Hybrid vs Diesel

larsb · February 2005

quote Gagrice-"You can buy the Sebring as clean as your state requires. In CA it is PZEV rated. Try getting that with the HCH or HAH, it will not happen. Honda does not build a hybrid sedan that is PZEV rated. Nice try to distort facts though."-end quote

You CAN INDEED get a PZEV HCH:

http://autos.msn.com/research/compare/default.aspx?mode=trims&amp- ;amp- ;modelid=11440&src=vip

"* Civic Hybrid AT-PZEV (2003) -- The first-ever hybrid vehicle certified as an advanced technology partial zero emission vehicle in California (AT-PZEV)"

http://www.kxtu.com/Global/story.asp?S=2310072

gagrice · February 2005

In CA, you get (AT) PZEV HCH

Not according to the EPA website. It is only SULEV II with a 9.0 rating for CA. Honda says it is sort of AT PZEV with exceptions. Not as clean as the Sebring that is PZEV with a 9.5 rating along with all the other PZEV cars that are available. Don't take it too hard Honda will catch up some day.

larsb · February 2005

Please Dont misinterpret the numbers---

A 9.5 "air pollution score" and a 6 for "GHG emissions score" is NOT a cleaner car overall than a car with a 9.0 air pollution score and a 10 GHG emissions score.

That's just not the case.

Go to the EPA site and search on "greenest cars" and look at the top five listing. Not a Sebring in sight.

http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/honda_civichybrid_cvtatpzev_2005/1

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx?modelid=11440&- amp;- amp;- amp;- amp;- amp;- amp;trimid=100111&src=VIP

http://www.autobytel.com/content/research/vir/index.cfm/series_id- - - - - - _int/38488/make_vch/Honda/Model_vch/Civic

"In addition, 2004 Civic Hybrids sold in Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts and New York will meet the same stringent Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle (AT-PZEV) standards as models sold in California, making the Civic Hybrid the first AT-PZEV vehicle sold outside of California."

http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2024?mid=2003100640557&mime=asc

http://www.aicautosite.com/Honda/2005-Honda-Civic-Hybrid.html

And Honda is the "greenest" car maker in the world too, if anyone is comparing company versus company.

Sylvia · February 2005

let's not get snotty or nasty about this. You can have a civil debate.

larsb · February 2005

sorry about the previous tone, but sometimes having to post things three or four times before people understand the meat of the post can get slightly annoying....:)

(all smiles now)

ruking1 · February 2005

That is what the "other side" thinks of YOU! (all smiles now)

ruking1 · February 2005

So why is it you only keep a car 5 years? or 12-15k miles per year or 60-75k. I ran a TLC for 250,000 miles at app 14 cents per mile. Could it be you want to avoid the hybrid battery costs that increases the chances it turning into a pumpkin at the strong of 150,000 miles ?

You really need look no further than its twin: Honda Civic gasser.

On the one hand, you pine on about saving the environment and conserving resources, yet on the other treat cars as a throw away disposable item with its attendant wastefulness. I think the moderator was correct in detection of : snootiness. I don't call it that. I call it elitism.

gagrice · February 2005

Any further questions? I didnt think so.

Looks like Honda convinced the media they were AT-PZEV. Too bad they did not convince the EPA. They are the ones that count. Not some Yahoo writer that is getting a kick back from Honda...

No one is arguing that the total HCH package is not "GREENER" than a Sebring. That does not make it CLEANER. We have not bought into the Kyoto Accord, because the Enviro types are fighting us going to diesel cars. The only practical solution to the GHG issue. Try to find a Honda hybrid that is PZEV on the EPA website. Then check all the cars that are PZEV.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

rfruth · February 2005

I have a Civic gasser so the hybrid battery costs aren't an issue for me but after 60-75K miles its someone elses turn (grin), just as importantly why is it honda.com shows the HCH as PZEV and fueleconomy.gov doesn't, could it be the web site is not up-to-date or are we onto something big here ?

ruking1 · February 2005

Honda gasser costs are at .31 cents per mile on the five year cycle.

gagrice · February 2005

HCH as PZEV and fueleconomy.gov doesn't, could it be the web site is not up-to-date or are we onto something big here ?

You win the prize. The EPA for 2005 have changed the ratings. You have to have a 9.5 to get the PZEV rating. A 9 gets you SULEV II. I only find two cars with a PZEV 9.5 rating, and they are the Sebring & Stratus. The Prius & HCH are SULEV II according to the EPA. The HAH is way back in the pack with a CA rating of 7. It may be the car makers did this on purpose to avoid the AT-PZEV warranty requirement. Of course none of you would believe that Honda & Toyota could be so devious.

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/about.htm

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/midcar-05.htm

gagrice · February 2005

The HAH would be a success if it could match Passat TDI mileage. It will need to be high 30s to low 40s. Even then it will not handle or be as safe as the Passat. Comparable hybrids cannot match diesel for year round high mileage.

todd53, "VW Passat TDI" #679, 2 Feb 2005 12:29 am

larsb · February 2005

quote ruking1-"On the one hand, you pine on about saving the environment and conserving resources, yet on the other treat cars as a throw away disposable item with its attendant wastefulness. I think the moderator was correct in detection of : snootiness. I don't call it that. I call it elitism."-end quote

I dont really want to respond to a personal attack like that, but I cannot let it stand and allow people to think the writer is correct.

I am far from an "elitist." I was born lower middle class, and have earned and worked my way up to "middle middle class" with 6 years in the Marine Corps, a good education and a few years of 18 hour days.

My attitude on this whole thing is that anything anyone can do to promote conservation is a good thing, as long as that thing which is done does not harm OTHER AREAS in the process.

And whether anyone wants to believe it or if they do not, CARS *ARE* consumables, which in definition means "something used then discarded." That is the nature of cars, or else we would all be driving 1918 Model T's, would we not?

My 2004 HCH is 90% recycleable. It is cleaner than most cars, cleaner than ANY diesel in the USA. I will spend about $600 on fuel this year versus $2200 last year. I am promoting a technology which will help the earth by reducing dependence on fossil fuels. I am not driving a dirty diesel, which pollutes more and in worse ways than almost any gasoline car on the road in the USA.

I will continute to be a proponent of Hybrids, because I want more car makers to build more of them, and I want the public to get the word out that they should buy and drive them.

Until such time as clean diesel fuel is widespread in the USA along with clean diesel vehicles, the fact remains that the Hybrids are the cleanest, greenest cars on the road today.

larsb · February 2005

Go to this website and choose a Civic Hybrid and you will see that PZEV is an option:

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/tailpipetally/home.cfm?synd=

03accordman · February 2005

The HAH is a performance auto, the Passat TDI is a eco auto, no comparison there. Still, you want to look at performance numbers, here they are

HAH 0-60: 6.5-7 Sec

Passat TDI: 10.5-11.5 Sec

Which buyer is going to cross shop these? As far as safety goes, could you point to a link that has the Passat safer than and Accord?

gagrice · February 2005

Go to this website and choose a Civic Hybrid and you will see that PZEV is an option:

You are ignoring the facts if you are driving a HCH with an under hood tag with the following:

5HNXV01.33A6, Your car is rated by the EPA at a 2. This is a reflection of the new ratings. EPA now only recognize two vehicles as PZEV. Your continuous slander of diesel technology does not look like you are interested in saving the environment. It looks like you are trying to justify your automobile purchase. Personally I think the HCH is a good choice. I think the VW TDIs are also good. The clean exhaust issue is so misleading that I feel it needs to be exposed. The clean air environmentalists should be spending their energies on exposing the real polluters in this country and not nit picking between two very clean vehicles where they are separated by a point or two on the EPA rating scale...

larsb · February 2005

quote gagrice-"Your continuous slander of diesel technology does not look like you are interested in saving the environment. It looks like you are trying to justify your automobile purchase. Personally I think the HCH is a good choice. I think the VW TDIs are also good. The clean exhaust issue is so misleading that I feel it needs to be exposed. The clean air environmentalists should be spending their energies on exposing the real polluters in this country and not nit picking between two very clean vehicles where they are separated by a point or two on the EPA rating scale..."

As far as my views on diesel, they are misinterpreted frequently. and this IS a forum where "nitpicking" is allowed !!

I am a FAN of "CLEAN DIESEL", providing the cars and the fuel gets here and the EPA rates them as "clean."

Until that happens, it's just "something that might happen in the future" is it not?

I do care greatly about the environment, and that's exactly why I am so set against "dirty diesel." Hundreds of scientific studies over the past 50 years have shown the harm and damage that dirty diesel does to the humans, animals, and air with which it contacts.

That is not an opinion.

The debate here is "diesel versus Hybrid" and I know the hybrids today in the USA are cleaner and better and more efficient, so I espouse that view for the benefit of the newer members of the forum.

robertsmx · February 2005

I've read that an average American keeps a car for about six years. Batteries aren't going anywhere, if thats the cost you're planning to throw at it. They are covered for at least eight years. And even if you don't want to replace them at the end of their life (which may be well past their warranty), all you lose is some fuel economy and performance, still left with a reasonably efficient ICE to propel the car.

robertsmx · February 2005

The problem with EPAs fuel economy rating (with numbers) is similar to the star rating methodology used by NHTSA for crash tests. Same number or stars dont necessarily carry the same meaning. PZEV and SULEVII are identical when it comes actual pollution measurements (and pollution does not include GHG emissions).

A better way to make your point on emissions would be to actually show amounts of pollutants contributed by these vehicles under same circumstances. Simply picking numbers from here or there isnt going to cut it.

Not according to the EPA website.

If EPA website is all that matters to you, where are you getting your ratings for HAH? EPA website doesnt have it! Be consistent.

gagrice · February 2005

Which buyer is going to cross shop these?

No one I know consider the Accord as good as the Passat. Those that are skeptical probably have not driven a new Passat TDI. I am including the Insurance Institutes ratings. As you can see the Accord has a below average 103 injury rating. The VW Passat is a much higher 79 rating. If you get the 4WD Passat it is a very high 66 rating. This is a compilation of real cars and real people dying in car crashes. Not laboratory speculation on safety.

I would be interested in the much more important performance in the 50-70 mph acceleration. Only kids & the media worry about 0-60 performance.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl_4dr.htm

gagrice · February 2005

Simply picking numbers from here or there isnt going to cut it.

You are right. A driver in an HAH that is getting 22 mpg average is going to be polluting more than a Passat TDI that is getting a combined 35 mpg.

ruking1 · February 2005

"My attitude on this whole thing is that anything anyone can do to promote conservation is a good thing, as long as that thing which is done does not harm OTHER AREAS in the process.

And whether anyone wants to believe it or if they do not, CARS *ARE* consumables, which in definition means "something used then discarded." That is the nature of cars, or else we would all be driving 1918 Model T's, would we not?

My 2004 HCH is 90% recycle able. It is cleaner than most cars, cleaner than ANY diesel in the USA. I will spend about $600 on fuel this year versus $2200 last year. I am promoting a technology which will help the earth by reducing dependence on fossil fuels. I am not driving a dirty diesel, which pollutes more and in worse ways than almost any gasoline car on the road in the USA. "

I am not sure why you continue to think that just because folks drive diesels, that they do not conserve, or believe otherwise. Also the back bone of the USA economy is fueled by diesel. Home heating oil (diesel) is run 24/7 in the winter time. Almost all commercial air transportation is fueled by the distillant closer to diesel than gasoline. Fully 50% of fuel consumed in the USA is in fact DIESEL.

Also then I would also think that the diesel vehicle is 90% recycle able also. We might just have difference on the definition of "consumable". You might think the average of 8.5 years or 128k, mine happens to be over 12years and 500,000 to 1,000,000 miles. So by definition which instance "conserves" more or less?

Driving your car that relies on foreign fuel(see my prior post about fungibility) will NOT DECREASE the dependence on FOREIGN fuel!

Perhaps this concept is so basic, so easy, so obvious, that folks fail to grasp it!!!??? Let alone acknowledge that folks may or may not understand. I really don't care that folks agree or disagree. I have fought, as did you, for folk's right to disagree. For discussion purposes, all I care is folks acknowledge or UNDERSTAND it.

Sylvia · February 2005

OK, gee, I really don't want to shut down ANOTHER discussion because certain people cannot stop attacking each other.

We could - kick a few people out, which would be a shame.

We could - stop the attacks and insults hurled at each other. Sounds like a much better plan, don't you think?

If not, I'll start being a Mom in here and giving "timeouts" and revoking the ability for certain members to post 1 week at a time.

Goodness sakes people, you can have a discussion without beating the crud out of each other. Agree to disagree on an issue and MOVE ON! A number of these themes simply get beaten to death time and time again.

ruking1 · February 2005

Having not seen the median, mode, indeed you might be correct. The average (mean) of the vehicle fleet (according to the auto salvage industry reports) is indeed 8.5 years.

On a far deeper and slightly different level, the hybrid advocates might really be "acting out" my point about the danger of investing in the "wrong" technology by indeed buying a hybrid every 5 years!!! I truly have NO issues concerns or problems with that at all. However, it is disengenous to say that is: 1. conservation 2. lessening dependence on foreign oil, when indeed neither item is true in comparison. Smoke and mirrors yes, in spades!!

xcel · February 2005

Hi Sylvia:

      It wasnt me this time ;-)

      Good Luck

      Wayne R. Gerdes

xcel · February 2005

Hi All:

      The EPA has revamped their emissions pages As for the details, this might help:

http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/rating.htm

      A 0 - 1 is a very sad score indeed and is even today not allowed to be sold in the 5-clean fuel states. A 2-3 isnt much better (2 to 3 Xs cleaner) but at least the HCH PZEV is a 9 unlike what some here consider clean emissions.

      Good Luck

      Wayne R. Gerdes

robertsmx · February 2005

No one I know consider the Accord as good as the Passat.

Count me in. I bought an Accord over Passat (and looking at reliability ratings at CR, Im glad I did they are exact opposites in that regard). I would, again. HAH over Passat TDI would be a no-brainer to me.

I am including the Insurance Institutes ratings.

What has this got to do with the topic? To continue this discussion, let us head to another thread.

I would be interested in the much more important performance in the 50-70 mph acceleration. Only kids & the media worry about 0-60 performance.

CR doesnt have numbers yet on HAH, but Passat TDI is among the worst in its class. They dont do 50-70, but 45-75. Forget about Accord Hybrid, Accord I-4 is quicker than Passat TDI (5.5s for Accord versus 6.5s for Passat, and just 4.2s for Accord V6).

You are right. A driver in an HAH that is getting 22 mpg average is going to be polluting more than a Passat TDI that is getting a combined 35 mpg.

The old formula of making a point isnt going to work. What about the drivers that are getting 30+ mpg in HAH? I quoted CR test results earlier (and they dont have one for Accord Hybrid yet) but here is the info I have (again):

Accord V6: 15 mpg (city)

Accord I-4: 16 mpg (city)

Passat TDI: 18 mpg (city)

Accord Hybrid could potentially beat Passat TDI in city rating. We should know shortly. And this, while completely disregarding performance aspects.

gagrice · February 2005

The debate here is "diesel versus Hybrid" and I know the hybrids today in the USA are cleaner and better and more efficient

There are at least 4 important factors that make up a "Green" vehicle. Pollution, GHG, Fuel quality & mileage.

An HCH that is bought outside of CA may have a SULEV II EPA rating. It will not be as clean as the same car running on the low sulfur gas sold in CA. The difference can be several rating points. In fact the HCH Lean Burn has a 2 rating outside CA. The same is true with diesel. If I have a VW TDI built in the last couple years and buy ECD-1 ULSD that car will run cleaner than many gas hybrids in other states. So the blanket statements about "dirty diesel" are erroneous and misleading to those that believe the media stories. This all comes down to compromises. The EU went toward lower GHG, high mileage & known longevity diesel cars. Most of the US buyers go for what looks cool.

Then you have driving habits. A person in a hybrid getting 47 mpg combined is going to be cleaner and greener than a person in the same hybrid getting 35 mpg combined. Pollution and GHG are directly related to the amount of fuel consumed. I think it can be proved that the person driving an Accord Hybrid getting 25 mpg combined is a bigger polluter than the guy in the 4 cylinder Accord getting 30 mpg average. Actually the Accord 4 cylinder is rated 2-3 points higher than the HAH. The HAH is a quite a ways down the list of midsize cars on the pollution scale. Not close to PZEV or even SULEV II as advertised.

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/midcar-05.htm

robertsmx · February 2005

The information that can be debated upon needs to be provided. You can do so, only from what is available, not from what that isnt. Studies done on ownership costs are available for 5 years, if you have data available for 7-8 years, let us see it.

On a far deeper and slightly different level, the hybrid advocates might really be "acting out" my point about the danger of investing in the "wrong" technology by indeed buying a hybrid every 5 years!!!

This is another assumption. People invest in what they can afford, or want. To suggest anything as wrong, requires more substantiation than just saying it.

robertsmx · February 2005

I think Accord Hybrid should be compared to cars that compete with it in terms of size and performance (to keep the "other things equal") and then go about figuring out the green or non-green factor. What do you believe in? Comparisons without a baseline?

gagrice · February 2005

Count me in. I bought an Accord over Passat

What didn't you like about the Passat TDI you test drove? As far as CR they are far from perfect in their picks. I trust my own intuition on buying vehicles.

PS

One of the recent posters on Passat TDI thread is averaging in the high 30s city low 40s highway. Your HAH will never see that kind of mileage.

ruking1 · February 2005

..."On a far deeper and slightly different level, the hybrid advocates might really be "acting out" my point about the danger of investing in the "wrong" technology by indeed buying a hybrid every 5 years!!!

This is another assumption. People invest in what they can afford, or want. To suggest anything as wrong, requires more substantiation than just saying it. ...

All the comments about having a flair for the obvious, aside, yes it is an assumption based on observation. Is it scientific? Heck no! This is apriori stuff!!! Since this is a discussion thread and not a dismissive one, if you dont care to discuss: IGNORE IT!!!?? Also it might be hard to have 7-8 year data on HCH or Prius when the car is not even that old?????

ruking1 · February 2005

So in effect given the projected limited nature of the battery issue, it might indeed be very sound to dump the HCH or the Prius at the 5 year or 75,000 mile marker, due to old technology and reliability issues. What does remain to be seen is the downstream prices of used hybrids at the 5-8 year mark.

Again I have no problem or issues with that.

For my .02 cents, that is way too consumptive. I have already gotten a Honda Civic gasser for app 9k less than a Honda Civic Hybrid and hope to run to 250,000 miles and beyond. Again time will tell. But indeed, I have history of running to 250,000 miles on other vehicles, and it is almost a no brainer.

robertsmx · February 2005

Your statement was pretty generic comparison of Accord to Passat. Did you mean Accord Hybrid versus Passat TDI specifically? In that case, it worsens the premise of the comparison. They are different animals, one gives up performance at a premium to deliver good fuel economy, the other is a refined performer at a premium with good fuel economy.

Why would you assume I would like TDI when I didn't, the 1.8T (which I considered). If pure "bang for buck" perspective were to be applied, I would go for Accord EX-L over HAH and Passat TDI.

As for CR, I wasn't talking about their "picks", I was talking about their reliability report (not something VW can brag about in longer term, given the not so distant history), and I was talking about actual fuel economy results obtained by them (not picking the best or the worst from "people I know").

xcel · February 2005

Hi Gagrice:

An HCH that is bought outside of CA may have a SULEV II EPA rating. It will not be as clean as the same car running on the low sulfur gas sold in CA. The difference can be several rating points. In fact the HCH Lean Burn has a 2 rating outside CA.

      The HCH PZEV and non-PZEV are 2 completely different automobiles in terms of their emissions components. It is not the fuel that differentiates the two in the least. As for a PZEV or non-PZEV running LS and a PZEV or non-PZEV running HS fuel, the PZEV/non-PZEV will only drop 1 level, not multiples.

If I have a VW TDI built in the last couple years and buy ECD-1 ULSD that car will run cleaner than many gas hybrids in other states.

      You are way off on this one. The only emission of significance a diesel will drop on ULSD is SOx because you do not have nearly the after treatment of the SI-ICEs.

      If you want to speak of Europe, the next time you are there, walk up to a church and run your fingers across the base of the windows. I am sure you will be in for quite a surprise as to the residue.

      In terms of the AH, it is at least a ULEV-II. This is far cleaner then any diesel available in the states and in terms of performance, reliability, and amenities, the Jetta or Passat TDI is very distant second indeed.

      Finally, in terms of driving habits and GHG emissions in terms of fuel consumed, did you really want to bring these items up? I dont know if you even knew the difference between GHGs and the 19.x #s of CO2 from combustion or the 9.x #s from well to tank emitted after a gallon of fuel is consumed. I still have yet to see any of your real world FE vs. what some of us hybrid drivers have achieved. Would you care to bring it up as I would be glad to do a detailed comparison.

      Good Luck

      Wayne R. Gerdes

robertsmx · February 2005

yes it is an assumption based on observation. Is it scientific? Heck no!

The obvious thing about assumption is that they arent scientific. But observation is an interesting thing. I participate a lot in it too. Youre seeing things, I have not. What is the source of your observation, especially when you know that it is hard to have 7-8 years data, at least in the USA? What exactly have you observed?

So in effect given the projected limited nature of the battery issue, it might indeed be very sound to dump the HCH or the Prius at the 5 year or 75,000 mile marker

How so? Warranty isnt the end of the term with a car, or is it? In hybrids, electric components carry 8 year warranty. Or did I keep my current Accord for too long now that the 3-year warranty had expired over four years ago.

ruking1 · February 2005

..."The obvious thing about assumption is that they arent scientific. But observation is an interesting thing. I participate a lot in it too. Youre seeing things, I have not. What is the source of your observation, especially when you know that it is hard to have 7-8 years data, at least in the USA? What exactly have you observed? "...

Actually nothing that you can not also observe!

Also, it will be interesting to compare the repair costs and used car prices between the HCH and the Civic gasser at the 100,000, 200,000, 300,000 mile markers.

gagrice · February 2005

Why would you assume I would like TDI when I didn't, the 1.8T (which I considered). If pure "bang for buck" perspective were to be applied, I would go for Accord EX-L over HAH and Passat TDI

I assumed you had driven the Passat TDI before you decided on the Accord. As far as the 1.8 gas Passat I would take the Accord EX over it. Though I doubt I would waste money on either car. I really think the Jetta Wagon TDI is a better choice for a runabout car for my needs. I generally keep cars over 15 years and rarely do they hit 100k miles.

ruking1 · February 2005

Yeah, also there is a huge difference in the rust through warranty for the Honda Civic and the VW TDI's. I think this is one place that VW quality is there, unseen and unheralded. As most VW owners will know, the metal is galvanized steel. The oem warranty is 12 years.

I also share your view about not getting a gasser VW. Also I felt less than luke warm about the EX Accord.

larsb · February 2005

quote ruking1-"the metal is galvanized steel. The oem warranty is 12 years."-end quote

Good point for people in coastal areas and who keep a car for 12 years. That's a VERY SMALL demographic, therefore that particular feature is not going to make very many (if any) people decide to go with the less reliable VW just to get 12 years of rust prevention warranty.

kernick · February 2005

you: The HAH is a performance auto, the Passat TDI is a eco auto, no comparison there.

me: I guess it's all relative, but you think the HAH is a performance car??? Maybe if you are comparing it only to 4-door family sedans. The HAH is a compromise vehicle on economy and performance, with a not too attractive $30K+ price tag.

If you want to get good mpg on the HAH or any hybrid you're not going to be stomping on the peddle. It's going to kill the mpg. And if you wanted high mpg, the I-4 engine should have been used.

Sylvia · February 2005

weren't responded to "just this one time."

Sorry folks, but you are getting out of hand. If you don't see a post box when you enter the discussion you know you've been given a timeout for a few days to cool off.

larsb · February 2005

Honda was not making a Prius competitor when they added IMA to the Accord.

They have always said "we can add the IMA system to ANY car in our line" and they are proving it.

The goal of the HAH as I see it was to provide a "no compromise" hybrid car, one which does not skimp on power (even more powerful than the EX V6) and STILL manages to provide 30-40% better EPA fuel numbers than the non-hybrid V6 Accord.

They were not trying to make a 50 MPG car, and were not trying to make a sports car either.

It was not an Evolution of any sort - it was just a powerful 255 hp, near-luxury, midsize, 4-door, family sedan with a 30/37 MPG rating : something no one else offers.

ruking1 · February 2005

And if the car manufacturers have their way, they would decrease the warranty even more (Honda has) and try to get down the average age of the vehicle fleet. (higher and ever higher costs and use of resources to build more cars at a faster rate)

It would be interesting to compare the average fleet age of VW's verses Honda's. My sense is there are a lot more % wise of older VW's.

larsb · February 2005

VW has always marketed toward "people who want to keep cars longer," for whatever reason.

The "age of fleet" stats will skew unfairly to VW because of the old VW buses and VW Bugs from 1945-1990 on the road, if one were to compare fleet ages. Of course.

And another reason numbers would be skewed to VW is that Honda does not make diesels (at least for the USA) and VW *does* sell diesels - which by design are "longer running" engines than gas engines.

But remember: there are more components to a car than engines. All the other stuff needs to work for 100K plus miles too. That's another reason why the "longevity" of the diesel engine has not swayed very many buyers.

None of that means VW makes "better cars" than Honda. All it means is that people keep them longer because they are novelty (Bugs) and diesels.

All car companies have a financial incentive to make shorter warranties, and let's face it: they are in business to make money, not to sell cars that run to 300K miles.

Less reliable and smaller companies like Hyundai and Mitsubishi are using longer warranties to try to get an edge over the larger companies.

ruking1 · February 2005

Well I have already given a plethora of reasons which while you say is important on the one hand, yet, on the other you are dismissive of it.

And I don't know why you don't acknowledge % percentage wise. As if you didn't understand there are differing datas that Japanese cars etc became more widespread than say German cars.

The point is adjusted for those facts, my sense and your sense also is the VW has far greater longevity. ie less consumption!!?? This is not to say I do not known folks who would look to sell high end Porsches MB's Lexus' Infinity's because the oil change is coming due.

Another point is why are you replacing the car at 100,000 miles, when for example you need just brake pads????? Again if you dont see massive overkill consumption here, I think you don't see consumption at all. Again why are you buying a 20k car when changing for example the engine for 3k would address the emissions and update issues ? Again on the TDI most items on which you talk are normal replacement items not custom due to TDI concerns. Tires, brakes pads, rotors, clutch, strut/shocks etc.

gagrice · February 2005

And another reason numbers would be skewed to VW is that Honda does not make diesels (at least for the USA) and VW *does* sell diesels - which by design are "longer running" engines than gas engines.

Now you are getting what we have said all along. I have scoured this forum to find any evidence to back up the bad rap that VW has gotten at the keyboard of the Honda & Toyota fans. I just don't see it. I see way more complaints about the Accord than any of the VW cars listed. And it is especially apparent that owners of VW diesels are extremely happy with their cars. Hybrid owners likewise are happy. I do see some grumbling among those that bought the HAH expecting better mileage and higher quality. If you look at the statistics since the HAH went on the market you will see more complaints than for the same time frame concerning the VW TDI cars. The last happy Passat TDI owner that posted, also owns an Acura TL & MDX. So that should be a good indicator of where the VW TDI ranks with owners.

ruking1 · February 2005

I would also agree, since I own a TDI and Honda Civic gasser side by side. So I am by any stretch of any definition NOT, anti VW or anti Honda!! If voting with my pocket book is any indication, I am pro VW, pro Honda.

Let me again dispel the myth (not that any Honda or Toyota folks care) that since I have a VW TDI that I HAVE to have MORE reliability problems than Honda. The RATE is certainly higher for VW, as much as I can gather from so called mirrored sources. Neither Honda nor VW (nor any manufacturer for that matter) publishes the actual rates. Having said that after 48,000 miles on a VW TDI and 6k on a Honda Civic, BOTH are flawless! I will be able to see like reliability when the Civic reaches 48,000 miles, so in that sense the nod has to go to the VW TDI over the Honda Civic.

Part of the reason I was lukewarm about the Accord (HCH and Prious also) was researching the larger data points about troubles. Again most folks who report troubles express SHOCK because it is a Toyota and or Honda!!!??? As a result are almost apologetic about it and think well this is only an anomoly! In contrast, VW TDI folks are like folks on a reality show!!!

larsb · February 2005

The overall global consumption of cars is not at all affected by when I trade in my car for a new one...someone else will drive my trade-in...

For the overall global consumption of cars to be affected, hundreds of thousands of people would have to be convinced that they need to keep their cars longer than 8.5 years, or whatever the median is, which for SURE in the USA is shorter than 8.5 years.

And remember too, that cars are recycled at a much higher rate these days too, compared with 15-20 years ago. So a "consumed car" does not exactly go into the landfill.

As for keeping cars 150K miles and above, people (in general) just don't want to deal with all those ongoing repairs, which get costly to the owner after the warranties are up.

Keeping cars that long was a much more common occurance in the past, when the costs of maintaining a personal car were much reduced because of the less complex engines and vehicle designs, when many people could do a lot of repair work themselves.

Many people will trade-in a high mileage car when faced with an expensive repair, say for example $1500 or more, rather than pay for that repair. That might increase consumption in some miniscule way, but it keeps the owner happy and in a car they like and will take care of.

Diesels engines, for those people who WANT to deal with repairs at the 150K - 300K levels, are designed to run that long with fewer overhauls.

But that fact ALONE is just one small factor in deciding which kind of car to buy, diesel or Hybrid. In the equation of "overall reliability," the ENGINE is just one component. Surely an important one, but if your power windows dont work, or your A/C compressor goes out, how does the fact that an engine might run for 200K miles make a diff?

ruking1 · February 2005

..."The overall global consumption of cars is not at all affected by when I trade in my car for a new one...someone else will drive my trade-in...



For the overall global consumption of cars to be affected, hundreds of thousands of people would have to be convinced that they need to keep their cars longer than 8.5 years, or whatever the median is, which for SURE in the USA is shorter than 8.5 years.



And remember too, that cars are recycled at a much higher rate these days too, compared with 15-20 years ago. So a "consumed car" does not exactly go into the landfill.



As for keeping cars 150K miles and above, people (in general) just don't want to deal with all those ongoing repairs, which get costly to the owner after the warranties are up. "...

Again more examples of you coming around to our way of thinking as expressed in earlier posts!! Or should I say agreement being as how that seems to trigger an auto response of testrostrone!

But I have to say if I keep my VW TDI 500,000 to 1,000,000 miles vs say a HCH that I will get rid of in 5-8.5 years or 100,000 . On the mileage alone that is 1 VW TDI at 18,000 vs 5 Hybrids at 20,000. Obviously, pays your monies; takes yours chances!

Since I have run two cars to 250,000 miles, 1987 Toyota Landcruiser and 1970 VW Beetle, it is not much more of a stretch to go a min of 500,000 miles. Ya do go through a pallet load of tires, however. Both cars seemed to consume tires app 50,000 mile between sets so over 500,000 miles we are talking 5 sets of suv tires and 5 sets of economy tires. But as you can guess the same happens with new cars. So if you buy 5 new cars you will go through 5 sets of tires!?

Hybrid vs Diesel

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles