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

xwesx

ruking1 said:

IF as you say, you will NOT keep the 2010 Subaru Forester longer than two more years anyway, will you get more monies for it now or two years hence? Probably more importantly how much more or less $$'s!? If you get another diesel, the buy back decision expires some date in September 2018. Assuming you then will have two VW's with ZERO depreciation for buyback.

So for example in my case, it still has not really sunk in that by Sep 2018, I will essentially get back monies paid new and put on 150,000 miles/40 mpg. Yes, I project I'd have bought 3,750 gal of ULSD.i @ current $2.25 per gal, I would have paid app $ .05625 per mile.

The 2008 Forester (the roof-damaged "reconstruct" car I bought May of 2015) is the one that will go, not the 2010. I'm not sure how long we will keep the 2010, but I expect to have it at least ten years from when we bought it (Sept 09).

I think the ship has sailed on buying 2L TDI inventory. That's okay, though. I am quite happy with my Passat and will just enjoy it while I have it. I'm in the middle of painting the new bumper and quarter panel I had installed on my '08 Forester this past spring after an "oopsie," so, maybe while I'm waiting for the coats to dry tonight (only takes about twenty-thirty min between each coat), I can look through my spreadsheets and start running some actual numbers.

ruking1

No matter what you decide, I know it will probably work out well for you.! Despite ( or even because of) the brouhaha it has certainly worked out very well for me!

ruking1

2016 VW Passat, TDI on hold for now (2017)https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-fast-facts-2016-volkswagen-023444363.html

In other articles I've read, EPA/CARB have a ISIS like "gun to VW's head" to buyback 85%, even with an approved fix! ?

ruking1

This is probably VW TDI lemming news . Zzzzzzzzzhttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/buy-back-my-vw-say-40-percent-of-diesel-owners/

It is good to see resistance!

ruking1

Will the next 2 gen's behind boomers buy diesels? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bank-america-stocks-surge-millennials-142348881.html

stever

The jury is still out on whether the Millennials or the later comers will even buy their own cars.

ruking1

17.5 M to 10.4 M should be a range of telling numbers !? The former # is 2016's most likely "banner year" sales. The latter is the 2009 " crash year " sales. On topic are the 3% to 5 % diesel PVF. A no brainer are diesels received very little ($1,300 IRS tax credit 2009 VW Jetta TDI) to almost NO subsidies COMPARITIVELY.

Despite many years of political, economic, etc., efforts to decimate the automobile category, it is STILL one of foundations of the US economy! During the 2009'crash, it was one of the key industries that were "too big to fail".

So if there are going to be two generations following, with greater numbers than the boomers, health in the auto industry would be @ least slightly better numbers, even with a drop in %'s.

stever

There may be more cars than ever on the roads in a few years.

There may not be many people driving them though! Or even riding in them (have to save room for the Amazon and pizza deliveries).

ruking1

You are making my case on all points! The vehicles of which you speak have to meet far harsher economic justifications.

stever

You say that like it's a bad thing. Just fun banter, no wagering please.

ruking1

No, just putting number on paper. IF cars get WAY cheaper, the numbers are less. What do you think the odds are of that happening? Another real example is at today's prices, taxicabs to make any kind of economic justification, post at least 70,000 miles per year. So IF $15 per hour becomes the law, to make labor 33%, one has to charge a minimum of $45.45 per hour.

Given 70,000 miles and MPG of 20 versus 36, gal per year = 3,500/1944. Using the same price $ 2.33 ($2.37 RUG) = $ 3,625 per year. Dumb question: would you want to make $3,625 more, or... less ? Suddenly pennies per mile make a whole lot of difference!? It's also easy to see one would want 140,000 miles per tire set.

xwesx

ruking1 said:

No, just putting number on paper. So for example, IF cars get WAY cheaper, the numbers are less. What do you think the odds are of that happening? Another real example is at today's prices, taxicabs to make any kind of economic justification, post at least 70,000 miles per year.

