Looks like they will advertise the more realistic mileage. Good for them. Direct from VW:
While the Environmental Protection Agency estimates the Jetta TDI at an economical 29 mpg City and 40 mpg Highway, Volkswagen went a step further to show the true fuel economy of the Jetta TDI. Leading third-party certifier, AMCI, has tested the Jetta TDI and found it performed 24 percent better in real world conditions, achieving 38 mpg in the City and 44 mpg on the Highway.
There is more good news on the Jetta TDI: Free maintenance the first 3 years 36k miles.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the Jetta TDI at 29city/40highway mpg, which is great for most small cars. Volkswagen took it an extra step to have AMCI (leading third party certifier) test the Jetta and found it performed 24 percent better in real world conditions. The Jetta achieved 38 mpg in the city and 44mph on the highway.
Volkswagen's recent improvement includes better fuel economy in addition to their new carefree maintenance program, which offering no charge for scheduled maintenance for the first three years or 36,000 miles, whichever occurs first.
Gary says, "About time some automakers buck the [non-permissible content removed] EPA."
Do you say things like that JUST to irritate me? Sometimes it surely seems like you do.
Anyway, let's DELVE into that subject - shall we?
Name me one thing the EPA has done which a WWII Historian would consider "[non-permissible content removed]" actions.
Have they killed anyone? Have they tortured anyone? Have they kidnapped anyone? Have they broken any moral or ethical laws? Have they violated Federal law?
None of the above would be the correct answers.
Just a thought: If EPA diesel MPG numbers are so awful because it's unfair to diesels, where is Mercedes in this argument? Don't you think they would be doing "independent" tests for their 2009 line also to whine about the cheating EPA?
I don't see MB complaining. Does anyone have a story about MB complaining?
No federal agency is perfect. All violate federal laws at times.
The EPA had a test that did not accurately measure real world mpg for many vehicles on the old test, and the new test is no different. My 2007 Toyota Yaris was measured using the old test at 40/34. Under the new test it is rated at 35/29. Using average to slightly aggressive driving, I get 35-38 in mixed driving and 38-42 on the highway in 30k miles of driving. When I take a highway trip and go 75 mph I get 38 mpg. Does anyone think the 35 highway number is real world representative? I sure hope not. The old test was much more representative of the real world for highway mileage.
It is easy to distort and show bias when you make the rules. The EPA can beat up everyone else, but rarely gets blamed for all their failures. Sounds sorta [non-permissible content removed] like to me.
"DaimlerChrysler and other automobile companies commented that the new regulation must allow for future review and adjustments based on assessments of realworld fuel economy data. They asked that EPA affirm a commitment to adjusting the formulae if data suggests that that the resulting fuel economy values do not reflect realworld experience. They noted the importance of this with respect to assuring that new technologies receive accurate label values."
The EPA report was finished in early 2006CY. Thinking about it, there were several diesels available at that time. They chose just the MB E320 (or possibly Passat, can't tell which) to check correlation of their formulas. Would it have been too much to use Liberty CRD, Passat, Jetta, and Golf in their analysis for a bigger sample size? If they were to pick one, it should have been the highest volume one, probably Jetta. :confuse:
Thank you and welcome to the forum. Your posts have been most informative. Larsb and I are on opposite ends of the Trusting Government spectrum. I have seen too many laws passed in my life that were obviously paid for by those that had the most to gain. I am skeptical of EVERYTHING our state and federal government does.
As VW pointed out in their complaint to the EPA. The older tests were closer to accurate with the diesel cars. For some reason the EPA seems to think every car must be tested with the same set of rules to be accurate. I wonder how that will work with the PHEVs and EVs.
Thank you for posting those fine examples of the EPA trying to sneak things through. Many times as a political favor.
It proves the court does not always approve of what the EPA tries to pull. I personally think they have a dislike for diesel similar to those that would outlaw the use of coal in power generation. Fortunately there are checks and balances to keep them from going off the deep end all the time.
This has been mentioned many times on this forum. One of the biggest failures of the EPA was waiting so long to mandate less sulfur in our diesel. Dirty diesel is still allowed in ships, planes, trains, tractors and off road heavy equipment. Most of the problems with diesel exhaust was and is the high sulfur content. Rather than cleaning the fuel they banned cars that use it. I am sure if we had gone the route of the EU on diesel cars we would be using Significantly less oil today than we are.
I bet that 190D is not a light weight either. Where is the progress? Been my question for years. If it is any consolation most econoboxes are faster from 0-60 now.
... LOL. the 190 would go into the fifty MPG range with a turbo and be quite drivable. One of the tuning parameters with a turbo is to lower the compression from the non-turbo specs. I had a paper route in 1960, in a new housing developement, still under construction, and the night watchman had a '59 (plus or minus a year) version of one of these (maybe a 180). I had almost no idea of what a Diesel was and the CLATTER was so loud I thought it was the worst thing I ever had a ride in.
Looks to me like the Germans have a corner on clean diesel technology. BMW may end up best of the best... Come on Fall!
Today, we offer a wide variety of diesel engines across our entire model range in Europe. Taking home the prestigious Engine of the Year Award several times, our diesel engines are renowned for their unequaled harmony of dynamic performance, innovative technology, surprisingly low fuel consumption, along with a smoothness that is uncommon for a Diesel.
Clearly, this level of technology is predestined for the U.S. market, not only in terms of power and efficiency, but for its potential to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Which is why, in Fall 2008, we'll introduce two BMW Advanced Diesel with BluePerformance vehicles in the U.S. - the 335d and X5 xDrive35d. In addition to being better for the environment, these diesel engines also have increased torque. This enhanced concept for minimum exhaust gas emissions has been developed to meet the strict emissions standards in effect in California and other states. BMW's BluePerformance technology filters and actually cleans the exhaust before it leaves the vehicle, making this generation of Diesel engines the cleanest BMW has ever produced. With reduced emissions from comparable gasoline vehicles, and near-elimination of both smoke and NOx emissions, BMW Advanced Diesels will be every bit as clean as CARB-legal gasoline engines when they are introduced in the US in 2008.
As a means of producing so much power with a minimum of environmental impact and a maximum of fuel efficiency, it's no surprise that BMW will be among the first to introduce 50-state clean diesel technology. After all, it often takes an independent company like ours to bring an idea like this to the public.
Larsb, please allow me to make a suggestion that may improve your credibility here, possibly have people take your views more seriously, and lessen some of your obvious frustration.
You do yourself a lot of harm and hurt your credibility by continually attempting to use cheap tricks, hyperbole, and debating techniques 101 to make your points or to discredit others here.
This is very transparent to most of the intelligent posters here and many of us view you as a would be con man rather than a serious proponent of good conservation techniques. Your agenda is just too obvious.
Your current style might work with a group of 5th graders but I can assure you that it will only make you the object or ridicule here. I hope you take this seriously.
It looks like the word [non-permissible content removed] is pretty casually used and I feel very uncomfortable about this. There is absolutely no common level of gravity between what was done by the [non-permissible content removed] during WW2 and what the EPA is doing now, controversially ot not.
I would appreciate that contributors kindly refrain from using such words lightly, even for entities which views they may strongly oppose.
It looks like the word [non-permissible content removed] is pretty casually used
I am sure it does not have the strong meaning in the USA as in the EU. I have heard news people refer to our President's handling of situations as [non-permissible content removed] like. To me it is any entity that is very secretive in they way they operate. The EPA is VERY secretive. My correspondence with them bears that out. They will not divulge which cars they have tested in their labs vs letting the automakers test their own. So I apologize if the use of that word was unpleasant to you. Hopefully I can expand my vocabulary and come up with less controversial words to explain what I mean.
Indeed this is one of the neater things about diesels!! While I have NOT driven that MB on European highways, I HAVE (recently) driven a 75 (-80) mpg constant speed through three states starting from Vancouver, BC. (45 min stop/go/stop/stop delay through the border crossing) for a 59 mpg on a 03 VW TDI 5 speed manual. As a comparison, 03 VW gasser models 2.0/1.8T would probably struggle to get 30 mpg.
Most gasser folks would be happy to get 30-35 !? This is probably true because most of them can/have NOT compared their gassers to a like model diesel.
If environmentalists truly believe their own super heated C02 emissions, they really need to actually CONSUME LESS and not just say the onus is solely on "the other guy" like AL GORE does, for example. :lemon:
We have already experienced their long advocated almost exponentially skyrocketing fuel prices. They must be celebrating their victory over us PEONS. We can thank them for playing into the strategic hands of the energy providers and tax entities. Be very careful what you wish for. There are always intended and the much wider UNINTENDED consequences.
... A recent spike in the price of urea in England ( Google News) is creating more problems for Diesel owners. I say we somehow stop the building the Ad-blue infrastructure in the States. Forget dollars for the moment (if you will) and think of the environmental impact of the building there of; only to find out that the Argonne Labs (already selling licenses) catalyst will make it all obsolete in less than five years. Of course the price spike was inevitable, don't you think ?
The urea should be a non issue with BMW. They do all service the first 4 years and 50k miles. I would imagine that MB would match to sell a car. VW does not use adblue for their 4 cylinder diesels. Not sure VW plans to import any 6 cylinder diesel vehicles.
My understanding is we will use a different brand in the USA than Adblue. The shortage could be a result of so many trucks and buses being equipped with an SCR that requires urea. A bus getting 5 mpg will use a lot of the stuff.
The US EPA's 2010 legislation will limit NOx to levels that will require North American trucks to be equipped with SCR post-2010. The trademark - AdBlue - will not be used in the US market; the most likely name for AUS32 will be Diesel Emissions Fluid (DEF).
houdini1 says, "You do yourself a lot of harm and hurt your credibility by continually attempting to use cheap tricks, hyperbole, and debating techniques 101 to make your points or to discredit others here."
That's really quite an insult. First of all, I do not have any debate training, and I don't know what the definition of hyperbole even IS. I couldn't tell a cheap trick from an $800 trick. And I'm about as far from a "con man" as a person could be.
When you try to define a person and establish what kind of personality a person has just based on reading some of their words, you usually make incorrect assumptions. And you are SO FAR OFF in what and who you think I am that is it laughable.
Houdini1 says, "This is very transparent to most of the intelligent posters here."
I DO HOPE that statement was not intended to put me OUTSIDE the group of "intelligent posters." My IQ has been tested above 138 more than once in my life. I had very near a perfect score on the ASVAB test. I have two college degrees. I'm plenty intelligent by just about any measure you want to use. I'm sorry that my passion sometimes obliterates the clues of that intelligence that you might have missed.
All I do is post the way I feel and the things I know about from 45 years on this Earf.
I know that the EPA does not in any way resemble the [non-permissible content removed], and so do YOU, and so does Gary. He sometimes goes a little overboard in his criticisms (as do many of us at times) and I called him out on the [non-permissible content removed] comment, as all of us should have done. When I go overboard about a topic, I want to be called out too - it's a good reality check.
The EPA is tasked with a very difficult job - keeping the air, water, and ground clean in the face of a massive manufacturing infrastructure.
They are not perfect, and neither are they without mistakes.
But their goals and intent are mostly to look out for you and me and our kids and to keep us safe from a potentially very toxic environment.
No decision they or any guvmint agency can make will ever please EVERY citizen or solve EVERY problem. But overall, their track record is admirable.
I bet that 190D is not a light weight either. Where is the progress? Been my question for years. If it is any consolation most econoboxes are faster from 0-60 now.
Well, it's basically all about displacement. If you made a 190D today with modern lightweight materials(remember the 190D was all chrome, steel, wood, and glass), you could easily get 50+mpg. I had a Mercedes 230S at once time and even running on gas, it got 25mpg highway. 40 year old technology with a tiny inline 6 engine. It never had a problem keeping up with traffic, either(unlike the 190D - heh).
What we need is less weight, less bling and soundproofing, and smaller more efficient engines. My old 230S was all steel, metal, and glass. Collapsible steering column, reinforced doors(side impact protection), crumple zones, safety glass, shoulder belts.. Actually a very safe and modern car, and the one that Volvo actually copied all of their "safety" technology from in the early 70s and made a name doing so. Mercedes gave the technology away to improve cars. Shoot, even ABS and airbags date from the 70s. It's as if the auto makers don't care any more. Or hardly try to really innovate.
1967 Mercedes 230S. 3000lbs.(without A/C and sunroof) 140 HP 2.3L I-6.
1967 Mercedes 300SE(same body, bigger engine). 3500lbs. 200HP 3.0L I-6. I added this because even Toyota and GM weren't making better engines than this by much if anything until a few years ago. 45 year old Mercedes engine with that much power per liter... Something is just wrong here...
*note - these are converted to modern gross HP figures - net at the wheels/on a dyno is about 125 and 170HP respectively)
If you've ever seen one in person, you know that a modern version would weigh at least 300-500lbs less. The doors weigh 50+lbs alone. The sheet metal on it is nearly 1/16th of an inch thick. It's the size of a Lucerne or Altima(!) I Look at new vehicles and I honestly can't understand how a smaller car like an IS250 weights over 500 lbs more. Little car, modern materials, more plastic than a Tupperware convention, and yet it weighs an enormous amount more?
That's your MPG problem right there. Shoot, even a Matrix weights more than my old Mercedes did. Imagine what the same car minus 500 or 1000 lbs would do.
Actually this is an interesting issue. The 2003 VW Jetta (1.9L TDI 90 hp/155 #ft torque) is rated at 2,950 #'s, EPA rating of 42 C /49 H mpg. (commute 48-52 mpgI often wonder what the mpg would be if it were 450 #'s lighter vs my 450# lighter Honda Civic gasser @ 38-42 mpg.
If the rule of thumb of 1-2 mpg per 100 miles is true, it should be a min of 4.5 better mpg.
"Your current style might work with a group of 5th graders but I can assure you that it will only make you the object or ridicule here. I hope you take this seriously." =========================================================== Your post is a complete non sequiter. His post is quite direct and succinct. I expect you were aiming at someone more deserving, which is a long list, and got confused about the names and posts.
Well, certainly city mileage is a strong function of vehicle weight. If the efficiency of the powertrain remains fixed, and fuel efficiency = work produced / energy consumed, then gallons consumed (energy consumed) will be directly proportional to work. Work = F*d = mass * accel. Assuming you don't change your city driving habits (acceleration), gallons consumed will be directly proportional to vehicle mass. So, adding 250# for driver plus fuel, 2750 / 3200 = 42mpg / xmpg, x = 49mpg. Approximately. Highway mileage on a flat road wouldn't change unless shaving 450 pounds resulted in reduced frontal area or reduced drag coefficient. Weight is a big factor.
While I am mindful of the epa ratings, my "reality commute" would really be on the 4.5 mpg and higher on 48-52 mpg, or SWAG of 52.5 to 56.5 mpg. For the TDI, I ran it with 4 folks in suit & ties, A/C full blast, for a funeral with 3 hours of stop/go stop go literally on the Streets of San Francisco and got a disappointing 46 mpg.
San Diego has diesel as low as $4.09 and RUG at $3.77. Cheapest Premium is $3.98. That makes a diesel vehicle look better every day. Filled the wife's Lexus with Premium yesterday. $4.01 at Costco. Last time I filled it was $4.55 at Costco. That is a significant drop. Diesel is down over a dollar per gallon from the peak here.
Not really important... just illustrating the point, that you can find almost any anomaly in pricing if you look long enough... Anecdotal sightings on the spread really mean nothing, even in the short term (unless of course, you are filling up in the next ten minutes).
regards, kyfdx Host-Prices Paid Forums (not those prices..lol)
I have not seen statistics on this, but I am almost certain the passenger vehicle fleet population that uses PUG is at the very least exponentially larger than the diesel passenger vehicle fleet @ 2%.
So for example, (I am led to believe) a 25/26 mpg average for a Corvette Z06 (on PUG) is actually better than most that run PUG. However it would be good to hear from folks that do have to run PUG.
CA is as large as the whole NE put together. Is there any variation between the states in the NE? We have been below $4 for RUG over 2 weeks now. Diesel just started to go down. There are many stations selling diesel at $4.19. One close to me has it for $4.09.
We used to get shafted. Now it looks like the Bay area has the high priced gas. The variation here in San Diego can be as much as a dollar between the high and low RUG price.
... This is turning into a government level bureaucratic bungle. What is the industrial equivalent ? I guess I'll call it, " dollars in motion". Cummins announced today ( Google News) that it is reversing their earlier mandate to not use urea in their large on-highway engines and will start using an Ad-blue type after treatment starting in 2010. Is there not one Warren Buffet level individual that can make the Argonne Labs catalyst happen sooner than that ???
roland3, certain technologies offend the engineer in me: EGR systems, throttles on diesels, semi-floating rear axles... but urea doesn't set me off. It seems like a pretty simple and robust way of reducing NOx. The NOX adsorbers, including the one from Argonne Labs end up injecting fuel to keep the device in the optimum temperature range, and I see that as 'wasted' fuel. Am I wrong about the Argonne Labs catalyst? It does sound like a big step in that it doesn't use expensive materials, but if it's still using extra fuel to maintain efficiency, then it's got room for improvement. One thought: it might be perfect when coupled with a small diesel 'range extender' engine in a series hybrid like the Volt. Then, you'd be able to run the engine at one optimum speed/load, and hopefully eliminate the need for dumping in extra fuel. Also, regarding the urea-based systems for NOx reduction, I read recently that ethanol does a very good job as a reagent, with higher efficiencies over a larger operating temperature range, compared to urea. I think I saved the paper.. Might have been GM working on a Southwest Research project.
... wb, about seven months back I was on here lauding Daimler for the Ad-blue work. I said (not an exact quote) now they can build engines the way they should be: good ring seal, compression, boost, crisp timing, efficient cylinder and head jacket temps; however I said I was still on the fence about the urea. Low and behold we have the Argonne news release. I am hoping that the fuel they were talking about is unburned HC, but we don't have room for wishful thinking in what we breathe. .. ... Ironically the Cummins announcement is about is about an expected three percent decrease in fuel use, obtained by building their engines as in the above and getting rid of as much EGR (or in that mode) as possible. I would expect the chemist in you to be offended by taking a perfectly good combustion reaction and contaminating it with exhaust gas to lower the temperature. .. ... The Argonne patent is tied up for 23 more months , by the first licensee (hopefully not the only licensee). I want Ford or GM or somebody to man-up and put it on their cars and trucks in six months. If it has to be retro exchanged every 12 months and they go under, at least they can tell their grand-kids they went down fighting.
That is amazingly low. My 7000 pound diesel 4x4 has never gotten below 17mpg, even driving around the sand dunes all day in 4wd...
The lone R320 CDI data logger on www.fuel economy says he's getting 25.0mpg in 70% city driving, that sounds more like it. It doesn't look like Mercedes sells a comparable gasser, which would be an R430 or R500 - something that made the same amount of torque and could do the same amount of work - to compare to. Better comparison would be Grand Cherokee 3.0L CRD (same engine as R320) to 5.7L gasser - both are rated to do the same amount of work, payload and towing (7200#).
That blog did infer that they kept with traffic, doing 80mph vs. 65mph. For a R320 sized vehicle, that would require 85% more power than driving at 65, the difference between 18mpg and 33mpg..
All I know is I talked to a fellow at the Mercedes dealership. He had just driven his GL320 CDi from Oregon. He averaged 27.9 MPG cruising at 75 MPH the whole trip. The GL is a lot heavier than the R320. So I don't know. That sounds pretty bad.
I am leaning toward the X5 d when it arrives. The numbers on the UK sites are better for the BMW diesels than the Mercedes. Remember the cross country trial between the RX400h and ML320 CDI was clearly won by the diesel. The R320 CDI is slightly heavier than the ML that will easily top 30 MPG on the highway. Though I would be surprised if MB even keeps building the R class. It is a flop for sales. Huge discounts on even the diesel models. They are ugly...
That blog did infer that they kept with traffic, doing 80mph vs. 65mph. For a R320 sized vehicle, that would require 85% more power than driving at 65, the difference between 18mpg and 33mpg.
It is a Hybrid blog. They are generally pretty straight with their reports. I don't see any name attached to this story. So not sure how much stock should be attached. I have never seen a review of the R320 CDI. I think they also have a R350 gas version. It is not a popular vehicle. I don't know if I have ever seen one except at the Mercedes dealer. I sat in it and liked the room in the back seat of the ML and GL much better.
First link did not work for me. The other two reviews did not mention mileage.
The EPA site has one 2007 owner that averages 25 MPG mostly city driving. One Yahoo owner gets 28 MPG highway which is just what I would guess from my research. Not my cup of tea. Too long, too low, too funky looking.
The ML320 CDI is still on my list of possibles. I really like the looks of the X5 d better. I also like the BMW inline 6 over the V6 Mercedes.
AIN'T NO WAY the R320 got such low mpg. I have a 2007 cdi and I average 20mpg in town, and driving 1000 miles to Florida - with a cargo box on top, and the car loaded, I averaged 26mpg. It's not a blue tech, but it is a cdi that requires ULSD.
... Peugeot (Google News) is dropping all gas engines in their 4O7 (except one coupe model) and using Diesel only. Another percentage point against the USA price at the pump. More gas that Europe does not need, and more Diesel for them from somewhere. Similar moves by Ford and Vauxhall are expected. Oh yeah, Peugeot says that their 407's are getting a "virtual" 50 MPG, with the corresponding low carbon output. They also said that it's no surprise that most buyers are ordering Diesel because of it's far superior driving qualities.
... A recent announcement by Caterpillar and Tenneco ( Google News) has me wondering WHEN ??? They will be working together on emissions, but not a word about the new Argonne patent !!! This should be on Tenneco's front burner as they can make these converters. Must be NIH syndrome (not invented here).
"...Peugeot says that their 407's are getting a "virtual" 50 MPG, with the corresponding low carbon output. They also said that it's no surprise that most buyers are ordering Diesel because of it's far superior driving qualities." =========================================================== Let us all bow down to the great marketing and advertising machine driving the auto dependent mentality that mesmerizes the unaware.
Comments
Direct from VW:
While the Environmental Protection Agency estimates the Jetta TDI at an economical 29 mpg City and 40 mpg Highway, Volkswagen went a step further to show the true fuel economy of the Jetta TDI. Leading third-party certifier, AMCI, has tested the Jetta TDI and found it performed 24 percent better in real world conditions, achieving 38 mpg in the City and 44 mpg on the Highway.
http://media.vw.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=10337
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the Jetta TDI at 29city/40highway mpg, which is great for most small cars. Volkswagen took it an extra step to have AMCI (leading third party certifier) test the Jetta and found it performed 24 percent better in real world conditions. The Jetta achieved 38 mpg in the city and 44mph on the highway.
Volkswagen's recent improvement includes better fuel economy in addition to their new carefree maintenance program, which offering no charge for scheduled maintenance for the first three years or 36,000 miles, whichever occurs first.
Do you say things like that JUST to irritate me? Sometimes it surely seems like you do.
Anyway, let's DELVE into that subject - shall we?
Name me one thing the EPA has done which a WWII Historian would consider "[non-permissible content removed]" actions.
Have they killed anyone?
Have they tortured anyone?
Have they kidnapped anyone?
Have they broken any moral or ethical laws?
Have they violated Federal law?
None of the above would be the correct answers.
Just a thought: If EPA diesel MPG numbers are so awful because it's unfair to diesels, where is Mercedes in this argument? Don't you think they would be doing "independent" tests for their 2009 line also to whine about the cheating EPA?
I don't see MB complaining. Does anyone have a story about MB complaining?
EPA found violating federal law
EPA violating federal law?
EPA accused of federal law violations.
No federal agency is perfect. All violate federal laws at times.
The EPA had a test that did not accurately measure real world mpg for many vehicles on the old test, and the new test is no different. My 2007 Toyota Yaris was measured using the old test at 40/34. Under the new test it is rated at 35/29. Using average to slightly aggressive driving, I get 35-38 in mixed driving and 38-42 on the highway in 30k miles of driving. When I take a highway trip and go 75 mph I get 38 mpg. Does anyone think the 35 highway number is real world representative? I sure hope not. The old test was much more representative of the real world for highway mileage.
It is easy to distort and show bias when you make the rules. The EPA can beat up everyone else, but rarely gets blamed for all their failures. Sounds sorta [non-permissible content removed] like to me.
Daimler is too professional to complain, but they did 'voice a concern'..
from http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06016.pdf, p.41:
"DaimlerChrysler and other automobile companies commented that the new
regulation must allow for future review and adjustments based on assessments of realworld fuel economy data. They asked that EPA affirm a commitment to adjusting the formulae if data suggests that that the resulting fuel economy values do not reflect realworld experience. They noted the importance of this with respect to assuring that new technologies receive accurate label values."
The EPA report was finished in early 2006CY. Thinking about it, there were several diesels available at that time. They chose just the MB E320 (or possibly Passat, can't tell which) to check correlation of their formulas. Would it have been too much to use Liberty CRD, Passat, Jetta, and Golf in their analysis for a bigger sample size? If they were to pick one, it should have been the highest volume one, probably Jetta. :confuse:
As VW pointed out in their complaint to the EPA. The older tests were closer to accurate with the diesel cars. For some reason the EPA seems to think every car must be tested with the same set of rules to be accurate. I wonder how that will work with the PHEVs and EVs.
It proves the court does not always approve of what the EPA tries to pull. I personally think they have a dislike for diesel similar to those that would outlaw the use of coal in power generation. Fortunately there are checks and balances to keep them from going off the deep end all the time.
This has been mentioned many times on this forum. One of the biggest failures of the EPA was waiting so long to mandate less sulfur in our diesel. Dirty diesel is still allowed in ships, planes, trains, tractors and off road heavy equipment. Most of the problems with diesel exhaust was and is the high sulfur content. Rather than cleaning the fuel they banned cars that use it. I am sure if we had gone the route of the EU on diesel cars we would be using Significantly less oil today than we are.
****
Guess what it gets on the highway...
40-45mpg.
Slow as a slug, but it does make you wonder what in the world is wrong with cars when a 50 year old Mercedes gets better MPG than a new Civic....
Today, we offer a wide variety of diesel engines across our entire model range in Europe. Taking home the prestigious Engine of the Year Award several times, our diesel engines are renowned for their unequaled harmony of dynamic performance, innovative technology, surprisingly low fuel consumption, along with a smoothness that is uncommon for a Diesel.
Clearly, this level of technology is predestined for the U.S. market, not only in terms of power and efficiency, but for its potential to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Which is why, in Fall 2008, we'll introduce two BMW Advanced Diesel with BluePerformance vehicles in the U.S. - the 335d and X5 xDrive35d. In addition to being better for the environment, these diesel engines also have increased torque. This enhanced concept for minimum exhaust gas emissions has been developed to meet the strict emissions standards in effect in California and other states. BMW's BluePerformance technology filters and actually cleans the exhaust before it leaves the vehicle, making this generation of Diesel engines the cleanest BMW has ever produced. With reduced emissions from comparable gasoline vehicles, and near-elimination of both smoke and NOx emissions, BMW Advanced Diesels will be every bit as clean as CARB-legal gasoline engines when they are introduced in the US in 2008.
As a means of producing so much power with a minimum of environmental impact and a maximum of fuel efficiency, it's no surprise that BMW will be among the first to introduce 50-state clean diesel technology. After all, it often takes an independent company like ours to bring an idea like this to the public.
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Uniquely/FutureTechnologies/EfficientDyna- mics/AdvancedDiesel.aspx
You do yourself a lot of harm and hurt your credibility by continually attempting to use cheap tricks, hyperbole, and debating techniques 101 to make your points or to discredit others here.
This is very transparent to most of the intelligent posters here and many of us view you as a would be con man rather than a serious proponent of good conservation techniques. Your agenda is just too obvious.
Your current style might work with a group of 5th graders but I can assure you that it will only make you the object or ridicule here. I hope you take this seriously.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[non-permissible content removed]
It looks like the word [non-permissible content removed] is pretty casually used and I feel very uncomfortable about this.
There is absolutely no common level of gravity between what was done by the [non-permissible content removed] during WW2 and what the EPA is doing now, controversially ot not.
I would appreciate that contributors kindly refrain from using such words lightly, even for entities which views they may strongly oppose.
Thank you
Looks like they easily got 40+ mpg over a 1500 miles trip, and they were not going 55 on the highway.
I am sure it does not have the strong meaning in the USA as in the EU. I have heard news people refer to our President's handling of situations as [non-permissible content removed] like. To me it is any entity that is very secretive in they way they operate. The EPA is VERY secretive. My correspondence with them bears that out. They will not divulge which cars they have tested in their labs vs letting the automakers test their own. So I apologize if the use of that word was unpleasant to you. Hopefully I can expand my vocabulary and come up with less controversial words to explain what I mean.
Most gasser folks would be happy to get 30-35 !? This is probably true because most of them can/have NOT compared their gassers to a like model diesel.
If environmentalists truly believe their own super heated C02 emissions, they really need to actually CONSUME LESS and not just say the onus is solely on "the other guy" like AL GORE does, for example. :lemon:
We have already experienced their long advocated almost exponentially skyrocketing fuel prices. They must be celebrating their victory over us PEONS. We can thank them for playing into the strategic hands of the energy providers and tax entities. Be very careful what you wish for. There are always intended and the much wider UNINTENDED consequences.
My understanding is we will use a different brand in the USA than Adblue. The shortage could be a result of so many trucks and buses being equipped with an SCR that requires urea. A bus getting 5 mpg will use a lot of the stuff.
The US EPA's 2010 legislation will limit NOx to levels that will require North American trucks to be equipped with SCR post-2010. The trademark - AdBlue - will not be used in the US market; the most likely name for AUS32 will be Diesel Emissions Fluid (DEF).
That's really quite an insult. First of all, I do not have any debate training, and I don't know what the definition of hyperbole even IS. I couldn't tell a cheap trick from an $800 trick. And I'm about as far from a "con man" as a person could be.
When you try to define a person and establish what kind of personality a person has just based on reading some of their words, you usually make incorrect assumptions. And you are SO FAR OFF in what and who you think I am that is it laughable.
Houdini1 says, "This is very transparent to most of the intelligent posters here."
I DO HOPE that statement was not intended to put me OUTSIDE the group of "intelligent posters." My IQ has been tested above 138 more than once in my life. I had very near a perfect score on the ASVAB test. I have two college degrees. I'm plenty intelligent by just about any measure you want to use. I'm sorry that my passion sometimes obliterates the clues of that intelligence that you might have missed.
All I do is post the way I feel and the things I know about from 45 years on this Earf.
I know that the EPA does not in any way resemble the [non-permissible content removed], and so do YOU, and so does Gary. He sometimes goes a little overboard in his criticisms (as do many of us at times) and I called him out on the [non-permissible content removed] comment, as all of us should have done. When I go overboard about a topic, I want to be called out too - it's a good reality check.
The EPA is tasked with a very difficult job - keeping the air, water, and ground clean in the face of a massive manufacturing infrastructure.
They are not perfect, and neither are they without mistakes.
But their goals and intent are mostly to look out for you and me and our kids and to keep us safe from a potentially very toxic environment.
No decision they or any guvmint agency can make will ever please EVERY citizen or solve EVERY problem. But overall, their track record is admirable.
Well, it's basically all about displacement. If you made a 190D today with modern lightweight materials(remember the 190D was all chrome, steel, wood, and glass), you could easily get 50+mpg. I had a Mercedes 230S at once time and even running on gas, it got 25mpg highway. 40 year old technology with a tiny inline 6 engine. It never had a problem keeping up with traffic, either(unlike the 190D - heh).
What we need is less weight, less bling and soundproofing, and smaller more efficient engines. My old 230S was all steel, metal, and glass. Collapsible steering column, reinforced doors(side impact protection), crumple zones, safety glass, shoulder belts.. Actually a very safe and modern car, and the one that Volvo actually copied all of their "safety" technology from in the early 70s and made a name doing so. Mercedes gave the technology away to improve cars. Shoot, even ABS and airbags date from the 70s. It's as if the auto makers don't care any more. Or hardly try to really innovate.
1967 Mercedes 230S. 3000lbs.(without A/C and sunroof) 140 HP 2.3L I-6.
1967 Mercedes 300SE(same body, bigger engine). 3500lbs. 200HP 3.0L I-6.
I added this because even Toyota and GM weren't making better engines than this by much if anything until a few years ago. 45 year old Mercedes engine with that much power per liter... Something is just wrong here...
*note - these are converted to modern gross HP figures - net at the wheels/on a dyno is about 125 and 170HP respectively)
If you've ever seen one in person, you know that a modern version would weigh at least 300-500lbs less. The doors weigh 50+lbs alone. The sheet metal on it is nearly 1/16th of an inch thick. It's the size of a Lucerne or Altima(!) I Look at new vehicles and I honestly can't understand how a smaller car like an IS250 weights over 500 lbs more. Little car, modern materials, more plastic than a Tupperware convention, and yet it weighs an enormous amount more?
That's your MPG problem right there. Shoot, even a Matrix weights more than my old Mercedes did. Imagine what the same car minus 500 or 1000 lbs would do.
If the rule of thumb of 1-2 mpg per 100 miles is true, it should be a min of 4.5 better mpg.
===========================================================
Your post is a complete non sequiter. His post is quite direct and succinct. I expect you were aiming at someone more deserving, which is a long list, and got confused about the names and posts.
RUG -$ 4.35
PUG- $ 4.59
D2 -$ 4.29.
PUG- $ 4.59
D2 -$ 4.29.
Diesel selling for 6 cents less than RUG? Here in Western PA, diesel is 0.80 moe a gallon than RUG.
Highway mileage on a flat road wouldn't change unless shaving 450 pounds resulted in reduced frontal area or reduced drag coefficient.
Weight is a big factor.
Regular $3.65
Premium $3.85
Diesel $4.55
Not really important... just illustrating the point, that you can find almost any anomaly in pricing if you look long enough... Anecdotal sightings on the spread really mean nothing, even in the short term (unless of course, you are filling up in the next ten minutes).
regards,
kyfdx
Host-Prices Paid Forums (not those prices..lol)
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
So for example, (I am led to believe) a 25/26 mpg average for a Corvette Z06 (on PUG) is actually better than most that run PUG. However it would be good to hear from folks that do have to run PUG.
My local Hess had regular down to $3.67 this morning, but PUG was $4.03. Harsh spread. I believe diesel was $4.5x.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
RUG: $3.787
PUG: $4.069
Diesel: $4.498
So your CIncinnati numbers are low on the gasoline rates, and high on the diesel side. Here in Pittsburgh, we're real close to those numbers.
Interestingly, they show California state averages as:
RUG: $4.098
PUG: $4.345
Diesel: $4.685
Why gagrice is finding diesel so cheap is an interesting anomaly.
We used to get shafted. Now it looks like the Bay area has the high priced gas. The variation here in San Diego can be as much as a dollar between the high and low RUG price.
..
... Ironically the Cummins announcement is about is about an expected three percent decrease in fuel use, obtained by building their engines as in the above and getting rid of as much EGR (or in that mode) as possible. I would expect the chemist in you to be offended by taking a perfectly good combustion reaction and contaminating it with exhaust gas to lower the temperature.
..
... The Argonne patent is tied up for 23 more months , by the first licensee (hopefully not the only licensee). I want Ford or GM or somebody to man-up and put it on their cars and trucks in six months. If it has to be retro exchanged every 12 months and they go under, at least they can tell their grand-kids they went down fighting.
What gives diesel fans?
The lone R320 CDI data logger on www.fuel economy says he's getting 25.0mpg in 70% city driving, that sounds more like it. It doesn't look like Mercedes sells a comparable gasser, which would be an R430 or R500 - something that made the same amount of torque and could do the same amount of work - to compare to. Better comparison would be Grand Cherokee 3.0L CRD (same engine as R320) to 5.7L gasser - both are rated to do the same amount of work, payload and towing (7200#).
That blog did infer that they kept with traffic, doing 80mph vs. 65mph. For a R320 sized vehicle, that would require 85% more power than driving at 65, the difference between 18mpg and 33mpg..
I am leaning toward the X5 d when it arrives. The numbers on the UK sites are better for the BMW diesels than the Mercedes. Remember the cross country trial between the RX400h and ML320 CDI was clearly won by the diesel. The R320 CDI is slightly heavier than the ML that will easily top 30 MPG on the highway. Though I would be surprised if MB even keeps building the R class. It is a flop for sales. Huge discounts on even the diesel models. They are ugly...
It is a Hybrid blog. They are generally pretty straight with their reports. I don't see any name attached to this story. So not sure how much stock should be attached. I have never seen a review of the R320 CDI. I think they also have a R350 gas version. It is not a popular vehicle. I don't know if I have ever seen one except at the Mercedes dealer. I sat in it and liked the room in the back seat of the ML and GL much better.
Here you go Gary:
Reviews by owners, from Edmunds
another lengthy review
And another one
As expected, just about everyone loves it.
The EPA site has one 2007 owner that averages 25 MPG mostly city driving. One Yahoo owner gets 28 MPG highway which is just what I would guess from my research. Not my cup of tea. Too long, too low, too funky looking.
The ML320 CDI is still on my list of possibles. I really like the looks of the X5 d better. I also like the BMW inline 6 over the V6 Mercedes.
Are you sure they picked out the diesel for the test drive?
===========================================================
Let us all bow down to the great marketing and advertising machine driving the auto dependent mentality that mesmerizes the unaware.