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

Mr_Shiftright

Well that's done out of necessity...people simply would not be satisfied with normally aspirated small displacement diesels. Pound for pound, the gas engine is stronger when both are n/a.

fintail

Do you want a MB 190 or a 190D? Both automatic :shades:

Mr_Shiftright

EGG-Zactly!

ruking1

Well I am guessing the "open" secret is the Golf is really the old Rabbit platform. I bought one new in 1978, so I know it is at LEAST 34 years old. As discussed before on this board and as you probably know VW is like the #2 automaker in the world., despite something like 2.5% or so USA market share. The number one spot as switched between GM and Toyota. I think GM is slightly ahead in first place of late. So I am guessing what was said about the Corolla is probably true about the "Golf" platform.

ruking1

Still waiting (9 years already) for that GASSER turbo "mountain goat" that gets 50+ mpg. What does one have to do, turn 85 years old when the oems will put one on the market?

I already have one in a Jetta TDI. :P

Mr_Shiftright

Here's One Man's Diary on Longterm Golf TDI Ownership

and it's a pretty good rundown of pros and cons. It seems he keeps meticulous records. His average MPG is 42-47 over 50K miles and that's about what I'm hearing from mostly everyone, so that's what I tell people to expect.

Now the Jetta TDI doesn't do anywhere near that, so that's a different animal apparently.

50 mpg gas engines are right on the doorstep. I think Mazda may be first with this.

fintail

The Golf just doesn't seem as cheap - and it's a lot less dowdy. It can also be had with a diesel here, unlike Corolla - the latter being another car for people who don't like cars and wouldn't want a diesel anyway.

cdnpinhead

Priuses are marketed brilliantly in the same way old Volvos were--they are for people who hate cars.

Wonderfully stated.

That's part of why I call it the Pious. Many of those who drive one consider themselves superior and want everyone to know it.

ruking1

Golf (TDI) while ostensibly the same or similar is in a lot of ways, different. I can cite any number of things that I have heard, but again realistically I have not run them side by side. I would not have a bone to pick with his reports of 42 to 47 mpg over 50,000 miles. Could he do better or worse? Most certainly.

It was not really clear if he used biodiesel, what percentage or if not at all. I have NEVER used bio diesel. Also for app half of its current mileage, it did use the incorrect fuel, LSD (140 to 500 ppm sulfur) as opposed to what it was designed for ULSD @ no more than 15 ppm with 5-7 nominally @ the pumps. The change to ULSD was in Oct 2006.

Could or would I do better or worse mpg? I don't know. If I had to err, I would say yes, better. Again we run it on some of the worst commutes in the nation, and this CA freeway is a STERLING example of neglect (Highway 101).

So I understand ( through Honda Civic boards) that our 38-42 mpg (even with 2 normally to 4 drivers) is also near the top of the spectrum, even at 127,000 miles. So logically, I would deduce that 50 mpg on the Jetta TDI might be likewise, again @ 174,000 miles. Now I personally do not think so, as we run them hard in different ways and "put em away wet" so to speak. We do know the parameters of each engine, and transmission combination and run them accordingly.

Could I do that (50 mpg) with the Mazda? It really remains to be seen. I have consistently heard that fuel mileage on Mazda's, while a kick in the pants to drive, are consistently short in the mpg dept..

ruking1

Again this is just me, but for the last three selections, (commuting mainly) the Corolla has always been in the final top 5. Compared to the Jetta TDI, Civic, Corolla, etc. it normally comes in 4/5th place. Some main reasons are ride, trim level and dealers not wanting to really deal.

jasonfranks

What most of you here don't know is that there has been a Jeep Wrangler Diesel option available for a few years which is good news!!!!!!! The bad news is that it's only available overseas and it's only made with a right side steering wheel!!! I work for a factory here in the states that makes parts for the Jeep Wrangler 4dr and 2dr models. I don't know what particular diesel engine they use for it but I know for a fact that it's available overseas. It would be awesome to see Chrysler make it available in the states also. We need to loby them a lot and maybee they will see the market for it in the States.

gagrice

I believe that diesel Wrangler is built in the USA, with an Italian made engine. Jeep was never able to get the engine in the Jeep Liberty to pass CA emissions. Not sure on the status of the Wrangler diesel. If we could just use the same standards as the EU it would not be so expensive to sell diesels in the USA. I am sure that is done on purpose.

Welcome to the forum.

ruking1

There are a few interesting things I can say with 127,000 miles with between 38-42 mpg for the Honda Civic and the TDI 48-52 mpg (@ like miles, again the TDI has app 174,000 miles)

First off the Civic has used between 3,342 gals - 3,024 gals (RUG).

Secondly, the TDI has used between 2,646-2,442 gals (D2 LSD and ULSD) .

This is between 696 to 582 gals more. Civic has used between 26.3% to 23.8% MORE.

There are some interesting anomolies. Here is one, as it potentially can affect/effext fuel mpg.

The (lighter) Civic weighs in at 2,512 #'s and the (heavier) Jetta TDI @ 2,950#'s . The TDI obviously weighs app 438 #'s more.

It would be interesting to see the real world mpg GAIN, the TDI would probably have if it ran with 438 #'s less. The other way to even this up would be to run the Civic with 438#'s more. What would people think? Would the TDI mileages go UP over the Civic? Or would the Civics mpg go down with 438#s MORE ? Using the 1 -3 mpg per 100#s rule of thumb I would predict a gain or a loss of a minimum of +/- 4 mpg.

Another i.e.. So again, tires on the (lighter) Civic lasted app 74,300 miles and the tires on the (heavier) TDI lasted till 112,300 miles. So the (lighter) car weighing - minus #438 #'s less wore out 38,000 miles FASTER (51% faster). On the other hand, would it be reasonable to predict the TDI's tires would wear LONGER (than 112,300 miles) if it ran around with - minus 438#s less?

So given this historical and anecdotal data, which car would you say is MORE consumptive, even as one is billed as LESS consumptive????

One can even break this down @ 25,000, 50,000, 100,000 miles. Hopefully I have given the data, so anyone can plug and play with almost no questions.

Mr_Shiftright

That Liberty diesel engine was something of a disaster wasn't it?

gagrice

From the forum here on Edmund's I would say the Liberty diesel did not live up to expectations in the USA version. I would say the crap attached to satisfy the EPA caused more problems than it solved. One owner in the EU was very happy with his. I don't think you can just add stuff without exhaustive engineering and not have problems. Several owners posted getting close to 30 MPG combined when most of their driving was highway. Of those posting on the EPA site for the 2005 Liberty, it was a consistent 30% better mileage with the diesel. Gasser 15.6 MPG combined, diesel 22.4 MPG combined.

It should also be noted the Liberty was somewhat of a stepchild of MB and Chrysler about the time of their divorce and Chrysler's bankruptcy. Hopefully the new GC diesel version will be better engineered.

ruking1

Almost any oem model is dead in the water or loses half the market share if a particular model does not have a gases AND diesel options. Indeed things are probably more stratified than that in that each model would need multiple gasser and diesel engine combinations. Either way most Europeans order with a stick shift option.

So for example US market VW diesel has one engine option 2.0 TDI. In Europe there are probably a minimum of 2 diesel options.

busiris

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120106/CARNEWS/120109924

It's not a Wrangler, but it's a Jeep....

Mr_Shiftright

Interesting comment in the article in that it talks about demand from "off road enthusiasts". This makes more sense as a way to market to Americans.

gagrice

The low RPM Torque is ideal for off roading unless you are sand racing. Probably why VW TDI has dominated the Big off road races like Dakar. I will check out the GC Diesel when it arrives in showrooms. Italy can use the money if you buy a Jeep or Chrysler. :shades:

busiris

Yes, Italy needs some cash to repair/replace the Costa Concordia...

Maybe Fiat can help.... Float It Again, Tony...

NatGeo had an hour-long show on that debacle tonight. It's amazing how many parallels there were between that boat and the Titanic... So few changes in 100 years.

gagrice

A friend took the same cruise on a different company. Said they could not even see the Island from where they passed. Captain should do hard time for those killed in a senseless disaster.

ateixeira

Bingo, that's a good way to market it. A Jeep buyer will understand the message, too.

My only concern? Asking price. You don't want to price it out of reach for that same buyer.

gagrice

In my case the vehicles I am considering are all in the $50k+ range. So the GC Diesel may be a bargain.

ateixeira

I think the new one is sweet, but it's too small for my current needs.

ruking1

Yes, I still think there is a pretty active market for larger SUV's albeit "crossovers" or whatever they are now referred. My frame of comparison is the body on frame Toyota Landcruiser. The context is 12% of the passenger vehicle market are SUV's.

As such, two that come to mind are the Acura MDX (17.4 mpg) and the VW Touareg TDI (30.3 mpg). The mpg is listed on wwwfueleconomy.gov (compare side by side 2011). The DIESEL TDI gets 74% better fuel mileage !!!!! If one is going to get a "higher end" crossover SUV, what is not to like about 74% better fuel mileage?

