lol, kind of belies the whole "clean diesel" ad campaign then doesn't it?
Clean Diesel compared to the older Dirty High Sulphur Diesel. Where does it say "Cleaner " then the current RUG or PUG cars ? Clean Diesel campaign was a sham for the gullible or misrepresentation at the best
But the majority of the Americans and Chinese did not fall for it unlike the Europeans who received tax-breaks from their government at the the behest of the Angela Merkel led German government to promote their VW diesels. .
lol, kind of belies the whole "clean diesel" ad campaign then doesn't it?
Clean Diesel compared to the older Dirty High Sulphur Diesel. Where does it say "Cleaner " then the current RUG or PUG cars ? Clean Diesel campaign was a sham for the gullible or misrepresentation at the best
Exactly. And lots of gullible folks bought it, on top of the lower CO2 claims, which are true only when diesel mpgs are 15% (E0) or 25% (E10) better than the gassers. Which they often are.
Not only true, but absolutely true! However, advantage, advantage DIESEL!
But that's only part of the weirdness of that full sized PU truck segment. ANY gasser engine option offered in the class gets very poor fuel mileage. They also have a lot less torque ! The torque is/has been less useable.
To state the obvious, why not get a whole lot more and USEABLE (emphasis on useable) torque, with even better MPG and a better transmission ?
You obviously haven't been paying attention to the new truck market. Ford has two turbo charged V6 gas engines that have a very broad torque curve, starting very low in the RPM range. They really resemble the torque curve for a diesel.
“…today’s clean-diesel engines are as clean as gasoline-powered engines,” says Chrysler’s Altermatt."
That's from a CNN story back in 2007. Altermatt ran the diesel engine show at Chrysler at the time.
"When it comes to fuel economy and tailpipe emissions, today's diesel vehicles are as eco-friendly as their gasoline-fueled counterparts, and often more so." Commentary from Automotive News in 2014.
Links are easy but look at "clean coal". They aren't comparing burning "new" coal with scrubbers with burning old "dirty" coal - they are trying to keep up with natural gas. Same deal with clean diesel, touting it as a viable option to hybrids or gassers. Some of it was to differentiate TDIs from the semis and rolling coal pickups, but they certainly were competing with the Prius, and not just on the performance and torque fronts.
People will say a lot of things if they think a settlement might be around the corner.
Just wait til they get 50% off VW branded accessories and a free oil change coupon. Poor betrayed people who thought they were saving the world. Right.
It is all holier then thou attitude after the "event" to gain compensation from the VW. No one was even aware that TDI were "cleaner " then gassers. Hypocracy by hindsight
"When it comes to fuel economy and tailpipe emissions, today's diesel vehicles are as eco-friendly as their gasoline-fueled counterparts, and often more so." Commentary from Automotive News in 2014.
You betcha, as long as everyone ignores the Nox emissions, which what the whole boondoggle is all about.
Auto magazines fool the masses with selective facts and hide the unpalatable truths
To be honest I would still buy a TDI even NOW if the price was right , as I am not a hypocrite and would do so solely for the high mileage and high torque. But I never believed in paying a premium for the TDIs before the scandal and neither do I believe in paying premium for the hybrids.
Exactly...who the hell needs 550# of torque in a pickup truck? Maybe 1 in 1,000 pickup truck owners...maybe. I really don't think those grocery bags are that heavy.
Nobody's listening. I want a smaller diesel PU Truck. Not a monster like the Titan. Where is Ford with their T6 to compete with GM's midsize PU? ISIS has what I want by the hundreds. All I want is one HiLux diesel. Better yet an Amarok, if VW doesn't get the boot out of here.
I think it is a matter of losing big profit PU truck sales. That and the Chicken Tax factor. The midsize are really more than I want. I would be happy with my 1970 Datsun PU. May be a long time coming with the current fiasco over NOx. I don't even want a V6 diesel. If BMW & MB can build 4 cylinder diesels that pass the CARB gauntlet, Ford, GM, Nissan, Toyota and Chrysler should be able to as well.
Not only true, but absolutely true! However, advantage, advantage DIESEL!
But that's only part of the weirdness of that full sized PU truck segment. ANY gasser engine option offered in the class gets very poor fuel mileage. They also have a lot less torque ! The torque is/has been less useable.
To state the obvious, why not get a whole lot more and USEABLE (emphasis on useable) torque, with even better MPG and a better transmission ?
You obviously haven't been paying attention to the new truck market. Ford has two turbo charged V6 gas engines that have a very broad torque curve, starting very low in the RPM range. They really resemble the torque curve for a diesel.
The EcoBoost engines do not deliver nearly the MPG of a diesel, which has the torque without the gasoline engine penalty.
For sure, the Frontier is in hand. It also can take some time to find both the right Golf TDI and the right circumstances for the other party's reasoning for selling. I'm sure the new smaller pick up truck diesels, when it hits the market will command a premium for a while. Within the past year, we went through getting 4/5 sets of tires and 4 each 5,000 miles rotationss. so I might have a clue how you may be feeling. Hopefully, the good news on this side will be 80.000 to 90,000 to one @ 120,000 miles before tire sets are due.
The 2008 Frontier has 60k miles and OEM tires that don't have much tread. No big deal for my 3-6 mile local trips. Should I buy non brand name tires at $86 a piece or get some high mileage $145 tires. I hate buying anything but good quality tires. I also hated dumping $800 on tires for a vehicle we put about 3500 miles a year on. I will probably just run them around here till I see the cords. Haven't done that for 50 years so not easy for me.
I know you don't get a lot of rain in SD, but wouldn't you worry about hydroplaning if you plan to drive the Frontier with no tread on the tires?
We don't get much rain here. However the tires seem to make little difference in the rain with an empty PU truck. Going around corners with brand new tires they can slide out on you. My 2005 GMC Sierra hybrid was the worst PU on wet pavement, I have ever driven. When you let off the gas to go around a corner the engine would do its shut down and you hit the gas even lightly and it would start and spin the tires. I hated that truck.
Just took a quick picture of my tire tread. Maybe they have another 10k miles on them.
Not only true, but absolutely true! However, advantage, advantage DIESEL!
But that's only part of the weirdness of that full sized PU truck segment. ANY gasser engine option offered in the class gets very poor fuel mileage. They also have a lot less torque ! The torque is/has been less useable.
To state the obvious, why not get a whole lot more and USEABLE (emphasis on useable) torque, with even better MPG and a better transmission ?
You obviously haven't been paying attention to the new truck market. Ford has two turbo charged V6 gas engines that have a very broad torque curve, starting very low in the RPM range. They really resemble the torque curve for a diesel.
The EcoBoost engines do not deliver nearly the MPG of a diesel, which has the torque without the gasoline engine penalty.
This from our own Edmunds. I think that says it all about Eco Boost beating out diesel.
The F-150 4x4 has proven itself to be a very popular truck around these parts. But it's also proven quite thirsty compared to its official EPA rating.
Finally. I thought it'd never happen. Our 2015 Ford F-150 managed to complete the last 337-mile leg of our trip from Modesto, California to Santa Ana at 23.1 mpg, the first and only time our 2.7-liter EcoBoost-powered 4x4 has matched its EPA highway rating in nearly 18,000 miles of ownership.
But there is huge asterisk. A tailwind persisted for at least two-thirds of the distance — a strong one that had the flags standing straight out. On top of that, I was really trying, never exceeding 65 mph even when the limit went up to 70 mph. I was well aware that this particular leg has historically been the most mpg-favorable of our entire Oregon-and-back route. I was determined to make the best of it.
Here is the Fuelly average for the F150 2.7L Eco Boost that has an EPA combined 20 MPG. Not so good.
Based on data from 52 vehicles, 519 fuel-ups and 197,660 miles of driving, the 2015 Ford F-150 gets a combined Avg MPG of 17.85 with a 0.20 MPG margin of error.
Not only true, but absolutely true! However, advantage, advantage DIESEL!
But that's only part of the weirdness of that full sized PU truck segment. ANY gasser engine option offered in the class gets very poor fuel mileage. They also have a lot less torque ! The torque is/has been less useable.
To state the obvious, why not get a whole lot more and USEABLE (emphasis on useable) torque, with even better MPG and a better transmission ?
You obviously haven't been paying attention to the new truck market. Ford has two turbo charged V6 gas engines that have a very broad torque curve, starting very low in the RPM range. They really resemble the torque curve for a diesel.
I obvious also said, I have not seen a period in my (driving, my sic) life, where I wanted & or needed a FS PU truck.
Right ?? You might want to read the above posts. One post links the Edmunds.com (20,000 miles) write up. Evidently, you didn't put him on your CC list?
Evidently your torque fantasy picture readings and maybe dreams, do not match up with ...realities. 16.7 MPG seems to be RELIABLY under 23 MPG EPA or - minus 27.4% So do you think the mpg and N0x emissions would be more or less with flex fuel, E85?
TMI probably to your point:
I have read in passing that E85 mpg figures are normally about 25% less than RUG/PUG. So if I did my math correctly, that it's more like 12.5 MPG. If that is true, that is minus- 46% under 23 mpg EPA. That might probably be why they don't publish those figures, nor do they seem to test with flex fuel?
So, IF the logic of burning more /still more w E85 fuel, when you have the option to burn less (diesel) appeals to you: with far more under powered engine/s than ever before, with STILL far less useable torque, with a long in the tooth 6 sp A/T & a $5,000 premium for a couple hundred #'s weight loss..., I'm happy with what you might chose.
Also, the F150 emits more NOx than the diesel cars, as allowed by EPA/CARB regulation/s!!! It would seem chicken littling is more for the lesser emitters & lesser fuel burners, than for the greater emitters & much greater fuel burners.
124 folks died as a result, GM covered it up, lied to regulators, 2.6 M cars=$900M ! $275M in penalties $625M victims ZERO jail time?
VW killed no one, covered it up, lied to regulators, 425,000 cars. The math indicates max $ 147M $45M penalties. Seems like three logical options : Fix it, exempt them, no fees, pay fees for exemptions.
Not only true, but absolutely true! However, advantage, advantage DIESEL!
But that's only part of the weirdness of that full sized PU truck segment. ANY gasser engine option offered in the class gets very poor fuel mileage. They also have a lot less torque ! The torque is/has been less useable.
To state the obvious, why not get a whole lot more and USEABLE (emphasis on useable) torque, with even better MPG and a better transmission ?
You obviously haven't been paying attention to the new truck market. Ford has two turbo charged V6 gas engines that have a very broad torque curve, starting very low in the RPM range. They really resemble the torque curve for a diesel.
The EcoBoost engines do not deliver nearly the MPG of a diesel, which has the torque without the gasoline engine penalty.
I never said they did. But if you pay $3k to $4k more to get the diesel engine option, it's going to take you a long time to make that back by saving on fuel costs. And if diesel goes back to where it was approximately a year ago, that is, costing $1 a gallon more than gas (RUG), you will probably never break even.
And then you have the fact that the only diesel option available right now in the USA for a half ton pickup is underpowered...
If you search on youtube, you can find where Fast Lane Trucks (think that's right?) ran comparative tests, going up the mountains in Colorado, pulling a 7,200 pound trailer. The Dodge EcoDiesel could not maintain the speed limit. Both of the Ford Ecoboost engines made it with power to spare. Yes, the Ecodiesel did quite a bit better on fuel mileage. And I, for one, don't care.
My local Mopar dealers are only stocking Ecodiesels in fully loaded trucks. Ergo, it would cost me $10k more to get an Ecodiesel than an Ecoboost. And the Ecoboost is a LOT more fun to drive.
Shhh! Logic and accountability has no place in this, especially according to hypocritical politicos who wonder how someone sleeps at night, or untouchable overzealous prosecutors.
Remember, this is the same system that will give more penalty for a nonviolent drug crime than for killing people. This could really be a silly penalty,.
124 folks died as a result, GM covered it up, lied to regulators, 2.6 M cars=$900M ! $275M in penalties $625M victims ZERO jail time?
VW killed no one, covered it up, lied to regulators, 425,000 cars. The math indicates max $ 147M $45M penalties. Seems like three logical options : Fix it, exempt them, no fees, pay fees for exemptions.
Nobody can realistically prove specific deaths due to the cheating. If only VW had lobbied harder for exemptions and lower standards, like the sacred commercial vehicle industry, not to mention the fossil fuel powered lawncare equipment industry. VW needs to learn, you get the justice you pay for.
The jury is still out on how many NOx deaths may be attributed to VW's cheating.
Only if they can also determine how many deaths are caused by Nox emissions from all the semi trucks , domestic and Mexican , plying our interstates everyday . How may deaths due to ships , planes , train locomotives and industry emissions,
They do that too, that's how they extrapolated the number to attribute to VW. The courts will be the ones to determine if the links are enough to prove cause in an individual case.
I think "feel good marketing" is a real phenomenon, pioneered by Prius as well as the recycling industry.
