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
I'd be happy with 300+.
And you're right on target, I do have 2 vehicles.
No, I guess I wouldn't, or at least I'm a sample of one that used a Miata for most of four years as a daily driver. Included in that were a couple of trips to BC from AZ and several to Oregon & Colorado.
I've never chosen to own a vehicle that I don't drive every day -- don't want to spend the money on insurance, storage and the like.
Just another cheap engineer, I guess.
I drive one small car too, essentially a two-seater with 4 seats (two of them useless and in the down position all the time), so I can relate.
speaking for myself, if Miata stretched the car two more inches so as not to make it impossible for tall people to drive it, I could probably live with it as a diesel with a removable hardtop, as my sole car.
I agree, the 240-mile fillups would drive me absolutely nuts.
That I cannot deny.
. . .if Miata stretched the car two more inches so as not to make it impossible for tall people to drive it. . .
Good point. I'm 6'2" and drove the thing with the seat reclined slightly & made it work okay. As a point of reference, I drove a used MGB over 100K miles into 44 states and several provinces, so it's all relative.
I also rode a Honda 160 560 miles in a day once, from Santa Rosa, NM, to Phoenix, so any car at all is an improvement.
Heck, even an MG Midget has more cockpit room than a Miata.
Of course, it's not perfect. The windshield is too low and blows your baseball cap off. Heater is marginal (not too bad down to 30 degrees or so), and there's no AC of course and when it rains, you'll get wet even with the top up.
If a Miata had a diesel, it would easily equal that torque-like feeling you get in an MGB and probably even surpass it. An MGB was easy to drive in traffic because of that engine characteristic.
I think the engines are in fact the same displacement, so I'm not sure why the MGB feels like it has more torque. Maybe it's the gearing that's fooling me...dunno. :confuse:
And I second the notion that the MGB is roomier than a Miata (except that stupid short windshield).
Beats the Prius 0-60 and just about matches the MPG, too, all in a much more useful and attractive package. 6 speed manual + AWD is a bonus.
The old boxer diesel did not meet CARB emissions standards, but I'm not sure about this one, and the article doesn't mention it.
As for price, base models here cost $21,220 here in the USA and £21,375 there, so forget exchange rates, use roughly the same numbers. That would put a fully loaded diesel with Nav at around $29k.
Better yet, they could offer a still well-equipped mid-level volume model for $26-27k or so.
In a world where a Cruze can hit $25k and a Sonata can hit low $30s, I think that could sell well.
What say ye?
I also think with the discovery of HUGE CONUS natural gas fields: what used to be almost a strictly RUG to PUG to diesel option, add to that natural gas. Honda Civic really pioneered the way from a passenger car market perspective. I am thinking that smaller populations of say 12% each of diesel and natural gas will go a long way in getting us off importing foreign oil if that ever was a realistic reduction goal. As a quick and dirty that amount: 12% each to domestic diesel and natural gas:or - 24%.
For US customers I think it would make sense to shorten the final drive ratio to speed things up a bit. They could still pull off 35-40mpg or so and get it to 60mph in the high 8 second range, I'm guessing.
Heck, add a taller 6th to produce amazing highway mileage/range.
Slot it between the base engine and the turbo, since there is a wide gap between the two. The turbo hits 60mph in a little over 6s, while the gasser is more like 9-10s, depending upon the transmission choice.
I hear what you are saying. In some to most ways this is opaque to most consumers. I know that Subaru owners can be a pretty passionate owners group. If they are like VW TDI groups, a smaller group really understands the finer points of stuff like gear swaps, "optimization" and even 6 speed manual (from 5 speed manual) swaps. So for example a ( VW) .658 (higher) 5th gear swap adds app 2 mpg cruising at the same speeds. Obviously @ similar rpms the speeds are faster.
For sure, and that's why I think they are more likely as a brand to have success with what is still very much a niche product.
Every Subaru is a niche car, think about it - all AWD, not a single FWD sold here since 1994.
Also, even the enthusiast side came from watching WRC....in Europe. Again, more open to diesels.
With the AWD mileage handicap, diesel is one way they could meet future CAFE standards. They may NEED it. (Edit: great minds think alike, Shifty)
And despite the tie-in with Toyota, HSD doesn't mate to boxer engines and the AWD is fake - one axle gets electric only power. Subaru can't rebadge a Toyota hybrid, it would be sacreligious.
So ... diesel Subarus just makes sense.
It would probably cost a small fortune, but that's one cool take at a high-mpg Outback.
I've been in a few - Smart Money, NY Times, Wall St. Journal, etc.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I think most target diesel buyers had not even been born yet.
It's time for a 2nd attempt (Cruze diesel is in fact planned).
Don't think I have ever seen a diesel Malibu or a diesel Caprice Estate before.
I think the one thing that turns people away from diesels, they are too prissy, they don't like the smell of the fuel, or want to touch the pumps. Eww I don't want to touch that. That is what I got a few times from friends when I asked if they would drive a diesel. They also have the impression they are slow, sluggish, noisy, and dirty. They also need additives in the winter.
I don't care how good you think the dealers fuel is, there is always a chance of them getting a bad batch of fuel that may have water in it, or lack a specific additive to prevent gelling in cold weather.
