the problem, but perception still favors them.

We need look no further than the big three's truck efforts (others also, but I digress). The F 150 (on up 250,350,450, 550, 650) may or may not be "commercial" but the (gasser) standards have been, are and will remain different. If standards were tightened, the UNIONS would scream bloody murder (as would management, shareholders, consumers both commercial and NON. legislative and regulatory types ) Even at SEVERE discount/s they make a minimum of 10,000 to 15,000 per vehicle. There are of course many other reasons. Long story short, the system exists to sell a huge volume and percentage of this segment In good times and bad a minimum of 10.5 M to 16 M per year and MORE (US market only) if possible. The numbers defacto back it up. 75% of the PVF are large cars to LIGHT trucks.

ruking1

epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f08024.pdf

Here is one site (of many) that tends to validate some of the figures I have used in the past about diesel/(gasser) the passenger vehicle fleet and licensed drivers.

Here are some random examples:

gasoline sulfur content 30 ppm

sidebar: (they do not cover the OFF line fee structure in case a vendor wants to bring a batch of over 30 ppm to 90 ppm sulfur content RUG/PUG to market, again this is lawful)

average annual passenger car mileage of 12,000 miles and average annual light-duty truck mileage of 15,000 miles. Fuel consumption is based on the estimated average in-use fuel economy: 24.1 miles per gallon (mpg) for passenger cars and 17.3 mpg for light trucks. These values are also from the MOBILE6.2 model. (2008 my sic)

Diesel cars represent less than 0.5 percent of all cars on the road in the United States as of 2005, and diesel light trucks represent less than 2 percent of all light-duty trucks on the road. In general, diesel vehicles (relative to gasoline vehicles of similar size and age) will have lower emissions of HC and CO,

In 2011 (in arrears obviously) licensed drivers ( 211.875) M racked up 13,904 (2.946 M ) miles (AVG)

www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Above is another.

The greater truth are these and many other sources are available to ANY one who wants to research/"google" , agree/disagree with what I say, etc. etc.

So quick & dirty diesel sound bites are:

with 2008 AVG 24.1 mpg (passenger car )/17.3 mpg "
("Lt truck"),

DIESEL mpg figures of 50, 41, 31 mpg VW's 03/09 Jetta and 12 Touareg TDI's, exceed avg.'s by 107 % to 66%, 79% respectively.

jordan40

i think i have a 6.1 or something i'll check when i get home. it is my camping truck

jordan40

i have a 6.1 liter cummins deisel engine in my excursion. i hate the power strokes and duramax deisels.

gagrice

@jordan40 said:
i have a 6.1 liter cummins deisel engine in my excursion. i hate the power strokes and duramax deisels.

Our company bought several of the later model Ford diesel engines. They were in the shop more than on the road. Never drove a Izusu (GM) Duramax powered truck.

Did you buy your Excursion already converted to the Cummins engine? That should be a great rig for just about any task.

ruking1

If I read the Ford Excursion specifications correctly, the (TDI) engine motivates app 7300# 's (7770 #'s 4x4) and has a towing capacity of 11.000 #'s !

6.1 L (373 CI) is only slightly larger than the iconic American "SMALL" block V8 @ 350 CI= 5,7 L. (22 CI or 6.2%).

As most folks know, it might not be reflective of BIGGER (bore, aka cylinders) size necessarily but the increase/decrease could be due to stroke length and/or a combination.

jordan40

@gagrice said:

i bought it with a powerstroke. I then bought a wrecked Dodge ram with the 6.1 cummiins and that got swapped into the excursion

ruking1

An interesting CR take on two machines ! (NON diesel)

"We’ve just finished testing two popular new models: the Mazda3 and Jeep Cherokee"....

autos.yahoo.com/news/mazda3-delights-jeep-cherokee-disappoints-consumer-reports-39-141500901.html

One take away (purely my .02cents) , "correct" diesel engines MIGHT have turn less than stellar ratings .... HIGHER. It might have also turn good ratings ever higher and/or even offered a killer 1, 2 competitive PUNCH ! ?

So while the cited 33 mpg is GREAT ! 33% MORE (43/44 mpg) would obviously be BETTER !! But then a host of upgrades or mo bedda redesign/s would have been in order.

gagrice

I hated the looks of the Cherokee from the first I saw it. Why did Fiat even bother to bring out such a loser in an otherwise great lineup of Jeeps. I don't think either is slated for diesel so they are losers in my book from the get go.

