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

crkyolfrt

Why? And no matter what their reasons, it is just so typical and totally supports the very rant/attitude of NA I posted earlier today. Ridiculous rules and laws that fall flat when fronted. It's the old Super-Size me NA attitude, when a mere medium would have easily sufficed..

Years ago I had a 4x4 Camry..even had lockable centre dif, which I never needed. In fact it was SO capable...the frig car would climb trees if there was some snow on the bark..and in those mountains you drive, its LCG would actually be a lot safer on the tight turns..

And now we have come to yet another time a pic would be worth a thousand words, if it was easier to upload here...I have a pic of my Matrix plowing snow on my drive that was almost going up over the hood. It would have but I couldn't get enough road speed for that to happen. And I didn't even have snows. They were All Season Good Year TA's or GA's ...forget..
It was literally doing 14" of snow and still wasn't highending itself..
Admittedly, it must have been just the right type of powder to compliment the cars capabilities, but what is even more shocking, was that it wasn't super cold out...was only about 18 or 20 or so..

It's a great pic..wish I could show you.. and if it weren't for so much internet hosting site sharing crap, I could do it that way but when they started to inundate me with spam as soon as I opened an account..I killed it. I think it was Flicker or something..maybe tinyurl is better in that regard but I doubt it..

gagrice

And I would wager that as roomy as your Seq is, you can't fold the seats and throw a piece of 4x8 plywood in the back for a backyard man-cave project.

That is true, the seats take up nearly as much room folded as in place. I took the the back row out and stored them for 5 years. Pulled them out to haul family around last fall. And yes it is 4X4. The Seqouia is rear wheel drive. I would consider a mini van with a diesel engine. The Sienna AWD is only good for 19 MPG. I get 16 MPG with my Sequoia.

I have a Frontier for hauling plywood. It also gets about 16 MPG. I am forced to waste gas by the same ECO Nuts that scream against wasting gas.

crkyolfrt

Oh believe me...I was only referring to a diesel version of an AWD m-van. If they (the gas) so hard on gas, I would own one instead of my CRV. I constantly have to use a trailer for things that the m van would swallow easy. It's very frustrating..

Yes I knew they were rear wheel, I meant rear 2WD..They are big vehicles..huge even. I guess it still uses a live rear axle in the rear, eh?

You can lay plywood flat between the wheel wells on the newer Frontiers? Wow, didn't know they had copied Dakota in that way. Very cool.. but yes, they too really suck gas. So unlike the original roots of that engine (I'm thinking the 4 but sounds like you have the 6?) which only used throttle body injection, but my lifetime average with a 4x4 Pathfinder stick, with that old engine was 24 Imp. Or was it 27? I'm forgetting but have it doc'd somewhere...was either 23.9 or 26.9..

And if you have the supercharged version I hear they are really REALLY hard on gas..but have quite a bit of grunt..it's the same old thing with gas jobs...you can have one OR the other (go or economy) but unlike a diesel, you can't have both..

stever

California chain laws are something else; I've had to play the waiting game before.

(Tinyurl doesn't spam me; there's no signup).

crkyolfrt

Steve,

Maybe you can post them for me in this post?. I just emailed them to you.

5922 was after I had cleared the road with the plow. The first pic is mid way up my hill. It's a bit of a level spot for a bit before getting into another steep rise about 200' long to the top. The Matrix cudda done it if I was prepared to waste enough gas working away at it in the ruts making an extra 15' at a time but decided to get the plow. Knew it would make a great pic so went up to get the camera and brought it down with me on first pass with the plow.

ruking1

..."Why? And no matter what their reasons, it is just so typical and totally supports the very rant/attitude of NA I posted earlier today. Ridiculous rules and laws that fall flat when fronted. It's the old Super-Size me NA attitude, when a mere medium would have easily sufficed.. "...

I would not even begin to fathom the REAL reasons, stated/un and the plethora of other wise.

However, purely from an anecdotal point of view, I have seen the gambit from SUV's CUV's, trucks having seemingly unfathomable accidents: to more obvious Honda Civics' with ricer WIDE wheels and track tires who somehow flipped their vehicles in ice and snow and wondered,.... how'd and why'd that happened !! ?? I would NOT have a clue as to why they would not have a clue. Now, I have no issues with someone like that being stupid. I do take extreme exception when they want to intentionally or unintentionally try to inflict that stupidity on ME and mine. Natually they are betting YOUR life that YOU have insurance for they probably have no to inadequate insurance. I have sadly been a passing witness to fatalities and helicopter extractions, etc., etc. in winter. (just this past winter)

stever

You used a diesel plow, right?

Mr_Shiftright

what's all that white stuff? :P

tifighter

If I did not have the SUV/CUV, they would have made me chain up and/or wait or go back.
------------------
"...You mean that had you had an AWD minivan, they would have still made you put chains on?"..."

Yes and absolutely.

This is not true. R2 conditions, which are the most common when it snows requires 2WD vehicles to chain up. 4WD/AWD vehicles do not provided they have all-season, M/S rated tires or snow tires (which are never checked). Caltran does not distinguish between a AWD CUV/SUV and a AWD minivan; if you can show your vehicle is equipped with 4WD/AWD to chain control, you're through. AWD Siennas are pretty popular family shuttles to ski schools on the weekends; I see them all the time during R2 restriction windows.

In rare R3 conditions, they require chains on all AWD/4WD vehicles. This happened to me one time leaving Kings Beach to Northstar, and conditions were not pretty. Chains+AWD got me there, though.

ruking1

Ah no, I have seen many a AWD vehicle on the sides of the road chaining up. Indeed even you use chains on an AWD! ? So if even you do not agree defacto( real world).... But as you mentioned, it is hard to check for M/S tires, or snow tires for that matter. I have been asked several times and they ONLY ask for 4 WD. There was absolutely no mention of AWD, let alone whether one has green symbol tires. Are there folks that slip by? Absolutely. I have even. Can it be interpreted and enforced in different ways? Yes.

Now, I will agree that once you are in the area, you can operate a vehicle with or without chains. Indeed, I have no issues doing it in a Honda Accord or Civic. Is it smart? Yes and No. Do I do it now? NO ! So I would not doubt that you see cars like Sienna's operating in the area during R1, R2 and rare R3 conditions sans snow tire and/or chains dare I so no AWD :confuse: .

Here is one reference CA.gov Chain Controls

So for example when the snow plows with tractor tires and chains and the plow blades have issues/problems and with embedded GPS that reads the markers in real time have problems, I in my CUV with even with chains and snow tires probably should not be on the roads in the soup.

gagrice

Chains+AWD got me there, though.

CA rules on chains are crazy. They can cause as many accidents as they prevent. 37 years living and working in Alaska and never owned chains. Most of the time I had rear wheel drive vehicles with studded tires in winter. Much preferred over AWD with chains. I avoid CA mountains during the winter because of their ignorant rules and regs.

ruking1

Yes it is interesting to consider that I can get 2 to 5 mpg better without the 4wd option. I also understand an ad blue delete and subsequent hardware removal and finer tune chipping can add another app 4 mpg. :surprise: It is interesting that during winter, the "rules" actually make one burn even more fuel. They of course "winterize" RUG/PUG which in effect burns even more, than burning even more.

stever

Don't see an AWD option but there's another diesel option available. And at least some of them have sliders, but only one slider is available.

"For 2014, buyers for the first time have the choice of two turbocharged diesel engines. Added to the line is a 2.1-liter engine that is mated to a seven-speed automatic transmission. The engine is standard in all Sprinter models and rated at 161 horsepower and 265 pound-feet of torque."

Redesigned 2014 Mercedes-Benz Sprinter Targets Ford Econoline

No mpg numbers yet.

ruking1

Yes, I think contrary to a lot of opinions expressed on this board (cost is no object if someone else is paying for it?) , this MB sprinter is aimed squarely @ those fleets or businesses where (lower the better) cost per mile driven are an issue, usually huge. If Ford does not go the diesel route, albeit 2.1 L , MB will easily win the lower cost per mile metric FUEL. Even if it gets better than 25 mpg (what the MB 3.0 L Sprinter was reputed to get) , it should easily out metric the E150 paneled van which posts 12 mpg in the real world.

crkyolfrt

Thanks..
Ahhh...in the interest of thread purity, ahh ya.. :shades:

crkyolfrt

I guess there is not much out there to replace it presently, but aren't those things a money pit? Thereby negating fuel savings.

In theory this type of truck makes so much sense, but to be a MB?? That name brings with it a pile of prestige when talking about their cars. Not so with the truck, it just brings with it big buck costs due to its association with the name and issues. It would fine if it wasn't a money pit, but..

On a smaller scale I am just amazed that Ford hasn't dieselized the Transit. The intelligence meter is hanging pretty low there Ford. I wouldn't be surprised if more than one or two of ya near the top are drooling..and no...I don't mean with anticipation of anything..

And I know personally of 4 contractors in my area would BUY 2 or 3 EACH Transits IF they were diesel AND 4WD. Can't buy what isn't offered tho..idiots..

I just don't get why, when there is real work to be done, that diesels don't make a clean sweep. Oh ya...you can't buy what isn't offered..

I've said it before and I'll say it again..this is a HUGE opportunity for Korea to offer the consumer what is blatantly not being offered by their competition..so ya...they're idiots too..

Any other world problems that I can help provide answers for? haha :shades:

stever

MB has been making trucks forever so they may have a good handle on the operating costs. Ask Gagrice about the Sprinter he had for a while when he gets back.

The Transit Connect is frustrating. I could probably live with the gasser version if it just came in a 5 speed.

flightnurse

"For 2014, buyers for the first time have the choice of two turbocharged diesel engines. Added to the line is a 2.1-liter engine that is mated to a seven-speed automatic transmission. The engine is standard in all Sprinter models and rated at 161 horsepower and 265 pound-feet of torque."

Interesting is this the same engine in the GLK that is rated at 200hp? and 398;bs of torque? If so why would MB lower the HP and T in a heavier vehicle? BTW I was impressed that MB increased the HP on the diesel for the cars, now if any BMW would do the same thing.

flightnurse

The Transit Connect is frustrating. I could probably live with the gasser version if it just came in a 5 speed.

We are having work done on or heating and AC ducting here at the house, and the AC guy has a new Transit, at first he wasn't too sure if he would like it, after a month, he does and the company is going to buy 15 more. He is averaging 20 mpg with it much better than the 14 with his old van. Now if it has a diesel in it, it would be much higher. I'm sure Ford is making a killing on those transits, the cost to product them must be low...

stever

They do have a certain appeal. But my '99 van averages 21 in mixed use.

gagrice

Ask Gagrice about the Sprinter he had for a while when he gets back.

I owned a 2006 MB Sprinter conversion van for a little over a year. It had the 5 cylinder inline engine and 5 speed selectronic transmission. My two complaints was parking as it was almost 23 feet long. And the height made it less than great in the wind or being passed by semis. I never got under 20 MPG. It would run all day at 75 MPH across TX and return 25 MPG. If they came out with a mini van size with that 2.1L diesel it would be a nice vehicle to trick out for traveling cross country. The smaller 144" wheelbase Sprinter is still more vehicle than I want. It is about two feet longer than my Sequoia.

stever

Back to the GLK250, the US price is coming in at $39,495 to start and the mileage is 24 city/33 highway/28 combined. Note that it's $500 less than the gasoline-powered GLK350 4Matic.

2013 Mercedes-Benz GLK250 Delivers Diesel Power and Efficiency

ruking1

I think if there was ever a time for a diesel VW "Tiguan" type vehicle, it is now. Even with the slight diesel premium, the "top" version (of which edmunds.com lists 11) would be cheaper than the entry diesel GLK250. Indeed it would be one step closer to VW having a diesel option across its model line.

gagrice

Mercedes is serious about dominating the Luxury market again. At 33 MPG I would have saved about $275 on fuel, even with diesel selling at $4 per gallon most of the trip. Have to take a closer look at the GLK.

scwmcan

Well Ford doesn't offer a diesel in the Transit Connect, but the full size Transit is supposed to offer one ( and no it doesnt make sense to not offer one in the smaller van, but at least the offer it in the full size). I seem to recall it wil be a 5 cyl diesel. As for the naming scheme, it follows the rest of the world naming, but I can see it leading to confusion, especially when some will forget that the smaller van has a second part to the name.

crkyolfrt

As for the naming scheme, it follows the rest of the world naming, but I can see it leading to confusion, especially when some will forget that the smaller van has a second part to the name

Yes, and that is what I did. I'm not surprised though, cuz I have been boycotting Ford for the past 22 years, so don't follow all of their product offerings. This is a good example, cuz while I knew about their Transit Connect, cuz I could use a vehicle of this type in my work. But I immediately dismissed it since it is a heavy tall vehicle with no diesel or AWD option, so no matter how efficient it may propose to be, its capability could be so much more = Fail IMB's.

Aside from my boycott, it could have stood at least a bit of chance had it offered AWD, but again, that just makes it that much heavier and fuel hungry so the need for a diesel that much more obvious, so a Total Unadulterated Fail.

ruking1

Being as how 75% of the passenger vehicle fleet are large cars to "light trucks," it makes all the (non PC) sense why diesels in that broad segment are being banned to choked off. Defacto, they (large car to light truck diesels) are less than 2.5% of the vehicle fleet. The other 2.5% diesels are passenger cars, for a total currently of app less than 5%.

In or on the mid sized segment (less than 25% of the passenger vehicle fleet) , I read that Toyota and Honda are losing (dominance) hold of that market segment. There is a quiet to not so quiet battle going on (gasser especially) and diesel has several models in the mid sized segment. Indeed, TDI Passat's competition gets less mpg for (Camry type) hybrids and costs anywhere from 6k to 8k (MSRP) more than the Passat diesel.

flightnurse

I read someplace that VW will be offering a TDI Tiquan for 2014.

flightnurse

I'm disappointed that the 250GLK isn't getting better MPG on the highway. Too bad it's not $1500 less then the 350GLK.

gagrice

If the EPA rates it at 33 MPG highway, it is a sure bet it will get in the high 30s. Those test are designed to make diesel vehicles look bad. If the ML250 BlueTec sold in the EU is capable of 40 MPG US, the GLK should be even better.

The ML 250 bagged the recognition because of the energy-saving features of its 204 hp diesel engine which can go 40 miles while only using 1 gallon of fuel.

http://www.benzinsider.com/2013/01/two-mercedes-benz-cars-recognized-as-most-env- ironment-friendly/