Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options

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

1271272274276277473

Comments

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2014
    @ruking1, I really need to go test drive one, like a four door Golf.

    Good reminder about profits vs. "sales numbers".

    The last stinkpot gasser I've seen was a few months ago on the Smokies trip (appropriate, eh?)

    If I got out of the house more, I could see one or more oil burners here every day. All trucks, granted.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    I saw a stinkpot gasser just the other day, a first gen BMW X5 4.4i smoking so much at idle, it would make my fintail blush. I also noticed a smelly diesel yesterday - an F250 likely free from any real emissions controls, in order to be "business friendly" or some such nonsense.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    Stink pot (PVF) GASSERS are much more prevalent than (PVF) diesels. Indeed in CA metro areas the authorities say 5% of the PVF ( gasser) are to blame for the majority of the excess pollution. The footnote is "commercial" vehicles (RUG/PUG/ULSD) are HIGHLY regulated by law

    So assuming 24 M CA registered vehicles, that is app 1.14 M gassers (95% x 5% ) and 60,000 diesels (5% x 5% they do not cite PVF diesels as problematic) POTENTIAL scofflaws. This would mean the potential and probably actual gasser scofflaws are closer to 19 TIMES (1900% +) more prevalent with diesels scofflaws being .0025%. Needless to say this is HUGE HUGE HUGE.

    We also know that RUG/PUG has FAR more pollutive potential, aka 30 to 90 ppm sulfur vs 15 ppm D2 but nominally delivered @ 5 to 10 ppm sulfur. So additionally and practically, RUG/PUG delivers 2 times to 18 TIMES more pollution on emissions controlled vehicles ALREADY !!!

    We all know who gets the blame.
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    a 450 hp volvo diesel with electric-driven turbo might be what it takes to get me into a diesel. (except for the part where there is no way it would ever be available with a stickshift.)

    http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/10/07/volvo-reveals-450-hp-four-cylinder-with-electrically-driven-turbo/?intcmp=features
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    elias said:

    a 450 hp volvo diesel with electric-driven turbo might be what it takes to get me into a diesel. (except for the part where there is no way it would ever be available with a stickshift.)

    http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/10/07/volvo-reveals-450-hp-four-cylinder-with-electrically-driven-turbo/?intcmp=features

    My take in terms of some of the parameters you mentioned for the US markets

    1. stick shift
    2. $$$'s
    3. the fact NEITHER gas (aka TRIPLE turbo) nor (article hints @ 1 turbo diesel will probably be offered in US markets

    is it is a "Waiting For Godot " proposition. (the article indicate a GASSER, aka 450 hp PETROL, triple turbo, 4 cylinder engine ) AND (less than 3 , most 2) turbo diesel ????

    (..."Volvo has revealed a similar concept based on a gasoline engine." (sic, AUDI electric turbo with exhaust gas turbo, that HAPPENS to be on a diesel),
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2014
    ruking1 said:

    Stink pot (PVF) GASSERS are much more prevalent than (PVF) diesels. Indeed in CA metro areas the authorities say 5% of the PVF ( gasser) are to blame for the majority of the excess pollution.

    Is there a link for this?

    "And even with the tougher European rules, diesel vehicles will remain far more polluting than petrol." (dailymail.co.uk) The California study is just a couple of years old. (LA Times)

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    stever said:

    ruking1 said:

    Stink pot (PVF) GASSERS are much more prevalent than (PVF) diesels. Indeed in CA metro areas the authorities say 5% of the PVF ( gasser) are to blame for the majority of the excess pollution.

    Is there a link for this?

    "And even with the tougher European rules, diesel vehicles will remain far more polluting than petrol." (dailymail.co.uk) The California study is just a couple of years old. (LA Times)

    You can be sure FAIRY TALES starts off like this, "Many years ago"...

    Next is coulda? woulda? shoulda?

    "This week, Professor Frank Kelly, chairman of the Department of Health's committee on air pollution, said diesel engines could be responsible for more than 7,000 deaths a year because of the pollutants they emit."

    Let's assume that coulda, woulda,shoulda be true.

    Do you think it is a coincidence the article/s leaves out the SAME "could be responsible for" X,XXX deaths a year due to RUG/PUG, and ethanol ? Would the article have you believe those numbers are ZERO, ZERO and ZERO ??? Needless to say "coincidently" they leave off the pollution potential of RUG/PUG vs D2 of 30 to 90 ppm sulfur vs 15 ppm nominally delivered @ 5 to 10 ppm. Oh and coincidently the article leaves off the ZERO ppm sulfur of BIODIESEL.

    Each article also leaves out the sea ports and air ports, construction equipment and trains of which these type vehicles have NO/NADA ZIP emissions controls !!! So for example sea ships use BUNKER oil up to 50,000 ppm sulfur !!!! So given a 5 to 10 ppm that my PVF diesels emit that is 10,000 TIMES 5,000 times GREATER. This is not to mention the exponentially MORE fuel used in comparison. So of course that has also nothing to do with: ..." deaths a year because of the pollutants they emit." ...

    So IF we use CA's 24 M PVF. They are saying 95% or 22.8 M RUG/PUG causes ZERO deaths and 5% diesels 1.2 M causes ALL the deaths !!! ???
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    And David Derbyshire, the sensationalist opinion piece writer, doesn't link what types of vehicles he finds responsible - modern passenger cars, or aging and poorly maintained commercials, trains, etc. I think he was just unhappy about the car he bought years ago.

    Very telling comment on that piece - it's a ploy to justify a tax hike now that diesels are mainstream in Britainistan and on the continent.
    stever said:



    Is there a link for this?

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    fintail said:

    And David Derbyshire, the sensationalist opinion piece writer, doesn't link what types of vehicles he finds responsible - modern passenger cars, or aging and poorly maintained commercials, trains, etc. I think he was just unhappy about the car he bought years ago.

    Very telling comment on that piece - it's a ploy to justify a tax hike now that diesels are mainstream in Britainistan and on the continent.

    stever said:



    Is there a link for this?


    And to think, the last I check the price of RUG/PUG, ULSD ($7.80 per gal) and a barrel of oil are CRASHING !!!

    http://www.petrolprices.com/the-price-of-fuel.html
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    fintail said:

    And David Derbyshire, the sensationalist opinion piece writer, doesn't link what types of vehicles he finds responsible

    At least I have links - the LA Times one for example, if you don't like "opinions".

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    A link to another piece that mentions nothing vehicle type - which is a key here. An elephant in the room the eco-weenie crowd doesn't seem to want to confront. Sure, commercial vehicles that are perpetually held to little or no accountability, and ancient diesel cars that are a dwindling percentage of the overall fleet, pollute. Breaking news.

    And their gasoline engined counterparts pollute too.
    stever said:



    At least I have links - the LA Times one for example, if you don't like "opinions".

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2014
    I'm still wondering how "Stink pot (PVF) GASSERS are much more prevalent than (PVF) diesels".

    (Here's the original argument for clean diesels being better for the climate btw, from Scientific America).
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    stever said:

    I'm still wondering how "Stink pot (PVF) GASSERS are much more prevalent than (PVF) diesels".

    (Here's the original argument for clean diesels being better for the climate btw, from Scientific America).

    What about the math I posted do you still have questions about? The assumption of course is that the diesels have LIKE degradation (5%= 5%) , unless you can point to a study that gassers or diesels are more or less or vice versa. The 5% of gross pollution issue/s is from local government agencies that are supposedly in the know.They didn't even mention or document the diesel effects. That is DESPITE the old diesels having the long time BAD reputation. One can even take that to mean that the diesel (gross pollution) issue is not even measurable.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2014
    It was Tidester that did the math. Surprisingly perhaps, I only saw one oil burning rig today (and I could see Mexico from my van). But stinkpot gassers being more prevalent than diesels? Hm.

    Here's a fun chart - it defaults to Jettas, diesel, gas and hybrid. You can use it to compare tailpipe and upstream greenhouse gases. (fueleconomy.gov)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I can NOT speak to Tidester's math.

    http://wallstcheatsheet.com/automobiles/12-best-cars-when-fuel-economy-is-a-top-priority.html/

    "12 Best Cars When Fuel Economy Is A Top Priority"
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    edited October 2014
    I suspect as a percentage of their respective fleet (diesel vs gasoline) there are indeed a higher percentage of diesel stinkers than gas - simply because there are so many modern low emission gasoline passenger vehicles, and not nearly as many similar diesels. Add a large fleet of older diesel trucks and commercials with a long service life even if given threadbare maintenance, and proportionally, diesels will be stinker. For every Bluetec or VW TDi or Cruze, there are 100 smoky 1989 box trucks or 1994 large pickups to cancel it out numerous times over.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2014
    @ruking1, suffice it to say Tidester's math was way over my head. :) Nice mpg numbers, but we were harping on pollution.

    @fintail, my guess is that just looking at "passenger" rigs (F-450s and under), it's sheer numbers, not just percentages. Kind of like most F-250 Cummins carry way more passengers per mile than "stuff" in the bed.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    stever said:

    It was Tidester that did the math. Surprisingly perhaps, I only saw one oil burning rig today (and I could see Mexico from my van). But stinkpot gassers being more prevalent than diesels? Hm.

    Here's a fun chart - it defaults to Jettas, diesel, gas and hybrid. You can use it to compare tailpipe and upstream greenhouse gases. (fueleconomy.gov)


    For the hybrids' $10k to 2 k more, I still prefer the TDI. The gasser seems to be app the same. Kudo's should go to VW for offering LIKE model Jetta's.

    Sole in terms of MPG a diesel Pius hybrid would probably trump a gasser hybrid.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    ruking1 said:

    stever said:

    I'm still wondering how "Stink pot (PVF) GASSERS are much more prevalent than (PVF) diesels".

    (Here's the original argument for clean diesels being better for the climate btw, from Scientific America).

    What about the math I posted do you still have questions about? The assumption of course is that the diesels have LIKE degradation (5%= 5%) , unless you can point to a study that gassers or diesels are more or less or vice versa. The 5% of gross pollution issue/s is from local government agencies that are supposedly in the know.They didn't even mention or document the diesel effects. That is DESPITE the old diesels having the long time BAD reputation. One can even take that to mean that the diesel (gross pollution) issue is not even measurable.
    The other piece of information the governmental agency's could have EASILY ADDED (IF diesel pollution was an issue, defacto, it is immeasurable) to those PSM public service messages would be also report diesel TRUCK smokers!! They DIDN'T, they DON'T !! A smoking (diesel or otherwise) truck is SIMPLE to spot!! Another is that diesel trucks are required to stop at those roadside government stations and SAFETY items are ROUTINELY checked. (Stations house Highway Patrol vehicles.) So the issue is straw man in nature.

    While it is good to see CRASHING oil prices, ( AKA GLUT, talking fi channel heads predict LOW 80's from todays 85 to 90 BOE), @ the pump prices of RUG/PUG /ethanol/ULSD does not seem to be following suit. Let's cheer for SUB $3.00 ULSD !!! B)

    Saudi Arabia is so freaked out, they are discounting the price of a BOE so they can maintain their volumes, even when there is HUGE GLUT !!!!! B):D
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    edited October 2014
    yes ruking1 - there is no real hope in USA for a diesel of my ilk, much as I did enjoy 4 diesel VWs in previous years. nonetheless yesterday i was freakishly thrilled to see on the local highway a new dodge ram 1500 diesel pickup with temp/paper tags on it.

    A diesel thing that thrills me more are the good-ole-boys with monster diesel dual stacks emitting clouds of smoke worthy of a locomotive. My 05 GTO always inspires these guys to stomp on their loud-pedals on the highway - usually I give them the thumbs-up, but for the last one i opened the window and gave him a solid/power double upwards fist-pump. USA! USA! (Australia too.)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    elias said:

    yes ruking1 - there is no real hope in USA for a diesel of my ilk, much as I did enjoy 4 diesel VWs in previous years. nonetheless yesterday i was freakishly thrilled to see on the local highway a new dodge ram 1500 diesel pickup with temp/paper tags on it.

    A diesel thing that thrills me more are the good-ole-boys with monster diesel dual stacks emitting clouds of smoke worthy of a locomotive. My 05 GTO always inspires these guys to stomp on their loud-pedals on the highway - usually I give them the thumbs-up, but for the last one i opened the window and gave him a solid/power double upwards fist-pump. USA! USA! (Australia too.)


    I actually would love a (higher # ft of torque) diesel with a VERY robust 7 speed M/T by someone like Tremec. As you and I both, and most know, 7 speed ROBUST M/T's are not destined for our shores. EVEN if they were, they would be outlier and tricky @ best.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Only one stinkpot yesterday.

    A worn out Dodge Caravan. B)

    Mostly white smoke on this one.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    stever said:

    Only one stinkpot yesterday.

    A worn out Dodge Caravan. B)

    Mostly white smoke on this one.

    It would beg the question, how did it "PASSED" the SMOG tests ???????

    In CA, (which I realize is only one of 59 states, or so PO sez) this smoker would fail and not be long for the roads.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2014
    It wouldn't pass the test...if we had one.

    That said, half my life I lived in valleys where the smog would build up (and both places had emission testing). It's been kind of nice not having to think about that stuff lying on top of you the last 4+ years.

    Off-topic but there's no diesel news and it's kind of a fun "trainspotting" story:

    The sound of specific diesel locomotives are distinctive (christiantoday.com.au)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Smoke doesn't fail you on a smog test necessarily. Your engine can burn some oil and still pass CA smog. It's not a visual test.
    ruking1 said:

    stever said:

    Only one stinkpot yesterday.

    A worn out Dodge Caravan. B)

    Mostly white smoke on this one.

    It would beg the question, how did it "PASSED" the SMOG tests ???????

    In CA, (which I realize is only one of 59 states, or so PO sez) this smoker would fail and not be long for the roads.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2014
    Did something change since the 2009 handbook came out from the Bureau of Automotive Repair? (pdf file). There's a whole section on a visible smoke test in there. (Easier link).

    They just did an OBD and tailpipe test in Boise. I don't' know if visible smoke was an automatic fail like the CEL being on was.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014

    Smoke doesn't fail you on a smog test necessarily. Your engine can burn some oil and still pass CA smog. It's not a visual test.

    ruking1 said:

    stever said:

    Only one stinkpot yesterday.

    A worn out Dodge Caravan. B)

    Mostly white smoke on this one.

    It would beg the question, how did it "PASSED" the SMOG tests ???????

    In CA, (which I realize is only one of 59 states, or so PO sez) this smoker would fail and not be long for the roads.
    Your point brings up a basic inequity, i.e., Double STANDARD. The laws verbiage, I have read in passing are along the lines of "no worse than cars". The truth is more like they are close to gasser hybrids, you know, i.e., the Priuses that are supposed to save the planet???

    Gassers are subjected to a tail pipe emissions sensor and software to actually MEASURE tail pipe emissions (against software standards) .

    So for example my 21 year old TLC essential posts "as new (1994) emissions". That is with ZERO/ZIP/NADA emissions work !! I change oil every 20,000 miles. Tune ups are more like 60,000 miles. This thing has close to 250,000 miles !!

    ULSD's are ONLY a visual.

    My 03 Jetta TDI posts " as new emissions". (I suspect, a there are NO numerical postings) BUT if there is even a slight bit of "smoke, " there is an off chance the Smog Only station could erroneously rule it out of compliance. It has app 188,000 miles. They both run like the proverbial tops.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    Ugh, coal rolling bros are now the vehicular representation of everything wrong with America, now that the H2s have all been exported or wrecked.

    Lots of diesel VWs and Sprinter motorhomes here in eastern BC.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I'm afraid to ask the price of gas and diesel.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098

    Smoke doesn't fail you on a smog test necessarily. Your engine can burn some oil and still pass CA smog. It's not a visual test.

    I had our 2002 Civic (Gasser) smogged last month, and I spent a few minutes chatting with the owner of the smog station. It turns out that the latest Smog checks don't even check the tailpipe emissions - they hook up to the engine computer and determine if the car is running right. The state has an approved computer system to do this test. I assume the plug into the ODBII port.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The OBD is probably "good enough". Just looked up Albuquerque - I think that's the only place in NM with smog testing. They require a visible emissions test. They also have a handy form you can use to report smoking vehicles.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    stevedebi said:



    Smoke doesn't fail you on a smog test necessarily. Your engine can burn some oil and still pass CA smog. It's not a visual test.

    I had our 2002 Civic (Gasser) smogged last month, and I spent a few minutes chatting with the owner of the smog station. It turns out that the latest Smog checks don't even check the tailpipe emissions - they hook up to the engine computer and determine if the car is running right. The state has an approved computer system to do this test. I assume the plug into the ODBII port.

    That could very well be. CA SMOG ONLY stations have a (rifle like) sensor, they put up the tail pipe (gassers), cabled to the computer and software system (in addition to the OBD/11 port). Once all the data is gathered and probably more importantly, the FEES paid, it is sent electronically to the CA DMV.

    The visual results of the diesel smoke test are manually entered in the computer.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 17,685
    stever said:

    Only one stinkpot yesterday.

    A worn out Dodge Caravan. B)

    Mostly white smoke on this one.

    Well, if it's blowing white smoke, natural selection will take care of it before too much longer. Coolant does horrible things to the inside of an engine.

    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
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    xwesx said:

    stever said:

    Only one stinkpot yesterday.

    A worn out Dodge Caravan. B)

    Mostly white smoke on this one.

    Well, if it's blowing white smoke, natural selection will take care of it before too much longer. Coolant does horrible things to the inside of an engine.

    xwesx said:

    stever said:

    Only one stinkpot yesterday.

    A worn out Dodge Caravan. B)

    Mostly white smoke on this one.

    Well, if it's blowing white smoke, natural selection will take care of it before too much longer. Coolant does horrible things to the inside of an engine.

    Yes, the two most likely things to cause smoke are head gasket leak/failure and worn piston rings.

    Slow news diesel day news. Cable financial news "Talking Heads" forecast gas prices could drop .30 cents by XMAS ! ? Naturally in Silicon Valley, it is .17 cents higher than a resort town. :s ( I guess one has to raise prices in order for it to appear to be a DEAL, when it "DROPS" ;) )

    The MB 250 BT hit the dealer for its 10,000 miles service (2,000 miles late). Alignment is spot on. While I am not enamored of run flat tires, this OEM set is showing good wear !! ?? ( 10/32n in NEW, now @ 9.5 1/32nd in ) The tech and service advisor were surprised brake pads and rotors measured almost no wear. What these wear items turn out to be is anyone's guess. But so far I am very happy with the various experiences.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098

    Smoke doesn't fail you on a smog test necessarily. Your engine can burn some oil and still pass CA smog. It's not a visual test.


    That could very well be. CA SMOG ONLY stations have a (rifle like) sensor, they put up the tail pipe (gassers), cabled to the computer and software system (in addition to the OBD/11 port). Once all the data is gathered and probably more importantly, the FEES paid, it is sent electronically to the CA DMV.

    The visual results of the diesel smoke test are manually entered in the computer.

    I assume you mean "Test Only", which is what this station was. They no longer use the tailpipe sensors. The owner said they did away with it last year, if I understood him correctly, and that they are going to a different software this next year. He was upset because he has to buy or lease new equipment / software.

    I watched the test - they put nothing in the tail pipe.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    stevedebi said:


    Smoke doesn't fail you on a smog test necessarily. Your engine can burn some oil and still pass CA smog. It's not a visual test.


    That could very well be. CA SMOG ONLY stations have a (rifle like) sensor, they put up the tail pipe (gassers), cabled to the computer and software system (in addition to the OBD/11 port). Once all the data is gathered and probably more importantly, the FEES paid, it is sent electronically to the CA DMV.

    The visual results of the diesel smoke test are manually entered in the computer.

    I assume you mean "Test Only", which is what this station was. They no longer use the tailpipe sensors. The owner said they did away with it last year, if I understood him correctly, and that they are going to a different software this next year. He was upset because he has to buy or lease new equipment / software.

    I watched the test - they put nothing in the tail pipe.
    I could dig out the exact title, but the concept remains unchanged. They can not do any smog repairs. I also watched as the owner/tech ran the sensor in the tail pipe.

    $$$'s investments, must be a common complaint in the industry. This owner also was freaked out by the costs of (on going) future upgrades. Even HUGE dealerships (they can do smog equipment repairs) are happy to B/E on the smog certification portion.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    edited October 2014
    Saw a couple stinkier diesels today - as expected, 10-15 year old large pickups probably used in the local logging industry here, driven aggressively, and not particularly cared for.

    I like the "smoker tattle" form Steve mentions - an eco-weenie could report my fintail when it has a puff, but the jokes on them, as it pre-dates emissions equipment, and is exempt :)

    I noticed diesel and RUG are similarly priced here, around $1.30/l.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    fintail said:

    Saw a couple stinkier diesels today - as expected, 10-15 year old large pickups probably used in the local logging industry here, driven aggressively, and not particularly cared for.

    I like the "smoker tattle" form Steve mentions - an eco-weenie could report my fintail when it has a puff, but the jokes on them, as it pre-dates emissions equipment, and is exempt :)

    I noticed diesel and RUG are similarly priced here, around $1.30/l.

    You must be in CN somewhere for $4 .93 US per gal D2/RUG. :p

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    Yep I am in BC.
    ruking1 said:



    You must be in CN somewhere for $4 .93 US per gal D2/RUG. :p

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2014
    fintail said:

    I like the "smoker tattle" form Steve mentions - an eco-weenie could report my fintail when it has a puff, but the jokes on them, as it pre-dates emissions equipment, and is exempt :)

    Depends on the state but you can still get reported and required to "maintain" your car even if it's otherwise exempt or if there's no emission testing in your area. For example, here's the Texas reporting deal ("state law prohibits any person from operating a motor vehicle emitting visible smoke for 10 seconds or longer on Texas roadways). Pretty toothless though.

    Ten seconds behind an oil burner in TX would be a lifetime. :p
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    stever said:

    fintail said:

    I like the "smoker tattle" form Steve mentions - an eco-weenie could report my fintail when it has a puff, but the jokes on them, as it pre-dates emissions equipment, and is exempt :)

    Depends on the state but you can still get reported and required to "maintain" your car even if it's otherwise exempt or if there's no emission testing in your area. For example, here's the Texas reporting deal ("state law prohibits any person from operating a motor vehicle emitting visible smoke for 10 seconds or longer on Texas roadways). Pretty toothless though.

    Ten seconds behind an oil burner in TX would be a lifetime. :p
    GOD bless TEXAS !!

    On the interstates, anyway they actually ENFORCE keep right EXCEPT to PASS !!!

    I saw this (good idea) a lot in suburban/urban area's in Texas but the normal sign markings are sometimes PAINTED on the ground, so you can have a triangulation of information in case you are unclear what lane/s to be in with a 5,6,7,8,9,10+ lane freeway ! B)

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited October 2014
    Everyone's going 90 anyway, except on the two lane blacktops. They go ten mph over the limit on those roads too but the limit is only 70mph.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    edited October 2014
    Ten seconds in some parts of TX can seem like a lifetime with or without a stinker ;)

    Per the owner's manual, the old car can consume a quart per 800 miles and be within spec, which isn't far off from what it does - so if a so-called civil servant tried to call me out on it, I'd have a good rebuttal. There are many old cars where visible smoke is part of the design. I am sure the nicely compensated soul who wrote that piece knew about them, of course. I need to bring in a Trabant...

    Aren't keep right laws un-American? :)
    stever said:



    Depends on the state but you can still get reported and required to "maintain" your car even if it's otherwise exempt or if there's no emission testing in your area.

    Ten seconds behind an oil burner in TX would be a lifetime. :p

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Ten seconds in Texas. /badda boom :D

    (There's some really nice spots there too - you need to cruise to the Hill Country or down Big Bend way).
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    One take on the behind the scenes .30 cent drop in gas prices by XMAS. http://www.examiner.com/article/as-secret-saudi-deal-increases-harm-to-russian-currency-china-intervenes

    This is true even as the world wide (energy) DEMAND has never been greater !! ??? According to the enviro cons, we should have had armageddon many years, if not decades, ... ago !!!! AKA not much talk about ISIS attacking the HAJJ, eh? http://www.religioustolerance.org/isla1.htm

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/facing-oil-glut-saudis-avoid-1980s-mistakes-halt-005348902--finance.html

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    ..."The MB 250 BT hit the dealer for its 10,000 miles service (2,000 miles late). Alignment is spot on. While I am not enamored of run flat tires, this OEM set is showing good wear !! ?? ( 10/32n in NEW, now @ 9.5 1/32nd in ) The tech and service advisor were surprised brake pads and rotors measured almost no wear. What these wear items turn out to be is anyone's guess. But so far I am very happy with the various experiences."...

    I don't know why it didn't occur to me to post this sooner, but using th MB 250 B/T as an example, the only DIESEL related addition item that one has to do over say a gasser ( app 10 items) is ADD Ad Blue. The nearest service equivalent is filling the windshield washer fluid tank.

    The rest of it is pretty much the same as a gasser ( rotate tires, check brake pads and rotors, top fluids, oil, oil filter, crush washer, cabin, fuel, air filter) to cite some of the "COMMOM" items.

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Then there's the Teslas - tires, brakes....
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    stever said:

    Then there's the Teslas - tires, brakes....

    The difference being that a diesel might last over 10 years. By then the Tesla will be history because it's battery won't be sufficient.

    Of course, the final proof will be in 10 years after the first models are out. But I wouldn't bet on the resale price (if any) between a MB diesel and a Tesla at that point.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Good point. Sure would be nice to weld the hood shut though.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited October 2014
    Yes, the MB 250 B/T has H rated tires. Right now it is on a 24,000 miles per 1/32nd in wear cycle ??? I'd be thrilled @ 15,000 miles per. Longer term, it will be interesting to see what it will last till. People for a plethora of reasons decide to take down tires @ various 1/32nd in. Assuming I start with 10/32nd and take it down between 2 to 3 /32nd in (8 to 7/32nd in) I will have 120,000 to 105,000 miles.

    Even at 12,000 miles (the dipstick indicating FULL) the MB 250 B/T's oil consumption SEEMS to be on the 1/8 to 1/2 qt/L per 30,000 miles, as per the other three diesels. Normally during early break ( zero to 5,000 miles) in the oil consumption tends to be higher, especially in gasser engines. I broke in the engine slightly/ moderately aggressively to aggressively. So I am pleasantly surprised.
This discussion has been closed.