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

ruking1

I would guess that limited options of TDI engines are a part of cost containment measures.

The MB 2.1 L twin turbo (TDI) really puts out a LOT of torque (#369 # ft) for its displacement. Mated to a seemingly bullet proof 7 speed A/T, it seemingly is a well engineered and executed drive train.

When I do drive it more like the VW 3.0 L (single turbo) TDI, the mpg seems pretty similar. So if driven 65 mph and less, it can be PLENTY fuel miserly. The key here is @ the lowest RPM @ the point slow enough to keep the AT in the highest gear without downshifting. This is the lowest rpm with max torque but slightly lower to almost lug. This is not optimum for the turbo and engine, but it will take many miles to possibly showing noticeable ill effects.

So if you want a write up for 63.7 mpg on an Audi A3 TDI ... https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/running-on-empty--how-we-drove-834--smelly--miles-on-an-audi-s-single-tank-171343427.html I can tell you from my personal best of 62 mpg that it is do able. (i did not go anywhere close to the ridiculous speeds recommended and executed.

In contrast, the VW's 2.0 L TDI engine is a single turbo posting 236# ft of torque. While we do like the DSG, AND it has performed flawlessly, it would need an upgrade IF VW were to soup UP the engines # ft of torque output.

stevedebi

ruking1 said:

...
In contrast, the VW's 2.0 L TDI engine is a single turbo posting 236# ft of torque. While we do like the DSG, AND it has performed flawlessly, it would need an upgrade IF VW were to soup UP the engines # ft of torque output.

I can't imagine our Passat with more torque. It really moves just the way it is...

gagrice

I cannot imagine my ever needing more torque than the Touareg TDI offers. I would love to see a beefy 4 cylinder in the Touareg, comparable to the Mercedes 2.1L diesel. I realize you can go too small and overwork an engine and not gain MPG. I think VW is pretty close to optimum on all their TDI offerings.

ruking1

stevedebi said:

ruking1 said:

...
In contrast, the VW's 2.0 L TDI engine is a single turbo posting 236# ft of torque. While we do like the DSG, AND it has performed flawlessly, it would need an upgrade IF VW were to soup UP the engines # ft of torque output.

I can't imagine our Passat with more torque. It really moves just the way it is...

It is a neat machine, ala Toyota Camry/Honda Accord, etc. competitor !! Not sure any fuel mizer guru has tried to get 84 mpg + in the Camry/Accord, like the Taylor's did in a 12 VW Passat !! Gerdes et al., did app 77 mpg in an 8,500 miles trip. (12 VW Passat TDI)

BUT

ruking1

gagrice said:

I cannot imagine my ever needing more torque than the Touareg TDI offers. I would love to see a beefy 4 cylinder in the Touareg, comparable to the Mercedes 2.1L diesel. I realize you can go too small and overwork an engine and not gain MPG. I think VW is pretty close to optimum on all their TDI offerings.

I think some of the keys are 1. the lower weight (- 728 #'s) 2. low speed turbo (to lessen the need to really step on it to activate the (bigger and made for higher rpm) turbo. 3. the lower RPM (range) optimized to the 7 speed A/T.

My sense is the MB's 7 speed is a bit less stout, also (aka not build to handle 627 # ft of torque) MB has not come out with a technical data about component operations (they might have been I have no access to the information) , so this is a surmise on my part.

ruking1

ruking1 said:

gagrice said:

I cannot imagine my ever needing more torque than the Touareg TDI offers. I would love to see a beefy 4 cylinder in the Touareg, comparable to the Mercedes 2.1L diesel. I realize you can go too small and overwork an engine and not gain MPG. I think VW is pretty close to optimum on all their TDI offerings.

I think some of the keys are 1. the lower weight (- 728 #'s) 2. low speed turbo (to lessen the need to really step on it to activate the (bigger and made for higher rpm) turbo. 3. the lower RPM (range) optimized to the 7 speed A/T.

My sense is the MB's 7 speed is a bit less stout, also (aka not build to handle 627 # ft of torque) MB has not come out with a technical data about component operations (they might have been I have no access to the information) , so this is a surmise on my part.

While my post is a bit tongue in cheek, I probably should add (for the general thread) that 406# ft to (Audi's, Porsche) 428# ft really is in super car torque capability, albeit NOT a higher rpm type of engine. 369 # ft is normally a very stout gasser engine also. , So I would again guess that the MB GLK 250 7 speed AT can handle @ least 406 # ft. The 627 # ft is what the VW Touareg TDI 8 speed A/T (Japanese, Toyota subsidiary) is built to handle ( @ 406# ft to 428 # ft) Most gasser drivers don't seem to "GET" why full torque @ lower rpm is desirable, nor is something most want , which is something I really don't get, why they don't get. Even if they "get it", most dismiss or downplay it anyway. So I have since learned to not even discuss it, unless somebody (gasser driver) points it out.

ruking1

Slow news diesel day ! The 14 MB 250 BT has been posting 37 mpg.

ULSD @ $3.79

RUG @ $ 3.35

PUG @ $ 3.55

I have been trying to avoid the various "circus type " traffic choke points with varying degrees of success, We have the Word Serious" going on. Parking for a 4 hour or so game ranges from $40.00 to $120 (I have been told) Ticket prices are absolutely unbelievable ! There are football games: 49 ners, Raiders, CAL, Stanford etc. , and the other goings on too numerous to mention.

San Francisco is absolutely a TRAFFIC ZOO, even without these "national" event venues. I am glad the 49 ners, Raiders are not playing @ home.

To boot, we got some real RAIN !

Here is an article about what some CHP officers do in their spare time. No doubt on the states dime. I am sure the unions will vigorously defend them. http://www.mercurynews.com/my-town/ci_26801529/chp-nude-photo-scandal-bay-area-chief-thanks?source=rss

Gives a whole new meaning to Hawaii 50's "BQQK em, Dano !

elias

400 ft lbs seems to be be the perfect amount of torque for a street vehicle.

gas is under $3 at some locations in NH. diesel is plenty more.

to get the sweet-spot of 400 ft lbs of torque, it's less expensive and easier to find it with mandatory stickshift in gas-powered vehicle than with diesel...

fintail

I paid something like 3.65 for diesel today - I forget what RUG was, but a bit less. I still had 1/4 tank left from Kamloops, but that's about when I like to add a little.

Regarding those brave warriors, nothing will happen - combine the blue wall with entitled fratboy mentality. For all of the whiners who moan about industrial unions, the Praetorian ones need attention much more.

ruking1 said:

Slow news diesel day !

Gives a whole new meaning to Hawaii 50's "BQQK em, Dano !

ruking1

elias said:

400 ft lbs seems to be be the perfect amount of torque for a street vehicle.

gas is under $3 at some locations in NH. diesel is plenty more.

to get the sweet-spot of 400 ft lbs of torque, it's less expensive and easier to find it with mandatory stickshift in gas-powered vehicle than with diesel...

Indeed, that should be pretty obvious and comes with a 95% gasser and less than 5% diesel PVF, with diesel passenger cars being less than 2.5% !! ?? Mine (gasser with app 400 # ft of torque) is app 14 years old. I do wish it had a 7 speed MT !! For as much torque as it puts out, it does seem to lose a little (comparatively) @ altitudes, not that I am complaining ! The TDI with 406 # ft was not available then.

Indeed the 2003 Jetta TDI has a whopping 155 # ft. The EPA (or whomever @ the time) thought the European version @ 177# ft was WAY too "powerful. " We thought mods putting out 300 # ft were @ the wires edge of grenading.

So it is good to see more TDI models, with stout torque postings coming to market.

xwesx

Diesel around here has just barely dipped below $4... quite a milestone for this area, as that has not happened in years. Gasoline isn't far behind, though, at $3.70.

ruking1

xwesx said:

Diesel around here has just barely dipped below $4... quite a milestone for this area, as that has not happened in years. Gasoline isn't far behind, though, at $3.70.

Yes, STILL slow on this side, (no price drop from $3.79 per gal D2) even as the TV Cable pundits say oil could drop to $70. per BOE. One threw in a teaser saying RUG "could" drop to the LOW $2.00 's per gal ($2.60 per gal @ 70 per BOE. AH, .... right !!! ???? Christ's second coming 3rd month @ 3: 33 am 03/03 would be more "certain".

There is a HUGE glut right now ! They almost have run out of STORAGE for the refined products. They can't ship crude to refineries, which are already operating @ 98% capacity.

But @ the same time it would be great to have ULSD @ $1.85 per gal (dreaming to delusionary ) !!! ???? That would GREATLY lower the CPMD: FUEL (/33/37/41/50 mpg)

stever

Filled up today for $2.32.

That was for propane. Was hassling the installer why they didn't run propane trucks instead of diesels. Guy say they had a couple of them but they couldn't get up the hills here with them so they dumped them.

Diesel is $3.49 at the cheapest place in town.

gagrice

This is a welcome sight. RUG below $3 a gallon. Diesel as low as $3.43 with Shell credit diesel at $3.47. Makes me want to take another trip. 4 years ago we saw RUG below $3 a gallon. will it hold till after the election?? Just before the mid terms in 2010 the price was $2.95. By April 2011 it was back over $4 per gallon.

ruking1

The glut and lower to even lower prices can have the shorter term effect of giving consumers a HUGE boost (aka just in time for XMAS !! 70% of the US economy is said to be consumer economics ) Albeit .01cent = $1 B as a consumer goods multiplier (according to a Fi talking head) .

It also takes some wind out of Russia's and the various oil nations sails that HATE the USA. It also doesn't hurt that the price of oil is FIXED in US $$'s . That fact alone must frustrate them to no end. The dem's can also decimate the (ROMAN Army definition ) US domestic oil and gas (uneconomical @ $60 to $65 USD per BOE) and blame it on the Russians and middle east potentates and simultaneously tilt the scales in favor of SA. :@

xwesx

It's pretty brutal in this part of the nation. Pump prices aren't really dropping, but the state budget coffers sure are! Looks like I'll be moving to CA soon so that I can panhandle without having to worry about freezing to death!

ruking1

xwesx said:

It's pretty brutal in this part of the nation. Pump prices aren't really dropping, but the state budget coffers sure are! Looks like I'll be moving to CA soon so that I can panhandle without having to worry about freezing to death!

Unfortunately, I hear you there ! The goal has LONG been to hollow out more rural areas (what there are now less than 2 M farmers?) and to crash some to many target cities. Look @ the great job that was done in Detroit, MI.

We can not even guess which fuel this "talking head" thinks is a beneficiary @ $75. oil !! ??? (Hint: The Toyota Prius comes in @ #20 in fuel efficiency.)

http://finance.yahoo.com/video/75-oil-winners-losers-203700846.html

ruking1

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/10/28/consumer-reports-auto-reliability/18040393/

Mostly GASSERS on this "hit" list. But the Jeep Grand Cherokee TDI fuel system is the nexus for this thread.

Here is a more direct diesel tangent : 16 Nissan TITAN, Cummins Sequential Turbo diesel !! V8 5.0 L 300 + hp/500 # ft torque. (I'd love to see a V8 TDI with a 7 speed MT in a Corvette !! )

http://blog.caranddriver.com/next-gen-nissan-titan-destined-for-detroit-we-detail-its-clever-new-diesel-engine/

gagrice

What is Nissan thinking putting a cheapo CVT in an SUV like the Pathfinder? I guess they figure if Subaru can get away with it so can they. Yeeeck.

He should have said the Jeep GC diesel is also new with their fuel delivery problems. Glad they were so slow getting them to market. It may have been me with working out their bugs.

Just got my 20k mile service yesterday. Actually only have 18,770 trouble free miles. Still no upgrade on the NAV from that stinking NavTeq. Did not have Costco in Roseburg, OR. Store opened in 2010. If there was any alternative to the NavTeq maps I would go for it. I just don't trust their routing or database. When I tried to put in Stockton CA it did not exist. I had the address of the Shell with the best price on diesel. It did not recognize the Zipcode for Stockton. How they have gotten into so many vehicles is amazing to me.

nyccarguy

If Nissan dumps this 5.0L Turbo Diesel V8 into its next gen Armada, I'm sure I could convince my Dad to trade his beloved 2011 LTZ Tahoe for 1.

slorenzen

" When I tried to put in Stockton CA it did not exist."

Well, Stockton IS having financial problems....

ruking1

Yes, part of my reasoning for not buying the on board/oem Nav systems is that I normally keep the cars many miles, which converts to more years ( 21 years is the oldest, out of date on many issues, too easily, heaven help me IF any of them breaks) . The cheapie COSTCO versions have done fine ! I actually have used them more than the smart phone iterations.

I dodged a bullet in the MB 250 B/T, as it is WIRED for its' navigation system (a subsequent buyer can add it easily and simply, albeit cheaply: on the used market to expensively NEW from the dealer). It is poorly rated by almost all users.

If I read your post correctly the VW T TDI's navigation is considered less than satisfactory.

Mr_Shiftright

I don't think any of the performance car/engine builders are interested in diesels.

AMG, for instance, has pretty much stated outright that they will never build an AMG diesel car.

As for Chrysler, their VP of quality control has just been shown the door.

ruking1 said:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/10/28/consumer-reports-auto-reliability/18040393/

Mostly GASSERS on this "hit" list. But the Jeep Grand Cherokee TDI fuel system is the nexus for this thread.

Here is a more direct diesel tangent : 16 Nissan TITAN, Cummins Sequential Turbo diesel !! V8 5.0 L 300 + hp/500 # ft torque. (I'd love to see a V8 TDI with a 7 speed MT in a Corvette !! )

http://blog.caranddriver.com/next-gen-nissan-titan-destined-for-detroit-we-detail-its-clever-new-diesel-engine/

ruking1

Mr_Shiftright said:

I don't think any of the performance car/engine builders are interested in diesels.

AMG, for instance, has pretty much stated outright that they will never build an AMG diesel car.

As for Chrysler, their VP of quality control has just been shown the door.

ruking1 said:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/10/28/consumer-reports-auto-reliability/18040393/

Mostly GASSERS on this "hit" list. But the Jeep Grand Cherokee TDI fuel system is the nexus for this thread.

Here is a more direct diesel tangent : 16 Nissan TITAN, Cummins Sequential Turbo diesel !! V8 5.0 L 300 + hp/500 # ft torque. (I'd love to see a V8 TDI with a 7 speed MT in a Corvette !! )

http://blog.caranddriver.com/next-gen-nissan-titan-destined-for-detroit-we-detail-its-clever-new-diesel-engine/

Oh yes! Again it comes to the 95% vs less than 5% diesel, with 50% being CARS (less than 2.5%) . While I think percentage wise it is probably similar, there are VERY few performance car/engine builders doing diesels. Given the population of diesel CARS, it almost makes no sense. Further, almost all DIESEL modifications are in some way shape or form against emissions laws. That is not as true as Gasser performance modifications.

ruking1

slorenzen said:

" When I tried to put in Stockton CA it did not exist."

Well, Stockton IS having financial problems....

Yes I should have used Stockton instead of Detroit. I go through Stockton a LOT, while I haven't been to Detroit in a very long time.

