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.
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?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Really, we do? I highly doubt it. Subaru sells the Outback, Forester and Impreza side by side with the identical powertrain (NA 2.5). Outback and Forester are AT-PZEV, Impreza is not, because of the extra scrubber that is missing from the Impreza's emissions equipment. The total price difference between these models is well under $2000.
The Impreza NOT being PZEV (when the Forester and Outback are) was the one thing that almost caused me not to buy my current Subaru - emissions rating is extremely important to me.
You mentioned earlier that the Camry had gone UP in emissions, but it hasn't - that window sticker you see on the car is emissions relative to other members of the EPA size class, so the class average must have improved while Camry stayed the same.
I am now satisfied, however, that diesels are "clean enough" in the emissions arena to be worth consideration, as my purchase demonstrates I will accept a ULEV-rated car (without being thrilled about it) and the new clean diesels are all ULEV-equivalent.
Does no-one here care that you can't REV a diesel? What fun is that? 4000 RPM and you have hit the redline? I like the sort of revving fun that 90s VTEC Hondas provided......
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I've looked at the VW Jetta Sportwagen...meh. It's not very nice inside, but it's okay. It's only 4" ground clearance (not very useful in a city with lots of bumps and puddles and dips in roads with water). It doesn't have AWD. It's just very....bland. But serviceable, I guess. The Golf diesel is only manual (that's a big no for city driving, for me). But since they make a non-diesel Sportwagen, it's useful to see that the diesel version gets I think about 30% better mileage. That's amazing. Makes me almost wanna buy that bland car that'll bottom out on every bump in the road.
If I could make do with a hatchback that gets great gas mileage, I'd do that (the Fit gets 28 city, but it's a/c sucks. It's always somethin', huh?). But those are two small for my needs. And again, no AWD or decent ground clearance.
My quest for a new car that meets my needs but gets good mileage and is better environmentally than my 13 1/2 year old Subie Forester continues.
The red line for both VW TDI's is 5,100 rpm. On the DSG, the computer shifts it a tad earlier: more like app 4,500 rpm. Max hp is delivered @ 3,825 rpm and the other @ 4,000 rpm. Max torque is delivered between 1,750 to 2,250 . The other between 1,750 to 2,500 rpm. Normally 2,800 to 3,000 rpm is pushing you along @ 90-95 mph.
However these technical facts do NOT get across how utterly fun these diesels are to drive, once you understand how to drive them. They are especially fun going up LONG grades and @ altitude.
If this is a tad too tame, there is always the BMW 335 D. It puts out like 425 ft #'s of torque.
Might be interesting
Small SUVs, etc. seem to be much more logical choices at this point.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
SOMEONE besides VW, Audi, and MB needs to offer a 5-passenger diesel sedan here, to get people's attention, and to try to get rid of the "diesel stigma" that seems to still influence U.S. Buyers.
Maybe they can break the ice and Hon-Yota-Bishi-Dai-San will follow.
My point really was that it seemed like an odd choice to take a car that already had very good MPG ratings, and was probably also maxed out on price for what it was.
don't they have something else that would be more impactful with a big increase in FE, and in a price range that might support it?
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I agree with you. VW builds the Tiguan and Amarok with the 2.0L TDI engine. Both selling well I am sure in the EU. It could be the added weight pushes the emissions past the very restrictive CARB rules. Honda was able to get the Accord diesel to pass with a stick shift. Failed with their automatic. So they dropped the diesel idea for the USA. The rest of the World gets Honda and Toyota diesels. I'm not holding my breath. I may pop for one of the larger German diesel SUVs. Wife says have to sell the Sequoia first. With $4 gas that becomes a bit problematic. Taking a big hit does not pencil out well even with $5 gas.
Here's a 28 mpg Jeep Grand Cherokee that isnt available on US markets :sick: :lemon: http://blog.caranddriver.com/jeep-grand-cherokee-diesel-headed-to-geneva-will-st- - ay-in-europe/
If it is an MB drive train, sign me UP !! The MB auto tranny is specifically designed for a TDI. 406 ft #'s, ya gotta love that.
((Green Car Advisor))
I am not sure one/you can infer it from the graphs in your two posts, BUT some to most folks do not realize that in a barrel of oil (42 gals): it is NOT an all or none proposition between RUG to PUG to D2 in the refinement process. It is a percentage of BOTH: 46% (19.3 gals RUG/PUG) 46% to 23.4% (9.83 gals D2)in some to mostly all but the most "premium" crude oils.
What is in a barrel of oil?
Both sets of graphs are EIA.gov sources.
Almost every car company has a diesel vehicle ready for the US market in a year or two if gas prices go above 4.00 a gallon. Honda had the Accord and TSX ready to go a few months ago but when the oil prices tanked they shelved the project.
They dropped the Honda diesel because they failed the EPA/CARB emissions test.
As I have read between the lines @ their reasons for cancelling (aka failure of) the project due to automatic transmissions emissions concerns, I SWAG it was because they could not find a cost effective suitable (robustness costs a lot more money) automatic transmission to more seamlessly harness the cTDI's power.
I have not done this yet, but I really should take home a Toyota Camry Hbrid and compare it with the MY 09,10 Jetta of which it is the real competitor.
That's more of a sad excuse than a real reason.
Did Honda *REALLY* say that was the reason, or is that one of your famous inferences?
I can't find a news story or press release that says they failed those tests and that's why we don't get the car.
I'm not sure I believe that an excellent engineering company like Honda can't figure out how to meet U.S. emission regulations with their popular diesel Accord when so many other companies do figure it out.
I will bow to your superior knowledge of this subject only if you can find me a link that shows Honda actually SAID that - "We are not bringing it to the USA because we can't figure out how to meet the emissions requirements."
I call B.S. until shown proof otherwise. :shades:
Acura puts U.S. diesel plans on hold
Acura CEO Takeo Fukui announced at this year’s Detroit Auto Show that 2009 would mark the first year in which Acura would offer a clean diesel model in the U.S. Although Fukui never named a specific model earmarked for the diesel treatment, it was widely speculated that the TSX – which serves as the Euro-spec Honda Accord – would become Acura’s first clean diesel model. However, stringent U.S. diesel regulations have reportedly put the brakes on Acura’s diesel plans. According to the enthusiast site Vtech.net, Acura’s i-DTEC TSX has been put on hold indefinitely, with the possibility of a complete cancellation.
The six-speed manual transmission version of the i-DTEC TSX has reportedly had no problems passing U.S. clean diesel laws, but the six-speed automatic car has yet to qualify for 50-state legal status. Acura feels that a manual-only version of the diesel TSX would greatly affect the car’s U.S. success, which has Honda’s luxury brand re-thinking its U.S. diesel plans all together.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/acura-puts-us-diesel-plans-on-hold.html
Honda Motor Co. Ltd.'s Plan to Bring a diesel-equipped Acura TSX to the U.S. next year is dead before arrival.
The diesel-powered TSX equipped with a manual gearbox reportedly passed muster, but Honda rejected the business case to make the vehicle available in the U.S. without an automatic.
http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_honda_cancels_acura/
Honda Delays 60-mpg Diesel Acura TSX
Honda announced last week that it will delay the launch of its planned first diesel for the United States. The diesel-powered Acura TSX will be pushed back to 2010 from 2009, and some reports claim the company’s U.S. diesel program may be canceled completely.
The main reason for the delay is cost. Honda claims the expense of creating a diesel engine to meet California’s emissions standards—allowing it to be sold in all 50 states—has increased to more than $5,000 above a comparable gasoline-powered version.
http://www.hybridcars.com/fuels/honda-delays-60-mpg-diesel-acura-tsx-25245.html
Bottom line should read: California has effectively blocked Honda from offering a 60 MPG vehicle to the USA.
