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

13940424445473

Comments

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I was talking with a snowmobile dealer the other day and the mechanic overheard our conversation and came out. He said the ethanol is rotting seals and destroying reeds even, in under a year.

    There's a snowmachine dealer/service station in the boonies here (nothing around it for ~30 miles) that I drove by last week. Their sign said ethanol free gas. The only problem was that it was around $3.85 or so for regular; higher than RUG here and even higher than some diesel stations. The ethanol free stations in my town are running about 20 cents a gallon more than corn-RUG.

    "Due to rising gasoline prices, as well as federal mandates, about 40% of corn—America's biggest crop—is being brewed into ethanol. By the time the fall harvest begins, the Agriculture Department expects the U.S. to have enough corn left to satisfy the country's appetite for 18 days." (WSJ).

    Those are Depression era supply levels.

    Steely, the automakers are under the gun to reach 35 mpg CAFE standards (it's 27.3 mpg this year). I still don't think there's some big conspiracy to keep diesel out. If anything, the feds are encouraging more of it with the CAFE regs.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Well, not thanks to the EPA, actually, but thanks to the dirtiness of diesel exhaust and the health problems it causes.

    Chevy could make a diesel Tahoe. They just CHOOSE not to do so.

    If they are willing to sell a EREV for $40K, they can afford to sell a diesel Tahoe for whatever they need to sell it for to recoup their costs.

    All this blame on the regs is a common cop-out, and I'm a little bit tired of hearing it.

    True, we need more diesel vehicles. That would be good for reducing fossil fuel usage. I'm all for more CLEAN DIESEL cars.

    But at the cost of dirty air, like Europe is dealing with?

    London's air pollution worst in Europe so city faces stiff fine

    NO. THANK. YOU.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Chevy could make a diesel Tahoe. They just CHOOSE not to do so.

    "This week, rumors spread on the Internet that General Motors was planning to assemble diesel-powered Chevrolet Cruze models at its Lordstown plant. GM denied the claims.

    Because diesel fuel is more expensive than gasoline right now, GM spokesman Tom Read said the company isn’t sure there is demand for a diesel-powered Cruze in the U.S., even though cars with diesel engines are about 25 percent more fuel-efficient than cars with gasoline engines." (Vindy.com)
  • samm43samm43 Member Posts: 195
    If you can drop $50-$75K, then you can afford the service calls.

    I have never agreed with this convoluted so-called logic.

    Saying that, is no different than not caring whether your portfolio is earning 2% or 10% annually and we all know that everyone, (and especially the affluent) cares about interest rates. They also will choose regular or mid grade gas at the pumps when their car clearly calls for premium.

    You could buy a $2 million home and have plain, conventional roof shingles protect that home from the rains, just as well as the premium shingles. You should have that choice.

    Humble earners and savers like nice things too you know. Consider that they worked hard for something extra $pecial, and spent their hard earned savings on the purchase. And then budgeted for a normal or reasonable service investment schedule.

    Sam
  • steelydanfansteelydanfan Member Posts: 134
    I will check again on the Urea refill, I checked that back in 2009. Perhaps it is somewhat streamlined now. It is not just a matter of filling the canister. Apparently the canister has to be cleaned, inspected, filled, and then the technician has to reset the whole thing for the new interval............

    An oil change at Jiffy Lube it is not........the price of urea is just one component.

    It is a fact that the engine will shut down if it is not refilled. I think it allows you "so many" starts after the interval has passed, but after that..............
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I know from personal experience this is true.

    In 1995, I bought a used 1992 Infiniti Q45, then could not afford to maintain it. Had to trade it in and eat $5K on the deal.

    I couldn't afford it to begin with (wife talked me into buying it) then I indeed proved that I could not afford it by being unable to afford the service.

    Tangent OVER.
  • steelydanfansteelydanfan Member Posts: 134
    edited March 2011
    Sam,

    Well said, well said. I will only add this: The affluent did not become affluent by spending freely their whole life.............

    I know many affluent people who routinely shop at Costco and Sam's Club.................and they fill up there , as well.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Yep, and most of them take their expensive rides to the dealer for service.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    Come on Steve, you need to back away from the still, while the white lightning is being brewed.

    My 03 TDI (actually much earlier than that) EASILY gets 50 mpg. For the ones who insist on driving it like a nervous nellie Honda VTEC= 45 mpg. Shoot the only way I could get 44 mpg was to drive 300 miles in stop and go traffic in downtown Las Vegas in 104 degrees ambient temp with the A/C BLASTING. This was 9/10 MY's in the PAST !!!!!!!

    I think what the FEDS are starting to realize that even in Europe they can NOT get the gasser motor to do what is mindless for a diesel motor (better mpg)

    All you need do is to compare like for like on the 03 VW. TDI, 1.8 T, 2.0 fuel economy.gov
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    That's the question isn't it? You get 50mpg, CAFE is going to be 35mpg. That's a tough number to hit, even if you do sell a lot of Smart cars to balance out the fleet numbers.

    Why aren't the automakers switching to diesel left and right?

    You think maybe they're afraid people won't buy them?
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    If they do not want in on the projected 12% by 2018 (JD POWERS) passenger diesel vehicle fleet, why would anybody want to cram that down their collective throats? (of 08 registered passenger cars 257.4 M , 12% would be 30.888 M, from 1.272 M)

    I am not sure why we insist on trying to save the biggie three automakers from themselves? (I actually do, but that sentence sounds better) They don't want to oem TDI's for American markets? So be it. I mean they did bankruptcy when they didn't oem cars that the American market actually wanted to buy? What about up ours didn't we learn??? LET EM FALL !!!?? I mean it isn't like they do not already oem turbo diesels??? They do not advertise this much, but I am sure if you look on whatever assembly lines diesel equipped whatevers are being made and shipped to where ever , but obviously not to the US markets.
  • samm43samm43 Member Posts: 195
    But it wouldn't hurt to engineer (for NA) at least a few more than they are then, to test the waters. I'm sure there is room on those ships to include a few diesels from EU just to get us in the mood or started. People can't buy what is not made available to them.

    I am surprised that some don't think there is any govt intervention at all. All the pieces fit if you allow for just that one thing. It has been 24 years since we had diesels in any number on these shores. The diesel's time has come now. In fact it is long overdue.

    Sam
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    Actually the very OPPOSITE.

    Well Steve that is the thing, if I drove the 03 TDI like the 03/04 Prius to get 50 mpg, that figure (in the TDI) would be more like 60+ mpg !!!!!!!!!!!! I mean all I need do (right now on the TDI) is go 75 mph with bursts to 80/85 TO LA LA LAND (to wake up from road hypnosis) and it will post 59 mpg !!!! I actually have a few fav diesel stops in Santa Monica on Wilshire Blvd.

    Keep in mind this is with an engine pushing 157,000 miles. AND this capability has been on our shores for at least a DECADE AGO !!!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I am surprised that some don't think there is any govt intervention at all.

    Sam, I am also surprised. It is obvious that CARB keeps setting the bar higher when a mainstream US maker gets close. Like Honda that made a huge deal of bringing their very fine diesel engine to our shores. Only to get shot in the foot by CARB. As we all know California decides what gets sold in the USA. EPA people are just puppets to the CARB bullies.

    The domestics just play their silly games and build lots of diesel trucks all over 7500 lbs to fit the RULES. I'm with steelydan on wanting a Tahoe with a V6 Duramax that can hit 30+ MPG out on the road. And still have the torque needed to pull a heavy trailer. The silly GM hybrids are neutered pieces of crap.
  • steelydanfansteelydanfan Member Posts: 134
    Whatever floats your boat, larsb...................
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    If I had a boat, I'd make sure it had a diesel engine...:) :shades:
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    Not that I would buy this, but Chevrolet puts out a MY 2011 2500 series ...

    ..."An optional 6.6-liter turbodiesel V8 is surely the engine choice for those who plan on towing or hauling on a regular basis. This new engine produces 397 hp and 765 lb-ft of torque and is mated to a beefier six-speed automatic transmission with manual shift control."...

    No nambi bambi U REA(h) bottles for this bad boy. More like yippee YAHOO !!

    Judas Priest !! AW AW AW.
  • steelydanfansteelydanfan Member Posts: 134
    and thank heavens you wouldn't have a urea canister to deal with........just put some sunscreen on................ :shades:
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    You do know that the strict mitigation for marine engines is STRICT (no) mitigation !!!!???? :blush:;)
  • samm43samm43 Member Posts: 195
    The silly GM hybrids are neutered pieces of crap.

    And made even more inefficient in colder climates but still having work to do and heavy things to tow.

    A V, or better still, inline 6 Duramax of even relatively humble displacement of 3 or 3.2 litres would have close to 450 lb ft of torque. A lot of work can be done with that, and with appropriate gearing, great fuel economy when you're running lighter.

