Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Or, if the owner is madly in love with the engine he/she will just pay the bill every time it goes out on the town for a binge and comes limping home all apologetic. Lurking over at TDI Club leaves me with the impression that the owners hate the vehicle and love the engine. Longevity is good but what's the actual cost of getting to 225,000 miles if every part around the engine has to be replaced before the engine begins to show any age?
Diesel Tax Incentives are given a RED STAR for attention on the front page of the fueleconomy.gov website
However, it's a mentally difficult way to truly appreciate and understand the difference between the efficiency of vehicles, as it makes us think that going from 45 to 50mpg (as an example) has the same benefit as going from 20-25mpg.
If we thought about it as gallons per (100) miles, it would be easier to understand.
14.3 mpg = 7 gal per 100 miles
16.7 mpg = 6 gal per 100 miles
20mpg = 5 gal per 100 miles
25 mpg = 4 gal per 100 miles- so, you save 1 gallon.
to save one more gallon, you need to get 33 mpg.
to same one more gallon again, you need to get 50 mpg!
i.e. so, you save ***twice as much*** gas going from 14.3 mpg to 20 mpg, as you do going from 33 mpg to 50 mpg. Maybe that Hybrid Tahoe isn't such a bad idea!
There's not very much additional *gas* savings between 41mpg and 48mpg, or whatever a prius gets. Diminishing returns.
stinkydiesel).I'll even quit posting links - maybe that'll help. :shades:
GPC is a far better metric than MPG. One makes it clear how much fuel is being used. It puts responsibility on the driver. The other is an ephemeral game 'How far can I get on one gallon'.
The Tahoe/Yukon hybrids are fantastic for us as a country. If they are to be sold on the roads I propose that they all should be hybrids. They also address the worst problems first....the least efficient vehicles in the least efficient driving conditions.....SUVs in City driving.
"will people TRUST the EPA ratings on diesel cars when these cars hit the US market?"
I happen to like diesel and I can see no reason a diesel should cost more than a gas engine. It isn't like we have to pay for the R&D for the process. The excuse for the extra cost in a hybrid was always R&D.
Here is the problem as I see it. It cost more to buy a diesel. Diesel cost more at the pump. Diesel cost more to service at this time. And if there is a problem with fuel useage diesel is not going to solve much of anything.
If everyone in the US switched to diesel in the next ten years fuel useage would still increase world wide as China and India move into the auto age full bore.
So bio diesel may be a solution but unlike another poster McBiodiesel seems a better source that other biodiesel because of the effect on our food supply. Same problem with ethanol. So I am still pulling for plug ins and other EVs. And then there in Hydrogen, the most plentiful element in the universe, if an infrastructure can be established.
Now if there is no real fuel shortage and we are having our leg pulled again diesels will have a harder time because or the performance differences between them and a gas engine in a car.
As far as electricity generation goes for charging EVs. Atomic energy works fine with me. Yes they can build one in my back yard I don't care.
Do you think you'll get a good resale price for it?
This car was a steal to drive (as far as fuel costs) in the early-mid 80s when we thought the world was going to end at $2-3 gas prices. I did a mental calculation with diesel at $5 a gallon and it would still be ridiculously cheap to drive at the MPG figures it got compared to almost everything else on the road now, except hybrids.
Granted, EPA would never let a car like the '81 Diesel Rabbit out on the road now with the smoky exhaust it had, but I think cheap oil and the US Government has let auto manufacturers worldwide get lazy as far as improving fuel performance. Frankly, I think that if VW were to research back into its engineering records and combine the old early-80s models with the technology currently available (or in development), they could certainly meet or exceed what we had then!
Damn, we should be able to get a diesel that approaches the hybrids' performance just on that, with marginal emissions increases (or a waiver)! Why isn't anyone asking the same question?
Actually I see them for sale here in CA a lot. They are perfectly legal with no smog tests required. As a matter of fact you can import any diesel car or SUV that is 20 years old or older with no smog restrictions. They should burn pretty clean with the mandated ULSD in the USA. Not as clean as the new diesels. The old ones did not have any smog crap on them.
So I bought a brand new Scion xA for about 1/2 the price and settled for a very real 34 MPG.