Well, no humans in the vehicle means you could cut a vast amount of expense out of its production (e.g., no worries about sound-dampening, comfort, safety/crash protection, etc.), so "way" cheaper is definitely a possibility!

texases

No humans? You mean for trucks?

xwesx

texases said:

No humans? You mean for trucks?

Yes, delivery trucks; I was referring to Steve's comment that initiated that string, "there may not be many people driving them though! Or even riding in them (have to save room for the Amazon and pizza deliveries)."

fintail

I suspect the youngins will support EVs and autonomous vehicles more than anyone else. Of course, with no thoughts to the huge issues behind each (power generation and how to compensate for funds generated via traffic law enforcement). We'll just whistle down the primrose path and ignore those issues.

ruking1

Well I think one has to point out current EV truck fleets ! None come to mind in CA. This is despite up to $60,000 per year savings over diesel trucks? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/class-8-electric-truck-launched-141500760.html

When I see EV & driverless UPS, FedEx double & triple trailer rigs (80,000 plus #'s, avg m/t weight is app 36,000 #'s) shooting down the highways, earlier than 20 to 30 years, you then can say I was wrong!

How would one like to be in the car this loaded driverless rig plows into, due to a software malfunction or whatever? Keep in mind they do NOT have driverless on EV vehicles where right of way is almost totally controlled. Death by TA ( transit authority's ) are almost a daily occurrence in the SF greater metro area.

Wow, there are some long haul indy truck drivers that don't even make $60,000 a year. I've read also that 120,000 to 150,000 miles per year is the average. .28 per mile is the avg salary. $60,000 should add .40 cents!? It taste very little genius to see that the numbers do not add up?

But then, @ best, the Eco con reasons for switching to EV are dishonest ! ? http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-exxon-case-unraveled-1472598472

stever

By the time they figure out driverless trucks, 3D printers (pardon me, 4D printers) will kill the demand and we'll be "trucking" the raw materials via rail. The driverless delivery vehicles will be Transit Connects or little robotic suitcases that will hold the finished product. Or pizza.

gagrice

stever said:

By the time they figure out driverless trucks, 3D printers (pardon me, 4D printers) will kill the demand and we'll be "trucking" the raw materials via rail. The driverless delivery vehicles will be Transit Connects or little robotic suitcases that will hold the finished product. Or pizza.

Took advantage of my first Google Express order. $25 off no matter the size. I stocked up on some staple groceries via Amazon. Not sure why they offer that service but anytime I can get $25 off my purchase I take it. Came in a huge box on my front porch. May have been a driverless truck. Though I doubt it. Who would carry the big box to the door?

stever

The short range drone, lol.

iluvmysephia1

May have been a driverless truck. Though I doubt it. Who would carry the big box to the door?

Possibly a drone...of some kind? The real powerful kind.

ruking1

Perhaps this is TMI for this thread, as miles per vehicle seems to have gone UP, despite what I perceive as way more use shopping on Amazon, etc. The number of cars have gone up also. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

stever

Nothing that $4 a gallon gas or $5 a gallon diesel wouldn't fix.

"Renault, Mercedes-Benz, Mazda and Hyundai have all launched diesel models in 2016 with NOx emissions that are far higher than the official lab-based test when driven in real-world conditions, according to tests by Emissions Analytics (EA), a company whose data is used by the manufacturers of most cars sold in Europe.

Ironically, the only new model to meet the limit when on the road was a Volkswagen Tiguan."

Emissions from new diesel cars are still far higher than official limit (theguardian.com)

ruking1

stever said:

Nothing that $4 a gallon gas or $5 a gallon diesel wouldn't fix.

"Renault, Mercedes-Benz, Mazda and Hyundai have all launched diesel models in 2016 with NOx emissions that are far higher than the official lab-based test when driven in real-world conditions, according to tests by Emissions Analytics (EA), a company whose data is used by the manufacturers of most cars sold in Europe.

Ironically, the only new model to meet the limit when on the road was a Volkswagen Tiguan."

Emissions from new diesel cars are still far higher than official limit (theguardian.com)

Your first sentences' concept: $5.00 ULSD, literally on the way to $10 a gallon USD got "fracked" out of the earth. The scariest thing to the cartels & folks that control those kind of things was that those products could hit the US markets for $1.99 per gal or ...less !