    And I agree with every point you made above that too. I am not very politically minded in so much as knowing the strategy to oppose regulations that belie common sense, but what is so discouraging is that while there are those among us know we are getting screwed, we are at a loss to stop the railroading and manipulation over us. In many respects we are too busy working overtime to pay our taxes and bills that we don't have the extra where-with-all to address things even if there are many more of us out there who would like to initiate change.

    Sam
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    "An optional 6.6-liter turbodiesel V8 is surely the engine choice for those who plan on towing or hauling on a regular basis.

    That is a result of the HP race among the 3 domestic auto makers. Just like the emissions standards, those rigs have far surpassed the point of diminishing returns. It is all one upsmanship with those behemoths. I have no interest in that kind of power. I want economy with enough power to get the job done. I found the 400+ ft lbs of torque in the BMW X5 diesel more than I really needed. I would probably get tickets for speeding as kicking it to 85 was as effortless as getting to 65 MPH with th V8 gasser in my Sequoia.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    You know as goofy as this might sound to the majority of the audience a 99 Cummins diesel gets app 16.5 to 17.5 mpg in city. and above 20 highway.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    My three diesels?

    1. A Peugeot Station Wagon that was a rugged as a box of rocks.

    It rattled and stunk but it was actually a great little car that NOBODY would work on. The shops HATED it. Most confortable seats of any car I've owned.

    2. A 1981 Olds Cutlass Supreme that I bought for next to nothing in like new condition. Used it as an airport car for a year without incident until I sold it out of fear.

    2. An Isuzu Pickup with a stout, dependable little diesel.

    It's not that I hate diesels. I just cant justify paying the extra money for one ONLY to get HOSED on the prices they charge for diesel.

    Just don't see the attraction at least not for now.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    In many respects we are too busy working overtime to pay our taxes and bills that we don't have the extra where-with-all to address things even if there are many more of us out there who would like to initiate change.

    You make another excellent point. It is not just the EPA or CARB that are totally out of control. It is every level of our City, County, state and Federal governments. My wife just paid the second quarter property tax bill. 10% went to redevelopment agencies in San Diego county. She wondered what they do with that money. San Diego County has 59 redevelopment agencies. Most likely all just scamming us of our tax dollars.

    We are surrounded by bureaucratic idiocy and ripoff agencies. All trying to justify dipping into our collective pockets. Meanwhile they deny US the opportunity to save a few bucks on fuel by blocking fuel efficient vehicles that every country in the world has except ours.

    I know wrong forum. You might like to join us at a more appropriate thread.

    http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f1d3f68/10036#MSG10036
  • samm43samm43 Member Posts: 195
    The Cutlass engine was a very sturdy V6 from all accounts I have heard. Quite a rare beast. Your Isuzu would be nice to have to this day. Those were very good engines. 2.2 I think but weren't turbo'd were they?

    Your hosed comment leads me to think you are getting hung up on the unfair irony rather than letting the real world numbers (unfair at the pumps and all) rule. I'm sure you have seen the many posts showing the end math? And those posts were not fudged or sensationalized. This is one of these rare cases where it sounds like it is too good to be true, but is true. The math doesn't lie.

    I'm not trying to change your mind however. You sound quite adamant. But I would wager that if diesel prices were lowered to pre ULSD levels, it would be a lot easier sell because while people don't have the imagination to see the bigger picture even at todays prices, they would be winners by default. Govt would want to quickly impose a tax base from other avenues to fill that gap, but overall everyone would be happier, polluting less and as an extra bonus we wouldn't have to recycle all those hybrid batteries. Or incur the environmental impact when they are initially manufactured either.

    Sam
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Actually my Olds was a V-8 and those we NOT good engines. Those early GM diesels were garbage. I got lucky but I didn't keep it long enough for it to give me trouble.

    I respect your position on diesels but I really don't seem them growing much in popularity since most people feel as I do. I could, however, be wrong.

    But then, I'm not a big fan of hybrids either for the obvious reasons.
  • samm43samm43 Member Posts: 195
    I didn't know they put the V8 in the Cutlass. What a shame. The V6 got very good economy and lasted longer than the cars they were in. Just very rare engines. I don't think they shared much with the V8 disasters.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    It got even worse when GM decided to build a 6.2 liter diesel for some of their pickups and step vans. Expensive to begin with, not THAT better mileage and nothing but trouble.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    Let me ask you, what happened if I just concentrated on my (gasser) Honda experiences from the 70's?
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Not sure I understnad your question but what does that have to do with diesels?
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    If I did the math correctly, you are speaking of 30 year old diesels? Shoot I wish I had 1985/87 MB 300 TD. ;)

    A 1981 Olds Cutlass Supreme (2011-1981=) 30 years old. What ppm sulfur was D2 in that time?

