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

ruking1

gagrice said:

stever said:

@gagrice, I suppose bankrupt cities don't count.

What were the white blotches?

Other than the NAV, it sounds like you have a good dealer. Lots of techs forget to reset the service interval doohickies.

A foglight lens showed up broken after service. It was not broken when I cleaned the millions of CA bugs off the SUV after our trip to Oregon. Did they do it? I don't know. They did replace it free. I just wrote a glowing report to the general manager. I think the white stuff is dried DEF they splashed while filling. I will clean it all off the spare. I am most upset with the whole NAV business. I hated the NAV in my Sequoia. Mostly because of NavTeq. And I don't trust this NAV. Even though the interface is way ahead of the Toyota NAV. The 8 inch screen is clear and bright. You can choose 2D, 3D or flat map. And the integrated SiriusXM sound system is decades ahead of the Toyota unit. I can load 1000s of tunes with complete control of the database. If there was some easy way to integrate 4G cellular with Google maps, it would be near perfect. Audi has it I want it.
Microsoft IS the problem with NavTeq.

http://blumenthals.com/blog/2013/09/03/microsoft-buys-nokia-and-gets-navteq-for-free-or-less/

It is good to hear that your local dealer is providing stellar service ! They seem to be taking care of some of the grey area issues also.

The white stuff around your spare tire and DEF tank are the dried DEF crystals. Even my local dealer has not bought the DEF special tool (read: EXPENSIVE). They use the (1 qt throw away) plastic injector bottle with the bottom cut out. I watched twice as they filled mine and even with minimum spillage and watching them wipe it up, I used hot soapy water on a 100% cotton towel to go over the area again, when I got home.

The last DEF fill, I used the (short) accordion type funnel that came with each 2.5 gal DEF container and believe it or not did not spill a drop.

ruking1

stever said:

@ruking1, that Alltrack has definite possibilities. In other VW news:
Volkswagen to Invest $107.3 Billion Over Next 5 Years (Detroit News)

In diesel news:

"The 22 mpg combined fuel economy for the most efficient 2015 F-150 falls just 1 mpg short of the combined rating for the Ram 1500 fitted with a 3.0-liter six-cylinder diesel engine, rated at a combined 23 mpg (20 city/28 highway). Ford insists, however, that the comparison isn't apples-to-apples, as the diesel engine is a more expensive upgrade than the $495 Ford charges for the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6. More importantly, at current fuel prices, the diesel-engine Ram costs $449 more to drive over 15,000 miles."

2015 Ford F-150 Earns Up to 22 MPG Combined; Pickup Bound for Dealers Now

That is a WEAK excuse for not offering a diesel !! (even I admit that would be a peanut gallery comment, as with or without diesel, anecdotally, I would not be a buyer) Most Ford customers (unit & % wise) will probably not switch to RAM let alone just because of the diesel option. This is probably true on the 6 speed vs 8 speed A/T. The 8 speed probably yields both mpg and more customized driving advantages.

FORD can NOT state a mono el mono diesel comparison !! So, it picks a completely outlier argument ? What can they be fearful of?

Another is FORD's claim may or may not be true, EVEN IF you happen to have been one of the VERY few to have gotten their comparison model, they have talked about.

Ford has made a HUGE deal about losing app 700#'s of weight. YET, Edmunds does not even list what each of the 40 models weighs !!! ????? Funny, neither has FORD!?. Is Ford saying they shed this weight @ no cost to THEM and NO uncharge to their customers?

Another is: most of the RAM line up has 8 speed A/T's and Ford's are almost all 6 speed A/T's. Are they inferring their 6 speed A/T's are more fuel efficient than Ram's 8 speed A/T's? Specifically, are they implying the Ram's diesel hooked up to a 8 speed A/T gets less mpg than a Ford 6 speed A/T hooked to all 4 gasser engines options?

The more real truth is Ford has 4 gasser engines, no (direct comparison) diesel engine option, 40 models (include 2/4 wheel drive, 3 different bed sizes), PLUS a whole list of even more customizable options. So it begs the question, why do you need 4 (GASSER) engine options when ONE (DIESEL) will do ?? Surely, most folks understand the realities behind ALL of that (combinations) ? Or are Ford customers Gruber able ? What do you think will happen when and IF RAM drops app 700 #'s ?

This thread has even had to listen to changes in mpg due to different tire sizes, pressure, even tires. This is not even to mention oil viscosities.

So IF they are saying the majority to all of those 40 models of 4 gasser engines options (and 6 speed A/T's) beat the mpg off all (RAM) diesel options (and 8/9 speed A/T's). I stand corrected. IF not, flim flam is more like it. OR more PC: your mileage may, can, do in fact, count on it, vary.

stever

We list weights under Specs (look for a "See all F-150 features and specs" link or similar). We just don't have that info the 2015 F-150 yet. I assume we'll update that info once we get it from Ford.

40 models? Ford's getting better - there were 55 styles for 2014.

Ford rolled the dice on gas prices remaining high and lost. So far. But versus diesel fuel prices, they are ahead. So far.

Gas is down to $2.38 here today. Cheapest diesel per GasBuddy is exactly one dollar more (most is running around $3.50). Premium is running from $2.59 to $2.79. Going to be hard to convince Joe Consumer in the showroom that extra range is worth an extra $15 a tank, not to mention the price premium that a diesel truck typically commands.

Cheapest Cruze? MSRP is $17.9. Cheapest Cruze diesel? $26.6.

There's your reality.

This year....

xwesx

ruking1 said:

That is a WEAK excuse for not offering a diesel !! (even I admit that would be a peanut gallery comment, as with or without diesel, anecdotally, I would not be a buyer) Most Ford customers (unit & % wise) will probably not switch to RAM let alone just because of the diesel option. This is probably true on the 6 speed vs 8 speed A/T. The 8 speed probably yields both mpg and more customized driving advantages.

FORD can NOT state a mono el mono diesel comparison !! So, it picks a completely outlier argument ? What can they be fearful of?

While I would like them to offer diesel in this segment (as well as others, but I digress), I think it is good that they offer the V6 Eco-Boost option. Most of these trucks never see a day of pulling in their lives, so in those cases diesel does not offer nearly the advantage it does for those who work their trucks.

nyccarguy

A local Chevy dealer has a Cruze Diesel ex loaner for $21,765 with 7,400 miles.

nyccarguy

@stever‌

I agree. The typical consumer won't look at a Cruze Diesel, but they'll jump right into a Prius IV that has a pretty similar sticker.

And a Cruze Diesel is more expensive not just because of the diesel motor, but due to the fact that it uses all of the higher quality parts (quiet tune suspension, sound deadening material) as its more expensive platform twin, the Buick Verano. Chevy didn't just drop the diesel motor into a Cruze LS & jack up the price.

gagrice

nyccarguy said:

@stever‌

I agree. The typical consumer won't look at a Cruze Diesel, but they'll jump right into a Prius IV that has a pretty similar sticker.

And a Cruze Diesel is more expensive not just because of the diesel motor, but due to the fact that it uses all of the higher quality parts (quiet tune suspension, sound deadening material) as its more expensive platform twin, the Buick Verano. Chevy didn't just drop the diesel motor into a Cruze LS & jack up the price.

Our old friend Rocky just leased a Cruze diesel and is in love with diesel, which I knew he would be. I think it is all German engineered by Opel.

stever

Good for him - tell Rocky to pop in sometime and post a pic.

ruking1

stever said:

We list weights under Specs (look for a "See all F-150 features and specs" link or similar). We just don't have that info the 2015 F-150 yet. I assume we'll update that info once we get it from Ford.

40 models? Ford's getting better - there were 55 styles for 2014.

Ford rolled the dice on gas prices remaining high and lost. So far. But versus diesel fuel prices, they are ahead. So far.

Gas is down to $2.38 here today. Cheapest diesel per GasBuddy is exactly one dollar more (most is running around $3.50). Premium is running from $2.59 to $2.79. Going to be hard to convince Joe Consumer in the showroom that extra range is worth an extra $15 a tank, not to mention the price premium that a diesel truck typically commands.

Cheapest Cruze? MSRP is $17.9. Cheapest Cruze diesel? $26.6.

There's your reality.

This year....

RUG $2.99

PUG $3.19

ULSD $ 3.69

Like probably where you are: price differentials are not real deal breakers. (if I were considering going BACK to a RUG/PUG feeders)

stever

It's a factor to me. I'd probably skip a car that requires Premium unleaded too. $15 a tank saved is lunch.

For a "normal" person, ya, not as big a deal. But lots of those "normal" people post here on Edmunds and ask if it's okay to run regular in their cars that recommend premium. They're the ones who'll do a double-take in the showroom and stick with a gasser.

Diesels have just gone to the dogs. (Fox6)

ruking1

xwesx said:

ruking1 said:

That is a WEAK excuse for not offering a diesel !! (even I admit that would be a peanut gallery comment, as with or without diesel, anecdotally, I would not be a buyer) Most Ford customers (unit & % wise) will probably not switch to RAM let alone just because of the diesel option. This is probably true on the 6 speed vs 8 speed A/T. The 8 speed probably yields both mpg and more customized driving advantages.

