Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
the CARBies will find a way to raise the bar just enough to prevent 50 mpg diesel cars from being sold in the CARB states.
my favorite recent diesel press release is the one about the 50-state-legal 2006 toureg TDI. i think there are only 750 available, but they can be sold through 2007 too - in CARB states too. i think VW really had to pull a fast one to make this happen before the CARBies found a way to prevent it.
go VW, it's your birthday!
Toyota claimed the little hybrid would get 60 miles per gallon in city traffic, not just the 45 many consumers were experiencing."...
This statement is selfserving to the axe that Consumer Affairs wants to grind. It writes this, the highlighted text as if Toyota pulled this number out of the air. As everyone who's familiar with this whole subject knows it's the EPA which determines the ratings by the testing it uses. Toyota and all the other manufacturers only do what the EPA tells them to do.
It's a small nuane but it's important. These numbers are the EPA's show only. The manufacturers have nothing to do with the results.
For an entire year the Prius probably does get 45-50 mpg depending on the driver and the specific conditions for that vehicle. My average for the past year, 36000 miles, is 48.6 mpg so I don't have any problem with the new EPA regs saying 45-47. That's reality given todays driving with the new tests.
It depends on how and where you drive.
If you drive at 70 mph into a headwind in winter there is no way you will get close to any EPA number because of the physical factores against you; neither diesel, nor hybrid, nor gasser. It's impossible to overcome to overcome the effects of drag, wind and temperature.
OTOH I have averaged as much as 65 mpg over a 50 mile trip in perfect EPA ( old ) conditions.
Both are REAL WORLD conditions. I've experienced both in the real world.
This is the key point you continue to ignore.
Nearly no one drives in perfect EPA ( old ) conditions. If you could then you would match or exceed the EPA ( old ) ratings no matter what vehicle you drove. It really is that simple.
I can take any Prius that's in good condition and attain the old EPA numbers with no effort at all; ditto the Jetta TDI, TCH, Malibu, Land Cruiser or Dodge Ram.
The procedures themselves were not flawed by the prior standards. The application of the meaning of the tests was flawed - given today's conditions. The tests were likely done perfectly whether they were done by the EPA or the automakers.
What did these result mean? Nothing! Drivers rarely drive the way the EPA posited back in the 70's.
48.6 mpg to my mind is WONDERFUL, However it is -7 mpg from the average and -12 mpg from the city rating or -13% to -20%.
While this might be academic or 20/20 hindsight question how many more or less Prius would have sold if instead of 60/50 it was more realistic at 45/47 ? Additionally if that were true, do you think folk would be happy to get 48? That is to keep in mind what Larsb said about 48 before= 48 after?
NO and not even close!! This is the point about the advantages of diesel that you are systematically ignoring. The real world results of diesel are on par (42/49) So for example if I want 50 mpg in a longer distant trip, the TDI can go 80-90 mph. At 50 mpg how fast is the Prius going? Again to vary another variable if both went 65mph what would the mpg be for both.
Let's for the sake of clarity remove what you are stuck on; and that is Prius hybrid. If my diesel TDI were rated at 60/50 or 50/60 mpg and I only got 48? I would be a bit more than upset. Knowing what I know the expectation would be to be at PAR = 50/60. Again to further illustrate the TDI 's epa is 42/49 I get between 44-62. In a daily commute I get between 48/52 which is above PAR. I am a happy camper.
So if 52 mpg is my own personal EPA what do I get? Well in EPA conditions during the Spring, summer and early Fall I averaged about 51 mpg ( 85 Hwy / 15 City ). This was not 52 mpg because I chose to drive on the speedy side of the EPA limits averaging about 62 mph iso 48 mph so I lost 2% of my nominal expected FE.
Now during the colder weather my personal EPA average is about 44-46 mpg depending on how cold it gets. So my results are actually in perfect conformity to the OLD EPA values and testing procedures when taking into account the weather factor that was ignored back in the 70's.
But I reiterate most ( 80-90% ) of the US population has no clue as to the meaning of what I just wrote. That excludes all current interlocateurs of course.
Under the probable new EPA guidelines I will exceed them by 10-20% all year long.
As you know from past posts I would jump to a diesel burning biofuel in a heartbeat and especially to a hybrid diesel sometine in the next 5-7 years. I've always said that diesels and hybrids accomplish the same goal just in different manners. The results of the Jetta TDI and the Prius are almost identical.
I am happy that you obtain such above average results with your TDI as I do with my Prius. :shades:
Another reason why I think that folks would benefit from CHIOCE of the diesel OPTION in market segments they are interested.
Of course I do know HOW to drive FOR mileage. For me over the last 84,000 miles, the really neat thing about the Jetta diesel is I specifically do NOT drive it with fuel mileage (necessarily) in mind.
Like the rest of us, Jerry has an opinion on diesels.
The way I see it is this....
Honda, Subaru, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, VW, Audi, Dodge, and Chrysler will all introduce new diesels in the USA within 3 years.
Diesels are not going to immediately take over the market, however, they are going to be a popular choice for those seeking to use to fewest resources and obtain the highest fuel economy.
Do you mean like Toyota trying to cover up the steering problem in over a million vehicles, that caused some deaths? Or Chrysler trying to cover up problems with their mini-van doors. Or Ford and Firestone trying to cover up problems with the number ONE selling vehicle in America. It is naivete that would believe for a minute that the car manufacturers do not fudge on the EPA & safety tests. Unless you believe that they just happen to beat out the competition by 1 MPG in actual testing. The precise tests the EPA lay out may be done in a foreign country and we are supposed to believe them. Bah Humbug! 85% of the tests are done by the manufacturers. And you believe they were all done precisely according to EPA regulations. Hmmmm :shades:
You ever wonder why the diesel cars are under estimated by the EPA tests and the Hybrids are over estimated? Why the mileage incentives are offered to hybrids and diesels with strings attached that keep the diesel cars from getting any of the tax breaks?
No, I don't WONDER and neither should you. Here are the answers to those two questions:
1. The EPA test for the hybrids allowed them to run in A) optimal temperatures so the the hybrid drivetrain was engaged during the tests, which means higher MPG, and
2. The EPA test for the diesels A) used lower speeds so that the "low rpm at greater highway speeds" which is where the diesels get their MPG advantage never came into play.
It's not some grand conspiracy Gary, it's just NOT and the sooner we accept that the better our lives will become. Harboring all these cynicisms and being a doubting Thomas all the time is not good for one's emotional well-being. :shades:
As far as your comment about the tax incentives, well, as far as I know there were no strings attached to the diesels. They qualify for the incentives too if they were clean enough and high-mileage enough. Let me look into that and I will get back to you.
Also, for the first time, tax incentives will extend — in theory — to "clean diesel" cars. But in reality, no diesel now on the market would qualify because none meets the air pollution standards. That may change at the end of 2006, when ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel is expected to hit the market along with new diesel technology. Clean diesel cars could catch on: J.D. Power and Associates estimates that hybrids and clean diesels together will account for 11 percent of the U.S. market by 2012.
Which car on the market will carry the best tax incentive? The Honda Civic GX, which runs on compressed natural gas, will garner a $3,600 tax credit, according to ACEEE, which has long touted the vehicle as the greenest car in America. But annual sales number only in the hundreds, partly because there are few CNG fueling stations. Not to worry: Congress also is providing up to a $1,000 tax break for a home fueling station, which siphons natural gas from the home furnace line straight into the Civic's tank. The typical cost: $3,400, plus $1,000 for installation. Even with tax breaks, alternative fuel is costly.
Clean is more important than high mileage, since the GX is not a high mileage vehicle but is super clean and thus rates the MAX tax break available at $3,600.
Get those diesels clean enough and the tax breaks will come.
And the hybrids got the big tax breaks with over estimated EPA mileage tests. What's new?
When it comes to government, in any form, I will remain a doubting Thomas. That won't keep me out of heaven. I just never watch TV anymore. That keeps my stress level down. I work in the yard to relax. I read Edmund's when I need to have a laugh.
I see this attitude as (sour grapes) an indictment of the generation (30 plus years) ago, conscious decision and subsequent failure by regulators to embrace diesel (and its developing technologies) for the passenger vehicle fleet.
You of course know the specifics even though you wish to ignore it.
Gasser technology for example took 30 plus years to so called come up and do the Prius. The greatest thing you can say about it is it uses a tiny engine (atkinson cycle) that is OFF 20% of the time!!
Another might be the USA government (executed under the Clinton administration) did give R and D of 1.5 BILLION dollars after tax monies for the biggie three to do a blank page design to prototype and test of course, for a high mileage power plant. Each of them independent of each other came up with a 70 mpg plus product, which all HAPPENED to be diesel. So of course at some level for the actual money expended the feeling might be this WAS a tax credit. Keep in mind that 1.5 billion government meny is a 3.0 billion before tax. Again the regulators who didnt get together with the other regulators on another area of the FED gov put the kibosh on diesel for it was decided (at that time) diesel was not part of the longer term policy. So in effect we the taxpayers paid 1.5 billion dollars (really more than 3 billion) for three prototypes and probably a library of paper documentation-all sitting on shelfs in storage. To add insult to injury we look to the Europeans and to a lesser extend the Japanese for so called "modern" diesel technology. Not that they do not have good to great products, but the USA is more than capable to develop this at home. Cummins is one example, CAT is another. My take is that is disgusting on many many many levels. The good news in nexus to this web topic, is it is getting very hard to ignore the alternative fuel benefits, and 25-75% diesel advantage.
What I care about (and we all should) is making cars which meet TODAY'S emission standards, TODAY, in the world we live in TODAY.
When these cleaner diesels finally DO that, then they will qualify for the tax incentives. That's all I'm saying and all I care about - CLEAN AIR NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. DIESELS TOO if they are clean enough.
Personally I am ready for a simple EV. To make a gas or diesel vehicle that complies with all the Emissions BS equates to a throw away vehicle. 5 years or 100k miles it is in the recycle bin. Good for the economy bad for the environment.
So the regulators indeed see it as capitulation for EVERY diesel advance.
The real question to ask is how is gasser allowed that uses more resources and pollutes more while diesel is banned and uses LESS resources?? I think you already know the answers.
And they shouldn't have to trust owners for something that critical to the cleanliness of the exhaust; many of whom may or may not give a darn about the environment.
That's like trying to sell a plug-in hybrid that is only clean when it runs on electricity and trusting the owners to always keep it charged.
There was a story about that a couple of days ago but I cannot find the link.
This is incorrect. The tests are just physical procedures that have been well known for 30+ years. There is no conspiracy, there is nothing hidden.
I can take any Prius in the US which is in good working order and attain the current EPA results in real life ( EPA ) conditions. It is the easiest thing in the world to do. I do it several times a day.
The obvious question is why then don't most drivers get the very optimistic EPA values? Because they choose not to. It's all a matter of personal choice. It has nothing to do with the vehicle or the manufacturer or the EPA or anything else. It is mostly dependent on the driver then secondarily on outside physcial forces not foreseen in the ( OLD ) EPA test.
Clean Diesel set to Spring like a Big Cat
i think the feds don't have the tradeoffs quite right: USA & allies *should* suspend tightening clean air regs until we win the current WW4. imho a crucial aspect to that is decreasing oil imports with the help of hybrids, diesels, conservation, CNG-cars, electric-cars, biodiesel, solar/wind/nuclear-charged electrics, and even some of that mostly-a-scam E85 fuel. that opinion is a top reason why my family's primary vehicles are both VW TDIs. (soot locally, act globally).
How many mpg will you get in a Prius if you drive 75-80 mph?
How fast is the top speed in the Prius?
I'm not trying to knock the car. I'm just curious.
I've had it up to 90 but not for long ( too many cops ). I believe it's been driven as fast as 115 mph as a stock vehicle.
kdhspyder, Thats still pretty damn good mileage. I didn't think a Prius got that kind of mileage at high speeds.
Ruking1, you are 1000% right about the government raising emission standards on diesels. It's ridiculous that states keep raising standards on diesels when they offer so good highway mileage. Our dependency on foreign oil is to serious for us to abandoned diesel technology that would have passed with flying colors 5 years ago.
I'd go along with a permanent incentive for
.. any auto that averaged over 45 mpg;
.. any SUV that averaged over 35 mpg;
.. any truck that averaged over 30 mpg.
Here's a question - do the new diesels still stink? I hate following the current crop of diesel pickups.
I'm all for saving the environment where we can, but at some point we have to make exceptions. I can't believe small cars with diesels are going to damage the environment any worse then it is now. I just read humans exhale 20% as much co2, as the average car gives off. The average human exhales 1,963 lbs of co2 per year.
If we gave automakers a more realistic bar, they might actually reach for it. Instead only a handful of companies even try to meet USA standards. Imagine where we would be if America embraced Diesel cars 30 years ago. Global diesel emissions would be lower then they are now. Some of that technology would have been be transferred over to semis, and that is really making a difference!!!
Here's a question - do the new diesels still stink?
I have a 2005 Jeep Liberty Limited CRD and it does not "stink". In fact it is odor free. Even with the previous S500 fuel, it was odor free and produced no visible smoke, even under load.
The engine in the CRD is designed to run on S15 diesel fuel.
As to the issue with Bluetec and the AdBlue additive, I think Daimler will come up with a way to handle this problem. In the EU filling stations that sell diesel fuel are also selling the AdBlue additive so that resolves the issue of keeping the AdBlue tank full. That would be a good solution here but it is more likely that the solution will be available in containers of several liters each that the owner can use to fill the AdBlue tank.
Couldn't it be filled as part of routine service at the dealership?
A really irritating alarm sounds when the tank is near empty and will not go off until filled.
Any number of options could be used to force the owner to make sure the AdBlue is maintained.
Also, like any alarm or safety system, it can be over ridden or disabled.
I don’t think making AdBlue system EPA/CARB compliant is the issue. Making the system economical and easy to maintain might be the bigger problem.
I'm not sure I understand what you are stating. MBs with adblue are available right now in 46 states. So, from what I can see, EPA is all that is preventing it from being sold in all 50 states. And, as far as I know, adblue is not expensive and its as easy as pouring it into a tank.
'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
It's not the EPA. It's California, and 3 other states stopping sales. The EPA has no problem with current diesel emissions.
Your correct and I had forgot about that. I was thinking more in terms of the CARB rules.
I was not refering to the adblue as being costly so much as a system that would appease the CARB states. My understanding is that they (CARB) have an issue with the system not being maintained by the owner and for that reason they are not signing off on it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Merry Chirstmas everyone
There are a few very verbal government opponents to diesel cars. They have managed to set the bar to where the bulk of the population do not get a choice in the matter. If you look at the EPA website you will see that the most popular cars in America 5 years ago had higher emissions than the current diesel cars. Yet the high mileage diesels are banned. Millions of these higher polluting CamCords are still on the road. I cannot believe that the real powers in this country are interested in saving fuel.
I would totally agree. So for example, those very same government officials point the peasants to MASS transportation. Do you know what most MASS transportation is run with? DIESEL !!! AND UNMITIGATED DIESEL at that!!!!???? Do you know why they are NOT implementing hydrogen fuel cell buses at a faster rate??? Hydrogen per gal (weight) is 18 dollars per gal!!!! A hydrogen fuel cell FX Honda (Civic size) gets 22 mpg. So how much do we think a heavy duty 45 passenger on up bus would get????
If it only got what a diesel got (6 mpg) the cost is expotentially prohibitive!!!!! So if one does the proportionality 50 mpg-diesel/ 38 mpg-gasser /22 mpg cost $3/$2.70/$18 /6 mpg diesel $3/
equals 2.27 MPG @ $18 hydrogen????? Now would that equal $7.93 per mile vs (3/6) or .50 cents per mile!!!??
Our municipality paid (at the time 10 years ago) 36,000 dollars per year for participation for the municipalities employees to use (fast) passes. 300 employees can literally not use their cars to get to WORK!!! THE PASS WAS AT NO COST TO THE EMPLOYEE!!!! All an employee had to do was ASK for a fast pass. FREE !!!! NO BODY (at the time) I mean no body uses/used it!!!!!!!!!! One guy actually used it, (for a half a year), but he retired (mid year) !!
Yet government officials point with pride how we promote all the latest transportation initiatives, yada, yada, ad infinitum. So 10 years hence do you think it costs more or less? Do you think it has gone up from .0033% participation? Actual participation for the half year is .00167%
Our elected officials get a $400 per month fuel allowance to use their own personal transportation. I say give em a fast pass. The taxpayer is already paying $36,000 for for almost laughable and unintelligible participation
Let's not knock mass transportation for the pollution. One City bus, even with "dirty diesel" fuel, pollutes far far less than 25 people driving themselves to work in a normal car or in a diesel car.
And hydrogen fuel cells are not ready for prime time - still in the "million dollars per vehicle" range.
I know Gary is against hybrid buses, but they are in use all around the world and the studies are all showing that those buses are a hit with virtually every agency which is using them.
Mass transportation has a lot of problems which are not related to diesel and which I will not get into on this forum, but believe me when I just say this: people want their freedom more than they want a free bus pass.
As far a pollution though, mass transit usually passes muster.
'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
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You are correct. i think its an easy and economical system as far as the owners would be concerned. But, for some reason, that's not good enough for "the gub'ment."
'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
To me it is clearly citing of a technically to enforce the (ANTI )diesel exclusion for as long as possible.
I believe Daimler will make AdBlue servicing part of the normal maintenance routine.
If AdBlue gets 15k on one fillup, and is part of normal servicing, you're good. Jiffy Lube, Penzoil, Fast Eddies, and Valvoline will all service it during regular matinence. There always looking to sell you something at an oil change shop.
As to Jiffy Lube, Pennzoil, and those places like them, would you really trust your car to them? I have heard and I have read too many horror stories about them.
Could even have a reset sequence at every fillup. Like GMs oil life monitor.
How expensive is AdBlue, and how much is needed per 15k miles?