Yes & absolutely! A prime example is/was the Toyota 2004 Prius 2000 "fiasco". It was EPA rated @ 60 mpg H/ 50 mpg. Real world owners (not me) felt cheated @ app 43 mpg.
Long story short, zero government prosecution. Because it was the " GOLDEN " boy,girl, transgender of where the law makers wanted to go, the EPA was directed to change a perfectly verifiable test to make it more favorable (frauded down even lower) for Toyota's gas hybrid. Even after gving Toyota FAVORED status, they STILL could NOT meet the jerry rigged standards! Again & still ZERO prosecution. 12 model years later, it is still held up as one of the "iconic environmental cars" ever made.
So fast forward to LA's real world pollution problem. It is commonly known the Prius (gas hybrid) have some of the largest populations,,if not THE biggest population in the US. in LA. Guess what, they are still chicken littling the pollution problem .
Nobody has even published a study about a real pollution decrease due to Prius'. The reality or backstory is that a Prius is a shrill for Toyota's gas guzzling SUV's, light but large trucks. Keep in mind, I say this as a Toyota fan boy ! I've had more Toyota gassers (6) than I've had VW diesels (3) !
Indeed the ubiquitous Toyota Camry, during the last auto prices met the criteria for cash for clunkers. The rules even allowed you to trade your "fuel sipping " CAMRY for a fuel sipping full-size pick up truck, I.e., Tundra etc.!
The jury is still out on how many NOx deaths may be attributed to VW's cheating.
No pun intended, but another smoke screen! Again the assumption defacto here, RUG/PUG causes ZERO N0x deaths, even as it produces the overwhelming majority of N0x emmissions and by inference, deaths due to N0x emissions. The logic is totally FUBAR !
??? X tons of NOx lead to Y premature deaths. VW cheated, emitting 40X legal NOx volumes. I fail to see any assumption about gasser NOx emissions or deaths. No logical failing.
And I've found nothing about claimed vs. actual mpgs for 2004 Prius. I remember no issues. Got a link?
Nobody can realistically prove specific deaths due to the cheating. If only VW had lobbied harder for exemptions and lower standards, like the sacred commercial vehicle industry, not to mention the fossil fuel powered lawncare equipment industry. VW needs to learn, you get the justice you pay for.
Yes! The realities, aka how the inside really works! !
I see official roll-backs for various cars - MINI, Mercedes, Ford, Hyundai and Kia (Detroit Bureau).
Consumer Reports that they couldn't get the EPA mileage and there's a class action suit out there. Don't see anything "official" though. (law360.com)
The EPA revised their mpg formula to make it more realistic in 2008.
Way too funny ! ROLL-BACKS!
As if Mini (BMW) had a bunch of 50 ympg labels (The were saving on a shelf)with the 25 mpg labels) when they should have used 25 mpg labels. Does one really want to believe Mini assigned some dimwit the task of putting on the "right" labels. So the dimwit went to the shelf and got the labels on the , ...right ! Right, no your other right was the defense? Tell me you're not buying the" Kool-Aid". This makes Sergeant Schutz look like Socrates!
Right and once again Toyota was able to skirt reality !
Given that EPA mpgs are an average, 50% of people will get less, 50% more. Take the bottom 10% and there you go - instant class action lawsuit, even though the car gets the EPA #s, on average.
??? X tons of NOx lead to Y premature deaths. VW cheated, emitting 40X legal NOx volumes. I fail to see any assumption about gasser NOx emissions or deaths. No logical failing.
And I've found nothing about claimed vs. actual mpgs for 2004 Prius. I remember no issues. Got a link?
VW cheated yes, the limited tests indicated between 5-40 times the NOx limit of .07 G/mile. The hypocrisy is the limit on big diesels is 8.613 G/mile. With the likely results being far more damaging to our health. Why has EPA/CARB allowed Semi trucks to spew 123 times as much NOx as my VW TDI? Knowing they are on average going to travel at least 10 times the miles per year as the average car. CA has over a million Semi trucks putting out over 1200 times as much NOx as the handful of VW TDIs and who gets the self righteous hatred from the press and legal leeches?
Funny, claims MB overstated by 1 mpg. I can't wait for lawyers to snap it up and for carefully selected drivers to claim they have been victimized. Also funny that I have rarely had a problem beating published mpg figures in gas or diesel cars - but the same people who would leave a pushbutton car running in their garage might not understand proper driving.
Extrapolated numbers provided by SJW types with their own motives (and who remain loudly silent about the issues created by batteries), interpreted by courts with no credentials or credibility. Should be good.
VW cheated yes, the limited tests indicated between 5-40 times the NOx limit of .07 G/mile. The hypocrisy is the limit on big diesels is 8.613 G/mile.
The light being shed on this overall issue is the most redeeming part about this fiasco.
Of course, the diesel truck engine manufacturers had their own wee issue with emissions cheating. Only cost Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Mack, Navistar, Renault and Volvo one billion dollars though, back in 1998. Very little of that was fines. (Jalopnik)
Funny, claims MB overstated by 1 mpg. I can't wait for lawyers to snap it up and for carefully selected drivers to claim they have been victimized. Also funny that I have rarely had a problem beating published mpg figures in gas or diesel cars - but the same people who would leave a pushbutton car running in their garage might not understand proper driving.
Extrapolated numbers provided by SJW types with their own motives (and who remain loudly silent about the issues created by batteries), interpreted by courts with no credentials or credibility. Should be good.
To use the MB GLK250BT example, ours literally gets "HAMMERED". We do this in grueling commute traffic, nutty city environs, to highway travel ( 90/95mph I5) For app 22,000 miles, every tankful has easily exceeded the EPA highway mpg. There is no doubt in my mind if I did not go beyond 55 to 70 mph, or drive with egg btw right foot and throttle, our mpg would be even higher.
All prose aside, 22 mpg gasservs 35mpg diesel Yet... most chose gassers @ 22 mpg!
I often beat the published numbers in my Bluetec by 15% or more, without trying. Maybe I am a smoother driver than most. I can approach similar improvement in the gasser, too.
I suspect 7th gear a 50-55 in these cars will produce amazing numbers, just hard to find a road to maintain that speed consistently for a long period.
To use the MB GLK250BT example, ours literally gets "HAMMERED". We do this in grueling commute traffic, nutty city environs, to highway travel ( 90/95mph I5) For app 22,000 miles, every tankful has easily exceeded the EPA highway mpg. There is no doubt in my mind if I did not go 55 to 70 mph, our mpg would be even higher.
All prose aside, 22 mpg vs 35mpg. Yet... most chose 22 mpg!
Smoother is almost always better! As you would probably agree, that is not peculiar to diesel.
A lot of gasser drivers do not operate diesels in diesel parameters. There are actually differences.
Yes, the 7/8 speeds A/T's are truly the new standards. I have easily gotten 49.8 miles per gallon on the downhill mountain leg of the SOS/DD, for easily 100/210 miles. (51% better than EPA H.) (aka, no fuel draw condition)
I should probably put some percentages to it. Even in the "hammered" operations, we exceed the EPA mpg, anywhere from 7 % to 45%
Again, there is no doubt in my mind, if that was an MB GLK 350 (gasser) I'd have a hard time getting 22 MPG vs 35 mpg, where like yourself, we don't try..
I guess the 'problem' with the 2004 - 2007 Prius (and all other cars before 2008) were the optimistic EPA rating conditions, which were changed for all cars in 2008. For 2004 the Prius was originally rated 60/51/55, now it's 48/45/46, right on the average reported mpgs of 47.4.
I guess the 'problem' with the 2004 - 2007 Prius (and all other cars before 2008) were the optimistic EPA rating conditions, which were changed for all cars in 2008. For 2004 the Prius was originally rated 60/51/55, now it's 48/45/46, right on the average reported mpgs of 47.4.
Fuelly.com has the 2004 Prius at 44.9 mpg. However, there are a few 88 to 135 MPG data point calculations. At the time I was hearing that the 2004 Prius was posting more like 43 MPG. Most folks want to hide it because they were advertising 60 C and 50 H. The 2003 VW Jetta TDI was rumored at about 45 to 48 mpg. I consistently STILL get from 48 to 52 in the grueling commute. My personal best has been 62/63 MPG. However driving the speeds needed, for me is a little bit like watching paint dry.
But your post confirms what I've been saying all along! Sub and subsequent sub EPA mpgs, No jail, no fines, no prosecution, major doctoring , dumbing down of the EPA test standards, etc.,etc. . Got to love the TLC's, Toyota SUV's & PU trucks! Wish they offered US TDI options!
Off-topic, there might be another not so obvious reason why I don't buy full-size pick up trucks, outside of the fact that I have not wanted or needed it. They are THE most profitable models in the whole line . Some have estimated those profits to be between $12,000 to $25,000 USD per unit.
VW's in contrast (pre diesel fiasco) makes approximately $400 o $500 per unit. Toyota makes easily 4 to 5 times more than VW per unit.
Hm, can't recall having any paywall issues with the LA Times. Not too surprised though. Sorry about that.
And yeah, my wife doesn't believe me, but I think I could live without the net if I had to.
Anyway, glad your link says the crackdown is escalating.
I have always believed in getting the big polluters first. Then do the fine tuning. So much easier for the government bullies to pick on the little guy.
PS LATimes said my freebies had ended.
Try deleting your cookies/browsing history, these sites track you by their cookie. With some sites you need to delete the cookies every 2-3 visits. Also there is this http://www.wikihow.com/Delete-Flash-Cookies If you do a global delete you will lose tracking on ALL sites including edmunds password. You need to research your browser settings to see how to do this. I run two browsers. In firefox, which is used for general browsing, I always delete the cookies. In chrome the history/cookies are never deleted. Chrome is used for online banking and credit cards.
It is hard to defend a study that leaves out approximately 50% uncounted gross polluters of what causes gross pollution, then blame its effects on the remaining 46% of diesel cars, as if the counted app 52% of gasser cars and exempt gross polluters cause little to ZERO health issues.! Simply Alice in Wonderland reasoning!
But it is in keeping with the anti diesel world agenda.
You claim everybody not convinced diesel is manna from above does not see the “light”. The rest of us, so-called anti-diesel people, see just fine. We can make reasonable decisions, we can use a calculator to crunch the numbers, and above all, we look at diesel as just as fuel. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if more people are anti-diesel, well, VW is too blame. People do not like to be burned. There will be a lot of people out there that are permanently put off diesels and VW by this cheating event.
What do you think the warrantees will be for all those $2,500 in parts? It's good VW will pay for the latest N0x reduction technology ! In the context of all this chicken Littling, locating the ad blue cap behind the fuel door is a good thing,but small point .
$2,500 retail is still far cheaper than starting off at $7,000 for a buy back.
Comments
Where does it say "Cleaner " then the current RUG or PUG cars ?
Clean Diesel campaign was a sham for the gullible or misrepresentation at the best
But the majority of the Americans and Chinese did not fall for it unlike the Europeans who received tax-breaks from their government at the the behest of the Angela Merkel led German government to promote their VW diesels. .
That's from a CNN story back in 2007. Altermatt ran the diesel engine show at Chrysler at the time.
"When it comes to fuel economy and tailpipe emissions, today's diesel vehicles are as eco-friendly as their gasoline-fueled counterparts, and often more so." Commentary from Automotive News in 2014.
Links are easy but look at "clean coal". They aren't comparing burning "new" coal with scrubbers with burning old "dirty" coal - they are trying to keep up with natural gas. Same deal with clean diesel, touting it as a viable option to hybrids or gassers. Some of it was to differentiate TDIs from the semis and rolling coal pickups, but they certainly were competing with the Prius, and not just on the performance and torque fronts.
Just sayin'. (I'm nearly sick of this statement, but not quite yet)
Just wait til they get 50% off VW branded accessories and a free oil change coupon. Poor betrayed people who thought they were saving the world. Right.
You betcha, as long as everyone ignores the Nox emissions, which what the whole boondoggle is all about.
Auto magazines fool the masses with selective facts and hide the unpalatable truths
To be honest I would still buy a TDI even NOW if the price was right , as I am not a hypocrite and would do so solely for the high mileage and high torque. But I never believed in paying a premium for the TDIs before the scandal and neither do I believe in paying premium for the hybrids.
Just took a quick picture of my tire tread. Maybe they have another 10k miles on them.
The F-150 4x4 has proven itself to be a very popular truck around these parts. But it's also proven quite thirsty compared to its official EPA rating.
Finally. I thought it'd never happen. Our 2015 Ford F-150 managed to complete the last 337-mile leg of our trip from Modesto, California to Santa Ana at 23.1 mpg, the first and only time our 2.7-liter EcoBoost-powered 4x4 has matched its EPA highway rating in nearly 18,000 miles of ownership.
But there is huge asterisk. A tailwind persisted for at least two-thirds of the distance — a strong one that had the flags standing straight out. On top of that, I was really trying, never exceeding 65 mph even when the limit went up to 70 mph. I was well aware that this particular leg has historically been the most mpg-favorable of our entire Oregon-and-back route. I was determined to make the best of it.
http://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2015/long-term-road-test/mpg.html
Here is the Fuelly average for the F150 2.7L Eco Boost that has an EPA combined 20 MPG. Not so good.
Based on data from 52 vehicles, 519 fuel-ups and 197,660 miles of driving, the 2015 Ford F-150 gets a combined Avg MPG of 17.85 with a 0.20 MPG margin of error.
My brother didn't trust the EcoBoost option when he got his '13 F-150. Not so much being skittish about the mpg, but the new tech in general.
I would have gone for the latest tech. And had my nose rubbed in it.
Right ?? You might want to read the above posts. One post links the Edmunds.com (20,000 miles) write up. Evidently, you didn't put him on your CC list?
Evidently your torque fantasy picture readings and maybe dreams, do not match up with ...realities. 16.7 MPG seems to be RELIABLY under 23 MPG EPA or - minus 27.4% So do you think the mpg and N0x emissions would be more or less with flex fuel, E85?
TMI probably to your point:
I have read in passing that E85 mpg figures are normally about 25% less than RUG/PUG. So if I did my math correctly, that it's more like 12.5 MPG. If that is true, that is minus- 46% under 23 mpg EPA. That might probably be why they don't publish those figures, nor do they seem to test with flex fuel?
So, IF the logic of burning more /still more w E85 fuel, when you have the option to burn less (diesel) appeals to you: with far more under powered engine/s than ever before, with STILL far less useable torque, with a long in the tooth 6 sp A/T & a $5,000 premium for a couple hundred #'s weight loss..., I'm happy with what you might chose.
Also, the F150 emits more NOx than the diesel cars, as allowed by EPA/CARB regulation/s!!! It would seem chicken littling is more for the lesser emitters & lesser fuel burners, than for the greater emitters & much greater fuel burners.
VW killed no one, covered it up, lied to regulators, 425,000 cars. The math indicates max $ 147M $45M penalties. Seems like three logical options : Fix it, exempt them, no fees, pay fees for exemptions.
M! What? No discount for no one dying?
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2015/09/17/GM-to-pay-900M-in-ignition-switch-settlement/6691442501220/?st_rec=1801444953826
And then you have the fact that the only diesel option available right now in the USA for a half ton pickup is underpowered...
If you search on youtube, you can find where Fast Lane Trucks (think that's right?) ran comparative tests, going up the mountains in Colorado, pulling a 7,200 pound trailer. The Dodge EcoDiesel could not maintain the speed limit. Both of the Ford Ecoboost engines made it with power to spare. Yes, the Ecodiesel did quite a bit better on fuel mileage. And I, for one, don't care.
My local Mopar dealers are only stocking Ecodiesels in fully loaded trucks. Ergo, it would cost me $10k more to get an Ecodiesel than an Ecoboost. And the Ecoboost is a LOT more fun to drive.
Remember, this is the same system that will give more penalty for a nonviolent drug crime than for killing people. This could really be a silly penalty,.
Epidemiology is a voodoo science .
Long story short, zero government prosecution. Because it was the " GOLDEN " boy,girl, transgender of where the law makers wanted to go, the EPA was directed to change a perfectly verifiable test to make it more favorable (frauded down even lower) for Toyota's gas hybrid. Even after gving Toyota FAVORED status, they STILL could NOT meet the jerry rigged standards! Again & still ZERO prosecution. 12 model years later, it is still held up as one of the "iconic environmental cars" ever made.
So fast forward to LA's real world pollution problem. It is commonly known the Prius (gas hybrid) have some of the largest populations,,if not THE biggest population in the US. in LA. Guess what, they are still chicken littling the pollution problem .
Nobody has even published a study about a real pollution decrease due to Prius'. The reality or backstory is that a Prius is a shrill for Toyota's gas guzzling SUV's, light but large trucks. Keep in mind, I say this as a Toyota fan boy ! I've had more Toyota gassers (6) than I've had VW diesels (3) !
Indeed the ubiquitous Toyota Camry, during the last auto prices met the criteria for cash for clunkers. The rules even allowed you to trade your "fuel sipping " CAMRY for a fuel sipping full-size pick up truck, I.e., Tundra etc.!
Like I say, I can't even make this stuff up !
And I've found nothing about claimed vs. actual mpgs for 2004 Prius. I remember no issues. Got a link?
Consumer Reports that they couldn't get the EPA mileage and there's a class action suit out there. Don't see anything "official" though. (law360.com)
The EPA revised their mpg formula to make it more realistic in 2008.
As if Mini (BMW) had a bunch of 50 ympg labels (The were saving on a shelf)with the 25 mpg labels) when they should have used 25 mpg labels. Does one really want to believe Mini assigned some dimwit the task of putting on the "right" labels. So the dimwit went to the shelf and got the labels on the , ...right ! Right, no your other right was the defense? Tell me you're not buying the" Kool-Aid". This makes Sergeant Schutz look like Socrates!
Right and once again Toyota was able to skirt reality !
Instead of just altering it.
Extrapolated numbers provided by SJW types with their own motives (and who remain loudly silent about the issues created by batteries), interpreted by courts with no credentials or credibility. Should be good.
Of course, the diesel truck engine manufacturers had their own wee issue with emissions cheating. Only cost Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Mack, Navistar, Renault and Volvo one billion dollars though, back in 1998. Very little of that was fines. (Jalopnik)
All prose aside, 22 mpg gasservs 35mpg diesel Yet... most chose gassers @ 22 mpg!
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sgv/ctd/5270668022.html
I suspect 7th gear a 50-55 in these cars will produce amazing numbers, just hard to find a road to maintain that speed consistently for a long period.
A lot of gasser drivers do not operate diesels in diesel parameters. There are actually differences.
Yes, the 7/8 speeds A/T's are truly the new standards. I have easily gotten 49.8 miles per gallon on the downhill mountain leg of the SOS/DD, for easily 100/210 miles. (51% better than EPA H.) (aka, no fuel draw condition)
I should probably put some percentages to it. Even in the "hammered" operations, we exceed the EPA mpg, anywhere from 7 % to 45%
Again, there is no doubt in my mind, if that was an MB GLK 350 (gasser) I'd have a hard time getting 22 MPG vs 35 mpg, where like yourself, we don't try..
Volkswagen’s Sales Hold Up in Immediate Aftermath of Emissions Scandal (WSJ registration link)
But your post confirms what I've been saying all along! Sub and subsequent sub EPA mpgs, No jail, no fines, no prosecution, major doctoring , dumbing down of the EPA test standards, etc.,etc. . Got to love the TLC's, Toyota SUV's & PU trucks! Wish they offered US TDI options!
Off-topic, there might be another not so obvious reason why I don't buy full-size pick up trucks, outside of the fact that I have not wanted or needed it. They are THE most profitable models in the whole line . Some have estimated those profits to be between $12,000 to $25,000 USD per unit.
VW's in contrast (pre diesel fiasco) makes approximately $400 o $500 per unit. Toyota makes easily 4 to 5 times more than VW per unit.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/1418/how-much-do-car-manufacturers-make-from-each-car/
Current AUD $1 = .73 USD
http://www.wsj.com/articles/did-gm-get-a-pass-from-federal-prosecutors-1445032618
If you do a global delete you will lose tracking on ALL sites including edmunds password. You need to research your browser settings to see how to do this. I run two browsers. In firefox, which is used for general browsing, I always delete the cookies. In chrome the history/cookies are never deleted. Chrome is used for online banking and credit cards.
Over the years you have complained that other companies were anti-diesel for not producing diesel cars. The reality, the engineers could not produce the engines at the required price points. VW did by CHEATING. http://jalopnik.com/volkswagen-bragged-about-the-effects-of-diesel-cheating-1737040865
And if more people are anti-diesel, well, VW is too blame. People do not like to be burned. There will be a lot of people out there that are permanently put off diesels and VW by this cheating event.
CR just tested two diesels.
Using their numbers the cost to fuel an Altima and Passat TDI over 100,000 miles is basically the same. The Altima has the lower overall cost because of the extra $3-4k you pay for a Passat TDI.
Price MPG Cost per mile Cost/100k
Rug $2.293 44 0.0521 $5,211.36
Diesel $2.488 48 0.0518 $5,183.33
$28.03
You can continue to try to defend diesel/VW. In the end diesel is just a fuel and VW is in the dog house.
And it is worth repeating, VW is the problem. They are the liars and cheats. Not EPA. Not CARB. Not Obama. Not Aliens…..
What It Might Cost To Fix Each TDI
We went with the Limited Crosstrek. According to EPA the hybrid only saves $250 over 5 years (fuel cost).
Right on point.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
$2,500 retail is still far cheaper than starting off at $7,000 for a buy back.