Jetta TDI vs. Civic Hybrid

larsb · January 2005

quote gagrice-"Do you know anyone with an HCH that has a very short 3-4 mile commute. I would be curious as to the overall mileage that person gets."-end quote

That person would get barely in the 40s I'd bet. Like any car, a hybrid needs time to warmup before the engine becomes most efficient.

My little 93.1 MPG in 3 miles trip WAS with a warmed up car, in temps in the 60s. That was not a cold start run !!!

I merely brought that up to demonstrate that the Hybrids can get remarkable MPG under certain circumstances because of their technology.

misterme · January 2005

My wife occasionally uses my HCH to drop/pickup the kids at school, about 4 miles round trip.

She isn't very skilled at driving for efficiency, I guess is a "normal" driver and usually gets 45-49MPG round trip.

Otherwise my daily commute is 93miles round trip.

ruking1 · January 2005

"..."quote z28_sedan-"'m not sure what all the fighting is about. I was considering both (along with a Prius and a TDI Passat). They're all good choices, IMHO. I chose a TDI Jetta because I could get a used one for $11K, I drive mostly highway, and I want to eventually run B100."-end quote



GREAT POST !! That's EXACTLY what I have been trying to show on this forum.



People should find the car that fits their needs and their budget, and BUY IT !!



Here is an example of a chap who had the Jetta TDI as his best choice and bought it.



I happen to think that choice is in the minority, but it shows what I have been pointing out.



I chose the HCH because it met my budget and my needs and I LIKE spending less than $54 a month on fuel, which is where I have been in the last 6 months. "...

Well, perhaps you just needed someone else to say what you think you really meant to say! Because the majority of what you did say, does not jive with what you think you really wanted to say.

"I happen to think that choice is in the minority, but it shows what I have been pointing out. "

To put the above quoted sentence in perspective, both the TDI and especially the hybrid are both "minority" positions . Some industry analysts put the TDI figure at between 2.3-2.9%. So if you are talking of 230 M registered vehicles, per NHTSA, that meets the definition of "minority"

All that has to be done to really heat up the interest in TDI's is for the gas price to be jacked up! Any takers for 3.00 per gal of unleaded regular? Keep in mind that in Europe the % of the diesel passenger fleet is app 50%. Unleaded regular in the UK is app 6 dollars US per USA gal. (128 oz)

larsb · January 2005

the world by storm, no doubt there.

I think it's just education and supply problems right now. And cost.

Over time, as more Hybrid models come out, more people understand you "dont have to plug them in" and the batteries become cheaper (leading to lower new car sales prices) the popularity will improve and sales will climb. Most of the industry prognosticators agree on that projection.

ruking1 · January 2005

The truth is that the EXACT same conditions exist for the TDI. Obviously, the battery issue does not apply.

I actually considered the Civic and Prius hybrid, Civic gasser, Jetta and Beetle TDI. Drove them all. Out of all of them,the Jetta and Beetle were the most fun to drive. The nod for GEEWIZ went to the Prius and Civic hybrid. For its intended purposes: commuting and ability to double as a semi good long distance fuel sipper travel car, the Jetta TDI and the Civic 4 door auto got the nods.

misterme · January 2005

Exact conditons do not exist.

Diesels have a blotted history plagued with problems.

Hybrids are new.

When considering a Jetta TDI, it didn't even get a geewiz nod.

The nod was just simply "no".

gagrice · January 2005

Diesels have a blotted history plagued with problems

Could it be that people keep diesels for longer. How many gas engines run for 300-400-500-or a million miles? Percentage wise the diesel is a longer lived vehicle. The fact that they spewed black soot is on the government not the car owner. They could have mandated low sulfur diesel when they mandated unleaded gas. Your government in action. Not my doing.

ruking1 · January 2005

My "exact" response was to post 422.

But I also would agree with post 425. Time and mileage will tell how your description of "newness wears"

I would also agree that low sulfur diesel could have been mandated to take place when there was a switch to unleaded gasoline in the late 70's. In my view, the government missed the boat on that almost a generation ago.

misterme · January 2005

...Which begs the question of how many diesel autos have crossed the million mile mark, and how many without major problems along the way?

I've never heard of anyone keeping their automobile for even 400K miles.

I knew someone who's Toyota lasted 350miles and he still drove it.

I rode in it only once and not again, due to excessive suspension slop it was scary.

How long would it take to rack up a million on a personal auto? 50 years?

May I venture to suggest most people replace their auto in 3-7 years? Some people hold out for 10 years, me included. It seems that 7-10 years is the magic time for diesel autos to start puffin soot.

ruking1 · January 2005

"May I venture to suggest most people replace their auto in 3-7 years? Some people hold out for 10 years, me included. It seems that 7-10 years is the magic time for diesel autos to start puffin soot. "

You can do a goggle (don't know really why I did this) but I looked at auto salvage industry statistics: that cars are kept an average of 8.5 years and the average salvage per year is something like 8%.

I will let you know in 5 to 8 years about the "puffin soot"

gagrice · January 2005

May I venture to suggest most people replace their auto in 3-7 years?

I used to be one that traded every 3-4 years. I finally grew up and realized how much money I was throwing down the toilet. My wife's two cars are going on 16 years old and both run fine. They are low mileage and maintained properly.

...Which begs the question of how many diesel autos have crossed the million mile mark, and how many without major problems along the way?

A couple years ago I was researching Mercedes diesels and I ran across a company that buys used MB 300D automobiles for their sales staff. The owner buys them with 150-200k miles at a very good price. He claims many of them went over a million miles before being salvaged out for parts. Try that with any Japanese car. I had a friend with a Nissan PU that had 250k miles and still ran OK. It was very rusted and the upholstery was about gone.

ruking1 · January 2005

Yeah, actually as I was saying in another post, for example some of the high quality is actually hidden. The VW Jetta for example has a 12 year rust guarantee vs a Honda's of 5 years. So that would beg the question, if the Honda car is kept for only 3-5 years, who cares? I have never seen any thread where the Honda owner complains that his sheet metal is not made of galvanized steel, like the VW, for example.

As other folks have posted they treat the Honda Civic as a 3-5 year time horizon, i.e., "throw away type item"

To buy a used average older Japanese car with 150-250,000 miles would probably not be a wise move for a mobile sales staff. Whereas it probably works with the older Mercedes'

So for me with a goal of 500,000 to 1,000,000 miles for planning purposes, the VW 12 year rust through is an interesting indicator. Right away I know with my consumption level, for planning puposes it is good to go for at least 350,000 miles.

While I have kept Japanese SUV's for app 250,000 miles and 14 years, I did have to pay extra attention to the rust issue to make sure it would go the distance. The other thing is that the Toyota Landcruiser had a much heavier gauge sheet metal than other Toyota vehicles.

misterme · January 2005

You're right about throwing money away by replacing autos after only a few years.

But I'm not sure about "a company" owner "a couple of years ago" who "claims" over a "million miles".

I'm not doubting you, only the undocumented reference as hear-say.

"Try that with any Japanese car"

My friend's Toyota lasted +350 miles and ran good enough to get down the road, but I wouldn't ride in it again.

larsb · January 2005

"How long would it take to rack up a million on a personal auto? 50 years?"-end quote

A very long time. Even if you drove for a living and put 200 miles PER DAY, that's only 73,000 miles a year. That's 13.7 years to get 1 million miles. Driving normally (about 20K a year) would take 50 years.

I put 263,000 miles on a "gas engine Japanese" 1980 Nissan 200SX in about 8 years, an average of about 33K per year. It had 323,000 miles on it when I junked it. The driveshaft was going out, and I had replaced the radiator and the clutch, but other than that, it was mecahnically sound.

Diesel engines are a better design for extremely high miles over the life of the engine, but that does not make them the only type of engines that can perform such feats.

john500 · January 2005

Is there data from Europe that suggests converting to low sulfur diesel will reduce the particle formation (soot)? I thought that low sulfur fuel was implemented strictly to reduce acid rain formation after sulfur comustion (S -> SO3 + water -> sulfuric acid) and that the diesel sparkless ignition (incomplete combustion) was responsible for soot formation.

gagrice · January 2005

I put 263,000 miles on a "gas engine Japanese" 1980 Nissan 200SX in about 8 years

You, myself and others got real good service from the early model Datsun/Nissan cars. Unlike my 1978 Honda Accord. Heating problems destroyed the engine at 69k miles. It was a pile of rust and problems when I traded it in 1985. What is kind of ironic is I tried buying a diesel VW when I ended up with the Honda. There were waiting lists for at least a year for the diesel Rabbit & Dasher. I took a chance on the Honda. I bought it at a Honda motorcycle shop. No Honda car dealers in MN.

Now move up to the present. You are telling me that Honda is more reliable historically than the VW. I just did a quick check of cars for sale on eBay. There are 191 VW vehicles for sale built prior to 1978. You know how many Honda's for sale built prior to 1978? One 1969 model 600 with 40,916 miles on it. The rest of the old Honda's are rust or crushed. When you talk of reliability and longevity. Honda does Not have a great history, other than a blip the last 10 years. And 2004 was not a great year for Honda with the problems that are coming out with the 2001-2004 transmissions. I will never put a million miles on a car. I want a car that will run good at 15 years old with under 100k miles on it. Heat is the worst thing for electronics. I don't want a lot of electronics that age sitting in the sun day in and day out. Then just when I need the car some sensor keeps it from starting. I think that lapdogman is experiencing problems with his HCH as a result of heat cooking some widget in the IMA system that is giving him and the dealer fits. I feel for the dealers also. They are stuck trying to fix these odd ball cars that the manufacturers dump on them. Probably send a tech to an 8 hour class and expect them to understand the whole complex system. For long term reliability simple is best.

larsb · January 2005

Back to the previously stated average of 8.5 years per car. People dont WANT TO BUY 197x cars.

The reason all those old VWs are for sale on E-Bay (a TERRIBLE AWFUL way to buy a car) is that "nobody wants to buy them !!!!"

191 vehicles built prior to 1978 is great, if you want an old beatup car that will require you to perform repairs or pay to repair every single defect that the car will have. Most people just dont want to deal with that stuff !!

It's not my opinion that most people just DO NOT keep their cars for that long - its a fact. A car is not a long-term investment, it is a short-term CONSUMABLE which is used and then discarded.

Reliability and Longevity are DEFINITELY two DIFFERENT animals. You can have "longevity" FOREVER as long as you are willing to deal with the RELIABILITY PROBLEMS which will require you to repair the car again and again and again and again and again ad infinitum.

No car built before 1978 is going to be pleasant to own and drive as a commuter car, and it is not going to stay out of disrepair.

ruking1 · January 2005

This title is interesting in that it is not necessarily true, or are you refering to yourself when you kept your Nissan 200SX for 323,000 miles? I am getting the feeling by your title, that you like to pour gasoline on fires to put them out.

I also think that you are ignoring the massive depreciation that occurs when you buy a new car and also realize when you sell a used car. Or at least you don't make mention of it. There are other infrastructure costs, but that might be a whole other topic of discussion.

If your Nissan 200SX was mechanically sound, except for the components you mentioned, and other than the fact that you were probably bored and tired of it; (yes money to buy another vehicle, does give one the luxury to be indolent)why did you not just replace those parts? Six hundred dollars (or whatever) is certainly far less money time and committment than 20,000 dollars for a new Honda Civic hybrid.

So to close, you are the only one making the case that the diesel engine is not ..."the only type of engines that can perform such feats".

larsb · January 2005

No, I'm not ignoring depreciation - that the VERY REASON why cars are short term consumables and not investments. They lose value quickly.

Back in 1991 I traded my 323,000 mile Nissan because it was about to lose the drive shaft and that would have cost me around $600 to repair it. I found a $4000 car to buy and got $300 for my trade. So I gained $900 from the trade (saved $600 on a repair and got $300 credit for trade value) and fact is, old cars reach a point where it is just not financially smart to repair them.

gagrice · January 2005

No car built before 1978 is going to be pleasant to own and drive as a commuter car, and it is not going to stay out of disrepair.

You missed the point entirely. Not everyone needs a commuter car. I have said on this forum many times that those that have long commutes should look at the 3 hybrids that get great mileage. If you put 20k plus miles on a car per year you are not planning to keep it a real long time. First you want a car that will not let you down on your commute. That is where reliability is important. Not everyone commutes to work. There are millions of cars that get less than 10k miles per year. If they cannot be dependable after 10 years that is not a good car. In your area there are many retired people that don't wear out a car every 8.5 years. If you saw our Lexus sitting on the street and did not know from the body it was a 1990 you would not be able to tell it from a new car. Some people keep cars in perfect condition for a very long time. I believe reliability and longevity are related. Some people take care of their cars others don't. I think we agree that which of these two cars you buy should be based on need, that you laid out pretty well a while back.

ruking1 · January 2005

So you are just stating the truth by referring to youself as overly stubborn?

It is true that there is a point when any car might be considered financialy untenable, I also agree that a car can be considered "consume able" However, I can only go by what you said. You did say that it was mechanically sound.

larsb · January 2005

I did keep that Nissan too long, but not because I was too stubborn - I was just BROKE and could not afford something newer.

gagrice · January 2005

fact is, old cars reach a point where it is just not financially smart to repair them.

I agree with you there also. I had a 1974 Dodge van that the transmission went out at 107k miles. The engine used a lot of oil so I had both rebuilt for $1700 around 1984. I was thinking it would be easier to sell if it was running. Bottom line I was lucky to get my $1700 in trade. I probably could have sold it for $300 sitting in the driveway and come out ahead.

ruking1 · January 2005

Well I think in the car market the dictum BUYER BEWARE was custom made!?

This might be off topic, but when I sold my 1987 TLC with app 250,000 miles, in my estimation it had another (easily) 20 years left on the frame and sheet metal. (34 years total) It was actually pristine, but even I would admit that is in the eyes of the beholder. But, the beholder that bought the vehicle gave me 9,000 dollars for a vehicle costing 16,000 new. Clearly I sold too cheaply!

The other shocker was, not long after he called me up, (when he identified who he was) the thought "OH BOY" crossed my mind. Then he started to emphatically say that in the future if I ever wanted to get rid of ANY of my cars, to give him the first call.

The other thing is that some of the unscheduled and scheduled maintenance items become very predictable and cost contained. I also knew what stuff I could extended and what I HAD to do as preventative maintenance. Parts prices became almost commoditized.

cablack · January 2005

quote: "Do you know anyone with an HCH that has a very short 3-4 mile commute."

I'm not exactly that, but close. My commute is 5 miles. It includes elevation changes, two stop signs, and 10 traffic lights (which naturally always conspire against me :-) ).

I've had my HCH since November. For tanks which are almost entirely commute trips, my mileage is on the order of 42-44 MPG. On highway trips that I've taken (two), my mileage was 49 and 52. After about six fill-ups, my lifetime mileage is 45.

My driving style is not excessively mileage-conscious, although I tend to avoid racing to the next red light these days. I live in CA, but not the really nice temperature parts, which means 30-50 degrees, but also oxygenated fuel which decreases mileage.

Don't know if that helps the debate at all, but I thought I'd chime in with my experience.

gagrice · January 2005

I sold my 1987 TLC with app 250,000 miles

I know how you feel. I wish I still had my 1964 Toyota Land Cruiser. I just saw one in the trader for $34k in beautiful condition. I sold mine because the engine was a real piece of trash. I should have put a 283 Chevy into it as many others did. I bought mine new for $2400.

I guess we are off topic. Maybe all is said until the diesel is cleaned up in 2006 or the new Jetta hits our shores.

ruking1 · January 2005

I think both of your data points are a realistic representation of what you can expect from the Civic Hybrid.

Not that I do not believe the hybrid is not capable of getting 93 mpg, it is just that metric probably puts it in the ranks in the upper ranges of the standard deviations on the bell shaped curve!

gagrice · January 2005

Don't know if that helps the debate at all, but I thought I'd chime in with my experience.

Welcome to the forum. And yes we absolutely want to hear your experience with the HCH. We may get rowdy but we try to respect the other persons opinion. I would say 45 mpg average is real good, especially with your type commute. Hopefully we get some more people with Jetta TDIs to even out the debate. Right now I would say the HCH group is in the lead.

electrictroy · January 2005

>>>>>>Yes, I saw some BEETLE TDI numbers at 62.

.

If a Beetle with its piss-poor 0.38 cd can get 62mpg, so too can a Jetta with its 0.29 cd. The Beetle/Jetta are exactly the same car...only differing in the top... and the Jetta is far more aerodynamic.

troy

ruking1 · January 2005

To me the nexus for this topic is the fact the diesel with the longer anticipated engine life CAN go the distance. Whether any or even a % of folks actually do that is another story.

So what happens is there are a HOST of Jetta repair and maintenance items that are really not "DIESEL" related. Upshot is you replace them when they need it and the cost becomes more commoditized for the logistical infrastructure has them in stock. Infrastructure spare parts stocking levels is probably outside the purview of this thread, but needless to say it exists.

In fact, if the diesel CAN NOT go the distance, a new crate motor is app 3-4k!! This of course gives one the option of repair or replace!?

Contrast that with the hybrid. When I was researching the Prius hybrid battery pack replacement was 140 dollars ea x 28 batteries or 3920 dollars!!!!

electrictroy · January 2005

fact is, old cars reach a point where it is just not financially smart to repair them.

.

That's odd? I always thought it was the opposite. i.e. It's cheaper to do a $1000 radiator replacement, then to spend $20,000 going brand-new.

As for large battery, why would you ever need to replace it? It's barely-used.

troy

larsb · January 2005

quote E-Troy-"That's odd? I always thought it was the opposite. i.e. It's cheaper to do a $1000 radiator replacement, then to spend $20,000 going brand-new."

Only for rich people who have "car repair money" lying around in the bank is it cheaper to fix a car over and over and over than it is to buy a new car with monthly payments and warranty that covers all repair costs.

Most people (in my earnings bracket) do not keep $2,000 to $4,000 dollars laying around to use for emergency car repairs.

It's far more financially sound to pay $1500 for an extended warranty on a new car once every four years and let the warranty company pay for your repairs, and then get the unused portion of that warranty cost pro-rated into your new loan !!

gagrice · January 2005

That's odd? I always thought it was the opposite. i.e. It's cheaper to do a $1000 radiator replacement, then to spend $20,000 going brand-new.

That may be true. However what is the point of diminishing returns. I find it practical to spend $1,100 to repair several items on the Lexus. Even though the car would only bring about $5k in trade. It still runs good and is in excellent condition cosmetically in and out. We just spent $600 for a 5 yr paint job on the 1990 Mazda 626. Why because it is still running good and is fine for running errands and lending to friends & family members that visit. I would not spend that kind of money on a car that is showing rust or breaking down every time I turn around. It is a judgment call on a case by case basis.

03accordman · January 2005

'When you talk of reliability and longevity. Honda does Not have a great history, other than a blip the last 10 years'

Pleas check the edmunds forums for cars with highest mileage and check how many Hondas come up at the top. But I guess you wouldn't coz for this argument ebay suits you. How do you presume that the more cars on sale on ebay, the longer they live? Like most of the times, your logic is wrong. Just go to a campus and see which old car is most common, you will find it to be the Civic.

gagrice · January 2005

It's far more financially sound to pay $1500 for an extended warranty on a new car once every four years and let the warranty company pay for your repairs !!

I know that is current wisdom and the car companies love it. Can you ever get ahead that way to where a $4000 engine repair is not a drain on your budget?

ruking1 · January 2005

Owning a car (whether rich or poor) does not change much the fact that cars require "care and feeding". (so to speak) Lots of things can happen to any car that is not covered by warranties, either oem or extended.

So like in the case of the TLC, a radiator (600)repair actually happened closer to the 250,000 mile mark than in the mile mark that would be covered (in almost all) under extended warranties. So using your example, I would have paid 1500 dollars for the extended warranty and still would have had to pay for the radiator repair.

gagrice · January 2005

Pleas check the edmunds forums for cars with highest mileage and check how many Hondas come up at the top.

Please link that thread, I would be interested. The only older Honda's (Mid 1980s)I see are the CRX which I must admit is a classic. One of my favorites.

Sylvia · January 2005

Sorry - this discussion has been beaten to death. It is clear from the inability to stay on-topic that this discussion has run its course. It will now be closing.

Jetta TDI vs. Civic Hybrid

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles