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

ruking1

Well played, albeit $ 21 B lighter! ?
VW’s 2018 profits are predicted in the range of 4 to 5 %- 3 years after (2015 September) the “diesel gate”?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltaylor/2018/03/14/shock-at-volkswagen-as-skoda-upsets-audis-profit-margin-dominance/2/#190ad04e72b3
Aretha Franklin sang a song about it, “Who’s Zooming Who?” albeit, circa 1985.

BOSCH engine computer controls were/are/continue to be @ the center of the controversy.

2019 Hyundai Santa Fe/XL, TDI engine option?
A 3.0L TDI with 400 to 495 # ft of torque would be a winning ticket!
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/national-business/article205024959.html

ruking1

15 years or more? All the candidates would be better with the diesel option! (12.5% is one (SD) standard deviation) . https://youtu.be/ph6qlXArRsI

14,000 miles * 15years * 210,000 miles!

ruking1

For the CUV/SUV/light truck segments, it’s more than curious the gasoline hybrid did not make the grade? This does not bode well for a possible diesel/hybrid.

gagrice

ruking1 said:

For the CUV/SUV/light truck segments, it’s more than curious the gasoline hybrid did not make the grade? This does not bode well for a possible diesel/hybrid.

The gain in MPG with a gas hybrid CUV just does not make much sense. Unless you only drive in town. Then it has marginal advantage. Who makes a hybrid SUV/CUV besides Toy/Lex?

ruking1

I was reading that 2017 sales of CUV/SUV segments were 7 M (=approximately 40% of 17.5M) this adds app 2.4% last yr to an already 75% plus large size to light trucks PVF (2015 281.3 M)

In contrast, it’s taken close to two decades for gasoline hybrids to reach 2 to 4% of the PVF. Hmmm...

fintail

Diesel is 9 cents cheaper than RUG at my local Chevron right now - hard to beat that.

ruking1

Isn’t it interesting, (with the PVF @ 2% to 5% diesel versus 98 % to 95% E10/RUG-PUG) ULSD is cheaper? Does it scream hidden in plain sight “opportunity” to many others besides me? !

In context: a barrel of oil (42 gals) yields: 20 gals RUG/PUG, 11 gals ULSD (eia.gov)

Interesting take on upcoming VW EV models. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/volkswagen-apos-electric-car-program-130500223.html

fintail

All I know is that if this keeps up, I might really search for another when the lease is up (as buyout will be silly money).

gagrice

Diesel dropped to $2.72 here on CC. RUG holding at $2.43. Advantage still with diesel for me. I have two great diesels in my garage. Life is really good. Will think about another diesel when the Touareg gets close to 10 years or 120k miles. Both in need of a trip to Las Vegas over the mountains. Blow em out at 80 MPH.

ruking1

I just did a quick look at the (USED 2013 to 2015) MB GLK 350/250 BT inventories. One bottom line: the diesels (BT) 2.1 L twin turbos 4 cyls. holds its values (like models) higher, longer & better, despite being $500 cheaper than the PUG models 3.5 L V6 when new, 5, 4, 3 years ago. I would suspect the same is true for other (& oems) diesel like models

gagrice

Ruking you lucked out having the GLK diesel when VW bought back your two diesels. There are still a few 2014-15 ML 250 Bluetecs on the CARS site. Fuelly has 6 of them with an average 36 MPG. May be some fudging. Though I would expect at least low 30s with that engine. Has yours been trouble free so far?

https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/728853589/overview/

ruking1

Wow! Your link shows a vehicle that has less than 10,000 miles for a 2015! It sounds like a creampuff !

Indeed, the 14 MB GLK 250 BT luck continues to be good. Yes, it continues to be trouble free. I’m a bit perplexed at the tires (non diesel) !? They are OEM run flats (19 in rims) and if you buy them on the market are very expensive. They are not known for the best mpg. They are ready for another 5000 miles rotation. The set will easily go another 3 rotations or 15,000 miles (swag) @ 65,000 miles.

It is interesting that that GL series Mercedes Benz, owners report 38 miles a gallon ! I’m guessing I’d probably report closer to 32-35 mpg for our driving styles & environs.

But as I have posted 49.7 mpg consistently for 65 miles to 100 miles on the GLK 250 BT from 7,350 ft to ZERO!

Interesting VW factoids on CUV/SUV segments. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/volkswagen-announce-340-million-tennessee-investment-build-suv-164143846--finance.html

People (like you and me) were early visionaries on the now (Edmunds.com) }closed “ I hate SUVs why don’t you ?” board.

gagrice

People (like you and me) were early visionaries on the now (Edmunds.com) }closed “ I hate SUVs why don’t you ?” board.

Over 20 years since I first signed on looking for a small diesel PU. I would not call the GMC Canyon diesel small. It is just about perfect for me. The SUV haters were wrong back then, as most said it was short lived fad. Fast forward and it is an international phenomenon.

United States: Vehicle registration data shows that crossover vehicles now comprise 27 percent of the total auto market in the U.S., which is significant, considering the vehicle segment was virtually non-existent 20 years ago. As a consequence, OEMs are adjusting future product plans to meet this ongoing trend.

http://www.truckinginfo.com/blog/market-trends/story/2017/10/growth-of-crossovers-compact-suvs-in-fleet-is-a-global-fleet-phenomena.aspx

ruking1

My 1987 TLC (31 years “late” to the now SUV/CUV party) was 1.5% to max 2% part of the PVF! I remember getting the cheapest insurance rate (cheaper than compact Accord, due to the fact that there was zero accident data. It was 1 of 2,000 in the USA. The diesel version was available in CN.

So to me, the segment seems to be buried in the now (inaccurate 75%) large car to light trucks of the PVF. If I had to guess the large cars to light trucks segment is now much larger (than 75%). It is just that the auto journalists do not see that as something to write about. The real cover up seems to be the growing GLOBAL SUV/CUV phenomenon.

I’m guessing now diesel %’s in the US market will grow. They will minimally post 33% better mpg. I think the better mpg results PO’s most diesel haters.

gagrice

I bought one of the first 1964 Toyota Land Cruisers sold in the USA. Learned quickly you can get stuck in them. I sure wish I still had that beast. It cost me too much to maintain. Valve jobs every 12k miles, Timing gear issues with the Toyota fiber timing gear. It was a horrible copy of a Chevy 6 cylinder engine. Would not even look at another Toyota for the next 40 years. Still not a fan after getting rid of our gas guzzling 2007 Sequoia. Oh but the fond memories of the old TLC. The old beast with this GMC 2.8L diesel would be fun.

gagrice

The FJ40s seem to be holding their value well... Several cheaper than this one.


https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/723340911/overview/

ruking1

Too fun! For years we’ve heard how much more maintenance diesels were! Yet, anybody who’s been around gasoline cars for any length of time knows truly what a pita gas vehicles were.

I got involved in a friends buy of a new 1974 TLC. When he first told me of what he was wanting, I told him NOT to get it! Bottom line: I helped him to get the best price possible at that time. 20/20 hindsight gets to: should’ve put it on jacks, wrapped it up & store in a garage, kept it as pristine as possible, with zero to low miles as possible & sell today! It would’ve been a 53% per yr on the money?

fintail

FJ40s and the like are a cult item, and high end restorations and restomods exist, I think targeting rich boomers and/or wannabe outdoorsy tech geeks. I am pretty sure they existed in diesel form for other markets, too. Hindsight is 20/20, eh? Price inflated almost as much as Seattle area housing.

ruking1

Or so you wish! ? Druthers would have me taking 53% + income in other assets!

fintail

But you can also live in the house 25K in several areas here in 1964 could likely be 2MM++ now.

