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

Mr_Shiftright

True but we'd be dealing with other major state-owned oil companies. I believe Canada, our largest supplier, is mostly state-owned, as is Mexico and Venezuela. How that all pans out I have no idea. I think the idea behind nationalization is to control the nation's resources, not necessarily to make gas cheap at home.

gagrice

I am not convinced that we do not get more revenue from oil than we would if it was Nationalized. The state and federal wellhead tax on US produced oil is significant. Someone still has to produce the oil and get it refined and to market. I think the Feds are bogged down with over bloated bureaucracy as it is. We have Federal agencies watching every aspect of the process. I know I put the phones in for a lot of them that sat on their can for their whole tour of duty. All making 6 figure civil service pay. They were there JUST IN CASE they were needed to make a decision. The same Federal bunch that screwed up the BP deep water project.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0617/BP-oil-spill-MMS-shortcomings-in- clude-dearth-of-regulations

Mr_Shiftright

yeah I'd agree with that--I'm not convinced either...but at least we'd get to keep more of it perhaps. Right now, as we speak, our diesel fuel is being sold to the highest bidder---as much as they want, as often as they want, and to people who are not exactly nice to us.

As for the Feds watching...they obviously aren't watching anything well enough. Watching is GOOD, watching badly is BAD.

gagrice

Our Federal agencies are filled with losers. You name an agency and you will find multiple levels of wasted management. I saw it first hand with NOAA, MMS, FAA and the EPA in the Oilfields of the Arctic. All up there to make the big bucks and Per diem. The environmentalist with grants were the most corrupt. I spent time visiting with a lot of them over the years. They were generally college students and got their housing paid. No salary, while some fat cat College professor was getting $100s of 1000s from a Federal grant to study everything from tundra grass to whale watching. The college kids enjoyed the work and the great food we got in camp. But It really gave me a bad taste for our University professors. Then seeing the obscene salaries CA pays them while we are headed into bankruptcy just really drives me crazy. Rant over.

Mr_Shiftright

Yep, that was a rant allright! :P

Nothing is worse than lack of regulation, nothing.

ruking1

In a very real sense coming up with diesel engines are not rocket science. Really there are only about 3 real products:

1. 2.0 L 4 cylinder
2. 3.0 L 6 cylinder
3. 8 cylinder

Also there are only a handful of turbo oems. One that comes to mind is Garrett (Honeywell)

Mr_Shiftright

I could see a 3 cylinder turbo diesel in a tiny metro car.

As for V-8 diesels, those are for towing or heavy hauling, so IMO not relevant to passenger cars -- might be relevant to say a 3-seat huge SUV used for airport hauling, etc.

ruking1

We have been talking about it !! VW Polo VW Polo

app 74 mpg

The fuel guzzler (4 cylinder) gets app 58 mpg

Mr_Shiftright

I'll believe it when I see it. I'm a fan of rigorous, scientific repeatable testing for any MPG claims. Seems like optimum for Euro version of this car on flat ground with cruise control could be around 54 mpg.

But math is math and real world is real world, so we'll see how she does in the USA when/if it gets here.

If I had friends actually getting 54 mpg, I'd be tempted to pull the trigger. That would save me about $1000 bucks a year in fuel.

But right now, the real world VW TDI mileage of my friends' various cars is not worth switching from my gasser MINI Cooper S.

Their best MPG is about 44, and my friend's BMW 335d is averaging about 28.

ruking1

You and (anyone for that matter) can beat any car and get less than optimum fuel mileage. In that sense NOTHING will ever be scientific but the rigorous beatings any car can receive. Again same thing math is math here right? So in that sense not many cars get over 15 mpg. In that sense get anything you want. So it would be a simple thing to beat your car to death and get far less mpg than even you!? Then of course, it gets back to the same issues. what are the points here?

texases

Your friend's 28 mpg in that 335d (the diesel 'hot rod') makes me wish they'd bring over the 320d. Without a sunroof I'd give it serious consideration. Like that'll happen...

Mr_Shiftright

Quite the contrary...in scientific testing you measure out a quantity of fuel, then disconnect the car's usual fuel supply, then run the car with the externally mounted fuel supply at 55 mph down the highway until the car stops. Then you have actual MPG. Repeat 10-20 times, average them out, and that's "real world".

If I queried 100 people who owned car X and 99 of them got Y MPG and 1 got Z mpg, what MPG are you likely to get (by a long shot).

Exactly.

I'm not spending $25000 based on anecdotes. I want published and sound data.

ruking1

In that sense why would you even care what either the "scientific" experiment gets or even any of the 100 gets, as the only one that really matters is...you? The new car sticker really indicates the science and ranges have already been done.

Mr_Shiftright

Exactly. I have more faith in the sticker than my neighbor---that's true.

ruking1

So actually in that sense almost all my cars get the mpg in the stated "EPA/range", albeit normally higher. Again it is not rocket science to do for either TDI or gasser. All you need do is to understand the dynamics of the engine and transmission combinations and drive within the parameters.

Mr_Shiftright

I suppose, but imagine a salesman handing the keys to a new TDI owner and saying " now all you have to do is understand the dynamics of the engine/transmission combinations and drive within the parameters, and you'll be fine". ?

We need to give the public numbers that will not disappoint them. This is called "truth in advertising". If they do BETTER, well then, that's great..but if they do WORSE, there's hell to pay.

If I had told my friends, when I recommended that they buy a TDI, that they'd get 57 mpg, they would be......can you guess?

texases

Well, should they all list 10 mpgs, that way everybody will get better?

Since the 'real' mpgs people get varies widely, where would you put the standard? So that 50% get better? 80%? 90%?

ateixeira

We have been talking about it !! VW Polo VW Polo

app 74 mpg

That model is way too slow for US tastes.

{tongue in cheek}

Yes you NEED more power if you are that slow you will DEFINITELY *die* as people will run you over so don't even start.

LOL

ruking1

I think with the advent of the appliance mentality. They should say the obvious, you get what you will get. Everybody is different, nothing can be known. It is all someone else's fault

If you are a democrat, blame GWB. If you are a republican, blame BHO. The 04 Prius owners blamed the EPA and Toyota and the government retooled the test :P

ruking1

As you yourself have stated in other posts the speed limits are 55/65 mph.

ateixeira

You will get run over before you reach 55mph.

Seriously, though, the Polo with the smallest diesel engine is an absolute slug. Slow compared to a hybrid, even.

If they brought it here it would ruin diesels for 2 more decades, as everyone would unfairly label them as dangerously slow.

Careful what you ask for.

ruking1

For a slug commute, it is actually perfectly fine. So for example in a 28/29 mile commute that takes anywhere from 45 min to 1.5 hours, it is easy to do the calculation for the AVERAGE MPG.

ateixeira

The press would crucify a slug. I'm telling you, it would be a HUGE step back for diesels if they offered the slowest Polo TDI here.

ruking1

There are many more gasser slugs on the market than diesels.

ateixeira

But that specific diesel, the Polo TDI with the smallest diesel engine, the one that everyone touts gets a million mpg or whatever, makes every gas car in the US market seem fast.

I'm being specific - that TDI would RUIN the diesel for American for a whole generation.

gagrice

I think it depends on how serious we are about MPG. The 1.2 Polo TDI is slow at 13.9 seconds to 62 MPH. However if they were to bring the Yaris selling for the same price as that Polo with the gas engine we would see real slow at 15.3 seconds to 62 MPH and a loss of nearly 20 MPG. Comparing the Prius with its neck jerking 10.4 seconds to 62 MPH is hardly a fair comparison when the Prius costs almost twice as much. And gives up nearly 10 MPG on the highway. I don't think people that would buy a Polo for a commuter would be worried about 0-60 MPH. Any more than a person who would buy a slug like a Prius. People buying any of the diesel models that are selling as fast as they hit the dealer lots are not worried about what some hotrod magazine has to say. In fact who even reads those rags anymore? Not car buyers, just old guys reliving the past.

ruking1

I am normally VERY careful what I ask for. Now I understand that 0 to 60 "fast and slow" is important to you and I don't think anyone would argue that that is NOT your opinion.

The over all truth can be illustrated in the SMART car. It is a 1.0 L 3 cylinder gasser !!!! EPA rate at 34/38. For something that light and small, I would be looking for WAY better than 38 mpg !! ??

54 mpg for the bigger diesel and 74 mpg for the smaller diesel in the VW Polo outguns the Smart on many other parameters than fuel mileage and by 42% to 95% better fuel mileage.

The FIAT is another example EPA 'd @ 30/38. I am guessing YOU would NOT include either to neither OR the VW Polo as serious commute contenders for YOUR needs. Me thinks there are plenty that do and would.

