{irony} That explains the millions of lemons and consistently bad reliability, durability, and quality ratings the Camry has had for decades from several sources like CR, JD Power, etc.
Where's the roll eyes icon?
Diesels can succeed without a bias against Japanese cars and outlier data (that VW pickup being the latest).
The bias in only in your eyes, not mine. You are projecting your own biases. They just decided to give me the Friday Toyota Camry. Was that one a statistical anomaly ? No, there were a lot others that had the same issues. Toyota NEVER has published the exact number nor percentage. I am sure they know EXACTLY. Again like I said, if Toyota just paid for the repairs, I would have had no issues. I have Toyota's right now as we speak, one is pushing 205,000 miles another is pushing 125,000 miles and on 20,000 miles OCI's and eat off the camshafts surfaces clean. They are I6's. The I6's, which design wise are as old as the hills are not sludge a matics.
Every major source flies in the face of what you're saying, and most of those are American companies. Those cars helped establish reliable brands and loyal consumers have returned for more and more, with market share still growing long after the sludge issue was put to bed.
One bad apple does not ruin the batch. As you say, your Friday build, or whatever you want to call it.
JD Powers comes out and says that Brand X is the least problematic brand in their Durability survey, with 85 problems per 100 cars.
Nobody said 0 problems per 100 cars. Of course not.
Just because yours has more than average does not mean they all do. There are cars with fewer problems than average to balance it out. You point our your I6 Toyotas have been durable. Again - JDP measures the average.
You overestimate how important your personal experience is (hence, you're an outlier, same with the mileage reports).
If you were unlucky with your Toyota, imagine if you had been unlucky with a Volkswagon from the same era. You would have had 5 times as many problems with a Friday VW build.
No different than warranty work. I should not be surprised you ignore that also. Indeed that is where it should be covered. So EVERY (new) car is covered by warranty. So I take it you by your own definitions YOU are just as corrupt? :shades: So I take it you want me to join your club?
Good idea. Whether it was a design problem or an oil change frequency problem or a bit of both, Toyota didn't handle it well.
Won't stop me from shopping a Prii though. But a Toyota (or VW or ...) diesel isn't on my radar. I do appreciate that they are getting cleaner; should be less worry about their fumes being an asthma trigger from some people.
Rebuilt engine, respray on the paint, wonder what's underneath. He details problems with the brakes, A/C, radio, parking brake cable, heater, ball joints, tie rods, and admits other issues are likely to exist.
The owner obviously restored it and replaced just about everything that broke, but nearly nothing on it is original, except the partially rusted (that too) body.
145k miles but it's on the 2nd engine. Found an '85 Camry on cars.com with 165k miles on it.
Don't normally get 47.2 mpg average (95 miles) on a 2009 Jetta TDI. When I first hit the computer it was more like 48.5 mpg. Well, I had to remedy that some what. The CHP was out in force this morning. I guess the mpg picks up (normal app 42) when one keeps it under 85 mph. :shades: :lemon:
Funny RUG was 4.15 per gal and ULSD was 4.25 or +.10 cents per gal more.
My point was people want a diesel engine. You are not likely to find anyone spending money to rebuild a 30 year old Toyota or Rabbit gasser. There are companies now putting diesel running gear into Toyota, Jeep whatever you like. And they are legal in CA. In an older vehicle probably cheaper than buying new and a lot better MPG when done.
Yes, there are actually two shops near here that do EXACTLY that. I guess at some point, I will probably want/need to pay them a visit. I hope they can last, when this one clicks 500,000 miles. :shades: But then I have a way to go with 9 years doing 176,000 miles.
They also do the biodiesel retrofitting and retrofitting for veggie oil. I have no interest in either.
Due to my "glowing reports" of the 1985 Camry AND YOUR unwavering faith that ALL Toyota's are fault free, are you hoping the 1985 Toyota Camry becomes a classic car ????.... so you can drop a turbo diesel engine in it? You probably would not take MY advice but...., DON'T !
If I had a vehicle that suffered from a poor design or engineering/manufacturing flaw, of course I would be happy that it was repaired under some type of warranty service that costs me nothing.
I would still be hesitant about making another purchase of a similar make/model vehicle without having some level of confidence the issue had been addressed and corrected so that the particular problem wouldn't resurface.
The attitude that "it broke, they fixed it", without implementing any effort to keep the incident from reoccurring seems a bit short-sighted to me.
Indeed that steered me clear of some very popular Toyota models and for a lot of model years that used " sludge a matic" engines. That is after being "exposed to the secret". Many other folks went through a lot of hassles, pointless costs, and frustrations. All any one needs to do is google, to get the real flavor. I already had had quite the taste, to take a chance so that MIGHT happen again.
In most cases, the dealerships that had to deny warranty claims were the very same entities that did the very short interval oil changes. (Toyota blamed owners for the issues) They also got the repair work normally when owners literally got screwed. Or shall I say their warranty claims denied.
YOUR unwavering faith that ALL Toyota's are fault free
You don't even read my posts...
I just gave the example of 85 problems per 100 vehicles, 85 problems means 85 problems. Not fault free, I never said or even implied that, don't be silly.
There are a few cult diesel fans dumb enough to sink $5 grand in to a teeny pickup, and both of them are probably friends of yours.
Your example has absolutely NO bearing on the GASSER sludge issue. It evidently did not prevent sludge issues, in my case and many other cases, which was sued for and won in class action suits. I was not a part of those class action suits. As if you needed me to say all that. You are being silly.
If you think that, then you are wrong, as per normal. For a guy that is on a diesel thread, you sure want to talk a lot about NON diesels.
I would agree with you, however. Why would one want to spend 5,000 and probably years to restore a car worth $5,000 ???? That in effect was what I was faced with with the 1985 Toyota Camry when it went sludge minus the years and less monies on the worth of the vehicle. Senseless.
So perhaps, the hosts should set the course back to diesels.
You slammed your gasser. You brought that up, not me.
The topic is durability, and while yes, some diesels are known for durability, it seems completely unfair to criticize gassers that were hugely successful and built entire brands.
Oh yes, like the 1985 Toyota Camry was. Or the 1978 Honda Accord was. The nexus here was reliability and durability as initially rated by CR. As Shiftright noted, at least one, the 1978 Honda Accord was rated (later) as one of the worst.
As I have noted, I have an I6 Toyota pushing over 200,000 + miles. Again you are making it out to say that : I am saying is grossly unfair about gassers (not durable) Your assumption and targets are WRONG.
It is grossly weird in your mind, not mine or my current realities. I am hoping for easily 300,000 miles. Are any of those miles an indication that I am saying gassers are NOT durable??
Agreed. Honda and Toyota make incredibly reliable cars, pretty much always have (with a dud here and there mixed in). No reason to belabor the that point.
I think the car is mostly an oddball curiosity. A cult VW fan is the target buyer.
There are a LOT of VW fans. Old Bugs, vans, and Rabbit diesels have cult like following. My neighbor has a VW Van body sitting on his flatbed trailer. Looks like it was just painted. I think it is fair to say the old VW Bug has a much larger following than anything Toyota EVER built. Some automakers build classics. Some throwaway cars. Thinking back the only Toy/Lex I would consider a classic was the early Lexus SC300/400. Now that was a car for the ages. Oh yeah, the first FJ40s when it is completely rebuilt with a domestic running gear.
My only real strategy to keep the 9 year old 2003 VW Jetta is just to run it as close to daily as possible, keep it clean and fix things when they break. If I keep my current yearly mileage up, we are talking 18/19 years old and 350,000 miles plus, a literal babe. If car prices keep going up the price of inflation (4%) like it has been, then in 9 years that way cheaper car will be 34,200 at a min.