FORD can NOT state a mono el mono diesel comparison !! So, it picks a completely outlier argument ? What can they be fearful of?

While I would like them to offer diesel in this segment (as well as others, but I digress), I think it is good that they offer the V6 Eco-Boost option. Most of these trucks never see a day of pulling in their lives, so in those cases diesel does not offer nearly the advantage it does for those who work their trucks.

I am clueless about the historic (2014) and POTENTIAL (2015) Ford 150 (4 engine options) take rate. My .02 sense of it is: EVEN if most do not tow, the "eco boost " engine option take rate will be one of the LOWs, units and percentage wise. They might have to offer SUPER incentives, mid to late model year to head em UP and MOVE em out.

stever

My brother opted for the "historic" engine in his 2013 F-150 instead of the eco-boost. He didn't trust the new engine.

That could be an issue for some folks too - get a "proven" gasser or a "newfangled" clean diesel.

ruking1

stever said:

My brother opted for the "historic" engine in his 2013 F-150 instead of the eco-boost. He didn't trust the new engine.

That could be an issue for some folks too - get a "proven" gasser or a "newfangled" clean diesel.

That has remained true, even with Ford's "stump pulling" (older to WAY older) diesel line. So either way ! ?

Still, it is not like Ford/GM are new to diesels to introduce either a 3.0 L T TDI, or a small block (lesser power and torque and 8/9/10 speed A/T) .

Maybe they are fearful of overlapped internal competition and resulting cannibalization of sales, probably more importantly, the specter of diminishing profits ? They would be more compelled to slim down from 40 models and 5 trim lines.

stever

Follow the money.

Either on the assembly line or at the pumps.

ruking1

stever said:

Follow the money.

Either on the assembly line or at the pumps.

I do @ the pumps ! Cheaper is better, (probably a character flaw) but I hope the powers that be and the majority do also. So far, 95% + of the GASSER owners of the passenger vehicle fleet do !

Anecdotally, the MB GLK 350 gets 23.5 mpg ($ 3.19) on fuelly.com for $ .136 per mile driven fuel . AGAIN anecdotally, on the (like model) MB GLK 250 BT, I posted 38 mpg for the SOS/DD R/T app 500 miles( @ $3.69) for $ .0971 per mile driven fuel (minus - $ .0389. PUG is 40% MORE !!! I probably should not say this too loudly or make a STRONG case.

The later generation of VW Touareg TDI dropped app 435 #'s from the generation before. I am sure that has had EPA and real world consequences (38 mpg in this anecdotal example), but I do not know what numbers those are. My sense of it is 1 to 3 mpg better. I also think that true for the 15 Ford F150, aka MINUS- 700 #'s.

But then on the other hand: "The 54.5 mpg CAFE Target Looms Large- "....?

..."Of course, CAFE is measured more generously than the numbers on the window sticker—a Honda Accord with a 31-mpg-combined label is rated at 40.8 mpg for CAFE—but that has long been the case."....

So, ... IF... CAFE mpg is OVERSTATED by app 32%.... So IF inflation will be (wink, wink, wink) 24% ....... The 14 MB GLK 250 BT is really @ 50 mpg for "CAFE counts" . (wink, wink, wink- Gruber and the elites might have been just stating the obvious) So for 2 examples @ 50 and 41 mpg the 03/09 Jetta TDI's are already @ the 2025 CAFE standards (@ 41 mpg given 54.5 mpg CAFE, adjusted for 24% inflation)

http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-54-5-mpg-cafe-target-looms-large-heres-how-companies-currently-stack-up/

fintail

Now if only the money factor on E250 was better - it was so bad that the price of identical MSRP cars was over $100/month more - apparently that article pitting the MB vs Prius created some demand, and the cars aren't sitting around as much. With how I drive, I'd never save $100++ per month in fuel, even if old prices return. 2 weeks back into the gasser fold now, and I miss the torque, although the ride is better thanks to conventional tires.

ruking1

fintail said:

Now if only the money factor on E250 was better - it was so bad that the price of identical MSRP cars was over $100/month more - apparently that article pitting the MB vs Prius created some demand, and the cars aren't sitting around as much. With how I drive, I'd never save $100++ per month in fuel, even if old prices return. 2 weeks back into the gasser fold now, and I miss the torque, although the ride is better thanks to conventional tires.

Prius it is then?

fintail

For me? No way. I am now in a gasser E350. Similar car, less grunt but faster, but a bit cheaper.

I heard in the rumor mill that there could be a C diesel wagon for the US in 2016. I'd maybe buy one.

ruking1 said:

Prius it is then?

ruking1

fintail said:

For me? No way. I am now in a gasser E350. Similar car, less grunt but faster, but a bit cheaper.

I heard in the rumor mill that there could be a C diesel wagon for the US in 2016. I'd maybe buy one.

ruking1 said:

Prius it is then?

From what you have posted (lease) the best per month deal seems to be the primary driver, just before the lease is up.

fintail

Yep, for a lease, the savings is key - the diesel won't save me $100++ per month, and I won't have the car long enough for longterm savings. When I leased the Bluetec, they were cheaper than gassers.

If I could configure a 4Matic diesel C-wagon to my liking (the new C sedan is pretty fantastic inside), I might actually buy it and keep it for a decade. Longterm resale on such a car should be strong, too.

ruking1 said:

From what you have posted (lease) the best per month deal seems to be the primary driver, just before the lease is up.

ruking1

fintail said:

Yep, for a lease, the savings is key - the diesel won't save me $100++ per month, and I won't have the car long enough for longterm savings. When I leased the Bluetec, they were cheaper than gassers.

If I could configure a 4Matic diesel C-wagon to my liking (the new C sedan is pretty fantastic inside), I might actually buy it and keep it for a decade. Longterm resale on such a car should be strong, too.

ruking1 said:

From what you have posted (lease) the best per month deal seems to be the primary driver, just before the lease is up.

Since a lease has a monthly preset miles and penalties for the aggregate miles OVER the agreed upon, that variable loses advantage. I mean who cares about cents when you can get penalized up to half a dollar per mile over the contract? Indeed you would have gone from much higher dollars to lease, to much lower dollars to own. (Per mile driven) With one diesel going on its second decade, another going on 6 years and getting trade in buyback offers for the 12/14's, even I am pleasantly surprised @ how good the resale values have been, remains and anticipated to be in the farther future. Perhaps in a year to 1.5 one will push past its 2nd 100,000 miles @ which time its 2nd major tune will be due.

xwesx

ruking1 said:

I am clueless about the historic (2014) and POTENTIAL (2015) Ford 150 (4 engine options) take rate. My .02 sense of it is: EVEN if most do not tow, the "eco boost " engine option take rate will be one of the LOWs, units and percentage wise. They might have to offer SUPER incentives, mid to late model year to head em UP and MOVE em out.

I don't know either. Every single person I know that bought an F150 since the intro of the Ecoboost option chose that option, though. Granted, that's only four trucks, but it's still four trucks! One of them, my dad, actually uses his to tow quite frequently (though not for long distances), and he gushes about the truck's performance.

The others replaced another truck with this one. All were V8s and none of these drivers use (or ever did use) their trucks for towing.

fintail

An AWD diesel MB wagon could become kind of a cult car too, which would help values. I might actually keep something like that long enough to experience the longterm diesel savings. That 2.1 in a C would be ideal - it would be fast, yet likely capable of 50mpg in steady freeway driving.

ruking1 said:

Indeed you would have gone from much higher dollars to lease, to much lower dollars to own. (Per mile driven) With one diesel going on its second decade, another going on 6 years and getting trade in buyback offers for the 12/14's, even I am pleasantly surprised @ how good the resale values have been, remains and anticipated to be in the farther future. Perhaps in a year to 1.5 one will push past its 2nd 100,000 miles @ which time its 2nd major tune will be due.

ruking1

fintail said:

An AWD diesel MB wagon could become kind of a cult car too, which would help values. I might actually keep something like that long enough to experience the longterm diesel savings. That 2.1 in a C would be ideal - it would be fast, yet likely capable of 50mpg in steady freeway driving.

ruking1 said:

Indeed you would have gone from much higher dollars to lease, to much lower dollars to own. (Per mile driven) With one diesel going on its second decade, another going on 6 years and getting trade in buyback offers for the 12/14's, even I am pleasantly surprised @ how good the resale values have been, remains and anticipated to be in the farther future. Perhaps in a year to 1.5 one will push past its 2nd 100,000 miles @ which time its 2nd major tune will be due.

It very well could be.

In the TDI sector, the 2003 Jetta TDI Station Wagon (JSW) would probably be one. The 2003 Jetta TDI Sedan would probably be second. So the "diesel " savings is really @ higher mileages. I have seen very few articles on the subject. The oems' do their level best to make one feel out of date, app halfway through the lease, i.e., 3 years is "fogey ish."

So for example, one knows what one pays per month and miles allowed for whatever the length lease.+ mileage overage penalties. (cost per mile: lease)

Contrast that with ownership cost for 2003 Jetta TDI sedan (cost per mile ownership (anecdotal) ) .0963 cents.

The one assumption (lie) is residual value: ZERO. 11/12 years (actual 139 mos/187,000 or) 1,345 miles per mo average. So on sale, MINUS- the price of resale and adjust the math.

SIDEBAR

I was recently told (by a savvy but unsolicited ) car buyer, he'd be a buyer @ $6,000, but most of much lesser condition went for $10,000. So assuming the two prices, that would put cost (per mile driven: ownership @) between .0642 cents to .0423 cents.

This from the LA LA Times

"White House threatens to put brakes on alternative fuels"

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fuel-fight-20141124-story.html

I guess our "environmental " White House wants us to STAY addicted to RUG/PUG? Truth is stranger than fiction, eh? IF anything the "glut" is triggering LESS use !!! The "savings also can be multipled (8 to 1) in other economic directions other than paying high taxes and transportation.

But then on the other hand, FLEX Fuel and E85 normally show 25% and greater consumption over RUG let alone PUG. Against diesel? GEEZ.

On the diesel (alternative fuel) side

..."In San Diego, Jennifer Case, chief executive of New Leaf Biofuel, says her once-thriving company is struggling. It manufactures biodiesel out of cooking oil from hundreds of industrial kitchens in Southern California.

The federal guidelines require that such products be blended into some of the diesel sold in gas stations, as well as sold in its pure form for vehicles equipped to run on it.";;;

To me, it gets back to the Fed's long refusal to pass regulations for PVF engines to run 100 % bio diesel. Anything less is political window dressing ($$$). Almost all foreign diesel oems limit bio diesel to 5% and LESS, on pain of engine warranty disapproval. Indeed I will not even use a D2/ULSD diesel product that has any % biodiesel. I did however use 1 ga of biodiesel (5%) when I filled once in the boondocks (in 338,000 miles).

stevedebi

ruking1 said:

fintail said:

An AWD diesel MB wagon could become kind of a cult car too, which would help values. I might actually keep something like that long enough to experience the longterm diesel savings. That 2.1 in a C would be ideal - it would be fast, yet likely capable of 50mpg in steady freeway driving.

ruking1 said:

Indeed you would have gone from much higher dollars to lease, to much lower dollars to own. (Per mile driven) With one diesel going on its second decade, another going on 6 years and getting trade in buyback offers for the 12/14's, even I am pleasantly surprised @ how good the resale values have been, remains and anticipated to be in the farther future. Perhaps in a year to 1.5 one will push past its 2nd 100,000 miles @ which time its 2nd major tune will be due.

It very well could be.

In the TDI sector, the 2003 Jetta TDI Station Wagon (JSW) would probably be one. The 2003 Jetta TDI Sedan would probably be second....

Just a note, the VW Jetta wagon is called a "Sportwagen".

stever

ruking1 said:

"White House threatens to put brakes on alternative fuels"

Good ol' oil (and farm) politics. There's a recent thread on the corn angle over in E85 vs. Gasoline Comparison Test you may also be interested in.

ruking1

stever said:

ruking1 said:

"White House threatens to put brakes on alternative fuels"

Good ol' oil (and farm) politics. There's a recent thread on the corn angle over in E85 vs. Gasoline Comparison Test you may also be interested in.

I think it is also with the confluence of many groups and factors: environmental conservatives, auto industry, auto consumer groups, such as AAA, consumers, and poor policy that might appear GREAT on paper, but do NOT work in real life.

IF the E10 were availaable as an OPTION instead of mandatory, it begs the question how viable would it be as a stand alone product. I think the fact that it WAS made mandatory, makes it a rhetorical question and forgone conclusion. To beat a dead horse, IF E 85 was as good on the levels it is purported to be, why not E 100 ?

The real head scratcher is B-100 has ZERO ppm sulfur !!

RUG/PUG @ 30 ppm sulfur to (off line fee) mitigate able up to 90 ppm sulfur (with 1 ppm sulfur B-100 for discussion sake) is 30 to 90 TIMES dirtier than B 100 !!!!! Put another way to clean up RUG/PUG to B 100 ppm sulfur standards would make RUG/ PUG almost cost prohibitive. Standard to standard 15 ppm ULSD to 30 ppm RUG/PUG puts it 2 TIMES dirtier. As posted before, ULSD is nominally delivered to the pumps is between 5 to 10 ppm sulfur. The math there puts pollution potential of RUG to PUG @ 2 times to 18 TIMES dirtier.

ruking1

Counter point ! ?

