Am I wrong to think that this particular 3-series, at only 18% better mileage than a 328, while giving similar performance, and probably for much more money, is not cutting it?
I mean, on the E-class, the diesel option is only $1k more, offers 30% better economy, and is only marginally slower than the E350.
IF the 335d was close in price to a 328, I could see the merit. But it will probably be priced more like a 335i, correct? Maybe even MORE than a 335i.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I think you hit the nail on the head. The BMW 335d can probably exhibit a Mr. Hyde, Doctor Jekyll, duopoly. First off , I think this is designed as a high speed autobahn performer, with all that might mean. Secondly, It can of course don the Clark Kent (actually Doctor Jekyll) demeanor at any time. In this mode, I would swag the machine is capable of better mpg. Since most gasser performance folks would probably scoff at 265 hp , again the other side of this is the torque (@425 #ft of torque) approaches the latest Z06 Chevrolet Corvette!!
What does not come across in the press and video/photo releases, is the turbo diesel functions best when you drive the torque curve, albeit within the proper RPM ranges (pushed, but not over rev ed) . This might be complicated somewhat by the twin turbo configuration!?
... This will obviously be a very sophisticated twin turbo setup. As such it will be capable of more boost @ lower revs. Keeping it within a MPG sweetspot had ought to be even easier than that noted Diesel low RPM curve.
I agree with you. With the gobbs of torque available at 1750rpm range. The car will have plenty of passing power and be able to pull away from a red light at a more than reasonable pace.I'd be glad to give up some straight line speed for higher miles per gallon.
Using a pure 50/50 average you'd get 28mpg with the new 3 series diesel with a push you back in your seat 6.3 second 0-60 time. I'd be happy with 7-8 seconds if I could have 30-35mpg city and 200+ torque at 1750. Good straight line speed, great passing power and efficiency whats not to like. Thats my perfect car, but they'd probably price it where I couldn't afford it.
For sure. While it does not say this, the usual set up is one turbo for lower rpm range boost and the other turbo for higher rpm range boost. 425 # ft of torque is utterly MONSTER even compared to the new BMW V8 M3 with 420 hp and less than 300# ft of torque. While I am sure the 0-60 mph is probably faster on the V8, the 335d seems to be an awesome long distance road machine. I think 500 to1000 miles a day would be effortless and comfortably do able.
From "This Week In Petroleum" dated today 2-27-2008:
Soaring to 355.2 cents per gallon, the U.S. average retail diesel price rose sharply to the highest point ever, topping the previous record by almost 11 cents. This was a jump of 15.6 cents from the previous week and 100.1 cents above the price a year ago. On a regional basis, aside from the Rocky Mountains, prices also reached all-time record levels. Prices on the East Coast rose the most of any of the five regions, surging up by 16.4 cents to 360.8 cents per gallon. This raised the price by 108.2 cents per gallon above the price last year. In the Midwest, the price was up by 16.0 cents to 352.5 cents per gallon, an increase of 100.2 cents from a year ago. The price in the Gulf Coast area increased by 14.3 cents to 351.0 cents per gallon which was 101.3 cents above the level a year ago. Once again, the price in the Rocky Mountains was the lowest of any region last week, moving up by 12.3 cents, to 347.3 cents per gallon, 90.5 cents above the price a year ago. On the West Coast, the average price increased by 15.5 cents to 360.9 cents per gallon, 81.9 cents above the price a year ago. In California, the average price shot up by 16.1 cents to 367.2 cents per gallon, 76.1 cents higher than last year.
JUST when clean diesel cars are about to explode on the market (we hope) we have this situation.
Does not surprise me in the least. The oil companies do not want US to have fuel efficient vehicles. They like selling US gasoline. If we had the vehicle mix the EU has we would end up with a big gas surplus to get rid of, just as the UK has. That is why we buy gas from them. No one wants gasoline over there. It is a poor substitute for automotive propulsion. Always has been. Unless you are a race car owner.
The US is doomed to gas guzzling vehicles until the wells run dry.
..."Once again, I am trying to do Chinese Algebra when decoding your reply.....????"...
Well for sure this is how the patchwork of regulations, etc. work together. You assume it will be so called logical and straight forward!! To use your wording, how it REALLY works is in "chinese algebra".