ULSD @ Stockton's Safeway @ $3.65.

gagrice

I really like the NAV/Media system. Big clear screen. Very intuitive and integrated with the audio system. I have about 12 gigs of MP3 music which with a little manipulation before loading is very well organized by Artist, Album, Genre or tune. Most of the navigation is fine. Just way behind and not always the shortest routes picked. Some times dirt roads, which is no big thing. It will always get you back to your home or hotel when you cannot find where you are on the map, or way out of AT&T Google map range. I love just taking back roads and it has gotten us home every time. So I would say it is a lot better than asking someone in a gas station that just moved there 2 months ago and speaks very little English.

ruking1

gagrice said:

I really like the NAV/Media system. Big clear screen. Very intuitive and integrated with the audio system. I have about 12 gigs of MP3 music which with a little manipulation before loading is very well organized by Artist, Album, Genre or tune. Most of the navigation is fine. Just way behind and not always the shortest routes picked. Some times dirt roads, which is no big thing. It will always get you back to your home or hotel when you cannot find where you are on the map, or way out of AT&T Google map range. I love just taking back roads and it has gotten us home every time. So I would say it is a lot better than asking someone in a gas station that just moved there 2 months ago and speaks very little English.

i have to scratch my head on the mapping accuracy issue. Some posts ago, I posted about getting instruction from THREE navigation products (Magellan, Google Maps, Apple Maps) to make a U turn on a Nevada State 4 lane each way FREEWAY !! We did some over rides and got to the place in question. (2 passengers working the issue)

ruking1

20 cent drop for ULSD @ 3.69 per gal. The TDI (MB 250 BT) posted 36.64 mpg. Not too bad given my unsuccessful efforts to dodge the normal AND World Serious HOOPALA !! It went twice to and from the SF airport also. (thankfully @ night @ customary 80/85 mph.) The Airport traffic is surprisingly polite @ nights. Tomorrow is the "victory" PARADE with RAIN in the forecast! I am going to watch it on TV.

gagrice

I have abused myself 3 times in the last six months going through Los Angeles during the daytime. I don't find a significant loss in mileage with the Touareg TDI. My worst tank to date is 23.1 MPG. Well above the city claim by EPA. Computer says I have averaged 27.8 MPG for the 18,000 miles plus. My calculated is 27.6 MPG. Which is 17% above the EPA combined estimate. I am more than happy with that. And by far the most comfortable vehicle I have ever owned on long trips. The 14 way seat adjustments work great with memory for 3 drivers or modes. While in for service a salesman asked if I was interested in trading for a new Touareg gasser. I laughed and told him NEVER. I told him I had two days on our Oregon trip over 680 miles without a fuel stop. Driving from San Diego to Redding CA we only stopped for two potty breaks. And I was not beat up at all. In the Sequoia which was very comfortable a 600 mile day was hard on my back. The seats were soft but did not give quite the right support.

ruking1

I am really glad to hear your VW Touareg TDI "wears well " over the longer term !!! You are also posting some VERY respectable mpg numbers !!!

I also am planning to keep the VW T TDI WAY past the approaching 49,000 miles it now has.The shorter term goal is the "major tune" @ 120,000 miles, when in addition, some belt changes are due along with the oil and oil, air and cabin, fuel filters .

Kind of off topic, but I am reading that a lot of GASSERS consume oil @ a rate that I would find annoying to unacceptable (1 QT/L per 1,000 miles) !!!! This is especially true after the (4) diesels' experiences of app 1/4 to 1/2 QT/L per 30,000 miles !! On an A/B comparison basis, that would be up to 30 qts/L vs .5 QY/L !!! ???

One example is a class action lawsuit against Subaru, the Forester being one example.

Mr_Shiftright

All "boxer" engines are prone to this sort of thing.

ruking1

Mr_Shiftright said:

All "boxer" engines are prone to this sort of thing.

I was highlighting more GASSERS. I was not really trying to highlight either Subaru nor BOXER engines, per se. My GASSER "pushrod " V8 consumers 1 qt in 4,000 to 5,000 miles, which I consider excessive in comparison (aka SIMILIAR in # ft of torque to the VW T TDI 385/400 # ft to 406 # ft.) Now I also understand my Z06 (@76,000 miles) might be an outlier !!! A lot of Corvette V8's consume more like 1 qt per 1,000 to 2,000 miles !!!! ????

Let me put it in perspective. IF reversed, gasser CONVERTS or diesel haters would VILIFY this "excessive" consumption rate/s !!!! @ those rates over 30,000 miles the GASSER consumption rate can be as high as 60 TIMES MORE !!!!!!! Of course because most folks use gassers, it is seen as "normal". AKA advantage DIESEL. So in effect, it raises no issues nor many hackles.

For ANOTHER example, (IF) it is true (higher oil consumption rate) with gasser turbo's , not a significant percentage of the gasser vehicle fleet.

So again, this is not even to factor in costs (EXTRA) .

http://www.bestcovery.com/best-synthetic-oil?sem=3884548238cwbing&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=subaru oil consumption problems&utm_campaign=bing_sem

So for example, IF one uses synthetic oils 30 qt/l @ $10 per qt= UP TO $300 EXTRA per 30,000 miles !!!! So over 120,000 miles, that would be $1,200 MORE for GASSERS: extra CONSUMPTION.


http://www.techtimes.com/articles/10848/20140723/subaru-excess-oil-consumption-problem-may-lead-to-engine-failure-lawsuit.htm

Mr_Shiftright

1 qt in 4000 miles? Pretty normal. 1 qt in 1,000 miles? Not so normal.

stever

My old Subaru didn't use any oil to speak of. Kind of surprised me. My sister's '05 Forester (~140k) started using some about six months ago. I think she's about ready for a newer car and will keep the Subie for her dump runs.

She might be ready to return to VW after her unhappy 2000 New Beetle experience.

ruking1

stever said:

My old Subaru didn't use any oil to speak of. Kind of surprised me. My sister's '05 Forester (~140k) started using some about six months ago. I think she's about ready for a newer car and will keep the Subie for her dump runs.

She might be ready to return to VW after her unhappy 2000 New Beetle experience.

Many people vilify (another's) ANECDOTAL experiences. YET people will ACT ON:(their) .... anecdotal experiences: good, bad, etc. etc. ??????

So the VW NB is GREAT if one gets one that is GREAT to not a lemon. One might to will tell 3 people if it is good.. IF one gets a bad one, one tells 10+ folks how bad it is.

Now despite me buying DIESEL VW's, VW in the past has a well earned SPOTTY reputation on GASSERS. They have made great strides. But then, when one gets a good one, its can be pretty good. I do not track how good the gasser VW's (% lemons) are or are not.

I might have an outlier attitude in that my almost totally horrid 1985 Toyota Camry experiences ( on the oil issue it did DRINK and SLUDGE oil despite dealer 3,000 miles oil changes) did NOT prevent me from buying 5 later/more Toyota's, aka, not another Camry. Yes I did run 15,000 to 25,000 OCI's ( on those 5 TLC's) for roughly 800,000 miles. The mechanics freak , IF and when they ask me what OCI regiment I follow/ed (given the innards are almost surgically CLEAN and most need no to little valve adjustments) . The jaws drop when I tell em I use $2.50 FRAM (PH8A) oil filters. So just with these 5 (TLC's) miles and app 334,000 diesel miles, I have many more gasser miles under the belt than DIESEL's.

xwesx

ruking1 said:

Many people vilify (another) ANECDOTAL experiences. YET people will ACT ON:(their) .... anecdotal experiences: good, bad, etc. etc. ??????

Quite true, ruking. At the end of the day, that's all any of us really have unless we're the researchers. Even then, though, we still "can't win" because all the critics out there have their own anecdotal experiences! LOL

I've had it both ways: My 2010 Forester will generally run 10,000+ miles on its OCI without needing to add any oil (up to 1 qt low), but my 1996 Outback required a quart with every oil change. BUT, that was oil leaking OUT of the engine, not headed through the tail pipe. The other two Subies weren't in my driveway long enough to find out their behaviors, but suffice it to say that I did not add any oil to either of them, so that puts them both at the 5,000+ mark per quart.

I'm curious as to how fuel type could affect engine behavior in terms of oil consumption. Perhaps higher compression requirements lead to tighter tolerances, which means less room for oil to slip through?

-----

Oh, and stop it already with posting about your GLK250's performance! I'm trying to put that vehicle out of my mind. So inconsiderate....

Mr_Shiftright

I think with Boxer type engines, as they age, it's easier for a little oil to get thrown up into the combustion chambers.

Diesel engines have to be REALLY tight or yeah, they'll burn oil and/or exhibit blow-by. Fortunately, they are generally built to a higher standard to account for the extreme high compression they utilize.

This is why I always advise people shopping for a used diesel to notice how quickly it starts up when cold. On a tight diesel engine, it should start up almost instantly. Any diesel engine that cranks and cranks is suspect.

ruking1

Some very good points by both Shiftright and Xwesx. I am sure 95% of gasser owners can "lobby" for higher quality GASSER engines ( i.e., fly by night: but CHEAP and copy chips vs highest mil spec), etc (whatever those happen to mean), BUT who knows @ what costs? Not to mention what that "higher" quality would REALLY mean. Evidently, the auto oems got it right. So for example Subaru's are considered some of the BEST American made Japanese cars on US markets even with the oil consumption issues.

jpp75

Mr_Shiftright said:

1 qt in 4000 miles? Pretty normal. 1 qt in 1,000 miles? Not so normal.

My uncle had a 2002 DeVille that used 2 quarts every 1,000 miles. Cadillac repeatedly told him that was normal, which it was for the Northstar engine. Cadillac refused to do anything about it, much less admit there was a problem with the engine.

I'll never forget him saying that he wanted to support American businesses since he owned a small manufacturing business himself. Fast forward 8 years and he dumped it for an Infiniti and I'll never forget him saying he will never own another Cadillac again.

jpp75

Reading this forum makes me want a Touareg TDI. I made a mistake going with a PHEV, lesson learned.

Mr_Shiftright

Well there's the concept of "normal" and the concept of "harmful". A quart every 1000 miles is not normal, but it is also not harmful. (unless you forget to replenish it).

gagrice

jpp5862 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

1 qt in 4000 miles? Pretty normal. 1 qt in 1,000 miles? Not so normal.

My uncle had a 2002 DeVille that used 2 quarts every 1,000 miles. Cadillac repeatedly told him that was normal, which it was for the Northstar engine. Cadillac refused to do anything about it, much less admit there was a problem with the engine.

I had a 1948 Caddy flathead V8 that used almost as much oil as gas. I carried a 2.5 gallon can of RayLube in the trunk. At least a quart every couple hundred miles. Most of my driving was back and forth to school. Got it at the salvage yard when I worked there. Cannot remember what I traded it for. It was a big old 4 door boat. Pretty comfy compared to my 47 Pontiac convertible with no top. This was about 1959-60.

stever

@ruking1, my sister's issues were mostly the power windows and an awful VW dealer. The dealer got better and they finally fixed her windows for free, well out of warranty. She's a leadfoot and likely would enjoy the torque of a diesel. She's also a bit scattered and I'm sure she'd put unleaded in the tank at least once. :-)

Diesel dropped a dime here to $3.39, at least at one station.

ruking1

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well there's the concept of "normal" and the concept of "harmful". A quart every 1000 miles is not normal, but it is also not harmful. (unless you forget to replenish it).

All engines (gasser/TDI) SEEM to be designed to RUN from 1 qt low to FULL ( I have never in my life seen it stated that way) . SO defacto, 1qt/l LOW is NOT "harmful".

SIDEBAR: In theory, it is not supposed to be run up to 1 qt/L over filled. But I have never heard of a 1 qt/L over filled engine failing due to that.

I would then agree and state the (other) absolutely obvious thing (yes I have a FLAIR for it ). IT was made to RUN @ that (up to 1 qt/l per 1,000 mile) CONSUMPTION rate, aka, normally (according to the particular oems subscription to the concept that up to 1 QT/L consumption is "normal").

After running 4 diesels both I4's (3) and V6 (1) with various miles and mpg's; with oil consumption rates of between 1/4 to 1/2 qt/L per 30,000 miles, I am increasingly thinking that (gasser) consumption rate (as much as 1qt/L per 1,000 miles) is unacceptable or more costly (than diesels) @ best. One graphic might be (over 100,000 miles) 100 qt/l vs 1.67 q/l !!! My VERY short term goal is 200,000 miles or the SECOND 100,000/120,000 miles cycle ($885 x2= $1,770).

@ $9 per qt/l (synthetic) that is $900 vs $15.

For those inclined to TMI

$885. @ today's ULSD prices ($3.69) will buy me 240 gals of fuel. @ 32, 36, 41, 50 mpg's: 7,680, 8,640, 9,840, 12,000 miles. (again over 100,000 miles)

So this is ADVANTAGE diesel , or chips away @ the diesel price premium and preserves to does nothing to the normally higher diesel resale prices. In the 03 Jetta TDI vs 1.8T Jetta case, app 39% MORE ($1,240 MORE, premium @ the time being $236.). than the gasser turbo.

Needless to say, I hope folks do not think that I am saying diesels do not consume oil, nor made to NOT consume oil.

ruking1

https://autos.yahoo.com/news/toyota-no-one-wants-us-build-electric-cars-151330566.html

What does this sign mean?

Toyota: 'No One Wants Us To Build Electric Cars'
Green Car Reports By John Voelcker
October 31, 2014 11:13 AM


Here is another take on low fuel prices on hybrid sales.

http://green.autoblog.com/2014/11/01/lesson-learned-again-lower-gas-prices-hurt-hybrid-sales/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000588

Mr_Shiftright

Well it means that Toyota has noticed that everyone who has so far introduced an electric car has lost money doing it.

The demand for EVs is a much slimmer segment of the market than demand for diesels.

stever

I think some (many?) consumers still want them - the ones pressuring Toyota are probably the oil barons.

Toyota's gotta be getting hit by the cheap gas in some ways. I suppose Highlander sales will boom but the Prius payback period is now an additional 18 months thanks to cheap gas. Lots of incentives on them now.

VW sales fell again (well, predicted to fall - actual numbers aren't out I don't think), so maybe they'll be some good incentives on their TDIs.

ruking1

stever said:

I think some (many?) consumers still want them - the ones pressuring Toyota are probably the oil barons.

Toyota's gotta be getting hit by the cheap gas in some ways. I suppose Highlander sales will boom but the Prius payback period is now an additional 18 months thanks to cheap gas. Lots of incentives on them now.

VW sales fell again (well, predicted to fall - actual numbers aren't out I don't think), so maybe they'll be some good incentives on their TDIs.

Good to GREAT incentives have almost always; the WHOLE time I have been "doing" TDI's (13 MY's, albeit VW's and this year MB), on a regular basis, presented themselves !!! So together in line with Shiftright's observations, things indeed are in "escalator" status for US market diesels.

I also think ( my .02 cents) the lack of growth of the diesel PVF population shows the lack of seriousness of goal of American energy independence. So the closer to 25% diesels for the PVF AND GROWTH (percentage) of other alternative fuels (hydrogen battery, battery electric, etc,) will be the real OPERATIVE and deficit gauge !! Till then, its just hot air. Most still do not understand the role of the fact that it is widely unknown that it is STILL AGAINST the law to export American crude (there are of course loopholes and specific exemptions.)

henryn

I was out on the freeway Friday night, and noticed a particularly large illuminated sign:

$2.69 reg
$3.63 diesel

I believe that is the largest spread I have ever seen between RUG and diesel.

Hmm, thinking a little harder, no it isn't. What year was it that gasoline peaked at $4 a gallon ($5 in California)? I was driving a Ford F250, diesel, and I actually saw price spreads as high as $1.10.

stever

The biggest spread here is .76 cents ($2.63 vs $3.43). The more typical spread has been $3.09 - $3.49. That's probably widened a few more cents since more stations here are heading under $3 a gallon for regular.