You haven't ever removed the gas tank out of a car have you?
Not so hard on older cars but on modern ones there isn't much room back their and two hours to remove then two more hours to replace sounds about right. You can't disassemble a modern fuel tank to wipe it so I bet they are going to pump some diesel into it in order to clean out any left over gas. When land Rover had gas tank recalls four years ago the book time to do the whole job was about four hours. After a tech did a few of them they could finish the job in less then four hours but not much less. Draining a full tank of fuel takes a long time too.
You could argue the diagnoses charge is BS as you know what is wrong with the car.
Just by reading the rest of your posts I bet you are also getting an additional convenience charge at the dealership. If you are overreacting there like you are here and yelling, typing in all caps is yelling online if you didn't know, then I bet they are are bumping your bill for having to put up with you. They know they have you over a barrel as the truck is already in their shop and you can't drive it to take it some where else. Sure you could hire a tow truck to move it but that is going to cost you a couple hundred bucks. Try acting a bit more reasonable and see where that gets you.
One more Edit
In reference to the fuel service in the UK you do realize that 199 GBP is over 400 dollars USD right? The UK service probably has some special tools that allow them to do the job faster and with more automation. Obviously if it only takes then 45 minutes then they do have some procedural or technological advantage.
Knock out the bogus diagnosis charge and you are under 700 bucks which isn't so far off 400 currency adjusted considering the larger time the MB dealer will take to fix the problem.
Blutec is the emissions system required to pass the EPA test for NoX in the USA. Has nothing to do with the diesel engines not running well on RUG. Most of the world has the same Mercedes diesel engine without all the Blutec crap.
The main reason why diesel will always be the larger nozzle: heavy trucks and buses. They can't wait all day for fuel to come through the smaller nozzle when they're buying 100-200 gallons at a time. For a tractor-trailer driver, time is money... the big hose and nozzle get the rig back on the highway sooner.
Having owned diesels exclusively for the last 13+ years, I stick with stations that do see a lot of heavy-truck traffic. Not because I'm playing "wannabe big-rig driver", but because the fuel is much fresher at a high-turnover station. The neighborhood station with a diesel pump that only sees an occasional Benz or VW likely has had the fuel in the storage tank way too long and algae is forming.
And when something does go wrong, even minor, the truckers are there to help. I was pulling into one of my usual stations to tank up a few years back and I ran bone dry 100 feet from the pump. There were about 3 semis and a dump truck there, and the drivers didn't hesitate to help push my Ram dually up to the pump when it was my turn - kind of a "we've all been there" thing. And since that was my older 96 with the mechanical engine and fuel system, they helped push me off to the side once I was full so I could pump the fuel up to the engine (those Rams had to be manually pumped if you ran dry, and it took a while to get the fuel from the tank to the fuel pump alongside the engine).
Fall's setting in- diesel prices are around 10-20% more than RUG now, around 20--40 cents more expensive around CT, Mass and Vermont. It's more expensive than premium in a lot of places.
That takes a chunk out of diesel efficiency - suddenly that diesel that gets 42mpg on the highway is now getting an effective 34-38 MPG- you're never going to make up the difference in price of the vehicle with such a slim margin to the gas vehicles.
If you're sole reason for driving a diesel is cost-saving vs gasoline, you may never move as constantly calculating the cost-per-mile delta will stop you making the move-decision...................just in case next month etc etc etc.
The only way you'll be happy is having two identical vehicles; one diesel and one gasser, and drive each when the fuel price is (apparently) most advantageous.
No, I know that's not sensible, or serious, but sometimes we just need to make a decision. Life seldom hands us clear-cut choices and it's all about compromise. Decide what's important to you and go for it. We're a long time dead and we shouldn't spend our precious years saying; "What if............?" on topics that aren't life-changing.
I would love to buy one, in fact I have had my eye on the Jetta TDI wagons.
Trouble is, my local dealer (J.E.) are the initials in Marietta loves to charge over list and won't deal on them. The fact this dealer tried to rip me off on a lease once before makes me loathe to buy into the brand.
The amazing thing, their sister shop in Atlanta and even a Mazda under the same JE brand both are many times more professional and willing to deal.
There are two major pluses that make diesel vehicles preferable. Driving pleasure with a small diesel engine and long range. Being able to cruise at 70 MPH up and down hill without down shifting makes for a much better driving experience. Having 700 mile plus range in your tank is the other. Even when diesel peaked at near $5 per gallon last year it was a better cost ratio over a comparable gas version of the same vehicle.
From an old duffer that hates the screaming sound a small gas engine makes trying to keep up with traffic on long uphill highways.
What alltorque and gagrice said. Plus, before even considering the fuel cost / efficiency tradeoff in your 'break-even' calculation, consider the vehicle's resale value. If you're the type who trades in every two years, the diesel version of a given model will be worth more than the gasser, to the extent that in most cases the higher resale more than offsets the initial price differential. Fuel savings is just icing on the cake. I checked this out on many vehicles from VW Golfs and Jettas to Jeep Libertys and GCs to full size pickups. It is almost universally true, when compared to the most similar gasser variant (in the case of an SUV or truck, I compared similar tow ratings). If you're the type that keeps them 10 years / 300,000 miles, then realize you'll be buying the gasser 1.5 times or twice as often... that's expensive.
The difference between regular and unleaded has been running a dime for months now ($2.69 vs $2.79 is typical right now). Last year diesel was often .20 or .30 higher than premium.
I don't think you can extrapolate the new diesels out to 300,000 miles like the old ones. They are no longer as dead simple as they once were; there's lots of parts to fail, parts that were engineered by Germans. The jury is out on the reliability of the new diesels; they're not having such great experiences in Europe with reliability.
The refueling range on diesels is amazing, but if you're not saving any money, and you're driving complicated new technology to do it, I'm not sure it's worth it.
Yesterday, when I filled up my Jetta TDI here in Los Angeles, D2 was $2.79 and RUG was $2.99. I have about 5000 miles on the car and have been averaging 36MPG. Not bad when 70% of my time is stuck in crappy LA rush hour traffic.
Well, you may be right. In the case of my '98.5 Cummins, 300,000 is not an extrapolation, but it is, as you say, of the dead simple breed. I think from an engineering perspective, people would be better served by a 2006 level of diesel technology coupled with 2006 emissions levels. We are way into diminishing returns on the emissions front, and any technology required to meet future emissions and fuel economy mandates (BEV, PHEV, fuel cell, 'Clean' Diesel) is going to be expensive and complicated. Even the mundane SI gasser will be complicated by DI, VVL, cylinder deactivation, stop-start, particulate traps (yes, coming for gassers). None of those technologies add to the system robustness...
And don't forget the cost of Adblue in case of clean diesel from Germans. MB charges around $11 for 1/2 gal. It takes about 16 of these bottle every 10,000 miles or each service
well, with something like this, what happens if you just don't bother? I assume the car runs perfectly fine, but it may just emit more of whatever the adblue is supposed to combat?
I agree that chasing low emissions (and likely MPG) probably follows something along the 80/20 rule. And that when you get to a certain point, the cost (up front and ongoing) to improve a tiny amount is astronomical.
The vehicle shuts down and will not run until adblue is in the tank. That was a compromise the Germans made with the wonks at CARB that set the emissions standards for the whole country. The EPA are just yes men to California Air Resources Board. I believe all the vehicles stuck with that goofy system get free refills for the period of the warranty.
If I were to buy a Diesel Mercedes, I would get a used one prior to the blutec engine. Our tax dollars have paid to develop a much better system and it is only being used in other countries.
The pump jockey in Oregon where I bought my 05 Passat TDI broke the fuel cover stretching the hose too far. Fortunately VW replaced it under warranty. I don't like them messing with my vehicle. If they still cleaned the windows and checked the oil they would be providing a good service.
I was thinking of just peeing in the tank as that is the basis for Adblue. Maybe if you drank a case of beer you could add a little extra Pizazz to your vehicle. :shades:
Urea plays an important role in the metabolism of nitrogen-containing compounds by animals, and is the main nitrogen-containing substance in the urine of mammals.wiki
Seems that I read it is about 20% Urea in a water base.
The BlueTec system, for example, injects water-based urea solution into the exhaust system. The ammonia produced by decomposition of the urea reacts with the nitrogen oxide emissions and is converted into nitrogen and water within the catalytic converter.
Mazda’s latest four-wheel-drive likes a wee drink.
The Mazda CX-7 uses a special man-made liquid similar to human urine to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The compound, called AdBlue, is a mixture of roughly one-third pure urea and two-thirds demineralised water.
It is already widely used in the trucking industry in Europe and Australia and is common in diesel cars in Europe, but Mazda is the first to use the technology on a passenger vehicle in Australia.
The technology, called selective catalyst reduction, involves injecting the urea-based liquid into the car’s exhaust system to turn NOx emissions into harmless nitrogen and water.
If VW would just bring the Tiguan TDI with 2.0L engine they would have a great lineup for the next several years. I have not written off the Touareg TDI yet. I am having a hard time accepting the whole Urea injection system. The CUV market is void of any decent mileage vehicles aside from the Escape hybrids. The Tiguan with a 2.0L diesel would get an easy 35 MPG on the highway. That would get me off the dime. The mid 20s highway mileage of the Escape hybrid and Touareg TDI do not get me excited.
PS The GLK CDI is also a good choice along with the Q5 with 2.0L TDI
Mazda is said to be studying the notion of bringing their 4-cylinder diesel to the U.S. for a whole range of smaller models. One place they are looking in particular is how well VW is doing with their TDI sales.
Apparently they have decided they need to sell 10K per year to break even on the investment necessary to make their diesel emissions-compliant. But they have another problem, similar to the one Honda had: currently their global diesel is manual-trans-only, and of course they have to have an automatic available for the soft Americans, or they will never hit their sales targets....
Since Mazda and VW sales are on the same order of magnitude, it seems like Mazda could probably sell small diesel models profitably here, since VW seems to be able to. But in their home market, there is a lot of pressure to be offering three kinds of hybrids and all-electrics as well, so their diesel program wouldn't serve them that well at home.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The VW Tiguan TDI with the 2.0L engine rated at 140 HP is being sold in the UK. It is available in the 4motion with automatic. Rated at 47.9 MPG highway which is right at 40 MPG US.
I really have no problem driving my gas guzzler Sequoia as long as the EPA has their head up you know where. For those of US that would like to use less fossil fuel, we are constantly blocked by the Federal Government.
I think the passenger vehicle fleet percentages tell the "real" Fed.Gov policy story. However as such, or even as powerful as those numbers indicate, it is only a "mirror," so to speak.
In 2009 with literally multiple decades of atempted "attitude" adjustment, good mpg cars (usually compact and even most mpg figures are.... poor ) are only less than 25% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
The other 75% of the passenger fleet are cars that get so called LESS mpg !! Even with the current 27 mpg so called "standards," the real or defacto figures are between 18-22 mpg, if lucky, (aka WILDLY optimistic) . With SUV's being 12% of the population, folks who buy them are REALLY only complying with the Fed.Gov's (REAL) policy. The overwhelming majority of the fleet are gasoline. This is so even when diesel is acknowledged to be anywhere from 20-40% better ! Indeed it would be a very easy case to make, that the recent domestic auto industry debacle was due to folks NOT following the Fed.Gov policy !!!! (aka NOT buying LESS mpg vehicles like... SUV's !!
I am sure you would agree, but it is difficult to buy more diesels when MORE diesels are not on the market.
What does your SUV get.... 18 mpg ? Would you have bought a diesel Sequoia if it got 20-40 % better mph? (21.6 to 25.2) Probably the most germane question would be it was an available DIESEL option? Seems to have worked with the Jetta diesel. The IRS even gave the Jetta TDI a tax credit of $1,300!
I did average 18 MPG on a long vacation trip. Most of the time the Sequoia only gets 14.5 MPG. Plus I am stuck using CA crap gas. When I bought the Sequoia there was only one diesel SUV available in CA new. The VW Touareg TDI with the fire breathing V10 diesel. Not known for great mileage. Just great HP and Torque. Now there are at least 4 diesel SUVs from the 3 German companies. Again they are overkill with V6 diesels all topping 400 ft lbs of torque. The deal killer for me is that Mickey Mouse urea injection. Again it was only implemented in the US to satisfy CARB. So if the Sequoia was available with the same D-4D power train used in the Land Cruiser I would have jumped on it. In the UK diesel is all you can get in the large SUVs from Toyota. That tells me that Toyota is capable of building a diesel engine that is clean enough for EU emission standards. Which the EU says are better than the USA.
As a comparison. If the Sequoia was powered by the Land Cruiser D-4D engine, my mileage would have been around 35 MPG US, according to UK estimates of 42 MPG. Even with the slightly higher cost of diesel across the USA, I would have saved about $350 in fuel costs. Plus another $56 for the extra oil change every 5000 miles. Just the extra oil changes required with gas engines waste millions of barrels of oil each year.
It all adds up to an EPA that is controlled by the oil companies. Gasoline started out as a waste product of the refining process and continues to this day. So why not get the masses to use it?
For illustrative purposes, let's say 14.5 to 18 mpg vs the TLC's D2 system of 35 mpg. Pardon me for being non PC, but the mpg percentage gain over 14.5 mpg is HUGE @ 142% !!?? @ 18 mpg, 35 mpg is a 94% gain.
Again, what part of MASSIVE won't diesel deny 'ers acknowledge / understand? If I may also mention, the 35 mpg (almost) meets the small car definition of the new upcoming 2012 standards of 35.5 mpg !!
As you can see. The only way to achieve the new CAFE standards with a decent sized SUV is to use a diesel engine. The Hybrids from GM are pathetic. I don't call 21 MPG a decent improvement. I remember getting 20 MPG on the road a couple times with my 1998 Suburban. I got 19.8 MPG on one long drive with the Sequoia.
Judging by what has and is happening in the domestic oems' department, (Ford,Chrysler, GM) it appears to be an almost no brainer, the Fed.gov (now that it and the unions are substantial oem owners/controllers) will only continue to "wordsmith" the big three mainstays mpg for: pick up trucks, suv's, etc. Those that do NOT see the irony here, probably truly believe that foxes can guard the hen houses, and... well. That is even with the upcoming 2012, 35.5 mpg standards. While you point out that a TLC can get (yesterday and off the shelf) 35 mpg, they would be loathed to let it into the country. Why? Because it ACTUALLY gets... 35 mpg !!??
The Jetta's 03 VW TDI vs the 09 VW TDI is a demonstration in "regulatory" speak. As vilified as TDI's were WAY back in 2003 ( :P ) Both are/were/continue to be... 50 state legal. The 03 (EPA 42/49) gets a range of 44 to 62 mpg and during a point a to b commute gets 48-52 mpg. . The 09 (EPA 29-30/40) gets a (SHORTER) range of 39-47 mpg and during the same point a to b commute gets 39-47 mpg. Either obviously exceeds the "old/current standard" of 27 mpg and the 2012, 35.5 mpg. ( both of course can be hypermiled to achieve... more)
While slow to take hold www.edmunds.com does show 39 vehicles with the diesel option.
Of course, if your Sequoia had that European diesel under the hood, it would have European acceleration - say, 25 seconds or so to 60 mph? Which is not a strike against it in my book, but I imagine it might have caused you a second thought or two, no?
Eventually, diesels or no, hybrids or no, one of the greatest and cheapest gains in fuel economy we can achieve will be by slowing down these cars and trucks. Nobody needs to hit 60 mph in 7 seconds in a 5000-pound SUV like Gary's Sequoia. Nor do they in the average family sedan.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I've driven several diesels in Europe, including a 2007 Passat and a 2006 Renault Espace. Both were fantastic. Punchy, torquey, and with enormous range (and delicious 6 speed manuals). I'd be very happy with either car here in the States.....but I do need a wagon. So far, VW seems the only company willing to oblige, and for some reason there is not one TDi Jetta Sportwagen for sale in the state of MD we could even test drive.
Actually the Land Cruiser with the diesel is rated 0-62 MPH in 11.2 seconds. The LC sold in the UK is not that much lighter than the Sequoia. And the diesel in the LC has about the same torque as my V8 gas engine at a much lower RPM. The Toyota 3.0L diesel is pretty mild compared to the German offerings. I can tell you from my test drive in the Mercedes and BMW diesel offerings, that they will blow the doors off my Sequoia V8. 0-60 is so far down my list of importance, it does not even count. I am more concerned with 30-75 MPH. That is where diesel torque shines over gas HP.
I would be willing to downsize to an Audi A4 Allroad Quattro TDI if they were sold here. They get over 40 MPG on the highway. That is as small as I will go for taking vacations. Too much stuff for an A3 or any other econobox sized vehicle. It would be nice to get 50+ MPG without sacrificing handling. The A3 also has a clearance problem for me as does the Jetta and Golf.
Sadly the only A4 Allroad TDI we will probably get has the same 3.0L engine that is being sold in the Q7. It will make the speed freaks happy in the US. 0-62 MPH in 6.4 seconds.
Sadly the only A4 Allroad TDI we will probably get has the same 3.0L engine that is being sold in the Q7. It will make the speed freaks happy in the US. 0-62 MPH in 6.4 seconds.
I am not sure the criterion used to come to the figures, or why "dups" were counted. I did read once there (were) are 540 models on the market. So 39 diesel models represents 7 % or so.
Right now all it would take is the cash. I intend to buy the new Jetta TDI but will pay cash for it. Had a Rabbit diesel years ago and loved it but I didn't have a garage then and some winter mornings couldn't get it started. So the Jetta TDI will soon be my next diesel.
When it comes time for the next car I would certainly consider a diesel if it came from a mfg and in a model I was seriously interested in. Performance and reliability are more important to me than is mileage. My wife and I probably put 20,000 a year on our cars combined, 10,000 each. Current vehicles are an '04 Lincoln LS and an '04 Porsche 911.
you said ==> "Nobody needs to hit 60 mph in 7 seconds"
I used to think that myself... till I drove in some parts of Pennsylvania. Some of their highways have traffic moving at 65+ MPH and there is NO ONRAMP .... you must start from a stop sign and need to get up to speed ahead of that 18-wheeler which is coming up fast. (I70 near New Stanton)
My 1.9L TDI just barely makes it wth FULL THROTTLE accelleration and tactful gearshifts. Dont get me wrong, my TDI likes to accellerate like that and I would not trade it for anything that gets less than 50MPG average.
If what you say is true, why would you want to switch? According to your 10 k per year x2 post, you should have app 50k each, literal babies !? @ 50,000 miles, the TDI's might possibly be broken in (full compression) and starting to get even better mpg (1-4 mpg better) Diesel or not, there are no payments like NO payments.
Practically all new vehicles today have acceptably quick acceleration 0 to 60, compared to cars of 40 or so years ago. Even some "so called" sports cars at that time, especially the plebeian British and Italian variants, were in the 9 to 11 second range 0 to 60, much akin to the econoboxes of today.
I remember when I owned a 1970 Simca 1204 (aka 1100 in Europe), I did a lot of driving on interstates in PA, NY, and in the Chicago area. All with a 1.2 litre 60HP engine and a 4-speed manual gearbox. It would cruise at 75 all day long without a whimper and deliver 35MPG+.
Smart driving techniques kept me alive with that vehicle; the same as literally hundreds of thousands of drivers across the country driving underpowered 36 to 50HP VW bugs on the freeways. It can be done, you just have to know the limits and change your driving style.
I am sure what you say is true. I also actually "survived" (literally no incidents/accidents) app 250,000 miles in a VW Bug. Just TOO many oil changes and TOO many sets of tires. The real reason why I sold it (even with too little miles ) was no A/C ah... in Miami, FL.
However I would change NONE of the latest VW's, ( 03/09 TDI's) for circa 1970's VW "BUG's" nor the NHTSA accident fatality back drops of the times. While anybody can google the figures for those time periods. The graphic of BLOOD ALLEY vs the LATEST lowest fatality (accident also ) rates in NHTSA record history sure beats it !! While one would be tempted to pine for the "good ole days", the fact of the matter: ... THESE are the good ole days !
whooa... the "good ol days" allowed 2-cycle engines to be sold in the USA. Almost twice the power for half the weight. Never any oil-changes and and what a sweeettt sound the tripple cylinder engines made.
Also, the wankle-cycle engines with the 15,000 RPM redline sounded sweeet and made lots of power/weight. Now, even 2-cycle diesles are hard to find.
At least my push lawnmower is 2-cycle and I have a tripple-cylinder motorcycle in the basement 8-)
Nothing like a stint at responsibility for lawn care for 120 acres to cure ya !! For those used to sq ft of office space (1 acre= 43560 sq ft * 120 acres) that ='s 5.23 M sq feet.
Comments
Not so hard on older cars but on modern ones there isn't much room back their and two hours to remove then two more hours to replace sounds about right. You can't disassemble a modern fuel tank to wipe it so I bet they are going to pump some diesel into it in order to clean out any left over gas. When land Rover had gas tank recalls four years ago the book time to do the whole job was about four hours. After a tech did a few of them they could finish the job in less then four hours but not much less. Draining a full tank of fuel takes a long time too.
You could argue the diagnoses charge is BS as you know what is wrong with the car.
Just by reading the rest of your posts I bet you are also getting an additional convenience charge at the dealership. If you are overreacting there like you are here and yelling, typing in all caps is yelling online if you didn't know, then I bet they are are bumping your bill for having to put up with you. They know they have you over a barrel as the truck is already in their shop and you can't drive it to take it some where else. Sure you could hire a tow truck to move it but that is going to cost you a couple hundred bucks. Try acting a bit more reasonable and see where that gets you.
One more Edit
In reference to the fuel service in the UK you do realize that 199 GBP is over 400 dollars USD right? The UK service probably has some special tools that allow them to do the job faster and with more automation. Obviously if it only takes then 45 minutes then they do have some procedural or technological advantage.
Knock out the bogus diagnosis charge and you are under 700 bucks which isn't so far off 400 currency adjusted considering the larger time the MB dealer will take to fix the problem.
Blutec is the emissions system required to pass the EPA test for NoX in the USA. Has nothing to do with the diesel engines not running well on RUG. Most of the world has the same Mercedes diesel engine without all the Blutec crap.
Having owned diesels exclusively for the last 13+ years, I stick with stations that do see a lot of heavy-truck traffic. Not because I'm playing "wannabe big-rig driver", but because the fuel is much fresher at a high-turnover station. The neighborhood station with a diesel pump that only sees an occasional Benz or VW likely has had the fuel in the storage tank way too long and algae is forming.
And when something does go wrong, even minor, the truckers are there to help. I was pulling into one of my usual stations to tank up a few years back and I ran bone dry 100 feet from the pump. There were about 3 semis and a dump truck there, and the drivers didn't hesitate to help push my Ram dually up to the pump when it was my turn - kind of a "we've all been there" thing. And since that was my older 96 with the mechanical engine and fuel system, they helped push me off to the side once I was full so I could pump the fuel up to the engine (those Rams had to be manually pumped if you ran dry, and it took a while to get the fuel from the tank to the fuel pump alongside the engine).
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
That takes a chunk out of diesel efficiency - suddenly that diesel that gets 42mpg on the highway is now getting an effective 34-38 MPG- you're never going to make up the difference in price of the vehicle with such a slim margin to the gas vehicles.
The only way you'll be happy is having two identical vehicles; one diesel and one gasser, and drive each when the fuel price is (apparently) most advantageous.
No, I know that's not sensible, or serious, but sometimes we just need to make a decision. Life seldom hands us clear-cut choices and it's all about compromise. Decide what's important to you and go for it. We're a long time dead and we shouldn't spend our precious years saying; "What if............?" on topics that aren't life-changing.
Just some thoughts from an old Brit duffer.
Trouble is, my local dealer (J.E.) are the initials in Marietta loves to charge over list and won't deal on them. The fact this dealer tried to rip me off on a lease once before makes me loathe to buy into the brand.
The amazing thing, their sister shop in Atlanta and even a Mazda under the same JE brand both are many times more professional and willing to deal.
There are two major pluses that make diesel vehicles preferable. Driving pleasure with a small diesel engine and long range. Being able to cruise at 70 MPH up and down hill without down shifting makes for a much better driving experience. Having 700 mile plus range in your tank is the other. Even when diesel peaked at near $5 per gallon last year it was a better cost ratio over a comparable gas version of the same vehicle.
From an old duffer that hates the screaming sound a small gas engine makes trying to keep up with traffic on long uphill highways.
If you're the type who trades in every two years, the diesel version of a given model will be worth more than the gasser, to the extent that in most cases the higher resale more than offsets the initial price differential. Fuel savings is just icing on the cake. I checked this out on many vehicles from VW Golfs and Jettas to Jeep Libertys and GCs to full size pickups. It is almost universally true, when compared to the most similar gasser variant (in the case of an SUV or truck, I compared similar tow ratings).
If you're the type that keeps them 10 years / 300,000 miles, then realize you'll be buying the gasser 1.5 times or twice as often... that's expensive.
The refueling range on diesels is amazing, but if you're not saving any money, and you're driving complicated new technology to do it, I'm not sure it's worth it.
I agree that chasing low emissions (and likely MPG) probably follows something along the 80/20 rule. And that when you get to a certain point, the cost (up front and ongoing) to improve a tiny amount is astronomical.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I am pretty sure that the NJ law does not apply to diesel.... I can pump diesel into my TDI in NJ all I want.
Actually, I would be afraid that the NJ pump-boy would put gasoline in my TDI
The vehicle shuts down and will not run until adblue is in the tank. That was a compromise the Germans made with the wonks at CARB that set the emissions standards for the whole country. The EPA are just yes men to California Air Resources Board. I believe all the vehicles stuck with that goofy system get free refills for the period of the warranty.
If I were to buy a Diesel Mercedes, I would get a used one prior to the blutec engine. Our tax dollars have paid to develop a much better system and it is only being used in other countries.
Urea plays an important role in the metabolism of nitrogen-containing compounds by animals, and is the main nitrogen-containing substance in the urine of mammals.wiki
Seems that I read it is about 20% Urea in a water base.
The BlueTec system, for example, injects water-based urea solution into the exhaust system. The ammonia produced by decomposition of the urea reacts with the nitrogen oxide emissions and is converted into nitrogen and water within the catalytic converter.
Mazda’s latest four-wheel-drive likes a wee drink.
The Mazda CX-7 uses a special man-made liquid similar to human urine to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The compound, called AdBlue, is a mixture of roughly one-third pure urea and two-thirds demineralised water.
It is already widely used in the trucking industry in Europe and Australia and is common in diesel cars in Europe, but Mazda is the first to use the technology on a passenger vehicle in Australia.
The technology, called selective catalyst reduction, involves injecting the urea-based liquid into the car’s exhaust system to turn NOx emissions into harmless nitrogen and water.
http://www.theage.com.au/drive/motor-news/the-car-that-uses-urine-to-save-the-pl- anet-20091014-gwiy.html
Mercedes GLK220CDI or C220CDI
BMW X3 2.0d or 320d
Best next thing is VW, they have the 4cylinder diesel market cornered with the Golf and Jetta.
PS
The GLK CDI is also a good choice along with the Q5 with 2.0L TDI
Apparently they have decided they need to sell 10K per year to break even on the investment necessary to make their diesel emissions-compliant. But they have another problem, similar to the one Honda had: currently their global diesel is manual-trans-only, and of course they have to have an automatic available for the soft Americans, or they will never hit their sales targets....
Since Mazda and VW sales are on the same order of magnitude, it seems like Mazda could probably sell small diesel models profitably here, since VW seems to be able to. But in their home market, there is a lot of pressure to be offering three kinds of hybrids and all-electrics as well, so their diesel program wouldn't serve them that well at home.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That and the awd system in the Tiguan can't handle the torque the TDI puts out.
I really have no problem driving my gas guzzler Sequoia as long as the EPA has their head up you know where. For those of US that would like to use less fossil fuel, we are constantly blocked by the Federal Government.
Tiguan TDI 4motion
In 2009 with literally multiple decades of atempted "attitude" adjustment, good mpg cars (usually compact and even most mpg figures are.... poor ) are only less than 25% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
The other 75% of the passenger fleet are cars that get so called LESS mpg !! Even with the current 27 mpg so called "standards," the real or defacto figures are between 18-22 mpg, if lucky, (aka WILDLY optimistic) . With SUV's being 12% of the population, folks who buy them are REALLY only complying with the Fed.Gov's (REAL) policy. The overwhelming majority of the fleet are gasoline. This is so even when diesel is acknowledged to be anywhere from 20-40% better ! Indeed it would be a very easy case to make, that the recent domestic auto industry debacle was due to folks NOT following the Fed.Gov policy !!!! (aka NOT buying LESS mpg vehicles like... SUV's !!
I am sure you would agree, but it is difficult to buy more diesels when MORE diesels are not on the market.
What does your SUV get.... 18 mpg ? Would you have bought a diesel Sequoia if it got 20-40 % better mph? (21.6 to 25.2) Probably the most germane question would be it was an available DIESEL option? Seems to have worked with the Jetta diesel. The IRS even gave the Jetta TDI a tax credit of $1,300!
It all adds up to an EPA that is controlled by the oil companies. Gasoline started out as a waste product of the refining process and continues to this day. So why not get the masses to use it?
Again, what part of MASSIVE won't diesel deny 'ers acknowledge / understand? If I may also mention, the 35 mpg (almost) meets the small car definition of the new upcoming 2012 standards of 35.5 mpg !!
The Jetta's 03 VW TDI vs the 09 VW TDI is a demonstration in "regulatory" speak. As vilified as TDI's were WAY back in 2003 ( :P ) Both are/were/continue to be... 50 state legal. The 03 (EPA 42/49) gets a range of 44 to 62 mpg and during a point a to b commute gets 48-52 mpg. . The 09 (EPA 29-30/40) gets a (SHORTER) range of 39-47 mpg and during the same point a to b commute gets 39-47 mpg. Either obviously exceeds the "old/current standard" of 27 mpg and the 2012, 35.5 mpg. ( both of course can be hypermiled to achieve... more)
While slow to take hold www.edmunds.com does show 39 vehicles with the diesel option.
Eventually, diesels or no, hybrids or no, one of the greatest and cheapest gains in fuel economy we can achieve will be by slowing down these cars and trucks. Nobody needs to hit 60 mph in 7 seconds in a 5000-pound SUV like Gary's Sequoia. Nor do they in the average family sedan.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I would be willing to downsize to an Audi A4 Allroad Quattro TDI if they were sold here. They get over 40 MPG on the highway. That is as small as I will go for taking vacations. Too much stuff for an A3 or any other econobox sized vehicle. It would be nice to get 50+ MPG without sacrificing handling. The A3 also has a clearance problem for me as does the Jetta and Golf.
Sadly the only A4 Allroad TDI we will probably get has the same 3.0L engine that is being sold in the Q7. It will make the speed freaks happy in the US. 0-62 MPH in 6.4 seconds.
That means me!
Lol, I'd love that or an A6 Avant TDI.
There are several duplicate listings for the same vehicle showing an 09' and a 2010.
For 2010 there are only 7 car options;
Audi A3 wagon, BMW 335d sedan, Mercedes R class, VW Jetta sedan & wagon, and Golf two door & four door.
And 5 SUVs for 2010;
Audi Q7, BMW X5, Mercedes ML & GL, & VW Touareq.
Bring on the Mercedes C250CDI & GLK250CDI, BMW 320d, and Mini diesel please.
I used to think that myself... till I drove in some parts of Pennsylvania. Some of their highways have traffic moving at 65+ MPH and there is NO ONRAMP .... you must start from a stop sign and need to get up to speed ahead of that 18-wheeler which is coming up fast. (I70 near New Stanton)
My 1.9L TDI just barely makes it wth FULL THROTTLE accelleration and tactful gearshifts. Dont get me wrong, my TDI likes to accellerate like that and I would not trade it for anything that gets less than 50MPG average.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I remember when I owned a 1970 Simca 1204 (aka 1100 in Europe), I did a lot of driving on interstates in PA, NY, and in the Chicago area. All with a 1.2 litre 60HP engine and a 4-speed manual gearbox. It would cruise at 75 all day long without a whimper and deliver 35MPG+.
Smart driving techniques kept me alive with that vehicle; the same as literally hundreds of thousands of drivers across the country driving underpowered 36 to 50HP VW bugs on the freeways. It can be done, you just have to know the limits and change your driving style.
However I would change NONE of the latest VW's, ( 03/09 TDI's) for circa 1970's VW "BUG's" nor the NHTSA accident fatality back drops of the times. While anybody can google the figures for those time periods. The graphic of BLOOD ALLEY vs the LATEST lowest fatality (accident also ) rates in NHTSA record history sure beats it !! While one would be tempted to pine for the "good ole days", the fact of the matter: ... THESE are the good ole days !
Also, the wankle-cycle engines with the 15,000 RPM redline sounded sweeet and made lots of power/weight. Now, even 2-cycle diesles are hard to find.
At least my push lawnmower is 2-cycle and I have a tripple-cylinder motorcycle in the basement 8-)