Well it was intended to offend only the way you wrote it gave the impression you were unloading barrels.
Actually the epa figures differ from actual petroleum engineers figures but if you play horse shoes I guess coming close is ok. Just not with grenades.
when you look at my previous post I believe/hope it makes it a little more clear that crude and its refined product basically, other than geographical differences for sweet and sour crudes, come from the same well but during refining it is split to different products.
Back to the crude is crude and the different costs. Crude from one well is the same crude for diesel,gas,kerosene, lubricants, etc. In it's unrefined stage. So in fact crude is crude from the same well. Yes we can get light (SWEET) crude oil from another geographical region and sour from Mexico. But again that crude is crude in it's unrefined stage.
My point is a refinery in California pays the same for crude for diesel as it does for gas. Most (all?) refineries get their crude from the same source. Utah for instance gets most from the eastern part of their state. They don'y get the good stuff from the eastern part then send trucks to mexico to get sour crude and refine that for just one fuel. Th graph then should show crude costs the same for gas as it does for diesel. Init's unrefined stage they are the same cost.
Shipo, You have me confused. I went to the link and found nothing that really supported your earlier numbers or stance that crude is not crude. I did see several charts showing the composition of different crudes by geographical locations. But the article also stated that the longhorn pipeline mixes the crudes. I will read it again to see where your figures are coming from, as I may have missed your numbers. but thanks for the sight and charts it helps me in other research efforts. No hard feelings just difficult to decipher your intent and supporting info.
Good discussion although we went way off base of the actual post. Diesel vehicles are a good source if we bring diesel costs back in line with comparisons of 15 years ago when diesel was actually 50 cents cheaper than gas
Actually even at 50 cents a gallon higher diesel is a better bang for the buck than gasoline. Especially the crap we get here in San Diego. I can fill my tank across the border in AZ and gain 2 MPG in my Sequoia.
For an apples to apples comparison. If you were to buy a VW Jetta TDI vs a Jetta gasser you can expect to get 35-40% better mileage. You could pay up to about $5.30 per gallon and still be ahead with the TDI. Not to mention it is much more pleasant to drive out on the highway. That is based on our current cheapest gas at $3.85 per gallon. Diesel is currently selling at $4.15 per gallon. CA taxes diesel higher than RUG. Trying to make up for losses due to higher mileage.
well I live were we drive diesel pickups and the cost savings o diesel over gas isn't worth the additional expense of a diesel pickup. Now the torque and other ratings may be . I wonder in the rocky mountains how the actual difference in mileage would fair. They say methane in the fuel does produce more mileage but burns the valves. I would suggest taking a gallon of each and having an University do a study to see what is in each and what allows for the increase. You may be onto something
Glad to see you supporting Mexico rather than the USA. They say methane in the fuel does produce more mileage but burns the valves.
I suppose you have documentation to back up your claims. My take is the extra ethanol used in CA is the reason for the reduced mileage. My trip cross country produced better mileage with all NON CA fuel. It would be hard to not get some Mexican oil when the are either number one or two oil importers to the USA. A lot of the contractors here in San Diego take their diesel trucks across into Mexico and fill up the tanks and auxiliary tanks mounted in the bed. They claim their engines last longer on Mexican diesel than the ULSD sold here. I cannot prove or confirm that. It came from a friend that overhauls diesel engines in his shop. He claims the lubricity is so poor in the diesel we get here it is mandatory to use an additive.
As far as burning valves on my Sequoia, I won't keep it past the 7 year platinum warranty.
As you read "They say methane..." No stats currently as I haven't researched that realm. I would like to see some analysis from those diesel engines lasting longer on Mexican refined diesel. Also does their diesel emit more pollutants? I think you may be onto the ethanol issue as ethanol vaporizes quicker than gas. ethanol also can be hard on valves and engine components. That is why manufacturers suggest a maximum allowed in you tank. well those diesel mechanics, like gas mechanics, have an up close view and I think an engine oil analysis can prove their take.
I for one was glad to see Edmunds tackle the passenger diesel % and volume issues. It is also good to see the diesel % go from 2% to 5%. If the figures are accurate, (I really have no reason to doubt it) then the passenger diesel population is a min of 12.92 M vehicles (258.4 M). So if 50% of these are heavier duty light trucks, then we are talking roughly 6.46 M diesel cars. That is quite a jump from the 1.272 M diesel vehicles not too long ago.
My guess is VW gets the lion's share of that market. The lady I talked to at the Shell station that loves her new Jetta Sportswagen TDI, had two bikes on a top rack. I asked if it hurt her mileage. She said not that she could tell. You put two bikes on a Prius and it knocks the heck out of your mileage. Something for sports types to think about.
Just looking at the EPA Fuel Economy website. They have the 2012 listings for some new vehicles. The only engine they list for the new Passat is the 2.0L TDI. Maybe they won't even bother building a gas version. The 2012 Passat beats the competition by 10 MPG out on the road. And 9 MPG combined.
If VW sells the Passat for $8k less than the previous model, Toyota and Honda are going to have some real competition on their hands. I don't see Toyota lowering their Camry Hybrid $8k to match the Passat.
Gary, if you go to www.fueleconomy.gov and do a "side-by-side" comparison, you'll see the 2012 Passat TDI and the 2011 (no 2012 Toyotas listed yet?) Camry hybrid are VERY CLOSE.
So, for me, the Passat is not really a step up from the TCH.
For people buying new, then the price will be a big factor. If you can get the Passat for $5K-$8K less than the TCH, then it's a no-brainer, assuming people want to take on V-Dub's reliability issues versus 'Yota.
I'd be VERY interested to know how many people trade out of a TCH into a Passat TDI.
So, for me, the Passat is not really a step up from the TCH.
If most of your mileage is city stop and go I would agree. If you like long driving vacations the Passat will save a lot of fuel over the TCH. The real point is this:
VW says they plan to sell the new Passat built in the USA for $8,000 less than the old Passat. The last Passat sold for the same price as the TCH. That means to compete Toyota will have to drop the price of the TCH down below what they sell a standard Camry for. Ain't gonna happen.
Unless someone hates their TCH I would not guess many to buy up to the Passat TDI.
Gary says, "VW says they plan to sell the new Passat built in the USA for $8,000 less than the old Passat. The last Passat sold for the same price as the TCH."
Sounds nice now, but I'll believe that price when I see it on a sticker. Doesn't seem possible.
Unless they are taking a loss to get market share.
Volkswagen has released pricing for its all-new 2012 Passat, and the new mid-sizer will start at $20,765—or, as the ads will say over and over again, $19,995 before destination.
For their 20-ish grand, shoppers will get the base Passat S, powered by the familiar 170-hp, 2.5-liter five-cylinder engine mated to a six-speed manual transmission. Oh, and 16-inch steel wheels. Beyond ye-olde inline-five, the Passat S is surprisingly well-equipped. It comes standard with dual-zone automatic climate control, power windows and locks, Bluetooth connectivity, and steering-wheel audio controls.
Of course, this Passat was designed specifically for the U.S. market, and most shoppers here in the land of the free will opt to liberate their left feet. The cheapest Passat with an automatic transmission is $23,460—yeah, that’s an increase of about $2700—although in addition to the six-speed slushbox, it does add a set of 16-inch aluminum rims and a rear-seat armrest. Scintillating.
The Passat TDI, which has VW’s outstanding 2.0-liter four-cylinder diesel, making 140 hp and 236 lb-ft, starts at $26,765. At that price, buyers get a six-speed manual, 17-inch wheels, a leather-wrapped steering wheel, some nicer-looking interior trim, and leatherette seats (one of which, if your name is “the driver,” is heated and power-adjustable). Want an auto with your diesel? The six-speed dual-clutch automatic comes with a mandatory sunroof; the bill will be $28,665, please. More options are available for, you guessed it, even more money.
Still, the most interesting part is how anal-retentively VW has tailored this Passat for our commonwealth. The rest of the world, including Europe, gets a face-lifted version of the 2005–2010 car. The version you see here will be built and sold in North America and nowhere else. It has three bars in its grille instead of two—a last-minute addition—because focus groups felt the Hyundai Sonata’s nose looked spiffier. We get three engines (the German-market Passat offers seven), all of which have been seen before: a 170-hp, 2.5-liter five; a 140-hp, 2.0-liter turbo-diesel four; and a 280-hp, 3.6-liter 10.6-degree VR-6. There are just 16 build combinations, down from 128 in 2009, aimed at thinning special orders. And because front-wheel drive rules this segment, four-wheel drive is off the menu. Same for a wagon.
Struts support the front end, as is the class norm. At the rear, there’s an independent multilink suspension similar to what lives in the European Passat. The 2.5-liter model gets either a five-speed manual or a six-speed automatic, but the TDI can be had with a six-speed stick or DSG dual-clutch automatic. The 3.6 is only available with the latter because—you guessed it—VW says U.S. V-6 takers don’t want a clutch pedal.
Oy, we’re a fun bunch.
Our seat time was limited to TDI and 2.5 models, both equipped with two-pedal transmissions, 17-inch rubber, and top-zoot SEL trim. Each sucked up Tennessee’s undulating pavement with ease, the only real suspension flaw being a bounding, mildly underdamped nose on the five-cylinder car. Think of the way an inflatable punching clown rebounds. The chassis is otherwise buttoned down and nimble, with mild understeer at the limit and moderately intrusive stability control that can’t be turned off. The brakes are predictable and linear in feel, and though the pedal gains a bit of travel under hard use, performance never seems to suffer.
Engine choice here is a matter of taste. The heavier TDI (3350 pounds versus the 2.5’s 3300) is the rowdier of the two, with livelier steering, the typical diesel bloom of midrange torque, and the DSG’s giddy, right-now shifts. The five-cylinder’s relative torque deficit and heavy, low-speed steering mean it isn’t as much fun to spank down city streets, but the gap is narrowed by the diesel’s maddeningly upshift-happy gearbox. It doggedly yanks you into a higher gear and away from grunt whenever possible. Blame the TDI’s 43-mpg highway fuel-economy rating.
Amazingly, for a car that just had thousands of dollars ripped from its street price, the Passat’s interior is respectable. The back seat is big enough for two grown men to live out of. The optional 400-watt Fender audio system, with a sound profile an engineer predictably described as “purposely middle-of- the-road,” is punchy and accurate enough to please almost everybody. You see the frugalizing in a couple of places—a glove-box interior finished like a kid’s lunchbox, a cupholder lid sharp enough to double as a prison shiv—but overall, things are on par for the class. There’s none of the packed-with-goodies feel of a Sonata or an Accord, but hey, subtlety is underrated.
In the end, though, it’s the Passat’s flavorless styling that sticks in your craw. (Or is that gristle from the fat sandwich?) It’s fitting that the rear three-quarter view has a lot of Chevy Impala in it; from a certain perspective, this car—populist, affordable, patently inoffensive—is the world’s greatest Impala. Given what VW is trying to accomplish, that’s meant to be a compliment.
Note: Volkswagen representatives do not like it when you tell them this. They grow narrow-eyed and stare into the distance like Davy Crockett. Perhaps they’re looking for snakes.
Those prices make more sense. Otherwise the Passat would be cheaper than the Jetta TDI.
So the 20% improvement on highway mileage will be the point to push by the sales force. Just noticed the city mileage on the 2011 TCH is 2 MPG worse than the 2010. What did Toyota do to the newer TCH?
I think the real opportunity here is VW sees the Passat as the "cutting edge, lead dog" on the way to its goal of 800,000 + (256,000 in 2010) vehicles, 5 years hence. Corollary: they will be looking to move a lot of product, here.
They have made no secret of this goal. They have even built a brand new factory in Chattanooga, TN, investing billions in the process. Any google search will yield probably more information than one would care to read.
As it applies to TDI's, I think the initial results (other than Passat, ergo why not Passat?) are probably encouraging to VW. As gagrice has probably posted before and in other threads, the over all TDI % is close to 30% with some models (JSW) hitting 84%.
So while the old salty veteran's (car pundits) look at the Passat might be true: i.e., for a retro look at how far Passat has come, albeit or ....NOT, the fact of the matter is the target and focus, etc., are to NEW Passat owners, aka people who are considering a new car that have previously bought Fusion, Sonata, Altima, Camry, Accord, etc., etc. It is almost, not so much previous Passat owners. The same has really been true for the 2011 Jetta and its TDI's.
I really don't think that most people who have made the decision to buy a diesel car then pause and say "and it had better be the SEXIEST car on the road, too". :P
Indeed. TDI's are really not even close to being sexy. My take: they are EXTRAORDINARILY adapted for US roads.
Now one manifestation (US product) would be a twin turbo diesel Corvette touring car getting 43 mpg all day all night ! Of course 400 to 650 #ft of torque would be hard to ignore: despite "WEAK" hp numbers.
BMW has a 335D, with 425# ft of torque. This number literally blows the doors off most of the rest of the BMW fleet's offerings, let alone the 3 series. It also gets 36 mpg highway.
Gosh YES on sentences 1 and 2. Corvettes have 18.5 gal tanks. So @ 43 mpg (774 miles range) I would have fuel left over shooting into Las Vegas from the San Francisco Bay Area (600 miles). Wouldn't have to stop in Barstow, Needles, CA or where ever.
Stopping for fuel is more of a pain than a pee break. We NEVER use the restrooms in a gas station. Always stop at a fast food place and use the potty. Much cleaner than filthy service station johns. Plus those stations on the Interstate almost always charge a lot more for fuel. I would like to see the Feds mandate a 700 mile minimum range for highway mileage. As long as they feel the necessity to mandate every aspect of our lives.
Gary says, "Plus those stations on the Interstate almost always charge a lot more for fuel. "
Don't use that as a hard, fast rule, Amigo.
It's not true at all on I-10 from Phoenix to central Texas.
Those truck stops always have the lowest gas costs I see on the road.
Because of the volume they sell, they can be cheaper. And they mark up all the food etc inside so much that they can be even CHEAPER on the fuel costs.
I have always found better prices on fuel in town than out on the Interstates. Especially with major brands. There are always exceptions. And you are right about that section of our Interstate. It is not that way in CA.
Shows you what an incurable car nut I am....I worry much more about the cleanliness of the fuel storage tanks than their bathrooms---oh, lord I'm hopeless... :sick:
"I could foresee a time when wealth will be displayed not by diamonds or fancy cars, but by leaving your house lights on all night. "
Please don't say that. I shudder at the very thought of that (and I don't shudder very often!) It gives the statement "the reason why civilization is declining" a WHOLE new meaning. It also reminds me of those post-apocalypse poems I've read in class when I was in middle school.
Anyways, I've been a quite a number of road trips from Colorado to California. The extra torque from diesels is always welcomed on the windy roads of the Rocky Mountains.
I presume you mean *turbo* diesels....you need that extra air rammed in at altitude.
Not that it's very relevant to modern diesels, but I do remember driving my 1983 Mercedes 300D (non-turbo) up to around 10,000 feet in the year 2000, and parking it up there. When I was ready to move on, the car was not yet at the moutain's peak, so I still had an uphill climb. I started 'er up, put it in drive, pressed on the gas, and the car simply didn't have the power to move!
I had to back up, swing the car to point downhill, pick up a little speed, then U-turn again and floor it in Low. :surprise:
For me it is the opposite way, but is truly one of the neater things about turbo diesels !! There seems to be (@ altitude) less loss of power and torque than even more powerful gassers !
For the first five months of 2010, 38% of buyers of 335-class BMWs chose the diesel-powered version. In April, 54% chose the diesel.
For BMW’s X5 Sport Activity Vehicle, 36% of buyers, over the same five-month period, chose the equivalent diesel model (the X5 xDrive35d) versus the petrol-powered offering (the X5 xDrive30i). In May, 85% chose the diesel.
It’s equally revealing to analyze at the percentage of hybrid-electric cars chosen when there is an equivalent petrol-only model. For calendar year 2009, only 8% of Camry buyers opted for the Camry Hybrid, a model that has been on the market far longer than most diesels. In the same period, only 10% of Ford Escape buyers purchased the hybrid model.
These impressive sales figures beg the question, when will European car makers start to offer more diesel models in the U.S.
BMW is one of several car makers that has announced its intention to bring more diesels stateside. In addition to the X5 diesel and 335d that are currently available, two more diesels will make it to these shores within the next 12 months including a 5er Series model, most likely the 530d. Jim O’Donnell, president of BMW of North America, recently promised that, “[B]y 2014, between 10 and 20 percent of our mix will be diesels.”
Diesels make more sense with heavier vehicles...you get the torque you need and usually much better economy than the gas engine equivalent of your heavy machine.
I think they also make sense on the small side also. Not that I am unhappy with my (sub) 2550# Honda Civic. It has gotten 38-42 mpg over the course of 123,000 miles. (current c/s price of 4.03 per gal RUG.) I actually feel it will not deviate much during the second 100,000 miles. (aka till 200,000 total miles)
On the other hand, given a required commute, 73 mpg in a (VW) TDI Polo (anyone can goggle edmunds.com for app specs) @ 4.33 per gal ULSD would post .059315 cents vs .11316 cents: per mile driven. The Civic as "economical" as it is, would cost 91% more to drive. :surprise: ?
yeah but that's not a fair comparison to your Civic. For one thing, the Polo isn't planned for stateside and it hasn't been built to meet US safety requirements (meaning it may end up heavier if it comes here), and also the range is 60-70 mpg and you know what that means....by the time it makes it over here, and by the time American drivers use it on American roads, I bet you're looking at more like 55 mpg.
Not BAD but really would you spend $20,000+ to replace your Civic for 15 more mpg using a higher priced fuel? Probably not, right?
I wouldn't trade my 28 mpg Mini for a 40 mpg Mini diesel, at any rate.
But if a person could trade their 8 mpg pickup for a 15 mpg turbo diesel, that's a lot of gallons saved at the end of the year. (700 gallons to be exact, or at today's CA prices, that's about $3,000 bucks a year savings.
Whereas for you, even if you got 60 mpg on the Polo TDI, your yearly savings would be about 100 gallons or $400 a year (remember, you're also swapping regular gasoline prices for diesel prices, so that's 5% you lose).
You wouldl be absolutely correct. Sorry, it was not meant to be a fair comparison. Unfair comparisons are done ALL the time, Prius vs Jetta TDI for example. The real comparison (power and torque wise) is more like Camry Hybrid vs Jetta TDI. However, I am glad that you mentioned it, to hopefully highlight the unfair comparisons done all the time. Do we need a Civic/Prius for normal2/3 people commute? No,... that is why the TDI Polo would be a viable option.
To answer your question directly, no I would not change out the Civic. Indeed it is not even close to the goals set for it (@123,000 miles) , 4 timing belt and water pump changes (110,000 to 120,000 miles intervals or 440,000 to 480,000 miles) If it does hit the low goal, we are talking per mile driven -.0286 cents (assuming ZERO residual value). A Polo (assuming $20,000) would cost .04545 cents per mile driven or 59% MORE (total aggregate cost +$7,414).
First off, it is a meaningful comparison STRICTLY on mpg alone ( TDI 50 mpg vs Prius 44-46 mpg). HP/Torque Edmund numbers, etc., etc. reveal the inequities.
Indeed (on a personal level) the Civic was selected in lieu of Prius, Civic Hybrid, Corolla, and probably etc.
Well I see your point but what exactly do you think makes the Prius/VW TDI comparison less than fair? I'm thinking that they drive WAY different, but in terms of what most consumers use for comparison...that is, price, or mpg, they pretty much match up. My friends just bought a 2011 Sport Wagon for $27,000, and they're getting around 48 mpg, so this all jives with the Prius numbers in those categories.
Of course, they wouldn't have been caught *dead* in a Prius, if that matters.
According to Edmund's the VW Polo is due as a 2012 model. Sadly it will only come here with a 1.4L gas engine. Not sure that makes any more sense than the Smart gasser or the 500 with a gas engine.
According to the UK listings the Polo TDI gets 34% better mileage than the 1.4L gas engine. Heck the Golf TDI sold here will get 27% better mileage than the Polo. I hope VW rethinks and brings the Polo TDI.
I'm wondering if that makes sense...I mean...to bring in SMALL diesels to America. I just have trouble seeing this type of product as being in any way *compelling* in the marketplace. By that I mean, it might turn out to be the marketer's worst nightmare...a product you have to *explain* in detail to people in order to get them to buy it.
At best, I could see the VW Polo stealing sales from other VW products...not exactly what they want.
If the new Passat TDI actually gets 50 MPG out on the highway and is in the CamCord size I would say it is a smart move. If, it costs as VW say about 3 grand to make a diesel CARB compliant, the little Polo 1.2L TDI with 0-60 MPH close to 14 seconds is hardly worth the bother. I think the Golf TDI is a great little commuter for our highways.
I think you have hit upon the real spirit and intent. IF it can be shown to be uneconomical to bring small diesels here, they do not have to come out and say overtly, no TDI's (increased numbers and %'s) in OUR neighborhoods.
Yes the issue of Kballing your own sales normally figures into any oem's product line.
I agree. Cars like the Polo are best suited to older European city centers.
A TDI Golf might sell here---American resistance to small hatchbacks has lessened considerably in the last 5 years or so---there was a time you couldn't give them away here--they spelled "cheap" or "poor".
"yeah but that's not a fair comparison to your Civic. For one thing, the Polo isn't planned for stateside and it hasn't been built to meet US safety requirements (meaning it may end up heavier if it comes here), and also the range is 60-70 mpg and you know what that means....by the time it makes it over here, and by the time American drivers use it on American roads, I bet you're looking at more like 55 mpg."
Once upon a time it was almost universally true that a car designed for the European market would be required to gain weight to then be certified for the U.S. market, however, given the significant tightening of the European standards, such a statement is no longer the norm. While it may come to pass that some cars are heavier when they reach our shores, the weight gain is rather insignificant. Case in point, a fully tarted VW Golf 4-Door 2.0 TDI 6-Speed in Europe weighs in at 2,972 pounds; that same car sold here in the U.S. weighs a whopping 22 pounds more (and my bet is that the weight difference has as much to do with standard goodies like 17" versus 16" wheels as it does anything else).
Long story short, I have no reason to believe a U.S. spec Polo TDI would perform any differently than it does in Europe, and that includes being able to return over seventy miles per gallon out on the open road.
In some ways even VW enthusiasts really do not like, let alone get the "Toyota ization" of two "flagship" vehicles Passat and Jetta. If you will, the Camry/Accord, etc, in the market they compete. Car pundits even vilify it.
Yet the Passat's TDI (according to Edmunds.com figures) EPA highway will be 43 mpg. Now VW has said it, but not in any real context. That will literally be the ONLY passenger vehicle (in that segment) to get that high a mpg figure. This might be like cursing in church but higher mpg probably takes a back seat to people who buy in that segment. As you know the quiet numbers (Gagrice's posting) show sales of diesel models to be actually EXCEEDING even oem's expectations.
VW truly does not want to make cars that the American market will not want to buy and at a reasonable profit to them. So in that sense, the passenger fleet is STILL 75% large cars. So they are addressing the market with the "American made/assembled" Passat and of course the Jetta has been stretched with a reengineered,... weight loss. (-app 350 #'s) Defacto of course, app 25% are so called "smaller cars". Ergo, Golf (small cars) falls lockstep into volume and percentage numbers SCALE. So now if you want a "GERMAN" Golf (or a JSW STILL made in Germany), you will in effect pay a premium. (Golf's used to be cheaper than the Jetta's) VW has for example never set a goal to turn those figures AROUND. (i.e. 75% smaller cars 25% LARGE cars) I do however think realistically they do want to increase their market share in each segment.
Comments
Actually the epa figures differ from actual petroleum engineers figures but if you play horse shoes I guess coming close is ok. Just not with grenades.
when you look at my previous post I believe/hope it makes it a little more clear that crude and its refined product basically, other than geographical differences for sweet and sour crudes, come from the same well but during refining it is split to different products.
Back to the crude is crude and the different costs. Crude from one well is the same crude for diesel,gas,kerosene, lubricants, etc. In it's unrefined stage. So in fact crude is crude from the same well.
Yes we can get light (SWEET) crude oil from another geographical region and sour from Mexico. But again that crude is crude in it's unrefined stage.
My point is a refinery in California pays the same for crude for diesel as it does for gas.
Most (all?) refineries get their crude from the same source. Utah for instance gets most from the eastern part of their state. They don'y get the good stuff from the eastern part then send trucks to mexico to get sour crude and refine that for just one fuel.
Th graph then should show crude costs the same for gas as it does for diesel. Init's unrefined stage they are the same cost.
You have me confused. I went to the link and found nothing that really supported your earlier numbers or stance that crude is not crude.
I did see several charts showing the composition of different crudes by geographical locations.
But the article also stated that the longhorn pipeline mixes the crudes.
I will read it again to see where your figures are coming from, as I may have missed your numbers.
but thanks for the sight and charts it helps me in other research efforts.
No hard feelings just difficult to decipher your intent and supporting info.
Good discussion although we went way off base of the actual post.
Diesel vehicles are a good source if we bring diesel costs back in line with comparisons of 15 years ago when diesel was actually 50 cents cheaper than gas
For an apples to apples comparison. If you were to buy a VW Jetta TDI vs a Jetta gasser you can expect to get 35-40% better mileage. You could pay up to about $5.30 per gallon and still be ahead with the TDI. Not to mention it is much more pleasant to drive out on the highway. That is based on our current cheapest gas at $3.85 per gallon. Diesel is currently selling at $4.15 per gallon. CA taxes diesel higher than RUG. Trying to make up for losses due to higher mileage.
I wonder in the rocky mountains how the actual difference in mileage would fair.
They say methane in the fuel does produce more mileage but burns the valves.
I would suggest taking a gallon of each and having an University do a study to see what is in each and what allows for the increase. You may be onto something
I suppose you have documentation to back up your claims. My take is the extra ethanol used in CA is the reason for the reduced mileage. My trip cross country produced better mileage with all NON CA fuel. It would be hard to not get some Mexican oil when the are either number one or two oil importers to the USA. A lot of the contractors here in San Diego take their diesel trucks across into Mexico and fill up the tanks and auxiliary tanks mounted in the bed. They claim their engines last longer on Mexican diesel than the ULSD sold here. I cannot prove or confirm that. It came from a friend that overhauls diesel engines in his shop. He claims the lubricity is so poor in the diesel we get here it is mandatory to use an additive.
As far as burning valves on my Sequoia, I won't keep it past the 7 year platinum warranty.
I would like to see some analysis from those diesel engines lasting longer on Mexican refined diesel. Also does their diesel emit more pollutants?
I think you may be onto the ethanol issue as ethanol vaporizes quicker than gas. ethanol also can be hard on valves and engine components. That is why manufacturers suggest a maximum allowed in you tank.
well those diesel mechanics, like gas mechanics, have an up close view and I think an engine oil analysis can prove their take.
If VW sells the Passat for $8k less than the previous model, Toyota and Honda are going to have some real competition on their hands. I don't see Toyota lowering their Camry Hybrid $8k to match the Passat.
Annual Fuel Cost:
TDI - $1716
TCH - $1750
Annual CO2 emissions:
TDI - 6.1 tons
TCH - 5.7 tons
Annual Petroleum Consumption:
TDI - 11.2 barrels
TCH - 10.4 barrels
Combined MPG:
TDI - 35 MPG
TCH - 33 MPG
So, for me, the Passat is not really a step up from the TCH.
For people buying new, then the price will be a big factor. If you can get the Passat for $5K-$8K less than the TCH, then it's a no-brainer, assuming people want to take on V-Dub's reliability issues versus 'Yota.
I'd be VERY interested to know how many people trade out of a TCH into a Passat TDI.
If most of your mileage is city stop and go I would agree. If you like long driving vacations the Passat will save a lot of fuel over the TCH. The real point is this:
VW says they plan to sell the new Passat built in the USA for $8,000 less than the old Passat. The last Passat sold for the same price as the TCH. That means to compete Toyota will have to drop the price of the TCH down below what they sell a standard Camry for. Ain't gonna happen.
Unless someone hates their TCH I would not guess many to buy up to the Passat TDI.
Sounds nice now, but I'll believe that price when I see it on a sticker. Doesn't seem possible.
Unless they are taking a loss to get market share.
TDI starts at $26,765 w/manual tranny, and $28,665 with automatic.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/volkswagen-prices-the-new-2012-passat-from-20765-wh- ile-the-tdi-version-starts-at-26765/
Volkswagen has released pricing for its all-new 2012 Passat, and the new mid-sizer will start at $20,765—or, as the ads will say over and over again, $19,995 before destination.
For their 20-ish grand, shoppers will get the base Passat S, powered by the familiar 170-hp, 2.5-liter five-cylinder engine mated to a six-speed manual transmission. Oh, and 16-inch steel wheels. Beyond ye-olde inline-five, the Passat S is surprisingly well-equipped. It comes standard with dual-zone automatic climate control, power windows and locks, Bluetooth connectivity, and steering-wheel audio controls.
Of course, this Passat was designed specifically for the U.S. market, and most shoppers here in the land of the free will opt to liberate their left feet. The cheapest Passat with an automatic transmission is $23,460—yeah, that’s an increase of about $2700—although in addition to the six-speed slushbox, it does add a set of 16-inch aluminum rims and a rear-seat armrest. Scintillating.
The Passat TDI, which has VW’s outstanding 2.0-liter four-cylinder diesel, making 140 hp and 236 lb-ft, starts at $26,765. At that price, buyers get a six-speed manual, 17-inch wheels, a leather-wrapped steering wheel, some nicer-looking interior trim, and leatherette seats (one of which, if your name is “the driver,” is heated and power-adjustable). Want an auto with your diesel? The six-speed dual-clutch automatic comes with a mandatory sunroof; the bill will be $28,665, please. More options are available for, you guessed it, even more money.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/11q2/2012_volkswagen_passat-first_drive_- review
Still, the most interesting part is how anal-retentively VW has tailored this Passat for our commonwealth. The rest of the world, including Europe, gets a face-lifted version of the 2005–2010 car. The version you see here will be built and sold in North America and nowhere else. It has three bars in its grille instead of two—a last-minute addition—because focus groups felt the Hyundai Sonata’s nose looked spiffier. We get three engines (the German-market Passat offers seven), all of which have been seen before: a 170-hp, 2.5-liter five; a 140-hp, 2.0-liter turbo-diesel four; and a 280-hp, 3.6-liter 10.6-degree VR-6. There are just 16 build combinations, down from 128 in 2009, aimed at thinning special orders. And because front-wheel drive rules this segment, four-wheel drive is off the menu. Same for a wagon.