Indeed, those higher prices chocked off commerce, & contributed to negative growth! Long live lower market prices!

On the second concept, perhaps continued & expanding diesel use is an acknowledgement of negative declaration (transportation section) of city,urban,country planning.

Advantage $$'s VW Diesel! While I will not bore you with the mathematics, here is an interesting article about car loans & depreciation. http://247wallst.com/autos/2016/08/29/ford-offers-72-month-0-financing-as-car-loan-defaults-surge/?yptr=yahoo

stever

People don't want to drive their cars that long though. Except you and me and @gagrice's wife.

fintail

Oh the Guardian, not exactly regarded as an unbiased source. And for the US, not much of a concern, as I don't believe any of the models named are sold here or in the great white north.

I suspect this is another "test" that doesn't list the "real world" ambient and engine temperatures. If a manufacturer can show any moisture in the system, they technically can justify the operating conditions of the car. No mention of how much of the overall emissions picture is from shipping and heavy transport, of course - and the UK is host to endless amounts of old heavy trucks registered in points east. Don't talk about those, it would be opposing diversity or something, lulz. It also appears they don't link to the original release, you have to find it yourself. Nice.

I also notice they are now reporting those tenuous-at-best death claims as simple fact. That's special.

Regarding long term ownership, I've had an old car for over 20 years now. It predates all emissions equipment though, no doubt some people would cry when I turn the key

stever said:

Nothing that $4 a gallon gas or $5 a gallon diesel wouldn't fix.

"Renault, Mercedes-Benz, Mazda and Hyundai have all launched diesel models in 2016 with NOx emissions that are far higher than the official lab-based test when driven in real-world conditions, according to tests by Emissions Analytics (EA), a company whose data is used by the manufacturers of most cars sold in Europe.

Ironically, the only new model to meet the limit when on the road was a Volkswagen Tiguan."

Emissions from new diesel cars are still far higher than official limit (theguardian.com)

stever

Stately ladies taken out on alternate Sundays don't count.

ruking1

The PVF AVG ages (11.5 years) & mileages ( 12,000 to 14,000) are stark reminders (to folks like us) to clues, for others, that it might be bigger than us three So the majority of the PVF has app 138,000 to 161,000 miles. Current auto salvage figures are pretty well hidden. However, inferences can be made.

So given 21/36 mpg (like model GLK 350, MB GLK 250 BT) it's pretty obvious gasser folks (in general, 95 to 97 % of PVF are gassers) would rather consume (7,667 gals of premium than 4, 472 gals of ULSD, 71.4 %) much MORE fuel!! By default more consumption ( like model to no like model diesels) is the rule & NOT the exception.

Yearly car sales are normally FAR higher than NEW car sales!! Why those figures are so hidden is a mystery.

henryn

ruking1 said:

While I will not bore you with the mathematics, here is an interesting article about car loans & depreciation. http://247wallst.com/autos/2016/08/29/ford-offers-72-month-0-financing-as-car-loan-defaults-surge/?yptr=yahoo

I have a problem with the math in this article.

Don’t be fooled into thinking depreciation slows much after the first year. The fact is, new cars continue to lose value for four more years, averaging a decline of 15-25 percent per year. On average, a new car will lose 60 percent of its total value over the first five years of its life.

We are talking about a period 5 years. If the average decline is 15 to 25 percent per year, take the high number, 25%, for 5 years, that’s 125% percent. What does that mean, at the end of 5 years the finance company will owe you money? Crazy.

Even going to the low end of their range, 15%. 5 years at 15% is 75%, not 60%. Quite a bit of difference there.

That’s the problem with this online journalism. Crazy BS flourishes, after a while no one even bothers to point it out, we just accept it as the new normal. Which is NOT a good thing.

texases

I think it's the percent of value at that time, not of original value.

ruking1

henryn said:

ruking1 said:

While I will not bore you with the mathematics, here is an interesting article about car loans & depreciation. http://247wallst.com/autos/2016/08/29/ford-offers-72-month-0-financing-as-car-loan-defaults-surge/?yptr=yahoo

I have a problem with the math in this article.

