There's really no hard data to back that up for small gas vs. small diesel engines, and given that the vast majority of Americans don't keep a car past 10 years, the longevity of the engine past that 10 year point is kind of irrelevant IMO.
If anything, if automakers were certain that their diesel engines were outliving the rest of the car, they'd make the diesel engine less durable. There's really no sense in making one part of a vehicle much stronger than the rest of it--in fact, that would be bad engineering wouldn't it?
By design and probably more importantly, greater pressures, diesels are designed to be more robust. Like anything whether it converts to greater durability has a lot of variables.
Incidently, there have been more than one study indicating that the AVERAGE age of the passenger vehicle fleet is 10.8 years. The other thing is that 100,000 miles are really the miles for the first tune up (major). So by virtue of the fact that 95% of the passenger vehicle fleet are gassers, you have far less data and conversely far MORE to really say. One could say the 177,000 miles on my 9 my old TDI car might be an outlier. PLEASE !!! .... I am not even on my 2nd major tune up !! ?? But then again 4% or 9,000 diesel units is an outlier.
VW has always been a R/R (repair replace) kind of vehicle vs the Japanese model of ignore till broke, etc. I think the ignore till broke is really the code word for here is hoping that you ignore it and it ...DOES break.
For the vast majority it is irrelevant. We do not have a history for the new small engines. I have no doubt that many should last 200,000 which is a big advance over 30 years ago. Which is long enough for the majority of people.
But I can only speak for myself. I've been a big diesel fan for 30 years. I only wish the selection was better here in the U.S.
Again, fuel mileage just isn't high on the priority lists for a lot of folks. To anyone considering a V8, I guarantee the noises it makes are far more important than highway mpg.
Plus, look at the cost of true performance diesels - cheapest one is the 335d and it's not even that quick, and it costs $44 grand.
Some of the ones we crave and mention often in this thread are $70k plus.
[i]Chevrolet MyLink comes along for the ride, and in Europe, buyers get a choice of three gasoline engines and two diesels. But here in the U.S. we get nothing. Chevy has no plans to bring the Cruze Wagon to the States [/i]
WHY???? I do not get it? This is exactly what I wanted when we bought our Jetta TDI wagon.
Well I think that has always been both obvious and the case, and for a long long time. It is kind of hard for a guy to buy a F150 and pines that he is not getting much more than 15-19 mpg. I think you agree with me (some posts ago) that most are not ready for better mpg. (50 mpg is a good ball park. ) The passenger vehicle fleet purchases also bear this out (mpg wise). They are also willing to pay much more per mile driven. I have said many times that I have nothing against anyone that choses to, to pay more (than I do for example). I just want the choice to pay less. Evidently there are forces that want to cut that choice off.
If you use the BMW 335 IS (gassers) are no bargain @42,400.+. EPA is 17/24 vs 335D of 23/36 that is 35%/to 50% better mpg. As you know BMW will not offer a diesel for 2012.
You and I will have to agree to disagree on how important the Zero to 60 metric is. Evidently it is very important to you.
So to me keeping a TDI for a target of 500,000 miles makes all the sense in the world. Time and mileage will tell. @ 177,000 miles it is the literal babe.
Ah, but your TDI is well within the statistical range for longevity of a gasoline car, 175K to 225K. So you aren't an outlier, even by gasser standards...not yet anyway.
But unless the REST of a TDI is built as robustly as the engine, I myself don't see how the longevity argument applies in the real world. :confuse:
Thanks for noticing that I have said that. But you must give me a break in that I am not even to the next major tune up, which I have also said. So the minimum of 500,000 miles is only the 5th major tune up.
The second set of tires look to be able to go another 120,000 miles or 232,000 miles on the clock. (I really should cut back on really pushing this thing., the first set only went 112,300 miles) I also project the brake pads and rotors to hit a min of 250,000 miles. So like you, I am not sure of the actual longevity. :lemon:
It's all about averages---and besides, you have to factor in collision damage, etc interrupting longevity.