Mr_Shiftright

I g0t 21 mpg vs 28 mpg on those two for 2012 models:

http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=31947&id=31313

Savings in fuel per year (according to gov'mint) about $500 a year

And the Touareg costs $4000 more to buy initially, so it looks like 4 years payback time to break even.

it's all very nice but not enough to make people want to leap at it.

ruking1

I think that tidbit you posted a while back about only 6% of the buying public putting mpg as a priority is VERY telling. However in addition to the way better fuel mileage, I think the thing I would like is the 406# of torque on tap (vs 270 # ft), and especially @ 7,000 ft. But like you have said in another past post (in effect)what dah heck is that? Not that many people care nor even know what that means in English, but that is 50.4% more torque. !!!!!

ateixeira

VW Touareg TDI (30.3 mpg)

That seems crazy optimistic.

EPA says it's 18 to 22mpg, a much smaller 22% advantage. Plus diesel costs more, so it's even less...

ateixeira

Actually that's an 8 year break-even.

Sample size is much too small for the Touareg TDI, just 2 cars. 1 car in 2012 reported 26.5 mpg.

For the Acura, for 2009 it was 20.4, and that's the same powertrain

So that compared the best TDI to the worst Acura. Not exactly fair.

Not to mention the MDX runs circles around a Touareg in terms of performance on the street.

ruking1

I would feel unqualified to adjust it, especially if I had NO experience with it. If I did have experience with it, then I probably should have posted it. I used the Acura MDX because I have run that same route in it many times. I am hardly complaining about the MDX. I would project the Touareg would be awesome in comparison.

So if I understand what you are saying, 74% better fuel mileage and 50% more torque are not performance parameters? Or are you really saying they are performance parameters not important to you?

I find this diesel thread pretty amusing at times. I do get tempted from time to time to get the VW Touareg TDI. Actually with the advent of 170 cm skis and less, it is just as easy to pull down a seat, load em up and just get the 48 mpg up grade and 52-53 down grade and forget about it. :shades: CA does have the (stupid) requirement for chains on cars even with so call snow and/or performance snow tires. SUV's like the Touareg are given a free pass.

I actually just got back from a week of skiing in Tahoe with not a lick of snow on the roads, let alone seeing a stitch of snow (in the countryside) on the way up. The curious thing was the SKIING conditions were just short of ideal and fabulous. Since there was "no snow" we literally had the facilities to ourselves. There was no waiting in any lines. The runs that were open were meticulously GROOMED.

stever

I went from 100 hp, 135 lb.ft. in my '89 Voyager to 170 hp 200 foot-pounds in the '99 Quest. Made a huge improvement.

It can still snap my head back so I don't know if I could handle doubling that. :shades:

HP sells; unfortunately torque doesn't seem to as much, much less 30 to 60 times. But maybe people are catching on a bit:

Is the new VW Beetle diesel worth the money? (CBS - towing paragraph).

gagrice

If you look at the real mileage people are getting with the MDX vs the Touareg TDI it changes the picture by a lot. 17 MPG combined compared to 30 MPG combined. The MDX is a gas hog on Premium no less. Not even on my radar. I looked at the MDX back in 2007 when I got the Sequoia. Over priced with nothing special to attract my attention. Hard seats and small space. I have to have at least 30 MPG highway to give up any space from my current Sequoia.

gagrice

The drivers posting on the EPA show between 28-32 MPG combined. That should not be a surprise considering how low they rate the other TDIs.

gagrice

Not to mention the MDX runs circles around a Touareg in terms of performance on the street.

I would have to see that to believe it. If your whole criteria is from stop light to stop light maybe. I consider the 30-70 MPH a much more important performance point. I wonder if the other car makers would even want to match up their Lux SUVs to the German Diesel SUVs from Audi, BMW, MB and VW. I cannot think of a Japanese SUV I would consider in the same league. It is only wishful thinking. One article that rated the MDX very high over the RX said it was sluggish until it got into the higher RPMs. Not my idea of a great engine.

ateixeira

I don't think the two vehicles are comparable at all.

Sure the VW has torque but it's for towing and hauling. The MDX is geared to move fast, and it literally runs circles around the VW, there is absolutely no comparison. The Acura would blow the doors off the VW, straight or curvy road, no contest. That means something, maybe not to you, but heck yes it means something.

The VW performs but in a very, very different way.

74% better fuel mileage

Bogus and biased. You compared best to worst.

Why do you feel the need to cheat like that?

ateixeira

17 MPG combined compared to 30 MPG combined

Sample size of 1, vs. a sample size of 2, and that's significant?

Not to mention the best was cherry-picked for the diesel and the worst also (purely coincidence) for Acura as well.

CR got 18mpg in the MDX and 24mpg in the TDI, same cycle. EPA says 18 to 22mpg.

That's already a bigger sample size.

ateixeira

The drivers posting on the EPA show between 28-32 MPG combined

2 drivers! TWO! Ever take a statistics class? What's a meaningful sample to you? 2 ain't enough...

For the best year, also. Newer model year was lower.

ruking1

In at least two parameters, I would agree. I would use neither for towing or hauling. The Touareg would move just as fast. The fuel mileage would be far better (I project) @ similar speeds. Circles around the VW? Ah,... no especially at altitude !!

I know that the real world might be frightening to you, especially if you never had time in the V6 turbo diesel. So I can see why it would be harder for your to project. So from that point of view, I can see why you would think cheating is the culprit. I'd say that ignorance is bliss. Bliss on !!

Indeed if I had to further project, I would probably post better numbers.

lemmer

I've tried to post replies to a lot of the wild exaggerations about diesel mileage, longevity, performance, etc. here, but it gets me nowhere with the diesel fans.

If diesels are equal or better in every area than a gasoline engine, why don't they sell?

lemmer

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not ignorant. I've owned a diesel and had several others in my household. While their MPG is admirable, the exaggerations posted and repeated here are just silly.

ruking1

I don't know personally if what was posted on www.fueleconomy.gov were exaggerations or not. For that matter what was posted about the MDX and TDI might be both bogus and silly.

ruking1

I am actually glad they don't. Not to scratch a blackboard by saying this again. I am really ok with folks paying more per mile driven fuel than a like model diesel. Evidently so are they !!

Indeed I wish the TDI's were around 18 years ago when I bought (gasser) SUV's that got 15 mpg. One of those has over 200,000 miles. If I got 30 mpg, I would have used app 6,667 gals of fuel vs 13,333 gals or an app savings of 6666 gals. Yes, one can deny all one wants that not using 6,666 gals more is NOT a savings.

ateixeira

The numbers don't lie...

TEST DATA
Acceleration to mph
0-30 2.4 sec
0-40 3.7
0-50 5.2
0-60 6.8
0-70 9.1
0-80 11.4
0-90 14.9
0-100 19.2
Passing, 45-65 mph 3.5
Quarter mile 15.3 sec @ 91.1 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph 120 ft
Lateral acceleration 0.85 g (avg)
MT figure eight 26.7 sec @ 0.66 g (avg)
Top-gear revs @ 60 mph 1750 rpm

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1004_2010_acura_mdx_test/viewall.html#i- xzz1mIDY7vU9

TDI 0-60 is 7.7 seconds, 1/4 at 15.9@85.3mph, braking 123ft, lat g 0.87, MT figure eight 27.3s @.65g.

So the TDI only takes the lateral grip number, probably good tire choice, but gets beat everywhere else.

MPG?

22.3mpg for the TDI.

qbrozen

Only half a sec down on the figure 8. I'd have to call that pretty impressive for a diesel.

Considering that and the fact it catches up a hair in the quarter mile compared to the 0-60, I'd have to guess that midrange punch is better.

lemmer

If someone posted the results of an Edmunds or R&T or some other big name long term test, they'd have a leg to stand on. If someone relied upon the EPA estimates, they'd have a leg to stand on. If someone posted the combined results of thousands of users, they'd have a leg to stand on.

But just posting anecdotal evidence of one or two anonymous people is almost worthless.

ateixeira

Circles around the VW?

Yes, and I mean literally.

Figure 8 is 26.7 vs. 27.3 seconds. That's night and day, 0.6 seconds per loop.

By the 23rd loop it would have run exactly one circle around the TDI.

The stop watch doesn't lie!

ateixeira

I've tried to post replies to a lot of the wild exaggerations about diesel mileage, longevity, performance, etc. here, but it gets me nowhere with the diesel fans.

The public doesn't think the same way, they know better.

The average Joe is not going to get over 30mpg in a 5062 lb SUV, no matter what engine you put it in.

ateixeira

I don't know personally if what was posted on www.fueleconomy.gov were exaggerations or not

It's not even that, the best numbers were cherry picked.

That's cheating.

Oh, and naturally the worst numbers for Acura were also cherry picked.

Yeah, that's fair...LOL.

ateixeira

Look at trap speed - 91.1 to 85.3 mpg.

The MDX is pulling away and fast. The diesel totally runs out of steam.

ruking1

So what what you are saying is posting on both are worthless? Even as tests for both are already logged? So in effect what you are saying is nobody has anything to base anything on?