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
I got 48 MPG at 77 MPH and I have it on video tape. See it on youtube.
I would have embarrassed them and their piddly 18 MPG.
My best TCH tank was 543 miles at 44.48 miles per gallon.
As far as trip computers versus reality:
My HCH trip computer was off versus the "miles divided by tank gallons" by about 2.7% over the time I had it. The TCH has been off by about 3.1%, in both cases the car computer being the "high" side.
No car trip computer in the world is much more accurate than 1-3% off, at least none that I have ever heard of.
I don't think it's "inferior anything" - we just cannot figure out a way to actually measure the actual gas burned.
That is why I only trust my calculator and spreadsheet. It is nice to have some idea of what mileage you are getting. I just would not give trip computer readings as true mileage as many do. That was my snide comment on Toyota electronics. I am just disappointed in no Sat Radio option and less than accurate NAV and CD player that skips. I would never buy another Toyota with NAV entertainment unit. I would get a Pioneer or some high quality unit.
Fill it at the lowest speed until it automatically shuts off. Repeat the next time. By removing the variables like this you get real results with a simple calculator.
Yeah, I pretty much agree. However, it seems that the car computer always returns a higher number. If it were over 2% one time and under 1.5% the next, I'd throw in with you. Or, if I'd ever heard of an onboard MPG number that was lower than the calculated (pump numbers) value, that would help too. I've never heard of either of these scenarios, but perhaps you have.
It's close, but always higher. If you're a pinhead (like me, look at the moniker), you'll soon determine what the correction factor is.
For most (as in, normal) people, not so much.
Some times, you have posted 80 km/h SL indicated by the word "bei Nässe" which means by humid weather.
My own experience on wet Autobahn is that generally people drive below 80 mph, but rarely at 50 mph. I haven't driven enough in Germany to be assertive though.
France has a hard limit of 110 kph instead of 130 when raining.
I find driving in Germany to be amongst the best in Europe, (and certainly better than here in U.K.). Lane discipline is far better and folks don't sit so close behind that they can read the manufacturer's spec codes etched onto your rear screen, or count the demister elements. The locals on the Brussels Ring in Belgium tend to drive as though they were taught to drive a la NASCAR. It is not at all unusual to look in the rear view mirror and not see anything of the bonnet, (hood), of the car behind - just the windscreen and though the limit is only 120kph, (wet or dry), it can be scary for a newbie. Leave a 2ft gap in front of your car and some soul in 1 litre Citroen C1, running on the redline in 3rd, will try and get in. Gets the adrenalin going, though.
Apologies for being completely off-topic. As an attempt at redemption let me just point out that my local price for ULSD is a tad over $10 per US Gallon equiv.
That is not really true. As I write this diesel exceeds RUG in Calif. by 59.3 cents. That works out to 13% higher diesel to RUG.
AAA is also reporting that diesel is up to $4.813, another record.
"So when a person needs a new car and he looks at alternative fuels in the future, the diesel is the only logical choice. I think VW will have a winner with the TDI."
I would agree that the TDI should do well. I do not agree that diesel is the only logical choice, big surprise right. :shades: I am not convinced yet that we have seen peak diesel prices yet. Maybe in another year or two the trends will become more clear.
"The VW TDI as it sits will run on any percentage of biodiesel."
Do we know this for a fact? Has VW said you can use B20 or B100? Doesn't VW limit the car to B5?
And what about the rumor that the biodiesel, in high concentrations, will condense onto the cylinder walls at injection, and then gets by the piston rings which dilutes and destroys the engine oil?
To keep on topic I really like my Mazda but would like to see them offer some diesels here for better milage.
Yes it is a fact.
Biodiesel is registered as a fuel and fuel additive with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and meets clean diesel standards established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Neat (100 percent) biodiesel has been designated as an alternative fuel by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the US Department of Transportation (DOT).
