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?

1312313315317318473

Comments

  • socal_ericsocal_eric Member Posts: 189
    edited July 2015
    xwesx said:

    Bought one of the first Cruze Turbo Diesel when they first hit the dealers here in Southern California.

    Presumably, you have owned the car for up to a couple of years now. How's it performing?!
    I think it's right at two years. Other than scheduled maintenance every 7.5k miles I think the only issue was a check engine light that came on and went off (I want to say for catalyst efficiency and/or downstream O2 sensor). That happened right around the second oil change and when it went in the dealer tech found a service bulletin, reflashed/updated the powertrain controller and it hasn't happened again.

    Last I checked the car was at about 22k miles before my parents used it for a round-trip drive up to the Pacific Northwest and back a few weeks ago. The longest I've driven it has been an eight hour road trip up to Northern California and back with no complaints.

    Best attributes are that it makes for a pretty comfortable highway cruiser. Mileage in pure stop-and-go, worst case city driving seems to dip down to around 28 mpg or so but mix in any type of normal driving it seems to average around 38 mpg. (For comparison, most my other "sporting" compacts like my '08 Cobalt SS and '13 Focus ST would do 26-28 mpg average in the same driving.) Pure highway is usually mid to upper 40s but drive a little more conservative over flat terrain and it will break 50 mpg. In other words the EPA numbers are very easy to meet and beat.

    As an auto enthusiast there isn't much different from a regular Cruze. The steering like all Cruze models is a little numb but the chassis is surprisingly capable even with the Turbo Diesel's extra weight and low rolling resistance tires. Dynamically the suspension, especially the front struts, seem a touch under dampened but they do provide a nice ride.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Thanks for the report. For those that remember Rocky, he has a Cruze diesel and loves it. Reports about the same mileage as above. Not sure how they are selling as GM does not separate them from the rest. With diesel about a buck cheaper than RUG it is a real bargain to drive in CA.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
    ruking1 said:

    Slow news diesel day. ULSD @ $2.93, RUG $ 3.59, MG $ 3.69, PUG $3.79.

    I and other folks have got to love how cool and seamless this is and remains. We just recently had guests coming up the SOS/DD route in a Volvo T6 AWD @ 22 mpg with torque closer to the 35 mpg VW Touareg TDI ( awesome machine btw, 385' 406 # ft, both had 8 sp a/t' s).

    So at .1723 & .0837, cents PMD ( per mile driven) 100,000 miles would cost $ 17,227 vs $ 8,371. DIESEL! Not terribly on topic, but I was surprised to learn the Volvo was priced FAR higher!

    While all the variables change, using the above example, RUG/PUG is app 105% MORE ( like power and competition, diesel being 51% cheaper)
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    This is a registration link from the WSJ but the title and subhead tell you all you need to know.

    Diesel Prices Tank Amid Global Glut
    Pump prices are cheaper than regular gasoline in 21 states

  • socal_ericsocal_eric Member Posts: 189
    Key thing to keep in mind about pricing is the historical average for the market you live in. You don't necessarily want to buy a car in response to what the prices at the pump are doing due to (hopefully) short term fluctuations.

    In California for example, over the last month or two diesel has been up to a buck cheaper per gallon that regular unleaded (or more) and it would seem to make diesel much more attractive. It's nice now, but when I bought the Cruze during "normal" fuel market pricing the average I've seen for the last few years has fallen between the cost of regular and premium gas and sometimes a little more (say $.10-20 more than premium when gas prices tumbled).

    Looking at the average historical pricing for my market, the intended use of the car and running the numbers on overall cost per mile driven it worked out favorably. For other that might have different driving requirements such as slow commutes in gridlock and live in an area where the price of diesel normally costs more it might not be the best choice.

    If you're buying a car on an emotional basis the diesel is different and can have some compelling driving characteristics (low end torque, longer range/time between fill-ups, etc.), but if you lean towards logical choices in car buying the math will not lie.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
    With fuel price variations, ULSD prices normally being more, diesel (pmd) has kept the lower cost per mile driven (like model,competition ) advantage.

    For me in the CA area, essentially this has been true since my first diesel in 2003, or 13 model years. Indeed, this has been true for all of my diesel miles (@ least 356,000 miles) AND cars. Diesels also do better in slow commutes in gridlock (48 to 52 mpg in the NATIONS 3rdt to 5th worst commute in gridlock) than the overwhelming majority of gassers.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,934

    xwesx said:

    Bought one of the first Cruze Turbo Diesel when they first hit the dealers here in Southern California.