    Shoot Honda's were spewing LEAD aka LEADED gasoline?
  • samm43samm43 Member Posts: 195
    I copied down the link, thanks Gagrice. In looking it over there are some very good posts there, however, I think if I joined in there I might have to up my BP meds. :shades:

    Sam :sick:
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    edited March 2011
    I realize today's diesels are much cleaner but I can tell you, my Olds and the Peugeot I had were great for mosquito abatement especially when they were cold.

    Actually by 1981 leaded gasoline was about done for. In 1975, most cars went unleaded and that's when catalytic convertors came out EXCEPT for the old Honda CVCC's that ran so clean they didn't need a cat.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    While I appreciate your response, it really does not answer the question. Leaded gasoline was FAR from clean, and on the ppm sulfur level.

    Indeed FF to ULSD 2006 mandatory start point of the switch. ULSD is @ 15 ppm sulfur and nominally delivered @ the pumps from 5 to 7 ppm sulfur. RUG to PUG on the other hand is 30 ppm and can be nominally delivered from 30 ppm to 90 ppm sulfur (uppers can be off line FEE mitigated.

    So by law and by practicallity RUG to PUG is 2 to 18 times DIRTIER.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think if I joined in there I might have to up my BP meds.

    It is all fun. We get along though we disagree a lot. Very civil bunch.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    I really don't have a clue so I'll assume your numbers are accurate.

    I'm not sure what I'm missing here...?

    By 1981 most pump gas was UNLEADED. I think there may have been just a few stations that still pumped the good old high octane leaded gas but not many. So, a 1981 Honda would have used unleaded gas.

    I do know the diesel car I had would turn the air BLACK with soot and my non diesels wouldn't.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    I think if folks kept hearing about how bad Honda's were in the 70's they would be still knocked out. They obviously are not and have improved. Again not to belabor the point, the same is true of diesels. Indeed while America has been sleeping for 30+ years, actually more like the proverbial biblical generation, Europe is 50% plus diesel.

    Again unleaded RUG to PUG was INXS of 500 ppm sulfur !!

    I do actually wish I had the 1985/1987 MB 300 TD. Not only would one be running ULSD but it has been and REMAINS smog EXEMPT.

    Old myths die hard. When I brought my 2009 TDI to the smog station the owner/technician kept on saying all diesels smog, all diesels smog. I didn't say a word. He literally ran the smoke test 5 times looking for ....smoke, when only ONCE is the requirement. So when he was about ready to run it the sixth time I asked him if there was an issue that I was not SEEING. I think he "GOT IT" and stopped @ the 5th smoke test.

    Sidebar: I don't know if I should say this or not, but the real funny part was the vehicle was in a 3 sided and roofed enclosed space.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    Sorry, but 70's Hondas weren't "bad". They were crude, primitive, tinny and noisy but they held up quite well just like the motorcycles, outboards, generators and other things they make do.

    Like you, I've always liked the 300 TD's but I wonder if you have ANY IDEA just how troublesome these cars can be or how expensive they are to fix?

    If you can find one without vacuum problems with A/C that works you'll be doing great. Still, I like them.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,638
    If my modern car was to somehow be written off, I'd love to find an 85 or so 300TD wagon, silver blue, sunroof, pristine...but good luck, and they are actually worth a bit in nice condition. Sometimes I think maybe I should get a slower car too...driving something as fast as the E55 can get frustrating when the average Bellevue Lexus driver merges onto a highway like they are driving a 240D automatic.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    And you think "WE" are the tough crowd !? Here is a UK review of a 2007 Honda Civic

    ..."The 2.2CTDi Honda Civic is supposed to be around 22% more economical than the 1.8 V-TEC engine models, delivering around 39mpg around town and 55.4mpg in the combined cycle fuel economy tests. That said, the fuel economy is poor "...

    Honda Civic 2.2 L cTDI

    But then even in 2004, I wanted a 1.7 L cTDI Civic

    Steve agrees with the US market oems who say the the 2012 35 mpg targets are HARD. (tell me if I have misrepresented you and or the US market oems) :sick:
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    To add:

    This works the opposite way also.

    If I drove the Prius like the TDI there is almost no way I will get the 50 mpg on the Prius that I get on the TDI.

