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 7/22 for details.
Options

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

1…8384868889…473

Comments

  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    Maybe your speedometer reads too fast. That is a common problem.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    My 50 mpg is only 1 mpg over the rated EPA of 49 highway 03 Jetta TDI.

    What is the deal? You are mountaining a mole hill. Pretty soon you will be saying I am climbing MT Everest. A guy that has a graduate degree in advance statistics should understand what BS that is. But then, a lot of BS IS created by folks with advance degrees.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    Perhaps you can explain why the 1st graph has 3-4 vehicles getting 70 mpg (MPG spread last 365 days), yet there aren't any in the detailed analysis showing 70?

    The highest number I see is 65.42

    Really, that's a poor presentation at best.

    Of course, that doesn't matter to you, because you only see the things that support your claims...
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    The highest number I see is also 65.42

    Interesting in that I never claimed 65.42 mph. let alone 70 mpg+

    You don't like my 50 mpg? Works for me. Ignore it !! I certainly do. I actually wish it was more. Even I know it is not going to happen the way I drive it.

    The first graph I see is not anywhere near 70 mpg as you claim.

    Of course that doesn't matter to you, because you are in the trash mode: i.e., full pissy mode.

    We should really move on.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    As an added note, in the 6th entry below the entry displaying the graphs, note the comment

    "moderate hyper miling"?

    LOL!
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    By the new ratings, it is 35/44. We need to make sure we are comparing apples to apples.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    Then you are blind.

    There is a vertical blue line immediately over the column labeled 70.

    I've never once made any comment on what your mpg has been. I've only commented on the methodology that you use in substantiating your claims.

    I may indeed be full of BS most of the time, but this isn't one of those times.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited July 2011
    .."I may indeed be full of BS most of the time, but this isn't one of those times."...

    Then you are still blind and still full of it :blush:

    So like I said, let's move on.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    I am going by the new car sticker that indeed came with the car.

    I was never sent an upgrade ( to the new car sticker (now old) by the rating/responsible agency. Evidently, they did not think it important either. They have the address to send this important piece of information if they consider it important. The upgrade would indeed BE important as it could/would change the ranges printed in the small print, of which there are a minimum of 4 sets of data.. So I think it is a more a CYA (35C/44 H). I would assume EPA 35C/44 H is what it would do under the new EPA standard/testing procedures. The additional problem is it can not now be verified in a "new car", aka 2003 MY. But that does not change what I have been getting at all.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    Upgrade?

    You can go on the EPA website and see the newer MPG ratings for most any modern car.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    What ever you need or want to call it. Change to the new (now old 2003) car sticker.

    Sure, I know where it can be referenced. I was the one that posted it, indeed several times. www.fueleconomy.gov , you know that same site that you and others have categorically trashed. So now, EPA 35 C/44 H is gospel? :P

    Really how do you know that? Do the real world figures change? Do you disavow the real world data posted before the new EPA standards came out? Do you throw out data like mine? Do you throw out data like the TDI Club link I provided? Do you take as gospel gasser owners perspectives? ;)

    The trend seems to be the doubt comes from folks who have never owned turbo diesels. Really that explains a lot.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    So defacto, it affects a greater number/ volume and percentage of gassers. (gassers are 95% of the passenger vehicle fleet) So because they probably do not go to any lengths to make diesel car speedometers any more/ less accurate than the majority of gasser speedometers/odometers, NNN in effect, cancels each other out. In fact if you check, a diesel-gasser odometer/speedometer is probably exactly the same part number.

    But wait, the calculation I think you are referring to was done with no speedometer. It was done with time, (odometer) miles, gal fill and at separate times and circumstances. 12.1 gals is significant as the low fuel lamp and dinger comes on and one looks for the closest fuel station.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    edited February 2012
    In a word... Yes, I do throw out the data provided, for the reasons I have already given.

    But, you are right ... YOU need to move on...

    I'll admit, you would be the fellow I would want to carpool cross-country with... You could take a car of 4 from LA to NY and it would only cost each rider around $12...

    http://ursfb.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/41185073/Graphs.png

    Look to the far right... See the 70 column?

    Where did the data come from for that vertical bar???
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    What would yours post on the same trip? Nah, you need to pay more and take your gas guzzler to LA. As I have said many times, I am just fine with folks paying more. Chances are, so are you. You would not believe the mpg, even if you posted it.