    Presumably, you have owned the car for up to a couple of years now. How's it performing?!
    I think it's right at two years. Other than scheduled maintenance every 7.5k miles I think the only issue was a check engine light that came on and went off (I want to say for catalyst efficiency and/or downstream O2 sensor). That happened right around the second oil change and when it went in the dealer tech found a service bulletin, reflashed/updated the powertrain controller and it hasn't happened again.

    Last I checked the car was at about 22k miles before my parents used it for a round-trip drive up to the Pacific Northwest and back a few weeks ago. The longest I've driven it has been an eight hour road trip up to Northern California and back with no complaints.

    Best attributes are that it makes for a pretty comfortable highway cruiser. Mileage in pure stop-and-go, worst case city driving seems to dip down to around 28 mpg or so but mix in any type of normal driving it seems to average around 38 mpg. (For comparison, most my other "sporting" compacts like my '08 Cobalt SS and '13 Focus ST would do 26-28 mpg average in the same driving.) Pure highway is usually mid to upper 40s but drive a little more conservative over flat terrain and it will break 50 mpg. In other words the EPA numbers are very easy to meet and beat.

    As an auto enthusiast there isn't much different from a regular Cruze. The steering like all Cruze models is a little numb but the chassis is surprisingly capable even with the Turbo Diesel's extra weight and low rolling resistance tires. Dynamically the suspension, especially the front struts, seem a touch under dampened but they do provide a nice ride.
    Are diesels inherently heavier, or is it because the diesel engine is just plain bigger? 2.0 Gasser same weight as a 2.0 diesel?
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
    andres3 said:

    xwesx said:

    Bought one of the first Cruze Turbo Diesel when they first hit the dealers here in Southern California.

    Presumably, you have owned the car for up to a couple of years now. How's it performing?!
    I think it's right at two years. Other than scheduled maintenance every 7.5k miles I think the only issue was a check engine light that came on and went off (I want to say for catalyst efficiency and/or downstream O2 sensor). That happened right around the second oil change and when it went in the dealer tech found a service bulletin, reflashed/updated the powertrain controller and it hasn't happened again.

    Last I checked the car was at about 22k miles before my parents used it for a round-trip drive up to the Pacific Northwest and back a few weeks ago. The longest I've driven it has been an eight hour road trip up to Northern California and back with no complaints.

    Best attributes are that it makes for a pretty comfortable highway cruiser. Mileage in pure stop-and-go, worst case city driving seems to dip down to around 28 mpg or so but mix in any type of normal driving it seems to average around 38 mpg. (For comparison, most my other "sporting" compacts like my '08 Cobalt SS and '13 Focus ST would do 26-28 mpg average in the same driving.) Pure highway is usually mid to upper 40s but drive a little more conservative over flat terrain and it will break 50 mpg. In other words the EPA numbers are very easy to meet and beat.

    As an auto enthusiast there isn't much different from a regular Cruze. The steering like all Cruze models is a little numb but the chassis is surprisingly capable even with the Turbo Diesel's extra weight and low rolling resistance tires. Dynamically the suspension, especially the front struts, seem a touch under dampened but they do provide a nice ride.
    Are diesels inherently heavier, or is it because the diesel engine is just plain bigger? 2.0 Gasser same weight as a 2.0 diesel?
    Yes/no. Diesel engines are made sturdier and as a consequence are heavier. Heavier duty suspension componentry are the engineering and practical normal. Same size wise, gassers have inherent disadvantages. So for example, the MB GLK 350/250 have different sized engines.(3.5 l V 6 vs 2.0 l I4 twin turbo) The 2.0 l twin turbo DIESEL is already a yippee yahoo engine @ 369 # ft. A 3.5 l diesel V6/ I 6 twin turbo would be serious OVERKILL ! ( swag 500 to 700 # ft)
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 17,688
    edited July 2015
    ruking1 said:

    Yes/no. Diesel engines are made sturdier and as a consequence are heavier. Heavier duty suspension componentry are the engineering and practical normal. Same size wise, gassers have inherent disadvantages. So for example, the MB GLK 350/250 have different sized engines.(3.5 l V 6 vs 2.0 l I4 twin turbo)

    So, cylinder for cylinder, the diesel is a heavier engine, but the manufacturer puts a bigger engine in the gasoline version in order to achieve the desired performance characteristics? This, then, adds weight to the gasoline engine, etc.