If you produce a product in your garage that does not meet the standard as biodiesel and put that in you car you may have problems. Biodiesel is a very good solvent. That means running it in a vehicle that has been running on dirty diesel may cause problems if you do not keep your filter clean. Mercedes and VW both list B5 as acceptable for good reason. If you put a high concentration of biodiesel in a car that is sitting in very cold temperatures it will probably gel up and not run. That is the downside to B100. Same as Number 2 diesel will gel at low temperatures. In the Arctic the only thing available to us was Number one diesel or kerosene. It will not gel at extreme cold temperatures. I would run B100 in a vehicle if it was readily available. Currently the only Biodiesel available in San Diego is Bio WIlie which is B20. There are dozens of companies in CA, Oregon and Hawaii that use 100% biodiesel with great results. To me that is the greenest choice you have currently available. Many of those operations are run on waste oil that is converted to biodiesel. So there were no food crops killed in the making of this product. :shades:
The automaker cannot deny warranty unless they prove the biodiesel caused a problem. Most people using biodiesel are aware of the gelling and do not try to run it at low temperatures unless the vehicle is in a warm garage at night. I know the Co-op in Brookings So Dakota has been selling B20 for many years. I worked with a guy that lives there. He ran it in his Ford Powerstroke and said it was great.
I have had that happen in both of my hybrid cars. Sometimes, probably about 25% of the time, the car's computer is the LOW one.
so now YOU have heard of it !!!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Diesel's Dark Clouds
From the story: now the GW groupies are slamming diesel too:
Black carbon is also under scrutiny as a contributor to climate change. In contrast to sulfate particles from power plants, which cool the earth locally by reflecting away sunlight, black carbon particles absorb sunlight and release heat. Estimates of black carbon’s warming effect have varied widely, prompting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to downplay it. As a result, regulators—including CARB—have left it out of their analyses of diesel emissions.
But recent research could change regulators’ minds. A report in Nature Geoscience this March by atmospheric scientist V. Ram Ramanathan, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in San Diego, and University of Iowa chemical engineering professor Greg Carmichael, measured black carbon’s warming effect at three to four times as much as the range of estimates recognized by the IPCC. They conclude that emissions of diesel soot and other forms of black carbon may have a warming impact on Earth’s atmosphere second only to carbon dioxide. The result affirms above-average estimates from researchers at Stanford, Caltech, and NASA that clashed with the IPCC view.
Mark Jacobson, the Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering who first identified black carbon’s warming potential in 2000, says that factoring this potential in could eliminate most of diesel’s apparent carbon advantage. “It’s just total nonsense to think that diesel cars actually reduce carbon emissions,” says Jacobson.
B20 trying to get into the Show
Automakers: Could You Please Start Supporting B20? Thank You!
Why don’t automakers provide better support for biodiesel? The most (seemingly) reasonable explanation I’ve been given has to do with biodiesel’s ability to withstand the incredibly high pressures and precise specifications of the new common rail fuel injection systems, which also could apparently impact the ability of new clean diesels to meet NOx emissions standards.
But I’m going to need to see some numbers before I buy that, since biodiesel is already cleaner burning than diesel fuel anyway. I’m also not convinced that biodiesel wouldn’t work in high-pressure situations when diesel does.
I fired a few questions at VW about this, after test-driving the new clean diesels earlier this month. All I got was:
“There are studies taking place that suggest we won’t authorize anything beyond B7.”
and:
“Anything higher than a B7 mixture may degrade the burn thus the potential for negatively impacting emissions”
The keyword there is may. I’ve never seen any evidence that biodiesel would not work at a B20 blend in these newer engines, and hopefully these new standards will further ease any concerns automakers might have.
GoodCleanDieselFun
The only mention of the 'year 2000' was the fact that the one scientist had first identified "carbon black" in the year 2000.
This is current research. The article was published on June 11, 2008.
Go read it again in full if you missed the date info.
But recent research could change regulators’ minds. A report in Nature Geoscience this March by atmospheric scientist V. Ram Ramanathan, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in San Diego, and University of Iowa chemical engineering professor Greg Carmichael, measured black carbon’s warming effect at three to four times as much as the range of estimates recognized by the IPCC. They conclude that emissions of diesel soot and other forms of black carbon may have a warming impact on Earth’s atmosphere second only to carbon dioxide. The result affirms above-average estimates from researchers at Stanford, Caltech, and NASA that clashed with the IPCC view.
Who really thinks that within the next 5 years we will see a plug in electrical with 250 mile range, which would for all practical purposes make electrical the PRIMARY fuel source with a 700 plus mile range D2 back up?? So in effect D2 will/can kick in when you exceed 250 miles (like when you go on vacation and can't plug in at a hotel/stop, forget, etc. and want/need to use D2.
The truth is there is a lot of C02 emissions (hot air) about the subject, but the populations tell the REAL story. With the per gal fuel price of RUG to PUG going up and yearly new car sales shrinking to an almost historical low point and costs to acquire new cars going literally through the roof, expect almost rountinely long delays even above the long delays to any measurable to meaningful change to the passenger vehicle fleet %. :lemon: :shades:
Propaganda
Bias
Politics
Crushing of the Diesel Spirit
Lies
Delay Tactics
and my favorite: CONSPIRACY !!!
It makes me laugh to think that the current state of the already highly regulated diesel technology blames the ENTIRE state of the emissions on my 300 gal per year D2 use. :lemon: AKA the 33% shrinking of the passenger diesel population from less than 3% to 2%. :lemon:
I hope folks know this is COMPLETELY and utterly preposterous!!!! It not even measurable (in the LA area for example AKA REAL WORLD) , let alone making a sceintifically statistical correlation.
It was just what it was: a study that concluded that the giddiness of the new "clean diesel" needs to be dialed DOWN a little bit until further study of recently discovered "black carbon" portion of diesel exhaust effects on the environment can be fully studied.
No way does it say the new BlueTec etc clean diesel systems are not stopping the black carbon. It just says, "we should look at this the next time we analyze diesel exhaust."
Estimates of black carbon’s warming effect have varied widely, prompting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to downplay it. As a result, regulators—including CARB—have left it out of their analyses of diesel emissions.
That's all - just a study to let CARB know there are other factors to look at before settling diesel exhaust standards.
They ALWAYS HAVE !!! They have always given stuff like off road diesel, etc., and INXS of 3000 ppm bunker oil from ships, etc. a (unmitigated) PASS !!!!!!!
You know you ought to keep up , in that ships that use bunker oil are actually getting bigger and MORE numerous and not getting LESS numerous!!!
SO you have a choice spew more CO2 with a like sized gas engine or black carbon with a diesel. Just to show how stupid and biased that report is read this segment:
That extra pollution from diesel is important to CARB. At its May board hearing, agency staff presented an updated estimate of the public health impacts of black carbon (of which diesel soot is the state’s top source). The new analysis found black carbon to be 70 percent more toxic than previously believed and suggests increasing the estimated annual mortality caused by fine-particle pollution in California from 8900 to as much as 24 000.
Not one new diesel car has been sold yet in CA and they are already deciding how many people they will kill. Would it not be better to determine how much CO2 they will cut. No because there is not a strong desire to sell less gas and or diesel in this state. End of story. Not a conspiracy. Purely economics. They like to spend MONEY and any cut in taxes IS BAD FOR SACRAMENTO. That includes our boob of a governator, AHNOLD....
No, not actually. At least not CARB. Quote from the story:
"As a result, regulators—including CARB—have left it out of their analyses of diesel emissions."
First of all, I didn't "run the numbers up a flagpole for effect" whatever THAT means. I posted a VALID NEWS STORY relating to acceptance and prospects for diesel vehicles in the USA in coming years. I.E, "Diesels In The News."
It just gets under some people's skin when anything is posted here which is not WORSHIP at the DIESEL ALTAR. THAT is not MY problem.
"Diesels In The News" includes ALL diesel news, not just Pro-Diesel news.
Second of all, CARB does not regulate diesel exhaust on international cargo ships. If they DID, then it would be a discussion point. But they DON'T. So why bring it up here? If you want regulation on such exhaust (which you apparently DO since you seem to bring it up so much) then take it up with the EPA and CARB.
This is really not the best avenue to voice every little diesel injustice you see. Take it to the proper authoriTIES and take action rather than just crying about it.
P.S. In case you had not noticed, I also have a vested interest in the hope and success of diesel powered passenger cars in the USA. I want them to thrive, assuming they are all modern clean diesel cars. I just want it done CORRECTLY, with REGULATIONS designed to protect the health of Americans. Some of us here seem to say "ON WITH DIESEL, DARN THE CONSEQUENCES !!!!" and I think that is foolhardy and dangerous.
In the context of a 33% DECREASE of the passenger diesel fleet from less than 3% to 2%, what YOU have posted is INFLAMMATORY !!
But given your perchance for hyperbole, again, duly noted and filed. So no,... snooze ville on this side.
So indeed the whole situation has been TWISTED.
IF..., 24,000 deaths more are posited,
THEN,... they need to put it into perspective by indicating what are the current figures from having upwards of 98% of the passenger vehicle fleet being RUG to PUG.
So without a basis of comparison, one has NO idea what is being compared. This is unless the assumption is there are ZERO deaths from RUG to PUG. AND the 2% passenger diesel fleet is posited to kill 24,000 more people. So are those assumptions true or false?
To many readers of this forum, posting a news story which is not pro-diesel but is also not obviously anti-diesel is not particularly inflaming anyone.
Last I heard, balance on a forum is good, not BAD.
Geez, don't you guys work or something?
And yes, all views on diesel are welcome, but just remember not to make this personal.
kcram - Pickups Host
As both the sales people and apparently the author have a vested interest in bad mouthing diesel "as it cost more then gas" with no more info then that.
It's unfortunate that the people who work in the auto field these days are so uninformed about both the industry and their product.
As I planned the lease on my 08 Ford Escape will be up just in time to buy a Subaru Outback with diesel power.
However, Modern diesel is full of complex parts than the 1980s diesel, and thus it costs more than a comparable gasoline engine. Giving initial cost drawback, complexity, and fuel prices difference between regular 87 and diesel, new diesel cars are having a difficult time to convince US customers.
So for example, I am involved in a side by side marathon to 450,000 miles to 1,000,000 miles (hopefully more miles for BOTH) Honda Civic/VW Jetta TDI. I will be the first to say BOTH are puppies. Both at like mileage (68,000 miles) have been completely and utterly reliable. While these are both judgement calls, I anticipate changing the tires on the Civic @ 70,000 miles. The Jetta tires look good to go (@ 108,000 miles) to 130,000 miles. SO tires will last app 46% longer on the Jetta vs the Civic.
My take is a host of things on the Civic will die and FASTER, need scheduled/unscheduled maintenance. The most expensive thing (that I am saving for anyway) is for the automatic transmission to go (a fair # have gone at app 250,000 miles and cost is between 2,000 to 4,800) I hope of course NEVER, but in case it doesn't, the funds are there. As a contrast, the clutch will probably go between 300,000 and 500,000 miles and cost app 700. when it does.
The VW Jetta has had the 100,000 miles TB/WP interval performed. Cost for the Civic TB/WP @ 105,000 miles are anticipated to be the same.
The perpetual "gun to the head" on BOTH is the spectre of the timing belts crapping out. Since both are of interference type design, BOTH engine's would need major work.
However the diesel has a design life of 25,000 hours (VW diesel engine has an industrial spec as a generator @ 80% loading (TDI operation is FAR less than 80% loading). So if you have an average of 50 mph * 25,000 hours, the math works out to 1,250,000 miles. Hondas Civic specifications are literally better than a state secret. (nobody really knows, those that do, AIN'T talking)
So if you dodge those bullets, the rotors and pads are especially problematic (fast wearing) on the Civic. Again projected the rear shoes/drums project to go to 100,000 miles, front pads and rotors 100,000/200,000 miles I have had to have an alignment on the Civic @ 40,000 miles. While the alignment was checked on the TDI @ 106,000 miles, it did not need to be aligned to app 200,000 miles. Rear pads rotors 150,000 to 200,000 miles. Front pads and rotors same.
I could talk what I love to drive vs what I tolerate to drive. I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift here.
But truly the Honda Civic @ the same mileage has cost much more per mile driven.
What state would that be in? People are lining up and putting deposits on the new VW TDI Jetta and Sportwagon due into CA very soon. Used diesel cars and SUVs bring enormous premiums in CA. The local San Diego MB dealer was asking $12k over MSRP for a 2007 GL320 CDI that I test drove. It had 12k miles and still like new. That included an extended warranty. The difference would have to be a lot more than it currently is for people to not be interested in diesel cars and SUVs. Myself included. As far as complexity the new diesels are complex. Not close to a hybrid and probably about equal to a gasser. I have not seen a comparison on like vehicles. I would not buy any new vehicle without an extended warranty unless I was unloading it within the first 3 years.
tdi