Should You Buy an Electric Car?
Three Owners Talk About the Benefits—and Frustrations—of Being Early Adopters
Driving range between charges can be a concern for owners of electric cars. ENLARGE
Driving range between charges can be a concern for owners of electric cars. BLOOMBERG NEWS
By JOSEPH B. WHITE
Nov. 23, 2014 4:12 p.m. ET

http://online.wsj.com/articles/should-you-buy-an-electric-car-1416777176?mod=WSJ_article_EditorsPicks

Mr_Shiftright

It's interesting though that these folks seem to think that EVs don't need service or repairs. There are still tires, brakes, and (gasp) LOTS of electronics to go south, and, it is my understanding that some electric motors do indeed need lubricating and checkups.

There might also be some subjective validation going on here (basically noting the evidence that supports your view and disregarding the evidence that contradicts your view), especially if you declare that it's your opinion that ICE cars are " dirty, smelly, loud"---a Lexus is dirty smell and loud? Really?

stever

Sure would be nice to skip oil changes. That's a dirty job and I'm done with them.

EV motor lube? Sounds like a job for some 3-in-1. Somehow I doubt that EVs have a lot of Zerk fittings on them. (Ford)

That Volt hybrid you drove? Two year oil change interval.

Mr_Shiftright

Well if a Tesla didn't need service, why do they sell a service plan? And why does their service cost $600? And really, what does it matter if you're changing oil or updating software? It's still dealer service and it still might cost money.

And if that big German study on EVs was right, and EVs do cost 1/3rd less to service than ICE cars, what does that matter when you spent $130,000 in the first place?

gagrice

stever said:

Sure would be nice to skip oil changes. That's a dirty job and I'm done with them.

EV motor lube? Sounds like a job for some 3-in-1. Somehow I doubt that EVs have a lot of Zerk fittings on them. (Ford)

That Volt hybrid you drove? Two year oil change interval.

Looking at the Ford Transit Connect EV, which I don't think is available yet. Price about $60k. That is a lot of change for a cracker box mini van with only an 80 mile range. Sorry boss my battery is dead Send AAA to tow me back to the shop. I cannot imagine any service type person driving 80 miles a day around here. Here is the latest I have found.

The Transit Connect EV is no longer for sale.

stever

Try a Leaf, something someone like me could maybe afford. I couldn't afford $800 brake jobs on a Mercedes either.

TCO maintenance on a '14 Leaf adds up to $3,357 for repairs and maintenance over five years.

Same thing for a '14 Jetta diesel? $5,837.

'14 Jetta sedan comes out at $4,700 even.

Oh, a C Class will run you about $12,000 for that time frame. An S Class (Tesla territory) - how does $19,000 grab you?

Now go back and figure in the fuel costs....

True Cost to Own

gagrice

stever said:

Try a Leaf, something someone like me could maybe afford. I couldn't afford $800 brake jobs on a Mercedes either.

TCO maintenance on a '14 Leaf adds up to $3,357 for repairs and maintenance over five years.

Same thing for a '14 Jetta diesel? $5,837.

'14 Jetta sedan comes out at $4,700 even.

Oh, a C Class will run you about $12,000 for that time frame. An S Class (Tesla territory) - how does $19,000 grab you?

Now go back and figure in the fuel costs....

True Cost to Own

Not sure how much dealers are dealing. Around here the Leaf goes from $32k to $38K. The Jetta TDI about $26k. If you can find one. The Leaf would be easier to find in So CA.

stever

It's a bit hard to believe that there are 12 EVs "available" right now. I bet availability is a big issue for most of them. We show 59 hybrids available and 33 diesel models. (Car Finder)

(Your TC EV link is missing btw).

ruking1

Mr_Shiftright said:

It's interesting though that these folks seem to think that EVs don't need service or repairs. There are still tires, brakes, and (gasp) LOTS of electronics to go south, and, it is my understanding that some electric motors do indeed need lubricating and checkups.

There might also be some subjective validation going on here (basically noting the evidence that supports your view and disregarding the evidence that contradicts your view), especially if you declare that it's your opinion that ICE cars are " dirty, smelly, loud"---a Lexus is dirty smell and loud? Really?

It is amazing that even the adopters SEEM to believe that EV's do not need (mechanical) service and/or repairs or both or that electronics do not need repair/replacement, etc.

Environmental conservatives like to also point out the up and downstream consequences of RUG/PUG. To your point, they seem to leave out the electrical grid system up and down stream consequences ( pollution) !! ?? The grid was never designed to take on a much larger electric " CAR refueling". ALL local electric utilities also give a full court press to use LESS electricity!!!! . So is ADDING electrical CAR refueling an advocation of using LESS electricity ?????????????

Where is Gruber when ya need him?

