The Health Effects Institute is funded 50% by the motor vehicle industry, (and also has corporate board members) so that makes any conspiracy theory highly suspect IMO.
In any event, the results of their study WILL affect public policy AND industry decisions, so it would be best to pay close attention to it when it arrives. This is a highly credible institute and what it says will be taken seriously.
Well lets put it this way, how credible can it be, when for the whole time I have been on the earth and the industry has been in existence that diesel has been the transportation mainstay: and some to all of the abominations (only of those that I posted, there are many more) have occurred during its watch? To wit, the life expectancy has gone WAY up during its implementation years also. Air, rail and powered ship traffic have probably grown exponentially. Those three modalities have little to NO emissions controls.
What it does do (or should do) is whatever policy continuance and/or change/s should be longitudinally (biblical generation, again) studied. MTBE was canned within a few short years of the wasteful implementation.
You're confusing correlation with causation. Life expectancy goes up in some areas for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the air; in other areas it is going down, with nothing to do with the quality of the air.
A counter argument to your point of view would be to view pictures of Los Angeles in the 1960s and pictures of it now. You will see a remarkable improvement---perhaps not all day every day, but in general.
In the same way, a misstep in the science of air quality control does not negate this science any more than a misstep by your auto mechanic renders all automotive knowledge useless.
Besides, resistance is useless. Emissions controls are not going to go away, and they are only going to get more and more strict. Our efforts, seeems to me, should be directed toward demanding that they be as effective as possible
One could make an argument about "diminishing returns for the amount of money spent" and that's not a bad argument--but it has to be backed up with bona fide data. Merely being distressed about something is not an argument that works for public policy.
Nor does the "follow the money" argument, because we find the oil and auto industries making historically unheard of amounts of money---emissions control doesn't seem to have hurt them at all.
If someone bet all their money on dirty tech and I bet all of mine on green tech, in 20 years I'd be rich and they'll be poor.
@Mr_Shiftright said:
You're confusing correlation with causation. Life expectancy goes up in some areas for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the air; in other areas it is going down, with nothing to do with the quality of the air.
A counter argument to your point of view would be to view pictures of Los Angeles in the 1960s and pictures of it now. You will see a remarkable improvement---perhaps not all day every day, but in general.
In the same way, a misstep in the science of air quality control does not negate this science any more than a misstep by your auto mechanic renders all automotive knowledge useless.
Besides, resistance is useless. Emissions controls are not going to go away, and they are only going to get more and more strict. Our efforts, seeems to me, should be directed toward demanding that they be as effective as possible
One could make an argument about "diminishing returns for the amount of money spent" and that's not a bad argument--but it has to be backed up with bona fide data. Merely being distressed about something is not an argument that works for public policy.
Nor does the "follow the money" argument, because we find the oil and auto industries making historically unheard of amounts of money---emissions control doesn't seem to have hurt them at all.
If someone bet all their money on dirty tech and I bet all of mine on green tech, in 20 years I'd be rich and they'll be poor.
There is no confusion at all. So if you are saying that environmental conditions have NO effect on life expectancy; why in hell are we doing the emissions controls to begin with?
LEAD REMOVAL my friend, LEAD removal !! ?? I think was pretty clear on this. There is an interesting diesel TMI here, but I might be accused of excessive baiting.
The corollary for anti diesel to diesel haters is they can/will NOT acknowledge that ULSD is way cleaner than RUG/PUG. A clue is almost everyone ignores the actual numbers. Some to many of staunch environmental conservatives don't even know the numbers (30 to 90 ppm sulfur, let alone what that means)
One misstep doesn't an overwhelming pattern make !!!!!!! ????? VOODOO science rules!!!
Well we do agree that there is not bona fide supporting data !!!
But yes, follow the monies: through a WalMart trust subsidiary (this was like a basketball head fake) after they foisted the Solyndra (fantasy) debacle on the market, the WalMart family (through the trust) was able to get their original stake (and probably more) out, before Solyndra did their bankruptcy, leaving those who actually BELIEVED holding the proverbial and literal BAG.
Unless it is funded by hybrid supporters. The "motor vehicle industry" is a tad vague, and by "a tad", I mean "immensely". And where does the rest of the money come from? Any proof that they will accurately gauge modern diesels vs ancient stinkers?
Just like the credible people who whined about diesels when Paris got caught in a freaky weather pattern that induced smog, I am sure.
@Mr_Shiftright said:
The Health Effects Institute is funded 50% by the motor vehicle industry, (and also has corporate board members) so that makes any conspiracy theory highly suspect IMO.
In any event, the results of their study WILL affect public policy AND industry decisions, so it would be best to pay close attention to it when it arrives. This is a highly credible institute and what it says will be taken seriously.
Real slow news day. However it is very telling how those very same environmental conservatives never talk about the very NATURAL pollution due to natural wild fires
I have read in passing in other articles (not related to the NHSTA data), that as cars get "older", there is a trend to using the "newer" ones, aka there are more cars than drivers. This might be one reason why there are mileage differences (average) between cars (less) and drivers (more).
As a CA back drop to these national data, CA, last I read had app 24 M in its PVF. So IF 2.5 % diesels is/are true AND, IF normal distribution is applicable @ most 600,000 diesel cars.. CA state would know for sure. They do not seem to make public the data.
Meanwhile, the new HPFP is functioning just fine. The car seems to run as before the HPRP issue. There does not seem to be any change to the mpg, sans the fuel the dealer dumped or drained off in trying to make sure the system did not have shrapnel.
Do you really think anyone has the time to "hate" diesel engines?
I suspect it's much more about indifference to them, at least as regards the average American can buyer.
To sell something you have to present it as useful or attractive, and for the most part automakers have simply failed to do with with diesel cars. With trucks, they've done a much better job, because the diesel truck is a vast improvement over its gasoline counterpart in both pulling power and MPG.
People don't care how "clean" a diesel car is. If they were regulated out of existence I rather doubt there would be rioting in the streets. I doubt 99% of Americans would even notice that they were gone.
People only want to know if there is any particular, tangible, measurable value in buying one.
So far, automakers have yet to come up with good answers that are easy to digest. In other words, the marketing stinks.
All this reminds me of theories about why electric cars never dominated the American car market. People blamed the government, or General Motors, for "killing" the electric car.
The actual answer was much simpler. No one had yet built a Tesla, which demonstrated the ability to compete with, and in fact in some areas, better the gasoline car (except, alas, in cost).
If diesel cars are to prosper, they will have to beat the status quo in such an obvious fashion as to not require that the car buyer attend a lecture on the subject.
It's almost as if automakers aren't even TRYING to market their diesel cars in the USA.
Interesting stuff there, lots of pre-2000 material. Probably using 1978 240Ds, Oldsmobile diesels, and Italian spec diesel trucks in case studies.
It'd be interesting to examine the impacts of say a post-2009 diesel vs one 30+ years ago, and how many studies and papers would need to be adjusted for it.
@ruking1 said:
I am not sure why you didn't post the link. On the off chance this is correct, this one goes by the title you posted.
I think California's ARB is shooting for an 85% reduction in particulate emissions by the year 2020. (compared to the year 2000). So in California at least, there's been a lot of progress, thanks in part to advanced diesel technology these last few years.
@fintail said:
Interesting stuff there, lots of pre-2000 material. Probably using 1978 240Ds, Oldsmobile diesels, and Italian spec diesel trucks in case studies.
It'd be interesting to examine the impacts of say a post-2009 diesel vs one 30+ years ago, and how many studies and papers would need to be adjusted for it.
Indeed, one of the studies was on diesel SCHOOL BUSES !!!! Most to all have always been EXEMPTED (by LAW NO LESS) from diesel emissions controls that 02 and above diesel passenger cars are required to have. As IF this needs to be said diesel school buses are NOT diesel passenger cars. Now a FAIR A/B test would be against gasser SCHOOL BUSSES that again would be EXEMPTED by law from gasser emissions controls. jJust this FAIRNESS alone will GREATLY alter the results and defacto,, the conclusions.
@ruking1 said:
I have read in passing in other articles (not related to the NHSTA data), that as cars get "older", there is a trend to using the "newer" ones, aka there are more cars than drivers.
That is certainly the case at my house. I have five vehicles with current registration. We put about 30,000 miles a year on our two newest cars (2010 and 2011 MYs) and about 500-1,000 on the other three combined. Just because we don't use the old rigs regularly doesn't mean it is time to part ways. Besides, they really like pasture life.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
..."Do you really think anyone has the time to "hate" diesel engines?"....
So YES, LOADS of time, effort, rules regulations, monies, etc etc.
it is codified in the legislation, laws, rules, and regulations !! So if it were not a reasonable representation (of the realities) then what is the big deal !! ?? ...... There are LOBBIES AGAINST diesel passenger cars ! The 95% of the PVF being gassers with app 9% PUG is more than ample testimony. The less than 2.5% diesel passenger cars.... another.
So to me, I really have no "skin in the game" to having the US (PVF) passenger vehicle fleet going to app 50% + being diesel like say the EU. It would also seem by many of those very same oem's, (whom you say are doing a poor job) they do not want anything close to that EITHER !!!! The government has already clued them in !! What about HELL NO ! do you think they do not get??? As they say in a movie, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE !!!
So to put some realities to it, 265.467 M vehicles with 95% gassers are app 252.19365 M. This would put 2.5% diesel cars @ app 6.6367 M.
So IF you are saying the oems are doing a poor job at "religious conversion",
("crush mine enemies and hear the lamentations of their women:") ah not my words but a HOLLYWOOD script writer's given voice by an actor, ARNOLD.
aka diesels @ 132.7335 M., then you are both right AND wrong. Right because they are nowhere close. Wrong, because they are not even doing THAT job. !!! They seem to have challenges selling what's (gassers AND diesel AND hybrids and plug ins) in stock with 95% PLUS being GASSERS !!! So this is NOT unique to diesels, that most do not make. The ones that do, make very few.
So for example, if the majority of folks want to buy a gasser ( MB GLK 350) that gets 20 mpg vs a diesel (MB GLK 250 B/T) that gets say 31.2 mpg). I say that is fine with me !! Actually it always has been. Just don't make it unduly hard for someone that wants to get the diesel, which at times includes holding the diesels to higher standards, like they STILL do now.
@Mr_Shiftright said:
Better? Or is the message still lost?
Better, for sure. In the first one, Dan was right on: The message was lost. What's more, though, is that it also served to dissuade the viewer from the product by presenting the car's driver as alienated. The second one.... wait, that was for a diesel? Oops.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Highly credible sources can be found out to be bald face liars. Sadly the Media is afraid to take on the Eco Nuts that run CARB.
In the Nov. 4, 2008, letter, state Secretary for Environmental Protection Linda S. Adams responded to S. Stanley Young of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences, based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Young had questioned the expertise of the authors of an air board report on the purportedly extreme health risks posed by tiny airborne pollutants contained in diesel emissions. Adams wrote that Young was off-base:
“Regarding the professional background of the authors, the lead author and project coordinator, Hien Tran, holds a doctorate degree in statistics at the University of California at Davis …”
Except he didn’t, as I established seven weeks later. (I had been contacted by UCLA epidemiologist James L. Enstrom, who worked with Young in questioning Tran’s credentials.) But for months, no California newspaper, except the editorial page of my newspaper, the U-T San Diego, covered this undeniable scandal. This greenout occurred even though Rough & Tumble had my blog item on Tran’s deception as its lead story for several hours on Dec. 23, 2008.
So this phony CARB employee lied to get his job. Did poor research that set back diesel cars in the USA for several years. And he gets a 2 month suspension and a lower pay job at $87k per year.
@xwesx said:
Better, for sure. In the first one, Dan was right on: The message was lost. What's more, though, is that it also served to dissuade the viewer from the product by presenting the car's driver as alienated. The second one.... wait, that was for a diesel? Oops.
This is a "head scratcher" for the US market VW Jetta Station Wagon. I have read in passing that 85 to 91 percent SOLD are TDI's. I can't even say I have seen two commercials on the VW JSW TDI in 12 MY's. It has the least discounts new. It can sell for MSRP and above. It is hard to get. It is popular. It has the best resale value of VW TDI's and almost all models have STELLAR resale values. So in that sense, VW is doing EVERYTHING WRONG.
@gagrice said:
Highly credible sources can be found out to be bald face liars. Sadly the Media is afraid to take on the Eco Nuts that run CARB.
In the Nov. 4, 2008, letter, state Secretary for Environmental Protection Linda S. Adams responded to S. Stanley Young of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences, based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Young had questioned the expertise of the authors of an air board report on the purportedly extreme health risks posed by tiny airborne pollutants contained in diesel emissions. Adams wrote that Young was off-base:
“Regarding the professional background of the authors, the lead author and project coordinator, Hien Tran, holds a doctorate degree in statistics at the University of California at Davis …”
Except he didn’t, as I established seven weeks later. (I had been contacted by UCLA epidemiologist James L. Enstrom, who worked with Young in questioning Tran’s credentials.) But for months, no California newspaper, except the editorial page of my newspaper, the U-T San Diego, covered this undeniable scandal. This greenout occurred even though Rough & Tumble had my blog item on Tran’s deception as its lead story for several hours on Dec. 23, 2008.
So this phony CARB employee lied to get his job. Did poor research that set back diesel cars in the USA for several years. And he gets a 2 month suspension and a lower pay job at $87k per year.
@Mr_Shiftright said:
It's a marketing problem that diesel cars have, nothing else IMO. Everyone in America is free to buy 10 million diesel cars if they want to.
It's not illegal to buy a diesel car.
Lots of people still smoke cigarettes and they have a way worse rep than diesels.
It's just a matter of correcting public perception through clever advertising, consumer education and attractive price points.
During 2008/2009 (aka CRASH, total US yearly) sales were 10.5 M units. It was a VERY BAD year. So if you want to call it a "marketing issue", what can I say !? EVERYONE was free to buy 10 M gassers more then also. 20 M would have been a BANNER/record STELLAR year !!!
Indeed the IRS offered a $1500. tax CREDIT for the 2009 Jetta TDI, which adjusted for everything else, cost a smidgin more than my 2003 Jetta TDI. So when are we going to have ANOTHER marketing problem?
Seems the HPFP (high pressure fuel pump) change on the 09 VW TDI Jetta didn't cause any changes to the mpg. (commute, a Yeomans' like = 41.14)
Maybe they carry low profit margins? As the makers market the hell out of high margin trucks and SUVs. They are also more mechanically durable, which isn't really part of their business model either.
Regarding rioting in the streets, is there anything that could make Americans do that? Anything? We're now deep in the mire of 30-40 years of socio-economic malfeasance caused by a deranged public-private sector hybrid, and nary a riot.
@Mr_Shiftright said:
It's almost as if automakers aren't even TRYING to market their diesel cars in the USA.
@Mr_Shiftright said:
....People only want to know if there is any particular, tangible, measurable value in buying one.
So far, automakers have yet to come up with good answers that are easy to digest. In other words, the marketing stinks....
If diesel cars are to prosper, they will have to beat the status quo in such an obvious fashion as to not require that the car buyer attend a lecture on the subject...
What if, playing devil's advocate here, there aren't "good answers" or "obvious" reasons for diesel over gas?
I think one of the most popular diesel cars in America right now is the Passat TDI.
I personally don't see a big tangible advantage in economic terms of the Passat TDI over an Accord. The EPA mpg comparison gives the Passat a combined mpg of 34, compared to the Accord's 30. But since diesel costs more even driving 15,000 miles a year guess what the savings are annually driving the Passat TDI?
$100 a year.
I didn't leave off a zero. You save a hundred bucks. If you get the Nissan Altima that gets 31, you save 50 bucks. The Mazda6 with ELOOP technology has the exact same annual gas cost. You save zero.
I'm a Honda guy, so let's go with that one. Compared to the Accord LX, which seems to have more or less comparable stuff, the Passat TDI costs about 4k more. 40 year payback time?
OK. Maybe If I move up the Accord EX, which costs $3000 more, it makes more sense. But the EX has a sunroof, pushbutton start, etc. So then we'd compare that to the Passat TDI SE with sunroof, which still costs $3000 more than my Accord.
And the Passat TDI seems to be about a second slower to 60 compared to my Accord CVT according to Car and Driver. If I got the Accord with a manual I'd beat it by 2 seconds.
I don't hate diesels, but I'm just not seeing the case that's supposed to be made here....
The product has to stand up for itself and speak for itself.
Automakers can't merely beat the consumer over the head and demand they buy diesels.
How did Apple get people to pay more for a MAC? Well, let's talk about that:
Design, for one.
Efficiency of operation
The Appeal of an Alternative Universe (not to be discounted as a powerful draw)
Clubs, blogs, great PR, good ads, charisma at the top
Less troublesome (allegedly....hmm.....).
As for "clean diesel", that's a tough concept to get across. You might get people to accept "as clean as" but not "cleaner than" I don't think.
Were I in charge of diesel marketing, I'd stress durability, range of operation, power output and economy and ease off on the environmental angle.
There's a LONG way to go in better marketing. Vast improvements are possible here.
@benjaminh said:
I'm a Honda guy, so let's go with that one. Compared to the Accord LX, which seems to have more or less comparable stuff, the Passat TDI costs about 4k more. 40 year payback time?
I don't see how you could have driven a Passat and still drive an Accord. I rented a 2010 Accord for two weeks. It was a HORRIBLE POC. It was brand new with less than 10k miles. Rough riding noisy. Not in a league with a Passat. That was the only full size the rental agency had at the small airport I flew into. I think if you ever drive a Passat TDI you will want to dump gasoline on your Accord and burn it.
@fintail said:
Maybe they carry low profit margins? As the makers market the hell out of high margin trucks and SUVs. They are also more mechanically durable, which isn't really part of their business model either.
Regarding rioting in the streets, is there anything that could make Americans do that? Anything? We're now deep in the mire of 30-40 years of socio-economic malfeasance caused by a deranged public-private sector hybrid, and nary a riot.
You are a funny guy. As long as we don't shut off the cable TV, or stop the flow of RC Cola and Moon Pies the dregs will not riot. I know you are not going to as you are moving up the ladder of success. Rocky might as he can not seem to find a job and he is somewhat motivated.
I think from my last visit to the VW dealership, they are not interested in selling at a loss to keep their UAW workforce happy. Lucky for them they do not have any UAW to deal with. GM/C/F should be so lucky. The salesmen are there at VW if you have a question. They are not acting like they are starving. I had a nice visit with my salesman, who is now a finance manager. We talked about the deal I got on my Touareg last year. He remembered in my after market survey I had said I did not expect them to cover the tax and license with the Zero Dn Zero financing. I guess his boss chewed him out for that. We had a good laugh and he said that deal would not happen again. I just smiled.
gagrice has the kind of diesel marketing we're talking about!++ Since you didn't address the $, I assume there aren't effective counterarguments there. Shiftright's silence on the topic so far also seems eloquent.
It might not be about better marketing. It might be the money. It seems as if there isn't a compelling case on that score for comparable vehicles.
Speaking of that, I'd take a Honda over a VW any day. But it's true that the last generation of Accord was noisy.
The new Accord starting in MY 2013 is much quieter. And it's outselling the Passat by about 4-1. VW built a whole plant in TN for this car, capable of building 170,000 a year for the US market, but they are having trouble selling 100,000 a year at this point. Something has gone wrong there, and it's not just marketing....
The most successful Passat at this point is probably the TDI, but it's a niche product. And over at driveaccord.net the owner of a 2013 Passat TDI traded his in on a 2014 Accord after the turbo on his diesel melted down. It took two weeks for VW to fix it. If that's happening often, and he says it is, that's going to be sending ripples of warning through the market.
@benjaminh said:
gagrice has the kind of diesel marketing we're talking about!++ Since you didn't address the $, I assume there aren't effective counterarguments there. Shiftright's silence on the topic so far also seems eloquent.
I have never put much emphasis on the money factor as most of the time you get what you are willing to pay for. Do people buying a Mercedes want to get a good deal? You can bet on that. Trying to compare all factors and decide which vehicle I want, then get the best price on that vehicle. When I bought the Touareg TDI, I was also looking at the GLK250 BT and the ML350 Bluetec. I had already eliminated the BMW X5 for being too rough riding and Jeep just did not seem to be able to get their nice diesel SUV to market. I eliminated the GLKBT on size even though it is a fun SUV to drive. I like the ML350 to drive and would probably be happy with it. Finding the Mercedes ML equipped as I wanted it was near impossible. I felt the Touareg handled a little better and the seats were more comfortable for both my wife and me. After several test drives The Touareg won out. So I set out to find exactly the one I wanted and the price I was willing to pay.
On why the US built Passat is not selling great, I have some theories. 1. They did not anticipate the demand for the TDI and have problems getting enough of that drive train. 2. They don't have near the dealer network of the other brands. 3. Old buying habits are hard to overcome. People that have bought Honda, Toyota etc and are happy with their brand are not going to change without a good reason. 4. VW does have their past to overcome. And that may be the main reason for slow VW sales.
I love everything about our VW, and would not consider a gas vehicle after 15,000 miles driving a diesel. Diesel could be double the price of RUG/PUG and I would consider myself ahead of the game. When you can drive 650 miles in a day without worrying about filling the tank AND not be tired of driving you have hit the sweet spot in road vehicle. My back would hurt after 350 miles in the Lexus LS400 driving to Las Vegas.
DId VW ever offer a diesel Vanagon. I thought you all might get a kick out of these series of Vanagon ads done in South Africa. I think the Vanagon is now gone but not forgotten.
Not to single you out, but your post really drives home my case on the host of different points and variables.
First point, self professed Honda person. Honda does not make USA diesels, game/set/match over.
(diesels they do make in the EU and world markets are not doing well, nor are they as good as German, italian and French diesels)
Even if they did make diesels, I think they would have little interest in canabalizing their gasser sales, epecially from the faithful. In other words, why bring on a self inflicted problem. They have and are already taking hits with natural gas, They have never really hit stride with gasser hybrids and did an on again off again scenario with the 04 TDI, mark to market Honda diesel product. (to name a few)
If this is difficult to put in context, then I understand the confusion. I currently have a 04 Honda and Honda's in the past. The 04 Honda is not in the same league as the 03 Jetta TDI.
So you drop $100. difference between diesel and gasser savings and you think you are correct, because of no push back? Even after more than one posting about the comparison? I would say you did't do the math (which is fine and as a Honda FAN, not interested anyway) or have K through 12 math issues in the past, continuing into the future. Or are just fine paying more for fuel (per mile driven).
My 04 Honda gets (an outlier, most get far less) 38 to 42 mpg (commute). The 03 Jetta TDI gets 48 to 52 in the same scenario. So we do 18,000 miles per year, /39/50 mpg or 462 gals, 360 gals. @ $3.95/$4.05 that is $1,825-$1,458 or $367.
SIDEBAR: 04 Honda Civic @ similar miles, the (my) Civic is costing far more per mile driven than the 03 Jetta TDI; both on scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.
I will let you do the 100,000 to 150,000 miles calculation. Whatever numbers those might be, I am ok with folks paying more, even as they THINK they pay LESS.
You can do the 14 to 16 mpg gasser vs the 31 to 35 mpg TDI for the Toyota Landcruiser vs VW Touareg TDI. So for example, IF I am solely a Toyota FAN, game/set match- OVER.
We have 250,000 miles on a (gasser) 94 TLC @ 14 to 16 mpg, Don't I wish (21 years ago now) a 31 to 35 mpg diesel was being sold ! ? You betcha ! The fuel SAVINGS alone @ today's prices would have almost fully paid for an MB 250 B/T !!!
@fintail said:
Maybe they carry low profit margins? As the makers market the hell out of high margin trucks and SUVs. They are also more mechanically durable, which isn't really part of their business model either.
...
Strictly from that point of view ( profit per car) , VW is more profitable than ANY of its "big girl/boy" competitors: GM, Toyota, Chrysler, etc. Percentage wise it is ALSO more profitable. Toyota certainly is in first place with the most VOLUME both in $$'s and UNITS in car SALES.
VW also has an interesting US market footing @ 2.4 to 2.6 %, (not big) for the #2 world wide automaker.
(Toyota is currently # 1 but is not anywhere close to being as profitable as VW (per car )
So for example, it is not a stretch to say that VW does not want to increase its market share @ the expense of profitability (per car). Indeed, its market share went from 2.6 to 2.4 %. So, perhaps on the down side, the opposite can be said to be true.
(from what I can see, so this might have NOTHING to do with VW or its plans)
From what I have read VW recognizes the markets require them to change more/quicker, be more "APPLE" like.
SIDEBAR: They have already made a MAJOR shift (opaque to most "appliance" car consumers having gone to the PLATFORM concept. They have also been on a 7 year (between generational iterations) "CONSTANT IMPROVEMENT" cycle. They have recently announced a new "5 year" cycle (again between generational iterations) .
Now this is pure conjecture, but I am sure it is brought to the financial arena as a minimum of same profit per car, to even MORE profit per car AND most importantly, to sell MORE CARS (both percentage and units more and @ higher profit) . (as capital intense as car manufacturing is, it does not make more sense to invest even MORE money for LESS profit)
However, the next 5 years of per car profits should really tell the tale to folks interested in TMI.
Actually over 320,000 miles of diesel (re) fueling, this has happened to me more than once !! I have never responded "I know". Normally, I thank them for the concern and tell them I am fueling a diesel.
Sometimes the conversation gets into: how do you like it or what's your mpg? I used to answer with the truth, but folks just look at you like you are lying, so I just say: ah, could be better.
So I am guessing for the greater (non diesel) audience this advertisement is a bit like preaching to the choir. AKA, I don't get it?? The two (diesel ) refuelers are EXTREME outliers.
I think what the Accord vs Passat TDI comparison is missing is one simple factor. The TDI will get it's mileage while providing kick in the pants acceleration. With the Accord, if you accelerate to the maximum (so as to match that boost of the TDI), you will not get the max MPG you are using to compare. The diesel gets its torque so low in the RPM range that it can still get good mileage while really accelerating. The DSG transmission keeps it in the good range as well. I've not seen mine go over 2500 RPM, and even that is rare.
Honda is doing something right, they are selling a lot of cars and making a lot of money.
Volkswagen is also doing something right, they are selling fewer cars but making more money per car.
Having driven both, and owning a Passat for several years, my choice would be based on how long I planned to keep it, and how many miles I planned to drive. The truth is, I don't drive more than about 9k miles per year, total. Based on that, fuel mileage is not a major concern, so the biggest factor for me would be "How long will I keep it?" If I were looking to keep for many years, I would go with the Honda. Two or three years, get rid of before the warranty runs out? Probably Passat.
But in either case, I probably would not pay a premium for diesel -- I just don't drive enough to justify it.
I have seen VW diesel Vanagon conversions here in the US, using Jetta or Passat TDI engines. It probably is a very expensive modification but it must transform a crawling brick into a decent highway vehicle with excellent range.
Evidently most of the oem's that have dared to venture into diesel markets, still believe (operate on the notion) most folks who will buy diesels still will pay the so called "premium".
This MIGHT be changing. As posted earlier, MB for the (diesel) 250 B/T is priced MINUS- $500 UNDER MSRP, the GLK 350. (gasser) So even @ that, there seems to be no shortage of GLK 350 buyers.
But then on the other hand, the data suggests the percentage of 250 B/T's is kept pretty close to the vest, as the data is lumped under the broader category of GLK. So for example 32,553 GLK united were sold in 2013.
@Mr_Shiftright said:
I have seen VW diesel Vanagon conversions here in the US, using Jetta or Passat TDI engines. It probably is a very expensive modification but it must transform a crawling brick into a decent highway vehicle with excellent range.
The real kicker would be the transmission and now new GEARING configurations. This is just my .02 cents, but if one is going to want more power (also) an outfitted heavy duty 6 speed manual makes all the sense in the world. The new gearing would be of course for both the new power and weight.
I think that is an EXCELLENT opportunity for VW to sneak in a platform (minivan) with a much better configuration list than say Sienna, Odyssey, et al, (I do not keep up with that segment) . With jobs being both in short supply and getting laid off quickly a distinct possibility, one can be homeless and quickly, in much better style with a camper , not that I wish it on anybody !!!
Now my minivan perspective might be outlier, (also when it comes to diesels) as my friends have the camper Vanagon (sleeps 4) . When I had the opportunity to live and work in Europe, a " Vanagon" camper was in my buy sights !! But then again, that was 38 to 42 years ago.
I am sure VW has much BIGGER fish to fry, than to introduce yet another niche market product.
VW offers several vans in the rest of the world. What are the chances of any arriving here???? We are 3rd World cheapskate buyers in the eyes of the Germans. Why would we want a van that gets a US 63 MPG? When we can get a behemoth Accord van that looks like a Hearse for less money. You will be lucky to get 20 MPG out of the Oddity.
The Sportsvan uses the shiny new super-efficient - and quite excellent - range of engines you'll find in the Golf Estate, but haven't yet found their way into the deflated Golf.
That lot comprises of four 1.4-litre turbocharged petrols, with 84bhp, 109bhp, 123bhp and 148bhp respectively. They're joined by three turbodiesels, a 2.0-litre 148bhp, a 1.6 with 89bhp and a 1.6 Bluemotion with 109bhp. VW reckons the latter wrings 76.3 miles out of the gallon, and emits just 95g/km of CO2. All of them but the poverty-spec petrol can be optioned with an optional DSG dual-clutch ‘box but will come as manuals as standard. They'll be variously available with the same trim grades of S, SE, GT and Bluemotion as the Golf.
@ruking1 said:
It has the best resale value of VW TDI's and almost all models have STELLAR resale values. So in that sense, VW is doing EVERYTHING WRONG.
Clearly!
This is about advertising new products in an attempt to break into new markets rather than crowding an already limited (niche) market (e.g., the VW example). In this regard, I agree that they failed in their efforts.
Indeed, many "gasser" drivers might respond similarly to the Audi ad because such a sight simply breaks their expectations. Vehicles at the "green pump" (diesel) should be large pickups, not a gorgeous new luxury sedan. The ad's effort is to drum up interest, saying "yeah, we're defying your expectations here - come take a look at this thing!" VW doesn't really have to do that, because they already have a loyal following in their niche market of diesel buyers. As they bring Audi into the fold, they're marketing to a (mostly) new group.
In the end, it is all about awareness. For most buyers, diesel isn't even on the radar. Any advertising done on the subject of diesel passenger cars is going raise awareness, but poorly done advertising could do more harm than good, not only for the product in question, but for the product line in a global sense.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
@xwesx said:
In the end, it is all about awareness. For most buyers, diesel isn't even on the radar. Any advertising done on the subject of diesel passenger cars is going raise awareness, but poorly done advertising could do more harm than good, not only for the product in question, but for the product line in a global sense.
Audi is kicking butt on sales. Setting new sales records every month. And diesel is a BIG part of those sales. Same for Porsche, though not sure how many diesel Cayennes they have sold. The ads are attention getters IMO.
June sales mix for Audi TDI models: Audi A6 TDI at 18.2% on 398 vehicles sold; Audi A7 TDI at 13% on 89 vehicles; A8 TDI at 17.9% on 105 vehicles; Audi Q5 TDI at 15.6% on 627 vehicles, and for the Audi Q7 TDI at 31.5% on 450 vehicles; with an overall mix of 14.9% on 1,692 total TDI sales for June.
I think the MB ads are probably better as they emphasize the high mileage of their E class diesels. If I am a VW executive and I have X number of diesel engines available they will go into the high priced cars from Audi and Porsche. You have to remember in the EU VW sells way over 50% diesel.
@xwesx said:
In the end, it is all about awareness. For most buyers, diesel isn't even on the radar. Any advertising done on the subject of diesel passenger cars is going raise awareness, but poorly done advertising could do more harm than good, not only for the product in question, but for the product line in a global sense.
Everyone should be so luck to do that much so WRONG to achieve those results !! In the case of the diesel JSW, you are looking through the wrong end of the binoculars. In the end VW is VERY aware of the sale of 85 to 91% JSW diesel models. To VW 85-91 % diesel is good. You do not make a case for what harm was done with that % of diesel sales, other than you do not like it or agree with it or perhaps you want to vilify VW's profit profile. Now I am sure you know what you mean/meant. But even if you apply your assertion in a wider sense, VW is adaptive to what each market will bear. So for example, VW's sales in EU is 50% +. In the US it is close to 25% over all.
Or perhaps you are more at comfort with the profit level of GM, Chrysler, with the need for the American taxpayer to help them through bankruptcies? I think MB was more than relieved to divorce or separate from Chrysler when they did.
@gagrice said:
I think the MB ads are probably better as they emphasize the high mileage of their E class diesels. If I am a VW executive and I have X number of diesel engines available they will go into the high priced cars from Audi and Porsche. You have to remember in the EU VW sells way over 50% diesel.
Indeed for the profit %'s Porsche, Audi, etc bring in for VW Corp, it would be hard to be disappointed ! I do not think VW Corp would be happy to beat Toyota's #1 (volume sales) slot, if they could not do the profit levels they currently post, which are higher per car in aggregate than Toyota's.
@ruking1 said:
Indeed for the profit %'s Porsche, Audi, etc bring in for VW Corp, it would be hard to be disappointed ! I do not think VW Corp would be happy to beat Toyota's #1 (volume sales) slot, if they could not do the profit levels they currently post, which are higher per car in aggregate than Toyota's.
I don't think Toyota is even close to VW on a per car profit. I also look at expansion plans of VW in the USA. They have said $7 billion over the next decade with $900 million now. GM gets all kinds of positive press for putting $37 million into expansion in Michigan. While GM is migrating more of their work to Mexico and elsewhere. For model year 2013 the Silverado number one selling GM vehicle was 67% US/Canada content and 29% Mexican. Model year 2014 (new) 40% US/Canada content and 51% Mexico. For 2015 they plan to have 52% of the content Mexican. So you tell me where our tax dollars are being used to expand?
Comments
The Health Effects Institute is funded 50% by the motor vehicle industry, (and also has corporate board members) so that makes any conspiracy theory highly suspect IMO.
In any event, the results of their study WILL affect public policy AND industry decisions, so it would be best to pay close attention to it when it arrives. This is a highly credible institute and what it says will be taken seriously.
Well lets put it this way, how credible can it be, when for the whole time I have been on the earth and the industry has been in existence that diesel has been the transportation mainstay: and some to all of the abominations (only of those that I posted, there are many more) have occurred during its watch? To wit, the life expectancy has gone WAY up during its implementation years also. Air, rail and powered ship traffic have probably grown exponentially. Those three modalities have little to NO emissions controls.
What it does do (or should do) is whatever policy continuance and/or change/s should be longitudinally (biblical generation, again) studied. MTBE was canned within a few short years of the wasteful implementation.
You're confusing correlation with causation. Life expectancy goes up in some areas for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the air; in other areas it is going down, with nothing to do with the quality of the air.
A counter argument to your point of view would be to view pictures of Los Angeles in the 1960s and pictures of it now. You will see a remarkable improvement---perhaps not all day every day, but in general.
In the same way, a misstep in the science of air quality control does not negate this science any more than a misstep by your auto mechanic renders all automotive knowledge useless.
Besides, resistance is useless. Emissions controls are not going to go away, and they are only going to get more and more strict. Our efforts, seeems to me, should be directed toward demanding that they be as effective as possible
One could make an argument about "diminishing returns for the amount of money spent" and that's not a bad argument--but it has to be backed up with bona fide data. Merely being distressed about something is not an argument that works for public policy.
Nor does the "follow the money" argument, because we find the oil and auto industries making historically unheard of amounts of money---emissions control doesn't seem to have hurt them at all.
If someone bet all their money on dirty tech and I bet all of mine on green tech, in 20 years I'd be rich and they'll be poor.
There is no confusion at all. So if you are saying that environmental conditions have NO effect on life expectancy; why in hell are we doing the emissions controls to begin with?
LEAD REMOVAL my friend, LEAD removal !! ?? I think was pretty clear on this. There is an interesting diesel TMI here, but I might be accused of excessive baiting.
The corollary for anti diesel to diesel haters is they can/will NOT acknowledge that ULSD is way cleaner than RUG/PUG. A clue is almost everyone ignores the actual numbers. Some to many of staunch environmental conservatives don't even know the numbers (30 to 90 ppm sulfur, let alone what that means)
One misstep doesn't an overwhelming pattern make !!!!!!! ????? VOODOO science rules!!!
Well we do agree that there is not bona fide supporting data !!!
But yes, follow the monies: through a WalMart trust subsidiary (this was like a basketball head fake) after they foisted the Solyndra (fantasy) debacle on the market, the WalMart family (through the trust) was able to get their original stake (and probably more) out, before Solyndra did their bankruptcy, leaving those who actually BELIEVED holding the proverbial and literal BAG.
Unless it is funded by hybrid supporters. The "motor vehicle industry" is a tad vague, and by "a tad", I mean "immensely". And where does the rest of the money come from? Any proof that they will accurately gauge modern diesels vs ancient stinkers?
Just like the credible people who whined about diesels when Paris got caught in a freaky weather pattern that induced smog, I am sure.
I am not sure why you didn't post the link. On the off chance this is correct, this one goes by the title you posted.
http://www.healtheffects.org/index.html
For the insomniacs viewing pleasure, a list of diesel papers.
http://pubs.healtheffects.org/topics.php?topic=14&showall=true
Real slow news day. However it is very telling how those very same environmental conservatives never talk about the very NATURAL pollution due to natural wild fires
http://pubs.healtheffects.org/topics.php?topic=14&showall=true
Indeed it is NATURAL for CA state to be literally swept by uncontrollable wild fires app every 5 years.
This probably has nothing to do with diesels per se, but the 2012 FARS data has been posted to the site.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
There are
265.647 M cars
VMT is @ 2969 B miles
211.815 M registered drivers
So just simple math: (if I did it correctly)
the average miles driven per year, per car is app 11,177 miles,
per driver is 14,017 miles
Obviously, I'm not doing my part here. Less than 10k a year, I'm letting down the team!
Don't worry; I'm covering your share. Have had my Elantra almost 9 months now and am at 14,500 miles.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
I have read in passing in other articles (not related to the NHSTA data), that as cars get "older", there is a trend to using the "newer" ones, aka there are more cars than drivers. This might be one reason why there are mileage differences (average) between cars (less) and drivers (more).
As a CA back drop to these national data, CA, last I read had app 24 M in its PVF. So IF 2.5 % diesels is/are true AND, IF normal distribution is applicable @ most 600,000 diesel cars.. CA state would know for sure. They do not seem to make public the data.
Meanwhile, the new HPFP is functioning just fine. The car seems to run as before the HPRP issue. There does not seem to be any change to the mpg, sans the fuel the dealer dumped or drained off in trying to make sure the system did not have shrapnel.
Do you really think anyone has the time to "hate" diesel engines?
I suspect it's much more about indifference to them, at least as regards the average American can buyer.
To sell something you have to present it as useful or attractive, and for the most part automakers have simply failed to do with with diesel cars. With trucks, they've done a much better job, because the diesel truck is a vast improvement over its gasoline counterpart in both pulling power and MPG.
People don't care how "clean" a diesel car is. If they were regulated out of existence I rather doubt there would be rioting in the streets. I doubt 99% of Americans would even notice that they were gone.
People only want to know if there is any particular, tangible, measurable value in buying one.
So far, automakers have yet to come up with good answers that are easy to digest. In other words, the marketing stinks.
All this reminds me of theories about why electric cars never dominated the American car market. People blamed the government, or General Motors, for "killing" the electric car.
The actual answer was much simpler. No one had yet built a Tesla, which demonstrated the ability to compete with, and in fact in some areas, better the gasoline car (except, alas, in cost).