    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
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I thought that was what turbos were for (for both engines....)
  • socal_ericsocal_eric Member Posts: 189
    edited July 2015
    andres3 said:

    Are diesels inherently heavier, or is it because the diesel engine is just plain bigger? 2.0 Gasser same weight as a 2.0 diesel?

    The diesel Cruze is around 3500 pounds while a similarly equipped LT2/LTZ 1.4L gas turbo model usually comes up at around 3200 pounds. The Cruze Eco model with the 1.4L gas turbo is closer to 3000 pounds but is a little more Spartan on options and GM also made quite a few structural and other changes to that model (thinner sheet metal in non-structural chassis areas, lighter forged wheels, etc.) If I recall the base 1.8L naturally aspirated gas model, which is usually the value leader stripper model ends up between the Eco and loaded 1.4L turbo models for weight.

    Diesels are inherently heavier due to a number of reasons and it isn't just the displacement. Because they use compression to ignite the air-fuel mixture (instead of spark plugs) they often run a static compression-ratio in the 18:1 or 20:1 or higher range. Even compared to newer gasoline engines with direct injection that may touch 11 or 12:1 the diesel is still going to see much higher cylinder pressures (especially when turbocharged).

    To account for this the bottom end rotating assembly of the engine has to be built to withstand the higher stresses. That often means heavier piston rods, crankshaft and reinforced block. The diesel engine will generally not rev as high as a gas engine and makes a lot of torque at low rpms which requires a stout transmission that is often heavier than an equivalent model designed for lower input torque from a gas engine.

    There's also other powertrain difference that can add up. For example on some diesel engines they utilize variable geometry exhaust housing for the turbocharger (i.e. movable vanes or ring in the exhaust housing used to better direct exhaust over the spinning turbine wheel at the lower exhaust volumes of a diesel) as compared to a turbo on a small gas engine that only needs a simpler and lighter wastegate/bypass valve system to bleed off exhaust gas around the turbo and down into the exhaust system to control how fast it will spin and how much boost it will make. These are generally lighter than a variable geometry turbo by a few pounds. The glow plugs used to pre-heat the diesel fuel and aid starting in cold temps also generally requires a bigger battery along with a larger starter motor due to thicker engine oil used and longer cranking times in extreme cold (all adding weight).

    Modern diesels also require extensive emission equipment to meet tailpipe standards. With both gas and diesel powered vehicles now having catalytic converters, the modern diesel will also normally need an additional exhaust particulate filter. This is a device that captures the black soot you'd see from older diesels (or modified trucks, for example). The engine controller then increases the exhaust temperature coming from the engine to burn it off periodically (i.e. regeneration cycle).

    Most new diesels also require a selective catalyst reduction system to meet emission targets. This involves injecting a urea solution commonly known as diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) into the exhaust stream to break down the oxides of nitrogen (NOx). That means the extra weight of a tank, however many gallons of DEF and the other small components such as pump, sensors, solenoid valves, lines, etc.

    All of these powertrain components add up to more weight the vehicle has to carry. The manufacturer then often has to make changes to the vehicle to account for that. On the Cruze for example it has larger brake rotors to better handle the increased weight. Those bigger rotors weigh more than the stock rotors on gas models. Some diesel powered cars also have redesigned suspension components such as heavy-duty control arms and bigger, heavier springs to carry the larger loads.

    Lastly, due to the noise, vibration, harshness (NVH) characteristics of a diesel and how they use compression to ignite the fuel, the engines often make more mechanical noise as they go about their business making power. A modern diesel with multiple fuel injection bursts per combustion event and pre-chambers in the head to tailor how the diesel fuel ignites and better control the burn rate are much quieter than older diesel engines but are still much louder than a good gasoline engine. To get around this an automaker might add thicker window glass to reduce noise transmission into the car, add sound dampening material to the firewall, underhood areas, etc. This all adds up to an increased vehicle weight.


    Due to not having a throttle body and less pumping losses, the higher compression ratio and the greater amount of energy available to extract from a gallon of diesel compared to a gallon of gasoline you still usually end up with better economy with the diesel even though it may weigh more. It also explains fuel economy ratings. If you drive in slow city stop-and-go it takes a lot of energy to get the car moving which is then lost as heat in braking. If you have a heavier car this can cancel out some of the diesel's efficiency advantages.