So as a minimum, the grid system needs BILLIONS IF not TRILLIONS in repair. It also probably needs an equal amount in UPGRADES. If we are going to further tether previously separate energy sources, $$'s spent for security will have to be increased again billions if not trillions. They do not like hydro electric (dams) and most want to dismantle existing systems. They do not like nuclear and that has been on the hit list for easily 50 years. Coal has been on the hit list. In addition, a lot of natural gas to run electrical plants is flared off, app 100% PLUS ++ or @ least 2 times (in the process/waste, etc.) of the natural gas they actually sell. How do you get renters (50% of the population) to pay for grid and or local solar wind installations and upgrades?

Solar and wind and other sources are inefficient and ineffective.

Now those same environmental conservatives will probably fight the repair, upgrades and security $$'s tooth and nail, adding untold billions, if not trillions to that process !

They (DENIERS) deny the obvious, RUG/PUG are useful an effective and efficient.

stever

You might enjoy this graphic of the ND oil "grid".

What North Dakota Would Look Like if Its Oil Drilling Lines Were Aboveground

ruking1

stever said:

You might enjoy this graphic of the ND oil "grid".

What North Dakota Would Look Like if Its Oil Drilling Lines Were Aboveground

Well, that does bring up the point: how much would that ADD in (total) costs, not to mention environmental DAMAGE to BURY all electrical lines ???????

So, down and upstream when the buried lines need repair and maintenance not to mention upgrades, will it then cost more or less ????

stever

I buried mine in Anchorage and would love to see most of them buried. They mess up my viewshed.

It's a bit of a trade off. You get rodent damage but less storm damage. And you avoid the odd raven or eagle shorting out the local grid. I bet the maintenance costs aren't any different until you start talking about burying high tension lines, like the Swiss are considering.

That's the appeal of home solar - no grid means no need for lines, unless you want to sell your excess power back to the electric utility.

Oh, maps of underground gasoline lines are pretty amazing too. They are everywhere.

ruking1

stever said:

I buried mine in Anchorage and would love to see most of them buried. They mess up my viewshed.

It's a bit of a trade off. You get rodent damage but less storm damage. And you avoid the odd raven or eagle shorting out the local grid. I bet the maintenance costs aren't any different until you start talking about burying high tension lines, like the Swiss are considering.

That's the appeal of home solar - no grid means no need for lines, unless you want to sell your excess power back to the electric utility.

Oh, maps of underground gasoline lines are pretty amazing too. They are everywhere.

So are you saying gas and oil lines are treated more responsibly than electrical lines?

ruking1

On the comeback trail … Report says Volkswagen may lose $1 billion in U.S. in 2014; SUV to help
by Mike Pare

This article is peripherally diesel related. In any case, some of the (implied) reasons are discussed why DIESELS (read between the lines) are a screaming deal (value) in the US market place and have been since the early 2000's. (VW's specifically and further down the and its food chain DIESEL CUV's, to wit Touareg TDI)

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2014/nov/27/comeback-trail-report-says-volkswagen-may-lose-1-b/

SIDEBAR:

The underlying dynamics are a HUGELY profitable WORLD WIDE auto OEM (consistently @ least #2, but more profitable % wise than almost any competitor) with a very small US market share. Implied is an even larger % share of a MUCH SMALLER (share of a) NICHE (DIESEL) market.

stever

ruking1 said:

So are you saying gas and oil lines are treated more responsibly than electrical lines?

No, they are worse; my point was that they are more common than people realize. Until one goes boom.

VW is tough to figure out; they seem to make a lot of bonehead decisions on the surface and then some financials come out and everyone wonders where the profits came from.

ruking1

stever said:

ruking1 said:

So are you saying gas and oil lines are treated more responsibly than electrical lines?

No, they are worse; my point was that they are more common than people realize. Until one goes boom.

VW is tough to figure out; they seem to make a lot of bonehead decisions on the surface and then some financials come out and everyone wonders where the profits came from.

Another good reason, "arrow in the quiver" so to speak. Also in an earlier post, I outlined VW America (VW A) stepping up to the plate (goodwill) in (my) the (HPFP) high pressure fuel pump issue.

As an aside, knock on wood for no shrapnel explosion.

Some other (economic) "bone head" decisions that I (VW owners) benefit from and like, but most folks, including me can not SEE (most could care less) are VW's decisions to use galvanized steel (i.e., much more corrosion resistant body panels ) with VERY high quality primer and paint. The 12 year perforated rust warranty doesn't hurt either.

houdini1

ruking1 said:

stever said:

ruking1 said:

So are you saying gas and oil lines are treated more responsibly than electrical lines?

No, they are worse; my point was that they are more common than people realize. Until one goes boom.

VW is tough to figure out; they seem to make a lot of bonehead decisions on the surface and then some financials come out and everyone wonders where the profits came from.

Another good reason, "arrow in the quiver" so to speak. Also in an earlier post, I outlined VW America (VW A) stepping up to the plate (goodwill) in (my) the (HPFP) high pressure fuel pump issue.

Some other (economic) "bone head" decisions that I benefit from and like, but most folks, including me can not SEE (most could care less) are VW's decisions to use galvanized steel (i.e., much more corrosion resistant body panels ) with VERY high quality primer and paint. The 12 year perforated rust warranty doesn't hurt either.

An example of their "bad decisions" would be their stated reason for not bringing the Amorak to the U.S. "because it is too small". IMO that is the reason they should bring it here. If they do bring it here they have said they would make the U.S. version larger to compete with the new GM midsize offerings. I had rather have the smaller version, which is not that small anyway.

ruking1

houdini1 said:

ruking1 said:

stever said:

ruking1 said:

So are you saying gas and oil lines are treated more responsibly than electrical lines?

No, they are worse; my point was that they are more common than people realize. Until one goes boom.

VW is tough to figure out; they seem to make a lot of bonehead decisions on the surface and then some financials come out and everyone wonders where the profits came from.

Another good reason, "arrow in the quiver" so to speak. Also in an earlier post, I outlined VW America (VW A) stepping up to the plate (goodwill) in (my) the (HPFP) high pressure fuel pump issue.

Some other (economic) "bone head" decisions that I benefit from and like, but most folks, including me can not SEE (most could care less) are VW's decisions to use galvanized steel (i.e., much more corrosion resistant body panels ) with VERY high quality primer and paint. The 12 year perforated rust warranty doesn't hurt either.

An example of their "bad decisions" would be their stated reason for not bringing the Amorak to the U.S. "because it is too small". IMO that is the reason they should bring it here. If they do bring it here they have said they would make the U.S. version larger to compete with the new GM midsize offerings. I had rather have the smaller version, which is not that small anyway.

I would think that more opinion than not ! I actually FEEL that way about the GTD Golf TDI, in the style of the gasser GTI.

To me, it would be more of a case of PROJECTED sales and profits, in line with strategic goals (probably more like du jour goals). My guess is that they did not feel there was enough of a market (units) to make it US market ready, in its current world wide to European iterations.

In the TMI category, I got the 2009 Jetta TDI because it was the "last" of that generations' CONTENTED version. While I do not want to sound mushy about it, the diesel emissions were vendored from an Amercan corp, somewhere in New York (Senator Clinton's constituency? The IRS tax $1,500 CREDIT for that specific vehicle in effect made it app the same cost as the 2003 Jetta TDI and THANKS Uncle Ben, et al. The very next year 2010 was to be DECONTENTED, and cheaper.

houdini1

My guess is that they did not feel there was enough of a market (units) to make it US market ready, in its current ww to European iterations.

Yes, that is obviously how they feel. I just think it is a mistake, and as I said, my opinion.

stever

VW is talking to US and Canadian dealers about the Amarok. But that's just a Wikipedia blurb. Would make a lot of sense to me.

Wiki also says it's not selling well in Australia but I think they have more competition in that vehicle size down there.

ruking1

houdini1 said:

My guess is that they did not feel there was enough of a market (units) to make it US market ready, in its current ww to European iterations.

Yes, that is obviously how they feel. I just think it is a mistake, and as I said, my opinion.

houdini1 said:

My guess is that they did not feel there was enough of a market (units) to make it US market ready, in its current ww to European iterations.

Yes, that is obviously how they feel. I just think it is a mistake, and as I said, my opinion.

There is also a TMI aspect here. Toyota's Tacoma (which is one of the few and DOMINANT competitors in the small segment) used to be made a couple of miles up the street (literally and among other cars ) At that time, CA was one of the larger markets for this compact truck. Yet, Toyota CLOSED the factory. (actually they were FORCED out, but that can be "opinion"). The plant is now TESLA which has WAY more Federal State, County and local tax CREDITS. Most are probably private rulings.

So much for a largely democratic city/s, county, state, unions and market contributions to the "middle class". I am sure, "most of the middle class" can afford Tesla's PRICES ??? !!!

I think a VW version with a TDI would be a hit and a no brainer. Again, I would not be a buyer.

SIDEBAR: according to the wiki article, the Amorak COMPACT TDI truck has been around since @ least 2010. It just needs AMERICANIZATION (aka unneccesary $$$'s ).

Mr_Shiftright

the market is not "democratic" of course--it does what is best for itself.

stever

VW's Chattanooga plant is within a day's drive of 100 million people (probably more like 150 million now - that tagline was around when I lived there in the 70s).

California is just out there.