If diesel cars are to prosper, they will have to beat the status quo in such an obvious fashion as to not require that the car buyer attend a lecture on the subject.
It's almost as if automakers aren't even TRYING to market their diesel cars in the USA.
HERE'S AN EXAMPLE of poor diesel car marketing:
Another beautiful stinker:
Better? Or is the message still lost?
Interesting stuff there, lots of pre-2000 material. Probably using 1978 240Ds, Oldsmobile diesels, and Italian spec diesel trucks in case studies.
It'd be interesting to examine the impacts of say a post-2009 diesel vs one 30+ years ago, and how many studies and papers would need to be adjusted for it.
I think California's ARB is shooting for an 85% reduction in particulate emissions by the year 2020. (compared to the year 2000). So in California at least, there's been a lot of progress, thanks in part to advanced diesel technology these last few years.
Indeed, one of the studies was on diesel SCHOOL BUSES !!!! Most to all have always been EXEMPTED (by LAW NO LESS) from diesel emissions controls that 02 and above diesel passenger cars are required to have. As IF this needs to be said diesel school buses are NOT diesel passenger cars. Now a FAIR A/B test would be against gasser SCHOOL BUSSES that again would be EXEMPTED by law from gasser emissions controls. jJust this FAIRNESS alone will GREATLY alter the results and defacto,, the conclusions.
That is certainly the case at my house. I have five vehicles with current registration. We put about 30,000 miles a year on our two newest cars (2010 and 2011 MYs) and about 500-1,000 on the other three combined. Just because we don't use the old rigs regularly doesn't mean it is time to part ways. Besides, they really like pasture life.
..."Do you really think anyone has the time to "hate" diesel engines?"....
So YES, LOADS of time, effort, rules regulations, monies, etc etc.
it is codified in the legislation, laws, rules, and regulations !! So if it were not a reasonable representation (of the realities) then what is the big deal !! ?? ...... There are LOBBIES AGAINST diesel passenger cars ! The 95% of the PVF being gassers with app 9% PUG is more than ample testimony. The less than 2.5% diesel passenger cars.... another.
So to me, I really have no "skin in the game" to having the US (PVF) passenger vehicle fleet going to app 50% + being diesel like say the EU. It would also seem by many of those very same oem's, (whom you say are doing a poor job) they do not want anything close to that EITHER !!!! The government has already clued them in !! What about HELL NO ! do you think they do not get??? As they say in a movie, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE !!!
So to put some realities to it, 265.467 M vehicles with 95% gassers are app 252.19365 M. This would put 2.5% diesel cars @ app 6.6367 M.
So IF you are saying the oems are doing a poor job at "religious conversion",
("crush mine enemies and hear the lamentations of their women:") ah not my words but a HOLLYWOOD script writer's given voice by an actor, ARNOLD.
aka diesels @ 132.7335 M., then you are both right AND wrong. Right because they are nowhere close. Wrong, because they are not even doing THAT job. !!! They seem to have challenges selling what's (gassers AND diesel AND hybrids and plug ins) in stock with 95% PLUS being GASSERS !!! So this is NOT unique to diesels, that most do not make. The ones that do, make very few.
So for example, if the majority of folks want to buy a gasser ( MB GLK 350) that gets 20 mpg vs a diesel (MB GLK 250 B/T) that gets say 31.2 mpg). I say that is fine with me !! Actually it always has been. Just don't make it unduly hard for someone that wants to get the diesel, which at times includes holding the diesels to higher standards, like they STILL do now.
Better, for sure. In the first one, Dan was right on: The message was lost. What's more, though, is that it also served to dissuade the viewer from the product by presenting the car's driver as alienated. The second one.... wait, that was for a diesel? Oops.
Highly credible sources can be found out to be bald face liars. Sadly the Media is afraid to take on the Eco Nuts that run CARB.
In the Nov. 4, 2008, letter, state Secretary for Environmental Protection Linda S. Adams responded to S. Stanley Young of the National Institute of Statistical Sciences, based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Young had questioned the expertise of the authors of an air board report on the purportedly extreme health risks posed by tiny airborne pollutants contained in diesel emissions. Adams wrote that Young was off-base:
“Regarding the professional background of the authors, the lead author and project coordinator, Hien Tran, holds a doctorate degree in statistics at the University of California at Davis …”
Except he didn’t, as I established seven weeks later. (I had been contacted by UCLA epidemiologist James L. Enstrom, who worked with Young in questioning Tran’s credentials.) But for months, no California newspaper, except the editorial page of my newspaper, the U-T San Diego, covered this undeniable scandal. This greenout occurred even though Rough & Tumble had my blog item on Tran’s deception as its lead story for several hours on Dec. 23, 2008.
http://calwatchdog.com/2012/11/05/carb-scandal-also-shames-california-media/
http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Researcher-s-lie-could-threaten-diesel-rules-3278896.php
So this phony CARB employee lied to get his job. Did poor research that set back diesel cars in the USA for several years. And he gets a 2 month suspension and a lower pay job at $87k per year.
http://killcarb.org/Tran.Fax-Apr-24-2009-09-47-51-16351.pdf
This is a "head scratcher" for the US market VW Jetta Station Wagon. I have read in passing that 85 to 91 percent SOLD are TDI's. I can't even say I have seen two commercials on the VW JSW TDI in 12 MY's. It has the least discounts new. It can sell for MSRP and above. It is hard to get. It is popular. It has the best resale value of VW TDI's and almost all models have STELLAR resale values. So in that sense, VW is doing EVERYTHING WRONG.
YUP ! VOODOO and witch hunting sciences ARE the rule of the day !!
It's not illegal to buy a diesel car.
During 2008/2009 (aka CRASH, total US yearly) sales were 10.5 M units. It was a VERY BAD year. So if you want to call it a "marketing issue", what can I say !? EVERYONE was free to buy 10 M gassers more then also. 20 M would have been a BANNER/record STELLAR year !!!
Indeed the IRS offered a $1500. tax CREDIT for the 2009 Jetta TDI, which adjusted for everything else, cost a smidgin more than my 2003 Jetta TDI. So when are we going to have ANOTHER marketing problem?
Seems the HPFP (high pressure fuel pump) change on the 09 VW TDI Jetta didn't cause any changes to the mpg. (commute, a Yeomans' like = 41.14)
Maybe they carry low profit margins? As the makers market the hell out of high margin trucks and SUVs. They are also more mechanically durable, which isn't really part of their business model either.
Regarding rioting in the streets, is there anything that could make Americans do that? Anything? We're now deep in the mire of 30-40 years of socio-economic malfeasance caused by a deranged public-private sector hybrid, and nary a riot.
What if, playing devil's advocate here, there aren't "good answers" or "obvious" reasons for diesel over gas?
I think one of the most popular diesel cars in America right now is the Passat TDI.
I personally don't see a big tangible advantage in economic terms of the Passat TDI over an Accord. The EPA mpg comparison gives the Passat a combined mpg of 34, compared to the Accord's 30. But since diesel costs more even driving 15,000 miles a year guess what the savings are annually driving the Passat TDI?
$100 a year.
I didn't leave off a zero. You save a hundred bucks. If you get the Nissan Altima that gets 31, you save 50 bucks. The Mazda6 with ELOOP technology has the exact same annual gas cost. You save zero.
I'm a Honda guy, so let's go with that one. Compared to the Accord LX, which seems to have more or less comparable stuff, the Passat TDI costs about 4k more. 40 year payback time?
OK. Maybe If I move up the Accord EX, which costs $3000 more, it makes more sense. But the EX has a sunroof, pushbutton start, etc. So then we'd compare that to the Passat TDI SE with sunroof, which still costs $3000 more than my Accord.
And the Passat TDI seems to be about a second slower to 60 compared to my Accord CVT according to Car and Driver. If I got the Accord with a manual I'd beat it by 2 seconds.
I don't hate diesels, but I'm just not seeing the case that's supposed to be made here....
?
The product has to stand up for itself and speak for itself.
Automakers can't merely beat the consumer over the head and demand they buy diesels.
How did Apple get people to pay more for a MAC? Well, let's talk about that:
Design, for one.
Efficiency of operation
The Appeal of an Alternative Universe (not to be discounted as a powerful draw)
Clubs, blogs, great PR, good ads, charisma at the top
Less troublesome (allegedly....hmm.....).
As for "clean diesel", that's a tough concept to get across. You might get people to accept "as clean as" but not "cleaner than" I don't think.
Were I in charge of diesel marketing, I'd stress durability, range of operation, power output and economy and ease off on the environmental angle.
There's a LONG way to go in better marketing. Vast improvements are possible here.
And a bunch of rabid fans.
So, there's still hope for diesels.
I don't see how you could have driven a Passat and still drive an Accord. I rented a 2010 Accord for two weeks. It was a HORRIBLE POC. It was brand new with less than 10k miles. Rough riding noisy. Not in a league with a Passat. That was the only full size the rental agency had at the small airport I flew into. I think if you ever drive a Passat TDI you will want to dump gasoline on your Accord and burn it.
You are a funny guy. As long as we don't shut off the cable TV, or stop the flow of RC Cola and Moon Pies the dregs will not riot. I know you are not going to as you are moving up the ladder of success. Rocky might as he can not seem to find a job and he is somewhat motivated.
I think from my last visit to the VW dealership, they are not interested in selling at a loss to keep their UAW workforce happy. Lucky for them they do not have any UAW to deal with. GM/C/F should be so lucky. The salesmen are there at VW if you have a question. They are not acting like they are starving. I had a nice visit with my salesman, who is now a finance manager. We talked about the deal I got on my Touareg last year. He remembered in my after market survey I had said I did not expect them to cover the tax and license with the Zero Dn Zero financing. I guess his boss chewed him out for that. We had a good laugh and he said that deal would not happen again. I just smiled.
gagrice has the kind of diesel marketing we're talking about!++ Since you didn't address the $, I assume there aren't effective counterarguments there. Shiftright's silence on the topic so far also seems eloquent.
It might not be about better marketing. It might be the money. It seems as if there isn't a compelling case on that score for comparable vehicles.
Speaking of that, I'd take a Honda over a VW any day. But it's true that the last generation of Accord was noisy.
The new Accord starting in MY 2013 is much quieter. And it's outselling the Passat by about 4-1. VW built a whole plant in TN for this car, capable of building 170,000 a year for the US market, but they are having trouble selling 100,000 a year at this point. Something has gone wrong there, and it's not just marketing....
The most successful Passat at this point is probably the TDI, but it's a niche product. And over at driveaccord.net the owner of a 2013 Passat TDI traded his in on a 2014 Accord after the turbo on his diesel melted down. It took two weeks for VW to fix it. If that's happening often, and he says it is, that's going to be sending ripples of warning through the market.
I have never put much emphasis on the money factor as most of the time you get what you are willing to pay for. Do people buying a Mercedes want to get a good deal? You can bet on that. Trying to compare all factors and decide which vehicle I want, then get the best price on that vehicle. When I bought the Touareg TDI, I was also looking at the GLK250 BT and the ML350 Bluetec. I had already eliminated the BMW X5 for being too rough riding and Jeep just did not seem to be able to get their nice diesel SUV to market. I eliminated the GLKBT on size even though it is a fun SUV to drive. I like the ML350 to drive and would probably be happy with it. Finding the Mercedes ML equipped as I wanted it was near impossible. I felt the Touareg handled a little better and the seats were more comfortable for both my wife and me. After several test drives The Touareg won out. So I set out to find exactly the one I wanted and the price I was willing to pay.
On why the US built Passat is not selling great, I have some theories. 1. They did not anticipate the demand for the TDI and have problems getting enough of that drive train. 2. They don't have near the dealer network of the other brands. 3. Old buying habits are hard to overcome. People that have bought Honda, Toyota etc and are happy with their brand are not going to change without a good reason. 4. VW does have their past to overcome. And that may be the main reason for slow VW sales.
I love everything about our VW, and would not consider a gas vehicle after 15,000 miles driving a diesel. Diesel could be double the price of RUG/PUG and I would consider myself ahead of the game. When you can drive 650 miles in a day without worrying about filling the tank AND not be tired of driving you have hit the sweet spot in road vehicle. My back would hurt after 350 miles in the Lexus LS400 driving to Las Vegas.
DId VW ever offer a diesel Vanagon. I thought you all might get a kick out of these series of Vanagon ads done in South Africa. I think the Vanagon is now gone but not forgotten.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLr0bC8-RHSMXHpq-W9yB3dYrHP_qJOKoC&v=976h-CQ-WPM&app=desktop
Not to single you out, but your post really drives home my case on the host of different points and variables.
First point, self professed Honda person. Honda does not make USA diesels, game/set/match over.
(diesels they do make in the EU and world markets are not doing well, nor are they as good as German, italian and French diesels)
Even if they did make diesels, I think they would have little interest in canabalizing their gasser sales, epecially from the faithful. In other words, why bring on a self inflicted problem. They have and are already taking hits with natural gas, They have never really hit stride with gasser hybrids and did an on again off again scenario with the 04 TDI, mark to market Honda diesel product. (to name a few)
If this is difficult to put in context, then I understand the confusion. I currently have a 04 Honda and Honda's in the past. The 04 Honda is not in the same league as the 03 Jetta TDI.
So you drop $100. difference between diesel and gasser savings and you think you are correct, because of no push back? Even after more than one posting about the comparison? I would say you did't do the math (which is fine and as a Honda FAN, not interested anyway) or have K through 12 math issues in the past, continuing into the future. Or are just fine paying more for fuel (per mile driven).
My 04 Honda gets (an outlier, most get far less) 38 to 42 mpg (commute). The 03 Jetta TDI gets 48 to 52 in the same scenario. So we do 18,000 miles per year, /39/50 mpg or 462 gals, 360 gals. @ $3.95/$4.05 that is $1,825-$1,458 or $367.
SIDEBAR: 04 Honda Civic @ similar miles, the (my) Civic is costing far more per mile driven than the 03 Jetta TDI; both on scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.
I will let you do the 100,000 to 150,000 miles calculation. Whatever numbers those might be, I am ok with folks paying more, even as they THINK they pay LESS.
You can do the 14 to 16 mpg gasser vs the 31 to 35 mpg TDI for the Toyota Landcruiser vs VW Touareg TDI. So for example, IF I am solely a Toyota FAN, game/set match- OVER.
We have 250,000 miles on a (gasser) 94 TLC @ 14 to 16 mpg, Don't I wish (21 years ago now) a 31 to 35 mpg diesel was being sold ! ? You betcha ! The fuel SAVINGS alone @ today's prices would have almost fully paid for an MB 250 B/T !!!
Strictly from that point of view ( profit per car) , VW is more profitable than ANY of its "big girl/boy" competitors: GM, Toyota, Chrysler, etc. Percentage wise it is ALSO more profitable. Toyota certainly is in first place with the most VOLUME both in $$'s and UNITS in car SALES.
VW also has an interesting US market footing @ 2.4 to 2.6 %, (not big) for the #2 world wide automaker.
(Toyota is currently # 1 but is not anywhere close to being as profitable as VW (per car )
So for example, it is not a stretch to say that VW does not want to increase its market share @ the expense of profitability (per car). Indeed, its market share went from 2.6 to 2.4 %. So, perhaps on the down side, the opposite can be said to be true.
(from what I can see, so this might have NOTHING to do with VW or its plans)
From what I have read VW recognizes the markets require them to change more/quicker, be more "APPLE" like.
SIDEBAR: They have already made a MAJOR shift (opaque to most "appliance" car consumers having gone to the PLATFORM concept. They have also been on a 7 year (between generational iterations) "CONSTANT IMPROVEMENT" cycle. They have recently announced a new "5 year" cycle (again between generational iterations) .
Now this is pure conjecture, but I am sure it is brought to the financial arena as a minimum of same profit per car, to even MORE profit per car AND most importantly, to sell MORE CARS (both percentage and units more and @ higher profit) . (as capital intense as car manufacturing is, it does not make more sense to invest even MORE money for LESS profit)
However, the next 5 years of per car profits should really tell the tale to folks interested in TMI.