    So in that sense it is a double whammy, a win/win for the TDI and a win /lose for the Prius.

    But that is not even near the real news. The Jetta TDI's (hybrid) competition is the Toyota Camry Hybrid. .gov indicates the TDI's get @ least 9.8% better fuel mileage. It is thousands of $'s cheaper and dare I say better built?
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    My (by "inheritance") experiences were indeed BAD. (1979 Honda Accord) , in addition to your description.

    Why we took pity on Honda, buying a 1982 Accord is one of the mysteries. The 82 MY was as you said: ..."crude, primitive, tinny and noisy"... but did hold up well, used RUG and gave app 95,000 trouble free miles. As I remember 34 mpg. (stick shift if anybody cares)

    Yes the MB 300 TD drive train (TD engine and automatic transmission) were pretty bullet proof. I would submit any old car but NON diesel stuff can be problematic. For some reason there are a few reliable independent shops that LOVE to care for these around here (50 miles radius). Here is one gushing review getting 28 mpg?

    1984 MB 300 TD

    Hopefully after 27 years and over 540,000 miles, I hope the 03 VW Jetta TDI will be chugging along and 50 mpg (44 to 62 mpg range) in 2030 will seem like a fuel guzzler !!!

    It is really a shame to a tragedy they do not let in the 70 mpg turbo diesels here in 2011.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    You know it is funny, the city of Detroit square miles are 143. In it's hey day most of the cities parcels were @ a minimum paying its taxes. Today Detroits city managements estimate that 40 square miles of parcels are "fallow", aka non productive in almost any measure (-28%). Yet no enviro con has compared and contrast the environmental effects of closing down the once thriving businesses in Detroit and the lost of people due to cutting jobs !!?? The enviro cons must be happy !? Perhaps we can export them to gut 28% of London?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    US market oems who say the the 2012 35 mpg targets are HARD

    I can't speak for the automakers but going from the current CAFE regs to 35mpg is what - a 50% increase?

    Don't know why it's not doable, but the pencils will have to be extra sharp. :shades:
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    Ah, yes.... the new 2012 35 mpg standard is 40% higher than the 25 mpg standard. However, what probably goes unsaid, unnoticed and unchallenged are the so called "discount" rates. Long after I pass, they will be STILL be selling F-150,250, 350's ( " not picking on Ford, but highlighting the segment) cars" and none of them will even be close to 35 mpg ;)
  • angel53angel53 Member Posts: 10
    car that has a diesel engine is more powerful than the other but diesel cars are less good in life because it has a dangerous gas. :)

    image
  • samm43samm43 Member Posts: 195
    They could do a 3 litre diesel F150 right now and get 35 or very close to it. I'm using a Touareg as a basis for my comment. And it is not only heavier but also has the losses of AWD to contend with. Of course they will have to embrace oil burners as an option. So again, I'm breathing through a straw.

    Sam
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    Indeed. The 3.0 TDI ( to 3.5 V6 TDI, not marketed yet twin turbo diesel) is truly a well hidden wonder; and hidden right now in the Touareg. 28 mpg and 406 #ft of torque are really hefty YET bread and butter kind of combinations. Sort of along the lines of the venerable small block V8's, which in Chevrolet's case, started out as an $84.00 to oem, option.

    What would cinch the deal for me would be a STOUT 6 speed manual transmission in the Touareg. If the American market used it, a Tremec TR 6060, up to 606 #ft of torque handling.

    I think a lot of folks in the gasser vs diesel discussion really realize that a lot to some of the extra COSTS do go to more durable items. Some examples are engines, engine parts, intercoolers, beefier drive line: manual and automatic transmissions, suspensions, aka; springs, shocks, struts,
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited March 2011
    the so called "discount" rates.

    Now you know why Mercedes purchased smart back from Penske - the little city cars will help them meet fleet CAFE regs.

    Must be easier to make and sell a subcompact gasser than raising the fleet mpg with diesels that people in the US may not want to buy.

    For passenger vehicles, it's hard to say that diesel engines are more durable than gas ones (see my Liberty CRD comment a while back).
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited March 2011
    No that is not what I meant. The distinctions might be a tad TMI for this thread. So I should take the hit for not drawing the distinction as well as I probably should have. So let me phrase it another way. Do you think the manual/automatic transmissions are the same for a 100 # ft of torque gasser as for a 236# ft of torque diesel (like for like)? The heavier duty one costs more.
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.