Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
They're probably rebooting to get the diesel in the new body style.
+2mpg is not enough, though, given the $9k or so jump in price. Hopefully they're tweaking it for even better than 36mpg highway.
34mpg on the 328i is amazing, though. Diesels biggest competition may end up being small DI turbos.
You might find it amazing, I find that (34 mpg) weak.(for a 2.0 L 255# ft, not that 255# ft is weak). The (old) 09 VW Jetta TDI is rated EPA 29/40 mpg and posts 42.33 mpg. @ 236 # ft. Newer Jettas (2012) are EPA rated @ 42 mpg. So just on the EPA rating (highway,y I presume) that is 17.6% (old) to 23.5% better mpg. A quick look posts app 12k cheaper.
36 mpg for 425# ft of torque is closer to my "amazing. You would think that BMW enthusiasts would know what 425# ft really means. I am sure a lot of the performance heads would un click the 155 mph governator.
You and I will probably agree to disagree, which is fine. There are many other European BMW's that get way better than 34 mpg. Too bad they only allow in the "dumbed" down versions.
That cuts the 2009-2012 VW Jetta TDI 40-42 to shreds.
Why get a Prius at those mpg's?
With good gearing (in other words, in any BMW), HP matters also.
The TDIs you mention offer good economy.
The 328i offers good economy and good performance, too, for less than a diesel in the same car will cost.
One is a turbo 4 cylinder the other is a I 6 twin turbo diesel with 1 L more displacement. If you don't see the comparisons and contrasts here, lets move on. I really can't help you, or add to your preferences.
I would get the 328i if I were aspirational and anti diesel. The 335 D obviously is a much smaller demographic. It is much smaller than even BMW calculated. But I think that was the reason for the 2011 D offering; to gauge the market. I am sure that if one studies and contrasts both the 335D is probably much better built than the 328I.
The Bimmer may produce similar torque but MUCH more HP and performance.
The TDI you mention offers ONLY economy. We can say performance is adequate at best.
The 328i offers economy (34mpg highway) and performance (no comparison).
I frankly would seriously consider the V-8 turbo to twin turbo diesel, if Corvette ever decided to do one. But as you will agree, they have never done one. The issue also might be akin to cursing in church.
Any how, DI and turbo tech are helping gas cars produce lots of torque and improve mileage at the same time. That 328i makes 255 lb-ft at just 1250rpm, and keeps revving up to 5000rpm to reach it's 240HP peak, so torque doesn't drop off for a lot of revs.
A friend of mine used to talk all the time about "area under the torque curve". In other words, peak torque is fine, but what you really want is a plateau that is high but also WIDE, that way you get good torque for a lot of RPMs, and when you shift you don't fall outside the sweet spot and suffer turbo lag.
The Bimmer peaks at 1250rpm but does not drop off until after 5000rpm. So you have a lot of useful, accessible torque.
I'm off to search for torque curves....should be interesting/educational to compare them. :shades:
If you can't see the image above here's the URL:
http://www.kilometermagazine.com/artman2/uploads/1/n20-horsepower-curve.jpg
It makes more torque than the old 6 cylinder did all the way up to 6000rpm or so. The plateau starts at 1250rpm and doesn't start dropping until 5000, and even then it doesn't drop off quickly. So you can shift at 4000, 5000, even 6000rpm and you're getting good torque all the way. The RPMs will never drop below 1250, too.
From the 'tex, here's the (euro spec) VW 1.9 TDI:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y173/iieey/19tdicurve.jpg
And here's the 2.0 TDI:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y173/iieey/20tdicurve.jpg
They're not as flat as you might think. The plateau is actually pretty narrow. With the 1.9 you're good from about 1500 to 2500 rpm.
The 2.0 is a little better, you have from roughly 1500 to about 3000rpm, so it breathes a little better.
But with either of those diesels, by 4000rpm they're getting wheezy and beyong 4k they're out of breath.
So good peak torque, but no broad torque curve for either diesel.
BMW sells that 320d for not much of any premium over a gasser, probably reason #1 we won't get it! Reason #2 is that it'll still need the urea system, I'm guessing.
That would help in CA.
