Are gas prices fueling your pain?

cjbts

if gas prices have you seeing red, wait until you see how much current US fuel mileage standards cost you at the pump. Sierra Club’s MPG Calculator (http://www.sierraclub.org/mpg/) figures out how much current fuel-saving technology could save you – and the environment – based on the year and make of your car and the average cost of a gallon of gas in your area.

Beyond the nifty calculator, there are links to all kinds of information about how to reduce emission, consumption and help make a difference towards cleaner air and environment...

This summer, we don’t have to just complain about fuel costs, we can do something, too. Check out the MPG Calculator and take the first step toward weathering out-of-control gas prices.

stever

IKEA is an odd duck - I don't think anyone has figured out their "non-profit" organizational structure.

Hey generous, how about sending me a $50 gas card so I can fill up the van this week? :shades:

(notice the nudge back towards the topic?)

Mr_Shiftright

That's an interesting statistic. The highest sales volume brackets the last "gas crisis" of 1979, and then the fall back to 0.37% is just about the time of the final worldwide demise of the carburetor-driven engine. So finally the gas engine matched the diesel in economy and fuel injection reliability and surpassed it in emissions levels. Not sure if all that happened precisely in 1986 but right around that time.

So the diesel will have to demonstrate superiority over gas engines to sell again in large quantities in the US. By "superiority" that doesn't mean 1 or 2 mpg and 3 cents less per gallon.

altair4

I think you are incorrect. Show your proof - I can't find anything to support either way.

I found this at charity.org:
Among the top 21 industrialized nations, the U.S. ranks last in terms of the percentage of gross national product spent on humanitarian foreign aid.

But that's not charitable giving - that's governmental policy.

m6vx

nippononly:
At least 50% of most folks' driving is discretionary.

Can I get a definition of "Descretionary Driving"?

I'm afraid I might be WAY higher than 50%......

Mr_Shiftright

I think the proof has to reside with the person making the original claim for our alleged superior generosity AND in a different forum--- in Yahoo groups maybe?

tpe

Well around 1986 is when the trend began in America to ditch the passenger car for a truck/SUV. This represents a major shift towards dirtier, less efficient vehicles. It's hard to look at that fact and conclude that Americans abandoned diesels because they place a high priority on low polluting vehicles. A more reasonable conclusion would be that they soured on diesels for other reasons and low emissions, high efficiency were way down on their list of priorities.

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicle/all-rank-07.htm

nippononly

Discretionary to me means "not required to go to work or do the minimal shopping so you don't starve". Mandatory driving would also include driving kids to school that had no other way to get there. But I want to EMPHASIZE that what is discretionary is heavily tempered by the availability of public transportation in some areas. In NYC and SF, you don't even need a car to get to work or shop. That's what, 13 million people whose driving is ALL discretionary?!

And note that I am not looking for a complete elimination of discretionary driving, nothing so extreme, but rather a mere 10-20% reduction in it.

daysailer

My non-commuting driving is perhaps 25% of my total. There is NO public transportation and my primary recreational location is less than 1/2 mile from home (I walk unless I need to carry stuff or tow the boat). I can't see a lot of reduction without missing something important.

blufz1

Easy for most drivers to cut 10-20% by just combining errands and shopping in route to work,doctor auto dealer,etc. America is 40% diesel in 8 years.

Mr_Shiftright

Oh I don't think trucks or SUVs of 1986 were dirtier or more polluting that diesels (if that's what you meant?)...I'm sure that compared to the diesel cars and trucks of the time, that a 1986 gas-fired pickup or SUV looked quite attractive. As for Benz diesels, they were extremely expensive, Peugeot diesels were practically non-existant in the USA, Volvo diesels were awful, ditto VW.

So really, without the "gas crunch", there was no reason in the world to buy a diesel car or small truck...only the larger diesel trucks made any sense (tow trucks, towing horses and RVs, etc.) And of course GM ruined the image and prospects of the American diesel car completely--perhaps forever, or at least until every person who remembers the Olds and Cadillac diesel car is dead and can't scare the children anymore.