ruking1

Too funny ! That (1964) would have me in middle school. Gas was leaded & dirty as was diesel. What house could I have bought with paper route savings? But I did probably turn some brokerage heads, starting a stock brokerage account, needing parental approval.

fintail

Someone born in 1964 would have been in middle school when I was born

I think an FJ40 was above paper route money too, although there were still ample classics around for relatively cheap. There were cars worth a million now that could be had for under 10K.

ruking1

It’s pure speculation without cash flow and 20/20 hindsight. Crazy that the stocks bought then STILL throw off dividends ? 20/20 hindsight is wonderful ain’t it? It’s kind a like shooting the arrow, then drawing the bull’s-eye around the landing site. Life is good!

It would seem that MB is not making the grade/is turning its back on 2016-2018 GLC’s! https://www.shebudgets.com/news/2018-cars-avoid/80537/3

fintail

A tiny bit of planning and a whole lotta luck can work wonders. Kind of works that way for diesel cars too - you make a deliberate choice for it, and sometimes you get lucky with fringe benefits.

I'd rather drink diesel than take automotive advice from "shebudgets.com". Also seems to maybe be a translation directly into English, something is off about that blurb.

ruking1

Yes, I’ve done that with 4 diesels & 5 TLC’s! Thanks you for the acknowledgements!

The buy backs were/are a lot of luck to massive greed in getting $ figures to the consumers.

Yes, diesels are my preferences. Unfortunately, the MB GLC 2016 to 2018/2019 & beyond are off my list, until they get better (multiple references) & have a/multiple diesel option/s.

The VW buy backs unfortunately do not solve/compensate (my) individual going forward transportation issues. To wit, buy back $$’s monies do not buy NEW replacement vehicles. In other words, the CARB/EPA got free rides in the elimination of diesels. I situationally benefited, with less needed & fewer vehicles. So yes, if I had to sell a used car, it’s good to get back what was paid new. More equitable $$’s would have been the $ price of new replacements & increased $$’s spent for more fuel.

2.8 L diesel option, Colorado/Canyon!
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/edmunds-compares-midsize-pickup-trucks-53898011

fintail

I'm not worried about the gripes from that maybe dubious link, but I also have little interest in the 4 cyl gasoline variant of the GLC. I might be more tempted by an AMG V6, but this is another one where the OM651 would be ideal.

I have yet to see a credible rumor about diesel returning to the US MB lineup.

gagrice

My 1964 TLC was $2400 new in 1965. I wanted a Jeep CJ5 with the Buick V6 and it was about $3500 and more than I had saved. They were just hitting the market and very much in demand. The Toyota was an unknown and not yet popular. Datsun Patrol hard top was also more expensive than the Toyota. First trip the timing gear went out near Bakersfield. You get what you pay for.

Many of the FJ40s out there are diesel from Canada. Some came with Mercedes diesel engines. The old Land Rover diesels hold their value well.

https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/728414633/overview/

ruking1

The new 1974 TLC was $4,000 from an upstate NY Toyota dealer. Even at that time we imagined a machine gun mounted in the back!

gagrice

One of my wealthier off road buddies had a Jeep.

Michaell

ruking1 said:

The new 1974 TLC was $4,000 from an upstate NY Toyota dealer. Even at that time we imagined a machine gun mounted in the back!

Swell - predating Middle Eastern terrorists by 30-40 years! :laughing:

gagrice

Only thing lower on the totem pole was the International Scout. It got replaced at the bottom in 1966 by the Ford Bronco. Both notorious for broken axles. I have 100s of negatives from those days. My wife and I were writing articles and taking pictures for a couple off road publications. And getting stuck a lot.

ruking1

Michaell said:

ruking1 said:

The new 1974 TLC was $4,000 from an upstate NY Toyota dealer. Even at that time we imagined a machine gun mounted in the back!

Swell - predating Middle Eastern terrorists by 30-40 years! :laughing:

Well, we had gobs of its (7.62 mm) ammo in inventory! Quite a few ammo cans would have fit! This is not even to mention the .50 caliber stuff. Now that would overwhelm the 1974 TLC platform.

ruking1

Indeed, diesels’ (@ lower RPM) full torque is really whats needed: off-road.

So a little more diesel context ? https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/03/21/u-s-net-petroleum-imports-plunging-toward-zero/#1137ebfe27ba

No need for oil imports?

fintail

Those Scouts and Broncos can be pretty collectible now, too. There was even a Scout diesel near the end of the line for that model. I remember when I was a student 20 years ago, someone who lived near me had one - smoked in a way to compete with any old MB

gagrice

ruking1 said:

Indeed, diesels’ (@ lower RPM) full torque is really whats needed: off-road.

So a little more diesel context ? https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/03/21/u-s-net-petroleum-imports-plunging-toward-zero/#1137ebfe27ba

No need for oil imports?

That was interesting. So we have these more expensive refineries to handle poor crude like tar sands. Which is a plus for our economy. Buy cheap crude from Canada and refine it, sell our West Texas Sweet crude at top price. More jobs and profit for our economy. Too bad the fossil fuel haters don't grasp that concept.

ruking1

In 7th grade (55 years ago?) , our class took a field trip (all day) to the Chevron refinery in Martinez-Benicia, CA. That “grade school” experience makes it even harder to grasp what the haters do not grasp. (We had to go: F/F to 2018; anyone can Google) My logical conclusion -it remains facist (hate spew) & politically based ! I’d would like to think they are NOT ignorant.

@ the time frame, the “overwhelming evidence” & “unchangeable inevitability” was a global ice age leading to massive human diebacks ( whole swatch’s , Billions dying), due to massive crop failures, etc. Now the haters are arguing over literal hairs that mitigated PVF TDI’s are going to effect similar human diebacks?

But then, IF this is important, there are not many PVF cars/trucks faster than a soccer mom in a (2.3 sec naught to 60 mph ) Tesla. in high school I would’ve love to have had the Tesla, some years later, for Friday night street races! Self driving cars would have let us drag race & partake in a beverage of choice It’s almost now humiliating to see that ones’ mom or grandma could beat one at the drag races! Sooooo... very easy 2! Step on the right pedal. Life is good!

ruking1

Not for US markets, V8 diesel option 415 hp VW Touareg! https://www.autoblog.com/2018/03/23/vw-touareg-revealed-not-for-us-943371/

The VW’s 240 hp/406 V6 was potent. This V8 TDI Touareg’s torque is probably ...MONSTER!

This product seems to further validate the platform of which the mid sized Touareg CUV/SUV is based.

fintail

Of course not for us, just like all MB diesels right now. MB had a V8 diesel S-class variant nearly 20 years ago, but apparently the power wasn't worth the complexity, as I believe it wasn't a long-lived model.

ruking1

The new Touareg has also dropped 230#’s.! WOW! That puts it from 4,975 #’s to 4,745#’s.

Michaell

ruking1 said:

The new Touareg has also dropped 230#’s.! WOW!

So what? Last I heard, it won't be offered in the US.

ruking1

Almost ALL PVF vehicles would function better with 230 #’s less weight?

6/7 results of pulling less weight, same torque, applying to upcoming PVF vehicles yields: faster response, better handling, better stopping, better mpg, less pollution, less internal (component) /external wear/tear.

6.47 B #’s (281.3 M PVF) LESS of rolling wear generation would probably extend the life of our roads. Indeed, the 6.47 B # question should be upended. How many engines given current gasoline standards would it take to push 6.47 B #’s around for a year at 15,000 miles per year? (One can use any figures, but) Let’s say 4000 #’s a vehicle. My cheap calculator says 16.175 M engines/vehicles equivalent off the roads/added. The decreased pollution & logistics would be another ripple effect.

Michaell

ruking1 said:

Almost ALL PVF vehicles would function better with 230 #’s less weight?

6/7results of pulling less weight, same torque, applying to upcoming PVF vehicles yields: faster response, better handling, better stopping, better mpg, less pollution, less internal (component) /external wear/tear.

6.47 B #’s (281.3 M PVF) LESS of rolling wear generation would probably extend the life of our roads. Indeed, the 6.47 B # question should be upended. How many engines given current gasoline standards would it take to push 6.47 B #’s around for a year at 15,000 miles per year? (One can use any figures, but) Let’s say 4000 #’s a vehicle. My cheap calculator says 16.175 M engines/vehicles equivalent off the roads/added.

I'm not against lower weight; I'm just asking why it's important to get excited about it on a vehicle that won't be offered in the US?

ruking1

I didn’t say you were against lower weight. But it is apparent the regulations are, directly or indirectly. I’ve given one small take. You or anyone else can chime in. Diesels are known to pull any # of #’s way better than gasoline engines. Case study: 12 VW Touareg TDI, 32 mpg over 60,000 miles vs fuelly.com gasoline of 19 mph to 21 mpg.

I do get that The majority (95 to 98%) of PVF gasoline owners don’t care. I have always been fine with that.

Michaell

ruking1 said:

I didn’t say you were against lower weight. But it is apparent the regulations are, directly or indirectly. I’ve given one small take. You or anyone else can chime in.

Not sure the increase in vehicle weight can be solely attributed to regulations. All the new technology that are part of modern cars has a weight penalty, as well.

In the words of Colin Anthony Bruce Chapman - "Simplify, then add lightness". Worked for his road and racing cars, not so much for today's modern automobile. Especially with the proliferation of crossovers, CUVs and SUVs.

ruking1

Indeed not all weight is. But it should not be overlooked. That was one reason why the NON US market new Touareg’s 230 # loss was exciting. The acceleration, handling and stopping can be visceral.

Weight loss is really not rocket science, although over 50% of the US population who are considered obese, do think so.

fintail

I suspect infotainment setups and standard power goodies are more of a factor in weight increases than regulations. Vehicles simply growing larger and the proliferation of AWD via the bloatling CUV craze is part of it, too.

Now that alternative materials are becoming more affordable (lots of composites/carbon fiber out there), there will be some weight loss. But it still amuses me that the Bluetec weighs over half a ton more than the fintail.

ruking1

Again advantage diesel ! Would I rather run my TDI’s (same power & adjusted) with 1,000 #’s less? OH YEAH!

The GLK 250 BT 4 matic with diesel mpg greatly exceeds the (like model-gasoline) GLK 350 SANS 4 matic mpg. The weight is not much different? (65 #‘s I’ve read)

fintail

Same for similar E. Highway cruising mpg will easily be 40% more.

gagrice

ruking1 said:

Again advantage diesel ! Would I rather run my TDI’s (same power & adjusted) with 1,000 #’s less? OH YEAH!

The GLK 250 BT 4 matic with diesel mpg greatly exceeds the (like model-gasoline) GLK 350 SANS 4 matic mpg. The weight is not much different? (65 #‘s I’ve read)

No doubt in my mind. Diesel is the way to go and far safer than gas or batteries. Being fried in a Tesla by burning batteries is what nightmares are made of.

https://electrek.co/2018/03/23/tesla-fire-battery-pack-model-x-crash/

ruking1

Well, that is THE highway (101) we use for commuting!

35 firefighters @ a/the scene indicates EXTREMELY high danger/ maintenance &/or extremely severe. The fact that they needed assistance from Tesla personnel for safing, saving, extraction, battery removal & packaging for transport are not very good signs! The article hints the driver was taking the 0 to 60+ PLUS mph capability a little past the ability to control ? The drivers probable selfish actions probably involved two other innocent drivers. The article also indicates an interesting irony: the driver SLOWLY burned to death. RIP.