Using my (snapshot ) example in msg#3195, like for like M and MY 09 Jetta's, but TDI vs turbo gasser, $ 4.17 ULSD-$3.95 PUG per gals/43-27 mpg ='s .0969767 cents - .1462962 cents per mile driven. So in this like for like example, PUG is 51 percent HIGHER per mile driven, even when PUG is .22 cents per gal CHEAPER.
If you are afraid I left off RUG, it is at 3.75 per gal and the fuel mileage for the engine that burns RUG is still 27 mpg. You can run the calculations perhaps you can see it better (running the crackulator) at your own hands.
I have a 04 Civic gets a range of 38-42 mpg. If I had to pick one mpg number for planning purposes, 38 mpg. However the best I can figure/swag is the 04 diesel Civic (not available on the US markets obviously) gets a range of 52-56 mpg.
I would submit that perhaps a majority of the reason why diesel has to overcome so MANY hurdles is that it is ACTUALLY cheaper to run than RUG to PUG engines. RUG to PUG indeed (defacto) allow more consumption and allow more taxation per mile driven. The goal has never been to DECREASE the per mile driven costs, but to INCREASE them. PO's energy secretary has gone on official but unofficial record that the price of fuel needs to go as high or higher than the prices in the EU., which at this time is far closer to $10. per gal than here.
This is looking more and more like my choice for a diesel SUV. 16 days, 16,000 miles through 14 countries.
What can’t Rainer Zietlow and his team do? Actually, the answer to that question may be “arrive fashionably late.” These intrepid travelers braved snowy passes, scorching summer heat and less-than-stellar road conditions to drive from Ushuaia, Argentina to Deadhorse, Alaska in a Volkswagen Touareg TDI Clean Diesel to complete the TDI-Panamericana Endurance Challenge faster than expected.
After driving through 14 countries and covering nearly 16,000 miles, the elated (but tired) team reached their destination. Here’s more from Rainer:
I am waiting for them to post their overall mileage. Two days from El Paso to Alaska, you know they were pushing the speed limit, just a tad. That is about 3400 miles in just two days. They did not have to stop often for diesel with over 100 gallons of fuel capacity. Without the added tank 700 miles is pretty easy.
I don't know the exact route and/or conditions of El Paso to Alaska, but the longest I have done in a diesel car has been app 1,100 miles. (single driver)
I didn't know it at the time (as it was actually a nice day, albeit HUMID) , I was going through New Orleans, that I was 4 to 6 hours ahead of (now known as) Hurricane Katrina hitting land and the resultant flooding of New Orleans. I turned on the horror story in a business hotel in Houston, TX.
According to Google Maps it is about 3400 miles from El Paso to the border of Alaska. That would be at bit over 70 MPH. I made one trip down the Alcan in 1993 and rarely got under 90 MPH. There was still a lot of gravel road at that time. I think it is all paved now. Left Anchorage at 6AM Monday Morning. Pulled into my hotel in East San Diego at 7PM Thursday evening. That is about 3500 miles. I spent two nights in a motel for a few hours. Driving alone in a 1993 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4. I only slowed down going through Whitehorse as those cops are prone to ticket tourists.
Steve, I bet they take more time going back to where ever home is. I would be surprised at those speeds if they got over about 22 MPG on the trip. The Touareg may be used as a advertising vehicle at VW dealers in the USA. The drivers are from Germany and Spain. Or they may fly it back to the factory and tear it apart to see how it held up.
They'd have to AVERAGE 71 mph. I've done a lot of cross country and believe me, that's a very high average indeed. You'd have to be doing 90 mph a good deal of the time to make up for going through cities, even stopping for fuel.
Have I got this math right?
If you wanted to average 80 mpg for 3 hours---that would mean you'd cover 240 miles.
Now, if you did the first hour at 80 mph and in the second hour you stopped 15 minutes for gas, then for the 3rd hour you'd have to go 100 mph to average 80.
The Alcan was all gravel, except for ~10 miles around Whitehorse in 1973. Lots of good stretches where you could go 60 mph plus. When I did it in '80, most of it was paved. The frost heaves made you wish for gravel though. I think the only gravel you would hit in 1993 would be the construction zones.
Hard enough finding gas sometimes; bet running low on diesel would make you paw through the Milepost extra carefully.
Most of the gravel was in Alaska, from about Glenallen to the border and the Cassiar Hwy. That cuts off about 135 miles. The frost heaves on the paved parts of Alaska were the worst of the trip. 70 MPH was about max. Working in Prudhoe you get used to driving fast on gravel, snowpack and ice.
I never drove a diesel through Canada so did not pay any attention. The guys in the Touareg had 79 gallons in their auxiliary tank. That was so they would not have to run anything but ULSD on the trip. That should have given them enough range to find clean diesel.
Just looking at their tracking map, they hit El Paso just after midnight of the 11th of July. They crossed the Alaska Border at 11:30 AM on the 13th. That would be 59 hours. That would be under 58 MPH average. Easy to make that and not break a lot of speed laws.
22mpg combined is a little less than I expected, but those aren't the final numbers. Gasser gets 19mpg.
Changes are very subtle but upon closer inspection it's all new sheetmetal. At first it looked like a face-lift, but they say length, width, height all changed.
Yeah, instead of spark plugs, you need to add urea at the dealer.
Wonder how soon Edmunds will have TCO number up for both? Would be interesting to compare.
Still, 4 years' break-even is very short. Easily worth the $1500 up front. And I bet you get half of that back (or more) at resale. Just wait to sell it during a gas price spike, which seems to happen every other month nowadays.
I'm tempted to buy a diesel even for the RANGE aspect of it...one of the few things I really liked about my clunky Mercedes diesel of years past was that I could go nearly 700 miles on a tank. Now in the MINI it seems I'm stopping every 3rd day. It is psychologically depressing. :P
I just did a business trip to Pomona (during the infamous "carmaggedden") and return for app 1,100 miles. I filled twice (14.5 gal tank). It is still breaking in so non steady rpm is still the order of the B/E period. I kept it under 95 mph and it posted 41/42 mpg. Hotter than the blazes so the A/C was blasting the whole time.
I like plenty of range as well. The Miata's low fuel idiot light goes on after 250 miles - annoying. My minivan has a big tank and will go 400+ easily.
The Passat TDI used to have a big gas tank, so it also had 700+ mile range, but for some reason VW made it smaller and took that away. In fact the diesel tank actually had less capacity than the gasoline tank did on the same model. Dumb.
My conspiracy theory? Either VW wanted less weight, or they factored in the higher price of diesel and didn't want customers complaining about the cost of a full tank of fuel.
Gary: do you recall your tank's capacity? What sort of range were you getting with your TDI?
To me the Prius' biggest weakness is the small gas tank.
Well Prius is operating on a whole other level---what economists call "Conspicuous Conservation". People often buy a Prius for what it says about them, not for the gas mileage.
Another reason Prius is so successful at "conspicuous conservation" is that it doesn't look like any other Toyota, whereas a Jetta or Passat diesel looks just like its gas counterpart.
A really bizarre example of "conspicuous conservation" came from reports from contractors who said that people would ask them to put solar panels on the SHADY side of their house, if that was the street side, so that their neighbors could see them. :surprise:
The Prius' when I was considering them 03/09 MY's, really makes a certain amount of sense when one has a very large component/percentage of stop and go driving AND likes the hobby of trying to get the best mpg possible under each circumstance.
I enjoy both TDI's because you can pretty much drive up to autobahn speeds and do rather well in the mpg dept.
Looking at the used car appraisal on Edmunds, the 2009 ML 350 vs the ML 350 Bluetec is about $2000 more. So that $1500 difference when new becomes $2000 difference when you trade 3 years later. Not much, but when you add the better mileage. Which I find the EPA estimates very low for all diesels. In reality it is easy to get very close to 30 MPG out on the highway. So the range on a long trip will be much better. I really cannot imagine buying the gas version of a Mercedes, BMW or Audi.
Don't forget with ULSD you are free from that nasty ethanol that slowly destroys your fuel system.
So a $500 profit, albeit delayed until you sell it. Plus nearly $400 per year in fuel savings. Go diesel.
Too bad it's nearly $52k now. Is it just me has that price been creeping up fast? I guess the GLK slotted beneath it, so that allowed them to move it up the price ladder.
Too bad it's nearly $52k now. Is it just me has that price been creeping up fast?
I don't think it is creeping up. When I bought the Sequoia I looked at both a used 2007 GL 350 CDI and the ML 350 CDI. The ML was well over $50k and the used GL diesel was $72K. I just could not write a check for $72K for a vehicle at that time. And Toyota was discounting their Sequoia limited by $10,000 below MSRP. It will take a real deal to get me to buy anytime soon. I think if MB were to get their head out of you know where and offer the ML 250 Bluetec I would get out my check book. 39 MPG in a luxury SUV with 900 miles of range would be more than I could resist.
I see the MSRP for the ML350 Bluetec is the same $50,490 for both 2011 and 2012. However the 2011 model is discounted by $3500. I like the looks of the new one slightly better.
I imagine a ML250 would still outrun a Prius, though not by much.
The claim is 0-62 MPH in 9.0 seconds. Not bad for a 4700+lb vehicle. Get out your calculator. These mileage numbers only work in the UK. They also meet the new EU6 emissions. Which should pass CARB regs.
At market launch of the new M-Class, there are three models available: With fuel consumption according to NEDC of 47.0 mpg (158 g CO2/km), the extremely fuel-efficient ML 250 BlueTEC 4MATIC delivers an output of 204 hp along with 500 newton metres of torque. It can accelerate from a standing start to 62 mph in 9.0 seconds, while its top speed is 130 mph. The ML 350 BlueTEC 4MATIC, is almost as frugal, returning 41.5 mpg. With a maximum output of 258 hp and ample torque of 620 Nm, the V6 diesel can accelerate to 62 mph in 7.4 seconds and reach a top speed of 139 mph. With 306 hp, the petrol-engined ML 350 4MATIC BlueEFFICIENCY has an average consumption, according to NEDC, of 33.2 mpg, with a top speed of 146 mph.
Yes, I think the European articles will definitely get one into the ball park. The issue: what will the US market version end up being?
So for example, the European 03 TDI Jetta got 100 hp/177 # ft and with a 6 speed manual, posting 52 mpg. The US 03 Jetta wound up being 90 hp/155# ft with a 5 speed manual, posting 50 mpg (EPA 42c/49 h) So for as much as the US mantra's about better fuel mileage, they saw fit to let in a 52 mpg car hit the US market with only 50 mpg. I read in passing they were concerned about "the massive power differential". Ah,... let's see, 90 hp vs 100 hp or +/- 10 hp. So I guess a 400 hp Chevrolet Corvette is chopped liver? :sick: :lemon:
84 Mercury Topaz Diesel. Powertrain was actually Mazda. 5-speed manual. Not manny features, but fantastic on fuel. 32 MPG everyday driving and 48 MPG highway. With the extra sound deadening and coatings to underside plus the engine, it weighed over 400 pounds more than the gas version. And it rode like a much heavier vehicle. Slightly underpowered compared to other engines of that time. The killer of it and many diesels were the newly imposed EPA regs. I might still have it, but the idiots at the Mercury shop put timing belt on 1 tooth off, 10 degrees late and ran it for a very long time before discovered.
I remember back in the mid 90s going junkyard diving looking for a radio for the dead one in our old Tempo, and they had an 86 Tempo diesel - it was actually very clean and complete, I imagine it suffered a similar mechanical failure. It was a 5 speed as well. Has to be a very rare car.
I'd gladly drive a diesel today, all someone needs to do is to give me (or sell me very cheaply) a new E350 Bluetec, quartz blue with light interior, P2, pano, sport, and some other gadgets...sounds good to me.
The 62mph max speed would be like a giant game of last-minute dodge-ball with cars screeching their brakes and going into panic maneuvers to try to keep from ramming their SUV up your tailpipe, here in Los Angeles.
With average commute speeds approaching 70-75mph, yes, it needs to be more like 100mpg and 2x the displacement - and least a 85mph top speed.
I have this image of these tiny little cars being driven by half-crazed eco-freaks with their feet planted to the floorboards while looking over their shoulders and hoping that the SUV coming up on them will slow down enough once they merge.
Well we can always find a way to squeeze more power out of an engine, and it is supposed to be a very strong car, not like that cardboard car from Tata.
I'd take it on the freeway for short hops. I've driven far worse with pre-war cars.
Still, a 100mpg U.S. spec version for, say, $3000 ($500 of that's going to be the airbag at least) would be a very nice trick. I personally do like the 1+1 seat previous version, though. 1 person just isn't quite enough, either.
Americans are NEVER going backwards into a "primitive" new car, without all (or most of) the amenities they are used to.
Yes, there are always the few and the fearless who ride home-made 3-wheelers, electric golf carts, and kit cars made from old Yugos, but most Americans are not going to drive a car with no AC, spongy cloth seats, a stickshift and an AM radio and hand-cranked windows.
Even if you sold it for $5000 brand new, people would rather go out and buy a used Accord or something.
I walked to town this morning and there was some guy in a street legal Polaris 4 wheeler picking up paint at the hardware store. This ain't Phoenix, but it is pretty muggy out today (70° with 88% humidity). Not having doors probably keeps the driver cool enough while moving.
Juice, VW certainly does have the reputation, although I've seen a few signs that the dealers have improved some.
Comments
If you are afraid I left off RUG, it is at 3.75 per gal and the fuel mileage for the engine that burns RUG is still 27 mpg. You can run the calculations perhaps you can see it better (running the crackulator) at your own hands.
I have a 04 Civic gets a range of 38-42 mpg. If I had to pick one mpg number for planning purposes, 38 mpg. However the best I can figure/swag is the 04 diesel Civic (not available on the US markets obviously) gets a range of 52-56 mpg.
I would submit that perhaps a majority of the reason why diesel has to overcome so MANY hurdles is that it is ACTUALLY cheaper to run than RUG to PUG engines. RUG to PUG indeed (defacto) allow more consumption and allow more taxation per mile driven. The goal has never been to DECREASE the per mile driven costs, but to INCREASE them. PO's energy secretary has gone on official but unofficial record that the price of fuel needs to go as high or higher than the prices in the EU., which at this time is far closer to $10. per gal than here.
What can’t Rainer Zietlow and his team do? Actually, the answer to that question may be “arrive fashionably late.” These intrepid travelers braved snowy passes, scorching summer heat and less-than-stellar road conditions to drive from Ushuaia, Argentina to Deadhorse, Alaska in a Volkswagen Touareg TDI Clean Diesel to complete the TDI-Panamericana Endurance Challenge faster than expected.
After driving through 14 countries and covering nearly 16,000 miles, the elated (but tired) team reached their destination. Here’s more from Rainer:
http://thinkblue.vw.com/you-can-stop-asking-if-we%E2%80%99re-there-yet-rainer-an- d-team-reach-their-destination-ahead-of-schedule/
I am waiting for them to post their overall mileage. Two days from El Paso to Alaska, you know they were pushing the speed limit, just a tad. That is about 3400 miles in just two days. They did not have to stop often for diesel with over 100 gallons of fuel capacity. Without the added tank 700 miles is pretty easy.
Dang, such a beautiful drive and they blasted through. Such a waste. :shades:
I didn't know it at the time (as it was actually a nice day, albeit HUMID) , I was going through New Orleans, that I was 4 to 6 hours ahead of (now known as) Hurricane Katrina hitting land and the resultant flooding of New Orleans. I turned on the horror story in a business hotel in Houston, TX.
Steve, I bet they take more time going back to where ever home is. I would be surprised at those speeds if they got over about 22 MPG on the trip. The Touareg may be used as a advertising vehicle at VW dealers in the USA. The drivers are from Germany and Spain. Or they may fly it back to the factory and tear it apart to see how it held up.
Have I got this math right?
If you wanted to average 80 mpg for 3 hours---that would mean you'd cover 240 miles.