Volkswagen has confirmed the speculation that they will indeed be displaying a diesel-hybrid Golf at the Geneva Motor Show next week. The Golf TDI Hybrid will in fact be a strong parallel hybrid capable of running off either the diesel engine, an electric motor or both. As expected, start-stop capability is part of the deal. Interestingly the drivetrain uses a 7-speed DSG dual clutch transmission rather than some type of CVT. The Golf TDI Hybrid will apparently achieve fuel consumption of 3.4L/100km or 69mpg (U.S.). VW hasn't released any photos or other details of the Golf Hybrid yet so we'll just give you a shot of the Golf BlueMotion for now.
The oil companies do not directly control the retail price of diesel. There are a ton of factors, none of which can be completely manipulated by one group or another. That's why gas and diesel are not already $15 a gallon - if any one group could do that, it would be done.
Oil companies of course do not want fuel-efficient vehicles - duh. But their control of such things is very limited, thank Gosh.
With a defacto mpg of 22 mpg @ a current stated 27 mpg for the fleet, and the upcoming new 2012 standard of 35 mpg with (assuming) a defacto 28/29 mpg:(same ratio) I am scratching my head on your assertions. I have one that gets 50 mpg and the NEW cars sales of models like this have been banned in CA since the 2005 model year. The like model gets 29 mpg, gasser. Indeed to keep from being seen as totally disingenuous, they allow sales of these vehicle with over 7,500 miles.
Indeed the gasser model meets the defacto forward 2012 standard. Why is it so hard for you to see that 42% better mpg (similar model and overall great % and vol) has literally been outlawed. Proof is really in the less than 3% diesel passenger vehicle fleet. Why use 42% less when 42% more will do? (graphic license employed here)
Sure I understand there is a bias against diesel. The smart thing to do is to allow diesel models until oems can come out with like GASSER models that can meet or exceed diesel models.
Indeed I am being optimistic, feast on this:
Interstate, cruise control on 75, A/C off: 25 MPG (VW gasser posted on Edmunds.com, lost the link)
If I had to do the same, 75 mph on the TDI, I would get easily 59 mpg. This may be the real reason why the passenger vehicle fleet IS so very small. So really it is a matter of whom really cares about this transaction: who does it benefit when one gets 25 vs 59, and vice versa. Of course I am sure it scares the C out of oems that I easily can keep this rig going for 15/20 years when 7.5 years (and less) are really what they are aiming for.
Once again, I am trying to do Chinese Algebra when decoding your reply.....????
I'm not sure which of "my assertions" has you scratching your head.
Diesel cars in certain green-loving states have been "outlawed" in the interest of public health, not in the interest of the oil companies.
There is only a "bias" against diesels by people who don't like the smell and/or don't like the health problems.
And I'm very sorry, sir, but I would be very shocked to see a steady 59 miles per gallon at 75 miles per hour on a flat road in a Passat TDI. It's very efficient, I'm sure, but not THAT efficient.
It you can do that, post a video of your dashboard on YouTube and I will go comment on it. I posted a video of my TCH getting 48 MPG at 77 MPH on YouTube - go search it.
..."And I'm very sorry, sir, but you WILL NOT get a steady 59 miles per gallon at 75 miles per hour on a flat road in a Passat TDI. That' ain't gonna happen. "...
Jetta TDI. Got to tell you, it is a can do easy. Earlier in the trip, I did almost all stop and go driving in the city of Vancouver BC. (what a mess) Earlier in the day I spent 35-45 mins of stop/go in up turn on/ off operation at the US/CN border. I got 59 mpg by "accident" in that I slowed to 75/80 mph as there were three state highway patrol 5 car wolf pack teams armed with radar guns, working the interstate. It was obvious they were not ticketing folks at 75 mpg (65 mph speed limits) , so that was the speed selected. I was really ok with 48-50 mpg which I normally get on a longer distance run. I had the radar detector OFF as it was obvious it would be annoying.
As it applies to mpg, I would need to study the torque curves,etc, to even SWAG if I could do better than 69 mpg. (I do not see why not, however)
However it should be said that the US Jetta (for that year) could have used a couple of levelers which if implemented would have structurally allowed app 2 mpg better, and couinterintuitively added more power and torque 90/155 to 100/177 to 110/185.
1. European injectors (.205) vs ( .184)
2. From 5 speed manual to 6 speed manual transmission (and the heavier duty V6 clutch kit)
The real point here is that this was available literally YEARS ago AND at far cheaper prices and much lower cost per mile driven.
Upshot, I would agree with Gagrice that we are hooked too much on RUG to PUG, thank you very much. My additional take is the oems really want to increase the cost per mile driven.
VW diesel premiums (over gassers, historically) have been low. However combined with an unknown VW hybrid premium... (who knows?), I would share that feeling. In the worst case, it might be a premium like a Prius (over a gasser Corolla).
European-only for now ... but who knows? As the article I believe says, Benz may HAVE to bring the C200 here. I would point towards those CAFE standards as a driving force, too. Although a C320cdi would still meet the standards probably, and be much more fun to drive.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Yes I think they have been aware for a while that their previously fertile dumping grounds for gas guzzlers will probably not provide the same yields going forward, especially with the 2012 35 mpg standard. I am sure if you look at some of the higher end makes that gas guzzlers tax is starting to get old. If they do not effect changes, more models will come under that tax.
No such thing as a "premium." You get what you pay for. Higher cost is recouped in lower future fuel payments (69 MPG!!!) and higher resale/trade value at the end. If you keep the car forever, then you will have definitely recouped any money spent on options.
No one ever talks about a "chrome spinner premium" or a "navigation/leather package premium." When you pay extra for those items, they don't accumulate "payback" over a period of time like a diesel or hybrid drivetrain does.
Sorry, I am confused here. I have been careful to define "like models". So I think with an attitude of "no such thing as a premium", makes normal evaluation harder. Even the examples you cite to explain your concept, "lower future fuel payments (69 mpg), etc tend to obscure rather than facilite being clear .
Hybrid or diesel drivetrains should be referred to as an "option package" like any other option package.
This allows normal comparisons to proceed. I.E., "car price without option is xxxx dollars and car price with option is xxxx dollars.
If we start doing this now, we will be ahead of the game when someday in the future, carmakers will start listing these options like that on the sticker, like they do now for leather packages, luxury package 1, etc.
Indeed that has been my understanding all along, and I have addressed "like models" with this (assumption) in mind.
My take is there is some stair stepping, which in effect hides the real price you are paying for some to many options. All oem's do it from some to maximum extent.
If VW or anyone, marks the price $3K to $5K over the price of a non hybrid identical model, to me that is a premium. It might be an increase due the price of the hybrid system or a marketing induced mark-up. If it takes me five to ten years to make that money back in fuel savings, it might be better sitting in the bank in a CD. Bottom line is: If the price is too high over a Jetta TDI, it might not be worth it.
On this note, has anyone heard when the Jetta TDI’s will back on the lots in the US?
The S400 will be followed by a second lithium-ion hybrid, the S300 Bluetec Hybrid that will combine a 2.2-liter, twin-turbocharged, four-cylinder diesel engine with an electric motor. The powertrain will produce 221 hp, 413 lb-ft of torque and a whopping 43.6 mpg, Mercedes says. No timeline was specified on when the diesel would go on sale.
A lot of gasser folks REALLY are still clueless that future diesel powered cars hitting the US markets literally develop MONSTER torque figures! MB 320 turbo diesel already develops 369 (or so) # ft of torque and at a constant 80 mph gets 38-40 mpg. WOW !!! Sooner or later I think they will catch on.
I had read that article earlier and considering that diesel in my city is 50-60 cents more per gallon than RUG. I just don't see the viability of diesel. The oil companies know that no one will try diesel if it costs more than premium fuel! Add CARB into the mix and it's a disaster for companies making new diesel cars. Myself i'd love to have a diesel preferably an Accord, but not with a huge premium per gallon on top of a diesel engine premium. Diesel fuel needs to come down in price or it will scare off many potential buyers and that will decrease our options for diesel in the future. I feel bad for the truckers as they have no choice about buying diesel which is much cheaper overseas relative to RUG and PUG.
Others please correct me if I am wrong on this, But:
Diesel would have to be about 35% more expensive than gas to make it a break even deal. So if RUG is $3.50 the diesel would have to be $4.72 to be a wash. Remember, diesel gives you about 40% more mpg than gas.
Right, the formula is the same, but of course the variables change. Using your example on a LIKE model Jetta.
$3.50/29 mpg = $.1207 per mile driven vs
$4.72/50 mpg= $.094. per mile driven
So really it is more like $6.03/50 mpg =$.1206.(app 42%) per mile driven.
The real secret, I have to drive the gasser WAY more lighfooted to get "respectable" results. The other way to put it of course, if I drove the gasser like I drove the diesel; I would get way less mpg.
>Thanks, good read. We could use a lot of Jimmy Hoffa’s about now.
Hoffa can't cope with this. Fuel is permanently more expensive than it ever was. The era of the independent long-haul trucker may be coming to an end, unless a significant portion of the groups band together as larger corporations or guilds. Even then, all long-distance hauling may revert back to the railroads eventually, with trucks acting as the go-between for the rail terminals and local customers' doorsteps.
As far as passenger diesel goes: I'm all for it. I hope my wallet can afford the hit, however.
Carthell possibly you overlooked the point that at current prices, the more miles you drive, the more you save money by driving a passenger diesel car - so there's no "hit" to your wallet - instead there's an increase to your 401k! (Also, watch the diesel vs. gasoline prices this summer...)
I think the idea that rail transport can replacing long-haul trucking any decade soon is naive and ignores the facts of the current USA transportation system, but who knows, maybe I'm the one who is naive about it!
Here's something to think about: If we start producing and driving more diesels, the increased production of diesel fuel might force the prices down. Just as in a hybrid, I never calculate how or when it breaks even, I look at it as a redistribution of money. I would rather pay Toyota the extra $2,000 than give it to the oil companies if the overall cost is the same. The diesel is the same idea, it's about lower consumption, not about when it "costs" you the same or less than gas.....IMHO. I went through this with my dad and a few others who just bought large trucks and motorhomes and chose gas engines because the diesel was 8K more. I would rather wait the 5 years to catch up with the money, and in the meantime I would have a better engine and transmission for towing/pulling. Some people are just hardwired to look at initial cost, look at all of the people that got duped by Countrywide and ARM loans. :sick:
I would rather pay Toyota the extra $2,000 than give it to the oil companies if the overall cost is the same.
WHY? The oil companies do more for our country and our economy than Toyota does. I hear the wailing when Exxon has a great year. I hear cheers when Toyota makes a windfall amount of profit. Why aren't we talking about taxing the Toyota windfall as we do the oil company windfall profits?
PS I agree that buying the diesel engine is a better long term idea..
Nothing personal, but in my opinion the oil companies are raking in a whole more than they ought to. I also don't see how artificially inflating oil prices helps our economy unless you subscribe to the trickle down theory and hope that the extra jobs created when the oil company ceo's buy 250 foot yachts somehow is helpful to the economy.
Having worked in the oilfield for 26 years I can tell you when the price of oil is up they are out there looking for all they can find. When the price dropped in the late 1990s. The field was like a morgue. No one was spending any money on exploration. I agree that $100 oil is over the top. The oil companies can do very well at $50 or even less. The truth is most of the oil is not US company oil. It is Canada, Saudi, Mexico and our dear friends in Venezuela. The Refiners are paying $100 per barrel and trying to make a buck on gas. It is not a big profit margin. The only bright spot to high priced oil is pushing for some of the better alternatives. That does not include making ethanol from our food supply.
Can you name a wealthy American Oil executive that can afford a 250 foot yacht?
trickle down theory and hope that the extra jobs created when the oil company ceo's buy 250 foot yachts somehow is helpful to the economy.
That is how it works. This yacht is owned by the guy that helped develop the operating system on your computer. No US oil man is even close. He could just keep it in an offshore account like many other wealthy Americans. He spends it to keep people working. Same as the Oil companies.
Paul Allens octopus n 2003, the launch of Paul Allen's 127m (416ft) "Octopus" secured its number one position as the world's largest yacht.