After he has squandered BILLIONS on bankrupt solar projects he is going to invest how much into what should be a top priority????
The Department of Energy (DOE) currently spends about $85 million on 30 research projects "to develop algal biofuels," according to the White House, which announced that Obama is committing another $14 million to the idea.
Of course he does not mention the full on assault against diesel vehicles by the liberal swine in CARB and the EPA.
President Obama admitted today that he does not have a "silver bullet" solution for skyrocketing gas prices, but he proposed alternative energy sources such as "a plant-like substance, algae" as a way of cutting dependence on oil by 17 percent.
Here is what our supposedly educated President had to say about Algae, what a moron.
"We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance, algae -- you've got a bunch of algae out here," Obama said at the University of Miami today.
What is another utterly moronic thing is there is no passenger diesel engine that are specified to run on 100% bio diesel.
So I say task the oems (like VW) to come up with a 100% bio diesel specification engine and let the regulators certify it, not do EVERYTHING in their power to shoot it down. People should also keep in mind that bio diesel has ZERO ppm sulfur. Given ZERO ppm sulfur RUG to PUG @ 30 ppm mitigatable to 90 ppm sulfur is MASSIVELY dirtier. So for example VW certifies their engines (2009 that I am familiar with) to run 5% bio diesel. Anything higher VOIDS the warranty.
I think you ascribe far too much mythical power to the office of President. He is more like the wizard of oz and less like Merlin.
"The president proposes, congress disposes".
Regarding all this talk of ancient diesels and old Toyotas, I think it just goes to prove my contention that bitter memories die hard in the minds of car buyers, and this is why anyone of driver's age in the 1980s who witnessed the fiasco of the GM diesel vehicles--they will all have to die before diesel passenger cars are a serious percentage of the US market, because that entire population bulge is never going to buy a diesel car IMO. (or most of them won't).
it's no fun being scalded on a purchase that represents a good chunk of (or ALL of) a year's income. People don't forget that kind of beating.
I was around in the 1980s and remember GMs lame attempt to catch up on diesel technology. I don't think you can deny the popularity of the HD PU diesel market. 99% of those I see are not towing a trailer. They are picking up a small load of whatever. They could just as easily do it in a Tacoma, Ranger or F150 PU. But they want the better mileage Diesel offers. I cannot say I ever thought of a diesel vehicle until 1998. When I visited in camp with two guys from Brazil the light went on. They were driving a Ford Ranger Crew with a diesel engine. They averaged 45 MPG from the tip of So America. I wanted one in the worst way. I came to Edmund's where no one had ever heard of them. Mostly guys ranting about the awful SUVs. I have never given up hope that those in control would get their heads out of you know where and allow US to have a PU truck that would get 45 MPG. I could care less about 0-60, that is for magazine writers and idiots in general. I wanted simple transportation that got better than my 12 MPG Suburban. 14 years later I am driving an SUV that gets about 14 MPG. Real progress in the land of the free.
There is indeed a disconnect. I would dare say that more people (percentage and volume) have bought more bad gassers (percentage and volume) than they have bad diesels. Keep in mind that in the earlier time frame cited, the percentages of gasser to diesel was not too unlike what it is today: 95 to 98% gasser and 5 to 2% diesels.
So, IF your theory is correct, THEN many more folks (percentage and volume) should have a bad taste and NOT buy gassers. In fact it SHOULD lead to pent up demand FOR diesels. I am sure you would agree that BOTH scenarios (not buy gassers and pent up demand for diesels because of those experiences) are NOT the case.
I think you ascribe far too much mythical power to the office of President. He is more like the wizard of oz and less like Merlin.
"The president proposes, congress disposes".