    Once moving at higher sustained speeds the vehicle's aerodynamics exponentially becomes more important to how much energy (fuel) is needed to keep the vehicle moving and weight is less important due Newton's first law about an object in motion tending to stay in motion. That's what generally makes a diesel-powered car better on the highway than in the city as compared to a gasoline powered model.

    At highway speeds the overall aerodynamic design and aerodynamic aids become more important. In the case of the Cruze Turbo Diesel it uses most of the aero components that are also installed in the efficient gas Cruze Eco model. This include active grill shutters, a smaller upper grill opening for the radiator, underbody panels to smooth airflow and air deflectors in front of the tires (which are also low rolling resistance models to keep the car rolling easier and using less power to move down the road).
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
    stever said:

    I thought that was what turbos were for (for both engines....)

    Lol ! They truly wish !
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited July 2015
    When I drove my friend's gasser '13 Cruze down from Taos earlier this month, I filled up before I left. The dash said my range was 600 miles.

    350 miles later when I got home, the range showing was around 100 miles. Of course, I was doing 82 or so for a good part of that drive.

    So I'm curious what your dash says your range is on the diesel flavor. And I suppose you'd well exceed the range if you stayed off the surface streets.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
    stever said:

    When I drove my friend's gasser '13 Cruze down from Taos earlier this month, I filled up before I left. The dash said my range was 600 miles.

    350 miles later when I got home, the range showing was around 100 miles. Of course, I was doing 82 or so for a good part of that drive.

    Just curious what your range is on the diesel flavor.

    @ 82 mph, I normally will CAMP in the EXTREME right hand lane ! When passing CHP's disappear ahead of you, the universe is telling me I am fogie ing along! ;) The good news is I am probably not a target.

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited July 2015
    Yeah, I do drive like a granny usually. :)

    75 limit on the freeways here, out of the cities anyway. And traffic is light.

    k, Chevy says the diesel Cruze range is 717 miles. The gasser I drove would get 38 mpg to get that 600 mile range on it's 15.6 gallon tank. Sound about right if you keep your speed down.

    Frankly, I've been happy to usually go 400 miles between fills on the van, but this one has a bigger tank than the last one (the Quest usually got filled before I hit 350 miles)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
    Actually it appears the VW Touareg TDI and the MB GLK 250 are " optimized " FOR 81/82 mph (actually certain rpm, but how many folk drive rpm?)
  • socal_ericsocal_eric Member Posts: 189
    stever said:

    So I'm curious what your dash says your range is on the diesel flavor. And I suppose you'd well exceed the range if you stayed off the surface streets.

    I don't really pay too much attention to the distance to empty but the trip computer on the diesel models seems pretty accurate for mileage readings compared to computed values after fuel-up. If I recall after topping up the distance to empty is usually somewhere in the mid-500 range (which is about right with tank reserve capacity and an average 38-40 mpg in mixed driving) and also seems to read pretty accurate.

    Most of the time on long highway drives I'll look at the other economy displays such as running averages for the last thirty miles or one of the mixed information screens on the instrument cluster display.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
    ruking1 said:

    stever said:

    I thought that was what turbos were for (for both engines....)

    Lol ! They truly wish !
    stever said:

    Yeah, I do drive like a granny usually. :)

    75 limit on the freeways here, out of the cities anyway. And traffic is light.

    k, Chevy says the diesel Cruze range is 717 miles. The gasser I drove would get 38 mpg to get that 600 mile range on it's 15.6 gallon tank. Sound about right if you keep your speed down.

    Frankly, I've been happy to usually go 400 miles between fills on the van, but this one has a bigger tank than the last one (the Quest usually got filled before I hit 350 miles)

    The more practical indicator is is when the low fuel lamp/buzzer lights/goes off.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I do see that light and message every few tanks. Might see it tomorrow, LOL.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,549
    edited July 2015
    The 2015 VW Golf SportWagen turbo diesel, for c. $25k nicely equipped, seems like a nice option....At that price has keyless access and pushbutton start, 6 speed manual, 16" alloy wheels, heated mirrors, rearview camera, etc. Rated 43 mpg highway. I know it's a different class of car, but the Sportwagen has almost twice the cargo room as the BMW 328d SportWagen, and costs about half as much.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2024 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (offspring)
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,934
    benjaminh said:

    The 2015 VW Golf SportWagen turbo diesel, for c. $25k nicely equipped, seems like a nice option....At that price has keyless access and pushbutton start, 6 speed manual, 16" alloy wheels, heated mirrors, rearview camera, etc. Rated 43 mpg highway. I know it's a different class of car, but the Sportwagen has almost twice the cargo room as the BMW 328d SportWagen, and costs about half as much.

    I'm not so sure they are a different class of car. BMW's base interiors aren't known to be very good, and VW/Audi interiors tend to be impeccable (more so with Audi). You are right about the VW being a deal if you can go somewhat light on the options. A base model doesn't have fog lights, or the premium audio system in the VW. Also, the base model with 16" alloys, while adequate, comes with skinnier little tires; the same as a Civic EX from '07. The mid-line SE comes with 17", but more importantly nice 225/45/R17 tires which improves handling a lot. Does a 328d really get optioned up to $50k potentially? Seems overpriced. Is it significantly faster? I bet the VW handles just as well, due to the light new platform, but the biggest difference would be FWD vs. RWD.
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,549
    edited July 2015
    A BMW 328d xDrive Sports Wagon with standard leatherette and just one option, a back up camera, seems to come to $45,945 msrp. And so comparably equipped except for the xDrive it seems to list for about $21k more than a Golf Sportwagen. So, yeah, not that far from twice as much.
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2024 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (offspring)
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,934
    Wow, that is a significant price different for what doesn't amount to much. Even if you like AWD, I can't imagine you can throw much more than $5K value for that. That leaves a gap of over $15K still.

    Interestingly, I saw a 2009 A4 Avant (the last model year provided in the US with the Avant version) at Carmax in good condition, 2.0T, black, auto, about 37K miles for $29K.
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Member Posts: 5,618
    But, but, but . . . you end up with a "Bimmer." All else slips aside.

    Or not.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
    andres3 said:

    Wow, that is a significant price different for what doesn't amount to much. Even if you like AWD, I can't imagine you can throw much more than $5K value for that. That leaves a gap of over $15K still.

    Interestingly, I saw a 2009 A4 Avant (the last model year provided in the US with the Avant version) at Carmax in good condition, 2.0T, black, auto, about 37K miles for $29K.

    Yes, I'm not really sure why AWD is being locked in with the diesel option. While I have had any number of AWD and 4 wheel drive vehicles, I really have never and still do not "need" or want it 99% of the time. The only time I "want" it, is for CA mountains chain control checks. I have never had any winter driving issues. But then I have only lived 3 seasons in 24/7 winter driving conditions. Indeed when I did live in winter conditions, the cars were rear wheel drives.

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
    Slow news diesel day ! ULSD $2.99,

    RUG 3.57, MG $3.67, PUG $3.77, Propel (diesel HPR) is at $2.79 !
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    edited July 2015
    ruking1 said:

    Slow news diesel day ! ULSD $2.99,

    RUG 3.57, MG $3.67, PUG $3.77, Propel (diesel HPR) is at $2.79 !

    Yesterday saw diesel at 3.29, RUG at 4.19, mid at 4.39, premium is 4.49. LA has some expensive gas. Glad we have a diesel and a PHEV.

    EDIT: Out here the diesel is all low sulfur.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
    Yes, I don't think it's been a serious issue since late 2006 Oct, or going on 9 years. Even red dye diesel is ULSD.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
    11.5 years AVG age! ? Using 15,000 miles AVG yearly miles= 172,500 miles. 200,000 miles may be the new standard.

    http://news.yahoo.com/average-us-vehicle-age-hits-record-11-5-111624803--finance.html
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 17,688
    That doesn't surprise me too much, really. I do my part to skew those numbers simply by keeping my old stock on current registration, despite driving each less in a year than the average daily driver sees in a week!

    However, on my commute, I see a lot of vehicles older than the '08 Forester I drive. I would estimate that my car is probably real close to smack dab in the middle of the age range of what I see, and it is eight years old now.
    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 July 2015
    So comparing like for like (MB GLK 250/350) @ 35 mpg/21 mpg, div 200,000 miles = 5,714gal/9,524 gal. or 3,810 gals saved.That = to both $ 13,678. And 133,340 diesel miles. Advantage, DIESEL.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    ruking1 said:

    81.17 mpg, Who really cares?

    Exxon/Mobile?

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
    stever said:

    ruking1 said:

    81.17 mpg, Who really cares?

    Exxon/Mobile?

    LOL! I was thinking along the lines of the threads' topic! :D
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2015
    BMW has upped the MONSTER quotient!

    TDI QUAD turbo, 3.0 L, I6, 590 # ft. 400 HP, for aficionados.

    http://blog.caranddriver.com/report-upcoming-bmw-diesel-engine-will-have-four-turbos/

    While it makes all the sense to use less (diesel) fuel, that also costs LESS per mile driven, so called climate change might be closer to (state) religion than....science.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-unsettling-anti-science-certitude-on-global-warming-1438300982
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2015
    I am sure there are MANY reasons why it took so long for ANY oem to offer a single platform with multiple options:1. body styles, 2,4,5 doors, 2. colors, 3. engines, 4. transmissions 4. models.

    VW (despite vilifications) does just that with the (45-50 year old) 2015 GOLF platform. TDI's, gassers, gasser/hybrid, electric, sportwagen.

    For example, almost EVERY option is scaleable! It can be assembled, almost to order from the factory. They also did this earlier with the Jetta.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,351
    Excellent article there by John Gordon, WSJ, on the "Science" being used in global warming.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2015
    A friend just got a 2013 MB ML350 BlueTec with 9000 miles. Seems like an out of town dealer used it for dealership transportation, sold it to someone in SoCA and that person sold it back. My friend got it from the local dealer who got it @ auction. So far, he is a VERY happy camper.

    C&D did a piece on 5 2013 TDI's.

    http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-jeep-grand-cherokee-summit-ecodiesel-4x4-vs-2013-volkswagen-touareg-tdi-2013-mercedes-benz-ml350-bluetec-4matic-2013-porsche-cayenne-diesel-2013-bmw-x5-xdrive35d-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-7
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That was one of the comparisons that sent me to test drive the Touareg TDI. I am happy driving the winner of that group. Still waiting for something I would consider trading mine in on. My only complaint is their choice of mapping company, NAVTeq. Now at least 5 years behind and still no updates for VW. Their online maps are up to date. Why it should be so difficult to keep OEM NAVs updated is a mystery. This will be my last vehicle with NAVTEQ.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Speak of the devil, and guess what just happened. HERE formerly NAVTEQ has been sold to a German consortium. Maybe they got tired of complaints about their Nasty NAV mapping. :@

    August 3rd 2015 Nokia announced to have reached an agreement to sell HERE to a consortium of leading German automotive companies – AUDI AG, BMW Group and Daimler AG; at an enterprise value of 2.8 billion euros.

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/03/technology/audi-bmw-daimler-nokia-maps/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/technology/german-carmakers-buy-nokia-mapping-unit-here.html
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2015
    I am still glad that they offer the vehicle without the navigation option (200?), but pre-wired. You can add that navigation option later. I have read reviews saying that it was not very good.
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    edited August 2015
    Thanks for the diesel cruze perspective, social_eric.
    After owning 4 VW TDIs, I'd definitely try diesel Cruze if it were available with stickshift.

    The best diesel characteristics such as torque or 40 mpg are available more & better in gasoline-engine vehicles than diesels. If you like torque and mpg, you will probably prefer stickshift's increased torque and increased mpg compared to slushbox or whatever automatic... It is nice that VW offers plenty of stickshift diesels!

    When considering cost of a vehicle, shouldn't fuel type be treated in proportion to its percentage of total vehicle ownership cost per mile, maybe 5% or 10% as important as the other reasons?

    Seems that modern the gasoline engines are now simpler/better-engineered/more-reliable than diesels for a bunch of reasons, one of which is increased mandated Rube Goldberg emission systems for the diesels such as DEF and 'regen' by injecting fuel into the exhaust, like an afterburner on an F-16.

    No afterburners for me, thanks.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2015
    Works for me, both in NON turbo diesel choices and M/T.

    Percentage & $$ wise, I have spent more for gasser engine repairs than diesels (04 Honda Civic/03 VW Jetta TDI) even while I like both cars. So that, anecdotally has proven to be the opposite of what you posit.