So for example @ 15,000 miles @ 38 mpg (Civic) 54 mpg bigger diesel 74 mpg smaller diesel that would consume 395 gals, 278 gals 203 gals respectively. I would be just fine with fuel saving of 48.6%. I am guessing the system doesn't want THAT to catch on.

scwmcan

Actually from what I understand (since I don't live in Alberta and haven't looked all that closely at the ownership) is that the rights to our oil (Canada's ) have largely been sold off to foreign corporations (some US and lots of others). We certainly don't benefit from being an oil producing nation like most others do. What would be great for Canada is to build ( or recommision some of the closed) refineries to produce the finished product rather than send it cheap to places like the US for them to refine and apparently sell off to other nations (doesn't make sense to me, but then most government/ corporate policies don't seem to need to make sense to normal people)
The federal government used to own a fuel company, but it has been sold off since the eighties, (think it was completely private Blythe mid nineties) and is now a division of Suncor. We used to have an energy policy, but Albetra didn't like it ( and it may have been for good reason, again have not researched it thoroughly) and managed to get it scrapped ( or essentially so).

Mr_Shiftright

I don't think I would agree with the statement that the real mpg people get varies widely. That hasn't been my experience. Most people fall right in with the EPA, unless of course something is wrong with their car.

EPA figures are pretty good now that they made them more realistic. Many were revised downward, not upward, because nobody was making the EPA numbers.

But bottom line is: It's not what YOU get for MPG with your car, it's what *I* get for MPG with your car.

gagrice

Reading inside line on the Allroad coming to the USA. No mention of the TDI, only the gas hog engine. The 3.0L TDI does 0-62 MPH in 6.2 seconds. That should be fast enough for the speed demons here. And gets about 50% more MPG on diesel than the Premium gas hog out on the highway. That TDI is in at least two vehicles currently sold in the USA. Should be a no brainer for Audi. Local Shell prices yesterday. RUG $4.44, Premium $4.69, ULSD $4.49.

http://www.insideline.com/audi/a4/2013/2013-audi-a4-allroad-first-drive.html

Who got the trip to Portugal for the review?

I also see on the UK site the 2.0L TDI only gets 1 MPG better than the 3.0L TDI. And 2 seconds slower 0-62 MPH. It takes the bigger engine to haul a 5100 lb car around.

Mr_Shiftright

I like the Allroad a lot, but I'm leery of Audi reliability issues.

stever

Right up there with MINIs, right? :-)

gagrice

Get a 7 year bumper to bumper warranty like I do. I don't trust any car maker to not have a long warranty. Think about all the Honda and Toyota recalls over the last few years. I am not sure reliability is sought after by most automakers. Cutting corners and sales are the biggest incentives. You want reliability and not so expensive get a Buick. I left a message with the Audi dealer, to let me know if the Allroad will have a diesel engine. Not interested in any gas hogs. Just keep the ones I have.

ateixeira

The 1.2 Polo TDI is slow at 13.9 seconds to 62 MPH

Something that slow would be the death sentence for all diesels in the USA. Mark my words.

Disagree all you want. Fact is, gas engines that are that slow would also fail here.

Diesels have a fragile reputation in American. A slow diesel would be the last pin in the coffin as far as the American public's view on diesels.

ateixeira

The over all truth can be illustrated in the SMART car

Compete and utter failure.

As would be the Polo 1.2 TDI.

I guarantee it.

plekto

It would be a failure right up to the point where they put an "over-sized" 16 gallon tank in it and claim that you can drive 1000 miles on a tank of gas.

Suddenly nobody would be laughing at their idiot move.

ruking1

I am not sure what the guarantee is worth, but I do get the feeling we can agree to disagree.

ruking1

Indeed anywhere from a 14.5 (current size tank) to a 16 gal tank would put the 74 mpg option range between 1036 to 1147 miles (.5 gal to look to refuel or app 37 miles).

xwesx

I could live with that! As long as it is an engaging drive (acceleration aside), I would give it a try. That said, AJ isn't wrong.

ruking1

Nor did I say he was (completely) . But then his guarantee of complete and utter failure is a very tall order.

If anybody can/will, VW has the wherewithal to bring something like that to the market, IF it is indeed the risk he says it is. VW I think however is concerned with higher margin profits and not JUST profit. Even during the 2008/2009 auto sales debacle, (9.5 to 10.5 M sales vs a good year of between 14-16.5 M) VW MADE billions, while the normal juggernauts all LOST billions. This in and of itself is HUGE. So I would think it gets down to (in a much better market) why make profit, when you can make BIGGER profits.

Indeed if the Fiat 850/Smart cars are any indicator they can bring in the more powerful diesel (@54 mpg) and already they have the mpg competitive advantage.

ateixeira

There is a reason we don't see the smallest gas engine options in US models for various cars - they would become the punch lines of bad jokes.

In a way the diesel image here is already handicapped. Unfairly, but that's the reality.

Bringing over the slowest diesel would reinforce those negative and unfair stereotypes.

0-60 in 10 seconds or so is perfectly adequate, sure.

Bring over a 14 second car and we'll never hear the end of it.

ruking1

I think one of the things we can not really ignore is those very same cars' success in Europe, aka land of the speed limit less autobahns. "WE" obviously do not see it here, as they let very few examples into the country. Travelers TO Europe, etc, can have more than a passing acquaintance with them and the issues.

I saw another contender, the Kia Soul. Again anemic mpg numbers in comparison to (middle 54 mpg to smaller 74 mpg) TDI's.

fintail

For people who live in cities and crowded suburbs, 14 seconds might be more than adequate. It's difficult to be able to go that fast here during most daylight hours, and anywhere near commuting hours, you'll never reach 60 anyway. That 1000 miles/tank idea would be a huge marketing coup too, it would sell if the price was right.

ruking1

Yes, the counter intuitive thing is that once a diesel is up to speed (talking 55 to 85 mph) it really does not take much HP and or torque to keep them humming along. If one spends anytime in the diesel blog community, most understand or come to, that diesels actually benefit from being run mildly to slightly aggressively.

So for example with a red line @ 5,100 rpms, I can run it at 55% of, and still post 48-50 mpg on a 1.9 L TDI. literally for 6.25 hours and 584 miles or so.I have done this any number of times.

If I let mph govern, i.e. 75 mph and let the revs fall where they may, I have posted 59 mpg tanks, again any number of times. That is on a car EPA'd for 42/49 mpg aka, fuel "guzzler". For my tank (14.5 gal) that is a 826 miles can do easy.

If I do between 55 and 65 mph (I have only tried this once or twice, road hypnosis for me is a real danger) more like 62 mpg +PLUS. I do have working cruise control, but only turn it on every so often, to see if it still works and if I can remember how to use it.

Commuting is the real killer, I only get between 48-52 mpg.

xwesx

Commmuting is the real killer, I only get between 48-52 mpg.

Ouch, yeah. I don't know how you live with that. :P

Do you ever haul cargo on your vehicles, such as a roof rack or box? If so, what sort of impact does that have on fuel economy for a diesel? I hauled a 13,000# trailer down to Oregon from Alaska a few years ago for my grandparents, and it returned just under 12 mpg for the trip (running 50-70 mph, depending on conditions... it was mid October). Without the load, it would typically return 18-19 at those speeds. I was surprised at that. I expected it would be closer to 8 or 9.

I lose 10+ mpg on my Forester when I haul a trailer; ~5 mpg when I haul cargo on the roof (starting from 28).

ruking1

:P

I routinely run it with up to 4 people in the car, with the trunk packed to the gills. There is a hit, I am sure.

No, I personally do not haul or use ski/bike racks.

I know that it does hit mpg. I have only read about it by folks posting who have either towed with a Jetta TDI or used ski/bike racks or cargo baskets.

So with ski/bike/cargo racks, I have read - MINUS 3-7 mpg.

For towing, even as the chassis is NOT specified to tow, nor set up for it, counter intuitively LESS, -Minus 3 to 5 mpg.

xwesx

Okay, so 3-7 mpg loss with roof cargo starting from, say, a theoretical 50. Percentage-wise, that is still less loss than I see with gas engines.

I keep thinking that I really would like to see a diesel Forester here in the US!

ruking1

To me, that only makes sense (for both your paragraphs) !!

ateixeira

I doubt those tiny engines are allowed on the autobahn, well maybe only in the slow lane.

Again, gas or diesel. Either one, tiny engines fail in the USA.

I'm not the speed demon you think I am - I actually owned a Metro. 48 furious horses!

I got tired of people trying to run me over, though.

ateixeira

For people who live in cities and crowded suburbs, 14 seconds might be more than adequate

That's a stretch, and let's remember that is with full throttle run with an aggressive launch under ideal conditions with a pro driver.