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.
Options

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

16465676970473

Comments

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited August 2011
    I think there's a bail-out point however, in terms of average years on the road---when the old cars become just too expensive to keep running. it's not like the old days when you could use wire and tape and parts from other cars to keep the ol' 55 Chevy running.

    You could run a Yugo for 1 million miles if you were determined to do so but it wouldn't make any sense.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I keep thinking something expensive will break on our 22 year old Lexus. It just keeps going. I put a new set of top of the line Michelins on a year ago, so have to keep driving it. I force myself to use it, though I don't like driving low slung cars. I feel too vulnerable with the big PU trucks dominating the highways. I would sell it and the Sequoia if a decent high mileage diesel SUV ever gets to our 3rd world country. :shades:

    I also hate dodging all the potholes when I drive the Lexus.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    It's hard to justify getting rid of a really good car. That's what *advertising* is for! :P
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2011
    There are certainly bail out points. But if your citing of RL Polk are correct, it is even HIGHER than the one/s I described.

    But I think at the same time, the almost minimum miles a car can be run is between 100,000 to 120,000 miles. While I would conceptually agree with what you are saying that @ some point it gets too expensive to keep running, one really needs to define what that is.

    I have used this example before but the 04 Civic needs so called "major" tune ups @ app the 110,000 to 120,000 mileage frame. To cut to the chase, and gloss over some maintenance details, it cost $935 to $955 dollars. A DIY would crash the labor costs and probably the parts costs would be (%) cheaper. So a good projection will be @ 240,000 (total) miles till the next major tune. @ that time it should cost app the same. So we know that @ 120,000 miles it should cost (baring unscheduled maintenance) 935 to 955 or .0079583 cents per mile scheduled maintenance cycle. Can I buy a new Honda Civic for close to $955?

    I ran an edmunds.com cycle and the prices for a Civic VP are: invoice 16,763, TMV 17,273 MSRP 18,125. Most all will have to pay tax over and above these documented costs. In my case, that would be 9.25% or $1551. So I am guessing you have better access to the data, but how many people who actually chose this car pay cash? Use fianancing (and @ what real costs) etc (trades). So @ the very least a 2011 MY Civic would cost me 4,199 over what I paid for the 04. So given 955 per 110,000 to 120,000 miles per cycle, that is 4.396 cycles. When you add in the taxation add another 1.62 cycles.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Some people are in for the long run, some for the short run. I would suspect that most diesel car buyers are in for the long run.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2011
    Well I think at times the statisitics can really hide more of the realities sometimes than they reveal. So if R.L Polks data is correct @ 10.2 years, average car in the passenger vehicle fleet: IF the 12,000 to 15,000 miles AVERGE drivers yearly mileage, the range is now 122,400 to 153,000 miles. Now they did NOT mention the actual yearly salvage rate other than to say the average (9.5 years) exceeds that rate. so the obvious no brainer is the salvage rate is BELOW 9.5% per year. My research indicated 6.5%.

    Naturally the twin aspects of reliability AND durability come to the fore. So if all I am doing is replacing consumeables, ie., spark plugs, valve adjustments, timing belt and water pumps, brake pads, rotors, struts/shocks tires, batteries, fluids, etc. I would have to do that on any new vehicle (costing WAY more) on more late model NEW vehicles anyway.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    A 10.2 year old fleet means a LOT of people are on the sidelines waiting to buy a car once the outlook improves.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    That would be my reaction also. However, I am thinking the current economic conditions might add a year or even two to that (10.2 + 1 or 2 years).
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2011
    Had my first trouble shooting issue (@168,000 miles). A dashboard warning lamp (engine (related" area, double squigglies for those that have a VW, and or TDI) went blinking. Normally (in a VW TDI) a "blinking" indicator means take care of this "right now or sooner". A check of the oem owner's manual said GLOW PLUG/system?? I didn't bother to get the VAG.com software/hardware (to load and use on a lap top) in early 2003 when I bought the car. It would have given me a specific code.

    I googled on TDICLUB.com and knew in the worst case, a local upcoming GTG (tdi club get together) the collective and guru group could as a minimum point me in the right direction, if not, fix it. In the mean time, I took my old radio shack multi meter ZERO'ED it out, and checked the (ohm's) glow plugs resistance readings. All four seemed to have (SAME READINGS) continuity ?

    Conversations with an out of state guru led me to believe it was a simple case of rear brake lamps burn out? So I and my trusty assistant went out in the dead of night to SEE. Sure enough, no L/R brake lights on stepping of brake pedal. I took it to the local VW dealer to buy the bulbs. For whatever reason, they gave me the two brake bulbs free of charge and the service advisor R/R the bulbs. Indicator lamp went out immediately. Let's just hope this doesn't happen for another 168,000 miles or @ 336,000 miles ;) :shades:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    If you had worn glow plugs, the car would be very hard to start in the morning.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    That was the first clue it was NOT the glow plugs.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Right!

    Glow plugs do wear out, though, and are considered expendable items.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2011
    Yes, however I have no real mileage SWAG. MPG is really at its peak. Or shall I say there has been no fall off due to miles. :shades: ;) We can of course, replace almost anything preventatively. So I guess this is a longer way of saying I am pleased. :shades: Two fried rear brake lamps are not even related to diesel.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The 2012 Mercedes B200 CDI is going to be available this year in Europe. Last years model was rated 62.8 MPG in the UK. That is over 50 MPG US. Beats anything we have on the highway today. The Germans like rubbing it in our face how inept we are at building high mileage vehicles.

    image
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Even BENTLEY is considering a diesel model for the future, possibly even a diesel/hybrid. Can you imagine a monster diesel V8 or V10 plus the added kick of 4 electric motors?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    NO! not my cup of tea. Though it does put people at Bentley to work. I think the Europeans realize there is a market for these super expensive cars. The D3 has never competed in the super car market in my lifetime. How many people does the creation of one Maybach, Bentley or Bugatti Veyron support? There is a market here. Just no manufacturers of super luxury cars. Americans are just looking for CHEAP. That is why we get the dregs from the rest of the World. The B200 CDI sells for $42,000 in the UK. How many buyers here would pay that much for a small car that takes 9.7 seconds 0-62 MPH?
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2011
    To me, the issue/s are the turbo diesel's' adaptability across any to all product lines. Unless I miss my guess, MB has been putting both multiple turbos and /or super chargers on the diesels.

    Sure they work well and can be an almost startling value on the "cheap" ( not what MB is known for). As Shifty implied, MONSTER torque and even good fuel mileage for a 600 # ft+ plus Luxury Land Yacht. Almost all know they are trucking's mainstay. (80,000 to 100,000 #'s)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I saw the new B, and immediately thought to myself: Mercedes hired the guy from Mazda in charge of the "Nagare" styling.

    What's with the swoops on the doors? Reminds me a lot of the Mazda5, which is the last Mazda to follow that styling theme.

    I liked the old B-class better. Same overall shape, just a little cleaner. The new one also has a tall hood, probably to meet euro pedestrian crash standards, but again the blunt nose isn't as clean as before.

    Besides the styling issues, though, I think it's a great package, just the right size for a small family.

    How does the price in Europe compare to the C-class? B-class should be cheaper, no?

    I see that as their entry-level vehicle here. C starts at $34,800, so offer something like that at $29,995 or something, with the new forced induction 2 liter engine. The diesel would likely fall in the mid 30s for pricing.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited August 2011
    I think your are right the older B was more attractive. I saw B200 CDI from Canada a couple years ago. I talked to the couple that owned it. They absolutely loved the vehicle. They told me the mileage and I have forgotten now. I know it was better than anything in the class sold here. I am getting ready for a road trip in the Sequoia. I think about buying a diesel every time I calculate the mileage. Oh well, it would not be economical. Just keep burning up the gasoline. Makes the tax collectors happy.

    PS
    The C with diesel is about $8k more than the B in the UK.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    edited August 2011
    They sell the B class in Brazil. First time I saw it was at the airport in Fortaleza. Very attractive for a people mover, far nicer than the bigger R-class IMHO.

    It still is OK looking, it's just I didn't care for the updates.

    PS They do not usually sell diesel models in Brazil because the fuel there is not the low-sulfur variety
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    It's true. A diesel's thermal efficiency vis a vis a gas engine is still very tempting to automakers, as the thumbscrews get tightened around the world regarding emissions and fuel economy. And the screws WILL get tightened, there is no doubt of it, so automakers are, I think, starting to deal with the real world and get on the bandwagon.

    I think that most of the automakers see a field if *diversification* in the powerplants for their future products. They are going to place multiple bets and diesel will be one of them, even in the highline cars.

    In a way, once Americans see diesel Bentleys and Benzes more often, the stigma that hangs over the diesel passenger car in America (stinky, crude, for trucks only) will be finally banished.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I think seeing diesels in race cars helps, but they're behind on that in this country as well.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    How ironic, since the USA pioneered diesel cars on race tracks. Almost pulled off an Indy 500 win, too.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Americans are too busy watching NASCAR...
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I find NASCAR pretty boring. Maybe if they relocated the beer concessions so that the racetrack was between them and the grandstands, I might tune in :P
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Change the rules so that they race bone-stock Chargers, Pontiac G8s, and Taurus SHOs, with roll cages only.

    And no, Toyota does not belong there (this coming from a Toyota owner).
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Just got a call from the Audi dealer. He told me the Q5 TDI will be here in the not too distant future. They have not gotten a date or pricing. That will be a must see for me.

    This outfit has already gotten one and made it faster. 328 Ft Lbs of torque would be good in a Q5 sized vehicle.

    image

    http://www.egmcartech.com/2011/08/17/audi-q5-tdi-senner-tuning/
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That's certainly good news, but it will be expensive and the Q5 is kinda small.

    I'd like to see more mainstream (size and price) diesels. CR-V and Forester have diesels in Europe. Even a Cruze 5 door diesel would come in at a price below a Jetta TDI.

    I'm just hoping for some affordable options.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The Q5 is slightly bigger than the CR-V and VW Tiguan. I could be happy with an Outback Diesel. I don't think they will get their act together any better than Honda. Mazda I am waiting to see. If they offer something in a mid CUV size I would look at it. At this point I am almost in need of new tires on the Sequoia. If I dump a grand on tires, I will keep it another 2-3 years and bite the bullet on gas.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    On a fast look, that was the impression I got also albeit more expensive than the CR-V.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited August 2011
    The Q5 is far more vehicle than a noisy CR-V I would imagine. Not impressed with the 2011 CR-V a friend bought. She loves it and that is all that counts. I gauge by my Sequoia. If it is noisier why go backward? The Escape is a better choice than the CR-V. Too bad Ford does not want to bring diesels to America. The new T6 Ranger going on sale in 180 countries World Wide is a World class beating PU. We in the third World will not get it. Ford knows it would kill their money making F150. I don't think you can get the F150 outside North America. The Ranger has a 2.2L diesel that should get an easy 35 MPG on the road and pull 7000 lbs. :sick:

    PS Wiki Says:

    2.2L Duratorq diesel engine (88kW & 285Nm; 92kW&330Nm or 110kW&375Nm) consumes as little as 7.6 L/100 km (37.2 mpg)* with choices of 6-speed manual or automatic transmission

    That would be 30.95 MPG US combined.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Better, sure, but bigger?

    Q5 can hold 57 cubic feet of cargo, that's only so-so. Even most compacts approach 70 or so.

    It's nice inside, but a bit cozy. A co-worker has one; we do events together and I have to drive the minivan to fit out cart and all the boxes we usually take. Q5 is much too small. Even our Forester is a lot roomier.

    Q5 is good for empty nesters, maybe if you have a single child and pack light.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I have never sat in one. Don't see many of them around here. I was going by outside dimensions. My area is dominated by X5, GLs & Tahoe. I may just be satisfied with the 3 vehicles I own. I am thinking of getting tires on the Sequois at Costco while in Oregon. No sales tax and other goofy fees. Then I will keep it a while longer. I have the 7 year platinum warranty. I will not likely hit 75k miles in that time. If the Lexus ever dies we may get a diesel car like a Golf TDI. That would be great for running errands. Now we take the Frontier 90% of the time and it barely gets 17 MPG.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The Escape is a better choice than the CR-V

    Have you driven one lately?

    My little brother and I test drove an Escape earlier this year, a loaded V6 model (they had no 4cyl/stick shifts in stock, but we wanted to sample something).

    The engine was peppy, but that's the only thing I liked about it. The ride was rock hard, stiff, your head gets tossed side to side. Basically it drives like a truck, very unrefined. It was competitive...in 1990. They just have not kept up at all.

    I'm not a big Honda fan but my big brother owns one in Brazil, and it's a whole lot better, even in Brazil-spec (2.0l engine, auto).

    My little brother didn't consider the CR-V because it only comes with an automatic, and he wanted a stick shift. Among the small crossovers we did drive, we BOTH agreed the Escape was the worst.

    He got a Forester with a manual, a Kia Sportage was a close 2nd. There just aren't too many choices with a manual trans any more.

    Any how ... Subaru sells a diesel Forester in Europe and guess what the standard trans is? A SIX speed! Sweeeeet....
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    My area is dominated by X5, GLs & Tahoe

    We see a bunch of those here in Potomac, too.

    The latest craze is the X3 and Q5, I see tons of those. Plus the RX, MDX, etc.