    Also, (macro ) your view ignores the growth in diesel car percentage % 's (US registered vehicles 2013 269.294 M). Total registered diesels are up to 5%, @ app 13.4647 M. Fully half of those are diesel cars, @ app 6.73235M.

    Stick shifts have been a rarity, probably more so in gassers ( % wise) . The M/T option seemingly is fading even more from popularity. The best I have been able to gleen, from various articles is app 20% of the PVF.

    Some reasons are simple and clear:
    1. Not a lot of folks buy them
    2. Not a lot of folks want to drive M/T's
    3. folks will spend 1k on up for A/T.'s
    4. (Unordered) M /T's are normally in inventory far longer
    5. Carry cost are far higher.

    In the case of the diesel/gas, MB 350/250 (like models, no M/T options) , it is clear (over 100,000 miles) most folks are just fine spending 100 % PLUS+ MORE per mile driven: PUG fuel. They are even fine with higher depreciation %'sand lower resale prices, indeed higher total costs per mile driven. MSRP for gassers also are $500 more.

    Indeed, they follow the industry of no option/market for M/T's. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to get a CUV with a MT. For as competitive a vehicle market as it seems to be, why would a dealer stock a huge over supply of deal breaking options? So, you are not the Lone Ranger !

    So while I am sure VW might have appreciated your past new car TDI, MT patronage, they will probably appreciate your gasser and MT business, or other, as the case should be.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2015
    elias said:

    Thanks for the diesel cruze perspective, social_eric.
    After owning 4 VW TDIs, I'd definitely try diesel Cruze if it were available with stick shift. " ..."

    While stick shifts are actually BETTER for gassers also, we have come to different conclusions about TDI's.

    The over conclusion I have come to, given my driving style and varied environments: I do not see a want/need/advantage/s returning to gassers, gasser hybrids, etc.

    Hopefully, we have gone over the advantages of diesels over gassers to not repeat the litany.

    One disadvantage: diesels are slower (like model), naught to 60 mph. However, (given my driving style and varied environments) on a practical basis, both the metric and the differences in times are completely and utterly meaningless.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    SLOW news diesel day ! ULSD @ $2.85

    RUG @ $3.33, MG @ $3.45 , PUG @ $3.56.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Just filled the Touareg TDI at $2.70 with CC. RUG, best cash price is $3.53, I think Costco dropped to $3.49. Been over a year since diesel became less than RUG. I just wish I had a small diesel PU truck.
  • slorenzenslorenzen Member Posts: 694
    gagrice said:

    Just filled the Touareg TDI at $2.70 with CC. RUG, best cash price is $3.53, I think Costco dropped to $3.49. Been over a year since diesel became less than RUG. I just wish I had a small diesel PU truck.

    I'd say that new Colorado is calling your name.

    Is the Diesel version available now?

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2015
    It sounds like to me, it's also pretty seamless to you! I am glad it works for you in you neck of the woods.

    Yes, diesel has really changed the bar for many competitive vehicle segments.

    For the wider audience, I have used one example of the CUV compact, Mercedes-Benz GLK 350 gasser/250 Blue Tec diesel.

    Given 15,000 miles, ( average drivers mileage per year ) and 11.5 years, (average age of the PVF, 173,000 miles/ 22 mpg, PUG @ $ 3.56, 35 mpg, ULSD @ $ 2.85, ) we get 7,864 gal vs 4,943 gal. = 2,921 gal saved.

    So the savings are $13,908. This is very easily scaleable. Of course the variables are changeable. Adressing Gagrice's point of one year of cheap diesel prices, I have saved roughly $1200 . ( like model operations: FUEL). The BlueTec was $ 450.00 cheaper MSRP.

    So really, there are a lot of other reasons why people are not making the switch to diesel.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "VW has confidence in selling diesel cars in the U.S. Led by the Jetta with 20% of the diesel market, it has the three top sellers, according to an analysis by Edmunds.com. The wagon is fifth at about 5% of the diesel market through the first five months of the year.

    SportWagen customers "want something fun to drive, they want good fuel economy and they don't want to give up the versatility," Gardner said.

    Although VW sells gasoline and diesel SportWagen versions, more than 80% of U.S. buyers take the diesel option despite the starting price of $24,595, $3,200 more than the gas model."

    VW's new Golf SportWagen diesel bucks conventional U.S. preferences (LA Times)
This discussion has been closed.