I did the same thing and got the same result with the Prius. I chose the Echo instead, where I continue to average about 42 mpg, again at roughly half the initial cost for the vehicle.
With my driving pattern I should do much better in a diesel than in a hybrid, but I would definitely rent one if I were intending to buy, and see how I did for mpg. If it were not a very significant improvement over a small gas car, I would just get a small gas car.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If VW does put the independent mileage test numbers on the window sticker it will help those on the fence.
For me I lost faith in the EPA 10 years ago. So it means nothing except the loss of a tax credit which I would not get anyway, unless Congress gets rid of AMT.
Um, that would be followed by a Great Big ole "NOT!"
Go to the EPA forum and I will expound.
What percentage of SERIOUS Jetta shoppers do you think would come into the showroom having never heard of the independent MPG test? Or never having visited the vw.com website? And who would only know about the EPA numbers? And who would not be told about the 38/44 tests by the salesperson?
That would probably be about 1% I would guess. VW is not going to lose any serious buyers because of the EPA results.
Perhaps some others would like to add their .09 cents?
I'm going to rent or borrow the vehicle and see what it does, or, second best, rely on a LONG TERM testing MPG done by a reputable car magazine.
In the case of the Prius, the long term car mag tests tipped the public off long before the EPA did.
maybe the gas-powered-V8 or maybe the VW TDI.
If I change vehicles I'm considering upgrade by super-sizing to a larger/stronger/more-capable-for-skiing diesel vehicle: short-list contains: 09 or 2010 vw tdi wagon, bmw diesel x5 or 335d. used benz diesel E or R. jeep GC-CRD.
VW TDI with snow tires is rather unstoppable as a ski-vehicle however. VWs are fantastic cars, diesels especially so - don't listen to the haters ! !
1. The process of bringing it into compliance with EPA emission standards had not materially compromised the reliability, driveability, or fuel consumption.
2. I did not feel that I was being ripped off by an unreasonable price premium either by the manufacturer or by the dealer.
Of course, I would run the numbers for the lower consumption vs. the higher price of fuel, but I would not require that the numbers come out strictly in favor of the diesel, since I put value on the greater ability to use presently available alternative fuels such as biodiesel. In short, I would buy a diesel unless there was an obvious reason not to.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
It turned out to be a non worry given stations added diesel - the fact that diesel is used by our major transport system ie trucks. Most Americans that bring up diesel as being an access issue are also generally not aware of it even when it is available.
Another thing to note when the car gets around 30% better milege you find that your stopping less to fuel up and can go much farther so this also helps with the whole access issue.
The arguments against diesel all pretty much fall flat especially with the new TDI technology of clean running smooth and sprited engines. There is a very - very good reason Diesel is the preferred choice in every country outside of the US.
- Better fuel economy: My truck (Dodge Ram 3500 Quad Cab 4x4 dually, Cummins diesel) gets about the same mileage as the base Ram 1500 regular cab shortbed with a V6 gasser. Yet my truck weighs 3000 pounds more, is 40 inches longer/17 inches wider/6 inches taller, seats twice as many people, and has enough payload to carry that 1500 in the bed.
- Far more usable power: My trucl hits a torque peak of 610 lb-ft at just 1500 rpm, and a horsepower peak of 325 at 2900. Check the hp/torque peaks of today's gasoline engines - max torque is achieved at 4000+ rpm and hp is well above 5000 (sometimes close to 7000). Who drives all day at those rpms? And how long would that engine last doing it? I have 3.73 axle ratios to compensate for the factory 32-inch tires. There are family cars out there with 4.39 axles so that all that high-rpm power can actually get used, at the expense of the engine revving that high all the time.
- Longevity and durability: Diesels don't blink at 200,000 miles, gasoline engines generally are in bad shape at that mileage. And diesels thrive on hard work, when a gasser will usually ask for a couple days off.
I have no trouble affording the truck. But even if I had to change vehicles and downsize, I would still stay with a diesel.
kcram - Pickups Host
That is good advice for any make or model of vehicle. Gas or diesel. VW or Lexus. Trusting a dealer to treat you honestly is a BIG mistake.
so what I mean is that the very characteristics that might charm a big pickup owner might turn off a passenger car buyer.
I presently own an '05 Jeep Liberty Diesel with about 70k miles on it. The vehicle has been essentially trouble free (except for recalls) and I normally get 25+/- in the summer and 23 +/- in the winter for combined driving. I recently got just under 28 mpg on a long trip at 75mph with the AC on.
Considering that I never got better than 17.5 mpg with my XTERRA I am ok with diesel being 20% more at present as my "extra" cost per gallon is more than offset by the increased mpg . During the time I have had the Jeep diesel was actually lower cost than gasoline during summer months. Maybe this will happen again, but who knows.
I have never experienced a problem with locating a diesel station either. I don't remember the exact stat, but I believe about 60% of stations sell diesel. In addition, I use a bio-diesel blend when I can find it which further reduces my use of fossil fuels.
In addition, with the recent introduction of ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) the cars production of pollutants is reduced AND the fuel itself does not smell much anymore.
All in all I believe "clean" diesel technology is a good option.
There are two givens regarding diesel powered cars:
1. Diesel fuel smells worse than gasoline
2. Diesel engines have a lower redline (usually 4-5K RPM vs. 6-7K RPM)
Those issues aside, what would make me jump to a diesel is if there were no day-to-day driving penalties, which includes initial cost of ownership (no diesel premium!) and the cost of the fuel be roughly equivalent. The diesel should start up and perform just like an equivalent gasoline engine in the same car.
My folks owned a '72 MB 220D ... even in California, you had to wait 45-60 seconds for the "glow plugs" to warm up before you could start the car. It also rattled and smoked. If those issues were to be resolved, I could be tempted to drive a diesel.
At my local station, RUG is 3.779/gal and Diesel is 4.399/gal.
Well it's not that easy. Diesels need adjustments, injector maintenance, fuel filters, and fuel system inspections even beyond those of gas cars.
My folks owned a 1972 Chevrolet Kingswood Station Wagon that was lime green and looked like the family truckster from the movie Vacation. I don't judge all gasser cars based on that one. Technology has moved forward a bit during the last 40 years.
Chrysler sells a 300 diesel in Europe, but not here. If I had to downsize from a truck, I would run to my Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealer and get a 300 AWD diesel if it were available.
European spec 3.0L V6 diesel:
- 215 hp @ 4000 rpm
- 376 lb-ft @ 1600 (level through 2800) rpm
US spec 3.5L V6:
- 250 hp @ 6400 rpm
- 250 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm
No-brainer. Torque output of the Hemi, but down low (and steady) where you can use it. Far better fuel efficiency. No need to get the engine screaming for 200 hp... at the gas engine's torque peak, you're only at 181 hp - at the end of the diesel's torque plateau of 2800 rpm, you're already at 200 hp.
kcram - Pickups Host
As for "durability" I would challenge that assumption based on no real credible studies to suggest diesel car engines last longer than gasoline engines.
Again, we cannot assume the 500,000 + mile durability of a Peterbilt truck engine the size of a grand piano is to be duplicated by that of the putt putt in a VW TDI or a new diesel V8 engineered by Chrysler.
That is precisely what I have been saying on here for a long time. I loved cruising up and down long grades with the VW Passat TDI. 70-75 MPH and right at 2000 RPM with no loss of power on the toughest grades. A gasser even my big V8 Sequoia has to down shift to maintain 75 MPH going up our long hill on the Interstate. I will never buy another new gas vehicle.
So what it would take for me to buy a diesel vehicle is one I like.
So let's hope one you like comes along soon, eh?! ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
How about gas prices at $100, premium $100.02 and diesel $100.03 per gallon?
You see where I'm going with these questions:
Surely there is some such percentage-delta below which you would consider a diesel-required or premium-recommended vehicle? What is it?
ps - anyone seen TV show "ed and kate and 8" - they have 8 kids in childseats in a blue sprinter van
pps - a Yaris diesel would get W A Y more than 40 mpg.
ppps - anyone else want a corvette diesel? the corvette gas gets >30 mpg. corvette diesel would get >>40mpg on the highway.
pppps - I thnk me & gagrice both like some of the current/limited crop of diesel vehicles but are eager for more diverse diesel vehicles available.
The show is "John and Kate Plus 8", and, to my knowledge, the camera crew does not ride in the Sprinter when the family travels - they do mount a dash cam when they take long trips. They also own a "small" van - a Mazda MPV.
I believe that the only other option available to them would have been a GM or Ford 15 passenger van. The Sprinter, with its 5-cyl diesel, has to get WAY better mileage than one of those.
As for the discussion of the lack of power in gasoline cars, here probably isn't a modern car in the United States without adequate power to do whatever the average commuter needs. It wasn't that long ago that a car that did 0-60 in the nines was considered fast. Now people seem to think you are a danger to yourself and to everyone else on the road with a car that slow. In 1987, I had a car with 73 horsepower. As an impatient teenager, I had no trouble maintaining 100 mph on the interstate or passing people on two lane roads. It would be hard to find a new car for a 16 year old boy that doesn't have too much horsepower for his driving skills.
With trucks people now apparently need 600 lbs of torque to tow a trailer when people were doing this in the '70s with with inline sixes? I suspect we've long since confused our wants and needs.
kcram - Pickups Host
My turbocharger starts to whistle at about 1800 rpm... I don't need motorcycle-class revs to get a pleasing sound.
The car I learned to drive in was my dad's 1980 Buick Century, 3.8L V6, 110 hp/170 lb-ft moving 3200 pounds of body-on-frame rear-wheel drive car. Yeah, I was a Starsky & Hutch fan from the 70s, but I knew I wasn't driving that red Gran Torino. It wasn't until 1990 that I got my first car (didn't really need my own until then), and what did I get? A retired NJ State Police 1985 Ford LTD unmarked interceptor... not the Crown Vic, but the smaller rebadged Fairmont. Complete with the police version of the just-revived-at-the-time HO 302. It only weighed 2700 pounds and did 0-60 in 7 flat. I only had it 4 months due to chronic cooling issues, but it was lots of fun dropping Trans Ams, IROC-Zs, and even a Corvette with something that looked like grandma's hand-me-down car. But that was enough to get my speeding out of my system.
I agree that 600 lb-ft is above what most consumers would need from a truck. The problem however is, trucks are MUCH heavier than they used to be. My 2005 Ram weighs 1000 pounds more than my 1996 did, and they're the same configuration (extended cab, 4x4, dually, Cummins diesel). And the 96 weighed a good 1000 pounds more than what duallies weighed 15 years prior. All that weight is from all the creature comforts and safety equipment requested/required. Twenty years ago, an AM radio was an option - now a CD player is standard. Same for climate control, seating, insulation, and other features. Add in airbags, side impact beams, boxed frames, and bigger wheels/tires/brakes, and those torque ratings are a necessity if you actually put stuff in the bed or on the hitch.
kcram - Pickups Host
kcram - Pickups Host
I currently drive a Chevy SS that puts out about 325 lbs./ft. at a pretty low rpm, the kind of power that's just perfect for me, I get nervous just hearing those screaming rpm engines mentioned above. But that's just a matter of preference, neither is wrong.
But what I don't understand is when I'm driving around and I want to get on it for whatever reason, I'm cruising at maybe 1800 to 2500 rpms, when I get on the pedal, I want that push you back torque right now which I get, but who drives around at 4000 rpms all day, which seems to me to be necessary if you want big torque in these high-revving cars? I'm not criticizing those who prefer this, I just don't understand always being at or above 4000 rpms in order to get performance, maybe just to old to understand.
With modern 6-speeds, you don't have to cruise at 4000 rpms. If you want torque, just downshift.
The more than ample payoff (IMO) is that wonderful sound and power surge the engine will deliver when it is spinning up to its 7000+ rpm redline, not to mention the much better fuel economy the smaller engine will deliver when you ARE just loafing around town at 2000 rpm.
Now with a diesel, of course, the fuel economy advantage of the small gas engine is much less pronounced, but the pleasure of revving up that engine is still missing.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I get 30 MPG right now from my Cooper S using premium at $4.50 a gallon (sadly the Cooper must go). Diesel's about $5 a gallon, so even at a miseraly 37 mpg, I'd be saving on fuel costs. The $1300 tax credit (which translate to a huge tax write-off) and tremendous resale of the diesel also make the TDI exceptionally attractive.
Really the only thing holding me back:
FWD
soft suspension
No OEM xenons