Microsoft's "accidental billionaire" Paul Allen - worth US$20 billion according to Forbes, the third richest man in America and 7th in the world - owns two other monsters yachts such as Tatoosh ranked 3rd in the World in 2003.
Octopus cost Allen over US$200 million and has Permanent crew of 60, including several former Navy Seals. It has two helicopters, seven boats, a 10 man submarine and a remote controlled vehicle for crawling on the Ocean floor. The submarine has the capacity to sleep eight for up to two weeks underwater.
On average, owners must spend a minimum of 10 percent of the purchase price every year to keep these yachts in good working condition and cover crew salaries. Therefore “Octopus” which cost Allen US $200 million requires a US $20 million annual budget.
chirocat says, "but in my opinion the oil companies are raking in a whole more than they ought to."
I'll second that emotion, and my evil twin will third it.
The oil companies OUGHT to be spending most of those billions developing and researching clean ALTERNATIVE FUELS rather than spending it all trying to find more petroleum. Foresight. Planning for a future when fossil fuel is on the way out. Not trying to find more and more oil that we can burn and pollute with.
And Gary: Toyota's profits and the oil company profits are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANIMALS.
The oil companies are making money gold bar over gold bar by doing the SAME THING they have always done. To process a barrel of oil has not gotten more expensive for them.
They have lucked into a world oil market which is handing them tons of money for things it was handing them pounds of money for 8 years ago.
The oil companies OUGHT to be spending most of those billions developing and researching clean ALTERNATIVE FUELS rather than spending it all trying to find more petroleum.
Who is to say they are not developing alternative sources of energy behind closed doors? I don’t think even the oil companies are dumb enough to think the oil in the ground will last forever. I can’t help but think the SMART companies are working on alternative solution so they can continue for decades to come.
With the popularity of the "green movement" they would be broadcasting it across the airwaves if they were doing it in a substantial way, to appease the Green Crowd.
And I'm sure that they ARE working on it to a degree. But they are oilmen, and oilmen are not going to happily spend a lot of money on things other than selling more oil.
Personal expressions of animosity aside, what you are saying is so far off the marks, that it almost defies logic. Since we are on a diesel thread, lets use that as a small example.
Just trying to get the passenger diesel fleet to LESS than 3% has literally taken over a generation (30 years) What are we really trying to do, take at least another generation?? Keep in mind that diesel (like) models use app 25-40% less fuel than gassers . (VW gasser 25-29 mpg vs diesel 48-50 mpg) This goes without saying that happens RIGHT NOW, rather than serving as polite politically correct discussions over hor oerves at some environmentally sponsored cocktail party, one might have had to JET to. One feature of diesel is that it is a stair step rather than a (quantum) leap in alternative fuels. In addition, the fuel can be winnowed from existing industrial and other processes. It also has the greatest potential for further fruitful R&D.
OK, want or need the star wars quantum leap? Life gives us C02. It is an absolute R& D wasteland desert for the substitue that can use C02 as a fuel source.
I could go on and on, but hey even beating a dead horse can yield bio diesel....... :lemon:
..."Please - using the Queen's English: Please let me know what I posted which is specifically "off the marks." ???????????????????? "...
What about 25-40% less usage do you NOT understand!? :sick: :lemon:
Be that as it may, it truly doesn't matter what language is used, now does it?
And we haven't even gotten to the various emerging markets etc etc. Bottom line is even if the US markets drop off the face of the earth (which they will not) , the rest of the world will continue with a year over year INCREASE in world wide oil demand.
Comments
Am I wrong to think that this particular 3-series, at only 18% better mileage than a 328, while giving similar performance, and probably for much more money, is not cutting it?
I mean, on the E-class, the diesel option is only $1k more, offers 30% better economy, and is only marginally slower than the E350.
IF the 335d was close in price to a 328, I could see the merit. But it will probably be priced more like a 335i, correct? Maybe even MORE than a 335i.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
What does not come across in the press and video/photo releases, is the turbo diesel functions best when you drive the torque curve, albeit within the proper RPM ranges (pushed, but not over rev ed) . This might be complicated somewhat by the twin turbo configuration!?
Using a pure 50/50 average you'd get 28mpg with the new 3 series diesel with a push you back in your seat 6.3 second 0-60 time. I'd be happy with 7-8 seconds if I could have 30-35mpg city and 200+ torque at 1750. Good straight line speed, great passing power and efficiency whats not to like.
Soaring to 355.2 cents per gallon, the U.S. average retail diesel price rose sharply to the highest point ever, topping the previous record by almost 11 cents. This was a jump of 15.6 cents from the previous week and 100.1 cents above the price a year ago. On a regional basis, aside from the Rocky Mountains, prices also reached all-time record levels. Prices on the East Coast rose the most of any of the five regions, surging up by 16.4 cents to 360.8 cents per gallon. This raised the price by 108.2 cents per gallon above the price last year. In the Midwest, the price was up by 16.0 cents to 352.5 cents per gallon, an increase of 100.2 cents from a year ago. The price in the Gulf Coast area increased by 14.3 cents to 351.0 cents per gallon which was 101.3 cents above the level a year ago. Once again, the price in the Rocky Mountains was the lowest of any region last week, moving up by 12.3 cents, to 347.3 cents per gallon, 90.5 cents above the price a year ago. On the West Coast, the average price increased by 15.5 cents to 360.9 cents per gallon, 81.9 cents above the price a year ago. In California, the average price shot up by 16.1 cents to 367.2 cents per gallon, 76.1 cents higher than last year.
JUST when clean diesel cars are about to explode on the market (we hope) we have this situation.
Sad..........
The US is doomed to gas guzzling vehicles until the wells run dry.
Well for sure this is how the patchwork of regulations, etc. work together. You assume it will be so called logical and straight forward!! To use your wording, how it REALLY works is in "chinese algebra".
Volkswagen has confirmed the speculation that they will indeed be displaying a diesel-hybrid Golf at the Geneva Motor Show next week. The Golf TDI Hybrid will in fact be a strong parallel hybrid capable of running off either the diesel engine, an electric motor or both. As expected, start-stop capability is part of the deal. Interestingly the drivetrain uses a 7-speed DSG dual clutch transmission rather than some type of CVT. The Golf TDI Hybrid will apparently achieve fuel consumption of 3.4L/100km or 69mpg (U.S.). VW hasn't released any photos or other details of the Golf Hybrid yet so we'll just give you a shot of the Golf BlueMotion for now.
I would buy this car in a HEARTBEAT !!
Go Go VW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oil companies of course do not want fuel-efficient vehicles - duh. But their control of such things is very limited, thank Gosh.
I would buy that without a second thought.
IF they don't slap a big premium on it like Toyota, Ford and the others.
Indeed the gasser model meets the defacto forward 2012 standard. Why is it so hard for you to see that 42% better mpg (similar model and overall great % and vol) has literally been outlawed. Proof is really in the less than 3% diesel passenger vehicle fleet. Why use 42% less when 42% more will do? (graphic license employed here)
Sure I understand there is a bias against diesel. The smart thing to do is to allow diesel models until oems can come out with like GASSER models that can meet or exceed diesel models.
Indeed I am being optimistic, feast on this:
Interstate, cruise control on 75, A/C off: 25 MPG (VW gasser posted on Edmunds.com, lost the link)
If I had to do the same, 75 mph on the TDI, I would get easily 59 mpg. This may be the real reason why the passenger vehicle fleet IS so very small. So really it is a matter of whom really cares about this transaction: who does it benefit when one gets 25 vs 59, and vice versa. Of course I am sure it scares the C out of oems that I easily can keep this rig going for 15/20 years when 7.5 years (and less) are really what they are aiming for.
I'm not sure which of "my assertions" has you scratching your head.
Diesel cars in certain green-loving states have been "outlawed" in the interest of public health, not in the interest of the oil companies.
There is only a "bias" against diesels by people who don't like the smell and/or don't like the health problems.
And I'm very sorry, sir, but I would be very shocked to see a steady 59 miles per gallon at 75 miles per hour on a flat road in a Passat TDI. It's very efficient, I'm sure, but not THAT efficient.
It you can do that, post a video of your dashboard on YouTube and I will go comment on it. I posted a video of my TCH getting 48 MPG at 77 MPH on YouTube - go search it.
Jetta TDI. Got to tell you, it is a can do easy. Earlier in the trip, I did almost all stop and go driving in the city of Vancouver BC. (what a mess) Earlier in the day I spent 35-45 mins of stop/go in up turn on/ off operation at the US/CN border. I got 59 mpg by "accident" in that I slowed to 75/80 mph as there were three state highway patrol 5 car wolf pack teams armed with radar guns, working the interstate. It was obvious they were not ticketing folks at 75 mpg (65 mph speed limits) , so that was the speed selected. I was really ok with 48-50 mpg which I normally get on a longer distance run. I had the radar detector OFF as it was obvious it would be annoying.
As it applies to mpg, I would need to study the torque curves,etc, to even SWAG if I could do better than 69 mpg. (I do not see why not, however)
However it should be said that the US Jetta (for that year) could have used a couple of levelers which if implemented would have structurally allowed app 2 mpg better, and couinterintuitively added more power and torque 90/155 to 100/177 to 110/185.
1. European injectors (.205) vs ( .184)
2. From 5 speed manual to 6 speed manual transmission (and the heavier duty V6 clutch kit)
The real point here is that this was available literally YEARS ago AND at far cheaper prices and much lower cost per mile driven.
Upshot, I would agree with Gagrice that we are hooked too much on RUG to PUG, thank you very much. My additional take is the oems really want to increase the cost per mile driven.
but who knows? As the article I believe says, Benz may HAVE to bring the C200 here. I would point towards those CAFE standards as a driving force, too.
Although a C320cdi would still meet the standards probably, and be much more fun to drive.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
No one ever talks about a "chrome spinner premium" or a "navigation/leather package premium." When you pay extra for those items, they don't accumulate "payback" over a period of time like a diesel or hybrid drivetrain does.
This allows normal comparisons to proceed. I.E., "car price without option is xxxx dollars and car price with option is xxxx dollars.
If we start doing this now, we will be ahead of the game when someday in the future, carmakers will start listing these options like that on the sticker, like they do now for leather packages, luxury package 1, etc.
My take is there is some stair stepping, which in effect hides the real price you are paying for some to many options. All oem's do it from some to maximum extent.
Bottom line is: If the price is too high over a Jetta TDI, it might not be worth it.
On this note, has anyone heard when the Jetta TDI’s will back on the lots in the US?
The S400 will be followed by a second lithium-ion hybrid, the S300 Bluetec Hybrid that will combine a 2.2-liter, twin-turbocharged, four-cylinder diesel engine with an electric motor. The powertrain will produce 221 hp, 413 lb-ft of torque and a whopping 43.6 mpg, Mercedes says. No timeline was specified on when the diesel would go on sale.
Coolness !!
Diesel hybrid GLK
These are both exciting, but I think the GLK even moreso because I imagine it should be significantly cheaper than an S-class and offer more utility.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The oil companies know that no one will try diesel if it costs more than premium fuel!
Add CARB into the mix and it's a disaster for companies making new diesel cars.
Myself i'd love to have a diesel preferably an Accord, but not with a huge premium per gallon on top of a diesel engine premium.
Diesel fuel needs to come down in price or it will scare off many potential buyers and that will decrease our options for diesel in the future.
I feel bad for the truckers as they have no choice about buying diesel which is much cheaper overseas relative to RUG and PUG.
Diesel would have to be about 35% more expensive than gas to make it a break even deal.
So if RUG is $3.50 the diesel would have to be $4.72 to be a wash. Remember, diesel gives you about 40% more mpg than gas.
$3.50/29 mpg = $.1207 per mile driven
vs
$4.72/50 mpg= $.094. per mile driven
So really it is more like $6.03/50 mpg =$.1206.(app 42%) per mile driven.
The real secret, I have to drive the gasser WAY more lighfooted to get "respectable" results. The other way to put it of course, if I drove the gasser like I drove the diesel; I would get way less mpg.
Hoffa can't cope with this. Fuel is permanently more expensive than it ever was. The era of the independent long-haul trucker may be coming to an end, unless a significant portion of the groups band together as larger corporations or guilds. Even then, all long-distance hauling may revert back to the railroads eventually, with trucks acting as the go-between for the rail terminals and local customers' doorsteps.
As far as passenger diesel goes: I'm all for it. I hope my wallet can afford the hit, however.
I think the idea that rail transport can replacing long-haul trucking any decade soon is naive and ignores the facts of the current USA transportation system, but who knows, maybe I'm the one who is naive about it!
WHY? The oil companies do more for our country and our economy than Toyota does. I hear the wailing when Exxon has a great year. I hear cheers when Toyota makes a windfall amount of profit. Why aren't we talking about taxing the Toyota windfall as we do the oil company windfall profits?
PS
I agree that buying the diesel engine is a better long term idea..
:P
Can you name a wealthy American Oil executive that can afford a 250 foot yacht?
That is how it works. This yacht is owned by the guy that helped develop the operating system on your computer. No US oil man is even close. He could just keep it in an offshore account like many other wealthy Americans. He spends it to keep people working. Same as the Oil companies.
Paul Allens octopus n 2003, the launch of Paul Allen's 127m (416ft) "Octopus" secured its number one position as the world's largest yacht.
Microsoft's "accidental billionaire" Paul Allen - worth US$20 billion according to Forbes, the third richest man in America and 7th in the world - owns two other monsters yachts such as Tatoosh ranked 3rd in the World in 2003.
Octopus cost Allen over US$200 million and has Permanent crew of 60, including several former Navy Seals. It has two helicopters, seven boats, a 10 man submarine and a remote controlled vehicle for crawling on the Ocean floor. The submarine has the capacity to sleep eight for up to two weeks underwater.
On average, owners must spend a minimum of 10 percent of the purchase price every year to keep these yachts in good working condition and cover crew salaries. Therefore “Octopus” which cost Allen US $200 million requires a US $20 million annual budget.
http://www.yachtcrew-cv.com/paulallen.htm
http://community.webshots.com/album/171052557VyFRDB/0
I'll second that emotion, and my evil twin will third it.
The oil companies OUGHT to be spending most of those billions developing and researching clean ALTERNATIVE FUELS rather than spending it all trying to find more petroleum. Foresight. Planning for a future when fossil fuel is on the way out. Not trying to find more and more oil that we can burn and pollute with.
And Gary: Toyota's profits and the oil company profits are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANIMALS.
The oil companies are making money gold bar over gold bar by doing the SAME THING they have always done. To process a barrel of oil has not gotten more expensive for them.
They have lucked into a world oil market which is handing them tons of money for things it was handing them pounds of money for 8 years ago.
Who is to say they are not developing alternative sources of energy behind closed doors?
I don’t think even the oil companies are dumb enough to think the oil in the ground will last forever. I can’t help but think the SMART companies are working on alternative solution so they can continue for decades to come.
And I'm sure that they ARE working on it to a degree. But they are oilmen, and oilmen are not going to happily spend a lot of money on things other than selling more oil.
They certainly should be. I just wish they were.
Just trying to get the passenger diesel fleet to LESS than 3% has literally taken over a generation (30 years) What are we really trying to do, take at least another generation?? Keep in mind that diesel (like) models use app 25-40% less fuel than gassers . (VW gasser 25-29 mpg vs diesel 48-50 mpg) This goes without saying that happens RIGHT NOW, rather than serving as polite politically correct discussions over hor oerves at some environmentally sponsored cocktail party, one might have had to JET to. One feature of diesel is that it is a stair step rather than a (quantum) leap in alternative fuels. In addition, the fuel can be winnowed from existing industrial and other processes. It also has the greatest potential for further fruitful R&D.
OK, want or need the star wars quantum leap? Life gives us C02. It is an absolute R& D wasteland desert for the substitue that can use C02 as a fuel source.
I could go on and on, but hey even beating a dead horse can yield bio diesel....... :lemon:
What about 25-40% less usage do you NOT understand!? :sick: :lemon:
Be that as it may, it truly doesn't matter what language is used, now does it?
And we haven't even gotten to the various emerging markets etc etc. Bottom line is even if the US markets drop off the face of the earth (which they will not) , the rest of the world will continue with a year over year INCREASE in world wide oil demand.
Average US driver: yearly driving mileage 12,000 to 15,000 miles
MPG reading of 15/20/25/35/40/45/50
Yearly consumption of 1000 gals to 300 gals.