No way I can outlast the range of my Accord. I always get over 500 miles on the highway usually get over 600 and my max was 666 (hope that isn't an omen). I do like a long range for trips into expensive gas territory though. I recently went to Chicago. I filled up in Albert Lea Minnesota (with relatively cheap gas) and couldn't quite make it back to Albert Lea. A few more gallons in the tank and it would not have been a problem.
How does a smaller tank help mpg though - the weight savings of the tank itself would be insignificant (replaced the tank on my integra this summer and know all about the weight). The tank does not have to be full for the test.
As far as acceleration with a diesel, I think we have some pretty short memories. Back in the late 70's there were plenty of cars that had trouble breaking 15 seconds to 60. The Rabbit diesel was around 17 back then with 48 or 52 hp. A regular Rabbit was about 14 and that was perfectly safe if not peppy. I remember when CR tested the VW bus and rated it unacceptable because it could not reach 60 mph in the length of their test track. I think they were over 20 seconds and ran out of room. Plenty of people managed do drive those slugs.
I am not saying that I miss those days, or that 17-20 seconds to 60 is OK today, but in my opinion a car with good throttle response and no dead spots in the power curve can be quite safe if it can go to 60 mph in 15 seconds. Try accelerating your car to 60 in 15 seconds sometime - it really isn't that slow.
My Scirocco hit 60 in about 11.5 and it always felt very peppy. My integra about 9.5 and it felt quite quick. Now my Accord is another 2 seconds faster (7.5 for a 2007 4 cyl and MT) and it has way more power than I have ever needed in 136,000 miles of driving. Never had to come close to flooring it - of course I still do occasionally for fun but not because I need to.
A friend of mine had a 1979 diesel Rabbit all through high school (in the early 90s). While the top (reasonable) speed on that car was about 55 mph, I could get it to that speed in short order. We always searched extensively for something else to drive when a "long" drive was involved (more than about 40-50 miles) due to its highly limited max speed, but other than that it was a fun little car to drive.
He sold it to a neighbor's son, someone who had helped us rebuild the engine on it once, and that guy blew the engine two days later by trying to drive it 65 on I-84 to Portland. To the engine's credit, he made it all the way to Arlington (from Pendleton area) before it popped. My friend warned him time and again to never drive it faster than 55. It was a sad end. :sick:
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
I remember when Mercedes brought the 2005 E320 CDI to the US. They had ads on TV showing a person driving all day and 800 miles on a single tank of diesel. Which was not that difficult to do. I met a guy at the Mercedes drive promotion with one. He has a home here and in TX. He got 40 MPG on his trips cross country. It was only rated EPA 33 hwy. That was before they were sold in CA and had all the fuel wasting Bluetec BS.
I was originally talking about the amount of gas I'd have to carry for MY car to get 1000 miles between fill-ups. I only get about 25 mpg averaged out.
71 mpg for a U.S. spec car on U.S. roads? I'll believe THAT when I see it.
I would be tickled with 30 MPG in an SUV. With the average 26 gallon tank you get 700+ miles between fill ups. Instead of only filling twice driving to see my daughter in Indiana, I have to fill up 5 times in my Sequoia. With Google maps and gas buddy I can pick the best prices on my trip. Long range offers so much more flexibility. Also traveling at night when many stations are closed. I used to drive the length of CA over night to avoid the heat and heavy LA traffic.
I think a 500 mile range would be ideal for me, because 500 miles a day is pretty much all I like to drive when on trips, and 500 miles of at-home driving for business purposes/pleasure works out to a solid week of no gas stations.
Usually I like to stop at a station and lift the hood, look around, check tire pressure, look for more parts falling off my MINI, etc, and 500 miles is about as long as I like to keep the hood closed.
There's not a MINI alive that'll do that, but I think a Golf TDI certainly would--14.5 gallon tank, and figure 40 mpg. I don't drive for economy--I am relentless, fast and competitive on the road (but never angry) --I can't help it---born and raised in NYC. :shades:
The Golf TDI comes well-equipped and it is, like the MINI, well-built, but it is, like the MINI, pretty darn pricey for a little fellah.
I would if there are any good leases out there right now.
I am really not too sure what you would be looking for under the bonnet every 500 miles. Oil consumption (1.9 TDI) is app 1/2 qt @ 30,000 miles. Consumption of 1/4 qt can happen @ 15,000 to 18,000 miles. As you can see, the other 1/4 qt consumption is between 18,000 to 30,000. Nomrally instead of topping the 1/4 qt I just change the oil at 30,000 miles or so.
40 to 45 mpg is reasonable for the new 2.0 TDI. 236# ft.
I forget is the GLK too small for your needs? As was pointed out above and as I saw elsewhere they are actually going to seel it in North America with the 4 cylinder diesel. I haven't seen what they say it will get for economy but I would hope it is over 30. Then there is the Mazda cx5 coming is diesel next year too ( apparently) but again may be too smal for you needs. At least there are finally some coming, and hopefully they will sell well enough for them to put a more efficient diesel in an SUV that will suit you ( instead of the power houses they think people want).
I was at the MB dealership a few days ago. And I asked when that GLK diesel was due. He is hoping 2014. He has the GLK and his wife loves it. They had the ML gasser prior to that. He said that the chances of the ML250 Bluetec coming to America was very slim. They sell all the ML350 Bluetecs they get in very quickly. He did not have any on the lot. Waiting for 2 on the next load.
The reports are that the diesel has been confirmed and that it will be available by next summer. Hopefully these reports are true. I have a feeling that fuel economy may be a big deal for a lot of people soon, and there will be more options in the next few years ( we can hope so anyway)
The same is true in the north. Any stock fulfillment begins and ends normally with an inventory search. This normally leads to; there is one in a dealership somewhere in the LA County area.The three MB dealerships near me yield one bluetec MB 350 and ZERO bluetec ML350's.
Not sure how up to the minute the inventory feature is here. The dealer I went to visit showed a ML350 Bluetec in stock. It was already delivered when I went in that afternoon. The 2012 is nicer looking and nicer inside than the last model. I just don't know if I can justify for a few more MPG.
I think I understand what you mean. I would agree with you, in that I find it far more cost effective (given certain per year miles parameters) to keep and deploy 16 to 20 year old SUV's getting 15 mpg, than say getting a new turbo diesel suv that gets anywhere from 25 to 28 mpg. (up to 86% better fuel mileage. In effect, I am in the testing mode of decades ago promised durability and reliability. So far one kid ripped out the oem sound head unit for one more to her liking. I understand the R/R some years back was seamless. I also just put on new rubber on another after app 60,000 miles. Brake pads seem to last 60,000 miles and rotors app 120,000 miles. These two are known to EAT brake pads.
I'd look under the bonnet every 500 miles because it's made in Germany :P
I've already short-circuited two major disasters in my MINI by just looking under the hood---a very slight thermostat housing leak and minor distortion of the shock towers.
If say a dealer replaces your oil filter and they don't seal it properly, or there's a small leak in a hose, and you drive the car to the engine's destruction, you think warranty claim is going to be easy?
.."I'd look under the bonnet every 500 miles because it's made in Germany "...
I do every so often because it is made in Germany and assembled in MEXICO !?
I do clean the (air box pre filter which actually functions as a snow prophylactic being as how B/C is a demo political topic?) snorkel every 5,000 miles or so.
All it needs are a 10 MM nut driver (tools baby tools, not a licensed driver, nor me if you were thinking that :P ) .
Since they are responsible for the first 30,000 miles (on the hook till 40,000 miles) yes. It would be their own negligence.
Yes, I was using Imperial gallons, which I converted to U.S. gallons in the calculation.
67*16 is almost 1100 miles. You could get by with 15 gallons, but 16 is a common tank size in most of the world. 4 extra gallons of fuel is about 40 lbs to the weight of the car, including the extra weight of the larger tank. Hardly worth mentioning.
Oh, and the number or Yaris alone that are sold to businesses and people that are looking for a cheap way to get good mpg alone should tell you how many VW would sell. Under $20K, 1000 mile per tank range. Absolutely would crush the competition.
The Polo would sell for about $14995. The prices that you typically see in the U.K. after Vat and all of that are almost exactly the same as the base sticker prices here in the U.S. At that price, it would crush the micro-cars like the Smart and IQ as it would get better economy and also have four doors.
Buying one would save me $200 a month in fuel costs, and that's more than half the car payment right there.
There is no public data to support any difference in quality between VWs assembled in Mexico or Germany or the other places they build them. it's been debated to death even in the TDI forums and members there agree there is no apparent difference amongst various VW products.
But there's pretty good data from indie sources other than anecdotal, to suggest that a car built in Japan is better assembled than one built it Germany. :P
Honda in particular is kicking butt in reliability ratings right now. The difference between Honda and Chrysler is like...startling.
In the early 60's I had a 59 Plymouth Sport Fury convertible with the 360 cube golden commando engine that could get to 60 in 7 seconds flat. At the time I thought it was really fast and had the tickets to prove it.
Times have changed. Now that Fury could be skunked by a new VW Man-Beetle turbo or a Honda Civic Si. But you could still beat a Nissan Juke or Golf TDI and even a Volvo V70 or Infiniti G25!
Yes I am not sure what it is. A lot of Honda's PARTS are made in N/A. But then many models are designed and assembled in the states also. For the VW's "GERMAN BUILT" is supposed to be better. The present model GOLF's are shipped from across the pond. I really can't say I have had any real issues with my Heinz 57 Jetta.
I've never been able to find a shred of credible evidence that a German built VW was demonstrably better than a Mexico-built one, but if you ever find any reliability surveys suggesting otherwise, let me know.
No, I personally have not. The TDI community (more toward the "enthusiasts") knows that for the most part TDI engines are made AND assembled in Germany. They go through a more or less statistical assembling and probably more importantly break in with computer hook up. Part of the reason why VW makes a big deal about the first 10,000 miles using factory fill is that statistically, the best way to get an uniformly good AVERAGE TDI engine FLEET.
Now I understand there are some specific engine building and assembly plants, location unadvertised. Judging by the new engines lack of issues, I would say it probably have not skipped too many beats.
28 mpg? Believe it. Consumer Reports rates it at 27 mpg on average, and I've found them to estimate low. For example, they estimate 34 mpg average for the Fusion Hybrid, I'm averaging 37.1 lifetime.
But there's pretty good data from indie sources other than anecdotal, to suggest that a car built in Japan is better assembled than one built it Germany
The reason for this is that the German government charges huge import fees for components compared to local suppliers, so most German companies all source from the same few suppliers for electrical components. Note, in Japan, they do the exact same thing.
Denzo is a lot better at making things, apparently, than Bosch (as an example). The parts that fail on most vehicles that we notice are usually not made directly by the auto companies themselves. So while Mercedes, for instance, makes among the very best engines and stunning interiors, it's the same crap as VW and the rest when it comes to things like wiring for the stereo (fiber optic? really?) and switches and motors for the sunroof and so on.
It's not really their fault, either. If they let up on the restrictions, parts from China would obliterate the entire German electronics industry, well, pretty much like it has in the U.S.
True. You never see German electronics at a Best Buy store.
I have no idea why Japanese black boxes are so much more reliable than German black boxes.
If I buy a TDI (and I may once the MINI is tired), I'm going to be more pre-emptive with the car, getting a VAG tool and factory workshop manual.
I had a knowledge lag when I bought the MINI, which I regret, and had to scramble to deal with all the known issues---now the car is under control and I'm quite pleased with it.
It's interesting that the MINI has all the typical German car issues---little trim pieces falling off, electronic ghosts that come and go, and the apparent inability of the Germans to correct a known problem, and just let it go on year after year. I can see 1 or 2 years to correct an issue, but 3-5 years of the same issue gets tiresome.
Not to tell you what to do, but I personally would NOT do the extended warranty CPO's. The exception would be: if you PURPOSEFULLY selected THE LEMON. In that case then you (me) would actually root for everything covered TO go wrong !!
As you know, VW's and specifically TDI's are actually designed with R/R ment in mind.
I would only choose an extended warranty if a) I was determined to keep the car a long long time and b) once I carefully, and I mean carefully, reviewed all the exclusions.
Given the expense to repair some cars, say a German MINI, with the $2200 clutch jobs and $6800 transmissions, an extended warranty is not necessarily out of the question. Neither of these is a backyard mechanic job anymore.
To me that brings up an arcane issue of oem parts and oem vendored parts and so called oem AFTERMARKET parts, and so called "oem specification" AFTERMARKET parts. Gerchi parts are NOT ready for prime time, but that is purely my op/ed. There are more but everyone gets the meaning.
My op/ed it is that it is particularly on topic for the diesel, because many of the enthusiasts take the longer view, and in effect don't mind the R/R ing, whether: DIY, independent shop's, guru's, dealer's and or combinations. I can use examples if that is of more widespread interest.
In your example, then for sure for an R/R clutch upgrade, you'd want to go to a guru, independent, independent shop or dealer.
The first and only thing done on that TDI with 175,000 + miles has been a timing belt and water pump change recommended @ 100,000 miles but normally done in a range of 90,000 to 120,000 miles. It literally can be done with a more enthusiasts mentality. However by the time you assemble all the right special tools, consult your technical data, run into unresolved issues, get familiar with the procedures, make sure you change the 30-40 parts and reset your settings with the VAG.com, it is worth it to go to a GTG and get the puppy done in 2-4 hours and drink beers and eat BBQ in the process.
He's lucky he doesn't live anywhere near me. I'd be on his doorstep all the time quizzing him about this and that, and breathing down his neck as he wrenched on my Outback. :P
Well then, I have to say that if he has a mind for TDI's, he has a HUGE resident market for easily a 100 mile radius of his location. Our guys' currently come down from 2 locations out of state, north of us.
I used to be motivated by pleasure when working on cars but now I am only motivated by necessity. (unless they are old cars or motorcycles--that's still fun).
Given VWs reliability records, statistically I would pretty much count on having little glitches during the warranty period and more serious issues afterwards. I'd have to see how the car behaved during warranty to judge whether it'd be a "keeper" or not.
Even though modern cars are all mass-produced like cookies, for some reason, some of them turn out a lot better than others. Go figure.
I can not say I blame you there !! Those were indeed the same issues I had 10/11 MY's ago ( looked starting 2002 but bought 2003 MY). I guess on the one hand, I should say I have been lucky. On the other hand, I almost know that I was pitched a statistical middle most car @ BEST !! So I guess it is a swag to say a lot to all of the nightmares did NOT pan out.
F/F to 2009 MY VW Jetta TDI with 35,000 miles, it has literally been flawless. Again @ best I was pitched a statistical middle most example. Sure it has had its share of TSB's technical service bulletins (3?) There was also some brouhaha about the DSG (transmission). For some unknown reason, VW stepped up and extended the drivetrain warranty TO 10 year 100,000 miles. The Bosch fuel pump issue is RARE. Again VW stepped up again and will do it under warrant for 10 years 100,000 miles.
Given that a lot of cars do in fact USE common oem parts vendors, it is a tad TMI. That is why US made Honda's (like the Civic) rise to the top. Statistically they have figured out how to balance some to all of the variables juggled and remain being seen as one of the more "reliable" oems.
yes it's because a smaller tank weighs less and the because of the weight of the absent fuel. it does seem extreme doesn't it. but your estimate is off by a factor of 10 or more. for a ~30 mpg car, every ~100 lbs costs ~1 mpg.
I agree with you that "weight saving is the BIG DEAL"... it always has been. Saving just ONE pound per wheel is equivalent to something like 8 lbs of non-rotating mass. (This formula holds true to ANY rotating mass in the drivetrain) This is why engine-designers work so hard to save a few grams of weight while designing an engine.
Also, lighter materials also tend to have some unique physical properties which make them a challenge to use. As an example - simply replacing CAST pistons with FORGED pistons made of the same material (aluminum) ... On paper, the FORGED pistons are stronger and lighter- BUT, in use, the FORGED pistons expand faster and hence are susceptible to "cold seizing" if the engine is not warmed-up properly. (I wonder how would that go over on a daily-driver?)
Unfortunately, "weight savings" almost always means "more cost". Lighter materials are usually more expensive to use, design and repair when they break.
