By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
According to local media reports, workers at Volkswagen de México’s Puebla, Mexico plant, who had been on strike since 18 August have returned to work following an improved wage rate offer from management. Previous reports had indicated that the workers were seeking a 3% wage increase, whereas VW had offered a 1% increase in wages starting in February 2010, as well as a Peso 5,500 (US$425) cash bonus.
A new agreement means that around 9,250 workers will now receive a 3% increase in pay and a one-time payment of Peso 2,000 (US$155). 2% of the deal will be paid as from 18 August, with the additional 1% beginning in December, with a consequent increase in benefits that are calculated based on salary,
A VW statement notes: “Due to the results of this revision, Volkswagen’s labour costs in Puebla continue to rise, while the rest of the auto industry in Mexico hasn’t given salary increases this year. This will force the company to reinforce measures to improve its production levels.”
During the four days the strike lasted, Volkswagen de México lost production of just over 6,000 units of the Bora, Variant, Jetta and Beetle models. The walkout was sparked by the union, which represents 9,243 workers out of the total 12,908 Volkswagen workers in Mexico, when the two parties could not come to an agreement on wage negotiations for 2010. Workers originally asked for an 8.25% increase, an amount they later dropped to 3% plus other benefits.
Volkswagen de México confirmed on 21 July its plans to invest US$1bn in expanding the Puebla plant. Construction work has begun on the new production facilities, which will start assembling a new model built exclusively in Mexico for global markets from mid-2010. The growth of the Puebla plant will allow Volkswagen to increase its daily capacity by 300 units to 2,100 vehicles. The expansion of the plant will cost US$410m - the remaining investment being earmarked for supplier tooling, and in particular for development of the new model in which VW says its Mexican engineers are playing an ‘instrumental’ role.
Most auto makers are closing plants. VW is expanding and making money. Could it be they know what buyers want?
D2: $2.75
RUG: $3.09
PUG: $3.29
I not only love driving my Jetta, I love filling it up.
The nexus to the VW TDI is that D2 ( for conversational purposes) is an oil and does not evaporate anything NEAR RUG to PUG.
So not only does a TDI burn less (20-40% advantage), it is an infinitesimally small part of an infinitesimally HUGE smog producer(evaporation) RUG to PUG !!!!!
So part of the boutique pricing are the additives (and special winter/summer blends) for winter and summer RUG to PUG.
So for example "oxygenated" gasoline, fake speak for government MANDATED 10% ethanol, is even more highly evaporative than NON "oxygenated" gasoline (as evaporative as normal RUG to PUG is) .
So at least two level of government/s regulation/s (mandated 10% ethanol and 98% of the passenger fleeting using RUG to PUG) AND its compliance/s is/are responsible for MAJOR level s of smog production that would not exist, if not for mandated compliance to the "ANTI" SMOG regulations !!!!!!!!! This is a catch 22 that is almost too insane to document or talk about !!??
Again anyone can google this, but look at evaporation rates of D2, RUG to PUG, Ethanol,
•
Ethanol increases evaporation rate of gasoline which increase smog amounts
–
EPA confirmed with 14 out of 18 realistic models in California
link title
We haven't even got to the fact that E85 is 25% MORE than RUG to PUG. RUG to PUG is 20-40% more consumptive than D2.............
This might be called a burn MO is bettah ,while telling folks to burn less is ever mo mo bettah policy.
Actually burning less? (like VW TDI? 45 mpg vs a BURN MO RUG to PUG (like VW gassers 24 mpg?) Why RUG to PUG is BETTAH !!!
URG 2.44
D2 2.56
D2 was 10 to 20 cents cheaper than RUG starting in mid March. About mid August they were equal at about 2.49. Recently gas prices are dropping, but D2 is holding it's level. I'm not complaining at all. When I bought my '09 TDI Sedan, it was $4.69, about $1 more than RUG. I'm lovin going 500 miles on about $31.
cents per mile driven: fuel can give a fairer comparison.
So we know (from your example) you are paying an estimated .062 per mile driven, D2 (31/500=)
If you had a gasser VW (like model Jetta) @24 mpg that would be .1017 cents per mile driven RUG (2.44/24=)
RUG in this case (per mile driven ) costs 64% more than D2.
I test drove a VW Jetta TDI w/DSG and liked it (though I think I want a stick). But I'm having a hard time justifying it at a rough MSRP of 24k vs a Mazda3 sedan at 18k or so (or even a Jetta S). I've done some calculations based on my average miles driven per year...under 12k miles (My Camaro is 9 yrs old; purchased June 2000; and is only at 97k miles) and it seems like depending on price of gas/diesel, it will take anywhere from 6.5 to 10 yrs to make up the extra cost. These calculations were based on fuel cost only, not depreciation. (Gas was factored at two prices, $2.50 and 3.50 with diesel factored at 10 cents higher since that is what it is running here now).
So, for whom does a TDI usually make sense? FWIW, my commute one way is roughly 12 miles free flowing highway and 2.5 miles city streets/stoplights to get to/from the highway.
Even a $2500 road bicycle would be hard to justify as a "gas saver", since you'd have to peddle it 24,000 miles to save $2500 in gas over a car getting 30 mpg @ $3 a gallon. You WOULD be buff, though-- :P
Probably the only type of driver who could "justify" a TDI on fuel economy alone would be, say, the extreme case of a traveling salesperson who went from a big SUV to a TDI and who clocks 40,000 miles a year. He could "save" himself $5000 a year.
But there is also:
driving pleasure
resale value
the "green thing"
possibility of longer engine life
possibility of lower maintenance costs
I do plan to keep the car for 10 yrs (I'm at 9 yrs 3 months on the Camaro).
I did test drive a Mazda 3s Sport actually and liked the handling on it quite well, but I need to go back and test the MT instead of the auto. But I prefer the interior of the Jetta and felt like the Jetta had more room in the back seat. Still the Mazda 3s sport can apparently be had under $20k. As could a Jetta S.
I don't think you can justify a TDI on fuel economy alone, anymore than you can justify a Prius or even a Vespa motorscooter, strictly on "money saved" I mean.
Very true...the Prius is kinda cool, but after test driving it, no way could I own one...it would drive me nuts.
Flip A:
Heads - VW
Tails - Mazda
if A = VW then
Flip B:
Heads - Jetta S
Tails - Jetta TDI
if A = Mazda then
Flip B:
Heads - sedan
Tails - 5dr hatch
There really isn't a whole lot else out there that interests me...I may take a look at a Ford Fusion, but that is about it.
Calculate your monthly payments for whatever interval/car and tell us what they are.
Subtract one from the other= monthly SAVINGS by keeping the Camaro.
So 874/40 mpg=22 gal per mo for D2 * 2.89= D2= $63.58 per mo. ADD that to the monthly payment of $24,000.
Once you put some numbers to it, the answers will hit you between the eyes as with a 2x4.
1. for the universe that you have narrowed the car choices down to
2. the fact you only do 10,500 miles per year/875 per mo, the TDI diesel fuel equation only makes sense in the context of like models. Or like power, TDI/Camry Hybrid.
3. So really it is the cheapest (gasser) that you like.
We chose a Civic :
1. it had projected very high resale value
2. 5,436 cheaper than the TDI @ the time
3. pretty good fuel mileage (38-42 vs 48-52 for a purposeful commute 15,000 miles per year with of course weekend miles.
When I did a quick and dirty comparo (depreciation and fuel) over all the costs were SLIGHTLY cheaper (less than 1/2 of one percent cheaper per mile driven (D& F) for the 04 Honda @ like miles (92,000) than for the 03 Jetta TDI
*)savings in fuel
*)resale value
I dont mean to toss more variables into the mix...but here are some things to ponder...
*) mfr- recommended maintenance schedules.
*)Diesel DOES NOT HAVE any ignition system or related components to maintain or fail.
*)VW has 12Year/unlimited mile corrosion warantee (this is EXTREMELY important to me here where the roads are white with salt for 5 months of the year.)
*)In my opinion, wIth VW, you get MORE CAR for the xtra cost. VW is more "upscale" than equalvalant-sized competetion. (Afterall ... VW is basically an Audi without the aluminum body)
*) TDI maintains a BETTER resale-value than basic gasser-VW (perhaps above the Honda)
We have an suv that is currently at 171,000 miles.
This is one of the things bringing me back to the VW. As I mentioned, I also drove a Mazda 3s Sport and quite liked it. Hit 80 on the freeway before I noticed. But, I wasn't crazy about the dash layout and such...it's too young/trendy/boy racer for me...I liked the more conservative layout in the VW much better. And the VW had the more "substantial" feel. I'd more seriously consider the Golf/Rabbit even except no MT on the 4 door so I'd have to compromise on either doors or transmission unless willing to pony up extra $$$ for GTI or TDI Golf.
I really need to find a dealer with the TDI 6MT in stock. I can't imagine that I wouldn't like it. The DSG wasn't bad...at least in sport mode.
Guess I should mention that I have a sentimental attachment to VW also...I learned to drive on an '81 VW Jetta diesel...it shifted smoother than any of the 4 cars I've had since.
Also, don't forget to take into account a disaster in diesel prices like last year. First off, I live in New England, and with the competition with fuel oil, the diesel prices are probably at least fifty cents more than premium in a normal winter- but last year was just unbelievable, it was more than 50% more expensive than regular unleaded. If the economy recovers and/or there are refining issues, that could easily happen again. Not worth it IMO. I test drove a Jetta Sportwagen and it's nice enough, but not enough to offset the drawbacks in my book.
Beyond the fuel economy differential, I wonder which of the two is more reliable up to say, 150K? So far, my son's Mazda3 has been bulletproof in the reliability department.
Fair enough. Upwards of 98% of the passenger diesel population shows that many agree or have bought into that argument.
But even if they did not last the 500,000 miles (the real goal is beyond) diesel engines would be better adapted, over all to the US scaled roads. Like I said in a prior post, I have already done 250,000 miles in two (dissimilar) gassers and have no issues at all heading to the 200,000 miles marker in the 03 TDI (TURBO DIESEL (@123,000).
I don't think your fear and implicit opinions about "over complicated" are necessarily 'diesel drawbacks' for anyone other than you. I'm not sure why you'd think diesel engines are any more 'over complicated' than gasser engines nowadays.
In some previous normal winters (2003/04) i remember diesel fuel being 49 cents and gasoline being 99 cents!
it's not clear what "the new normal" is - but it seems like it might be that diesel costs about the same as premium gasoline.
we'll see what happens this winter...
Curretly, gasoline is app $ 3.11 and D2 $ 2.89.
None of these facts are advertised. Indeed the facts are a better kept secret than.... STATE secrets.
So again, if the average speed is 40-50 mph *25,000 hours = 1,000,000 to 1,250,000 miles.
My friend has a Toyota that has 305,000 well documented miles on an 'unopened' engine. Still runs fine, but it's weak and it's noisy. He's delighted, but I would have overhauled the engine by now, because it's getting feeble. It's tired.
In reality, my guess would be that diesel car engines probably don't survive any longer than gas ones, due to abuse, accident, etc. Now those big-A diesel truck engines---that's another story. They are the size of grand pianos and they run up miles really fast.
In regards to your friend with 305,000 miles on his Toyota gasser, I think he is just in the element he wants to be in !!??? Sure, he probably should have rehabilitated or replaced the engine, but it is equally obvious (to me anyway) he'd be less in his "element" if he dropped the $3 to 6k to cure the weak and noisy features: that feeble ness and tiredness that bothers YOU and not ...HIM.
Longevity is a whole other subject, but it starts with keeping the vehicle clean and something that is neither diesel nor gasser related: but GARAGED !!!
All I am trying to do whether gasser or diesel is to put as many of the "longevity variables" in my favor and.... hope for the best. !! As you can tell, I report as I go along.
After all, the rest of the VW Jetta (sans the specifications that make it TDI) are for the most part EXACTLY the same as for the gasser !!!
Talk to anybody in Europe, who experienced "modern diesel" technology in last ten years and they will tell you. When new run great. Huge torque at disposal, very quiet, very nice. Three-five years later? Repair bills, higher maintenance bills. Longevity also suffered. Talk to any long-distance coach bus driver how long those older buses lasted and how long do those new ones. Those modern diesels are just like those high-tech gas engines - often worse.
Bottom line - the trend is reversing in Europe. Gas engines are in the come back. High diesel (car and fuel) prices don't help, either. It used to take couple of years of high mileage driving to make up for price difference. Now it takes more, or in extreme cases diesels cost more to operate even on day-to-day basis.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
When I think why they did did the only scenario I could think was Hans in Wolfsburg's Marketing Dept. got a late-night fax asking about that mileage, he took specs of the smallest corporate TDI they have in Euro Jettas (probably some 1.4l), converted liters/100 km into imperial galons (20% more) per nautical miles (16% more). On top of it, Hans being a liberal arts major was made couple of math errors then John on the other side of the Atlantic decided that he could also round that number up a little. And that L&G is how we get 55 mpg before we get 41.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
But maybe that's okay. All ideals are just that...it's what we strive for, not what we actually achieve----so maybe aiming high with a new TDI is a fine idea.
On another note---I can't imagine why any company would bear the expense to make one part of its machine go 2X longer than any other. That strikes me as bad engineering, not good engineering. What's the goal? A junkyard full of broken down cars with good engines?
I don't recall VW claiming the car would get 55mpg on the EPA sticker....but that it was capable of that on the highway. Big difference. It certainly is possible to achieve that mileage, although most seem to be getting mid 40's with any kind of mix or not hyper-miling. Even the EPA had discussed the fact that diesels have done better than gassers when comparing the EPA stickers EPA document, see pag 8
About maintenance - the appeal of old diesel was that ... it didn't need as much maintenance. It could literally burn heating or vegetable oil without much (or any) harm to the engine. (Don't) try it with the new diesels.
Again - they all run great, but their major appeal of durability and insensitivity to abuse/neglect/misuse/mistake/fuel quality is all but gone. They are as pickey and as fragile as gas engine. Proper maintenance? Fine with me - just add urea tank refill every 15K miles, high grade of engine oil, frequent changes and you are fine. So - where is that great cost advantage, again?
2018 430i Gran Coupe
That's not what I said. In many months before new Jetta TDI hit the market, VW's website in its "future vehicles" section had a nice page with "over 55 mpg". Call it "preanouncement". It was basically to put "shock and awe" in hearts of the competition, I guess - and create a nice buzz. And buzz there was.
Even after EPA tests were published they still had it for those couple of months. But the car wasn't officially here yet, so they they didn't have actual vehicle specs - laws were not broken. Obviously once they started actual sales (i.e. official stickers) then they had to put whatever EPA was.
BTW, EPA changed its standards in 2008 exactly to reflect your Odyssey experience - or approximate it better to be more precise. New EPA stickers tend to actually underestimate mileage for those who drive conservatively.
I don't mean to say TDI is not getting good mileage. But the 55 "preanounced" vs 41 "tested" was a real embarrassment. They even wanted to issue a challenge to their drivers how to get that 55 mpg. Edmunds noticed that, too,
2018 430i Gran Coupe
No Urea on the 4 cylinder TDI. Only on the luxury 6 cylinder diesels. I know MB, BMW and Audi do all the maintenance including urea, for the duration of the warranty.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
...Are these claims from the same company that anounced this car with "over 55 mpg" just a few months before EPA gave it whoping 41 mpg highway?"...
If you are talking about 2009 VW Jetta TDI, VW NEVER had claimed over 55 mpg EPA . EPA DSG is 29c/40h
the very next paragraph that you must have ignored
..."None of these facts are advertised. Indeed the facts are a better kept secret than.... STATE secrets."...
BTW, I'm not really against diesels per say. I just don't see them being a cure for cancer, that's all.
2018 430i Gran Coupe