By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Wrong again. The diesel ban on cars in CA went into affect in 2004. Of course you can still buy all the 3/4 ton PU diesels you like.
The fuel gluttony continues with the help of those who are supposed to stop it.
It depends if you are on the buying or selling end. You seem to think there is no problem paying 2 grand over MSRP on a Prius. Why not pay extra for a much better car such as a Jetta TDI? Or do like I did. Buy a VW TDI in a non stupid state and then sell it at a profit after driving it for 13 months. To show how fickled car buyers are. You could buy a Passat TDI for under invoice March 2005. Then Katrina woke everyone up to fuel saving cars and finding one for under MSRP was impossible.
ANYWAY, REGARDLESS of when, we all know that the diesel ban had nothing to do with promoting hybrids. That's just silly...
The regulators never one to let moss grow underfoot are busy giving the nod to hydrogen as a fuel and by weight is 16.00 per gal! The Honda Civic they are testing gets 22 mpg!!! Nothing like bringing down the COST of unleaded regular fuel !!!
Do you pay over MSRP at the dealer, too?
Hey, I want $5k for the half-used sharpie I'm writing with ... does that mean that is what its worth or what someone would actually pay for it?
'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
With the excursions into "private" highways in San Diego and the LA area's I would SWAG gov will probably look to "SELL" these access decals for so called underutilized portions of the public freeway
2002
The same Alan Lloyd got splashed all over the front page of the prestigious Wall Street Journal, virtually begging automakers to bring clean-diesels to California. Reason: To help Gov. Gray Davis meet California's tough vehicle [CO.sub.2] reduction requirements later this decade
This is the same Alan Lloyd that back peddled on the ZEV mandate and endorsed the hybrid technology. So maybe it isn't so far fetched. He is now back peddling on his stand on diesel.
The state of CA is in trouble with the Green House Gas police and hybrids are doing little to cut CO2. CA needs more than 2% of the cars with lower CO2 emissions. Toyota and Honda cannot deliver the goods so they need diesel cars to cut GHG.
It would be nice if the new diesels polluted less than current gassers. I'd even take less performance if that were the case.
What would you pay for a diesel hybrid Jetta, even if it was only sold with NAV?
;-)
Who is the best bet to be out of the gate with a reliable diesel hybrid?
Is it really fair to assume that any VW is gonna last 250,000 miles? I mean, the engine might, but won't you have replaced every other system by then? How many really old VWs do you see on the road?
I could order one from the factory, take the free trip to Europe, have it delivered to my cousin in....
dang - I don't have a relative that I'd trust driving my car
:-)
and you'd also need to find a relative in a mild climate - I don't want my car driven in the northeast or the south......Hey, does Oregon allow diesels? I have someone up there I trust, and I'd rather the thing get rained on than get baked or snowed on.
I think a more effective rename for this thread should have been:
"Hybrid and diesel vs regular cars: Deals or Duds?"
With fuel at $4 or more in some places, perhaps the hybrid vs diesel bickering war wouldn't take place (Yea right! )
One can wish anyway!
I wonder how it would be if fuel cells ever hits the market.
Will it be:
a. Hybrid and Diesel banded together to trash hydrogen?
b. Hybrid vs Diesel vs hydrogen?
No wonder regular gas cars remain more popular than any other type!
-Steve
The only one you can bring in from Europe today is the MB E320 CDI. It is a nice car. And it is faster than the gas E320. Plus 800 miles on a tank of diesel. The only CARB state West of the Mississippi is CA. So you have a real choice. All you have to do is license it to a non CA resident and borrow it for 7500 miles. You also need to wait a year to avoid sales tax in CA. Or buy a home in another state and license it there. That may be over kill for some folks. I have a friend with homes in CA & TX. He drives his E320 CDI back and forth every few weeks. Says it is the best car he has ever driven.
:-)
I'll just have to wait for an Audi TT Diesel
or a Volvo C70 T5Diesel
or...
However, like fintail, I'll be glad to put a few thousand miles on it for you. :shades:
;-)
P.S., I prefer blue or silver.
You know the hybrid market as well as anyone here. What would be the affect if the tax credit did not exist? Or any HOV or other tax incentives?
That means the six-speed 2.0 estate is capable of over 37mpg around town and could top 60mpg if driven carefully. For everyday driving, expect a figure more like 48mpg.
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/motoring/diesel/diesel_focusestate.html
Here C-Max:
FACTS AT A GLANCE
CAR: Ford Focus C-MAX TDCI diesel range
PRICES: £15,195-£19,045 - on the road
INSURANCE GROUPS: 7E-8E
CO2 EMISSIONS: 129-148g/km
PERFORMANCE: [2.0 TDCi] Max Speed 125mph / 0-60mph 9.3s
FUEL CONSUMPTION: [2.0 TDCi] (combined) 50.4mpg
STANDARD SAFETY FEATURES: Twin front, side and curtain airbags, ABS, EBA
WILL IT FIT IN YOUR GARAGE?: Length/Width/Heightmm 4333/1825/1558
http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/ford-focus-c-max-tdci-diese- - l-range-1003932.html
I want one!
And 19,000 British pounds converts to
$34,795 US dollars.
You could get a FULLY LOADED Prius or HCH for that money and beat the MPG of the Focus diesel...
$34,795 US dollars
I have found doing comparisons that the British pay about 30% more for their cars than we do. Even the Jaguar built there costs a lot more than buying the same car here. Even at 30% less I would not want a Ford Focus diesel. I would take the Jetta diesel any day of the week. Just a much finer car, including better MPG.
Ah, but if you drive a lot and keep the car for many years, the Jetta's parts prices would eat you alive.
Should be much cheaper to maintain a Focus, especially if there is a glut of them around.
I'm sure of that. We had an Escort and a Honda Accord at the same time and the Accord killed us. Two teenagers driving. The trim on the Honda did not get replaced as the prices were outrageous. The Escort trim pieces not expensive at all. Insurance was cheaper as a result. Happy to get rid of the Accord.
CAR: Ford Focus Estate range
PRICES: £13,195-£18,725 - on the road
Toyota Prius in UK is about £20,000
But I am not comparing those cars - it is just one more choice which is not available in US..
Our car prices are generally good, we just have a poor selection for fuel efficient cars. They send us the dregs because Americans will buy anything.
Alp8, in certain respects diesels do pollute less than their gasser counterparts.
Diesels do not emit any unburned HC, far less CO, and generally far less carbon dioxide than gassers of equivalent power (torque).
Diesels get dinged on PM which with the use of PM filters and S15 will be a non-issue. NOx will be a non-issue once Blue Tec like after treatment comes into play in 2008 models. These vehicles will be 50 state legal.
If you want proof of this, let me know.
SAN FRANCISCO July 17, 2006: The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ranked Ford Motor Company near the bottom in overall fuel efficiency among major automakers, according to its 2006 fuel economy report released today. Fleet-wide, Ford cars and trucks averaged 19.7 miles per gallon (mpg), narrowly avoiding last place in the fuel efficiency report for the third straight year. That dubious honor was claimed by Daimler Chrysler, whose vehicles averaged 19.1 mpg.
In response to the report, the Jumpstart Ford Campaign is redoubling its call for Ford to break its oil addiction by rapidly phasing out production of gas-guzzling internal combustion engines and replacing them with existing alternatives, such as gasoline-optional, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or GO hybrids. GO hybrids would free most drivers from routinely filling up at the pump and would put America on the road to energy independence.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/07/17/015075.html
Yet it took oem's (like Toyota, I used Toyota as a example because it includes the Prius) 25-30 years in the process to get to where it is now. I remember at the time each of those oems gave cleaner emissions a very BAD NAME !! In fact it was that way for decades. But at the same time DIESEL does and should NOT be penalized for the lack of 25-30 year R and D which it took to get the current gasser emissions technology where it is today. Quite the opposite is true for diesel. Diesel does have the 25-30 year advantage over gasser emissions technology for some of the technology, indeed is applicable. In fact the learning curve and emissions volume is FAR less for diesel than for the gasser volume, if not solely based on the SMALL %'s and numbers of the diesel's passenger vehicle fleet.
It is getting increasingly harder to ignore the app 37% fuel efficiency diesel has over unleaded regular and the fact the raw materials (light sweet crude) cost app 30-40% more than common crude from which diesel can be refined and cheaper obviously. Diesel takes less upstream resources to refine. Also diesel as opposed to unleaded regular is considered an alternative fuel. As an alternative fuel diesel can literally be processed in your back yard. That would literally be an impossibility for unleaded regular. And that is true even if you have an oil pumping derrick in the BACK parking lot of the local McDonald's next to the dempsey dumpsters, as I saw in Bakersfield, CA.
There are so many advantages to diesel, you will probably fall asleep if I list them. Perhaps this is the real problem. It is way too advantagous.
CA State K-12 schools are rated 49/50 in quality right above the state of Mississippi. Thank God for Mississippi.
yet, there is STILL not a car being made that is clean enough to run (new) in California......
(nice job of innovation by all those car companies)
yeah, I wish we had millions more disgusting diesels clogging our highways. Our air quality could be as good as Europe's!!!
:sick:
You pro-diesel guys should really take a trip to the suburbs of Paris, so you can breathe some of that nice, clean, Euro-diesel air.
The air I breathe is cleaner than it would be had California allowed diesels all these years. The only downside is that it costs each of us more to operate our cars. You guys are dreaming if you think that our foreign policy would change if half of all Americans drove diesels.
The essential question is whether you think importing foreign oil is problematic or a non issue.
so therefore cars should have no emissions controls
is that your logic?
I believe in energy independence, but I would not sacrifice public health for it
People who don't drive should not have to breathe disgusting air just so you can have more money in your pocket to buy toys
nice retort to my post, however, completely ignoring the issue
diesels have been banned in Cali for how long, and they still don't make one good enough to sell here?
Pretty pathetic
I'll take the world we currently live in (reasonably clean air and no diesels) rather than the world you seem willing to live in - woo HOO! You'd have saved enough money on gas to buy a few big screen TVs. So what? Do I care that poor people have to spend more to fuel their cars? Not really. Public health is more important to me. Let them take the bus. Let them move to Texas. I don't care.
A high-volume car like the Accord - you should be able to find most parts at junkyards - but interior trim pieces may be difficult.
so therefore cars should have no emissions controls
is that your logic? "...
No that is your logic or the logic you would have ascribed to me! The facts are the passenger diesel fleet already operate IAW the emssions laws and standards. In fact they operate to higher standards that say China to whom the Kyoto Accord gives almost unfettered free reign as it applies to emissions. The fact of the matter you do put public health at risk for the very logic, I have defined. The emissions from those non abated sources are not segregated from the emissions of the passenger vehicle fleet. I suspect you know this full well, but the logic you use and or ascribe to me would lead one to believe somehow it is NOT added to the mix. It is.
It has nothing to do with emissions. It is politics. The current Jetta diesel is cleaner according to the EPA than the 2006 Corolla sport. Have they banned the Corolla Sport from CA?
According to CARB one cargo ship in the Long Beach Harbor spews more pollution than 12,000 cars without smog control devices. The oil most of the ships use is bunker oil. It has as much as 3000 PPM sulfur. That is the cause of smog blown into the San Bernardino area. Diesel cars were restricted as of the end of 2004. You can still buy a 3/4 ton PU truck with a BIG diesel engine. My question is how many contractors would buy a smaller 1/2 ton diesel that would pollute a lot less if given the option? I know several that drive big diesel trucks just because they use less fuel than a 1/2 ton gasser. Or a midsize like a Tacoma. California has also mandated their on road diesel to no more than 130 PPM sulfur in the diesel for at least 2 years now. As of June 1st all on road diesel is supposed to be ULSD 15 PPM sulfur. Of course you still have all the heavy equipment using higher sulfur diesel. I would imagine at least 30% of the new gas cars sold in CA pollute more than the VW diesel cars.