Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options

Hybrids & Diesels - Deals or Duds?

17475777980100

Comments

  • alp8alp8 Member Posts: 656
    You might want to ask this question in the context on why we are protecting Korean and other Asian interests and of course European interests, i.e. NATO. and "Cheap" 6/7/8/ dollar per gal European oil!!

    uh....because if we don't, then capitalism will struggle?

    US foreign policy is not overly concerned with keeping the price of oil down; it is concerned with doing what it can to keep governments from exerting any real control over access to oil resources within their countries.

    It's going to be interesting with China playing a role. They've been very vocal at how they are going to sign FAIR contracts with countries - a very obvious slap at Chevron/EXXONMOBIL. It's going to be pretty funny if countries select China as a trading partner (or resource development partner) over US-based companies. Well, not funny, really. Sad, actually.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I think in the context of the hybrid vs diesel thread, it should be pretty clear that China is concerned with securing the pipeline and flow of oil to THAT nation and most all other considerations are subordinate to that. I really don't think China has as a capitalistic 500 # Gorilla, the coveted goal of being the world's low cost producer of (NIKE) athletic shoes :( :)Or even cowboy boots for that matter.

    Capitalism will not struggle in Europe and Asia. So if we are not wanted in those areas, I think it best we save the trouble and money and get out of those places. So we made America safe for importation of BMW and VW's!!??? Or even off topic Ferrari's etc. For example, Europe, Korea, Japan and the list goes on. Now really can you think of any of those places that really LOVE US?? Go back to WW2, WE (USA) helped to beat back the would be oppressores. What do nations we had helped think of us? What does France think of us 60-70 years after the fact? :(:) Conversely the powers that threatened Europe then such as Germany, Japan? How are they doing? :(:) Ask the so callled "iron curtain" countries what they thought of 60 plus years of Soviet rule? Keep in mind that if the Brits had their way, we'd still be the "colonies". It would probably not be unlike how Germany and Japan would have treated so called "conquered" nations, if they had prevailed in WW2.
  • alp8alp8 Member Posts: 656
    I guess I'm not sure how you devine (sic?) whether a "nation" loves "us"

    who the heck is "us"?

    I have never encountered any nagative feelings when I have traveled overseas, and that includes international travel to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France, Italy, Germany and Switzerland in the last 5 years. Places that have lots of "anti-American" feelings. I have been welcomed, as a PERSON, and as an American. True, no one is slapping me on the back saying "Nice job getting rid of Saddam," but they also aren't reeming me for Bush. Everyone understands that America is a diverse country and that not all of us want to impose our views on every other person on the planet. Granted, I am sure I would get into many more heated discussions if I waved an American flag and wore a Bush-Cheney button. The world is filled withpeople, not nations. Nations are a legal construct - they do not have feelings. People have feelings.

    When I was in Norway, I met people who are STILL, to this very day, thankful for America's role in WWII. That is 60 years ago!!!

    I'm not sure where the Soviet came from. I am not pro-Soviet. I believe in the market. But I also believe that companies need to be held accountable. And they are working VERY hard to eliminate that accountability. And that does not bode well for 99.9% of the people of the world, very likely including the children of every single person here.

    If you have $10 million in the bank, you're probably fairly safe, for another generation, at least.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."I guess I'm not sure how you devine (sic?) whether a "nation" loves "us"

    who the heck is "us"? "...

    Don't know what to tell you. However YOU (and I ) are paying for these "programs" done in our name!! :( However I can tell you Iraq doesn't want us there, Iran doesnt want us there. Korea north and south don't want us there. The list goes on and on.
  • alp8alp8 Member Posts: 656
    yes, I do hear you re that
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Diesel Hybrid Equinox

    If something like this ever becomes reality, you will not have to choose between diesel and hybrid.
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Member Posts: 265
    Researches have developed batteries that could potentially be charged in seconds. If that becomes reality, and if capacity increases, could it completely change the landscape? If one could recharge in seconds at any gas station, why not a 100% electric?

    Here is the article
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    So in that sense it is WONDERFUL to dream!! However when we bring something to reality we need to be CAREFUL what we wish for, for we just might get it; JUST like CA MTBE !!! :(:)

    UPSHOT: Many posts ago, I mentioned one of the many at market problems considerations etc was the capital (absolutely HUGE) investments necessary to bring ANY product to market.

    Upshot #2 you just increased the cost of a gal of gas for literally decades to come. Oil companies continue to of course make their .05 cent per gal profit (as per the Chevron CEO)

    Lets take something as conceptually easy as CA MTBE. In theory you put say 10% of MTBE in unleaded regular. Then , you find it it pollutes far more and creates more costly mitgation that costs way more than even unleaded regular to mitigate. OK you wise up and say no more use. Well you just required EVERYONE to make capital investments to the infrastructure. Now you have to still put it in unleaded regular even as you implement a 5/10 year exit strategy. :( So you pay EXTRA to convert, you pay EXTRA to stop using it, you pay EXTRA to remove and you pay EXTRA to make it go away!!

    Again this is why off the shelf technology diesel might be the solution for the next 30 years. Advantages?

    1. Proven use for at least 100 years.

    2. 37% advantage over unleaded regular.

    3. you actually can use less oil

    4. you actually can import less oil

    5.. It has the capability of being in several categories of renewable resources.

    6. It can be processed from already "dedicated" waste streams.

    7. New process' can be tapped to further use waste streams not yet harnessed.

    8. Can be developed and processed domestically.

    9. Much of the current infratructure can be used and if it becomes more widespread in use modifications cost less to do than new and full development of other sources.

    10. diesel process points (akin to unleaded gas refineries are way cheaper to build and can be located remotely, locate at the sources of production, as well as close to the sources of demand.

    As an example; biodiesel can be processed in your back yard. This is almost literally impossible with unleaded regular.
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Member Posts: 265
    > Upshot #2 you just increased the cost of a
    > gal of gas for literally decades to come.

    You lost me here. How is going to 100% electric going to increase the cost of gasoline for decades to come? :surprise:
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    If you are from CA and have followed this, you would understand. I followed it only because I did transportation policy work for our county/city and had legislative analysts (at the city and county level) briefing us about CA state law. If you are NOT from CA it might seem a bit obscure. In any case, the story is NOT sound bite able.

    The regulators in CA (in its wisdom or lack there of)at one time pushed to mandate the production of ALL electric cars. The intention was to mandate ANY manufacturer who sold cars in CA, to produce 2% of cars sold in CA to be ALL ELECTRIC. The overall goal was to have 2% of the passenger vehicle fleet to be all electric. SO car oems were faced with capital investing to bring all electric cars to CA, or face the prospects of not being able to sell cars in the BIGGEST car market, quite possibly on the planet. And of course, so as CA goes, so goes the nation!!! The regulators of course didn't really factor in the infrastructure considerations as they were probably more concerned about being able to mandate this and in effect to HELL with the consequences. Funny things did happen.

    But convinced of the righteousness, the all electric vehicles rolled out and NOBODY, I MEAN NOBODY bought them NOT even the environmentalist folks who lauded the mandating of all electric vehicles!!! I even was part of the process in getting an all electric truck for our city, even as I was convinced it was not a good thing, and let it be known. We took delivery of a FORD Ranger all electric truck at a cheap contract price of 28,000 dollars, with full press coverage and of course it didn't WORK !!!! :):( We put in a few charging stations at enormous cost!! But that might not be considered germane to some folks.

    So what were the oems to do with the now wasted investment? Yup they write it off, which of course increases the prices of later cars as they try to recoup the losses.

    Then of course the electrical and natural gas energy situation hit which of course did its deed to push the prices of electrical and natural gas energy up by a very substantial percentage. Rolling black outs over wide spread areas of CA sort of woke folks up. Then it became MORE than VERY apparent that CA needed a boat load of power plants, which of course the environmentalists had been very successful in not getting built anywhere near what was needed. In addition the power plants were mandated to be fueled by natural gas of which we have precious littlethat we can access in CA. Again this helped to drive up the price of natural gas as some new plants came online and others were being converted to natual gas. I mean now with the energy OFF or in peril, even environmentalists like AC and lights and hot water even in city buildings they tend to inhabit and all the other comforts and accoutrements any big city (BIG ENERGY DRAW?) offers. Even Starbucks would not taste the same without electricity and tsk tsk if you had to burn wood or even gas to heat water. :(:)

    Also another interesting thing became how would they collect the "road and sin" taxes through gasoline taxes if electricity was used??? They could not levy another tax on utilities such as gas and electric as they were already taxation levied. Another thing that was worried about was solar set ups where essentially they could not collect ANY taxation with electric energy use.

    So to make a longer story even shorter the 2% all electric cars was never enacted into law or regulation. We are of course paying for this in higher fuel prices and higher vehicle prices.
  • kneisl1kneisl1 Member Posts: 1,694
    CA may as well legislate wood burning cars. Chinese peasents are lapping up cheap AC from coal burning plants. They never had it so good. Pretty soon CA is going to turn black from dirty Chinese coal consumption. Pretty soon you all will be coming to NJ to breathe clean air.
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Member Posts: 265
    Ah, yeah, I did follow the story, but this is completely different technology, and it has nothing to do with California legislating this or that (and yes, I live in CA). Assume for a moment no one legislates anything, simply that the technology becomes available to make the electric car have a decent range (say 200+ miles), and a recharge in seconds. The way they are going about with these new batteries, if they get the cost of production down, I would get one in a heartbeat.

    If we combine this with a reasonable electric energy generation policy (nuclear power plants), we could completely divorce ourselves from the Middle East. I cannot image a happier event in my lifetime.
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Member Posts: 265
    > Pretty soon CA is going to turn black from
    > dirty Chinese coal consumption

    Nah, Kyoto will cure it all. image

    Oh, sorry, wrong topic.
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    the idea of recharging large capacity batteries in seconds is silly to at least one electrical engineer here. it might be possible for tiny cellphone batteries but i doubt it would be safe to connect a 30 kilovolt connector to your car and/or one that provides thousands of amps per second? this would melt the wires connecting the charging source to the batteries. either huge voltage or huge amperage would be required, and probably both.
    on the other hand, gasoline isn't exactly the safest fuel to be tossing around either.
    for maximum safety, use diesel. it's barely flammable at STP. throw a lit match in it, and it will not ignite.
  • kneisl1kneisl1 Member Posts: 1,694
    My understanding is that there has been no practical improvement on the lead acid storage battery. Yes others have been invented but they are too expensive/dangerous or have other drswbacks which make them impractical.
    Im buying an EV though. Its a battery powered scooter I can ride to the train, and then from the station to work. It has NIMO batteries. This just HAS TO work.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I'm with you. All a battery does is store energy. The more energy you put in the more you get out. Huge amounts may be possible with ultra capacitors like they use in locomotives. All that I have read including the Toshiba article has only been done on a small scale. The cars using LiON batteries still use very small cells. As much as I would like an electric car I don't see any chance of charging a big enough battery in a very short time. That was part of the downfall of the EV-1. It had this high powered charging device that gave them fits.

    They have removed the charging stations that were installed at Costco.
  • gem069gem069 Member Posts: 65
    > Pretty soon CA is going to turn black from
    > dirty Chinese coal consumption

    Nah, Kyoto will cure it all.

    Oh, sorry, wrong topic.


    The real ironic thing was the only country that would of be held totaly responsible to paying the cost was the USA while others were not held at all.

    All you gatta do is read the fine print and see which peremiters will be inforced and which are just for show.

    I am glad the USA didn't sign that rigged docoument.
    So much for the fairness of the rest of the world to the USA, huh!

    However, the USA really needs to take the lead and not follow many years behind on the EU and their low polution controls of which various alt/fuels for both auto and power systems need to come online.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    However, the USA really needs to take the lead and not follow many years behind on the EU

    Actually our emissions regulations are more strict than most of the EU countries. We have let the oil companies slide on getting the sulfur out of gas and diesel. As far as Kyoto. Japan has not met their own standard set up in the treaty. I do not know of a country that has signed on that has met the goals. Tony Blair made it clear that the goals set forth in the Treaty were impossible in a growing economy.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    While I do not disagree, waving the magic wand usually only works in pretend reality, which is probably why Hollywood produced products sell so well . :)

    (Or with crazy folks, but I digress)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Indeed one of the main priorities (magic wand actions aside) is for China (and other so called "developing contries" to use almost ALL the oil products they wish to use. It also mandates that so called more developed nations to use less!!!

    As for the USA to pick up the TAB? Why is that any different from the UN diplomats owning New York City and using diplomatic immunity to make it their personal playground?

    China if it continues the pace it is on will within a decade use more oil than the USA. Surely China's pollution mandates and enforcements are not anywhere NEAR the standard in CA and in the USA.

    So anyone who believes the Kyoto Accords were meant to stem the world wide oil use is simply not in touch with the realities. Nice warm enviro fuzzies, however.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."the idea of recharging large capacity batteries in seconds is silly"...

    For my .02 cents, I would also agree and by professional education, am not an EE. :)

    Evidently even Toyota in building the Prius AGREED. They could have easily mated an EV-1 system with the hybrid technology and/or offered it as an option.

    (Toyota of course if folks didn't know had one of the better EV-1 systems in a smallish Corolla based "SUV" the name of the model escapes me at this writing)

    (see guys, don't start on the magic wand wish list here :))
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    It was the RAV EV sold up to MY 2003. Not sure how many are out there. Not cheap. I think they were in the $40k area due to the batteries.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    So we were talking of the importance of the KYOTO Accord.

    San Jose Mercury News

    In Depth Analysis*Background* Debate Sunday June 11, 2006 Page 3A

    (headline- my sic)

    "China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined. And it has increased coal consumption 14 percent in each of the past two years."

    China's growing coal reliance sends dark cloud around the world...

    ..."Unless China finds a way to clean up its coal plants and the thousands of factories that burn coal, pollution will soar both at home and abroad. The increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialzed countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by 5 times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks." ...
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Member Posts: 265
    I hope this is not a surprise to anyone. The whole agreement is a farce.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The whole agreement is a farce

    Everyone in the World knows that except Robert Kennedy Jr.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    We are not here to discuss the Kyoto Treaty. Let's stick to the cars please.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Now that would be a good reason to get hot getting the diesel's to up the % from less than 3% of the passenger vehicle fleet population. Some reasons? Uses 37 % less fuel
    Diesel fuel can be "alternative" fuel

    On a 2003 VW Jetta TDI 42/49 EPA

    2003 VW Jetta 1.8t 24/31 EPA
    2003 VW Jetta 2.0 24/31 EPA
  • kneisl1kneisl1 Member Posts: 1,694
    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/06/chrysler_introd_1.html
    Information on the new V6 Chrysler diesel.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Not that anyone would overlook 510 NM torque, BUT,... that converts to 376 # ft of torque !!! :)
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I might have to have one of those for my fleet. Hopefully they make it to CA. That is anyone's guess. I think with Honda failing so miserably with the Hybrid Accord they will be looking at diesel to try and even out the playing field. They are doing very well in the EU with their diesel Accord or whatever they call it over there.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Then in effect that makes it two fronts the Honda Corp is having challenges. Honda's goal (prior posting) in the European market is to have (if I remember what I read and posted) 1/3 or 33% of its sales in Europe to be diesel type products. Japanese cars in Europe on the whole, are having a difficult go in Europe. Of course the fact that most Japanese models burn the much higher cost unleaded regular does not help either, I am sure. As a metric, the European passenger fleet is fully 45% diesel and GROWING.

    I think that all that needs happen here in the USA is for the environmentalists to get their way and have the cost of unleaded regular gasoline rise even further than where it is now. To really accelerate the trend to diesel: to let them raise transportation taxation !!! It is no more mathematical than: would you rather pay 37% more, or 37% less? It has always been this way but the higher per barrel prices really drive home this point.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You own both. Which gives you the most driving pleasure the TDI VW or the gas Civic? I loved the smooth low RPM power of the Passat TDI. It pulled great in the hills from 1500 RPM. Most hills it would not downshift to 4th gear. It was definetly more fun to drive on the back roads than my PU truck or Lexus. Not as comfortable, but handled like a sports car.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I did do longer R/T between San Jose, CA-Portland Oregon with the Honda Civic. It was the defintion of a "trooper" It performed very very well. To be fair I have also done R/T between San Jose, CA to Portland Oregon with the VW Jetta in the last three years app 5 times. . However without a doubt, the VW Jetta TDI!! Even after 3 years and 76,000 miles it still amazes me that a 90 hp diesel can do what it does. Diesels are very well adapted to the USA roads and for sure European roads for which they are designed. This car can easily cruise at XXX digit mph with mid 40s mpg, but for obvious reasons, I do NOT!! The other thing is the Civic carrys 500 # LESS weight over the VW Jetta TDI. So at times, I do wonder how much better a Jetta TDI would do 500#s lighter !!! Of course this is fairly easy to compare in the real world. All one needs to do is to compare performances with a Honda Civic with 3 extra passengers vs just a driver only in a Jetta TDI. I think most folks can visualize the results!? :(:)
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "I can wait for a diesel PU to make it to our shores."

    You could have gotten an F250 with diesel, or a Dodge Ram. Both are available in all states.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You could have gotten an F250 with diesel, or a Dodge Ram

    I looked at the domestic PU trucks with diesel. They are overkill and not worth the Premium to me. If they offered a 1/2 tone with a 3.0L diesel I would be more inclined to purchase. That would offer significant mileage increase. From what I am seeing the EPA & CARB will not be happy until they load the small diesels down with so much crap it loses most of the advantages that are inherent in a diesel engine. My 8k lb MB Sprinter RV gets better mileage than my little GMC PU truck. The least I have gotten is over 20 MPG and as high as 24.8 MPG. There are no gas vehicles that can come close to that. That size RV with gas is lucky to get 10 MPG.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Sort of in line with that would be a Toyota Landcruiser sized vehicle or Chevy Tahoe with a bullet proof long lasting go all day and night and anywhere diesel engine. So to me that would mean 350-450 torque 30/35 mpg.

    The Chevy 2500, Ford 250 or Dodge 2500 diesel for me also is way too much vehicle.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Unless you are towing 15k to 20k lbs on a regular basis the diesel offerings from the Big 3 are way more engine than is needed. A 1/2 ton PU with a 5 cylinder diesel would be a great 30-35 MPG package. I would love to have my Mercedes Sprinter diesel/transmission package in my GMC PU truck.
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Member Posts: 265
    A 1/2 ton PU with a 5 cylinder diesel would be a great 30-35 MPG package. I would love to have my Mercedes Sprinter diesel/transmission package in my GMC PU truck.

    I said almost exactly the same thing a couple of years ago in these forums, but back then the gas still had not reached the pain level, so I was poopooed for heresy. I think our views will slowly have to be taken seriously if the Big Two want to survive.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Judging by the thread (long since retired to "READ ONLY") "I hate SUV's Why Don't You" I would say there is STILL a significant sentiment and segment that really does not want to see SUV's and the PU truck populations increase. Hard to be vitriolic, ala la "gas guzzler's" if those "HATED" segments, actually get the same or close to the fuel mileage as the so called saintly economy leader (small car) Honda Civic. :(;)
  • gem069gem069 Member Posts: 65
    I saw a articule from England.
    Whereas Suport Usama Vehicles are a very small part of their vehicles owned.
    There is actually a group that will put stickers on those vehicles ridicuing them for being a fossil fuel hog and unessarily sucking up fossil fuels.
    \ :D
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    For sure I would not doubt that, and they even do that in the USA, but in the context of you responding to my post,would you mind stating your point?

    I mean we could put "Green Hypocrite Snob" stickers on Toyota Prius' but what would that prove?
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    The environmentalists and the oil company executives line up on the same side of the issues...

    Oil company execs defend high pump prices By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060618/ap_on_bi_ge/us_oil_production
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    TDI Clatter. Just two driveways down the road from me is a new diesel car, a 2007 Jetta. I can hear it coming around the corner. That clatter is simply too difficult to ignore. Supporters claim diesel engines are much quieter than in the past. Perhaps that's true, but they are still much noisier than a traditional gas engine... and absolutely no comparison to the silent stealth that a hybrid like Prius provides.

    Can anyone guess the author of the above anti-diesel statement?

    It is sad that certain individuals continue to spread diesel hate and ignore the inherent efficiency. :(
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Can anyone guess the author of the above anti-diesel statement?

    We know he is less than truthful as the 2007 Jetta is not on the roads yet. All that I have read is there will be no 2007 Jetta TDI. From the sound of the post I would say they are having buyers remorse on the hybrid purchase. All the VW TDIs are sold and they are stuck with that funny looking Prius for another couple years.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Might also be a reason why it was not posted on this board lately in particular!? :(:)

    While I certainly respect someones right to have their opinions and in effect to act on them, i.e., to buy a car based on one car being so called "quieter" than another, it probably would not pass the independent comparisons scutiny on this thread.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "All the VW TDIs are sold and they are stuck with that funny looking Prius for another couple years."

    The articles I read on the 2007 VWs said that VW was stockpiling 2006 diesel models for sale next year...
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That is my understanding as well. Just having fun with who ever the author may be. I doubt seriously I could convince anyone to exchange a Prius for a Jetta TDI and vice versa. Two different cars each with its own +s & -s.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    According to ACEEE the new Mercedes diesel will qualify for the same tax credit given the hybrids. The E320 BluTec will get $2175 tax credit. Go Mercedes!!! That should mean we will have some diesel SUVs in CA that get an honest 30+ MPG by the end of the year.

    http://www.aceee.org/transportation/taxcredits06.pdf

    In Wake of High Gas Prices, Demand for Diesel Cars and SUV’s Jumped 31 Percent in 2005.

    Think of the increase when they are allowed back into CA..
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    neato! i wonder if the Jeep diesel will get a tax credit too.
    a $2k tax credit ought to more than pay for the extra cost of the particle-traps or urea-canister-systems in the 2007 & later diesels.
    one of my worries about the 2007 & later diesels is what happens WHEN you end up with a tankful of old/too-much-sulfur diesel. will the cat-convs & particle-traps be ruined? that's one reason i took the plunge and snagged a 2nd old-tech TDI - for my spouse who often drives 900 miles per week...
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think any diesel allowed to be sold in 2007 should qualify. The criteria is an improvement in mileage over a 2002 comparable vehicle. That should take care of any diesel that can pass the new EPA emissions standard. I am starting to see the light at the end of a very long tunnel. Get me a nice 1/2 ton PU diesel that gets 30 MPG and I will be in hog heaven.
This discussion has been closed.