It got stopped because it could not meet the clean air test.
I think Honda just made a mistake. They could certainly sell a 60 mpg manual tranny Accord here.
I think they (like everyone else except VW, Audi, and MB) are just wary of bringing ANY diesel car here.
If they thought they could sell a ton of them at a profit, they WOULD solve any problem and get the car here.
Another case of mis-blaming CARB when the real culprit is the anti-diesel culture itself.
I think the plan originally was an Accord diesel. They realized the extra cost could better be recouped selling it as an Acura. The problem is most people that buy Acura want automatic. Also they were gearing up to sell their diesels in the EU. They built an engine factory in the UK and the Accord they sell in the EU is the same as the TSX Acura sold here. Much better profit margins over there. Americans are cheapskates when it comes to buying anything. I cannot imagine an Accord that gets 60 MPG would not sell like gangbusters. Nothing else could compete. I would rather believe CARB is sleeping with the oil companies. They do not want to sell more diesel in the USA. It is counter productive.
Acura says it has “suspended all diesel projects for the U.S. market,” so there won’t be a diesel MDX “any time soon.”
Honda, Acura’s parent company, indicated a few years ago that the Acura TSX sedan (the European Accord) would be Honda’s first U.S. diesel model, with a four-cylinder engine arriving as early as 2009 and a V-6 diesel to follow for larger vehicles such as the MDX. Those plans were put on hold in 2008 when auto sales headed south, diesel fuel prices in the U.S. went the opposite direction and the cost of meeting emissions rules soared.
And I refuse to believe that Honda engineers are not smart enough to figure out how to reduce the cost and meet the emissions.
I think it was a business decision due to what they still feel (and America has yet to prove them different) is that a diesel sedan will only be a tiny market and they can't sell enough of them to make a good profit.
.
.
Sure would be happy to see some carmaker that doesn't have a diesel sedan have the COURAGE to bring a good one to our shores.
.
.
Another is in Europe, Honda is an even smaller niche market player and offered products that really did not sell (as) well in European markets as they had hoped. In this example, they did offered a majority of gassers and automatic transmission offerings, in the (European) markets that demanded 50% plus diesels and 95 % manual transmissions. It probably did not help they are not one of the home "town" oems. I think they are not only loathed to make the same mistake, but under different tactical circumstances in the US markets (less than one half of one percent turbo diesels and majority of the over all market being automatic transmissions) : but can ill afford a situation/s that might increase the chances of going south. They of course can not say this in polite or even back room company. So the automatic transmission issue can be seen a "reasonable" PR reason; especially if they WERE having issues.
I can believe it. They made a real big deal of bringing the diesel to the USA in early 2008. Then at the last minute canceled the plan. Right about the time fuel prices peaked in 2008 and a 60 MPG diesel would have been a big hit for Honda. Either scenario of failing emissions or not being able to produce a car at a reasonable price, shows they failed. I cannot see any other explanation possible. The difference in diesel price was not enough to cancel a car that doubled the mileage of their gas version.
The tiny market will remain that way if corrupt and collusive oil company/government mandated emissions standards are continued to be imposed to a degree that manufacturers must invest many more dollars to meet those standards when equipping their vehicles with a diesel engine. I believe VW is big enough and has a long enough history of diesel sales in North America, that they have enough repurchasers to help ensure their marketability here, at those premium prices. BMW and MB need the (recent few years available) diesel sales to help bring their overall MPG up to meet CARB and EPA fleet averages. There are also a few very wealthy customers who buy the diesel, not for the fuel economy but moreso because they like the way it runs and the extended range between refueling.
I believe there is a lot more strategic collusion in North America regarding diesel equipped vehicles than many could imagine.
Sam
My 03 TDI was no LESS emissions friendly that the ubiquitous gasser 03 Toyota Camry/03 Honda Accord. It got better fuel mileage and indeed was smog exempt. Yet if you listen to the enviro cons, 1.272 M diesel passenger vehicles caused more pollution than the 256.128 M gassers (257.4 M vehicles passenger vehicle fleet).