If I had to do 55/65 mpg, I'd be pulling easily 50/55 mpg in the 09 TDI and more like 60-65 mpg in the 03 TDI.
Being fair to Ahnold. He was up against an entrenched legislature of anti business and for me the worst thing was ANTI DIESEL Eco nuts. That worthless bunch of hacks at CARB making rules to keep diesel cars out of CA. Then they find out their top guy is a fraud and a LIAR. How many billions of gallons of fuel have been wasted the last 20 years on gas engines wasting our precious resources?
Give me a diesel SUV and I will shut up.
there's actually no shortage of fuel in the US right now. Our largest export is gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
In some rational country, like say Germany, (or at least a country where they can agree on something) a multi-energy approach with a longterm, long-time view of things will probably work out the best. "We'll have 20% of THIS, and 10% of THAT, and 40% of THIS gradually decreasing in 2020 to 25%, and we'll put X dollars into developing THIS by 2035 and Y dollars into subsidizing THAT".
The truth is since noncompliance with that policy is a felony and since it is federal you can be threaten with federal time, i.e. (lovely in Leavenworth KS, this time of year). This stuff is conducted in absolutely utter seriousness.
So the interesting thing about Germany is the bureaucratic fixed costs are even higher per gal than here. Truth is it should be cheap to do this.
I think that goes unnoticed is the fact that speculation can bring down the prices just as much as it is blamed for driving UP the prices. In fact, shorting is probably as democratic as going long, even as shorting is demonized/vilified.
Another is there is never any talk of scaling back taxation. Indeed the governments levying taxation as an aggregate make more monies, volume and percentage from a gal of gas than the oil companies that bring it to markets.
Now this might be misused as being an oil apologist position. It is not. It is obvious the companies make literally millions to billions. But the facts remain GOVERNMENTS make FAR much more than the oil companies and at literally no cost.
So the latest policy du jour is really no secret. Secretary Steven Chu, Ph'D has on any number of occasions and as a matter of policy (4 to 8 years, if re-elected, or if the policy is continued) has said fuel prices in the US should be as higher (if not higher) than Europe's which is currently 8/9 dollars US per gal. We should be also doing EVERYTHING we can to get there FASTER (higher prices). Now depending on how one looks at it he is either 3 to 6 dollars behind, so hup a huppa or 2 to 3 dollars ahead of the BHO administrations goals. The small details is that the population is experiencing hardships at 4/5 dollar per gal gas, from his inagural starting point of 1.75 to 1.80 per gal. So naturally, they need to blame that hurt on the usual cast of suspects - good fall guys/scape goats, while all the while pushing or putting in place the conditions which drive the prices inevitably higher.
Now the US being WAY beyond the middle east of natural gas, really throws a monkey wrench into the whole "perverted" equation.
Right now the mathematics are .75 cents per gal (equivalent natural gas to RUG PUG @) EPA 27/38 mpg and $4.00 RUG/PUG @ anywhere between EPA 28-36 mpg. (both EPA's are Honda Civics, NG/RUG.
The math indicates a SEVERE difference, in favor of natural gas.
Natural gas .00277-.0197 cents per mile driven
as compared to
RUG .14.3-.111 cents per mile driven.
So in terms of per mile driven, RUG costs app 563% more !!!!!
Now diesel gives "gas" to RUG/PUG ! ?
So do you think the price equalization process will be the key to using natural gas as a clean fuel alternative fuel for passenger vehicles? My money is on YES !!! That of course is BEARISH for the American consumer. :lemon:
The concept that speculation can drive down gas prices sounds suspiciously like 1980s voodoo economics with some lipstick on it. :P
Maybe Americans need to stop yearning for impossibilities regarding gas prices and instead start to make the necessary life changes and consumption chagnes to deal with what we call 'reality' at the moment?
Gas prices are not going down, not ever. We all know this deep down. They may drop a little, herea and there, but they will relentlessly go up and up.
So why not prepare now?
So get that diesel car if you can, drive smarter and go greener in every way possible.
The future will belong to the country that uses existing resources in new and efficient ways. New fortunes will be made by anyone who figures out how to shepherd resources in imaginative new ways.
small case in point: Some company is marketing a drip irrigation system for your home that receives signals on weather conditions and adjusts the water supply daily accordingly. Not expensive, supposedly saves up to 20% water usage in gardens. Multiply by X million gardens--that's a lot of water.
My system has a rain-sensor monitor on it that allows me to adjust the need for irrigation based upon recent rainfall amounts. Once set, it's automatic until I adjust it again.
The cost of this option? Less than $20, installed in less than 5 minutes. And, these are widely available at Home Depot, etc.
Yet, how many times have you seen systems churning out water in the middle of a rainstorm?
Because water is cheap in so many areas, most feel it's easier to use the water than being more efficient. Now, if the user was actually paying the TRUE cost of water, he would be a lot more motivated to use it more efficiently.
The same goes with fuel. Our transportation systems would be completely different if we actually paid the true cost of the impacts created.
I often laugh at those who complain about AMTRAK losing $$$$, yet at the same time ignoring all the hidden cost imbedded in airline travel.
The only diesel I use is in my little Kubota tractor. Very handy moving top soil, mulch, firewood etc. About 5 gallons a year.
The policies actually began to be executed more recently with the Indian "pacification and reservation concentrations". The practical side of this was to make it safer for emigration of "the early settlers. " It is called many other things but that but i think one gets the concept,so as one can tell not SO recent).
So in fact it takes way more energies to build, maintain, and as you are saying to "bulk up" urban areas, than it does to maintain life in more rural/remote areas. Again a very interesting concept, used in an entirely different context is MOST telling and indicative but is almost totally ignored in energy use terms. Once can see those modern cities at night captured in sparkling space satellite digital images, while North Korean cities aee virtually DARK.
So no unless we are willing to live like North Korean cities, we are using far more energies, living in urban area's. So for example the LA metropolitan area vs the capital of North Korea, who do you think uses WAY more energy?
It costs more to live in cities, but you make more---and if you can go anywhere in the city for $2 bucks, the savings of not having a car, or renting one now and then, or sharing one, or buying a motorbike---these are significant.
And of course, electric cars or say small Smart cars running on diesel---these work a LOT better in cities than they do on freeways.
If you want me to address the world, I can do that also. But I will not in this reply post.
If that were true, they (cities) would have legalized golf carts and golf cart size vehicles LONG long long ago. Pretty disingenuous when the Vespa is the motorized metaphor for city travel, being emissions control and noise abatement are very minimal !!??
So for example, Vespa as modernized metaphor has been true (for me anyway) app 46 years.
That closeness is what causes all the problems. Crime is much more profitable where you have more people to rob.
Actually cities are appealing to people I think as they offer transit hubs and cultural vitality.
However, it's not all clear cut migration. There's an "in and out" migration going on here, with younger people heading for the cities inner cores and older folks going to smaller urban hubs.
You can be living in a city of 50,000 and still be considered "urbanized".
My point was that the trend to small cars is not only about MPG.
When I think of horrible cities, I think of DC, Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami. Never had the desire to go to NYC.
I'm talking speed limits. Around here that's what we see most of the time.
I just normally ask the locals (who what why where and how) the real ones are. Or, where do the Jackie Gleason's like to chill out.
Note that the populated areas have the lower speed limits. Here in MD it's 65.
My point was we don't have limit-less autobahns here, so cars aren't geared for true high speed cruising, I'm talking 100+ or more.
Those tall highway gears could also be making euro MPG numbers higher when it comes to a government test (which won't approach those speeds).
the old "What if they are all doing it" is no consolation---they'll just pick one or two out of the speeding pack--catch as many as they can.
And if you did 100 mph in CA, you'd be on a chain gang.
So with a 65 state limit, you do 77 or more and you're pretty much guaranteed at least a speeding cam ticket.
On the news the other day I hear they were adding 13 more cameras, makes you wonder how many they have in all....
Increasingly that is so in places that actually have autobahns. Indeed the real suggested limits are 80 mph (expressed in km of course).
I have really not seem much C/C data. It is more like you have to look for needles in haystacks to find them AND compare them yourself.
So for example, 03 TDI Jetta:
1. European has 6 speed manual vs 5 speed US
2. 100/110 hp/ 177# ft vs 90/155# ft
3. bigger injectors
4. 2 more mpg.