Not exactly. He has been the one that pushed $billions in wind & solar energy projects through the Energy department. What I found clueless was his total lack of knowledge on the subject he was babbling about. Biodiesel from Algae has not gotten any real support as an alternative. In fact the Feds have done everything in their power to keep the American public from owning diesel vehicles. Completely blocking small diesel PU trucks and SUVs. So now that the price of gas goes up and he is totally befuddled, he pulls algal bio diesel out of the hat. And plans to award $14 million for research. Not having a clue about the process, says there is algae everywhere. And he says it in front of what I would hope was learned people at a University. He probably does not even know that ethanol that we have wasted $billions on causes a very bad algae killing off thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico. My guess the $14 million will go to a campaign contributor, we shall see.
Actually, Pacific biodiesel has gotten approval to run B100 in Mercedes, VW and Domestic PU trucks. Many are running it without specific approval. The catch being if you have an engine problem it could be difficult to prove it was not bad biodiesel. And it seems that VW has blamed failures on American ULSD as well. My favorite Kettle brand potato chip company has a fleet of VW Beetles running on refined cooking oil, using the Pacific Biodiesel system. Green Star Products which I bought stock in about 10 years ago sells biodiesel as well as various lubricants made from renewable sources. They are just one of thousands of companies that moved out of CA to less restrictive Utah. Hopefully they make it big one day. :shades:
Yes that was the whole point for my post. 100% biodiesel is already a "viable"product. However VW will void the warranty if over 5% biodiesel is run. I do know that there are folks that run 100% some with or without modification. My call is to the law and regulators to actually allow and certify TDI's that can run the 100% biodiesel specification, albeit warranty and all.
Well, people DID react to bad gasoline-engines the same way they reacted to bad diesel cars in the 1980s---they simply stopped buying domestic cars every now and then when they got disgusted. I don't quite know why most automotive historians don't interpret the woes of the Big Three in the 1980s ( steady, steady loss of market share despite occasional decent sales years) as the result of the largest, most successful consumer boycott in US industrial history.
RE: the "pushing" of solar tech, etc. ALL governments assist companies with going from the development stage to the marketing stage--the 'commercialization' stage. All this flap about failed products that the government put money into is just political hay-making. Everyone espouses the capitalist system of buying and selling stocks, with all the attendant risks, but when the governments of a country make the same gambles, sometimes hitting home runs and sometimes failing, there's some opportunist wishing to frame it as a political rather than a purely economic issue. And besides, the President of the US has no such powers to "spend" anything or dictate anything. he submits a budget to congress or works under existing laws.
The office of President could be completely done away with in the USA with no effect whatsoever on the economy. (presuming it wasn't a coup, I mean ) :P
You can't have it both ways, whether we're talking solar energy or diesel engines....the market determines the winners and losers. If a certain solar technology, or a type of diesel vehicle, cannot survive in the open market, then it wasn't good enough.
You might say: "but what of modern diesels?" Aren't they good enough?
Apparently good, but not good enough to conquer the efficient gasoline engine, no.
What's you need to get a 20% diesel car market share in the USA is, quite bluntly:
A diesel car that gets 40+ mpg, costs not one penny more than the gasoline equivalent, and burns fuel that costs not one penny more than RUG.
Ditto for diesel trucks.
The diesel can't even be the SAME as the gasoline car in MSRP, mpg and cost of fuel. It has to be a little better, or why switch to what you are used to?
Well that is the whole thing, there was no switch (to speak of) from RUG/PUG. My first car was a 70 VW Beetle and to be sure it caused a flap in my family as my father was a WW2 VET. Also that era sacrificed and supported that war also. Now there is precious little sacrifice/support and care for what veterans had both go through and endure. But on the other hand I know that is part of the policy and design to further insulate the population from the true real costs of freedom. Sadly it is also designed to remove some to all rights.
MPG then (in my case) was an issue and guess what? 42 years later it still is !! I got something like 32-34 mpg while the majority of cars go what 10-15? Again 42-45 years later it is about the same !!!!!!! ???? So pardon me if i find what you are saying SOS DD.
Just let those 50-75 mpg diesel cars leak in and let the welfare folks like GM Chysler and Ford peddle what they must. 15-20 mpg hey CLOSE ENOUGH.
I don't know how much war of the past 60 years to do actually relates to our freedom, but that's something for another forum. I wonder what your father would done had you erred and bought a cruddy British or French car - both from places who received more postwar help than the old enemy and have histories every bit as bloody.
Hyunkia, the Japanese, and the Euros are also welfare recipients in one way or another. All of our competitors aid their industries too. The big 2.5 should use such help to develop their own 50-75mpg diesels.
It seems some Americans want our industrial corporations to live under the ideal of an untouched and unaided world - even when whose who are coddled are allowed unrestricted access to our consumer base. Seems kind of self-destructive.
I also can do the math and I am just fine with folks that want to pay 60-66% more per mile driven using RUG/PUG instead of diesel, aka like model to like model. Evidently the powers that be don't really like the ones who opt to pay less and or use diesels.
The other thing that tells me the issue is false is the continued restriction of diesel cars. It isn't like they are not available or custom, Fully half the passenger diesel population in Europe is diesel. In almost every case (that I anecdotally know of) the diesel version is usually the better adaptation (like model) over the gasser.
But that's not real world math seems to me, unless I am missing something really big here. If a person drives a 35 mpg MINI and uses regular gas, vs. a person who drives a VW TDI and gets 44 mpg using diesel fuel, my math says that here in California the MINI driver's cost is barely 10% more. And the TDI driver's diesel car costs more and it's neither as cute nor as well built.
12,000 miles at 35 mpg = 342 gallons at $3.99 per gallon = $1364
12,000 miles at 44 mpg = 272 gallons at $4.39 per gallon = $1197
12,000 miles at .10 cents per mile = roughly $1200
12,000 miles at . 11.5 cents per mile = $1380
I assure you my point is not to prove you wrong about all this, as YRMV, but only to point out that the incentive to own a diesel is not great at this time for most people, given the other choices available to them.
Seems to me that diesels carry more advantage in large trucks and SUVs than they do in little cars.
In the context of like for like models, you are switching to highest market available mpg. I think even you will acknowledge it is limited for a series of very good reasons (not many for consumers).
Again the same thing, if you like MINI's for example, a MINI TDI would be both better adapted and get a min of 30% better fuel mileage. In that case, I would take a MINI TDI over a gasser MINI.
Any one can look this up on www.fueleconomy.gov. 2003 VWJetta TDI, but the Jetta TDI gets much better than 30% fuel mileage over both gassers 2.0 normally aspirated and 1.8 T.
So for another example, if given the choice between my Honda Civic 38-42 mpg, which I am not unhappy with, and like model TDI, no question or hesitation Civic TDI. I know (project actually) I can easily get 52-56 mpg given the same commute. That is easily 37%-33% better fuel mileage. The gasser is also 34% more expensive per mile driven.
@ the risk of being repetitive, I am just fine with others paying much more per mile driven. Just mandate the diesel option and choice to those of us who like a better adaptive vehicle and are ok with spending LESS. The sole issue here is not to limit say YOUR choice, but to enhance the alternative fuels, like diesels or even natural gas, which is far cheaper than even diesel.
As you would agree there is a lot of oppositon under the guise of lack of interest or motivation.
Comments
Probably a SoCal car that never saw rain or snow.
Not to mention it was the 3.0l V6, not a 4 banger, that he mentioned.
Where's the roll eyes icon?
Diesels can succeed without a bias against Japanese cars and outlier data (that VW pickup being the latest).
One bad apple does not ruin the batch. As you say, your Friday build, or whatever you want to call it.
JD Powers comes out and says that Brand X is the least problematic brand in their Durability survey, with 85 problems per 100 cars.
Nobody said 0 problems per 100 cars. Of course not.
Just because yours has more than average does not mean they all do. There are cars with fewer problems than average to balance it out. You point our your I6 Toyotas have been durable. Again - JDP measures the average.