I think though many people would give it consideration once more models are out that are affordable, and once they drive it and find out the above are all misconceptions, then you will start seeing more people buying them.
PS my 626 got a tank of bad gas and needed a fuel system service
RUG to PUG on the other hand is delivered @ 30 ppm sulfur, With off line (fee) mitigation it can be delivered @ 90 ppm sulfur.
With unchanged maximum power of 135 kW/184 hp at 4,000 rpm, and powerful torque of 380 Nm on stream between 1,750 and 2,750 rpm, the new BMW 320d is an extremely dynamic performer. This diesel model, too, delivers everything one would expect of a compact sports sedan. This is reflected in performance figures, which include a standstill to 100 km/h (62 mph) sprint time of just 7.5 seconds. When necessary, the agile diesel will accelerate up to a top speed of 235 km/h (146 mph).
The new BMW 320d's average fuel consumption in the EU test cycle of 4.5 litres per 100 kilometres (62.8 mpg imp) and CO2 emissions of 118 grams per kilometre mark a four per cent improvement on the predecessor model, with no reduction in power. For models fitted with the new eight-speed automatic transmission, the improvement is even more striking: fuel consumption (4.5 l/100 km / 64.2 mpg imp) and CO2 emissions (118 g/km) have fallen by 16 per cent. With all of this, the BMW 320d has reaffirmed its position as a high-performance, efficient sedan which boasts one of the world's cleanest and most economical diesel engines.
BMW 320d EfficientDynamics Edition: state-of-the-art diesel engine makes the new sports sedan the most efficient vehicle in its class
BMW Eyeing Diesel for U.S. 3 Series (Inside Line)
Not all is coming up roses though:
2011-'12 Mercedes-Benz Diesel Vehicles Recalled for Fire Risk
But it's only 6,800 vehicles; bad fuel filters.
What amazes me is both BMW and MB have wonderful 4 cylinder diesels that pass the latest EU emissions and get mileage that would make the new CAFE numbers with ease. Yet so far I don't see plans to bring them to the USA. As many X models as I see around where I live I would think the X3 xDrive 20d SE Auto would sell like crazy here. It is rated at 50+ MPG combined in EU, that is 42 MPG US combined. What other CUV is even close? No hybrid for sure.
Let me speculate that the 8 speed auto has a taller top gear than the manual.
Otherwise, you'd have to believe that the auto has a lower power loss coming out the back......?
Speaking strictly for myself, I'd gladly opt for a stick even if it only got say 45 mpg highway versus say 46 for the automatic version.
I am not a gear head per se, but parasitic loss is far less with manual transmission over a slush box automatic any time of the day (I have seen Corvette percentages at 11% M vs 20% A/T) ! Having said that, that is not to say oems have not been hard at work optimizing the (finer points of ) automatic.
It is hard to do a US market A/B comparison as the BMW 335 D only comes with a slush box automatic.
At the same time I am sure BMW had to put an even more stout automatic in the 335 D for its 425+ # ft of torque available @ 1750 rpm!!?? . That has to be the epitome of the Tim Taylor AW !! AW !! AW !!!
The problem, as I understand it, is the California Air Resources Board -- good ol' CARB. This time they're hung up on Nox, which is usually higher for high-efficiency engines (remember EGR -- only purpose was to lower efficiency of the combustion process & Nox). Either way, that's why there's no diesel TSX or many of the other fine cars you're referring to. Nobody wants to sell a car in North America that they can't sell in CA, and here we are.
Seems like every time the diesels (or the fuel sold in the U.S.) get close to meeting whatever that week's requirements are, CARB jacks something up to keep out the diesels that have been available in the rest of the world for 15 years.
It's hard to believe, but the black mark GM put on diesels some25 years ago, is still lingering. I think (half serious only) that only when people of my generation are dead will diesels catch a real break in the USA, because by then no one will remember the awfulness of 80s American diesel cars.
And even THEN, a young person in 2011, parked next to a Dodge Ram 3500 in traffic might not get a very nice "intimate diesel experience", especially with that 4" tailpipe cantered at 90 degrees into your driver's side window. :P
How is that at all comparable?
But how did the move from leaded to unleaded gas have any kind of similar effect? People stopped buying unleaded cars for 25 years? No. So where is it similar?
I wonder if it would be the same way in the real world, though.
Very often we see that manuals fare significantly better even when the EPA numbers favor the auto.
The most recent example I can think of is C&D's comparo of B segment cars. It included a Hyundai Accent manual (33mpg) and a Kia Rio auto (28mpg), both with the same engine. The manual was 18% more efficient, despite identical EPA ratings.
The manual was also substantially quicker. Enough so that I'd call it peppy, and the automatic slow.
What tosses a wrench in my theory is that for CAFE what counts is the scores obtained in a lab, so you get all sorts of odd programming with slushboxes seeking a taller gear to earn artificially high numbers, then owners who *MASH* the throttle because of the sluggish response.
Hence manual win in the real-world scenarios.
CR also compared them and it was the same way, manuals win across the board, cheaper, faster and more efficient, triple crown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWa6Is2XkLA