PS
Jeep did find 10k buyers in January for the new Cherokee.

ruking1

The 9 speed A/T seemed "not ready for prime time" (probably stolen from Deion Sanders, who probably stole it from someone else ) in "testing". I am a tad mystified by this, as soft ware and the 8 speed gearing already are proving themselves (ZF/Aisin) and have a pretty impressive "bullet proof" reputation and level. (aka just a wider spread and soft ware tweaks?)

KCRam

Unless you had it bored/stroked, the Cummins is either 5.9L (359 cubic inches) or 6.7L (408).

gagrice

This is an interesting tidbit of Diesel news. It seems the EPA gave Navistar a pass on their polluting engines if they paid a $1900 fine per engine. I guess the competitors thought that gave Navistar an unfair price advantage over them. They sued the EPA.

EPA loses final legal battle over Navistar’s EGR engines

A federal appeals court has agreed with some of Navistar’s major competitors that the Environmental Protection Agency should not have allowed Navistar to continue selling its MaxxForce advanced exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) diesel engines subject to non-conformance penalties (NCPs) even though they did not meet the agency’s standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Oct. 11 that EPA’s September 2012 final rule did not provide adequate notice of a significant change in the regulation governing the availability of NCPs.

Although the decision could affect EPA’s handling of future emissions regulations, it has little, if any, practical effect today because Navistar announced in July 2012 that it was switching to selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and, as of October of this year, has completed the transition to SCR for all of its Class 8 products. The appeals court said its decision rested in part on EPA’s statement in court arguments in October that due to Navistar’s changed circumstances vacating the NCP rule would not harm the company.

NCPs have been an option under EPA regulations for more than 25 years, but they had always applied to emission standards that had to be achieved in the future. The longstanding NCP rule required, among other things, an EPA finding that substantial work will be required to meet the standard.

This definition of “substantial work” would not have helped Navistar because the NOx emissions regulations had already taken effect. Also, Navistar’s competitors had already met the emissions standards by using SCR. EPA’s proposed rule issued in January 2012 intended to resolve this conflict by stating that NCPs would be allowed if substantial work “was required” to meet the standard and if all heavy heavy-duty diesel engines certified without relying on emission credits were using new aftertreatment systems to meet the standard.

Competing truck and engine manufacturers – Daimler, Detroit Diesel, Volvo and Mack – argued in comments on the proposed rule that while substantial work was required when the emissions standard was introduced in 2001 that was no longer true in 2012 since some manufacturers had technology capable of meeting the standard.

http://fleetowner.com/regulations/epa-loses-final-legal-battle-over-navistar-s-egr-engines

ruking1

Navistar has been a VERY long time military defense and other Fed products contractor. Who knows what the real nexuses are.

Just a quick look in passing brought back to mind some ov the old work horses (@ least 6 products) and the latest (like applications) iterations, that I probably would have fun trying out. I would imagine the new stuff (just like the old stuff) has the same emissions controls (ah,... NONE to very little). So paying a "fee" for each engine was probably considered above and beyond the call of duty. AKA a LEGAL cost of doing bitness. So it also seems there are no findings of wrong doing on Navistar's part, even as if some would say:... bribe.

In Courts, you can pretty much restrict/confine information pertinent to the case, rather than let a "witch" hunt proceed, looking for some "conspiracy" theory.

navistardefense.com/NavistarDefense/#

gagrice

I never liked their corn binder tractors either. Give me a Massey Ferguson 65 diesel. That may be one of the best small tractors ever built. We had two on my farm, and they were great. Now I have a Kubota toy tractor.

ruking1

We called it here (and a good while back) on Edmunds.com, "What Will It Take For You To Buy A Diesel Car".

wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/toyota-may-join-the-diesel-pickup-fray.html/

Slow diesel news day otherwise. Did a 11.7 gal fill, 594 miles 03 Jetta TDI. I probably should have waited for the low fuel lamp/buzzer to have gone off.

The 09 VW seems to be eating rear brake lamp bulbs. Bought one at the dealer and for whatever reason, they gave my wife 2 and changed both out at no charge.

xwesx

All good things. Seems this decade will offer us more than just a shrinking supply of manual transmission options.

ruking1

Yes this is the third brake lamp/bulb in app 70,000 miles and 5 MY's. Realistically it has NOTHING to do with diesels. (for TMI, Philips is the oe vendor) I am sure Lexus'es, despite being the most durable/reliable name plate has lamps/bulbs burn out.

It would seem that a lot of (those contemplating) diesel oems pay marginal to some attention to (diesel) boards like these. If that be the case, count me as one that would be actually interested in a 7 speed M/T (read: one serious buyer).

I am not complaining about 51/52 mpg in a 5 speed M/T, and the range of 44 to 62 mpg over 181,000 miles. I can easily get that to 59 mpg @ 75 mph! (STILL) So getting "IT" (better mpg) is not the issue.

However from what I know, I am swaging a 6 speed M/T (yes this is more for the board with M/T as a subject) would allow me to post (easily with no real changes) 2 mpg better or so , app 4% better for 53/54 mpg. If the 7th gear (the whole covey actually) is optimized to run the TDI engine in its rpm sweet spots, the mpg increase would indeed be (a LOAD of) gravy. I think the major EPA fear is this now would be optimized for 85 mpg or better? It is almost crazy to think that the Passat TDI could do better than 43 mpg H EPA and in the hands of experts (Taylor's, Gerdes) exceeding 84 mpg (5 mph UNDER speed limit)/77 mpg respectively !!

Ditto for an 8 speed DSG.

I am liking the 8 speed A/T.

ruking1

The answers have ALWAY been in diesels (conversion) !!! In fact we have gone OVER the numbers , literally and figuratively OVER and OVER (and over ) again. Here might be one reason why the call has almost gone unanswered.

fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/15/truck-wars-is-ford-motor-company-really-beating-ou.aspx

..."It's no secret that Ford's (NYSE: F ) F-Series has been America's best-selling pickup truck for 37 consecutive years, and the best-selling overall vehicle for 32 straight years -- complete dominance."...

IS there anybody else that sees the utter IRONY in TOTOTA (now/finally) considering a (Cummins TDI) turbo DIESEL for its bread and butter full sized TRUCK , TUNDRA ?????? !!! ?? Say instead of a gasser/ hybrid?

Indeed ironies abound, as VW markets a gasser hybrid CUV (Touareg) . One might want to see if those models are flying off the dealers lots or are setting sales records ?? Needless to say the gasser/hybrid sells for thousands more than the diesel. ( $11.9k ) It sells for even more than the gasser (19.k)

gagrice

@ruking1 said:
IS there anybody else that sees the utter IRONY in TOTOTA (now/finally) considering a (Cummins TDI) turbo DIESEL for its bread and butter full sized TRUCK , TUNDRA ?????? !!! ?? Say instead of a gasser/ hybrid?

Indeed ironies abound, as VW markets a gasser hybrid CUV (Touareg) . One might want to see if those models are flying off the dealers lots or are setting sales records ??

If Toyota goes for a Cummins along with Nissan, they should be a good stock to buy. As far as the joke from VW the hybrid Touareg. They must have just had a wild idea they could sucker the American buyers. The only one I know of the dealer had it nearly a year and sold it well below his cost. GM has not done well with their various hybrids either.

ruking1

I also would not want to discount natural gas conversions. I am no expert, but a huge portion of oil/gas infrastructure is already being used FOR natural gas. It really has been a natural fit for a very long time. I think this is especially true for those only concerned with (cheaper) cost per mile driven, and/or who don't like, care , know about TDI's superior adaptability to the US roads and transportation systems. For example, obviously a 1 percent (NG) conversion would (structurally) remove 1% of RUG/PUG use, even if mpg equivalents would not change.

There is another thing going on also. In passing I have mentioned more than once about 75% of the PVF (passenger vehicle fleet 257.4 M) being 75% "large cars to light trucks". I have read more than a few articles indicating that 65% of those are indeed light trucks/ SUVs/CUVs. So indeed if the avg mpg is 17.1 with 15,000 miles per year and 12 years old then a simple diesel conversion posting 28 to 31 mpg will save a min of 341 gals per year x 12 years or 39% (877 gals-536 gals=) X's TIMES the 65% to 75% of LARGE cars to light trucks !! This gets to the notion of one of the hosts post on GALLONAGE. So for example I for one am glad I have gone from 15-17 mpg to 31 go 33 mpg in the SOS/DD scenarios.Saving 52% or 516 gals per year or getting 107% better fuel mileage is substantial.

gagrice

@ruking1 said:
I also would not want to discount natural gas conversions.

I think Natural gas lends itself very nicely to fleet operations especially in the urban environment. Range is a limiting factor making it less beneficial to the masses. Almost as restrictive as EV. Taxis, buses, local delivery trucks are a common sight around here. Not as many CNG taxis as in the past when the Ford sold the Crown Vic CNG model. The tank limits cargo space a lot.

ruking1

I also think natural gas would face ever stronger and ever HUGE uphill resistance/s, once it got to be the subject of the political and economic manipulation schemes. Now, this is NOT to say that it isn't now !!! ??? But, perhaps the greatest driver is seen as one more "holy grail" amulet by enviro cons, aka, more geeky theoretical rather than a huge percentage use in the real world. However, it is seen on many levels as "CHEAPER", aka to environmentally beneficial. So for example, in ADDITION, many to some SPECIFIC businesses are given tax writer offs and even better, tax credits, and even better than that, multiple combinations thereof, to run natural gas vehicles: be they industrial to passenger vehicles. However, anyone you talk with at some point in the conversation, acknowledges the loads of (operational) disadvantages.

I just got a heads up that Turbo Tax cites a (filing) procedure for getting FED tax CREDIT (personal tax return) for BIO diesel INXS of B20, (aka 20% biodiesel qualifies).

In a former life, I was responsible for any number of forklifts: diesel, gas. propane and electric.

I also got a chuckle in looking at the fuelly.com web cite as they independently cited almost all the (my) top 5 picks (top ten picks) when I was picking two commute cars and in the PRECISE order. The GOLF was also on there, but is (for our applications) less flexible as a 4/5 person family mover.

They also selected the Tacoma, (which would be even BETTER with a TDI option).

gagrice

@ruking1 said:
I also think natural gas would face ever stronger and ever HUGE uphill resistance/s, once it got to be the subject of the political and economic manipulation schemes. Now this is NOT to say that it isn't now. However it is seen on many levels as "CHEAPER", aka to environmentally beneficial. So for example many businesses are given tax writer offs and even better credits, and even better than that multiple combinations, to run natural gas vehicles be they industrial to passenger vehicles. Anyone you talk with at some point in the conversation acknowledges the loads of disadvantages.

In a former life I was responsible for any number of forklifts: diesel, gas. propane and electric.

As you know CNG vehicles in CA have full access to all HOV lanes with one person. That makes the Civic GX a great little commuter car. Not sure what the cost per mile would be. Finding CNG stations open to the public is tough. The home filling units are scarce as well. They are also the cleanest option going, with the exception of an EV. That can also be debated when you consider the source of electricity. EPA website claims 7 cents per mile for the Civic CNG model. Only one public station I can find selling CNG at $2.75 per GGE. At the EPA 31 MPG combined it would be 9 cents per mile. So if you don't need a trunk and your commute takes you by a CNG seller, it could be a good option. Don't head out on the highway though, at least without AAA+ to give you a tow when you cannot find any CNG.

stever

It's hard to beat the entrenched infrastructure, especially for the average car owner.

In other news, gas here continues to be $3.47, going on for seemingly two months now (really only 3 weeks, lol). It was $3.49 for "months" before that. But diesel - I don't think it's changed in a year now. Consistently at $3.99. It was that price last August from a quick check of posts over in Report Your Local Gas Prices Here.

ruking1

Yep, slow news Sunday. The local rag routinely runs stories when fuel prices are "supposed" : ' (surprise surprise) to go up. It is really part and in some ways parcel about that running joke that EVERYTHING makes the price of fuel go UP. Solar flares?? 93 M miles away, .... must be George Bush's fault ! Ergo price of fuel UP ! (the scary part is there are a lot of folks that are probably going: you know, that Ruking aint so bad after all, he finally gets it !! )

Corner store early morning fill @ $4.07 ULSD ($3.63 RUG/$3.83 PUG). 416 miles 10.1 gals. (three driver rotation, with an every so often 4th (me). I almost forgot, 41.188 mpg, same commute drill, CRUSHING now time wise.