Don’t be fooled into thinking depreciation slows much after the first year. The fact is, new cars continue to lose value for four more years, averaging a decline of 15-25 percent per year. On average, a new car will lose 60 percent of its total value over the first five years of its life.

We are talking about a period 5 years. If the average decline is 15 to 25 percent per year, take the high number, 25%, for 5 years, that’s 125% percent. What does that mean, at the end of 5 years the finance company will owe you money? Crazy.

Even going to the low end of their range, 15%. 5 years at 15% is 75%, not 60%. Quite a bit of difference there.

That’s the problem with this online journalism. Crazy BS flourishes, after a while no one even bothers to point it out, we just accept it as the new normal. Which is NOT a good thing.


It seemed in the ball park when I ran the 2009 VW Jetta TDI (-60% over 5 years or 60 mo.) By any standards the TDI is worth far more than a normal gasser.

However, we would probably agree journalists are pretty fast & loose with the truth. This is especially true concerning math!

Really , the good news is to buy a diesel ( even truer for most to all gassers) 1 to 5 years old.

texases

5 years at 25% per year depreciation = 0.75^5 = 0.237, or the car is worth 23.7% of the value when new.

gagrice

gagrice said:

stever said:

By the time they figure out driverless trucks, 3D printers (pardon me, 4D printers) will kill the demand and we'll be "trucking" the raw materials via rail. The driverless delivery vehicles will be Transit Connects or little robotic suitcases that will hold the finished product. Or pizza.

Took advantage of my first Google Express order. $25 off no matter the size. I stocked up on some staple groceries via Amazon. Not sure why they offer that service but anytime I can get $25 off my purchase I take it. Came in a huge box on my front porch. May have been a driverless truck. Though I doubt it. Who would carry the big box to the door?

My mistake, it was NOT Amazon, it was Costco via Google Express.

stever

Good point about used car sales. And that's where the real money is for dealers.

Lots of people are starting to get in trouble with their car loans fwiw. (Fox)

stever

Oh, more diesel news today:

VW could agree U.S. large-car diesel emissions settlement by October: Audi exec (Reuters)

xwesx

texases said:

I think it's the percent of value at that time, not of original value.

Yeah, that's definitely true. So, if a vehicle lost 15% per year over five years, that would be this:

Year 0: $25,000 (original MSRP)
Year 1: $21,250 (-15%)
Year 2: $18,063 (-15%)
Year 3: $15,353 (-15%)
Year 4: $13,050 (-15%)
Year 5: $11,093 (-15%)

Total depreciation over five years: 55.6%

Reality is that the depreciation is higher for most vehicles in the early years, and lower in out-years. But, even when it is not, the financial hit is still smaller (percent of value).

ruking1

Off topic but get a LOAD of this! ? http://www.wsj.com/articles/ship-operators-explore-autonomous-sailing-1472635800?mod=trending_now_1

fintail

Saw a nice diesel today, 90s era Dodge 2500 truck, smoking like it was suffering a small fire. Commercial plates, of course. Maybe it will trickle down. Also saw a later model douchebro lifted Ford 4 door 4x4 diesel with no visible smoke, but lots of smell. Yep, late model small displacement diesel cars are the evil. And then the hilariously bad traffic controls on my evening commute - likely producing more needless pollution via negligent traffic management than all the diesel cars on the road combined. But not a problem, highly compensated NGO types find other problems.

stevedebi

Well, the wife doesn't like the VW Jetta, so that is out. She really wants to keep our 2014 TDI, but there are still two things holding us back.

1. Really upset at VW for being that stupid.
2. Potential performance or MPG issues with any "fix". She likes the car the way it drives NOW, and it is a big unknown.
3. Still looking for a job, although I have a great possibility on the table. If I'm not employed, we would be dumb not to sell the car back and get out from under the loan. We have two other cars, counting my daughter's, which used to my the wife's.

We have applied for a buy back, but can call VW to change our mind.

Oddly enough, one contender should we buy back is the Honda HRV. She likes it.

stever

ruking1 said:

Off topic but get a LOAD of this! ? http://www.wsj.com/articles/ship-operators-explore-autonomous-sailing-1472635800?mod=trending_now_1

Maybe the labor savings will keep them afloat, unlike Hanjin Shipping, 7th largest container shipper that filed banko in S. Korea today. (Reuters)

With all the ships idled, the air around the ports might get a bit better.

henryn

texases said:

5 years at 25% per year depreciation = 0.75^5 = 0.237, or the car is worth 23.7% of the value when new.

My bad, exponential, not linear.

stever

You can also use the True Cost to Own tool and it'll estimate depreciation for 5 years out.

ruking1

stever said:

ruking1 said:

Off topic but get a LOAD of this! ? http://www.wsj.com/articles/ship-operators-explore-autonomous-sailing-1472635800?mod=trending_now_1

Maybe the labor savings will keep them afloat, unlike Hanjin Shipping, 7th largest container shipper that filed banko in S. Korea today. (Reuters)

With all the ships idled, the air around the ports might get a bit better.

It would be telling to do before/after measurements. I would surmise little to no appreciative differences. Per ton & per container price have been falling quite precipitively. The stage was set generations to decades ago by US policies of shipping manufacturing logistics (& jobs) off shore.

I do not say this lightly, as one ship (shipping) operation/s is/are the equivalent of the whole of the US PVF (274.8 M)! operating. This has been posted more than once on this thread.

The disingenuousness can be seen at the Port of Oakland.( Port of NYC also) Enviro cons (Berkeley, Oakland, SF epicenter of the environmental protest movements) are loathed to protest/shut down UNION port operations.! Indeed I can't even remember when a republican ran anything in the city of Oakland. (Not that I keep up with those things.)

Total fictional Hollywood production. Even Hollywood ( producers) exports Hollywood (real) jobs !

ruking1

TDI TMI https://youtu.be/Ppif4qC560U

You ask for the time? This is how you make a watch part https://youtu.be/0oXMH9sp7LM

xwesx

That is brilliant! A useful addition of technology to a car!

stever

The "people" shut down the Port of Oakland's plans to open a coal terminal there. There's one in Seward Alaska that generates a good deal of controversy (and, supposedly, dust). (East Bay Times)

Oddly (and a bit more car related), some outfit is going to open up port operations in San Fran for car shipments. (sfchronicle.com)

Germany asks EU to investigate Fiat Chrysler diesel cheating allegations (CNET)

ruking1

Well SF probably feels the need to expand monies. They have been consistently beaten to economic death by the Ports of Oakland/Long Beach & the ones hidden in plain sight in the bay! Indeed the railhead near where I live processes 200,000 cars per year .

stever

Sounds like they are five years late - car sales are starting to level off and even contract a bit, and with the container ship banko, Oakland has plenty of excess capacity now. Pier 80 isn't exactly the tourist Wharf district, but still seems a bit odd.

gagrice

stever said:

Good point about used car sales. And that's where the real money is for dealers.

Lots of people are starting to get in trouble with their car loans fwiw. (Fox)

That would have been easy to predict with the sub prime auto loans over the last 8 years. Many people borrowed the full amount with higher interest and longer terms. It will keep the Repo men busy for some time.

ruking1

stever said:

Sounds like they are five years late - car sales are starting to level off and even contract a bit, and with the container ship banko, Oakland has plenty of excess capacity now. Pier 80 isn't exactly the tourist Wharf district, but still seems a bit odd.

They've been letting cruise ships land! Seemingly there is no opposition, to protest here!
Yet yearly operation is equivalent to the whole US car PVF ! Disingenuous would be the kind description!

stever

As I recall, the cruise ship rules require them to turn off the bunker fuel burning. Out of port though, stink pots.

In port, all cargo vessels in LA and Long Beach (and probably elsewhere) have to use shore power.

Pretty easy to imagine a lifted 4x4 pickup in this (intentionally sideways) pic. Oh look, dual pipes.