Now, if you did the first hour at 80 mph and in the second hour you stopped 15 minutes for gas, then for the 3rd hour you'd have to go 100 mph to average 80.
Hard enough finding gas sometimes; bet running low on diesel would make you paw through the Milepost extra carefully.
I never drove a diesel through Canada so did not pay any attention. The guys in the Touareg had 79 gallons in their auxiliary tank. That was so they would not have to run anything but ULSD on the trip. That should have given them enough range to find clean diesel.
Just looking at their tracking map, they hit El Paso just after midnight of the 11th of July. They crossed the Alaska Border at 11:30 AM on the 13th. That would be 59 hours. That would be under 58 MPH average. Easy to make that and not break a lot of speed laws.
http://tdi-panamericana.com/
http://thinkblue.vw.com/diesel-tracker/
Our current best price in San Diego is $3.97
Low prices are 3.67 for gas and 3.83 for diesel near me.
22mpg combined is a little less than I expected, but those aren't the final numbers. Gasser gets 19mpg.
Changes are very subtle but upon closer inspection it's all new sheetmetal. At first it looked like a face-lift, but they say length, width, height all changed.
It parks itself! LOL
Let's assume 12k miles per year, and I'll use 3.67 for gas and 3.83 for diesel, and the combined numbers (19mpg gas, 22mpg diesel).
Whoops, though, the Benz likes premium fuel, right? $3.89. That makes things more interesting...
12,000 miles / 19mpg = 632 gallons, at 3.89 annual fuel cost is $2457.
Now diesel:
12,000 miles / 22mpg = 545 gallons, at 3.83 annual fuel cost is $2089.
So you save $368 per year, but you also enjoy 16% more range from each tank.
$1500 more for the diesel model, so the break-even only takes 4 short years.
I'm willing to bet overall maintenance will be lower and residuals will be higher, so the smart money is on the diesel model.
Wonder how soon Edmunds will have TCO number up for both? Would be interesting to compare.
Still, 4 years' break-even is very short. Easily worth the $1500 up front. And I bet you get half of that back (or more) at resale. Just wait to sell it during a gas price spike, which seems to happen every other month nowadays.
The Passat TDI used to have a big gas tank, so it also had 700+ mile range, but for some reason VW made it smaller and took that away. In fact the diesel tank actually had less capacity than the gasoline tank did on the same model. Dumb.
My conspiracy theory? Either VW wanted less weight, or they factored in the higher price of diesel and didn't want customers complaining about the cost of a full tank of fuel.
Gary: do you recall your tank's capacity? What sort of range were you getting with your TDI?
To me the Prius' biggest weakness is the small gas tank.
Another reason Prius is so successful at "conspicuous conservation" is that it doesn't look like any other Toyota, whereas a Jetta or Passat diesel looks just like its gas counterpart.
A really bizarre example of "conspicuous conservation" came from reports from contractors who said that people would ask them to put solar panels on the SHADY side of their house, if that was the street side, so that their neighbors could see them. :surprise:
I enjoy both TDI's because you can pretty much drive up to autobahn speeds and do rather well in the mpg dept.
Don't forget with ULSD you are free from that nasty ethanol that slowly destroys your fuel system.
Too bad it's nearly $52k now. Is it just me has that price been creeping up fast? I guess the GLK slotted beneath it, so that allowed them to move it up the price ladder.
I guess to compete with the newer, cost-cut Jetta TDI.
I'd still get the old Jetta Sportwagen before the bean counters get a hold of that model and do what they did to the sedan.
That's interesting.
Had no idea soot weighed that much.
A 400+ mile range is nice, but I'm always stopping once or twice an hour anyway.
I don't think it is creeping up. When I bought the Sequoia I looked at both a used 2007 GL 350 CDI and the ML 350 CDI. The ML was well over $50k and the used GL diesel was $72K. I just could not write a check for $72K for a vehicle at that time. And Toyota was discounting their Sequoia limited by $10,000 below MSRP. It will take a real deal to get me to buy anytime soon. I think if MB were to get their head out of you know where and offer the ML 250 Bluetec I would get out my check book. 39 MPG in a luxury SUV with 900 miles of range would be more than I could resist.
I see the MSRP for the ML350 Bluetec is the same $50,490 for both 2011 and 2012. However the 2011 model is discounted by $3500. I like the looks of the new one slightly better.
My 2005 Passat Wagon TDI had a 16 gallon tank
I imagine a ML250 would still outrun a Prius, though not by much.
16 gallons, yeah, I think earlier models had 18 gallon tanks. I guess you only gave up 80 miles or so of range on the highway.
The claim is 0-62 MPH in 9.0 seconds. Not bad for a 4700+lb vehicle. Get out your calculator. These mileage numbers only work in the UK. They also meet the new EU6 emissions. Which should pass CARB regs.
At market launch of the new M-Class, there are three models available: With fuel consumption according to NEDC of 47.0 mpg (158 g CO2/km), the extremely fuel-efficient ML 250 BlueTEC 4MATIC delivers an output of 204 hp along with 500 newton metres of torque. It can accelerate from a standing start to 62 mph in 9.0 seconds, while its top speed is 130 mph. The ML 350 BlueTEC 4MATIC, is almost as frugal, returning 41.5 mpg. With a maximum output of 258 hp and ample torque of 620 Nm, the V6 diesel can accelerate to 62 mph in 7.4 seconds and reach a top speed of 139 mph. With 306 hp, the petrol-engined ML 350 4MATIC BlueEFFICIENCY has an average consumption, according to NEDC, of 33.2 mpg, with a top speed of 146 mph.
http://www.greencarsite.co.uk/ecocar/Mercedes-M-Class-ML-250-BlueTEC-4MATIC.htm
PS
I trust NEDC to get the mileage for a diesel much closer to reality than the EPA.
So for example, the European 03 TDI Jetta got 100 hp/177 # ft and with a 6 speed manual, posting 52 mpg. The US 03 Jetta wound up being 90 hp/155# ft with a 5 speed manual, posting 50 mpg (EPA 42c/49 h) So for as much as the US mantra's about better fuel mileage, they saw fit to let in a 52 mpg car hit the US market with only 50 mpg. I read in passing they were concerned about "the massive power differential". Ah,... let's see, 90 hp vs 100 hp or +/- 10 hp. So I guess a 400 hp Chevrolet Corvette is chopped liver? :sick:
It's not unlike driving a Prius 80 mph on the freeway--completely defeats the purpose of the instrument.
Actually Al had a pretty good answer for why he consumes X times more energy...his house is X times bigger than ours!
The diesel car ultimately defeats this logic---with a diesel car, you can have a bigger car getting small car economy.
I might still have it, but the idiots at the Mercury shop put timing belt on 1 tooth off, 10 degrees late and ran it for a very long time before discovered.
I'd gladly drive a diesel today, all someone needs to do is to give me (or sell me very cheaply) a new E350 Bluetec, quartz blue with light interior, P2, pano, sport, and some other gadgets...sounds good to me.
VW Aero
With average commute speeds approaching 70-75mph, yes, it needs to be more like 100mpg and 2x the displacement - and least a 85mph top speed.
I have this image of these tiny little cars being driven by half-crazed eco-freaks with their feet planted to the floorboards while looking over their shoulders and hoping that the SUV coming up on them will slow down enough once they merge.
And, yes, it IS cheaper than a coffin.
I'd take it on the freeway for short hops. I've driven far worse with pre-war cars.
Still, a 100mpg U.S. spec version for, say, $3000 ($500 of that's going to be the airbag at least) would be a very nice trick. I personally do like the 1+1 seat previous version, though. 1 person just isn't quite enough, either.
Yes, there are always the few and the fearless who ride home-made 3-wheelers, electric golf carts, and kit cars made from old Yugos, but most Americans are not going to drive a car with no AC, spongy cloth seats, a stickshift and an AM radio and hand-cranked windows.
Even if you sold it for $5000 brand new, people would rather go out and buy a used Accord or something.
I hear enough VW horror stories that I'd be too gun shy to get one of those.
Juice, VW certainly does have the reputation, although I've seen a few signs that the dealers have improved some.