My point is that these arguments are not sales tools, since such mileages and lengths of ownership do not apply to 99.9% of the population. Do you really think the average American is going to drive 12,000 miles a year for 41 years to reach the 500K mark?
Indeed it is. So of the 9,000 units made in 2003, I would predict a normalized degradation schedule in the factors you mentioned, etc. and etc..
Well for me they are NOT sales tools. I hardly consider myself .001percent of the population. I am probably just as amazed as some of those reading these posts. So do I think 12,000 miles for 41 years driving? No. BUT, ... if you do drive 41 years and happen to keep the same car, you will probably save GOOBS of monies !!!
You did make me wax nostalgic for my first (gasser) VW 1970 VW bought used in 1971 with app 10,000 miles, as I pulled up on a 1968 VW Beetle yesterday. This would be 2 years older or 44 years old. I was amazed by no stink. The body was cherry, but who knows how much "botox" or plastic surgery. But the truth is: I didn't have a conversation with the owner.
Do you really think the average American is going to drive 12,000 miles a year for 41 years to reach the 500K mark?
Not very likely. I did run across a guy here that is selling his 2003 Jeep GC with V6 and 270k miles. It looked brand new. Still runs good. His complaint not quite enough power. He had already ordered a new one with V8 that actually gets 1 MPG better mileage on the highway. I got to thinking he could have waited another year and gotten close to 50% better highway mileage with the new diesel. His round trip to work every day is 120 miles. I cannot imagine driving that many miles to work.
In my research I learned the GC and Mercedes ML share the same chassis. I am hoping the US version GC also gets the MB engine transmission instead of the Italian VM diesel and 5 speed auto. Fiat claims the GC in the EU sells 90% as diesel. In Europe the GC diesel is rated 7.21L/100km. About 33 MPG US.
Indeed that shared MB chassis, the CDI and robust transmission and the Dodge Sprinter (MB drivetrain) might be a series of examples of the benefits of the MB/Chysler scenario and the subsequent bankruptcy.
Yes I actually get the issue of 250,000 miles + from experiences from other folks like the guy you know putting 270,000 miles on a 2003 Jeep GC. and a few of my own, with 250,000 miles. The first time I clocked 250,000 miles on a car, my father almost literally had a fit and shook he head saying I should have sold the pile of junk at least 150,000 miles earlier. It made him even angrier when I told him with gas at .29 cents and me getting 30-34 mpg, I could go literally anywhere for pennies. He never got mad at me much during his lifetime, but somehow that set him off. I guess to him it was a "safety" issue". This was my see everywhere in the USA phase and the parts I liked, more than once. Not bad for less than $2, 500 in gas. So IF a GASSER can do it, a diesel should be a no brainer and probably get better fuel mileage. I do have to say I have been so OVER 3,000 to 5,000 miles OCI's and do like the 30,000 miles OCI's
People all say they are "going to drive their car until the wheels fall off." That is the expression around here anyway. But it rarely happens.
People just get bored. I am replacing my Lexus with 228K miles on it because I just want something different. It could fail any day. But I don't have the patience to find out. And even if something major like a transmission died, a junkyard tranny would keep it going for quite a while.
I would say boredom is a pretty common motivator. But I think putting 228,000 miles on a car, albeit gasser shows that more modern cars are built with certain reliability and durability factors. Lexus over the years has demonstrated that it does both and very very well.
Since this is a diesel thread, once one gets the kinks out or doesn't get a "Friday" car, VW Jetta TDI's are also reliable and durable. Now one can say I and/or mine is an outlier, but the experience so far tracks with two previously owned (gasser) VW's. Now there was a lot NOT to like about the (1970) VW Beetle, but clocking app 250,000 miles on it was not one of them. Actually buying the 2003 (in 2003 new) was actually a leap of faith after determining the major issues talked about in CR, etc was mainly due to having the gasser engines.
The reliability and durability issues are being anecdotally tested on various issues: tires, alignment, brake pads, rotors, springs, struts, shocks, oil change intervals, air filter intervals, oil filter intervals, fuel filter intervals. All seem to be reliable and durable way beyond oem recommendations.
We have the same dilemma with my wife's 23 year old LS400. It has under 105K miles and still runs decent. Can't read the radio display but other than that all seems fine. Always garaged so the paint and leather are still nice. I was tired of it from the get go. But it is nice to have an extra low cost vehicle when family visit. At the current miles per year it will be 50 years old before it reaches 225K miles.
I personally would get neither. As for the 335D, I actually loved it. It is a fantastic touring car. 425 # ft of torque is definitely super car muscle.
It really made almost no sense for the commute miles, we would put on it. We already have a back up machine. (yes the zero to 4 second machine does commute)
All my friends who commute in BMW's say 30,000 is max what they can get out of a set of tires. That is a minimum of $1,000 every 2 years.
In 9 m/y's, I think I have spend $350. for tires on a VW TDI for the second set of tires. The first set (oem) had a retail price of 272. I would project 6 sets @ 1,000 ea on the BMW vs 622.
you can keep any car you wish on the road for 500,000 miles or 1 million. It's up to you and your checkbook.
When you see a car with some impressive mileage, it is not necessarily a testament to the car itself, but also the owner's diligence and to some extent his willingness to put money in the car. That's the part they leave out when bragging about high miles. It's not like those 300K miles were "free".
Yeah, this one too. Apparently, though, we don't constitute a large enough market segment. I think that part of the problem is this:
Many folks who purchase practical, versatile vehicle types like wagons do so for that very reason - they want efficiency and economy. Part of that equation is cost of ownership and longevity. When you have a large segment of a market that doesn't replace cars every three-to-five years, the total sales per model year tend to be lower than an similarly sized market segment that replaces cars more often.
From what I see locally, people who buy new sedans, trucks, and/or large SUVs, replace them more often than those who buy other types. In fact, a couple of co-workers who used to replace their large SUVs every three-to-four years bought small SUVs last time (in early 2008), and they still own those vehicles. I'm still waiting to see new ones in the lot, but nothing yet. :confuse:
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Absolutely. It is true about the care and what monies it will cost. However if you do put on THE (whatever) mileage, everyone has different needs wants and desires. Some want to spend more, some less, some don't even care. There are real costs to ignoring car, "riding them hard and putting them away wet".
So using .5 to 1 M you can buy one to two cars and keep em up or buy 10 cars, even more. I leave it to ones discretion to spend more, less, don't care.
I'm hoping it can top the MPG of the Cruze Eco, otherwise, given the price differential, it might be an uphill battle for this car.
On the other hand, if the American public starts seeing a proliferation of light diesel cars under the Chevy banner, that could change their attitudes about diesel cars.
What do you all think? My two cents is that this is very type of product needed to boost diesel car sales in the US.
Bingo, an affordable diesel from a domestic brand, no less. There are folks that won't buy an import. This would open the doors to a much bigger audience.
Been there for many years already. I say welcome to the club, the sun and water and umbrella drinks have been great !! Just filled the 09 Jetta TDI for 42.5 mpg. All I did was keep it under 90 mph.
On a more serious note, (the last two sentence of para 1 are actual) if Chevrolet mates it to seriously durable and reliable components, (rest of car) I do not see why it will not be a hit. Probably not related to Chevrolet, but VW has already paved the TDI way. If they cheap it out (like they do the Corvettes) then a price discount (under VW) will help it sell. I think most folks understand cost constraints.
It will of course be compared to the VW in its manifestations. As most folks know the CDI 2.0 is probably aimed at the TDI engine 1.9T to 2.0.
The links leave out some critical unknowns. I would only caution about the AUTOMATIC. My take is it will be a real trick for a slush box automatic to out perform a DSG (VW uses the this). There is a percentage of enthusiasts that have serious issues with the DSG, as it is not exactly like a slush box automatic despite how most want it to be. I am also sure that Chevrolet will charge a premium for its automatic (how many speed ?) option. The 6 speed DSG option is $1,100.
Further down the competitive tree are the DSG's, dry lube and up to 7 speeds.
It is pretty straightforward about the 6 speed manual for the 42 mpg. This would be my choice. However I realize it would probably not be the first choice for most of the Cruze's demographic.
Well Chevy might cheap out the Corvette, but that car kicks butt for the $$$---if the Cruze diesel had comparable dominance in its price class as the Vette does, then who cares if a few parts fall off in your hand?
In 11 years I have never been unhappy with mine. There are some folks that may not have liked the look of a hardtop. I can't say anything has ever fallen off either.
They mostly cheaped out on the interior--not so much fall off, as wear out. Seats wear, plastic groans and squeaks, body leaks, that sort of thing. I think they're great cars.
Normally yes, I want that torque and range. But with the commute as part of the mix any of the 3 series cost of ownership is still too high. For our discussion that is 2 gassers, 1 normally aspirated and the other a turbo and one twin turbo diesel.
After 11 years, I think I want to replace two of the rear trunk struts. Funny, the VW TDI Jetta's rear trunk struts are getting less robust also. The common thing is that Sach's makes both models' rear trunk struts ??????
But consider this---a C6 Vette and my MINI S get the SAME highway gas mileage!!
So is that a good thing or a bad thing and/or which way?
The ( C-5) Z06 does not get as good mileage as the other Corvette models, in part due to the 10% lower gearing for that giddy up and went. Needless to say, I do use that giddy up and went. So getting 26 mpg is really not a feat. I have seen many posts where a large minority of other than Z06 drivers routinely can get up to 32 mpg. Of course they are the first to say @ 65 mph on the freeway. Geepers, I could do a Chevy Chase at that speed or read War and Peace, Try neither in the real world.
Well you got me there. If I use it to go out, I will park it by itself (no I am not the take 2.75 to 4 spaces type) or in the worst case do the valet routine. The weirdest valet parking I have ever undergone was covered and underground parking in the LA Public Library (downtown)
I fueled today USLD $4.37 corner store price. PUG= $4.49, RUG $4.29
I recalculated and got 42.33333 mpg. I think I posted earlier 42.5. I stand corrected. :shades: (I must have gone faster than the speed I said)
You can afford to dump a $107k in a car, you should be able to afford a backup. I would not be without one. Do you know how much stimulus Fisker got to build those cars in Finland? How much of our tax money is going to Finland for those cars?
With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work.
Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the job of assembling the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car has been outsourced to Finland.
An international law firm, which gave substantial political donations to President Obama and fellow Democrats over the last three campaign cycles, received its own significant stimulus award to advise on a controversial Department of Energy loan transaction with a struggling electric vehicle manufacturer.
It will be very interesting to hear what CR will have to say about USED electrical cars, like the Volt, Tesla, Fisker. The only ones to have even have a modicum of success has been more mainstream oems like the Prius, Civic. Even they do not even DARE to put the electrical as primary motivator and gas engine back up. If one can consider the Prius successful, even its proponents have gone ballistic on them with the brouhaha about the short falls of 2004 Prius fuel mileage. Prius has actually taken almost several decades and at least several redesigns to even come to the upcoming 2012 variant.
It is amazing that nobody has really delineated that a minimum plug in range of 250 miles and whatever range gas or diesel would be a good shorter term goal. By shorter term, I mean 20-35 years. The Fisker was not even designed to run independently if one or the other motivators broke down. That is a glaring oversight or just plain design stupidity, especially in light of a 107,000 price tag.
The other thing that is hidden in plain sight is even if all these designs were flawless they are actually designed to cost way more to own and to operate per mile driven. To me from the git go that is a deal breaker. But in these times of coded words and concepts, here is one that reflects the truth. Why pay 12,000 dollars (for a commute car) when you can pay 25,000 ???
No politics, please. This will result in your Host having to delete a lot of postings for "off-topic" violations.
cars cars cars cars
Speaking of which -- sometimes devices have to go from 'bleeding edge' to 'leading edge', and very often we'll see that the smaller company that pioneers a product eventually fails while larger companies take up the technology and improve it (e.g. NSU rotary vs. Mazda).
I was unaware that the discussion of costs and trends were "political". This was the reason why I didn't talk about politics. But it is interesting that 250,000 in R/D per Fisker Unit makes it a good candidate for a tow truck. In any case, diesels are still looking real good, despite governments' efforts to limit the passenger car diesels volume and percentage.
BMW's base engine is also more efficient than before, too. That could hurt their diesel sales, since gas is cheaper, and that model is much cheaper than the 335d.
I really do not see how. There is no diesel offering for 2012. If they are going to cancel it for 2012, that is not a good indicator for bringing it back starting 2013. While I think it is utterly amazing that their BMW 335 D gets 36 mpg and has 425# ft of torque, and superior in almost every way except pricing and a little slower in the zero to 60 metric, even BMW enthusiasts have demonstrated they are unwilling to spring for it.
Comments
I'm not even the target audience, but I can appreciate a classic.
Fuel costs are a tiny portion of the TCO of a vehicle, and the V8 buyer hardly cares. At 32mpg he simply does not care at all.
If anything, if automakers were certain that their diesel engines were outliving the rest of the car, they'd make the diesel engine less durable. There's really no sense in making one part of a vehicle much stronger than the rest of it--in fact, that would be bad engineering wouldn't it?
Incidently, there have been more than one study indicating that the AVERAGE age of the passenger vehicle fleet is 10.8 years. The other thing is that 100,000 miles are really the miles for the first tune up (major). So by virtue of the fact that 95% of the passenger vehicle fleet are gassers, you have far less data and conversely far MORE to really say. One could say the 177,000 miles on my 9 my old TDI car might be an outlier. PLEASE !!! .... I am not even on my 2nd major tune up !! ?? But then again 4% or 9,000 diesel units is an outlier.
VW has always been a R/R (repair replace) kind of vehicle vs the Japanese model of ignore till broke, etc. I think the ignore till broke is really the code word for here is hoping that you ignore it and it ...DOES break.
But I can only speak for myself. I've been a big diesel fan for 30 years. I only wish the selection was better here in the U.S.
P.S. Yes I have a VW TDI now.
Plus, look at the cost of true performance diesels - cheapest one is the 335d and it's not even that quick, and it costs $44 grand.
Some of the ones we crave and mention often in this thread are $70k plus.
Economy becomes an oxymoron.
WHY???? I do not get it? This is exactly what I wanted when we bought our Jetta TDI wagon.
We get the Volt that nobody wants.
If you use the BMW 335 IS (gassers) are no bargain @42,400.+. EPA is 17/24 vs 335D of 23/36 that is 35%/to 50% better mpg. As you know BMW will not offer a diesel for 2012.
You and I will have to agree to disagree on how important the Zero to 60 metric is. Evidently it is very important to you.
So to me keeping a TDI for a target of 500,000 miles makes all the sense in the world. Time and mileage will tell. @ 177,000 miles it is the literal babe.
But unless the REST of a TDI is built as robustly as the engine, I myself don't see how the longevity argument applies in the real world. :confuse:
The second set of tires look to be able to go another 120,000 miles or 232,000 miles on the clock. (I really should cut back on really pushing this thing., the first set only went 112,300 miles) I also project the brake pads and rotors to hit a min of 250,000 miles. So like you, I am not sure of the actual longevity. :lemon:
My point is that these arguments are not sales tools, since such mileages and lengths of ownership do not apply to 99.9% of the population. Do you really think the average American is going to drive 12,000 miles a year for 41 years to reach the 500K mark?
Well for me they are NOT sales tools. I hardly consider myself .001percent of the population. I am probably just as amazed as some of those reading these posts. So do I think 12,000 miles for 41 years driving? No. BUT, ... if you do drive 41 years and happen to keep the same car, you will probably save GOOBS of monies !!!
You did make me wax nostalgic for my first (gasser) VW 1970 VW bought used in 1971 with app 10,000 miles, as I pulled up on a 1968 VW Beetle yesterday. This would be 2 years older or 44 years old. I was amazed by no stink. The body was cherry, but who knows how much "botox" or plastic surgery. But the truth is: I didn't have a conversation with the owner.
Not very likely. I did run across a guy here that is selling his 2003 Jeep GC with V6 and 270k miles. It looked brand new. Still runs good. His complaint not quite enough power. He had already ordered a new one with V8 that actually gets 1 MPG better mileage on the highway. I got to thinking he could have waited another year and gotten close to 50% better highway mileage with the new diesel. His round trip to work every day is 120 miles. I cannot imagine driving that many miles to work.
In my research I learned the GC and Mercedes ML share the same chassis. I am hoping the US version GC also gets the MB engine transmission instead of the Italian VM diesel and 5 speed auto. Fiat claims the GC in the EU sells 90% as diesel. In Europe the GC diesel is rated 7.21L/100km. About 33 MPG US.
No wonder we use so much gas in this country.
People just get bored. I am replacing my Lexus with 228K miles on it because I just want something different. It could fail any day. But I don't have the patience to find out. And even if something major like a transmission died, a junkyard tranny would keep it going for quite a while.
Since this is a diesel thread, once one gets the kinks out or doesn't get a "Friday" car, VW Jetta TDI's are also reliable and durable. Now one can say I and/or mine is an outlier, but the experience so far tracks with two previously owned (gasser) VW's. Now there was a lot NOT to like about the (1970) VW Beetle, but clocking app 250,000 miles on it was not one of them. Actually buying the 2003 (in 2003 new) was actually a leap of faith after determining the major issues talked about in CR, etc was mainly due to having the gasser engines.
The reliability and durability issues are being anecdotally tested on various issues: tires, alignment, brake pads, rotors, springs, struts, shocks, oil change intervals, air filter intervals, oil filter intervals, fuel filter intervals. All seem to be reliable and durable way beyond oem recommendations.
But the performance of the 328i is identical - C&D 0-60 were an exact match. And just now the 328i gasser got a stronger powertrain.
Can't really compare up, the 335's performance is in a different league.
If 0-60 is not important to the customer then they would get the 328i, not the 335i.
It really made almost no sense for the commute miles, we would put on it. We already have a back up machine. (yes the zero to 4 second machine does commute)
All my friends who commute in BMW's say 30,000 is max what they can get out of a set of tires. That is a minimum of $1,000 every 2 years.
In 9 m/y's, I think I have spend $350. for tires on a VW TDI for the second set of tires. The first set (oem) had a retail price of 272. I would project 6 sets @ 1,000 ea on the BMW vs 622.
When you see a car with some impressive mileage, it is not necessarily a testament to the car itself, but also the owner's diligence and to some extent his willingness to put money in the car. That's the part they leave out when bragging about high miles. It's not like those 300K miles were "free".
Many folks who purchase practical, versatile vehicle types like wagons do so for that very reason - they want efficiency and economy. Part of that equation is cost of ownership and longevity. When you have a large segment of a market that doesn't replace cars every three-to-five years, the total sales per model year tend to be lower than an similarly sized market segment that replaces cars more often.
From what I see locally, people who buy new sedans, trucks, and/or large SUVs, replace them more often than those who buy other types. In fact, a couple of co-workers who used to replace their large SUVs every three-to-four years bought small SUVs last time (in early 2008), and they still own those vehicles. I'm still waiting to see new ones in the lot, but nothing yet. :confuse:
So using .5 to 1 M you can buy one to two cars and keep em up or buy 10 cars, even more. I leave it to ones discretion to spend more, less, don't care.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/02/more-chevy-cruze-diesel-details-emerg- - e.html
I'm hoping it can top the MPG of the Cruze Eco, otherwise, given the price differential, it might be an uphill battle for this car.
On the other hand, if the American public starts seeing a proliferation of light diesel cars under the Chevy banner, that could change their attitudes about diesel cars.
What do you all think? My two cents is that this is very type of product needed to boost diesel car sales in the US.
You have to want the torque and range. You can't justify it from a fuel economy perspective when it's not economical to own.
On a more serious note, (the last two sentence of para 1 are actual) if Chevrolet mates it to seriously durable and reliable components, (rest of car) I do not see why it will not be a hit. Probably not related to Chevrolet, but VW has already paved the TDI way. If they cheap it out (like they do the Corvettes) then a price discount (under VW) will help it sell. I think most folks understand cost constraints.
It will of course be compared to the VW in its manifestations. As most folks know the CDI 2.0 is probably aimed at the TDI engine 1.9T to 2.0.
The links leave out some critical unknowns. I would only caution about the AUTOMATIC. My take is it will be a real trick for a slush box automatic to out perform a DSG (VW uses the this). There is a percentage of enthusiasts that have serious issues with the DSG, as it is not exactly like a slush box automatic despite how most want it to be. I am also sure that Chevrolet will charge a premium for its automatic (how many speed ?) option. The 6 speed DSG option is $1,100.
Further down the competitive tree are the DSG's, dry lube and up to 7 speeds.
It is pretty straightforward about the 6 speed manual for the 42 mpg. This would be my choice. However I realize it would probably not be the first choice for most of the Cruze's demographic.
http://www.c6registry.com/Hot_News/archive/january2010.htm
Nobody besides us enthusiasts (and owners) probably even know about that, to be fair.
Normally yes, I want that torque and range. But with the commute as part of the mix any of the 3 series cost of ownership is still too high. For our discussion that is 2 gassers, 1 normally aspirated and the other a turbo and one twin turbo diesel.
Not that my MINI is any better BTW. It's just that for $50K, you expect more.
But consider this---a C6 Vette and my MINI S get the SAME highway gas mileage!!
Actually if I had a TDI and a used C5 and an old pickup truck, I'd be a happy guy.
So is that a good thing or a bad thing and/or which way?
The ( C-5) Z06 does not get as good mileage as the other Corvette models, in part due to the 10% lower gearing for that giddy up and went. Needless to say, I do use that giddy up and went. So getting 26 mpg is really not a feat. I have seen many posts where a large minority of other than Z06 drivers routinely can get up to 32 mpg. Of course they are the first to say @ 65 mph on the freeway. Geepers, I could do a Chevy Chase at that speed or read War and Peace, Try neither in the real world.
Premium fuel is $4.65/gallon today and diesel is $4.59. Ouch.
I fueled today USLD $4.37 corner store price. PUG= $4.49, RUG $4.29
I recalculated and got 42.33333 mpg. I think I posted earlier 42.5. I stand corrected. :shades: (I must have gone faster than the speed I said)
CR winds up testing a ...tow truck?
With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work.
Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the job of assembling the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car has been outsourced to Finland.
An international law firm, which gave substantial political donations to President Obama and fellow Democrats over the last three campaign cycles, received its own significant stimulus award to advise on a controversial Department of Energy loan transaction with a struggling electric vehicle manufacturer.
http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/02/28/obama-supporting-law-firm-advised-failed-fisk- er-loan
It is amazing that nobody has really delineated that a minimum plug in range of 250 miles and whatever range gas or diesel would be a good shorter term goal. By shorter term, I mean 20-35 years. The Fisker was not even designed to run independently if one or the other motivators broke down. That is a glaring oversight or just plain design stupidity, especially in light of a 107,000 price tag.
The other thing that is hidden in plain sight is even if all these designs were flawless they are actually designed to cost way more to own and to operate per mile driven. To me from the git go that is a deal breaker. But in these times of coded words and concepts, here is one that reflects the truth. Why pay 12,000 dollars (for a commute car) when you can pay 25,000 ???
cars cars cars cars
Speaking of which -- sometimes devices have to go from 'bleeding edge' to 'leading edge', and very often we'll see that the smaller company that pioneers a product eventually fails while larger companies take up the technology and improve it (e.g. NSU rotary vs. Mazda).
Actually I think both gassers are turbo now.
BMW's base engine is also more efficient than before, too. That could hurt their diesel sales, since gas is cheaper, and that model is much cheaper than the 335d.
I see that mistake about 3 times per week, no kidding!
Not making a political statement, just speaking of credits for diesel competitors.
The new gasser 328i is $35k and gets 34mpg.
That's about a tie on highway fuel cost since gas is cheaper than diesel.
The diesel advantage is gone (except torque and range).