Visiting Host

aaronr121

I know we are far far off on a new tangent by now. But the diesels put in American cars in the early '80s were horrible. I think GM even offered to convert the cars back to gas...

Even though I was still in elementary school I remember my dad bringing home a diesel caddy (bought it very cheap) that was only a few years old. Of course it had a wiped camshaft (common problem). That was the first time I got to help put in a camshaft.

So, the diesel cars at the time were basically junk. We didn't have it long either, my mom complained about it and hated the hassle of finding a gas station with diesel.

tpe

Oh I don't think trucks or SUVs of 1986 were dirtier or more polluting that diesels

I don't think so either. My point was more in response to the contention that diesels were abandonded by Americans because we value clean vehicles. If that was the case we wouldn't be drawn to trucks or SUVs. I do agree that the main appeal of diesels is their fuel efficiency. Again, if that was a high priority the these large vehicles wouldn't be so popular. However it wouldn't surprise me to see diesels have a resurgence if fuel prices stay high. This is despite the fact that they still may be dirtier than their gasoline counterparts.

aaronr121

They are working on making diesels cleaner. Many automakers are consider Urea (urine basically) injection to reduce NOx emissions. So, they will be cleaner, but it sounds like they are going to be more complex than gasoline counter parts, emissions wise anyway.

Americans basically abondoned diesels becuase the better fuel milage wasn't worth the added expense, higher maintance and less power.

gagrice

That is a long stretch. I thought about driving one of our new vehicles to work and never got around to it. I worked up there 25 years and never got more than 50 miles South. There was a great place to fish for grayling at mile 42 headed South on the Dalton.

gagrice

I know it will be tough to convince you of the superiority of current diesel vs gas cars. My experience of late has me convinced that it is not less than a 25% gain over the comparable gas version of any given vehicle. I drove both the gas and diesel version of the 2005 Passat Wagon before buying. The diesel was a much nicer feeling engine at both low and high speeds. I had an average of a little over 30 MPG combined when I sold the car. That figure was with about 85% local short 3 mile trips. I sold it with 8376 miles. So it was not even broken in yet. If I wanted a small car to drive I would have kept it. My next new vehicle will be a diesel SUV, PERIOD. No gas vehicle in any class can compare to a diesel for economy or driveability. Those are the hard facts. Just because Americans are in love with gas cars does not make them better.

tpe

No gas vehicle in any class can compare to a diesel for economy or driveability.

There's no disputing that diesel will provide better efficiency. There's simply more energy in diesel fuel compared to gasoline, just like there's less in ethanol. I suspect a 20-25% mpg improvement is a pretty fair estimate. So now you get into the same questions that pertain to hybrids. For instance. What will be the purchase price premium? Will there be any additional maintenance costs? If the answer is yes to these questions then projecting fuel costs becomes a consideration. I know that right now diesel is selling for less than unleaded gasoline but that's not always the case.

I must admit that I've never driven a diesel. Why do you consider them to be more driveable? I understand that they have good low end torque but they almost all need to be turbocharged to produce adequate highway horsepower. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but I don't perceive it as a good thing either.

piredon

I think CAFE standards are a total joke. If anyone disagrees with me, please say so, but the whole structure is just ludicrous. The govt wants to force automakers to produce vehicles that nobody wants to drive. Nobody wants to drive those vehicles because gasoline is still comparably cheap. It's twice as expensive in Europe (mainly due to taxes), and guess what, the European car fleet already matches the 35mpg target that the govt wants to mandate. And that's because those are the kinds of cars that people have a clear incentive to buy. A car that gets 40 mpg costs half as much to operate as a 20 mpg vehicle. When gas costs $3 per gallon, it costs $6 to go 40 miles in the 20mpg car versus $3 in the 40 mpg car. Over 20k miles in a year, it works out to $3,000 versus $1,500, basically $125 a month. Apparently, Americans are willing to pay that extra $125 to drive big vehicles. When gas costs $6 per gallon, it costs $12 to go 40 miles in that 20 mpg car, you are suddenly talking about $6,000 a year, versus $3,000 for the 40 mpg vehicle. $250 per month might be harder to swallow. That's enough to buy a motorcycle, or engage in all kinds of other fun activities. If Europe is any indication, higher gas prices will cause more fuel efficient vehicles to be bought. That being said, the best and easiest solution to get people to drive more fuel efficient vehicles is to tax gasoline. But no politician is ever going to be able to pull that off and stay in office, and politicians seem to want to stay in office. I had another thought, which still has problems, that would eventually achieve the same objective, but might be easier for the average American to swallow (some politician might have the cajones to actually put it into place). Basically, you tax vehicle registrations in a tiered system based on the fuel mileage achieved by the vehicle. In other words, you go to register your 40 mpg diesel Jetta, you don't pay any tax. You go register your 20 mpg Tahoe (I doubt anyone achieves anything close in the real world) you pay $2000 tax. I don't know if the numbers are right, but you get the idea. You could start small and gradually increase the tax, year by year, until you get to a plateau, and then adjust with inflation. My guess is that it'll work even better than a gasoline tax because it's due all at once, and people will be more influenced by $1200 if it's due all at once, than $100 per month. How do you think BMW manages to get people to pay $40,000 for what is essentially a small, mid-size sedan (3 series)? The monthly payment! The tax would be based on fuel rating, period, with no offset for different vehicle classes. You could give businesses a break, somehow, through some kind of tax benefit, but the incentive still has to extend to them. They should have an incentive to purchase that pickup with a smaller v-6 diesel (that doesn't exist right now, because nobody wants it) versus the Hemi v-8.

The thing I like about this, versus a gas tax, is that it doesn't penalize everyone, only the people who own gas guzzling vehicles. (A gas tax punishes everyone, it just hurts the people who have gas guzzlers more). The major downside is that it doesn't encourage us to search out alternative energy sources the way a gas tax would. But neither do CAFE standards, so I figure it's a compromise of sorts.

Anyway, just sharing thoughts. My guess is no real change will happen until gas prices, driven by market forces, rise high enough to cause us to change our behavior. My guess is that $5 might do it. We know that $6 does it in Europe.

tpe

I agree with your position regarding the effectiveness of a gas tax. I also agree with you that it has no chance of happening in this country.

While I don't like CAFE it essentially accomplishes what you are trying to do with a vehicle tax based upon fuel efficiency. Let's imagine that CAFE has no loopholes for the manufacturers to wiggle through. They now have to change the composition of the cars that they sell. Currently with our relatively cheap gas Americans like big vehicles. That being the case over half the vehicles that the manufacturers sell are trucks/SUVs. How will they adjust this? They can choose to bring out the secret 100 mpg carburetor that they've been hiding or they will be forced to sell fewer low mpg vehicles. They will have to adjust the price of these vehicles to where the demand now matches how many of these vehicles they are allowed to sell. Meaning the price will go way up, essentially what you were suggesting.

Mr_Shiftright

oh no I'm totally on your side about modern diesels...they are superior to gas engines pound for pound in fuel economy, low end torque, and for *most* driving conditions except severe cold, high revving and Nevada desert speeds. Where they aren't superior is a) price b) maintenance and c)emissions....they cost somewhat more to buy new, their maintenance isn't cheaper, just different and certain forms of emission are not so easy to control--this is why urea injection may be needed along with cleaner fuels.

Also, I suspect that a diesel engine will last longer, maybe 225K life expectancy vs. 175K for a gas engine.

gagrice

The diesel engine has a better power band for maintaining highway speeds especially on long uphill pulls. I can pull all the way from sea level on Interstate 8 to 4700 feet without the Passat TDI downshifting to fourth gear. That is driving at 75 MPH except when some yokel slows down in front of me. My GMC PU truck with a 5.3L V8 will not do that. And my wife's LS400 will not maintain that speed without downshifting. That is where torque comes in. I test drove the high performance gasser Passat to see how I liked the car. It would downshift at 65 MPH going up a long grade. No comparison. Then when you add the better fuel mileage and the 10k plus mile oil changes. I just do not see a reason for the gassers at all. The 2005 Passat TDI was only a $200 premium over the 1.8L and it was less than the V6. In 13 months I had no problems with it. Great if you like little cars.

gagrice

I guess we are on the same page. I agree that the urea tank may be a bit of a pain. I plan to buy a 45 state very low mileage diesel very soon. I think the nitpicking over NoX is really not very progressive thinking. Probably spurred on by the oil company cronies in Congress. I guess that is all of them. The oil companies need to keep the balance between diesel and gas sales. Most all transportation runs on diesel. From trains, planes, and heavy equipment to semi trucks. If 50% of the cars were diesel as in the EU we would have a major surplus of gas and a diesel shortage. It is easier to regulate emissions to discourage the use of diesel for cars.

stevecebu

I must admit that I've never driven a diesel. Why do you consider them to be more driveable? I understand that they have good low end torque but they almost all need to be turbocharged to produce adequate highway horsepower. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but I don't perceive it as a good thing either.

I drive a diesel Toyota Hi-Lux everyday mostly light to heavy city and pretty much no highway. I get about 35mpg or better that's with the AC on and this is a 4 door pickup truck with a back seat the size of a new Accord or bigger. No small tiny bench seat wannabe. If I drove mostly highway I'd be able to get 50mpg on pure highway with a lighter foot. I don't leadfoot it in town always but neither do I drive it for economy. True it won't pass the big gassers on a US highway but it's easier to shift at low RPM's without lugging the engine. It drives like any other truck and has 102HP and 200 ft/lbs. of torque.
Sure less HP than a Honda it but I've gone up and down pretty steep roads with it and I mean steep with no problems and the few times I've gotten it out on the highway here doing 120 kph speed limit is 100kph. it's had no problem passing. Of course the more upscale model has a bigger engine and available 4x4 but I'd never use it. There was one time I was on a tight back road (tight defined as the brush on the sides was almost touching the truck on both sides) and further out in the boonies than I should have been and late at night and this was an unpaved road and there was one section that I thought was too steep for the stock tires to get any grip going up the hill. Now the bigger 4x4 with the aggressive tires would have done it easy but it was a 4x4 road at that point.
It's a damn shame I can't bring this truck back with me to the US (no heater in it!!!)
But it drives nice and it's very quiet. Toyota could sell a lot of these trucks if they brought them over at least the bigger diesel versions. I really want a car tho I need truck here. But if you don't at least test drive a new diesel you're only cheating yourself. Lots of power down lo and economy is incredible! I friend of mine just bought a Rav4 with a 4 cyl and all he does is complain about his economy and how awful it is. But he won't even look at my truck (it's not for sale) His mind is so fixated on gas being the only option. His memory of diesels isn't helped by seeing all the Jeepneys spewing out more crap than any 20 US cars from any era.
All diesels that I have seen are turbo diesels and are common rail as well. You really need the turbo on the diesel. Maybe some models don't but if you were up in say Denver you'd not be going anywhere without a turbo.
Try a few when they come out. You will probably find one you like and you won't even know it's diesel. Just don't put gas in it by mistake!

lemko

I once test-drove a 1981 Cadillac Sedan DeVille with a diesel. It was a beautiful car - white with a white top and a dark blue plush interior. Trouble is, the car was s-l-o-w and sounded like a city bus. You could measure 0-60 with a calendar in this car. The other problem is you couldn't just start the car. You had to turn the key partway in the ignition, let the glow plugs warm, and then turn it all the way to start the car. I could see myself in a hurry one morning forgetting this process. Also, where was I to get diesel fuel? I'd have had to drive all the way out to the truck stop near the turnpike as I couldn't think of any neighborhood filling stations that had diesel fuel.

Diesel imports weren't much better at the time. Maybe they were good in European cities, but they weren't suited to American driving conditions. I once saw a glacier pass a Mercedes 300-D and VW Rabbit Diesels would gel-up anytime it got the slightest bit cold.

tpe

I definitely plan on looking at the new diesels when they re-enter the US market.

lemko

I believe the reason trucks and SUVs started to become popular around 1986 was that a lot of people still wanted a big V-8 powered RWD vehicle with a full-frame and steel bumpers. The Big Three were pretty much abandoning big RWD, full-frame V-8 cars at that time per GM's radically downsized B and C body cars and Chrysler's different variants of the K-platform. The imports really never offered big V-8 RWD full-frame cars.

brightness04

IKEA ownership structure is very typical of what happens under a high taxation environment. It is not unique among large European corporations.

I may consider giving my assistants gas money if price goes over $4/gallon. For now, letting them work on 4x10hr instead 5x8hr week, and giviing them free lunch every day, neither is required under regulation or contract, seems to be making them quite happy. The lunches cost more than $50 per person per week anyway. Gas money seems a little childish, but the shippers, like UPS and DHL, have no qualms about tagging on a fuel surcharge on their bills :-(

brightness04

You have to have lived under communism to appreciate how stingy people can get towards each other when government takes everything away and order everyone to be nice to each other.

brightness04

No kidding. I don't know what kind of [non-permissible content removed] life some people are leading (just kidding :-) I hardly do any driving that is not related to:

(1) work;
(2) necessary local shopping, like food and clothing; 3/4 of my purchases are online already;
(3) doctor's appointments (having an infant adds to that)

I combine trips as best as I can because it saves time, and I avoid going during heavy traffic. I even moved across the state three years ago just so that I could drive less.

brightness04

The primary source of diesel efficiency is actually in the combustion process. Compression Ignition (vs. Spark Ingnition) results in much higher operating temperature, therefore higher thermo efficiency. The downside of higher operating temperature is of course higher NOx as the engine has to get oxygen from the air, which is 78% nitrogen.

andre1969

I once test-drove a 1981 Cadillac Sedan DeVille with a diesel. It was a beautiful car - white with a white top and a dark blue plush interior. Trouble is, the car was s-l-o-w and sounded like a city bus. You could measure 0-60 with a calendar in this car.

I've read old road tests from that era that would put most full-sized GM cars with the Diesel 350 at 0-60 in around 20 seconds or so...so yeah, a calendar or sundial might be appropriate!

I wonder how the Olds Diesel 350 would've been in the midsized cars, though? I have an old Car & Driver from 1982 that tested a Bonneville-G with the Buick 252-4bbl V-6, which had 125 hp. They got 0-60 in about 12.8 seconds, but in the writeup said that the Diesel was actually more lively and fun to drive because of the low-end torque! At first, I thought they were just trying to be funny, but I think they were serious!

12.8 seconds from 0-60 may seem laughable today, but for that era it was probably on the quicker end of the spectrum. Breaking the 10 second barrier back then was a pretty big deal.

brightness04

There is actually a big difference in results between CAFE vs. higher gasoline price: for example, in a family of 3 or 4 with two cars, a 15mpg minivan and a 30mpg compact. The minivan would use 800 gallons in 12k miles, the compact uses 400 gallons in 12k miles. If the family needs to reduce fuel consumption due to higher price, which car do you think will be upgraded to a more fuel efficient model? Of course the minivan, right? Because it has a bigger base to begin with. Improving the minivan by 33% (to 20mpg) saves 200 gallons, whereas improving the compact by 33% (to 40mpg) saves only 100 gallons. Under CAFE however, our mpg measuring system makes the priority exactly backwards: improving the compact raises CAFE (the two car fleet) by 5mpg, whereas improving the minivan would only raise two-car fleet average by 2.5mpg.

Of course, raising gas tax is not a good idea either. Like Piredon mentioned, if the gas tax is high enough, people will be forced to drive vehicles like motorcycle (or something nearly as dangerous). That certainly is not good.

texases

You're correct, and that higher temp comes from the higher compression ratio. The ability to run gas engines with high compression ratios (through careful electronic controls) even on regular gas is one source of the horsepower increases we're seeing. Back in the dark days ('70s - '80s) gas engines were having to go into the 8:1 ratio level to live with unleaded gas and pollution laws. Now they're back over 10:1 in many cases. Diesels take it a step further, some with over 20:1 ratios, directly leading to higher economy. That's why the engine blocks have to be stronger/heavier than gas, to withstand the higher compression forces.

brightness04

Exactly! What people really want is something similar to the original stationwagon of the 1920/30's, i.e. what today would be called a midsize SUV or crossover. The CAFE requirement of the 1980's made large stationwagons like Caprice, Cruiser, Suburban (yes it was a stationwagon back then) extinct. The only way that manufacturers could make a car that families really want were products that could be classfied as trucks. That's how SUV's and minivans came about.

piredon

I hear the new accord may come with a diesel. Knowing Honda engines, I bet it will be more than just drivable, it'll probably be reasonably quick. Probably close to the current 4-cylinder, but with a faster 0-30 (which is diesel's claim to fame: torque). Just for reference, the European accord (Acura TSX in this country) equipped with the 2.2L diesel gets 51.4 mpg (UK gallons, which are slightly more than US gallons) versus 31.4 mpg for the 2.4 L gas engine (64% better), and performance is only slightly worse. Personally, as a commuter car, I'd be interested. The major problem with diesel in this country right now is that all the new engines need low sulfur diesel in order to be emissions compliant, which can be a pain to find. Put regular diesel in there and boom, there goes your fuel filter! It would suck to be on a long road trip looking for a station that has low sulfur diesel in a remote area. Of course, you could drive 800 miles at 50mpg on a 16 gallon tank (wow, crazy to think that's even possible given the cars currently offered in the US) so you'd have some leeway.

daysailer

But will it BE a Honda engine? I previously read that there had been an agreement for Isuzu to supply diesels to Honda.

Mr_Shiftright

That's not communism, that totalitarianism. Communism is like the early Christians, etc. Taking everything away from people is no better or worse than letting them grab as much as they possibly can. Neither benefits man as the social animal, or the highway animal in this case :P

andre1969

The CAFE requirement of the 1980's made large stationwagons like Caprice, Cruiser, Suburban (yes it was a stationwagon back then) extinct. The only way that manufacturers could make a car that families really want were products that could be classfied as trucks.

Actually, the Suburban was always classified as a truck. The Caprice and other wagons were classified as cars. Oddly though, the Dodge Magnum is classified as a truck! At least, when you simplify it down to car or truck. The only real difference, for classificatio purposes, between a Magnum and a Caprice is that the Magnum has less front/rear overhang and is designed so that it can take a steeper incline before scraping either the front or rear.

One thing that was a real pisser about CAFE standards was the loophole that gave trucks a more lenient standard. By the 1990's, something like a Caprice or Roadmaster wagon was EPA-rated around 17/26, which is actually quite good for something that size. But because it was a CAR, it was considered thirsty. But then something like a Suburban, which would be lucky to break 20 mpg on the highway except maybe with a Diesel (and there you'd have to get a 3/4 ton or 1-ton), was still considered okay, because the more lenient truck standard applied to it.

bumpy

The existing Honda diesel cars sold in Europe use Isuzu engines, but future Honda diesels (I4 Accord, V6 Ridgeline, etc.) will be in-house designs.

tpe

I used to have the same misconception regarding CAFE but it is actually a weighted average that first computes gallons per mile then takes the inverse to express it in miles per gallon.

In your 2 car fleet you have a minivan that uses .067 gpm and a compact that uses .033 gpm. The average is .05 gpm. Now take the inverse and your fleet's average is 20 mpg, not the 22.5 mpg you'd get by averaging 15 and 30 mpg. Doing it this way avoids the problem that you are referring to and actually creates a priority for improving your least efficient vehicle. Improve the minivan by 33% and you have a fleet that now uses .05 gpm and .033 gpm for an average of .0415, or 24.1 mpg. Had you raised the efficiency of your compact by 33% your fleet would be .067 gpm and .025 gpm for an average of .046 gpm, or only 21.7 mpg. I'm actually amazed that our government was intelligent enough to do it this way. But I'm still not a big fan of CAFE.

andre1969

In your 2 car fleet you have a minivan that uses .067 gpm and a compact that uses .033 gpm. The average is .05 gpm.

Only problem here is that a minivan is most likely going to get classified as a truck, while the compact car is classified as a car. So the average mileage of one has no bearing on the other as far as CAFE purposes go. Unless that car/truck loophole finally went away.

Another loophole that used to be around, but may not be anymore, is foreign/domestic content. If a car has enough content in it to be classified as a foreign car, then it will be factored in with foreign cars, not domestic. I don't know if they still do this, but Ford used to stick just enough non-domestic content into the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car to get them classified as foreign cars!

chuckhoy

Only problem here is that a minivan is most likely going to get classified as a truck, while the compact car is classified as a car. So the average mileage of one has no bearing on the other as far as CAFE purposes go. Unless that car/truck loophole finally went away.

Therein lies the biggest drawback of the current CAFE standard. Simply getting rid of that loophole and keeping the current mpg standard would, probably, do wonders ofr entire fleets. Although Ford would probably be up the creek with all the trucks they sell. Might have to shift to an entirely diesel truck fleet to comply.

robertsmx

It IS a Honda engine. It is a 2.2-liter iCDT-i engine used in Accord (since 2004), Civic, CRV and FRV in Europe.

Isuzu supplied a 1.7-liter diesel years ago (in exchange for Honda V6 to GM) which was used only in European Civic.

Honda has announced plans to add a V6 version of its diesel engine, potentially to be offered in the USA as well (Ridgeline, Pilot etc may be the candidates).

robertsmx

True it won't pass the big gassers on a US highway but it's easier to shift at low RPM's without lugging the engine. It drives like any other truck and has 102HP and 200 ft/lbs. of torque.

And suddenly, 200 lb-ft of torque looks like a lot!

jkinzel

Why wait? Call around to the VW dealers, see if they have any TDI's left and test drive one. You will not be sorry.

robertsmx

Honda Accord (UK) with diesel engine (2.2-liter) is comparable in performance to 2.0-liter gasoline engine in performance. Their combined fuel economy ratings are 52 mpg (imperial gallons) and 38 mpg (imperial gallons) respectively (43 mpg and 32 mpg in US gallons). So, diesel does offer about 14% better fuel economy.

And as you can see, the British rating system isn’t quite comparable to the US EPA rating system (not just because Imperial gallon is 20% larger than US gallon, but the rating methodology differs as well). So, the Accord diesel might get about 30 mpg in city and about 40 mpg on highway, for a combined mileage of about 35 mpg… very Civic-like (with gasoline engine).

robertsmx

After seeing couple of my friends with "VW experience", involving rather expensive six (combined) visits for drivetrain related issues, I wouldn't advise anybody to bring home a VW (unless that person is ok with dealing them away before warranty expires). Just to give you an idea, combined miles in those two VWs (a Beetle and a Jetta) is less than that in my ten year old car (which has over 176K miles now).

jkinzel

My first choice would not be a VW either, I was thinking more of just test driving the TDI to ge a feel for the diesel and praying for the Honda

gagrice

Honda Accord (UK) with diesel engine (2.2-liter) is comparable in performance to 2.0-liter gasoline engine in performance.

I would sure have to see that to believe it. The 2.2 i-CDTi should run circles around the 2.0L gas engine. And cruise all day at 100+MPH. I think we can expect to be real surprised at the Accord with a diesel engine, where road performance is concerned. There is a reason that Honda built a diesel engine for the EU market. They could not sell their gas engine cars over there. Now they are making some good sales figures with their very fine diesel offering.

Too bad it is taking them so long to get them over here. If they had not wasted so much money, time and engineering on their hybrids we would already be enjoying the diesel driving experience in an Accord or CRV.

rmcneice

Oil just hit $70/barrel today. $4.00 gasoline may not be far off.

What will I do when it hits $4? Pay more.

...and I just bought a G35x this month (rated 19/27 mpg). Much more fun to drive but no better mileage than my old 1996 I30.

Enjoy,
Bob