Struts support the front end, as is the class norm. At the rear, there’s an independent multilink suspension similar to what lives in the European Passat. The 2.5-liter model gets either a five-speed manual or a six-speed automatic, but the TDI can be had with a six-speed stick or DSG dual-clutch automatic. The 3.6 is only available with the latter because—you guessed it—VW says U.S. V-6 takers don’t want a clutch pedal.
Oy, we’re a fun bunch.
Our seat time was limited to TDI and 2.5 models, both equipped with two-pedal transmissions, 17-inch rubber, and top-zoot SEL trim. Each sucked up Tennessee’s undulating pavement with ease, the only real suspension flaw being a bounding, mildly underdamped nose on the five-cylinder car. Think of the way an inflatable punching clown rebounds. The chassis is otherwise buttoned down and nimble, with mild understeer at the limit and moderately intrusive stability control that can’t be turned off. The brakes are predictable and linear in feel, and though the pedal gains a bit of travel under hard use, performance never seems to suffer.
Engine choice here is a matter of taste. The heavier TDI (3350 pounds versus the 2.5’s 3300) is the rowdier of the two, with livelier steering, the typical diesel bloom of midrange torque, and the DSG’s giddy, right-now shifts. The five-cylinder’s relative torque deficit and heavy, low-speed steering mean it isn’t as much fun to spank down city streets, but the gap is narrowed by the diesel’s maddeningly upshift-happy gearbox. It doggedly yanks you into a higher gear and away from grunt whenever possible. Blame the TDI’s 43-mpg highway fuel-economy rating.
Amazingly, for a car that just had thousands of dollars ripped from its street price, the Passat’s interior is respectable. The back seat is big enough for two grown men to live out of. The optional 400-watt Fender audio system, with a sound profile an engineer predictably described as “purposely middle-of- the-road,” is punchy and accurate enough to please almost everybody. You see the frugalizing in a couple of places—a glove-box interior finished like a kid’s lunchbox, a cupholder lid sharp enough to double as a prison shiv—but overall, things are on par for the class. There’s none of the packed-with-goodies feel of a Sonata or an Accord, but hey, subtlety is underrated.
In the end, though, it’s the Passat’s flavorless styling that sticks in your craw. (Or is that gristle from the fat sandwich?) It’s fitting that the rear three-quarter view has a lot of Chevy Impala in it; from a certain perspective, this car—populist, affordable, patently inoffensive—is the world’s greatest Impala. Given what VW is trying to accomplish, that’s meant to be a compliment.
Note: Volkswagen representatives do not like it when you tell them this. They grow narrow-eyed and stare into the distance like Davy Crockett. Perhaps they’re looking for snakes.
So the 20% improvement on highway mileage will be the point to push by the sales force. Just noticed the city mileage on the 2011 TCH is 2 MPG worse than the 2010. What did Toyota do to the newer TCH?
They have made no secret of this goal. They have even built a brand new factory in Chattanooga, TN, investing billions in the process. Any google search will yield probably more information than one would care to read.
As it applies to TDI's, I think the initial results (other than Passat, ergo why not Passat?) are probably encouraging to VW. As gagrice has probably posted before and in other threads, the over all TDI % is close to 30% with some models (JSW) hitting 84%.
So while the old salty veteran's (car pundits) look at the Passat might be true: i.e., for a retro look at how far Passat has come, albeit or ....NOT, the fact of the matter is the target and focus, etc., are to NEW Passat owners, aka people who are considering a new car that have previously bought Fusion, Sonata, Altima, Camry, Accord, etc., etc. It is almost, not so much previous Passat owners. The same has really been true for the 2011 Jetta and its TDI's.
Now one manifestation (US product) would be a twin turbo diesel Corvette touring car getting 43 mpg all day all night ! Of course 400 to 650 #ft of torque would be hard to ignore: despite "WEAK" hp numbers.
BMW has a 335D, with 425# ft of torque. This number literally blows the doors off most of the rest of the BMW fleet's offerings, let alone the 3 series. It also gets 36 mpg highway.
Ah, I think Corvette freaks would scream bloody murder about a Corvette diesel.
It sounds perverse, but IMO there is a kind of subtle status in America to be able to WASTE gasoline, or even energy. It's a "bad boy" thing.
I could foresee a time when wealth will be displayed not by diamonds or fancy cars, but by leaving your house lights on all night.
Don't use that as a hard, fast rule, Amigo.
It's not true at all on I-10 from Phoenix to central Texas.
Those truck stops always have the lowest gas costs I see on the road.
Because of the volume they sell, they can be cheaper. And they mark up all the food etc inside so much that they can be even CHEAPER on the fuel costs.
Truck stops are ok, if you don't gag on the way to the restaurant on the diesel fumes. :shades:
Please don't say that. I shudder at the very thought of that (and I don't shudder very often!) It gives the statement "the reason why civilization is declining" a WHOLE new meaning. It also reminds me of those post-apocalypse poems I've read in class when I was in middle school.
Anyways, I've been a quite a number of road trips from Colorado to California. The extra torque from diesels is always welcomed on the windy roads of the Rocky Mountains.
Not that it's very relevant to modern diesels, but I do remember driving my 1983 Mercedes 300D (non-turbo) up to around 10,000 feet in the year 2000, and parking it up there. When I was ready to move on, the car was not yet at the moutain's peak, so I still had an uphill climb. I started 'er up, put it in drive, pressed on the gas, and the car simply didn't have the power to move!
I had to back up, swing the car to point downhill, pick up a little speed, then U-turn again and floor it in Low. :surprise:
Thanks be to modern turbo diesels!
For BMW’s X5 Sport Activity Vehicle, 36% of buyers, over the same five-month period, chose the equivalent diesel model (the X5 xDrive35d) versus the petrol-powered offering (the X5 xDrive30i). In May, 85% chose the diesel.
It’s equally revealing to analyze at the percentage of hybrid-electric cars chosen when there is an equivalent petrol-only model. For calendar year 2009, only 8% of Camry buyers opted for the Camry Hybrid, a model that has been on the market far longer than most diesels. In the same period, only 10% of Ford Escape buyers purchased the hybrid model.
These impressive sales figures beg the question, when will European car makers start to offer more diesel models in the U.S.
BMW is one of several car makers that has announced its intention to bring more diesels stateside. In addition to the X5 diesel and 335d that are currently available, two more diesels will make it to these shores within the next 12 months including a 5er Series model, most likely the 530d. Jim O’Donnell, president of BMW of North America, recently promised that, “[B]y 2014, between 10 and 20 percent of our mix will be diesels.”
On the other hand, given a required commute, 73 mpg in a (VW) TDI Polo (anyone can goggle edmunds.com for app specs) @ 4.33 per gal ULSD would post .059315 cents vs .11316 cents: per mile driven. The Civic as "economical" as it is, would cost 91% more to drive. :surprise: ?
535d would be even better
Not BAD but really would you spend $20,000+ to replace your Civic for 15 more mpg using a higher priced fuel? Probably not, right?
I wouldn't trade my 28 mpg Mini for a 40 mpg Mini diesel, at any rate.
But if a person could trade their 8 mpg pickup for a 15 mpg turbo diesel, that's a lot of gallons saved at the end of the year. (700 gallons to be exact, or at today's CA prices, that's about $3,000 bucks a year savings.
Whereas for you, even if you got 60 mpg on the Polo TDI, your yearly savings would be about 100 gallons or $400 a year (remember, you're also swapping regular gasoline prices for diesel prices, so that's 5% you lose).
To answer your question directly, no I would not change out the Civic. Indeed it is not even close to the goals set for it (@123,000 miles) , 4 timing belt and water pump changes (110,000 to 120,000 miles intervals or 440,000 to 480,000 miles) If it does hit the low goal, we are talking per mile driven -.0286 cents (assuming ZERO residual value). A Polo (assuming $20,000) would cost .04545 cents per mile driven or 59% MORE (total aggregate cost +$7,414).
Indeed (on a personal level) the Civic was selected in lieu of Prius, Civic Hybrid, Corolla, and probably etc.
Of course, they wouldn't have been caught *dead* in a Prius, if that matters.
According to the UK listings the Polo TDI gets 34% better mileage than the 1.4L gas engine. Heck the Golf TDI sold here will get 27% better mileage than the Polo. I hope VW rethinks and brings the Polo TDI.
At best, I could see the VW Polo stealing sales from other VW products...not exactly what they want.
Yes the issue of Kballing your own sales normally figures into any oem's product line.
A TDI Golf might sell here---American resistance to small hatchbacks has lessened considerably in the last 5 years or so---there was a time you couldn't give them away here--they spelled "cheap" or "poor".
Once upon a time it was almost universally true that a car designed for the European market would be required to gain weight to then be certified for the U.S. market, however, given the significant tightening of the European standards, such a statement is no longer the norm. While it may come to pass that some cars are heavier when they reach our shores, the weight gain is rather insignificant. Case in point, a fully tarted VW Golf 4-Door 2.0 TDI 6-Speed in Europe weighs in at 2,972 pounds; that same car sold here in the U.S. weighs a whopping 22 pounds more (and my bet is that the weight difference has as much to do with standard goodies like 17" versus 16" wheels as it does anything else).
Long story short, I have no reason to believe a U.S. spec Polo TDI would perform any differently than it does in Europe, and that includes being able to return over seventy miles per gallon out on the open road.
Yet the Passat's TDI (according to Edmunds.com figures) EPA highway will be 43 mpg. Now VW has said it, but not in any real context. That will literally be the ONLY passenger vehicle (in that segment) to get that high a mpg figure. This might be like cursing in church but higher mpg probably takes a back seat to people who buy in that segment. As you know the quiet numbers (Gagrice's posting) show sales of diesel models to be actually EXCEEDING even oem's expectations.
VW truly does not want to make cars that the American market will not want to buy and at a reasonable profit to them. So in that sense, the passenger fleet is STILL 75% large cars. So they are addressing the market with the "American made/assembled" Passat and of course the Jetta has been stretched with a reengineered,... weight loss. (-app 350 #'s) Defacto of course, app 25% are so called "smaller cars". Ergo, Golf (small cars) falls lockstep into volume and percentage numbers SCALE. So now if you want a "GERMAN" Golf (or a JSW STILL made in Germany), you will in effect pay a premium. (Golf's used to be cheaper than the Jetta's) VW has for example never set a goal to turn those figures AROUND. (i.e. 75% smaller cars 25% LARGE cars) I do however think realistically they do want to increase their market share in each segment.