    They sell to the manicure set, as you can imagine.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think it is the dense population where you live. Our area is all 1 acre minimum, so people have more room to park big vehicles. I met a new black couple that just moved into our area. They have two Escalades and one of those Escalade PU trucks. Lexus are rare for some reason. I see one GS come and go, and that is about it. Lots of new full size PU trucks. It is a working class neighborhood. Lots of contractors and even more retired people. This is getting out in the country away from the bustling masses. The little cars I see are few and far between. Mostly kids driving them. Though my neighbor has an older VW Beetle diesel his wife loves to drive. They have a garage and a barn full of vehicles and dune buggies. She takes the Beetle.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Also my kids are growing up, so the other parents are getting past the minivan/big SUV stage and doing OK with having less room. Hence the X3, Q5 sales.

    The small luxury crossover segment is probably the fastest growing segment in the industry right now. 10 times faster than EVs. Maybe 100 times.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    edited August 2011
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    After looking at the schnozzle of that beastie, my brain wants to say there's no way it could be a 1969 model; 1976 is much more likely.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    Definitely a 76, has malaise bumpers and there was no 240D in 69. Last year for the W115, I hope the driver likes the right lane.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'm sure they're slow but gosh, do they last forever or what?

    A buddy's uncle had one and the seat padding eroded before the engine blew.

    I think the diesel outlasts the rest of the car. Gotta wonder if modern diesels, with all the emissions stuff, will last even half as long. I doubt it.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    The engine will certainly outlast the car if maintained, and they can rust harshly, that just makes it worse. But if not maintained, they slowly die.

    Time will do in modern electronics, I fear. I can't imagine huge numbers of 2011 cars left in 2051.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited August 2011
    Old old diesels will last a long time if you don't rev them too high. If you pretend you are on the autobahn every day, you'll crack the cylinder head. And of course, as they age, they will burn oil, so you have to keep an eye on that.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I honestly think that modern cars are not even designed to last that long.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    edited August 2011
    I'd guess there is about a 15-20 year lifespan engineered into most modern cars.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I don't think that statistically most cars would reach 20 years. Between things like accidents, rust, and owner neglect (which Americans are very good at), you'd be lucky to see half that in most cars.

    Also there's a new wrinkle in car mortality---people deciding to just junk otherwise perfectly good cars when one major component fails---too expensive.

    If an old VW diesel blows up, are you really going to put a $5000 engine in a $3000 car. Doubtful.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2011
    I would swag the lastest economic conditions (which unfortunately might have 5 to 10 years longer legs) have caused a lot of car owners to counter a lot of factors you describe in your post. This is also reflected in (lower) yearly auto salvage rates, which unfortunately are not as common as the DJIA information. Accidents, injuries and fatalities rates are the LOWEST since they (NHTSA.gov and the like) have been recording these things. Additional variables; like rust are being mitigated. In the best cases owners moving out of rust belts. Owners are starting to rediscover just how much "owners" neglect is really costing them. Your posting of the RL Polk statistics of 10.2 years old for the average American car (which exceeds by app 1 year to 2 years of data that I have researched) might be an indicator. I believe the average age of European cars is older still.

    Your wrinkle "junk an otherwise good car" to some are good to sterling opportunities to get good (albeit ) used cars inexpensively .

    I am also thinking your last observation is ALSO being re-thought. If (for example) $5,000 can be put in a 3k car and get 100,000 more miles, why would you want to get a new car (@ for example 20-25k) to give you those very same miles? The increase taxes, insurance, will shave a load off that $5,000 repair vs a brand new car that really gives you nothing for the taxation and various additional FEES.

    This might be too micro, but it would be an interesting statistic to know how many folks on 99 week unemployment benefits, and those who have fallen off and still not working (with normally dim prospects for getting a job that pays as good or better than their last job, are buying NEW cars.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Oh I still think the common sense rule of "don't throw good money after bad" relates to sticking a new engine in an old high mileage car.

    If a person has enough money to buy a $5000 replacement engine (for which you don't get a bank loan--it's either cash up front or an 18% credit car loan), then they have enough to put a down on a used car, with a bank loan, and have reasonable monthlies.

    I personally wouldn't advise anyone to put a new engine in say a 1999 VW Beetle diesel with 225,000 miles on it, with worn ties and a dent in the fender and tears in the upholstery. That's a $1200 car if it were *running*.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2011
    Again just for discussion purposes, we have gone from the "new every two" (years) to RL Polk's: average passenger vehicle fleet age 10.2 years.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited August 2011
    Common sense really did not reverse itself when times were better. (being as how for a lot of foks times can be considered WORSE) So do I think putting a brand new, reman, etc, more expensive engine in a cheaper car makes sense broad brush? No ! It depends of course. So yes, if you can get an undamaged 1999 Beetle diesel, etc for $1200, that is way cheaper than $5,000. Indeed you can get 4.167 such cars ;) :shades:
This discussion has been closed.