There are also myraid of things your post does not explain/account that have been talked about in many other posts on this thread.
Indeed after 30 or so years of already a whopping GROWTH of less than one half of one percent diesel CARS (growth rate of .0001647 per year) don't any of us understand ? The glaring contrast is of course Europes 270 M vehicles with 50% + diesel cars (138 M diesel cars).
Keep in mind it is also not rocket science to get a stump pulling 6.0 L+ turbo diesel (aka American light (but really HUGE) truck. Again this has been true for decades. I am sure you would agree one would no sooner get this type of GASSER vehicle because it was a gasser !! Same for the diesel version.
So economics given the exclusion is really part of the gauntlet. It is also apparent that better mpg is really a myth. They just want a standard they can discount, ( aka sell great numbers of cars like F150 that in your dreams might get 21 mpg with a 35 mpg (discounted) standard. (- minus 40% discount) Indeed a quick and dirty comparison indicates the discount percentage is similar to same from old standards (25 mpg) to the new (35 mpg)
Now here is the thing, No one really cares what folks actually buy as long as they let folks who want diesels (for example) get a diesel car (from say Europe). It goes to show this global village idea/ideal is mostly imagination.
Since VW is about the only manufacturer that makes a diesel car affordable for most of us in the US, their reliability reputation must be scaring everyone away from the market.
Diesel hasn't had government's' policy supports and only begrudgingly so, of late. So I was surprised when the IRS issued procedural instructs for the alternative fuel tax credit (certain models VW Jetta's, aka 09 Jetta TDI)
So I think JD Power 's projection of 12% diesel cars by 2018 might be a harbinger of internal policy changes.
I can, and it's for the reason you mention in the first sentence: Americans are SUPER cheap and so price will always trump everything else including the merits and the quality of the product in question.
Can you imagine Honda trying to sell an Accord LX diesel for $27 grand? Plastic wheel covers and all? I can't. That price represents the $5000 mark-up Honda is claiming it must put on diesel models to turn a profit.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It's the early 80s GM diesel thing all over again.....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And I always say that even for those who have liberal funds for a new car, they can not buy what is not offered for sale.
Sam
Lots of vocal owners over in the Jeep Liberty CRD threads too.
Well said, and I have expressed that before.
I know it's not a popular view in here with so many diesel fans checking in, but I am quite happy that diesels are now being held to the same standards for particulate and smog-causing emissions as their gas counterparts. There is nothing ridiculous about them, they are the exact same as manufacturers have been held to for years already with all their gasoline-powered models.
I do understand when folks like gagrice chafe at the fact that we have no 60 mpg cars yet "because diesels are regulated against", but the global warming battle is a much larger one than the smog one, which as he states time and time again is basically won - cars now are so clean, there is really no need to keep making them even cleaner for smog-causing emissions (IMO). But imagine if we HADN'T asked diesels to meet the same standards, and then diesels had gone way up in sales because of super-high gas prices, tightening CAFE standards, whatever. We would essentially throw away all that progress! Diesels even as recently as VW's last-gen 1.9 from the early 00's were much dirtier than the one VW is selling now, and I would have hated to see those sold in large numbers.
So we keep our victory in the smaller battle intact, and now we figure out a way to make Americans realize that the path to lower oil consumption is going to have more expensive (and/or smaller) cars on it than they have been used to for the last 50 years.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If GW was a bigger issue than smog, the Diesel would be preferred. A 60 MPG diesel puts out about half as much CO2 as a 30 MPG gasser. I suspect the Fuel charge is a bigger underlying factor than smog or GW. With the average vehicle probably still under 20 MPG combined, the idea of raising that number to even 30 or 40 MPG average would have legislators even in the blue states shrieking. I do realize it will take decades to raise that number even by a couple MPG. If they manage to do so it will cut into the states already stretched budgets.
- " . . .
It helps to understand what we use our car for:price of the car, price of fuel, practicality (seating capacity, # of doors, etc), MPG, manufacturer, performance (0-60, noise, ride, handling)
. . ."
- 80% city driving :: posted 40 mph or less, limited 50 mph
- lights and stop signs :: 0.5-1.0 miles
- groceries, household goods, fishing rods :: sustain our home and weekend fishing trips
- 20% highway :: posted 65-70 mph
- 18,000 miles/year :: driving
- 15-20 years/vehicle :: ownership pattern (wheels fall off)
So let's see how this impacts the postulated criteria:price of car -> "wheels fall off" means purchase price tends to be a minor aspect of vehicle ownership. So Reliability of manufacturer becomes important measured by Consumer Reports and past expenses of hydro-mechanical, automatic transmissions and clutch life of manual transmissions.
practicality -> internal volume become very important to handle oversized loads, fishing rods and the occasional lumber. Being able to stretch out and sleep overnight, inside away from the insects, is a minimum requirement for two adults.
performance 0-60 mph -> city driving, seldom reach 60 mph, useless.
performance ride -> we have paved streets in good shape.
performance handling -> our two-lane roads are posted with recommended safe speeds on the curves, no surprises, and the rush minute is easily avoided by taking four lane, secondary streets. Due to older joints, my wife insists on an automatic transmission.
This just leaves the following, key criteria:
- performance noise -> living in a city, quieter is better but the Jetta TDI commercials take pride in their noise, "ZOOM ZOOM", versus the quiet Prius. In fact, Congress passed a law to put noise makers on the quiet Prius. Then there are the Jetta 'tire burnout' videos that combine noise, burning tire smoke, and tire wear. But having an engine turn off at speeds under 46 mph in city driving also reduces noise and vibration. Then at night and the evening, a car that silently travels through the neighborhood and driveway is a blessing. Did I mention fishing?
- MPG and price of fuel -> this becomes a primary cost of ownership especially with the price of gas rapidly increasing. So achieving 50+ MPG in city and highway driving works better than lower mileage of smaller, less practical diesels or substantially lower MPG but equal sized diesels.
The last time I tried to test drive a Jetta, my head hit the door jam and once inside visibility to the left was limited by the door jam. We started the engine but it ran all the time and diesel costs more than regular at the stations that carry it. So with diesel, we pay more and get less, . . . we can't afford one.So when diesels are as quiet, practical and efficient as the Prius for our driving, we'll consider it.
Bob Wilson
The contested points:
The Prius and Jetta TDI DO compete directly as vehicles which can get more than 50+ mpg on the highway. The TCH does not come close to that figure - the best I ever got on the freeway for long-term mileage was about 43 MPG.
The Prius is just as large inside as the Jetta, and larger in some regards.
What's the most different is the TYPE OF DRIVER who would consider a Prius or a Jetta TDI.
There are a few "crossover" people like myself who would buy either one; however, I would venture a SWAG that *MOST* people driving a Jetta TDI are not people who would enjoy a Prius. The driving experience is so vastly different, as we all know, and as the diesel proponents readily stress to us. "Handling" and "mountain driving" blah blah.
Why buy a 60 mpg diesel hybrid, when a 33 mppg gasser hybrid will do just fine?
I am saying, why buy a 60 mpg gasser hybrid @ 33 mpg when a 60 mpg diesel hybrid will do just fine?
I hope it is not a stretch to understand why the 60 mpg Honda Accord diesel hybrid will probably NOT make the US markets !!??
If you are saying (sometimes with your posts it's hard to know) that Honda et al fears that if they bring high-mileage diesels here, it will "steal" sales from their other models?
UM, that's silly.
Whether it "steals" from their other models or not, if you choose to buy a 60 mpg diesel Accord over a gasser LX *STILL MEANS* you are buying a car from them.
I don't think they care, as long as they are selling a car, what KIND of car they are selling.