Actually over 320,000 miles of diesel (re) fueling, this has happened to me more than once !!
I have never responded "I know". Normally, I thank them for the concern and tell them I am fueling a diesel.
Sometimes the conversation gets into: how do you like it or what's your mpg? I used to answer with the truth, but folks just look at you like you are lying, so I just say: ah, could be better.
So I am guessing for the greater (non diesel) audience this advertisement is a bit like preaching to the choir. AKA, I don't get it?? The two (diesel ) refuelers are EXTREME outliers.
I think what the Accord vs Passat TDI comparison is missing is one simple factor. The TDI will get it's mileage while providing kick in the pants acceleration. With the Accord, if you accelerate to the maximum (so as to match that boost of the TDI), you will not get the max MPG you are using to compare. The diesel gets its torque so low in the RPM range that it can still get good mileage while really accelerating. The DSG transmission keeps it in the good range as well. I've not seen mine go over 2500 RPM, and even that is rare.
Honda doesn't seem to have a handle on EVs either.
"Cheap" gas in northern PA - $3.33 for regular. I paid $3.49 at a Sheetz and messed up.
Diesel was $3.99 there.
Just fueled (perhaps too early) @ 4.03 ULSD. RUG/PUG are @ 3.95/4.15.
The GLK 250 B/T posted 38 mpg over 487 miles for 12.8/15.6 gals. I could have gone another 106 miles.
Honda is doing something right, they are selling a lot of cars and making a lot of money.
Volkswagen is also doing something right, they are selling fewer cars but making more money per car.
Having driven both, and owning a Passat for several years, my choice would be based on how long I planned to keep it, and how many miles I planned to drive. The truth is, I don't drive more than about 9k miles per year, total. Based on that, fuel mileage is not a major concern, so the biggest factor for me would be "How long will I keep it?" If I were looking to keep for many years, I would go with the Honda. Two or three years, get rid of before the warranty runs out? Probably Passat.
But in either case, I probably would not pay a premium for diesel -- I just don't drive enough to justify it.
I have seen VW diesel Vanagon conversions here in the US, using Jetta or Passat TDI engines. It probably is a very expensive modification but it must transform a crawling brick into a decent highway vehicle with excellent range.
Evidently most of the oem's that have dared to venture into diesel markets, still believe (operate on the notion) most folks who will buy diesels still will pay the so called "premium".
This MIGHT be changing. As posted earlier, MB for the (diesel) 250 B/T is priced MINUS- $500 UNDER MSRP, the GLK 350. (gasser) So even @ that, there seems to be no shortage of GLK 350 buyers.
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/mercedes-benz-glk-class-sales-figures.html
But then on the other hand, the data suggests the percentage of 250 B/T's is kept pretty close to the vest, as the data is lumped under the broader category of GLK. So for example 32,553 GLK united were sold in 2013.
The real kicker would be the transmission and now new GEARING configurations. This is just my .02 cents, but if one is going to want more power (also) an outfitted heavy duty 6 speed manual makes all the sense in the world. The new gearing would be of course for both the new power and weight.
I think that is an EXCELLENT opportunity for VW to sneak in a platform (minivan) with a much better configuration list than say Sienna, Odyssey, et al, (I do not keep up with that segment) . With jobs being both in short supply and getting laid off quickly a distinct possibility, one can be homeless and quickly, in much better style with a camper , not that I wish it on anybody !!!
Now my minivan perspective might be outlier, (also when it comes to diesels) as my friends have the camper Vanagon (sleeps 4) . When I had the opportunity to live and work in Europe, a " Vanagon" camper was in my buy sights !! But then again, that was 38 to 42 years ago.
I am sure VW has much BIGGER fish to fry, than to introduce yet another niche market product.
VW offers several vans in the rest of the world. What are the chances of any arriving here???? We are 3rd World cheapskate buyers in the eyes of the Germans. Why would we want a van that gets a US 63 MPG? When we can get a behemoth Accord van that looks like a Hearse for less money. You will be lucky to get 20 MPG out of the Oddity.
The Sportsvan uses the shiny new super-efficient - and quite excellent - range of engines you'll find in the Golf Estate, but haven't yet found their way into the deflated Golf.
That lot comprises of four 1.4-litre turbocharged petrols, with 84bhp, 109bhp, 123bhp and 148bhp respectively. They're joined by three turbodiesels, a 2.0-litre 148bhp, a 1.6 with 89bhp and a 1.6 Bluemotion with 109bhp. VW reckons the latter wrings 76.3 miles out of the gallon, and emits just 95g/km of CO2. All of them but the poverty-spec petrol can be optioned with an optional DSG dual-clutch ‘box but will come as manuals as standard. They'll be variously available with the same trim grades of S, SE, GT and Bluemotion as the Golf.
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/First-drive-VW-Golf-Sportsvan-2014-05-14
Clearly!
This is about advertising new products in an attempt to break into new markets rather than crowding an already limited (niche) market (e.g., the VW example). In this regard, I agree that they failed in their efforts.
Indeed, many "gasser" drivers might respond similarly to the Audi ad because such a sight simply breaks their expectations. Vehicles at the "green pump" (diesel) should be large pickups, not a gorgeous new luxury sedan. The ad's effort is to drum up interest, saying "yeah, we're defying your expectations here - come take a look at this thing!" VW doesn't really have to do that, because they already have a loyal following in their niche market of diesel buyers. As they bring Audi into the fold, they're marketing to a (mostly) new group.
In the end, it is all about awareness. For most buyers, diesel isn't even on the radar. Any advertising done on the subject of diesel passenger cars is going raise awareness, but poorly done advertising could do more harm than good, not only for the product in question, but for the product line in a global sense.
Audi is kicking butt on sales. Setting new sales records every month. And diesel is a BIG part of those sales. Same for Porsche, though not sure how many diesel Cayennes they have sold. The ads are attention getters IMO.
June sales mix for Audi TDI models: Audi A6 TDI at 18.2% on 398 vehicles sold; Audi A7 TDI at 13% on 89 vehicles; A8 TDI at 17.9% on 105 vehicles; Audi Q5 TDI at 15.6% on 627 vehicles, and for the Audi Q7 TDI at 31.5% on 450 vehicles; with an overall mix of 14.9% on 1,692 total TDI sales for June.
I think the MB ads are probably better as they emphasize the high mileage of their E class diesels. If I am a VW executive and I have X number of diesel engines available they will go into the high priced cars from Audi and Porsche. You have to remember in the EU VW sells way over 50% diesel.
Everyone should be so luck to do that much so WRONG to achieve those results !! In the case of the diesel JSW, you are looking through the wrong end of the binoculars. In the end VW is VERY aware of the sale of 85 to 91% JSW diesel models. To VW 85-91 % diesel is good. You do not make a case for what harm was done with that % of diesel sales, other than you do not like it or agree with it or perhaps you want to vilify VW's profit profile. Now I am sure you know what you mean/meant. But even if you apply your assertion in a wider sense, VW is adaptive to what each market will bear. So for example, VW's sales in EU is 50% +. In the US it is close to 25% over all.
Or perhaps you are more at comfort with the profit level of GM, Chrysler, with the need for the American taxpayer to help them through bankruptcies? I think MB was more than relieved to divorce or separate from Chrysler when they did.
Indeed for the profit %'s Porsche, Audi, etc bring in for VW Corp, it would be hard to be disappointed ! I do not think VW Corp would be happy to beat Toyota's #1 (volume sales) slot, if they could not do the profit levels they currently post, which are higher per car in aggregate than Toyota's.
I don't think Toyota is even close to VW on a per car profit. I also look at expansion plans of VW in the USA. They have said $7 billion over the next decade with $900 million now. GM gets all kinds of positive press for putting $37 million into expansion in Michigan. While GM is migrating more of their work to Mexico and elsewhere. For model year 2013 the Silverado number one selling GM vehicle was 67% US/Canada content and 29% Mexican. Model year 2014 (new) 40% US/Canada content and 51% Mexico. For 2015 they plan to have 52% of the content Mexican. So you tell me where our tax dollars are being used to expand?