Diesels in the News

houdini1

Your argument should be with Edmunds, not me. If you disagree with their calculations you should let them know.

Here are the figures again for the predicted AVERAGE cost per mile to own and drive the two cars in question over a 5 year period using 15,000 miles per year.

This cost per mile includes, depreciation, taxes and fees, all maintenance, fuel, repairs, finance charges, and insurance.

1. 2006 Jetta TDI-----$.46 per mile
2. 2006 Civic LX gas--$.38 per mile

Many more details are given on the Edmunds True Cost To Own Site.

Certainly I understand that, in your case, having had both these vehicles for close to 15 years, your individual cost per mile should be much lower than this. Depreciation would be practically 0, taxes and fees much lower, no finance charges, and very little insurance costs. About the only place you could get hit is repair costs.

Also, in your case, the TDI could cost less per mile than the Civic. I understand that and you will get no argument from me because you should certainly know.

ruking1

..."This cost per mile includes, depreciation, taxes and fees, all maintenance, fuel, repairs, finance charges, and insurance."...

Right. I have understood it from the start. Agreed. Those are the factors I used in a quick tally and division by 100,000 miles. So like you say, results will vary. In my case, Edmunds.com estimates are 46% higher than the real world (my .25 cents. So indeed I look forward to the second 100,000 miles, third and fourth to etc!! No amount of NEW CAR (smell) can overcome those spreadsheet projections (less than .09 cents per mile driven!!! Of course one would amortized needed scheduled and unscheduled maintenance items. .46 vs .09 cents is a min of 5x MORE.

moparbad

xxxxxxxxxxx
Honda today confirmed that the 2009 Honda Accord would be available with an optional 2.2 liter i-CTDi 4-cylinder Tier 2 Bin 5 diesel engine.

The diesel engine is reported to produce in excess of 150 HP, while torque -- always a diesel strength -- is pegged at 260 lb-ft. The diesel will be emissions legal in all 50 states and is set to deliver real word fuel economy in excess of 40 MPG.

If the fuel economy estimates pass the Environmental Protection Agency's testing, that would make the diesel Accord more fuel efficient than the previous generation Accord Hybrid and Toyota's current Camry Hybrid.

The 2.2 liter diesel is expected to be closely followed by a new 3.5 liter V6 diesel destined for Honda's large vehicles. The engine is 30 percent more fuel efficient than the current 3.5 liter V6 gasoline engine used in the Odyssey, Pilot and Ridgeline according to the Nikkei newspaper.

In addition to the diesel news, Honda also announced that the CR-Z hybrid concept will make it to production. The small two-seater uses the same powertrain as the Civic Hybrid (4-cylinder gasoline engine, Integrated Motor Assist and CVT) and is likely to better its 40 MPG/45 MPG city/highway EPA ratings.

The CR-Z will be accompanied by a $22,000 five-seat Global Small Hybrid (GSH) which will do battle with Toyota's Prius in 2009.
xxxxxxxxxx

blane

By that calculation we'd all still be driving our ancestors' Stanley Steamers and Locomobiles (if they held up mechanically). The vast majority of the population has no interest in hanging on to a vehicle for hundreds of thousands of miles. The same way that that we don't resole our sneakers.

ruking1

Well I think that you can see by a lot of the interest (but still minority) in so called "retro" cars, there is a LOT of truth to your (unintended) assertion. It is also true the majority of the population IS well trained to find reasons (oem provided also ) to get rid of their cars BEFORE the cinderfella/rella pumpkin turning "stroke" of 100,000 miles.(MIDNIGHT) Perhaps most folks do not as a part of the car buying experience even have a clue about the cost per mile driven. That being so, would I rather spend .46 cents per mile ($230,000), or .09 cents per mile ($45,000). These per mile figures probably appear innocuous. But if you put it in 100,0000, 500,000 miles terms , etc. they might have longer term cummulative consequences!?

The diesel nexus of course is the better mpg and longevity. It really makes "half" sense if you will allow me to say, to buy a diesel at a "premium" no less, to take advantage of the better fuel mileage and NOT take advantage of the diesel's(higher/longer) design life.

For my .09 cents,(major costs are: fuel, depr, ins; scheduled maintenance is .01518 cents) my minimium goal is 500,000 miles or 5 pumpkins. :confuse:

One reality question I ask myself: will I have a need to do/go 500,000 miles? The answer for me is yes. Even if I don't, the vehicle will cost less sitting around!!?? :shades: (would you rather pay 300/400 per mo or ZERO?)

blane

While it is clearly more economical to retain a vehicle for hundreds of thousnads of miles, some of us have other priorities.

For argument's sake, at my average of 12,000 miles per year, had I kept a vehicle for 300,000 miles, today I would still be driving the one that I put on the road in 1982.

That vehicle would not have, as a minimum:

Antilock brakes
Crumple zones
High impact crash resistance
Electronic stability control
Electronic brake force distribution
Traction control
Automatic locking seatbelt retractors
Front airbags
Side airbags
Side curtain head protection airbags
Impact absorbing interior materials
Side impact structural protection
Child safety seat tethering (LATCH)
Variable assist power steering
Intermittant windshield wipers
Halogen or HID headlights
Daytime running lights
Head restraints
Decent fuel mileage
Much less pollution coming out of the tailpipe
Audio system enhancements including cassette tape, CD player, satellite radio, auxilliary inputs, etc.

The list goes on, and on, and on. Care to add any?

blufz1

That's just wrong. Many people,financially educated people, understand that the fewer cars you own in you lifetime,the more money you can accumulate. Honda sales guy told me most people only trade in when they think there is something wrong with their trade in. It's no shame to drive an older nicely washed,waxed,and well maintained car. It just indicates you understand financial compounding.

ruking1

..."some of us have other priorities. "...

A very good point!! The difference (of 230,000 -45,000=....) FUNDS my OTHER priorities!!??

I would say that as a longer term driver, (1.5 M miles) if those vehicle features are priorites and are important to you, at least you know where part of that 185,000 dollars are going. Most of the ones you mentioned, I would not have paid money. If I had a choice, I would have opted out.

But looking forward: what would be the effect of say $300 per month compounded at 12-15% for 25 years? (2007-1982 your example)

roland3

... Smokey Yunick invented or worked on recirculating ball, variable ratio, power steering, in the Sixties or Seventies.

blane

"compounded at 12-15% for 25 years"? You are surely an investment icon.

And, yes, I am a longer term (since about 1956) driver with well over 1.5M miles.

ruking1

..."compounded at 12-15% for 25 years"? You are surely an investment icon."...

Nah, Index Funds! I think it was John Bogle's masters thesis. (I know you Vanguard groupies will correct me, if I am incorrect here) He started Vanguard Index Funds based on this concept, I hear tell.

But in case folks are interested.

http://www.hughchou.org/calc/compound_js.html

Let's see, DL since 1966.

KCRam

Due to copyright laws, please post links and/or sources when quoting articles.

kcram - Pickups Host

moparbad

Diesel Altenate Fuel

winter2

Nifty article but there is one point that it does not address, namely the difference in fuel quality, EU versus domestic U.S.

Domestic diesel fuel is barely better than swill. It is not refined as well as it could be and still contains too many of the aromatic compounds that produce particulate as well as other nasties. Also, the cetane is still too low, namely low to mid-forties where as in the EU the cetane is fifty-one or better. Higher cetane, cleaner burn, more power. In the EU, most of the aromatic compounds have been removed from diesel.

If we ran our diesel powered vehicles on EU like fuel, they would be cleaner, quieter and simply run better.

ruking1

Are you speaking of CA/USA ULSD (15 ppm or less @ 45/50 cetane), or US 49 state LSD ( up to 500 ppm, @ 40/42 cetane)? CA LSD USED to be 142 ppm @ 42/45 cetane. I am not in tune with the nation's (by way of each individual states') ULSD implementation schedule.

nedzel

GM has issued a press release saying that they'll show a diesel Suburban concept vehicle at SEMA. It will have their new 4.5l diesel. Autoblog.com has picked up the story.

moparbad

Diapers to Diesel :sick:

winter2

I am talking about the non-CA ULSD which is 43 to 45 cetane. That is the swill of which I speak.

The CA ULSD with it's near 50 cetane rating is actually pretty good stuff and is very similar to EU diesel fuel.

winter2

I have a great idea! Let us take all the crap on Capitol Hill and in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and see what we get when we apply pyrolysis to them.

It will probably smell one hell of a lot better than what currently exists in these places and it will get rid of two stinking landfills to boot!

moparbad

quote Wards Auto-
Yet, a little-publicized report released last year by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations says livestock are responsible for a greater portion of global warming than the transportation sector.

The guilty parties are methane, a natural byproduct of bovine digestion and oxides of nitrogen emitted by manure. Methane is a particularly virulent threat, the report says, because it has 23 times the global-warming potential as carbon dioxide.

Livestock also outnumber vehicles by a wide margin. The number of cars and trucks worldwide is expected to hit 1 billion sometime in 2008, but according to “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” there already are 1.5 billion cattle and domestic buffalo on the planet, plus 1.7 billion sheep and goats and billions more pigs and poultry.

The global damage is amplified by the fact ranchers chop down forests to create more grazing land.

Believe it or not, experts say it is possible to curb livestock methane emissions by modifying diet and other changes, if only it was required. And we all would be better off if we consumed less meat and more vegetables.

Yet, there is little concern over the impact livestock has on the global environment. Burger King has no mandate to reduce the size of its Whoppers 4% annually; Denny’s has not been ordered to serve one less slice of bacon in its Grand Slam breakfast by 2012.
-end

Livestock Are The Real Climate Problem

quote-
A lawsuit by the State of California, seeking monetary damages from the nation’s six largest auto makers for causing the state’s wildfires and poor skiing conditions, was thrown out of court in September.
-end

CARB :sick: :sick:

ruking1

Well if they are going to lift the lid off of Pandora's BOX, they should not be surprised at what does comes out.

Also the environmentalists sacred cow- wetlands, are one of the GREATEST CO2 producers BAR NONE, except probably standing rain forests, they are trying to SAVE!!??

What are we going to do for the livestock? Afix a catalytic converter to the offending generator?

roland3

... well, we could take most professional sports salaries and profits and raise cattle in Superdome facilities and vent the methane through the roof and generate power. Then we could increase the offending feedstocks for more gas.

hypnosis44

I love this site! I have passed on so many funny stories of what some of you have to say. The whining is always the most enjoyable. Sometimes I am in tears - from laughter. Maybe if you pump diesel fumes into the bovines they would be in compliance.

ruking1

Actually bio diesel can be made from a plethora of on going long term processes that would otherwise go to waste. R & D will in course help to identify and bring on line new processes.

Glad we could brighten up your grim day! It must be tough guarding the keys to armageddon!!

moparbad

Sometimes I am in tears - from laughter.

California's environmental policies have the same effect on me, at least the tears portion.

If anyone is wanting a first impression of the new diesel that will be installed in the Honda Accord, here is a short-take from the UK.

ruking1

Make mine a 6 speed manual!!! The auto sounds like it will be like my wandering around Civic almost endless search for a gear automatic gear box, short of steady highway speeds.

Also @22,000 #'s /.481=$45,738 US does not make it much of a leap to a 50,000 MB diesel. % and dollar wise it is cheaper than a leap from Corolla to Prius, etc. And the you get standard setting MB automatic transmission.

moparbad

Even a Hyundai Sonata is $41,769 US in the UK.
An E-Class diesel is about $80,000 in the UK.

The dollar is TINY these days.

moparbad

quote autonews-
spokesman for Hino said the engine is too big for the Tundra, but could be scaled down to around 6.0 liters. He said Toyota has not decided whether its wants an inline six-cylinder engine — a layout used by the Dodge Ram diesel — or a V-8, which is used by Ford and GM diesel trucks. Toyota, he said, has not chosen an engine supplier for the truck.
-end

Tundra diesel SEMA
Subscription may be required to view this.

houdini1

You pass these stories on to the other patients? Glad we can brighten your days.

gagrice

I am sure it gets lonely at Patton watching all the smelly buses go by and no one gets off to visit.

KCRam

And you know what I'm referring to.

kcram - Pickups Host

megamike

I would like a diesel vehicle that is not going to break my bank. MB is just too much $$ for me. How much do Mahindras (Indian Car company) go for in the UK? Supposedly they are coming to the US next year, and will be pretty affordable. If they are under $25k, the gas mileage is what will sell me on them (30 - 37mpg!!).

link title

tagman

To be available for sale here, Mahindra vehicles will have to be subjected to the U.S. crash tests... Should be interesting to see if they fold up and kill the occupants, or offer any genuine safety.

Historically, and to many folk's surprise, the Korean vehicles turned out to be OK, but I still wonder about the Chinese and Indian vehicles that are to be sold here soon. Anything the likes of the quality of a resurrected Yugo would be a nightmare.

TagMan

ruking1

Yes I am wondering out loud how those touted mini mini Euro & Japanese cars will do in those crash tests. They have great fuel mileage, can literally almost pick them up (like the VW Beetle of old) and place em in a parking space, etc.

tagman

The "Smart" vehicle has some interesting crash characteristics, and the videos that are all over the internet seem to indicate that it might do extremely well in crash tests. Unfortunately, I doubt too many folks would want one of those "things"? Way too far off of mainstream, if you know what I mean.

TagMan

ruking1

Yes, I looked at a Mini Cooper and thought WOW !! this in a diesel!! But I also understand the crash ratings for the rear is MARGINAL at BEST.

Neat looking car and the resale value is WAY good!! Since I have taken the Jetta diesel (longest trip, 7,000 miles R/T) cross country, I could see my self hammered to death in a gasser or diesel Mini Cooper, as it is quite small inside!

tagman

Yes, I looked at a Mini Cooper and thought WOW !! this in a diesel!! But I also understand the crash ratings for the rear is MARGINAL at BEST.

Neat looking car and the resale value is WAY good!! Since I have taken the Jetta diesel (longest trip, 7,000 miles R/T) cross country, I could see my self hammered to death in a gasser or diesel Mini Cooper, as it is quite small inside!

Interesting story here... I received a Mini Cooper S as a birthday present from the wife a few years ago. I was quite shocked of course. Within a very short time of driving the car, I soon discovered the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The good = tons of fun to drive, unique styling, go-kart like handling and comfortable for the front passengers, reasonable enough gas mileage, but not terrific.

The bad = rear passenger comfort and bumpy, jittery ride. Too darned tiny under certain driving conditions.

The ugly = terrible workmanship and flimsy materials. The first week the windshield trim blew half way off on the freeway and was whipping around in the wind as I had to pull over to figure out how to secure it down enough to make the rest of the drive. Second week, the passenger's interior door handle fell off. Third week, a horrible sound when shifting into gear. Dealer claimed vehicle needed entire new transmission, which took weeks to get, and when finally replaced, the noise was the same. Then the door handle fell off again, and the windshield trim flew off the windshield again. Dealer determined to keep car for a while, but couldn't figure out the problem. I requested that the entire clutch assembly might need to be replaced. Service advisor refused. Noise got worse, and I talked to service manager who then suggested that the entire clutch assembly be replaced. I informed him that I had already requested that. The entire clutch assembly was finally replaced and the noise disappeared. Then when the door handle fell off again, I decided to sell the car.

I recently looked at the latest interior of the Mini, and it is an overkill of circles and ovals everywhere you look... worse than the previous model's interior.

IMHO, and with first-hand experience, there are so many truly better cars to purchase than a Mini Cooper.

TagMan

megamike

Are the MC diesels even available here? Much rather have a VW. But I like the idea of a 1/2 ton diesel pick-up with four doors. Even the two door would be nice under $20,000

ruking1

I am sorry to hear of your experiences with this machine. However, thank you for the heads up.

altair4

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/Environment/article/274399

Excerpt from today's Toronto Star online edition:

Pollution that spews from the smokestacks of ocean ships kills up to 60,000 people a year around the world, says a study released today. The estimated toll of premature deaths in North America, most on the West Coast, is 9,000, says the study, published in the American Chemical Society journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Without a clean up, the global total is expected to hit 84,000 within five years, the study says. The damage comes from the sulphur-laden Bunker C fuel that powers the growing number of ships conducting global trade.

The sludgy fuel is “basically the dregs of the oil refining process,” and contains nearly 2,000 times as much sulphur as the diesel fuel burned in trucks in North America and Europe, says David Marshall...

tagman

My guess is that it was a combination of an isolated problem and a service dept. that wasn't very good, and does not likely represent the typical MINI owner's experience.

I would guess (hopefully) that most MINIs are free of multiple unresolved issues.

TagMan

jkinzel

Very informative article, and while I can’t dispute the findings, I do find it hard to find them valid.
I don’t take death lightly and I do not advocate filling the planet with pollution, but a reality check is sometimes required.
Considering the mass of humanity on the planet, 60,000 deaths is a drop in the bucket and to say that those 60,000 died from ship exhaust is a bit of a stretch considering all the other things we breath in.
If the findings are valid, I should be a poster child for what shipping can do to you. I grew-up on Puget Sound breathing outboard exhaust while fishing and recreational boating. I worked on tugs in the summer during High school, I spent four years in the Navy on ships breathing that nasty bunker-C and then returning to tugs as a career. Lets not forget the twenty years I smoked (I quit 22 years ago) and other indiscretion of my youth.
Next year I turn 60 and I’m in fairly good physical condition with no respiratory problems.
I don’t dispute that bunker-C is a nasty pollution problem and needs to be addressed, but I have issues with pointing at 60,000 deaths and saying that they are directly related to ship exhaust.

ruking1

I read this in passing, but some agency publishes a yearly death report (yes upbeat and uplifting news I know).

The nations yearly deaths are something like 1.4M /300M plus population. This of course is like .00467% or less than a half percent per year.

It might be interesting to goggle again, and see what they attribute most yearly deaths to.

As a point of departure because this is an auto topic thread, the government statistics for auto deaths are like 43,000 fatalities per year/1.4M= 3.07% of the yearly death rate.

larsb

Good for you that you have avoided cancer (and lucky.) Some people are more genetically inclined to get cancer. You may be in a gene pool which does well against cancer. Many other people are not.

There are people who smoke for 60 years and never get cancer. That does not mean that smoking is not a cancer risk.

Just like not everyone who breathes a lot of diesel exhaust ends up with cancer does not mean that diesel exhaust does not cause cancer.

ruking1

and local corner store gas @$3.31, #2 diesel @ 3.51, I look back and think back at Houdini 1's posts of .46 cents per mile (new TDI) vs my posts of LESS (.25 to .09 cents) per mile driven.

So even at the above record prices, these are fuel costs: the per mile driven of

VW Jetta gasser; 29 mpg /$3.31= 11.4 cents per mile driven

vs

Jetta TDI; 50 mpg/$3.51= 7.02 cents per miles driven.

So just looking at the numbers alone it seems like what we are addicted to:

new to 5 year (typical time payments) old cars!!!!

(.40 cents to .46 cents per mile driven!!)

Seems one of the best things we can do be it gasser or diesel is to keep passenger vehicles for longer years and longer miles!!! And we should really start to demand and make sure we get: for example, 500,0000 miles to 1,000,000 mile diesel passenger cars.

blufz1

R...Agree. The longer you keep you cars,the fewer cars you will buy in your lifetime,and the more bux you can accumulate.

jkinzel

I agree also. Right now we are still driving our 1993 Explorer purchased new and have over 195,000 mile on it.
Looking seriously at the 2008 Taurus, gets about EPA 28 hwy. Truly a shame it does not come in a diesel in the US.
The Jetta TDI is not out of the picture yet, but I need some options and the Taurus is my (ie, wifes) next choice.

blufz1

If you can defer purchase, the Accord diesel should be out next year.

houdini1

You are exactly right. The components that make up the bulk of the cost per mile driven are depreciation, taxes, finance costs etc. On an older car most of these expenses are avoided or at least already paid for.

ruking1

Higher fuel prices has not escaped too many folks attention. Because of this, diesel has literally a plethora of advantages. One is the STRUCTURAL 20-40% fuel advantage. (over like model gassers) Another is the design life longevity over a gasser.

Look at what is happening in the energy markets. One could argue energy (no matter what form it does take) is the most BASIC of ALL the commodities!!?? A 1% pullback in (growth of) demand, (i.e.,103% vs 104%) and the price is hitting new highs!! From a year ago, from $50 per barrel to app $97.28. And they say inflation is LOW!!??

As a disadvantage, I do not see taxing and other regulatory agencies embracing lower fuel consumption (despite the Shakespearean thought: surely thou protests too much), as it is obvious to almost all, at whatever level one wants to approach it they would receive massively less revenue upon wider implementation. (20-40% less revenue!!)

One result, (which does not take many brain cells to SWAG) the taxing authorities also want to up the share (percentage, volume and additional fees) of the taxation over the current scheme/s (as they say in the UK)