Simply look at some of the 'supercars' which have very high power-to-weight ratios. The use of Graphite, Titanium, Inconel, composites, plastics...etc make these vehicles cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you bump into a curb and crack the body... expect to pay huge sums on money for a specialist who knows how to repair these exotic materials.
Another example: I have been asked to "fix" some fairly new Briggs-n-Stratton engines which may be less than 2 years old. When I find the PLASTIC GEARS for the camshaft are worn smooth... there is no easy fix for this. The valves simply do not work any more.
I was reading in passing the 2011/2012 Touareg lost app 450 #'s. The reviewers noted that it made a difference in mpg (better) and handling (more nimble). One of the trade offs is that it is more suited to mild off road to highway / freeway.
exactly. But to add 40lbs, which is maybe 1/2 mpg in the worst case to add another 250-3000 miles range is absurd. You obviously put on aluminum rims and add the extra fuel.
It really appears more the cases of the principles:
1. one step forward, two steps back. 2. what the government wants at the time or politically correct 3. what the market wants 4. what the oems build in response to all of the above.
My corollary: if you are the "correct side of it: "no BIG DEAL".
Even with American diesels as few as there are, one case in point is the 03 TDI. The real 1b corollary: who the hell cares?
The 03 Jetta TDI hits the US market 2,950 #'s. The real issues would be how many cars that come in @ app this weight get (EPA 42/49) 50 mpg? To me it is heavy, to most that are probably looking for cars, too light. It is a well known fact (supported by real world passenger vehicle fleets, etc) not many folks ACTUALLY buy sub 3000 # cars. The small car segment is 25%. 75% of the passenger vehicle fleet is the larger car/truck (aka heavier) segment. I am sure the majority of that minority segment weigh more. To make a (rule of thumb) minus- 5 mpg difference on weight alone, you are talking - 500 #'s or 2,500 # car. Even a smaller minority buy these (lighter) cars.
At the time I have read, the US government was concerned that generation of TDI's had too much power. Subtext would read: got way too many MPG's. BUT they could not say that, insofar as the stated policy is to get BETTER mpg NOT WORSE !! ??? On this issue I think one would have to scratch one's head in that the US version came in country @ 90 hp. So the fix was smaller injectors and 1 less gear (5 speed manual vs 6 speed manual) and MINUS - 2 mpg less than the European version. Now I do not know if the European version weighed more or less than the US version.
The new Chevy Malibu Eco will approximate the TDI's mileages and range. The gap is closing fast here.
And again, most people will never see 50 mpg in that TDI. More like 42-44, and with a number of compromises that many Americans are not willing to make in an automobile.
I'd say the diesel car's future in America is looking worse, not better, at the moment, unless some startling new product is about to hit our shores--re-opening the gap, so to speak, in mileage and range between diesel and gas cars.
Right now, with gas engines catching up on MPG, and diesel fuel prices exceeding premium fuel prices---I just don't see any great change in the overall picture.
The system is rigged, if you will. Europe uses the diesel, we use the gasoline. You get a certain amount of each from a barrel of oil, and Europe gets the diesel from the Brent crude, while the gasoline makes it way over to the northeastern USA.
For diesel enthusiasts, the GLK refresh brings good news in the form of a four-cylinder diesel. The engine we’ll see here displaces 2.1 liters; we’ll probably get the most powerful version offered in Europe, which has 204 hp and 369 lb-ft. We’ve heard, too, that Mercedes is expecting the diesel GLK to score an EPA highway fuel-economy rating in the upper 30s.
The 2.1-liter diesel four also will power a version of the next-gen C-class, which we expect to debut in about two years. Mercedes-Benz hopes to sell eight diesel models in the U.S. by the end of 2014
Despite not being a standout in any regard, the GLK sells well, and Benz’s number crunchers say 65 percent of its buyers are new to the Mercedes brand. Updated duds and revised engines should help strengthen its position. Expect the refreshed GLK and its optional diesel to arrive at dealers this summer.
Comments
How does a smaller tank help mpg though - the weight savings of the tank itself would be insignificant (replaced the tank on my integra this summer and know all about the weight). The tank does not have to be full for the test.
As far as acceleration with a diesel, I think we have some pretty short memories. Back in the late 70's there were plenty of cars that had trouble breaking 15 seconds to 60. The Rabbit diesel was around 17 back then with 48 or 52 hp. A regular Rabbit was about 14 and that was perfectly safe if not peppy. I remember when CR tested the VW bus and rated it unacceptable because it could not reach 60 mph in the length of their test track. I think they were over 20 seconds and ran out of room. Plenty of people managed do drive those slugs.
I am not saying that I miss those days, or that 17-20 seconds to 60 is OK today, but in my opinion a car with good throttle response and no dead spots in the power curve can be quite safe if it can go to 60 mph in 15 seconds. Try accelerating your car to 60 in 15 seconds sometime - it really isn't that slow.
My Scirocco hit 60 in about 11.5 and it always felt very peppy. My integra about 9.5 and it felt quite quick. Now my Accord is another 2 seconds faster (7.5 for a 2007 4 cyl and MT) and it has way more power than I have ever needed in 136,000 miles of driving. Never had to come close to flooring it - of course I still do occasionally for fun but not because I need to.
I don't get that part either.
Maybe smaller gas tank, lighter/smaller mounting brackets? Plus the weight of the fuel? Seems pretty extreme to get +0.01 mpg.
the cheapest Prius for 21,560 GBP.
A well equipped Prius with leather is 26,820 GBP
Top of the line VW Sportswagen TDI with DSG is 24,840 GBP
He sold it to a neighbor's son, someone who had helped us rebuild the engine on it once, and that guy blew the engine two days later by trying to drive it 65 on I-84 to Portland. To the engine's credit, he made it all the way to Arlington (from Pendleton area) before it popped. My friend warned him time and again to never drive it faster than 55. It was a sad end. :sick:
71 mpg for a U.S. spec car on U.S. roads? I'll believe THAT when I see it.
Usually I like to stop at a station and lift the hood, look around, check tire pressure, look for more parts falling off my MINI, etc, and 500 miles is about as long as I like to keep the hood closed.
There's not a MINI alive that'll do that, but I think a Golf TDI certainly would--14.5 gallon tank, and figure 40 mpg. I don't drive for economy--I am relentless, fast and competitive on the road (but never angry) --I can't help it---born and raised in NYC. :shades:
The Golf TDI comes well-equipped and it is, like the MINI, well-built, but it is, like the MINI, pretty darn pricey for a little fellah.
I would if there are any good leases out there right now.
40 to 45 mpg is reasonable for the new 2.0 TDI. 236# ft.
I've already short-circuited two major disasters in my MINI by just looking under the hood---a very slight thermostat housing leak and minor distortion of the shock towers.
If say a dealer replaces your oil filter and they don't seal it properly, or there's a small leak in a hose, and you drive the car to the engine's destruction, you think warranty claim is going to be easy?
I do every so often because it is made in Germany and assembled in MEXICO !?
I do clean the (air box pre filter which actually functions as a snow prophylactic being as how B/C is a demo political topic?) snorkel every 5,000 miles or so.
All it needs are a 10 MM nut driver (tools baby tools, not a licensed driver, nor me if you were thinking that :P ) .
Since they are responsible for the first 30,000 miles (on the hook till 40,000 miles) yes. It would be their own negligence.
67*16 is almost 1100 miles. You could get by with 15 gallons, but 16 is a common tank size in most of the world. 4 extra gallons of fuel is about 40 lbs to the weight of the car, including the extra weight of the larger tank. Hardly worth mentioning.
Oh, and the number or Yaris alone that are sold to businesses and people that are looking for a cheap way to get good mpg alone should tell you how many VW would sell. Under $20K, 1000 mile per tank range. Absolutely would crush the competition.
The Polo would sell for about $14995. The prices that you typically see in the U.K. after Vat and all of that are almost exactly the same as the base sticker prices here in the U.S. At that price, it would crush the micro-cars like the Smart and IQ as it would get better economy and also have four doors.
Buying one would save me $200 a month in fuel costs, and that's more than half the car payment right there.
But there's pretty good data from indie sources other than anecdotal, to suggest that a car built in Japan is better assembled than one built it Germany. :P
Honda in particular is kicking butt in reliability ratings right now. The difference between Honda and Chrysler is like...startling.
golden commando engine that could get to 60 in 7 seconds flat. At the time I thought it was really fast and had the tickets to prove it.
Now I understand there are some specific engine building and assembly plants, location unadvertised. Judging by the new engines lack of issues, I would say it probably have not skipped too many beats.
link title
Fuel economy.gov shows ranges of 20-31 mpg THH, 33-43 mpg FFH, only because this is a diesel thread, 40-49 mpg VWJ TDI.
The reason for this is that the German government charges huge import fees for components compared to local suppliers, so most German companies all source from the same few suppliers for electrical components. Note, in Japan, they do the exact same thing.
Denzo is a lot better at making things, apparently, than Bosch (as an example). The parts that fail on most vehicles that we notice are usually not made directly by the auto companies themselves. So while Mercedes, for instance, makes among the very best engines and stunning interiors, it's the same crap as VW and the rest when it comes to things like wiring for the stereo (fiber optic? really?) and switches and motors for the sunroof and so on.
It's not really their fault, either. If they let up on the restrictions, parts from China would obliterate the entire German electronics industry, well, pretty much like it has in the U.S.
I have no idea why Japanese black boxes are so much more reliable than German black boxes.
If I buy a TDI (and I may once the MINI is tired), I'm going to be more pre-emptive with the car, getting a VAG tool and factory workshop manual.
I had a knowledge lag when I bought the MINI, which I regret, and had to scramble to deal with all the known issues---now the car is under control and I'm quite pleased with it.
It's interesting that the MINI has all the typical German car issues---little trim pieces falling off, electronic ghosts that come and go, and the apparent inability of the Germans to correct a known problem, and just let it go on year after year. I can see 1 or 2 years to correct an issue, but 3-5 years of the same issue gets tiresome.
As you know, VW's and specifically TDI's are actually designed with R/R ment in mind.
I would only choose an extended warranty if a) I was determined to keep the car a long long time and b) once I carefully, and I mean carefully, reviewed all the exclusions.
Given the expense to repair some cars, say a German MINI, with the $2200 clutch jobs and $6800 transmissions, an extended warranty is not necessarily out of the question. Neither of these is a backyard mechanic job anymore.
My op/ed it is that it is particularly on topic for the diesel, because many of the enthusiasts take the longer view, and in effect don't mind the R/R ing, whether: DIY, independent shop's, guru's, dealer's and or combinations. I can use examples if that is of more widespread interest.
But sure, oil changes, fuel filters, brakes, hoses, belts, the inevitable electrical glitches--we can do all that.
The first and only thing done on that TDI with 175,000 + miles has been a timing belt and water pump change recommended @ 100,000 miles but normally done in a range of 90,000 to 120,000 miles. It literally can be done with a more enthusiasts mentality. However by the time you assemble all the right special tools, consult your technical data, run into unresolved issues, get familiar with the procedures, make sure you change the 30-40 parts and reset your settings with the VAG.com, it is worth it to go to a GTG and get the puppy done in 2-4 hours and drink beers and eat BBQ in the process.
He's lucky he doesn't live anywhere near me. I'd be on his doorstep all the time quizzing him about this and that, and breathing down his neck as he wrenched on my Outback. :P
Given VWs reliability records, statistically I would pretty much count on having little glitches during the warranty period and more serious issues afterwards. I'd have to see how the car behaved during warranty to judge whether it'd be a "keeper" or not.
Even though modern cars are all mass-produced like cookies, for some reason, some of them turn out a lot better than others. Go figure.
F/F to 2009 MY VW Jetta TDI with 35,000 miles, it has literally been flawless. Again @ best I was pitched a statistical middle most example. Sure it has had its share of TSB's technical service bulletins (3?) There was also some brouhaha about the DSG (transmission). For some unknown reason, VW stepped up and extended the drivetrain warranty TO 10 year 100,000 miles. The Bosch fuel pump issue is RARE. Again VW stepped up again and will do it under warrant for 10 years 100,000 miles.
Given that a lot of cars do in fact USE common oem parts vendors, it is a tad TMI. That is why US made Honda's (like the Civic) rise to the top. Statistically they have figured out how to balance some to all of the variables juggled and remain being seen as one of the more "reliable" oems.
Also, lighter materials also tend to have some unique physical properties which make them a challenge to use. As an example - simply replacing CAST pistons with FORGED pistons made of the same material (aluminum) ... On paper, the FORGED pistons are stronger and lighter- BUT, in use, the FORGED pistons expand faster and hence are susceptible to "cold seizing" if the engine is not warmed-up properly. (I wonder how would that go over on a daily-driver?)
Unfortunately, "weight savings" almost always means "more cost". Lighter materials are usually more expensive to use, design and repair when they break.
Simply look at some of the 'supercars' which have very high power-to-weight ratios. The use of Graphite, Titanium, Inconel, composites, plastics...etc make these vehicles cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you bump into a curb and crack the body... expect to pay huge sums on money for a specialist who knows how to repair these exotic materials.
Another example: I have been asked to "fix" some fairly new Briggs-n-Stratton engines which may be less than 2 years old. When I find the PLASTIC GEARS for the camshaft are worn smooth... there is no easy fix for this. The valves simply do not work any more.
1. one step forward, two steps back.
2. what the government wants at the time or politically correct
3. what the market wants
4. what the oems build in response to all of the above.
My corollary: if you are the "correct side of it: "no BIG DEAL".
Even with American diesels as few as there are, one case in point is the 03 TDI. The real 1b corollary: who the hell cares?
The 03 Jetta TDI hits the US market 2,950 #'s. The real issues would be how many cars that come in @ app this weight get (EPA 42/49) 50 mpg? To me it is heavy, to most that are probably looking for cars, too light. It is a well known fact (supported by real world passenger vehicle fleets, etc) not many folks ACTUALLY buy sub 3000 # cars. The small car segment is 25%. 75% of the passenger vehicle fleet is the larger car/truck (aka heavier) segment. I am sure the majority of that minority segment weigh more. To make a (rule of thumb) minus- 5 mpg difference on weight alone, you are talking - 500 #'s or 2,500 # car. Even a smaller minority buy these (lighter) cars.
At the time I have read, the US government was concerned that generation of TDI's had too much power. Subtext would read: got way too many MPG's. BUT they could not say that, insofar as the stated policy is to get BETTER mpg NOT WORSE !! ??? On this issue I think one would have to scratch one's head in that the US version came in country @ 90 hp. So the fix was smaller injectors and 1 less gear (5 speed manual vs 6 speed manual) and MINUS - 2 mpg less than the European version. Now I do not know if the European version weighed more or less than the US version.
To be expected for large, mid-size, and compact, no? These aren't comparably sized cars. The HH is actually bigger than the Touareg.
And again, most people will never see 50 mpg in that TDI. More like 42-44, and with a number of compromises that many Americans are not willing to make in an automobile.
I'd say the diesel car's future in America is looking worse, not better, at the moment, unless some startling new product is about to hit our shores--re-opening the gap, so to speak, in mileage and range between diesel and gas cars.
Right now, with gas engines catching up on MPG, and diesel fuel prices exceeding premium fuel prices---I just don't see any great change in the overall picture.
For diesel enthusiasts, the GLK refresh brings good news in the form of a four-cylinder diesel. The engine we’ll see here displaces 2.1 liters; we’ll probably get the most powerful version offered in Europe, which has 204 hp and 369 lb-ft. We’ve heard, too, that Mercedes is expecting the diesel GLK to score an EPA highway fuel-economy rating in the upper 30s.
The 2.1-liter diesel four also will power a version of the next-gen C-class, which we expect to debut in about two years. Mercedes-Benz hopes to sell eight diesel models in the U.S. by the end of 2014
Despite not being a standout in any regard, the GLK sells well, and Benz’s number crunchers say 65 percent of its buyers are new to the Mercedes brand. Updated duds and revised engines should help strengthen its position. Expect the refreshed GLK and its optional diesel to arrive at dealers this summer.