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 already have one in a Jetta TDI. :P
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.
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.
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..
Welcome to the forum.
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.
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.
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.
It's not a Wrangler, but it's a Jeep....
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.
My only concern? Asking price. You don't want to price it out of reach for that same buyer.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
If diesels are equal or better in every area than a gasoline engine, why don't they sell?
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.
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.
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.
'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
But just posting anecdotal evidence of one or two anonymous people is almost worthless.
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!
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.
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.
The MDX is pulling away and fast. The diesel totally runs out of steam.