You overestimate how important your personal experience is (hence, you're an outlier, same with the mileage reports).
If you were unlucky with your Toyota, imagine if you had been unlucky with a Volkswagon from the same era. You would have had 5 times as many problems with a Friday VW build.
So if they paid you off, you'd be fine? LOL
One bribe and all is forgiven... :lemon:
We really should move on with the diesels.
So after 176,000 miles (9 my's)and 32,000 miles (3 my's) we are happy with both.
Still wish the 2009 VW Jetta TDI posts more like the 2003 Jetta TDI, mpg wise.
I am going to take the Groucho Marx on that one.
Good idea. Whether it was a design problem or an oil change frequency problem or a bit of both, Toyota didn't handle it well.
Won't stop me from shopping a Prii though. But a Toyota (or VW or ...) diesel isn't on my radar. I do appreciate that they are getting cleaner; should be less worry about their fumes being an asthma trigger from some people.
Meanwhile, literally hundreds of thousands of Camry buyers keep coming back and buying more of them.
Rebuilt engine, respray on the paint, wonder what's underneath. He details problems with the brakes, A/C, radio, parking brake cable, heater, ball joints, tie rods, and admits other issues are likely to exist.
The owner obviously restored it and replaced just about everything that broke, but nearly nothing on it is original, except the partially rusted (that too) body.
145k miles but it's on the 2nd engine. Found an '85 Camry on cars.com with 165k miles on it.
Funny RUG was 4.15 per gal and ULSD was 4.25 or +.10 cents per gal more.
http://dieseltoys.com/conversions/toyota
They also do the biodiesel retrofitting and retrofitting for veggie oil. I have no interest in either.
If I had a vehicle that suffered from a poor design or engineering/manufacturing flaw, of course I would be happy that it was repaired under some type of warranty service that costs me nothing.
I would still be hesitant about making another purchase of a similar make/model vehicle without having some level of confidence the issue had been addressed and corrected so that the particular problem wouldn't resurface.
The attitude that "it broke, they fixed it", without implementing any effort to keep the incident from reoccurring seems a bit short-sighted to me.
In most cases, the dealerships that had to deny warranty claims were the very same entities that did the very short interval oil changes. (Toyota blamed owners for the issues) They also got the repair work normally when owners literally got screwed. Or shall I say their warranty claims denied.
Is it because of the engine, though?
The guy says he spent $5000 on parts and the current bid is $5500. Plus he spent years restoring it.
Best way to make a small fortune in cars is to start with a large fortune. :sick:
You don't even read my posts...
I just gave the example of 85 problems per 100 vehicles, 85 problems means 85 problems. Not fault free, I never said or even implied that, don't be silly.
There are a few cult diesel fans dumb enough to sink $5 grand in to a teeny pickup, and both of them are probably friends of yours.
I see 3 scenarios:
#1: no problem in the first place. Best-case scenario.
#2: had a problem, covered by warranty, a hassle but at least no out of pocket cost.
#3: had a problem, warranty denied for whatever reason, become disgruntled and flame away on-line.
If you think that, then you are wrong, as per normal. For a guy that is on a diesel thread, you sure want to talk a lot about NON diesels.
I would agree with you, however. Why would one want to spend 5,000 and probably years to restore a car worth $5,000 ???? That in effect was what I was faced with with the 1985 Toyota Camry when it went sludge minus the years and less monies on the worth of the vehicle. Senseless.
So perhaps, the hosts should set the course back to diesels.
The topic is durability, and while yes, some diesels are known for durability, it seems completely unfair to criticize gassers that were hugely successful and built entire brands.
Why? Because they were durable, too.
As I have noted, I have an I6 Toyota pushing over 200,000 + miles. Again you are making it out to say that : I am saying is grossly unfair about gassers (not durable) Your assumption and targets are WRONG.
It is grossly weird in your mind, not mine or my current realities. I am hoping for easily 300,000 miles. Are any of those miles an indication that I am saying gassers are NOT durable??
Glad the mountaining out of a mole hilling is subsiding.
There are a LOT of VW fans. Old Bugs, vans, and Rabbit diesels have cult like following. My neighbor has a VW Van body sitting on his flatbed trailer. Looks like it was just painted. I think it is fair to say the old VW Bug has a much larger following than anything Toyota EVER built. Some automakers build classics. Some throwaway cars. Thinking back the only Toy/Lex I would consider a classic was the early Lexus SC300/400. Now that was a car for the ages. Oh yeah, the first FJ40s when it is completely rebuilt with a domestic running gear.
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/cto/2861137955.html
After he has squandered BILLIONS on bankrupt solar projects he is going to invest how much into what should be a top priority????
The Department of Energy (DOE) currently spends about $85 million on 30 research projects "to develop algal biofuels," according to the White House, which announced that Obama is committing another $14 million to the idea.
Of course he does not mention the full on assault against diesel vehicles by the liberal swine in CARB and the EPA.
President Obama admitted today that he does not have a "silver bullet" solution for skyrocketing gas prices, but he proposed alternative energy sources such as "a plant-like substance, algae" as a way of cutting dependence on oil by 17 percent.
Here is what our supposedly educated President had to say about Algae, what a moron.
"We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance, algae -- you've got a bunch of algae out here," Obama said at the University of Miami today.
UNBELIEVABLE :sick:
So I say task the oems (like VW) to come up with a 100% bio diesel specification engine and let the regulators certify it, not do EVERYTHING in their power to shoot it down. People should also keep in mind that bio diesel has ZERO ppm sulfur. Given ZERO ppm sulfur RUG to PUG @ 30 ppm mitigatable to 90 ppm sulfur is MASSIVELY dirtier. So for example VW certifies their engines (2009 that I am familiar with) to run 5% bio diesel. Anything higher VOIDS the warranty.
"The president proposes, congress disposes".
Regarding all this talk of ancient diesels and old Toyotas, I think it just goes to prove my contention that bitter memories die hard in the minds of car buyers, and this is why anyone of driver's age in the 1980s who witnessed the fiasco of the GM diesel vehicles--they will all have to die before diesel passenger cars are a serious percentage of the US market, because that entire population bulge is never going to buy a diesel car IMO. (or most of them won't).
it's no fun being scalded on a purchase that represents a good chunk of (or ALL of) a year's income. People don't forget that kind of beating.
So, IF your theory is correct, THEN many more folks (percentage and volume) should have a bad taste and NOT buy gassers. In fact it SHOULD lead to pent up demand FOR diesels. I am sure you would agree that BOTH scenarios (not buy gassers and pent up demand for diesels because of those experiences) are NOT the case.
This should be revised.
Another utterly moronic issue: there are no passenger diesel engines that are currently specified to run on 100% biodiesel fuel.
"The president proposes, congress disposes".
Not exactly. He has been the one that pushed $billions in wind & solar energy projects through the Energy department. What I found clueless was his total lack of knowledge on the subject he was babbling about. Biodiesel from Algae has not gotten any real support as an alternative. In fact the Feds have done everything in their power to keep the American public from owning diesel vehicles. Completely blocking small diesel PU trucks and SUVs. So now that the price of gas goes up and he is totally befuddled, he pulls algal bio diesel out of the hat. And plans to award $14 million for research. Not having a clue about the process, says there is algae everywhere. And he says it in front of what I would hope was learned people at a University. He probably does not even know that ethanol that we have wasted $billions on causes a very bad algae killing off thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico. My guess the $14 million will go to a campaign contributor, we shall see.
