By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
So for example, on new cars sales in CA, TAX, LICENSE and Documentation fees approach 10%. So per 10k that is app $1,000. The finance companies get in on the act also (the devil's in perpetual debt?) . They also finance the taxation? Insurance is also THE highest on new cars. I am sure that if you are not careful the insurance companies insure the value PLUS the taxation? So naturally the state/s are not going to send you a GROSS WASTER letter, if you buy "NEW every TWO !!?? Shoot for that matter, buy a new one EVERY YEAR !!???
So for example anyone can do the sales taxes on $1,000 per 10 k.
So using one cars example: if I keep it 400,000 miles and paid $1,162.16 sales tax, that would be sales taxation of .0029054 cents per mile driven.
For the length of a 4 year loan and do 12,000 to 15,000 miles (average AM drivers yearly mileage: 48,000 to 60,000 miles: my example) it is now between .0242 to .01937 cents per mile driven. That is 833% to 667% more ?
Blame the driver, not the car.
Al Gore Junior proved a Prius can break 100mph, LOL.
Is it really a new generation? Because it looks a lot like the old one. Seems more like an update.
Any how, 900 mile range - SWEET!
PS the lines seem much cleaner to me. I hate all the lumps too many vehicles have in their styling. Also notice the have the CD value down to 0.32. That is not my old Suburban brick. The RX440h has a CD value of 0.36.
But sadly, for people getting 32 MPG already, the 39 MPG MB would only save a little bit per tank, considering the gas/diesel fuel prices right now.
I did the math for a 958 mile drive in each vehicle, my 2007 TCH versus the MB:
Amount saved in driving 958 miles by changing to the MB from the TCH:
$16.38 cents
Now, you project that over 100,000 miles, or more, and that's a significant savings in fuel costs. A little over $1709 saved in 100K miles.
But the TCH costs $27K. The MB might cost what, double that? Then $700 to change the urea every xxx miles?
So, as the story goes from when people compare an Elantra to the Prius - if you have to pay more for the car, the gas savings really don't mean as much.
This marvelous diesel car is only targeted at people for whom cost is no object.
An easy example is the 04 Civic. As good as 38-42 mpg is, I would have much preferred that same Civic with a TDI engine. Research indicates 52-56 mpg or app 37% better fuel mileage.
I think the only thing "stacked" against diesel is buyer attitudes and automaker lack of courage.
They are afraid to spend money marketing a new engine, only to have it fail. They can't see the $$$ at the end being guaranteed, while they can see the profit of the smaller gasoline cars with their own two eyes.
Why would any oem sell cars for a loss? GM and Chrysler did that and for years. !!!!! Was it or was it not wonderful that YOU bailed them out? :sick: :lemon:
Having said that, (as a consumer) I was lucky in buying an 03 Jetta TDI where marketing forces (did conspire- in hopefully a NON illegal way) let VWA lose what 2 B that year?
Now TDI sales I am lead to belive were app 4% of total production. (9,000 units). If we FF to the so called later models 09-2011, the percentage is way up and from 25 to 22% of total productions. We have of course seen the JSW is more like 84% TDI. VWA is and has been posting profits.
I'm the same way with gas - my van goes 400-500 miles between fill-ups.
Here in Potomac has is $3.79, but my beach condo has fuel all over the place for $3.59.
The good thing about having 450+ miles worth of range is that I usually only fill up at the beach.
20 cents may not sound like much, but over 100,000 miles that would amount to roughly $800 savings.
Enough to buy a GPS that includes gas prices. LOL
The so called "sterling I 4's I 6's and V6's" are normally from Japanese and European oems. Now I have to admit I like the 6 speed manual transmissions such as T-56 and 6066's.
GM did to diesels what the designers of the Aztek did to automobile styling.
Many of the new EVs will be either coal-powered or natural gas powered. They may end up polluting less than a regular gas car, just by the fact that they may consume less coal/gas, but no less than a Prius, and perhaps even more polluting than a Prius or a gas car in some parts of the country. How ironic.
If Ford would have sold this truck here I would still be driving it and saved how many barrels of oil over the last 13 years.
Not sure how this would work in the USA, since diesel fuel does not enjoy the price advantage it enjoys in some parts of Europe, but there's no reason to think that our psychological make-up would be so different as to not tempt us to drive an extra 10%, since we're getting that 40+ mpg on our little diesel Golf.
I personally find no sound basis to advocate diesel as a solution to global warming, or I should say a mitigation to it, even though I'm a fan of diesel cars anyway for other appealing reasons.
LSD (pre Oct 2006) coult be up to 500 ppm sulfur. ULSD can not be greater than 15 ppm sulfur. That literally is a 97% reduction in sulfur related emissions. If one looks at it the other way LSD was 33.3 TIMES dirtier. On a personal point of view it was infinitely frustrating to have to use LSD when the 03 TDI I had was actually designed to use ULSD !!! So to me the blame was squarely on the legislative and regulatory bodies.
However, the two real spin off that are opaque to most folks including anti diesel folks: ULSD is delivered nominally to the pumps @ between 5 ppm to 10 ppm. So practically and really that is a 99% to 98% reduction. Part of the reason is the so called "safety factor" any ULSD found to be OVER 15 ppm is subject to MASSIVE FINES. This is unlike RUG to PUG which can be mitigated up to 90 ppm by off line fee mitigation.
The other spin off is ULSD is a portal to up to B-100, aka, biodiesel. Most biodiesel is ZERO ppm sulfur. For conversational and calculation purposes, let's call it 1 ppm sulfur. Biodiesel (in ALL its permutations) is literally "manufacture able", and infinitely fungible. This is both figuratively and literally an overwhelming exponential difference from oil which has to be "found" and believed by some to be a ZERO SUM GAME vs infinitely renewable, efficient, sustainable and consumes carbon dioxide in the process. etc etc. !!!
In contrast RUG to PUG can nominally be delivered at the pump up to 90 ppm sulfur (with off line fee mitigation) The standard is of course 30 ppm. Again RUG to PUG is 2 times to 18 times DIRTIER than ULSD.
Therefore my conclusion is that US emissions laws regarding diesel vehicles and the costs of producing them are the key issue to solve. There is a strong reason why all of the brands have diesels in Europe but only VW, Mercedes, BMW and Audi have diesel cars in the US and very few of them at that.
It is *not* that people won't buy them because of performance or reliability. They buy hybrids, and a diesel offers a much more engaging drive than most hybrids.
Indeed a diesel passenger car population of 26% (67.184 M diesel vehicles) and UP has with in it the structural ability to cut our oil consumption, by easily... 26%. When you add the fact those vehicles will be getting anywhere from 20-60% better fuel mileage it is obvious that EVEN less fuel is being consumed. Anything less than that is a SERIOUS signal of NON seriousness about the issue of decreased consumption.
I truly hope the Passat, the new American made and assembled product (Chattanooga, TN plant) does not drop the use of galvanized metals.
Personally I'm not of the belief that vehicle emissions have anything to do with global warming. That said, I agree we must be much better custodians of our planet, and as such it would be an advantage to us all if the pumping, refining, and consumption of fossil fuels was reduced to a mere fraction of what it is now.
With the above in mind, if we were to gradually convert our transportation vehicles to diesel, the door would then be much more open to a similar gradual increase in the use of algae-diesel (I hate the term "bio-diesel" as that can run the gamut from fry grease to recycled petroleum products). The problem with algae-diesel (as I see it) is that it solves way too many problems; consider the following:
-- The production of algae-diesel, if set up properly, can consume vast quantities of carbon based emissions from sources such as fossil fuel fired power plants.
-- The production of algae-diesel, if set up properly, can consume vast quantities of municipal, industrial, and agricultural waste.
-- Some of the best places for algae-diesel production are areas that are relatively arid and have no arable land or agriculture in current operation.
-- The relatively low yield of fuel grade oil with open-air algae ponds is still easily five times that of ethanol production (5,000 gallons per acre per year versus ~900 gallons per acre per year). Current enclosed production systems yield roughly 20,000 gallons per acre per year, and some estimates (wildly optimistic IMHO) suggest we will be able to approach the 100,000 gallon mark sometime down the road.
-- In addition to the fuel oil yield of algae production, there is also a yield of biomass which can be used as fertilizer and feed for live-stock.
-- Algae-diesel can be distributed and dispensed with zero changes to our current infrastructure.
Is algae-diesel cost effective at this point? If all one is doing is growing algae and extracting the fuel oil then no, however, if bio-mass sales and waste and carbon remediation are also put into the equation, then I believe algae-diesel is very near at break-even (if not already beyond it). If the U.S. was to engage in a concerted effort to move toward algae-diesel for all of our vehicular fuel, I believe the price would drop to a per gallon price rather lower than what we have now, and then stabilize for a good number of decades.
What's not to like?
Except when they'd set themselves on fire in Fieros.
RE: The Iron Duke....oh, yeah, that. Well if you match up the # that caught fire vs. the number that didn't, and if you weren't in the car that did--it's really not a big deal.
Start by cutting funding to this bunch of losers.
I always wondered what cars would be like if emissions regulations never existed, or never had to exist....would cars be huge belching monsters? Possibly so. :confuse:
Do you know all aviation products are not required to have "emissions controls"?
I can go on........... :sick: :lemon:
We also don't have very many diesel engine airplanes (I think a few made it up and down).
But that's a rant for another discussion I guess.
Funny thing though, Jet-A and diesel fuel are close enough in their properties to be considered one and the same from the perspective of reciprocating aero-diesel engines. Fuel your aircraft with ULSD or Jet-A, makes no difference, the engines are certified to burn both.
In the Arctic they only use Number 1 diesel to avoid gelling. It does not get the mileage you get with number 2 diesel. Alaska was given a waiver on ULSD. Not sure if that is still in effect.
It's quite interesting how the cost of fuel drives design isn't it?
The second begets the first. The Tetraethyl Lead (TEL) is the component in AvGas (and other leaded gasolines) which imbues said gasolines with higher anti-detonation ratings.