    As you probably would agree, some folks (app 2/3) were able to post 70 mpg, just as some folks (4/5) posted 31 mpg, so where do you think the (31 mpg) data came from? . App 20 folks posted 50 mpg.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    Well, I have no idea where th 70 mpg came from, but unlike you, I won't ignore it. If the supporting data doesn't match the graph, then there's an obvious error.

    You really seem to have a problem staying on the subject, you know.

    Since you aren't going to concede the obvious errors in the info YOU provided, any further "feeding of the animals" is futile.

    Enjoy your illusion. That's all it is....
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    Right, I suppose you consider 31 mpg listed on the same data graph as hyper miling also. LOL !! Looks more to me like problems interpreting the graph.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    Are you really laughing out loud or are you just taunting busiris? Before we know it, you'll be ROTFLMAO.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    I am not the author so neither do I. But you can climb on the web site and actually ask the author. I am sure he will probably answer your post. I know that in the past they have been very helpful. You probably won't do that as you don't want to admit YOUR biases. You are also ignoring the 31 mpg postings. I have not. In fact I am the one that posted the web site. You locked on to the EXTREME FAR RIGHT of the GRAPH (hmm I wonder what than means) Evidently you have no issues ignoring what doesn't support YOUR biases.

    So illusions? No, I have 2 diesels and its fine if other folks do not buy them or think ill of them.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    Honestly, if I have an interest in MPG in a certain car, I first check the EPA ratings, mainly because that is the easiest way to get a ballpark. Then, I'll look it up in Consumer Reports.

    I am usually done at that point. But after that I might I'll look at something like fuelly and see if they have enough data to make it useful. One guy's experience or fanboy sites - pretty close to zero usefulness and/or credibility to me.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    We've had five diesels in my direct family, two Volvos and three VWs. And I liked them all.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    So what makes you think I haven't done that also? Again the 03 TDI lists EPA 42/49. 50 mpg is only one over the EPA rating. The new EPA which you cite 35/44 was NOT in existence when the car was bought in 2003. You also are mountaining a mole hill.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    I have gassers also and like them too. And???....
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    Well, I guess I was just trying to placate you a little by explaining that I am not anti-diesel. And there isn't a conspiracy against diesels here.

    It is just a friendly discussion. No tin foil hats or wild claims necessary.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    edited February 2012
    He's not bothering me.

    In fact, I enjoy poking at folks that like to claim they understand data interpretation, when it's blatantly clear they don't.

    On a more serious note, I sometimes wonder how many people get turned off by people making such wild claims about thinks like FE, tire mileage, etc.

    Think about it... Subway's Jarred(sp) is a spokesman because Subway has a real-life guy who documented losing a ton of weight by using their product. And, it's a very effective advertisement.

    Now, if I was at VW, and there were credible VW TDI owners out there getting substantially higher FE numbers than those posted by the EPA, and those numbers could indeed be verified as being obtained by normal, everyday drivers, don't you think I would be all over it in a publicity campaign?

    Advertising like that couldn't be any more effective in promoting the model.

    Don't you think Honda would be dragging folks out like that to combat the hybrid lawsuits they are currently "enjoying" if they could find normal, everyday drivers that could document their high FE claims?

    MaybeI'm way off, but I don't think so...
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Indeed my posts were never anti gasser.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    ..."On a more serious note, I sometimes wonder how many people get turned off by people making such wild claims about thinks like FE, tire mileage, etc. "...

    Interesting that 1 mpg above EPA (2% higher) is considered a "wild claim."

    Seriously I think he knows he can't or won't do it on his, so instantly EVERYONE else is making wild claims.

    Tire mileage really is not correlated with diesel engine performance. If anyone should know that, it should be him, with his advanced degree and all.

    Actually VW has done quite the opposite, they made a TV and ad campaign on 2 drivers who set the record for diesel driving across the USA in a 2009 Jetta TDI @( 55-58 mpg?? ). They I am sure have it documented and certified, etc. Now I don't have it documented and certified, BUT I have NEVER gotten 55 to 58 mpg on the 2009 TDI Jetta.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    Is your driving 100% highway? You keep saying that you only get 2% higher than the no longer used EPA number, but you only consider the EPA highway number.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    No it is not. I am not sure why people keep saying 1 mpg or 2% is a wild claim, except to vilify. I guess it is what one considers wild. How would you rather it be expressed?
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    When all else fails start with personal attacks.

    Rave on...
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    edited February 2012
    Well, I only recall seeing 2 ads about 2011 diesels... One, the 2 guys driving and learning Spanish in i think a Passat with the disclaimer stating 43 mpg, and he second one about a kid wanting to drive a Jetta, and the claim on that one I believe was 42 mpg.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    Interesting and telling admission and take when YOU are the one making the "WILD CLAIMS" claim and personal attacks.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Now this post I can believe.

    Now, I can recall NOT seeing the 2 ads you are talking about.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    From everything else I've seen, your number just seems really high. If you mentioned that you use some amount of hypermiling techniques, you do 100% highway driving at 65 MPH or something else like that, it would make sense.

    But your numbers, based on an average person doing average driving in an average TDI, are contradictory to the preponderance of the evidence available.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    Neither.

    I am NOT making NOR have EVER made claims that any average person can/does/is guaranteed to get what I get.

    I only am saying what I have gotten. Does it vary? Absolutely. And I have repeatedly said so. Could I do better? Absolutely! And have repeatedly said so. Could I do worse? Absolutely. And have repeatedly said so. AND with examples. The TDI Club information (monthly only, there are more historical postings) demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt there is VARIANCE. In fact, the only guarantee really: there IS variance.

    What folks are trying to assert is: I am saying there is no variance. Nothing is further from the truth. If there was no variance, I could not get the 44 to 62 mpg.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    Might I suggest YouTube?

    Search for "VW diesel advertisement". That should pop them up for you.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    You can do that for the 2009 Jetta TDI advertisement ( for the 58+ mpg !!) aka your personal attacks and "WILD CLAIMS" claim.

    BUT WAIT !!! It is actually it is wilder than that !!! (67.9 mpg) (aka not Utube)
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    You know, you really should chill a bit.

    This is just a car forum. No one has accused you of telling lies, any crime or other wrongdoing.

    You have only been challenged to produce evidence of your claims... Nothing more.

    Relax!
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    If I was any more relaxed, I'd fall asleep.

    Right. "Wild Claim" Claims. 1 mpg above EPA ratings is a wild claim (+2%). So stop already. You won't !! For some reason, this stuff drives you nuts. I'd say get over it. It's ok already.

    I bet you didn't even goggle the 67.9 mpg 2009 TDI (reset) record. ;) So you could go on even more wid the "wild claims" claims??? If you don't believe 40-47 mpg range (2009 TDI) 67.9 mpg should really set you off. I am neither person that set the 67.9 mpg record. Now I do imagine how much better they could have done in a 2003 TDI. I know they would kick me to the curb in an instant. 50 mpg- chump mpg.
  • 104wb104wb Member Posts: 38
    The Prius gets better highway fuel economy than the Jetta, but not because its powertrain is more efficient. It is because it has a lower roadload. As an engineer, I'm more interested in efficiency; to what degree can the chemical energy in the fuel be made into useful work? To be inefficient is to be waseful, and that's a moral issue for me. How much work I decide to do with my vehicle (its roadload) is more of a practial issue. Data from EPA websites:

    2009 Prius, A-B-C coeff. 19.917-0.13911-0.016365, roadload at 70mph=110lbs. At 52mpg, 33.4% fuel conversion efficiency (energy content of fuel from .gov website).
    2009 Jetta, A-B-C coeff. 33-0.29-0.0171, roadload at 70mph=137lbs. At 46mpg, 33.3% fuel conversion efficiency (energy content of fuel from .gov website).
    2004 Jetta, A-B-C coeff. 23-0.1-0.0194, roadload at 70mph=125lbs. At 50mpg, 33.0% fuel conversion efficiency (energy content of fuel from .gov website).
    My 1998 Cummins turbodiesel 4x4, 7 feet tall, 7 feet wide, 7000 lbs , A-B-C coeff. 49.37-0.1381-0.04017, roadload at 70mph=256lbs. At 22mpg, 29.7% fuel conversion efficiency (energy content of fuel from .gov website).

    All the diesels are about the same in fuel conversion efficiency (makes sense - same combustion characteristics, etc.) My truck's roadload is likely even higher because of my 36" tires, so thet would bump the efficiency up a bit. The Prius is also about the same (impressive considering the gasoline engine). I assume my mpg figures are reasonable (I can vouch for mine). I think 50mpg is quite reasonable for a 2004 jetta.

    By the way, conventional gasoline cars are more like 25% efficient.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    Well, you said you don't do all highway driving so the combined ratings are what are applicable to your claims. The prior EPA combined rating was 45 mpg. They changed it to make it more accurate. It is now 38 mpg. You claim 50 mpg combined. This is 32% better.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    I think you are leaving out the rules and regulations (which most consumers do not see) that gerry rigs diesels with built in seen and unseen disadvantages.

    To wit, during the Clinton administration, 1.5 B was given to the big three to each come up with a prototype and a spare " engines " of the future. NOBODY was told what fuel or what to do, aka clean slate. Interestingly enough, all THREE came up with prototype turbo diesels. (Toyota was fit to be tied as they were not invited to the project) They were all thanked very much and the results of $ 1.5 B of R& D was put away, literally on the shelf. The unofficial (but official) policy reason was the regulatory agencies et al., did not like diesel.

    ..."The Clinton Administration’s fuel efficiency research programs program of the 1990s produced a trio of 80-mpg diesel-hybrids."

    link title

    So easily an 80 mpg diesel hybrid smokes a 50 mpg gasser hybvrid, @ least 60% better.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    Correct and I would have said so if it were ALL highway. You are NOT saying the time/miles before the EPA change does not exist?
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    Would you say that your MPG is 32% higher than the new estimates and 11% higher than the estimates existing when you bought the car?

    It is all semantics, I guess. But when you are saying that you only get 2% better than the EPA estimates, you aren't telling the whole story.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    State some numbers and I would be happy to verify the calculations.

    So for example in light of the (RE) record set in the 2009 TDI with EPA of 29 C and 40 H.

    67.9 mpg (average) is 69.75% better than the highway EPA mpg. I would think it safe to say that most of the driving was highway.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    edited February 2012
    You claim 50 combined. The EPA estimates 38 currently, 45 previously.

    And if you agree with this, I've officially won the internet.
  • busirisbusiris Member Posts: 3,490
    No, I didn't. It's not up to me or anyone else to research your claims.

    That's your job.

    And once again, I have never questioned YOUR mileage, but I have questioned your backup material, especially where there were latent discrepancies.

    And, just for the record, I'm not the only one who finds some of what you say difficult to accept.

    I'm not interested in attempting to prove or disprove someone can get 75 mpg by hyper miling. I've seen instances where people have exceeded 90 in gas powered cars.

    Again, you choose whatever you want to believe. At the end of the day, it matters not. You want to say you get 50+ mpg, then good for you... More fuel for the rest of us to burn.

    I'm not in any measuring contest to see who has the longest one.

    Are you?
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    I checked the original paper work (new car sticker) and it does NOT give a combined rating. Again it does give (bold print EPA 42 mpg C and 49 H, 45.5 would be the mid point. (which is not stated/given). Again there are two sets of small print data (left side) 35 to 49 in the city and between 41-57 on the highway. The other set (right side) is (all compacts) 11-52 city and 16-51 highway.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited February 2012
    No they didn't get 75 mpg. they got 67.9 over 9,500 miles or so. So if you have someone who got 90 mpg in a gasser over 9,500 miles I would say, they are doing something I can learn from. Would I do it,... probably not. Driving diesels the way I do with the economy that comes out is way too fun. I really don't perceive getting 90 mpg from a car that normally gets way less is too much fun to drive. ;)

    Again you can chose what YOU want to believe. And truly like you say, it matters not. I do understand YOU can NOT get 50 mpg in a car that has EPA of 49 mpg. I truly get it.

    Seems you are. This stuff drives you nuts, "Wild Claims" Claims, personal attacks. If it is difficult to accept, that is really your problem. Just move on. I am betting you can't or won't. ;)

    So it is just as easy to not report anything over say 15 mpg. So in line with that, no report. Now move on. ;)
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The season is over and we're officially moving on. Let's give the personal mpg discussion a breather.

    Thanks.

    (if there's a posting gap, we've zapped without notice)
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    I would love to move on after my shame of losing the internetz.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles