That is the only argument I know of that makes much sense. My biggest complaint with most new sedans, is visibility. I think the Camry and Accord wagons are nice. Too bad they only sell them in Europe. We do get the dregs of the automotive industry in the USA.
Actually the reasoning might be woven into the discussion points Ateixeira and I got into. European OEMS really are compelled to use almost everything efficiently. Some reasons of course are fuel and vehicle costs. So it probably makes no sense for VW to design an efficient model for the European market and a less efficient one for the US market (for the ones they actually let into or are imported into this country). Normally they are the bigger and less fuel efficient versions that would probably have a limited appeal in the European market anyway. They of course are seen as desirable here. An example would be BMW 7 series, sort of the (Euro) decadent stretch executive status "mini limo" But seen as a luxury almost to full sized sedan for a one person trip to a status mall.
So for example, a wagon product for a given length, width, height would have greater volumetric efficiency than a sedan for obvious reasons: yielding a competitive advantage. So given a higher demand (and I would guess premium), all they need do it make it as attractive as possible to a greater volume and % market. Since Honda/Toyota do not experience the same cache in Europe as they do in the US, it probably made sense to offer their wagons in an area of greater demand than say in the US.
I actually bemoan the loss of the concept of multiple rear view mirrors as in a long ago available product call (?) " WINK Wide Angle mirror". There is not much tech in it, but to me, HIGHLY effective. To wordsmith a tad for print graphic effect, real view can exceed 180 degrees.
sound to silly of a question, but, would it be possible to convert a gas engine/transmission over to a clean burning deisel? If so, how much would it cost? Or, would it be better to start fresh with a new deisel to start? Just curious... :confuse:
Actually this is not a silly question at all. Essentially what you asked is being done by the oems from the git go. Except for diesel specific parts and a certain amount of engineering, the majority of parts are the same.
From an economic point of view, the costs probably outweighs the benefits.
Before you take on such a project, check state and federal law on this subject. It is my understanding that it is illegal to convert a vehicle from gas to diesel or diesel to gas. Im not sure if this is WA State law or Federal, or if it applies to just used or both used and new cars/trucks. Companies that do these conversions may be getting a waiver or something to be legal.
I actually inquired into this when I was considering going to a 350 cu in V8 from a I6 (gasser) for another vehicle. Basically if you change the engine (to diesel for example), you come under the new/converted vin #'s engine's regulations at the time of manufacture/certification. So for example, if you have a 2003 diesel motor, you are governed by THAT years' regulations, even if you drop that into a 1979 model.
... Possible? Certainly, especially with the current common rail injection. The gradual, multi (up to five) spike, per combustion cycle, fueling, makes the necessity, of bridge construction levels, of bulk parts obsolete, (notice how many aluminium cyl heads and some blocks (won Le Mans twice) we are seeing). The drive lines are strong enough also; however some taller gears need to be added. On a small company R & D level, makes quite a bit of sense. I believe the most significant change would be the pistons, then cam(s), then some cylinder head, then turbo. Actually I think it would be a major accomplishment to sit down with Bosch or Delphi and order: one pump, one black box, and four injectors.
The Cooper Diesel is tested with a 6 spd manual and comes with start/stop tech and a few other gimmicks developed by BMW under the Efficient Dynamics programm. The CO2 / km of the Mini is 5% higher than the Prius but the fuel consumption is much better with 3,6L/100 on the roads and 4,3/100 overall (65mpg and 53 mpg) whereas in the city, both car perform roughly the same
The Mini clearly delivers more dynamism and a cheaper ride, but the Prius makes it for a large internal accomodation and a much more refined and quiet powertrain experience. The start/stop system is annoying in the city, where the car shakes at every restart. A bad sum up would be the prius for commuting and the mini for week-end outings, preferably with a small family.
What would be my own choice ? The prius. cause if I want an automatic transmission on the Mini (I don't want a car without automatic) , I need to add a dismal 30% more consumption on the mini. an excellent case of immense suffering when no DSG is available.
I am assuming its emissions but it can be the overall cost of homologation of the diesel model(s) for the US market. Can be expensive if the they can't sell enough of them ...
logation... and now we ARE one!! Since the gate keepers fees are opaque to the average consumer, I would swag the $1000. premium over the volume most oems will be able to sell is probably a HUGE stumbling block and/or risk level. Probably the gate keepers fees were a good way in the past to keep out that hated minority group- passenger diesels!! As said before they are less than 3% of the passenger vehicle fleet population.
... Cessna has a Thielert Diesel from Germany now availiable. I'am reasonably sure it's a "boxer". As stated above, due to the new common rail injection, engine components don't have to be as stout as they once were and more aluminium is being used for heads and some blocks.
I've always thought that gas consumption was the one weakness of the Subaru line-up. I wouldn't expect this engine to get the mid-40's that VW shows (AWD after all) but would think that a Subaru Outback that got upper 20's to low 30's would sell pretty well.
If homologation is a problem, then go ahead and delete the two or so posts that use it in sentences and delineate a legitimate concept. It is akin to why for example Amsoil says it complies with standards testing and refuses to pay the certification and unit fees. The difference of course is if one refuses to certify diesels for example, they just do not get sold. Another of course is one is a monopolistic action vs a free market action.
Good point! It is the same mechanism used to exclude diesels. So it is good to chip away at the factors that keeps the diesel population small. As the diesel population becomes more mainstream, it will be seen just as in Europe. After all, one of the stated goals is to cut down on the dependence/importation of so called "foreign oil". Given that forces against new refineries has been successful for literally decades in stopping any and all new sites, I think they will have success in limiting to decreasing domestic oil production. The increase in domestic production is being fought against literally tooth and nail. So any decrease in consumption will trigger higher prices. So the years till 2020 will be VERY interesting.
In other ways there is a shortfall of 35 mpg GASSERS, let alone the virtual banning of very easily achieveable 35 mpg diesels. So it will take the same slow course to get REAL fleet 35 mpg averages.
It is also disingenuous in the same legislation to mandate ethanol which easily gets 25% LESS than gassers (29 mpg) . and 56% less than diesels (49).
There is very little use of biodiesel in the USA, let alone any significant bio diesel importation from Indonesia and Brazil. Got to love those Kyoto signing countries, eh?
You hit the nail right on the head. In their anxiety to look like they are complying with that stupid Kyoto Treaty they are cutting down the carbon sink to produce more fuel. Brazil is supposed to be some kind of model country. They have destroyed a lot of the rain forest to plant crops. They burn cane fields that dump a lot of pollution into the atmosphere. They can say they are energy independent, now that they have found a large pool of oil off their coast. All the crap about them using so much ethanol is just that, political SPIN.
Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, says it has discovered a huge new offshore oil field off the coast of Rio de Janeiro state.
The new field is expected to help Petrobras achieve its goal of making Brazil self-sufficient in oil. Since 2003, the company has been meeting 91% of the country's needs.
Unless I have miscalculated that is only 9% that is NOT fossil fuel. All alternatives must fit into that 9%, including ethanol. So much for the hype about ethanol solving Brazil's energy dependency. Brazil drills off the coast of Rio in deep water and it is good. We want to drill in ANWR or off the coast of Florida and it is not environmentally sound.
I think the real trade offs are not sound bite able. This is NOT to dismiss the fact that diesels do have cost components as you very rightly point out. For example, the diesel Honda Accord @ 25,000. Sounds like a lot, but really Honda/Toyota, etc have position gassers (Accord/Camry) at similar price points/breaks (independent of an actual diesel being on the market).
While VW did this in the past, diesels were put on smaller vehicles. Makes a whole lot of sense to me!!! Going forward however, it seems more powerful diesels are being put on larger vehicles and the power jump has literally been enormous, compared to gassers.
Not to lure you and other to sleep, or cause confusion to the more casual followers of this topic, but when I got the TDI Jetta the HP/Torque were 90/155. A Civic was 125/110. So what do you think if the Civic had 210 #ft of torque in that comparo!!!!!! This might give an indication of the non sound bite able ness (yes no such word) of the factors.
The 0-60 metric has little application in the real world. You might want to reconsider, even as I am not blind to the effect it has on a host of comparison parameters.
I would take a 3 series BMW 335D twin turbo in a heartbeat, make mine a manual 6 speed! . I understand the diesel matches the 0-60 metrics of the gasser. Since it is not available in the US, let me use an example that is. The gasser performance VS the VW TDI is what most concerns me: 44-62 mpg vs the gasser 2.0/1.8T VW which barely gets 29 mpg. Slower acceleration? Yes.
Hey I just read it in passing, do a web search and look at the comparos yourself.
Again I am comparing stuff that is available and with history vs the ones YOU have not been in or not available yet here.
To categorically assert that everything HAS to be the SAME, gasser= diesel is to ignore the absolute obvious. I actually would like a VW gasser that does get 44-62 over a like gasser/diesel and has the performance of the then gasser 1.8T. If I could, why would I even consider a diesel!!???
Using the BMW 335D vs 335I, the gasser community is afraid the D comes pretty darn close to the I. Might be another reason why they are starting to put V8's in 3 series on the European BMW higher end. But then again, the arms race continues in that there are twin turbo V8 diesel engines capable of 4 second 0-60's, get 45 mpg on race day and 70 mpg at 65 mph. Oh well! You brought it up.
I didn't assert that at all. Everything is not the same, nor will it ever be.
I'm just saying we should all be aware of the trade-offs.
If you want economy, why would you shop for a 335i in the first place? You would be looking at a 328i. No way, no how would I be shopping for a twin turbo 335i.
It seems a lot more natural to compare the 328i to the diesel for that reason.
Same with VW, I would shop 2.5l base Jetta vs. a TDI, not the 2.0FSI.
Think about it - the 2.0FSI requires premium fuel. If you want to save money on fuel costs, why would you pick that over the 2.5l?
You wouldn't. Period.
So again, naturally, you would compare the 2.5l (on cheaper regular fuel) to the TDI.
I hate it when an alternative fuel is given a "handicap".
Example: Toyota compares Prius costs to the bigger Camry, arguing it's a "mid-size". Gimme a break. It's Corolla sized. If Toyota felt it was Camry sized why would they even have come out with a Camry Hybrid?
Toyota does this to make the Prius appear more favorable than it is.
VW does this, too. They used the 1.8T (and now the 2.0FSI) because each of those runs on expensive premium fuel, negating the extra cost of diesel over regular octane gas.
I grant no such handicap, not to the Prius and not to diesels.
Generally speaking I am willing to trade off HP for torque, noise for economy. Big considerations for me are the additional up front cost and the higher price of diesel in my region (30-50 cents more per gallon).
Diesel has to win purely on merit. I hate it when people do a cost/benefit and then compare it to something that a shopper looking for fuel economy would likely not consider.
If it can match the cost of the more economical gas models, then the argument for diesels is compelling.
..."If it can match the cost of the more economical gas models, then the argument for diesels is compelling" ...
For me over 100,000 miles the TDI been an absolute no brainer as all three engines were available in a Jetta model (same was true for Golf, New Beetle, Passat) . Indeed it has done far better than any of my projections, both high and low.
When I purchased my 2005 Jeep Liberty Limited CRD, the diesel option cost about $3695. That package included the diesel engine, five-speed automatic, ABS, alloy wheels and one or two other items. When you take away the cost of each individual item, the engine cost less than $850.
Before purchasing my Jeep, I considered a VW Passat Wagon with the diesel. The option at that time was $275.
In either case, it was not an expensive option.
As to performance, I can out accelerated most Liberty V-6 gassers with my CRD from a dead stop. From about 55 MPH to 85 MPH, those same gassers cannot touch me when it comes to top gear acceleration. I have even caught a manual shift Corvette flat footed at 65 MPH and got to 80+ MPH faster than he did before he over took me. We were both rather surprised.
With 295 lb-ft of torque over a fairly wide power band, I can have all sorts of fun.
Besides, your alternatives were either the infamous 2.slow or the 1.8T. If you chose the 1.8T you'd need $178,480 in coil packs alone.
(sorry, VW fans, please don't throw your spare coil packs at me!)
So diesel wins easily vs. the VW gas engines at the time, but that's not saying much. Walking is faster than the 2.slow and more reliable than the 1.8T.
For current Bimmers, C&D has a comparo with a 328i in this month's edition, which the BMW wins, actually. 0-60 in just 6.1 seconds, which is plenty quick. 0-60 may not be the best gauge of an engine, but still, that car is quick and fast by any measuring stick.
My point is, if you're OK with a little less performance than a 335i, and consider a 335D, then you would also be OK with a little less performance from a 328i. That's the natural choice when you have cost considerations.
I can't even believe I'm saying "less performance" when talking about a car that hits 60 in 6.1s and just won that sport sedan comparo. But I digress.
If I were shopping today, I would consider a 328i vs. a 335D, and take into account the higher diesel prices where I live.
If a diesel still made sense, heck, I'd probably get one!
We actually want a small SUV, so hopefully Subaru comes through with plans for a diesel boxer.
$850 is a bargain, but it's too bad they packaged it that way. Forces you in to a higher price bracket if you didn't want the other stuff.
I remember VW had an 18 gallon tank on that older Passat TDI, so range was 800+ miles. :shades:
Those were not clean diesels, though, so we can expect more of a price differential from the newer ones.
PS I'm pro-diesel, I just think they should stand up purely on merit, not just because they're an alternative fuel (i.e. no special treatment). I did a full paper on Dr. Rudolf Diesel in college.
..."Besides, your alternatives were either the infamous 2.slow or the 1.8T. If you chose the 1.8T you'd need $178,480 in coil packs alone.
(sorry, VW fans, please don't throw your spare coil packs at me!)
So diesel wins easily vs. the VW gas engines at the time, but that's not saying much. Walking is faster than the 2.slow and more reliable than the 1.8T. "...
Indeed that was the bad news vs the good news. Close analysis indicated the majority of reliability, durability issues were (gasser) engine and (auto transmission) related! So in effect, given all that jazz: the TDI in a VW Jetta was THE only one to get!?
Even with 100,000 miles it still amazes me to have the ability to cruise for a shift and still get almost stellar fuel mileage. (at 584 miles, 6.25 hours drive time and consume 12.1 gals @ altitude from 3000 to 7000 ft no less).
The real sleeper is the 25,000 hour life cycle expectancy @ 75% loading on the TDI engine! (normal driving loads it FAR less) So I am looking forward to a min of another 5 to 10 timing belt changes (100,000 miles: TB/WP)
In some ways to me the diesel option sets a VERY high expectation. Given 29 vs 49 mpg or close to 41% advantage makes me look at a Honda Civic Diesel (gasser gets 38-42) and shapes my expectation @ 53-59 mpg. Since I know I can get up to 20% higher (up to 62 mpg on a EPA vehicle of 42/49) ... I would like to get in a Civic diesel and shoot for a min of 70-75 mpg. I know this is probably unreasonable.
You should go sell yours in CA, right now they are commanding very high prices since new diesels are so scarce.
It's hard to predict the future, but right now diesels enjoy much higher residuals than gassers, so in your case you'd more than make up the difference you paid right there.
I like the 5 door Civic diesel they sell in Europe, those are cool.
Indeed it makes me regret not having bought two, so I would have had more options to: buy, sell, hold, trade, etc. At this point, any diesels I would likely get are the already proven ones, so selling would in some respects not gain me anything; as the exact oem,model, year I already own would be on the list.However I do like the MB E320 CDI.
I really thought that particular engine had pretty severe turbo lag. The throttle felt like an on/of switch.
Hit the gas, then wait, wait, WOW this thing is fast. Once it gets going, any how.
It felt quicker than the E320 (this was just before the 3.5l came out), but not nearly as linear nor as smooth. "...
Indeed this is a common complaint or observation of those who do not drive diesels with any regularity. Again this is understandable and in light of a less than 3% diesel population, a no brainer. Basically the torque curves are different (& should be driven accordingly) and there are few gasser turbo to diesel turbo comparisons, so naturally it FEELS like there is a "lag", as there is no gasser turbo lag due to a .... lack of turbo!?. To expect a turbo diesel to be utterly seamless from a non turbo gasser engine is to set unrealistic expectations. However it is a good warning or preface that there is indeed a difference.
Of f topic from your post: one difference would be at altitude. Say a common range for the US highways would be 3000-8,000 feet. If one routinely drives in that altitude ban width (CO state comes to mind, among others), my response would be viva la turbo (gasser/diesel)!
Again the same can be said given the fact there are few turbo diesels/gassers, which you can directly compare in the same model.
Comments
That is the only argument I know of that makes much sense. My biggest complaint with most new sedans, is visibility. I think the Camry and Accord wagons are nice. Too bad they only sell them in Europe. We do get the dregs of the automotive industry in the USA.
So for example, a wagon product for a given length, width, height would have greater volumetric efficiency than a sedan for obvious reasons: yielding a competitive advantage. So given a higher demand (and I would guess premium), all they need do it make it as attractive as possible to a greater volume and % market.
Since Honda/Toyota do not experience the same cache in Europe as they do in the US, it probably made sense to offer their wagons in an area of greater demand than say in the US.
But it's still a compact. Look at dudley's numbers for interior space.
From an economic point of view, the costs probably outweighs the benefits.
Im not sure if this is WA State law or Federal, or if it applies to just used or both used and new cars/trucks.
Companies that do these conversions may be getting a waiver or something to be legal.
link title
What this may mean for the US is anyone's guess. The article mentions they may be in feasibility for the NA market.
of the Mini Clubman Diesel (110 HP ) against the TPH.
The point of this irrelevant testing was more to put 2 different concepts to a one-off comparison, with powertrain developing the same rated power.
http://www.argusauto.com/actualite-automobile/nouveautes-auto/Mini-Cooper-D-Club- man-face-%E0-Toyota-Prius/index.cfm?action=2&lie=1&IDRub=4&IDArt=135838&motCle=T- outes%20les%20nouveaut%C3%A9s
The Cooper Diesel is tested with a 6 spd manual and comes with start/stop tech and a few other gimmicks developed by BMW under the Efficient Dynamics programm. The CO2 / km of the Mini is 5% higher than the Prius but the fuel consumption is much better with 3,6L/100 on the roads and 4,3/100 overall (65mpg and 53 mpg) whereas in the city, both car perform roughly the same
The Mini clearly delivers more dynamism and a cheaper ride, but the Prius makes it for a large internal accomodation and a much more refined and quiet powertrain experience.
The start/stop system is annoying in the city, where the car shakes at every restart.
A bad sum up would be the prius for commuting and the mini for week-end outings, preferably with a small family.
What would be my own choice ? The prius. cause if I want an automatic transmission on the Mini (I don't want a car without automatic) , I need to add a dismal 30% more consumption on the mini. an excellent case of immense suffering when no DSG is available.
http://www.channel4.com/4car/rt/toyota/land+cruiser/2862/2
Would make decent sales in the US if allowed and imported
Its coming ...
A diesel boxer engine with a chain would be one heck of an engine!
Diesels have beefier blocks to cope with the much higher compression ratios, so basically you may as well start with a whole new engine.
kcram - Pickups Host
kcram - Pickups Host
In other ways there is a shortfall of 35 mpg GASSERS, let alone the virtual banning of very easily achieveable 35 mpg diesels. So it will take the same slow course to get REAL fleet 35 mpg averages.
It is also disingenuous in the same legislation to mandate ethanol which easily gets 25% LESS than gassers (29 mpg) . and 56% less than diesels (49).
December 18, 2007
"Deforestation rates in Indonesia and Brazil have spiked as farmers clear land to plant oil palm and soybeans for biodiesel."
Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, says it has discovered a huge new offshore oil field off the coast of Rio de Janeiro state.
The new field is expected to help Petrobras achieve its goal of making Brazil self-sufficient in oil. Since 2003, the company has been meeting 91% of the country's needs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4563896.stm
Unless I have miscalculated that is only 9% that is NOT fossil fuel. All alternatives must fit into that 9%, including ethanol. So much for the hype about ethanol solving Brazil's energy dependency. Brazil drills off the coast of Rio in deep water and it is good. We want to drill in ANWR or off the coast of Florida and it is not environmentally sound.
While VW did this in the past, diesels were put on smaller vehicles. Makes a whole lot of sense to me!!! Going forward however, it seems more powerful diesels are being put on larger vehicles and the power jump has literally been enormous, compared to gassers.
Not to lure you and other to sleep, or cause confusion to the more casual followers of this topic, but when I got the TDI Jetta the HP/Torque were 90/155. A Civic was 125/110. So what do you think if the Civic had 210 #ft of torque in that comparo!!!!!! This might give an indication of the non sound bite able ness (yes no such word) of the factors.
Performance is closer to the 328i, though.
The diesel is a pretty significant jump in price from a 328i.
Look at the Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD, too, another big step up in price.
The exact amount may be tough to figure due to equipment levels.
I would take a 3 series BMW 335D twin turbo in a heartbeat, make mine a manual 6 speed! . I understand the diesel matches the 0-60 metrics of the gasser. Since it is not available in the US, let me use an example that is. The gasser performance VS the VW TDI is what most concerns me: 44-62 mpg vs the gasser 2.0/1.8T VW which barely gets 29 mpg. Slower acceleration? Yes.
VW's TDI may compare well against the ho-hum 2.5l in the base Rabbit and Jetta, but it also will not match the performance of their 2.0FSI.
Again I am comparing stuff that is available and with history vs the ones YOU have not been in or not available yet here.
To categorically assert that everything HAS to be the SAME, gasser= diesel is to ignore the absolute obvious. I actually would like a VW gasser that does get 44-62 over a like gasser/diesel and has the performance of the then gasser 1.8T. If I could, why would I even consider a diesel!!???
Using the BMW 335D vs 335I, the gasser community is afraid the D comes pretty darn close to the I. Might be another reason why they are starting to put V8's in 3 series on the European BMW higher end. But then again, the arms race continues in that there are twin turbo V8 diesel engines capable of 4 second 0-60's, get 45 mpg on race day and 70 mpg at 65 mph. Oh well! You brought it up.
I'm just saying we should all be aware of the trade-offs.
If you want economy, why would you shop for a 335i in the first place? You would be looking at a 328i. No way, no how would I be shopping for a twin turbo 335i.
It seems a lot more natural to compare the 328i to the diesel for that reason.
Same with VW, I would shop 2.5l base Jetta vs. a TDI, not the 2.0FSI.
Think about it - the 2.0FSI requires premium fuel. If you want to save money on fuel costs, why would you pick that over the 2.5l?
You wouldn't. Period.
So again, naturally, you would compare the 2.5l (on cheaper regular fuel) to the TDI.
I hate it when an alternative fuel is given a "handicap".
Example: Toyota compares Prius costs to the bigger Camry, arguing it's a "mid-size". Gimme a break. It's Corolla sized. If Toyota felt it was Camry sized why would they even have come out with a Camry Hybrid?
Toyota does this to make the Prius appear more favorable than it is.
VW does this, too. They used the 1.8T (and now the 2.0FSI) because each of those runs on expensive premium fuel, negating the extra cost of diesel over regular octane gas.
I grant no such handicap, not to the Prius and not to diesels.
Generally speaking I am willing to trade off HP for torque, noise for economy. Big considerations for me are the additional up front cost and the higher price of diesel in my region (30-50 cents more per gallon).
Diesel has to win purely on merit. I hate it when people do a cost/benefit and then compare it to something that a shopper looking for fuel economy would likely not consider.
If it can match the cost of the more economical gas models, then the argument for diesels is compelling.
For me over 100,000 miles the TDI been an absolute no brainer as all three engines were available in a Jetta model (same was true for Golf, New Beetle, Passat) . Indeed it has done far better than any of my projections, both high and low.
Before purchasing my Jeep, I considered a VW Passat Wagon with the diesel. The option at that time was $275.
In either case, it was not an expensive option.
As to performance, I can out accelerated most Liberty V-6 gassers with my CRD from a dead stop. From about 55 MPH to 85 MPH, those same gassers cannot touch me when it comes to top gear acceleration. I have even caught a manual shift Corvette flat footed at 65 MPH and got to 80+ MPH faster than he did before he over took me. We were both rather surprised.
With 295 lb-ft of torque over a fairly wide power band, I can have all sorts of fun.
Besides, your alternatives were either the infamous 2.slow or the 1.8T. If you chose the 1.8T you'd need $178,480 in coil packs alone.
(sorry, VW fans, please don't throw your spare coil packs at me!)
So diesel wins easily vs. the VW gas engines at the time, but that's not saying much. Walking is faster than the 2.slow and more reliable than the 1.8T.
For current Bimmers, C&D has a comparo with a 328i in this month's edition, which the BMW wins, actually. 0-60 in just 6.1 seconds, which is plenty quick. 0-60 may not be the best gauge of an engine, but still, that car is quick and fast by any measuring stick.
My point is, if you're OK with a little less performance than a 335i, and consider a 335D, then you would also be OK with a little less performance from a 328i. That's the natural choice when you have cost considerations.
I can't even believe I'm saying "less performance" when talking about a car that hits 60 in 6.1s and just won that sport sedan comparo. But I digress.
If I were shopping today, I would consider a 328i vs. a 335D, and take into account the higher diesel prices where I live.
If a diesel still made sense, heck, I'd probably get one!
We actually want a small SUV, so hopefully Subaru comes through with plans for a diesel boxer.
I remember VW had an 18 gallon tank on that older Passat TDI, so range was 800+ miles. :shades:
Those were not clean diesels, though, so we can expect more of a price differential from the newer ones.
PS I'm pro-diesel, I just think they should stand up purely on merit, not just because they're an alternative fuel (i.e. no special treatment). I did a full paper on Dr. Rudolf Diesel in college.
(sorry, VW fans, please don't throw your spare coil packs at me!)
So diesel wins easily vs. the VW gas engines at the time, but that's not saying much. Walking is faster than the 2.slow and more reliable than the 1.8T. "...
Indeed that was the bad news vs the good news. Close analysis indicated the majority of reliability, durability issues were (gasser) engine and (auto transmission) related! So in effect, given all that jazz: the TDI in a VW Jetta was THE only one to get!?
Even with 100,000 miles it still amazes me to have the ability to cruise for a shift and still get almost stellar fuel mileage. (at 584 miles, 6.25 hours drive time and consume 12.1 gals @ altitude from 3000 to 7000 ft no less).
The real sleeper is the 25,000 hour life cycle expectancy @ 75% loading on the TDI engine! (normal driving loads it FAR less) So I am looking forward to a min of another 5 to 10 timing belt changes (100,000 miles: TB/WP)
In some ways to me the diesel option sets a VERY high expectation. Given 29 vs 49 mpg or close to 41% advantage makes me look at a Honda Civic Diesel (gasser gets 38-42) and shapes my expectation @ 53-59 mpg. Since I know I can get up to 20% higher (up to 62 mpg on a EPA vehicle of 42/49) ... I would like to get in a Civic diesel and shoot for a min of 70-75 mpg. I know this is probably unreasonable.
You should go sell yours in CA, right now they are commanding very high prices since new diesels are so scarce.
It's hard to predict the future, but right now diesels enjoy much higher residuals than gassers, so in your case you'd more than make up the difference you paid right there.
I like the 5 door Civic diesel they sell in Europe, those are cool.
I liked it, but....
I really thought that particular engine had pretty severe turbo lag. The throttle felt like an on/of switch.
Hit the gas, then wait, wait, WOW this thing is fast. Once it gets going, any how.
It felt quicker than the E320 (this was just before the 3.5l came out), but not nearly as linear nor as smooth.
I think those got something like 27/37 EPA mpg, which is amazing, and for those sort of numbers might even be willing to overlook the lag.
Let me find the review I wrote on it, it was a couple of years ago. Hang on...
Found it:
ateixeira, "The Forums Test Drive Team" #119, 22 Sep 2004 6:50 am
Very positive review overall. In fact more positive than I seemingly remembered.
Why do we pay more here in the US, while Europeans get the diesel cheaper? No fair...
I really thought that particular engine had pretty severe turbo lag. The throttle felt like an on/of switch.
Hit the gas, then wait, wait, WOW this thing is fast. Once it gets going, any how.
It felt quicker than the E320 (this was just before the 3.5l came out), but not nearly as linear nor as smooth. "...
Indeed this is a common complaint or observation of those who do not drive diesels with any regularity. Again this is understandable and in light of a less than 3% diesel population, a no brainer. Basically the torque curves are different (& should be driven accordingly) and there are few gasser turbo to diesel turbo comparisons, so naturally it FEELS like there is a "lag", as there is no gasser turbo lag due to a .... lack of turbo!?. To expect a turbo diesel to be utterly seamless from a non turbo gasser engine is to set unrealistic expectations. However it is a good warning or preface that there is indeed a difference.
Of f topic from your post: one difference would be at altitude. Say a common range for the US highways would be 3000-8,000 feet. If one routinely drives in that altitude ban width (CO state comes to mind, among others), my response would be viva la turbo (gasser/diesel)!
Again the same can be said given the fact there are few turbo diesels/gassers, which you can directly compare in the same model.