Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Ditto for tax laws. Very often these laws have completely unintended consequences---consequences which were not carefully constructed for malicious reasons.
No one can dispute that is a good idea.
Sure, some regulations turn out to be stupid. And then they get changed, sooner or later, because it harms more people than it helps.
I suppose if someone could demonstrate to me the cumulative and grievous harm of F350 Pickups, I'd be more inclined to put the clamps on them.
By the way, bigrigs are going to be under stricter fuel consumption regulations in a few years, and in this case, the trucking industry *supports* the regulation ( because of course they make up the cost of the equipment by the fuel savings).
Literally. As in cars have a different standard than trucks.
A hole so big, BIG trucks are exempted completely.
So they can't touch the segments that would clean the air the most.
http://goodcleantech.pcmag.com/automotive/286102-new-fuel-efficiency-standards-f- or-trucks
The Obama administration has unveiled a new set of fuel standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks that will affect all vehicles made from 2014-2018.
The new set of standards will affect different types of trucks in different ways, according to Fast Lane, the official blog of Ray LaHood, the US secretary of transportation. Long haul trucks, for instance. will be able to save around four gallons of oil for every 100 miles travelled, while smaller trucks like buses or vans would save one gallon for every 100 miles.
The news comes not long after President Obama revealed a new set of standards that would affect passenger car fuel consumption.
"While we were working to improve the efficiency of cars and light-duty trucks, something interesting happened," President Obama explained. "We started getting letters asking that we do the same for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. They were from the people who build, buy, and drive these trucks. And today, I'm proud to have the support of these companies as we announce the first-ever national policy to increase fuel efficiency and decrease greenhouse gas pollution from medium and heavy-duty trucks."
Under the new set of standards, the Department of Transportation projects fuel savings somewhere in the neighborhood of 530 million barrels of oil. As for vehicle owners, semi-truck built under these standards could save its owner more than $73,000 in fuel savings over its lifetime.
"Right now, heavy-duty truck traffic on our nation's roads accounts for six percent of our greenhouse gas emissions," wrote LaHood. "But trucking is also the fastest-growing contributor to America's emissions, and that six percent will continue rising unless we act. Trucks also consume 12 percent of US oil use, so these standards should put a dent in our dependence on foreign oil and improve our energy security."
Overall the DOT predicts more than $50 billion in overall fuel savings.
And they gotta close that loophole that makes trucks used for personal use only have to meet a softer standard. The law was meant to exempt fleet/work vehicles, but all the automakers did was find all sorts of ways to classify cars as trucks or MPVs.
The underlying problem is this - politicians only want to make it LOOK like they are doing something to clean the air.
The one reason CAFE still follows the old, old standards is that the numbers are higher (and mislead the public).
The one reason CAFE still follows the old, old standards is that the numbers are higher (and mislead the public).
That is exactly right. Mandates way in the future are meaningless. The bottom line is someone has to pay for the engineering to try and squeeze a bit more out of a gallon of diesel. When all the Feds would have to do is make an exception on small diesel PU trucks that are sold the world over. They won't do that as they are married to the UAW and selling big honkin PU Trucks. Ford has sold 442K PU trucks this year to date. Of which it is anyone's guess how many were fire breathing diesels.
Ram can't let go of marketing all hemi, all the time.
And until MY2011, Ford didn't offer a V6 at all in the F150 - the last one was dropped several years ago because, like the Ram's V6, no one wanted it.
Now, as the owner of one such big honkin' HD diesel pickup
One thing the NYT article did not address is the fact that the recent increases in torque are intentionally offset by taller (numerically lower) axles. That 400/800 Ford Powerstroke offers a 3.21 axle... in the past, 4.10s were the most common. And yes, the engines in medium duty rigs like the Peterbilt are lower rated, but the owners also don't want them to go fast. People who buy HD pickups are also expecting "car-like" acceleration. A fleet owner values durability and longevity instead; they want the load moved, but they don't want it to shift from neck-snapping acceleration. The Cummins 6.7L I-6 in the Ram HD pickups is now rated at 350/800 - the same engine in the Ram chassis-cabs is only 305/610 for that reason.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons/Vans+Minivans Host
That was a powerful V8 not so many years ago...
Years ago, I used to tow cars and all other kinds of crap in a early '90s V6 Ranger. It was more than up to the task. Now everyone claims you need a F250 with a diesel if you want to want to make it up a steep driveway with a load of pine bark in the bed.
That factor alone is the root cause of the power and economy problems facing these trucks. The weight has to come down by a notable amount, and in response, smaller engines will be able to do the job.
Another factor that people don't like to acknowledge is the repeal of the 55 mph national speed limit. Powerful engines just weren't necessary in the 80s. Now there are states with 75-80 mph speed limits and people (now) expect their cars and trucks to be able to get to those speeds with some intensity. Slower (and thus perceived as "weaker") vehicles will not make the sales grade after the power rush of the last 15 years... Honda Accords and Dodge Grand Caravans are approaching 300 hp - why?
kcram - Pickups/Wagons/Vans+Minivans Host
Shifty Sez: "You can get anywhere with 100 HP, if you have the time".
Right now, an 18 year old kid with absolutely zero experience can buy a 500 HP car if he has the money. It's kinda crazy.
I remember I really wanted a bazooka when I was 9 years old but all I got was a BB gun-----darn! :P
My 1996 Ram was rated at 180 hp and 420 lb-ft. It had no trouble moving a load (I actually pulled a tow truck that got stuck in deep mud with it), but merging on a highway required advanced planning. The Cummins back then was completely mechanical - even mechanical fuel injection - once you got it started, it would run as long as it was still getting air and fuel, with zero electricity required. My 2005 is rated at 325/610... exact same block and displacement, but now with electronic fuel injection, 4 valves per cylinder, and high pressure common rail delivery. Those changes were not so much to go faster, but to meet the constantly-tightening diesel emissions regs. On its own, the engine was always capable of that power output, but would be laying down a smokescreen to do it.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons/Vans+Minivans Host
http://green.autoblog.com/2011/08/16/gm-targeting-50-mpg-with-diesel-chevrolet-c- ruze/
I'm in for a test drive, that's for sure.
But in a passenger car, I don't see why any diesel car needs to be a manual transmission. I mean, above a certain RPM that's well below a gasser, you're just wasting fuel.
Let me insert this on the side of "knowing what is going on" portion. Basically the 6 speed manual is in fact optimizing the more NARROW rpm range (wider rpm band with most gassers). So for example, the VW 2.0 TDI gives max torque between 1,850- 2,500 rpm. (1.9 T is between 1850-2250 rpm, both can be checked and verified in the oem owners manual, as I am doing this off the cuff) redline is @ 5,100 rpm. Max HP is 4,000 rpm (3850 rpm) Just to use as a basis of comparison max hp for a Civic is 6,100 rpm and max torque is delivered at 4,500 rpm.
Since I run both side by side ( do this almost every day) There are two separate ways to get better mpg. One you wind up moderately and the other you wind slower and shift earlier. Now it might sound hard and or confusing but our 3/4 drivers do it pretty seamlessly: three of them women who normally could care less about these types of things. So 48-52 mpg TDI and 38-42 Civic gasser. Yes I know those Civic numbers are better than most who drive similar to same Civics (under the same environmental conditions.
As I said before, the DSG is a formidable ("auto") product. It truly offers EPA mpg parrity with the 6 speed manuals. The Cruze turbo diesel is significant because it offers torque that exceeds the current DSG limits of 258 # ft of torque. VW 2.0 TDI puts out 236 # ft of torque. So whatever auto transmission Chevrolet decides to use will have to be BEEFIER. This most likely will increase costs. It also has to compete both in the gasser (point of comparisons) and diesel EPA mpg races.
In the meantime, the DSG is evolving. Four on topic changes: 1. higher torque handling 2. change from wet sump to dry sump. 3. evolution of 6 speeds to 7 and 8 speeds 4. lower costs.
Let's see...
The Eco model is about $20k, $21k with a well price Nav system.
Add $2k for the diesel, and please don't package a whole bunch of crap I don't want.
So we're talking $22k to start, $23k with Nav. Not bad at all.
I'm guessing the diesel will have all the stuff that aids in getting the best mileage, so I started with the Eco instead of the base models.
Doubt it.... While VW/Audi probably sets lifespan on the DSG to be 300,000 miles, GM would probably be happy and extremely please to give people something that lasts 36,001 miles, and be happy with that! Forces them to buy another very soon, and oh yeah, just add one asterick to the 100K powertrain warranty!
continued on the 'future of manual transmission forum'.
So to get back to the more sound bite able, 1 to two years longer are 11% to 21% LONGER. Naturally, IF the 12,000 to 15,000 miles AVG holds true, THEN the range of average miles (114,000 to 142,500) miles drifts HIGHER. (126,000 to 172,500 miles)
Anecdotally, I have a gasser @ the 126,000 miles and a diesel @ the 172,500 miles markers (actually 168,000).
What does this mean? Hard to say. For one thing, probably more worn out used cars for sale!