RE: the "pushing" of solar tech, etc. ALL governments assist companies with going from the development stage to the marketing stage--the 'commercialization' stage. All this flap about failed products that the government put money into is just political hay-making. Everyone espouses the capitalist system of buying and selling stocks, with all the attendant risks, but when the governments of a country make the same gambles, sometimes hitting home runs and sometimes failing, there's some opportunist wishing to frame it as a political rather than a purely economic issue. And besides, the President of the US has no such powers to "spend" anything or dictate anything. he submits a budget to congress or works under existing laws.
The office of President could be completely done away with in the USA with no effect whatsoever on the economy. (presuming it wasn't a coup, I mean ) :P
You can't have it both ways, whether we're talking solar energy or diesel engines....the market determines the winners and losers. If a certain solar technology, or a type of diesel vehicle, cannot survive in the open market, then it wasn't good enough.
You might say: "but what of modern diesels?" Aren't they good enough?
Apparently good, but not good enough to conquer the efficient gasoline engine, no.
What's you need to get a 20% diesel car market share in the USA is, quite bluntly:
A diesel car that gets 40+ mpg, costs not one penny more than the gasoline equivalent, and burns fuel that costs not one penny more than RUG.
Ditto for diesel trucks.
The diesel can't even be the SAME as the gasoline car in MSRP, mpg and cost of fuel. It has to be a little better, or why switch to what you are used to?
MPG then (in my case) was an issue and guess what? 42 years later it still is !! I got something like 32-34 mpg while the majority of cars go what 10-15? Again 42-45 years later it is about the same !!!!!!! ???? So pardon me if i find what you are saying SOS DD.
Just let those 50-75 mpg diesel cars leak in and let the welfare folks like GM Chysler and Ford peddle what they must. 15-20 mpg hey CLOSE ENOUGH.
Okay, I'll answer that myself :P There is no conspicuous advantage to driving a diesel car at the present time.
american consumers aren't stupid---they can do the math.
Hyunkia, the Japanese, and the Euros are also welfare recipients in one way or another. All of our competitors aid their industries too. The big 2.5 should use such help to develop their own 50-75mpg diesels.
there is no such thing as a "free market"---that's a fairy tale that never was, and if it DID exist, you'd probably not want to live under it.
Free markets would be very good for a few.
The other thing that tells me the issue is false is the continued restriction of diesel cars. It isn't like they are not available or custom, Fully half the passenger diesel population in Europe is diesel. In almost every case (that I anecdotally know of) the diesel version is usually the better adaptation (like model) over the gasser.
12,000 miles at 35 mpg = 342 gallons at $3.99 per gallon = $1364
12,000 miles at 44 mpg = 272 gallons at $4.39 per gallon = $1197
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12,000 miles at .10 cents per mile = roughly $1200
12,000 miles at . 11.5 cents per mile = $1380
I assure you my point is not to prove you wrong about all this, as YRMV, but only to point out that the incentive to own a diesel is not great at this time for most people, given the other choices available to them.
Seems to me that diesels carry more advantage in large trucks and SUVs than they do in little cars.
Again the same thing, if you like MINI's for example, a MINI TDI would be both better adapted and get a min of 30% better fuel mileage. In that case, I would take a MINI TDI over a gasser MINI.
Any one can look this up on www.fueleconomy.gov. 2003 VWJetta TDI, but the Jetta TDI gets much better than 30% fuel mileage over both gassers 2.0 normally aspirated and 1.8 T.
So for another example, if given the choice between my Honda Civic 38-42 mpg, which I am not unhappy with, and like model TDI, no question or hesitation Civic TDI. I know (project actually) I can easily get 52-56 mpg given the same commute. That is easily 37%-33% better fuel mileage. The gasser is also 34% more expensive per mile driven.
@ the risk of being repetitive, I am just fine with others paying much more per mile driven. Just mandate the diesel option and choice to those of us who like a better adaptive vehicle and are ok with spending LESS. The sole issue here is not to limit say YOUR choice, but to enhance the alternative fuels, like diesels or even natural gas, which is far cheaper than even diesel.
As you would agree there is a lot of oppositon under the guise of lack of interest or motivation.