Yes, as I had hoped. The same entertainment value and "expert" analysis by the same three.
Imagine if diesel affecionados really were so dull as to pay more for a used diesel than for a new one. And the million mile cars is always amusing - especially for mechanics.
Carry on please - SNL is not as funny as it once was!
..."Carry on please - SNL is not as funny as it once was!"...
Perhaps you should apply for the job!
Well I do have to say, I am ok with folks paying a whole lot more for a Prius than a Jetta TDI or Corolla for a plain jane commute. I am even ok with folks living in a place like NYC who willingly overpay for housing, so they can take mass transportation! As for the million miles, give me a break, I am only going on my second set of 100,000 miles (after 4 years)!
You want to know why most of the people here want to own and drive a clean diesel vehicle. Because it is not a burden on those that have them nor on the local governments. Here is a little you probably are not aware of:
There are just two problems with mass transit. Nobody uses it, and it costs like hell. Only 4% of Americans take public transportation to work. Even in cities they don't do it. Less than 25% of commuters in the New York metropolitan area use public transportation. Elsewhere it's far less--9.5% in San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, 1.8% in Dallas-Fort Worth. As for total travel in urban parts of America--all the comings and goings for work, school, shopping, etc.--1.7 % of those trips are made on mass transit.
You wrote "There are just two problems with mass transit. Nobody uses it, and it costs like hell. Only 4% of Americans take public transportation to work. Even in cities they don't do it. Less than 25% of commuters in the New York metropolitan area use public transportation."
WRONG! According to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, ridership on NYC mass transit is over seven million passengers per day, over two billion passengers per year. In fact, rush hour capacity has reached the bursting point in the subway system. They can't add more subway cars because the station platforms aren't long enough. There are long-range plans to expand those stations to accept longer trains.
New Yorkers can purchase a 30-day unlimited ride MetroCard, good for use on subways and buses, for $76.00. That's only about $3.45 per day for a typical 22-day per month commuter. For anyone having to make a few trips a day, it's an even more incredible bargain and it keeps hundreds of thousands of vehicles off of the streets of Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Staten Island.
Those figures don't even include the numerous commuter railroads and bus lines that bring hundreds of thousands of suburbanites into and out of NYC daily.
WRONG! According to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, ridership on NYC mass transit is over seven million passengers per day
Which, considering that some people take 4 rides during one day as part of their commute, some more, some fewer, probably amounts to 1-1.5m unique commuters per day, which is likely 25% of the working, commuting population of the metropolitan area.
please no more mass transit news unless it's in the mass transit forum on whogivesacowpuck.com .
the big news, actual diesel news, is that there is a 50 state diesel car available in the USA again. WOO HOO! bring it! i saw one on rt 3 in MA last week. E320 bluetec that is. actually maybe it was a 2007. it had NH plates. I know at least one person in MA who might be ready to buy an E320 bluetec. Can he buy one in MA? Or should I tell him to wait for the 2008 bluemotion jetta, and to buy a pair of those instead. I'm serious - please give me serious answers, with no hypno-axegrinding-hogwash.
WRONG! According to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, ridership on NYC mass transit
You need to protest to the Wall Street Journal and writer PJ O'Rourke.
As pointed out this is not about mass transit though we get many posters here touting the advantages and none of the disadvantages.
People are going to continue solo commuting to work. If we can save 30% of the fuel in a diesel compared to gas vehicle. It seems like a good start.
For elias:
For a work vehicle I would get the Jetta TDI. For cross country pleasure cruising the E320 CDI. It looks like they are only leasing the Mercedes blutec. That may only be in the CARB states.
I would agree common rail is significant improvement overall. In the scheme of things it is an incremental, with the attending higher price point. As a side by side real world comparison, mine is not common rail and is at 100,000 miles. Even at that, noise has never been an issue. So in the unlikely event I will need one, (common rail diesel) in 2008/2009 time frame, I can run the test. My ultimate goal is for the vehicles I do need in addition to the 2003 VW Jetta TDI is to buy diesel. (not gasser)
In hindsight I am happy with the (non common rail) vehicle and price points (17,000 as I have seen official VW marketing/PR releases). VW has initateded massive improvements with most of it unseen and have increased the power and efficiency of the TDI. They have also announced plans to drop relative price points (same same to 18,000), as part of the overall goal of increasing the US market unit sales.
I think one of the things that goes unreported is the cost per sq foot to buy housing in NYC, and the resulting taxes. The nexus here is it is hard to take mass transit if one does not live in proximity to NYC and/or transit corridors. Easily the cost per sq foot like like is 2.5 times greater to live in NYC than it would to live in say San Francisco, even as San Francisco is reputed to have higher cost of living than NYC. These are the real, but unseen costs.
More "experts" making things up as they go along - and without apology or admission! Sounds like our foreign policy - hey, maybe this is where it comes from?
Well you ought to ask NYC "experts" and leadship levels if their mass transportation is profitable from a fare box recovery point of view. (a resounding NOT) In addition they are about to speed BILLIONS to keep the failing infrastructure from catastrophic failure. While you can accuse and scoff all you wish/will, the accuser is woefully out of touch with.... the realities.. tocken tics.
Ask them if they also would not mind the loss of revenues from the very sources you seem to condemn or scoff at. You might want to tic tock us a report, or smart money is on (you will) NOT.
You also might want to gauge what the rest of the state of NY thinks as NYC continues to suck most of the power and economics out of the rest of the state. Ask those areas that are in relative states of "arrested decay"
For sure I am glad someone got a good one! Here, (inherited by marriage) poor paint resulting in paint peeling, pre mature corrosion, body damage, etc, massive oil consumption, poor fuel mileage, poor tires, brake pads, rotors, transmission issues, drooping head liners, seats worn. It necessitated another purchase in 1982 of a Honda Accord. (we obviously like to live on the wild side) At the time we were NOT going to keep it beyond 100,000 miles.
Now a days from a diesel perspective, it is just broken in at 60,000 miles.!!
I got mine brand new, about 8 grand, and never had any issues with it. I only had it for 2 years and about 30,000. miles. I sold it because I got a company car and as I recall (well it has been almost 30 years) made out alright.
What I really liked about it was that it was fun to drive. Little 4 or 5 speed manual. (can't remember which).
They only came in two colors, red or silver and I can remember seeing some later on where the paint looked bad.
I'm really beginning to wonder when the diesel Hondas will appear. Initially, I thought Fall 08, but Honda has been busy with redesigns. and increases in sales volume. It may be fall 09.
You paid $8000 for a 1978 Honda Accord? I think I only paid $3900 for my 1978 Honda Accord hatchback new. It was a real POC. I hear horror stories of the VW diesel I wanted at the time. I don't see how it could be any worse than the Honda.
We have a poster that frequents this board wanting us to all give up our vehicles and ride the bus. I felt he should know the facts about mass transit and the true cost of same to the tax payers. Buses for personal use are fine. I just do not like my tax dollars wasted on subsidies for mass transit.
Actually, it was a 1979 and I am sort of guessing on the price but I think it was pretty close to that. Anyone know for sure? And it was a very nice little car.
quote blufz1 post 3161-The Ridgeline gets a V6 diesel. Care to guess the displacement? The Accord gets a 2.4 or 2.5 diesel for the U. S. market. Arriving at a Honda dealer near you fall/08.-end
It's Fall 2008, where is the diesel Accord or Ridgeline?
I am sure you are probably right. I can remember buying a fully pimped out Buick Lesabre in 1977 and we paid about $7800 for that one. I remember that one very well because it was the first car I paid cash for.
Right. As curious as I am about the new Honda Accord iCTDI, the issue that I am the most curious/concerned is how the unseen factors are specified for durability given the diesel engine. Since I know the VW Jetta TDI was specified for 25,000 hours, how far off,close to, or even exceeding that metric (and more) is the Honda Accord iCTDI?
Right now the Honda Civic consumable items (tires, alignment, brake pads, rotors) are wearing (as a min) twice as fast as the consumable items on the VW Jetta TDI (given the same plain jane commute ). Oil consumption, while miniscule for both is also twice as much.
So do I hope the durability will increase? Yes! Do I think the durability will increase? NO! Would I swag it will be a competitive advantage to increase? Yes! Do I think Honda should transpose its European experience over to the US markets for this iCTDI? YES!
thanks gagrice for the input! after reading some more, seems like this E320 bluetec in Cali is really a 46 state diesel since it does not have "adblue". i guess we'll have to wait a while for a true 50-state diesel car. seeing is believing!
PJ Orourke is writing articles about diesel vehicles now!? he's a funny dude, but i didn't see any humour in the quote.
If the '79 Accord was a 4-door in the top trim-line, you could easily get close to $7K...
My '82 Accord base hatchback was around $7500 MSRP..
'77 VW Scirocco was $5250 base MSRP..
So, a '79 Accord hatch was probably in the high $5K area.. with 4-door LX models being high $6K.. and, of course, they were bringing MSRP or maybe even a little more at that time..
The only reason I know, is that I was shopping all of those cars at that time.. I kept my Accord until 1994, and put 130K mostly trouble-free miles on it..
Yes it seemed to me also, Honda built a lot better quality into the 1982 Accord. As I remember we ran close to 100,000 miles (manual transmission) and it was literally problem free. I was happy to sell it for $4,200. (?)
In hind sight, I now wonder how the 1982 would have fared with 200,000, 300,000 miles, etc.
Yes I think the reality for those 1/100 MB 320's is "probably" pretty moot.
Given your "46", 45, 44, state "legal status" that is respectively; 2.173913, 2.2222, 2.272727 vehicles per state. (we really don't like YOUR kind in these parts)Will they end up in each state like that? Probably NOT! Incidently now the anti's will probably opine that these vehicles will single handedly be responsible for the majority of the smog in each of those states!!
The 5 year true cost to own, as calculated by Edmunds might surprise some of you. We get the benefit of a lot of anecdotal evidence and opinions here but here is what the experts say:
1. 2008 Merc. E320 blue tec----$69,071 2. 2008 Merc. E350-------------$72,722.
3. 2006 Jetta TDI-------------$34,493. 4. 2006 Jetta 4 cyl gas-------$31,039. (2006 was the only year I could compare)
5. 2008 Camry Hybrid----------$40,316. 6. 2008 Camry LE 4 cyl gas ---$37,712.
Edmunds includes depreciation, finance cost, insurance, taxes and fees, fuel, maintenance, and repairs in their True Cost to Own calculations.
Now, I own none of the above so I do not have an ax to grind here. Just sharing info. I also have no way of knowing if Edmunds is right or not. I could even have made some mistakes myself in recording these numbers, so please feel free to look these and others up yourself.
When I bought the '79 Accord 4-door it was one of the first, if not the first one delivered in the Kansas City area and had all the options. Also I do believe I paid some amount over MSRP.
I wish there was a site where you could look up MSRP's for past years.
No not at all. With the steady march of inflation, it escalates ALL the prices. Indeed the prices indicate the almost lock step effort to increase the per mile driven cost. As the diesel advantages becomes more apparent, the % and dollar vol cost of the diesel model premium will go down. The bad/good news: The price of diesel will be par or even less than RUG, as in Europe. The longer term bad news of course (and has been for a while) are the prices of diesel and RUG has been app 6/7/8 per gal US, for a very long time.
If anything, I should have bought more than one TDI in 2003. Indeed Edmunds.com for the 2003 model year shows the 1.9T TDI to have had app 4,600 dollars higher resale value than same Jetta only the 2.0 and 1.8T gassers models. So with time, break even then (in this case) is almost moot.
But again the structural differences will probably not change much. For example on the 2003 Jetta 1.8T, RUG at 8 and 29 mpg and 2003, #2 diesel at 8 and 50 mpg, which fuel is cheaper/more expensive per mile driven?
Fuel cost is only one factor of several that contributes to the total cost per mile driven. In the comparisons I show above Edmunds also calculates the total cost per mile driven, using not only the cost of fuel but also depreciation, taxes and fees, financing, insurance, maintenance and repairs.
In an earlier post you implied that your Honda Civic was more expensive to maintain than your Jetta TDI. Here is what Edmunds came up with on total cost per mile driven over a five year period assuming 15,000 miles per year:
2006 Jetta TDI----.46 per mile driven 2006 Jetta gas----.41 per mile driven 2006 Civic LX gas-.38 per mile driven 2006 Prius--------.41 per mile driven
Please remember that your personal results may vary!
..."In an earlier post you implied that your Honda Civic was more expensive to maintain than your Jetta TDI"...
No. I did not IMPLY IT! I said it directly!!! Perhaps I was not clear enough? I went on to say (a min of) 2x faster! So for example, I will need new tires at 60,000 for the Civic rather than at 120,000 for the Jetta!!! This is on the same every day commute.
So given the $4,600/ 100,000 miles the TDI would be .046 cents mer mile cheaper to operate.
ruking1, what about the rather unenviable reliability record of VW? Did you factor those costs in as well? I am curious, as I really want to buy a wagon/hatchback diesel at some point, but from all I hear Honda today is way more reliable than VW.
BTW, do you know if VW is planning to sell diesel-powered Golf/Rabbit in the US besides the Jetta?
Edmunds took original cost and depreciation into account in their cost per mile calculations so apparently your personal results vary wildly from theirs. Please keep in mind that they are dealing with thousands of autos and averages to come up with their numbers.
I am really not too sure what you are saying. Are you saying that there are situations (same/same of course) where the wear will be reversed, i.e., Honda Civic/VW wearing 2x better? This would imply that there is a HUGE variance in quality for Honda's (Civic) This would imply reliability is almost non existent at Honda. I would submit that is not true. My premise is very simple under my conditions (aka, SAME conditions) Both the Civic as well as Jetta TDI are wearing as can be expected- nothing special or deviant about it.
Then please re-read my post. I was not giving my opinion, I was posting hard info from the Edmunds' True Cost To Own site. It is pretty clear.
If you want my opinion then I would submit that their information, compiled from thousands and thousands of car ownership experiences are more statistically valid than any single individuals experience that is based on only one car.
Well the problem of course is I am not buying new tires 2x faster for everyones Civic vehicle, just mine in comparison to VW Jetta!!! What I am saying is measured across Civics, I am probably slightly better than most Civic owners. When I compare VW/Civic side by side well as I have said wear on the VW is 2x better. Most importantly, that is probably normal!!! So another way that the cost per mile driven is normalized is the wear is as I said 2x faster for Civic, but cost of wear able parts are cheaper. I know for a fact that one of the disclosures is the Honda reliability is QUOTED SANS consumable parts- and they say so!!!!!! So truly the moniker of Honda "reliability" does not even include the fast (and FASTER wearing) compared to VW consumables!!!!! Another for example. If you look at the Honda Civic Major maintenance schedules (Honda owners web site, so one does not get the feeling I am pulling thisout of thin air) , there are fully 4 separate schedules for say 60,000 miles. There is only one for the VW Jetta TDI. So naturally one question that would arise is which one or did they use all four in that calculation. This would of course belie or camouflage the durability question. The other if we are to follow the logic of your example there is little difference between the maintenance costs of Civic vs Jetta. This would of course belie the so called bad reputation that another poster has highlighted.
As a real world comparison, my VW maintenance cost and total cost of operation per mile is no where near .46 cents per mile or $46,000, as per the re read you have asked me to do!! Including all that I can possibly include, it is more like .25 cents. This is assuming ZERO residual value. I have showed this to be false! Now if I keep it another 4 years (which I do plan to do) the payments drop out and so another 100,000 miles will cost LESS than .09 cents (actually .08567). The average for 200,000 miles will project to .17 cents per mile. So assuming residual value, it is simple to see the cost will be EVEN less than .17 cents per mile driven!!?? (or maybe not so simple!) Perhaps that is the real reason why the marketing systems pooh poohs diesel. SPENDING .41 cents per mile is better than (less than).17 cents any day!?
Just so I am clear, I will take the less than .17 cents over the .41 cents!
First of all, if you happen to have the "unreliable" car; be it Honda Civic or VW Jetta, it will be of no comfort whatsoever! Then it (if you do have the "lemon") is a question (if under warranty) will the dealer stand behind it? Well on a Honda, it doesn't last past 3 years or 36,000 miles and the VW 4 years and or 50,000 miles. So really you WANT EARLY and under warranty failure rather than later with NO warranty! The truth of the matter is there is a higher CHANCE of getting a problematic car with a VW over a Honda. You also have much longer (warranty) time to resolve the problem. My take is that Honda does reliability well with lower quality; as VW needs to improve reliability even while providing higher quality.
Having said that, it gave me great pause (4 years ago) in getting a VW. Research revealed most "VW" problems were indeed (gasser) engine related. TDI's had FAR less issues than the gasser models. However I would be remiss if I did not say that TDI's have their own issues! Ergo, since I was getting a TDI, many if not all those issues disappeared. Another was auto transmission vs 5 speed manual. Since my emphasis was getting best fuel mileage and having a good road car that could do commutes well, that indicated the 5 speed manual. Further research also indicated 400-450,000 mile clutch life. If it goes longer, that is gravy, if it goes sooner, I just need to amortize the repair costs (750 dollars) over less mileage. As you know clutch replacement is a normal (but not scheduled) maintenance item. (In the parallel universe auto transmission repair and replacement is part of normal maintenance for the Honda (I have an auto transmission) but is WAY more expensive). I because of short mileage, it is not commonly thought of as normal.) So now it was could I mitigate any and all issues with the TDI, either at the dealer (most are poor and expensive at best) or independent shops or gurus. The answer/s were yes. Of course, tires, brake pads, rotors, shocks, springs, are longer distance maintenance items. Scheduled maintenance items such as oil filters, oil, air filters, cabin filters, fuel filters, almost all cars have to do at some interval anyway. Again research indicated that a lot of them could be done at much longer intervals vs Honda which usually warns of catastrophic danger if you exceed. So to make a long story short, since I anticipated the Civic tires to last not more than 50,000 miles, (it is a pleasant surprise that it will probably hit 60,0000 to 65,000 miles) I bought a set of tires when it was on sale and when I didn't need it. I will pop them on when the tire depth gauge indicates.
Again the VW tires will easily go 110,000 miles, if not 120-125,000 miles.
So yes, my understanding is Golf diesels will be sold in the US market. The Rabbit I am not so sure.
ruking1, thank you for your insights. I like Golf, and I find it practical for my use, but the perceived lower reliability (and not so stellar ratings from Consumer Reports) compared to Honda gave me pause.
Another possibility for me was the Honda, but since I want either a wagon or a hatchback, and Honda apparently is not interested in bringing those to the US, that pretty much kills the idea for me. Now, if Honda put the same diesel engine (not a larger one) into the CRV, it might give me more options.
Pity neither Ford not GM have any apparent plans for offering in the US what they commonly offer in Europe. Truly, Detroit is taking US consumers for granted.
... To some extent I have to agree that the common rail is incremental over your car; however your VW has a fairly sophisticated injection, but industry wide the common rail is monumental and a true Modern Marvel. It has leveled the field in that no one can have anything less. The ability to start combustion with a small amount of fuel and add to the fire after the piston passes TDC not only quiets the engine almost to gas-fired levels, it makes for longer engine life. As to cost, the common rail is much simpler than your plunger pump, but I don't know what those piezo ceramic wafer stacks cost and the contol box must be more sophisticated, but you couldn't tell from the outside of it.
Here is a real life example: 2004 Honda Civic requires a timing belt and water pump change@ 105,000 miles. 2003 Jetta TDI requires a timing belt and water pump change @ 100,000 miles. Assuming the same price, which is cheaper? Since this is a hard figure, it is reflected in sources such as Edmunds.com. It is just that you do not really know or see what components make this figure (i.e., .46 cents per mile)
On closer look, the Honda ONLY changes the timing belt and water pump and if other stuff seems broken (seals etc) they will change and charge you for it. On a VW fully 30 (extra) parts are changed out. Which would tend to be more reliable durable?
Yes, I do not want to give the impression that if it was a choice of the system I have now vs common rail>>>>>>>>>>>>> well common rail is a no brainer!
While time will tell, I am hoping for problem free (subject) components for 500k-1M miles! In any case, the vehicle is a babe in the woods at 100,000 miles.
Comments
Imagine if diesel affecionados really were so dull as to pay more for a used diesel than for a new one. And the million mile cars is always amusing - especially for mechanics.
Carry on please - SNL is not as funny as it once was!
Perhaps you should apply for the job!
Well I do have to say, I am ok with folks paying a whole lot more for a Prius than a Jetta TDI or Corolla for a plain jane commute. I am even ok with folks living in a place like NYC who willingly overpay for housing, so they can take mass transportation! As for the million miles, give me a break, I am only going on my second set of 100,000 miles (after 4 years)!
Tell me when you take over SNL, I'll even watch!
There are just two problems with mass transit. Nobody uses it, and it costs like hell. Only 4% of Americans take public transportation to work. Even in cities they don't do it. Less than 25% of commuters in the New York metropolitan area use public transportation. Elsewhere it's far less--9.5% in San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, 1.8% in Dallas-Fort Worth. As for total travel in urban parts of America--all the comings and goings for work, school, shopping, etc.--1.7 % of those trips are made on mass transit.
You wrote "There are just two problems with mass transit. Nobody uses it, and it costs like hell. Only 4% of Americans take public transportation to work. Even in cities they don't do it. Less than 25% of commuters in the New York metropolitan area use public transportation."
WRONG! According to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, ridership on NYC mass transit is over seven million passengers per day, over two billion passengers per year. In fact, rush hour capacity has reached the bursting point in the subway system. They can't add more subway cars because the station platforms aren't long enough. There are long-range plans to expand those stations to accept longer trains.
New Yorkers can purchase a 30-day unlimited ride MetroCard, good for use on subways and buses, for $76.00. That's only about $3.45 per day for a typical 22-day per month commuter. For anyone having to make a few trips a day, it's an even more incredible bargain and it keeps hundreds of thousands of vehicles off of the streets of Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Staten Island.
Those figures don't even include the numerous commuter railroads and bus lines that bring hundreds of thousands of suburbanites into and out of NYC daily.
Which, considering that some people take 4 rides during one day as part of their commute, some more, some fewer, probably amounts to 1-1.5m unique commuters per day, which is likely 25% of the working, commuting population of the metropolitan area.
Clearly, the vast majority of commuters go to work and go home. That's two rides per passenger per day.
the big news, actual diesel news, is that there is a 50 state diesel car available in the USA again. WOO HOO! bring it!
i saw one on rt 3 in MA last week. E320 bluetec that is.
actually maybe it was a 2007. it had NH plates.
I know at least one person in MA who might be ready to buy an E320 bluetec. Can he buy one in MA? Or should I tell him to wait for the 2008 bluemotion jetta, and to buy a pair of those instead. I'm serious - please give me serious answers, with no hypno-axegrinding-hogwash.
You need to protest to the Wall Street Journal and writer PJ O'Rourke.
As pointed out this is not about mass transit though we get many posters here touting the advantages and none of the disadvantages.
People are going to continue solo commuting to work. If we can save 30% of the fuel in a diesel compared to gas vehicle. It seems like a good start.
For elias:
For a work vehicle I would get the Jetta TDI. For cross country pleasure cruising the E320 CDI. It looks like they are only leasing the Mercedes blutec. That may only be in the CARB states.
In hindsight I am happy with the (non common rail) vehicle and price points (17,000 as I have seen official VW marketing/PR releases). VW has initateded massive improvements with most of it unseen and have increased the power and efficiency of the TDI. They have also announced plans to drop relative price points (same same to 18,000), as part of the overall goal of increasing the US market unit sales.
Tick tock!
Ask them if they also would not mind the loss of revenues from the very sources you seem to condemn or scoff at. You might want to tic tock us a report, or smart money is on (you will) NOT.
You also might want to gauge what the rest of the state of NY thinks as NYC continues to suck most of the power and economics out of the rest of the state. Ask those areas that are in relative states of "arrested decay"
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
kcram - Pickups Host
Now a days from a diesel perspective, it is just broken in at 60,000 miles.!!
What I really liked about it was that it was fun to drive. Little 4 or 5 speed manual. (can't remember which).
They only came in two colors, red or silver and I can remember seeing some later on where the paint looked bad.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
It's Fall 2008, where is the diesel Accord or Ridgeline?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Right now the Honda Civic consumable items (tires, alignment, brake pads, rotors) are wearing (as a min) twice as fast as the consumable items on the VW Jetta TDI (given the same plain jane commute ). Oil consumption, while miniscule for both is also twice as much.
So do I hope the durability will increase? Yes! Do I think the durability will increase? NO! Would I swag it will be a competitive advantage to increase? Yes! Do I think Honda should transpose its European experience over to the US markets for this iCTDI? YES!
after reading some more, seems like this E320 bluetec in Cali is really a 46 state diesel since it does not have "adblue". i guess we'll have to wait a while for a true 50-state diesel car. seeing is believing!
PJ Orourke is writing articles about diesel vehicles now!? he's a funny dude, but i didn't see any humour in the quote.
My '82 Accord base hatchback was around $7500 MSRP..
'77 VW Scirocco was $5250 base MSRP..
So, a '79 Accord hatch was probably in the high $5K area.. with 4-door LX models being high $6K.. and, of course, they were bringing MSRP or maybe even a little more at that time..
The only reason I know, is that I was shopping all of those cars at that time.. I kept my Accord until 1994, and put 130K mostly trouble-free miles on it..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
In hind sight, I now wonder how the 1982 would have fared with 200,000, 300,000 miles, etc.
Given your "46", 45, 44, state "legal status" that is respectively; 2.173913, 2.2222, 2.272727 vehicles per state. (we really don't like YOUR kind in these parts)Will they end up in each state like that? Probably NOT! Incidently now the anti's will probably opine that these vehicles will single handedly be responsible for the majority of the smog in each of those states!!
1. 2008 Merc. E320 blue tec----$69,071
2. 2008 Merc. E350-------------$72,722.
3. 2006 Jetta TDI-------------$34,493.
4. 2006 Jetta 4 cyl gas-------$31,039.
(2006 was the only year I could compare)
5. 2008 Camry Hybrid----------$40,316.
6. 2008 Camry LE 4 cyl gas ---$37,712.
Edmunds includes depreciation, finance cost, insurance, taxes and fees, fuel, maintenance, and repairs in their True Cost to Own calculations.
Now, I own none of the above so I do not have an ax to grind here. Just sharing info. I also have no way of knowing if Edmunds is right or not. I could even have made some mistakes myself in recording these numbers, so please feel free to look these and others up yourself.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
When I bought the '79 Accord 4-door it was one of the first, if not the first one delivered in the Kansas City area and had all the options. Also I do believe I paid some amount over MSRP.
I wish there was a site where you could look up MSRP's for past years.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
If anything, I should have bought more than one TDI in 2003. Indeed Edmunds.com for the 2003 model year shows the 1.9T TDI to have had app 4,600 dollars higher resale value than same Jetta only the 2.0 and 1.8T gassers models. So with time, break even then (in this case) is almost moot.
But again the structural differences will probably not change much. For example on the 2003 Jetta 1.8T, RUG at 8 and 29 mpg and 2003, #2 diesel at 8 and 50 mpg, which fuel is cheaper/more expensive per mile driven?
In an earlier post you implied that your Honda Civic was more expensive to maintain than your Jetta TDI. Here is what Edmunds came up with on total cost per mile driven over a five year period assuming 15,000 miles per year:
2006 Jetta TDI----.46 per mile driven
2006 Jetta gas----.41 per mile driven
2006 Civic LX gas-.38 per mile driven
2006 Prius--------.41 per mile driven
Please remember that your personal results may vary!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
No. I did not IMPLY IT! I said it directly!!! Perhaps I was not clear enough? I went on to say (a min of) 2x faster! So for example, I will need new tires at 60,000 for the Civic rather than at 120,000 for the Jetta!!! This is on the same every day commute.
So given the $4,600/ 100,000 miles the TDI would be .046 cents mer mile cheaper to operate.
It's an enthusiast's forum.
Perhaps you should be looking up MIT rather than posting snide, off-topic comments.
BTW, do you know if VW is planning to sell diesel-powered Golf/Rabbit in the US besides the Jetta?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Then please re-read my post. I was not giving my opinion, I was posting hard info from the Edmunds' True Cost To Own site. It is pretty clear.
If you want my opinion then I would submit that their information, compiled from thousands and thousands of car ownership experiences are more statistically valid than any single individuals experience that is based on only one car.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
As a real world comparison, my VW maintenance cost and total cost of operation per mile is no where near .46 cents per mile or $46,000, as per the re read you have asked me to do!! Including all that I can possibly include, it is more like .25 cents. This is assuming ZERO residual value. I have showed this to be false! Now if I keep it another 4 years (which I do plan to do) the payments drop out and so another 100,000 miles will cost LESS than .09 cents (actually .08567). The average for 200,000 miles will project to .17 cents per mile. So assuming residual value, it is simple to see the cost will be EVEN less than .17 cents per mile driven!!?? (or maybe not so simple!) Perhaps that is the real reason why the marketing systems pooh poohs diesel. SPENDING .41 cents per mile is better than (less than).17 cents any day!?
Just so I am clear, I will take the less than .17 cents over the .41 cents!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Having said that, it gave me great pause (4 years ago) in getting a VW. Research revealed most "VW" problems were indeed (gasser) engine related. TDI's had FAR less issues than the gasser models. However I would be remiss if I did not say that TDI's have their own issues! Ergo, since I was getting a TDI, many if not all those issues disappeared. Another was auto transmission vs 5 speed manual. Since my emphasis was getting best fuel mileage and having a good road car that could do commutes well, that indicated the 5 speed manual. Further research also indicated 400-450,000 mile clutch life. If it goes longer, that is gravy, if it goes sooner, I just need to amortize the repair costs (750 dollars) over less mileage. As you know clutch replacement is a normal (but not scheduled) maintenance item. (In the parallel universe auto transmission repair and replacement is part of normal maintenance for the Honda (I have an auto transmission) but is WAY more expensive). I because of short mileage, it is not commonly thought of as normal.) So now it was could I mitigate any and all issues with the TDI, either at the dealer (most are poor and expensive at best) or independent shops or gurus. The answer/s were yes. Of course, tires, brake pads, rotors, shocks, springs, are longer distance maintenance items. Scheduled maintenance items such as oil filters, oil, air filters, cabin filters, fuel filters, almost all cars have to do at some interval anyway. Again research indicated that a lot of them could be done at much longer intervals vs Honda which usually warns of catastrophic danger if you exceed. So to make a long story short, since I anticipated the Civic tires to last not more than 50,000 miles, (it is a pleasant surprise that it will probably hit 60,0000 to 65,000 miles) I bought a set of tires when it was on sale and when I didn't need it. I will pop them on when the tire depth gauge indicates.
Again the VW tires will easily go 110,000 miles, if not 120-125,000 miles.
So yes, my understanding is Golf diesels will be sold in the US market. The Rabbit I am not so sure.
Another possibility for me was the Honda, but since I want either a wagon or a hatchback, and Honda apparently is not interested in bringing those to the US, that pretty much kills the idea for me. Now, if Honda put the same diesel engine (not a larger one) into the CRV, it might give me more options.
Pity neither Ford not GM have any apparent plans for offering in the US what they commonly offer in Europe. Truly, Detroit is taking US consumers for granted.
Starting in what model year?
On closer look, the Honda ONLY changes the timing belt and water pump and if other stuff seems broken (seals etc) they will change and charge you for it. On a VW fully 30 (extra) parts are changed out. Which would tend to be more reliable durable?
While time will tell, I am hoping for problem free (subject) components for 500k-1M miles! In any case, the vehicle is a babe in the woods at 100,000 miles.