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
If you are afraid I left off RUG, it is at 3.75 per gal and the fuel mileage for the engine that burns RUG is still 27 mpg. You can run the calculations perhaps you can see it better (running the crackulator) at your own hands.
I have a 04 Civic gets a range of 38-42 mpg. If I had to pick one mpg number for planning purposes, 38 mpg. However the best I can figure/swag is the 04 diesel Civic (not available on the US markets obviously) gets a range of 52-56 mpg.
I would submit that perhaps a majority of the reason why diesel has to overcome so MANY hurdles is that it is ACTUALLY cheaper to run than RUG to PUG engines. RUG to PUG indeed (defacto) allow more consumption and allow more taxation per mile driven. The goal has never been to DECREASE the per mile driven costs, but to INCREASE them. PO's energy secretary has gone on official but unofficial record that the price of fuel needs to go as high or higher than the prices in the EU., which at this time is far closer to $10. per gal than here.
What can’t Rainer Zietlow and his team do? Actually, the answer to that question may be “arrive fashionably late.” These intrepid travelers braved snowy passes, scorching summer heat and less-than-stellar road conditions to drive from Ushuaia, Argentina to Deadhorse, Alaska in a Volkswagen Touareg TDI Clean Diesel to complete the TDI-Panamericana Endurance Challenge faster than expected.
After driving through 14 countries and covering nearly 16,000 miles, the elated (but tired) team reached their destination. Here’s more from Rainer:
http://thinkblue.vw.com/you-can-stop-asking-if-we%E2%80%99re-there-yet-rainer-an- d-team-reach-their-destination-ahead-of-schedule/
I am waiting for them to post their overall mileage. Two days from El Paso to Alaska, you know they were pushing the speed limit, just a tad. That is about 3400 miles in just two days. They did not have to stop often for diesel with over 100 gallons of fuel capacity. Without the added tank 700 miles is pretty easy.
Dang, such a beautiful drive and they blasted through. Such a waste. :shades:
I didn't know it at the time (as it was actually a nice day, albeit HUMID) , I was going through New Orleans, that I was 4 to 6 hours ahead of (now known as) Hurricane Katrina hitting land and the resultant flooding of New Orleans. I turned on the horror story in a business hotel in Houston, TX.
Steve, I bet they take more time going back to where ever home is. I would be surprised at those speeds if they got over about 22 MPG on the trip. The Touareg may be used as a advertising vehicle at VW dealers in the USA. The drivers are from Germany and Spain. Or they may fly it back to the factory and tear it apart to see how it held up.
Have I got this math right?
If you wanted to average 80 mpg for 3 hours---that would mean you'd cover 240 miles.
Now, if you did the first hour at 80 mph and in the second hour you stopped 15 minutes for gas, then for the 3rd hour you'd have to go 100 mph to average 80.
Hard enough finding gas sometimes; bet running low on diesel would make you paw through the Milepost extra carefully.
I never drove a diesel through Canada so did not pay any attention. The guys in the Touareg had 79 gallons in their auxiliary tank. That was so they would not have to run anything but ULSD on the trip. That should have given them enough range to find clean diesel.
Just looking at their tracking map, they hit El Paso just after midnight of the 11th of July. They crossed the Alaska Border at 11:30 AM on the 13th. That would be 59 hours. That would be under 58 MPH average. Easy to make that and not break a lot of speed laws.
http://tdi-panamericana.com/
http://thinkblue.vw.com/diesel-tracker/
Our current best price in San Diego is $3.97
Low prices are 3.67 for gas and 3.83 for diesel near me.
22mpg combined is a little less than I expected, but those aren't the final numbers. Gasser gets 19mpg.
Changes are very subtle but upon closer inspection it's all new sheetmetal. At first it looked like a face-lift, but they say length, width, height all changed.
It parks itself! LOL
Let's assume 12k miles per year, and I'll use 3.67 for gas and 3.83 for diesel, and the combined numbers (19mpg gas, 22mpg diesel).
Whoops, though, the Benz likes premium fuel, right? $3.89. That makes things more interesting...
12,000 miles / 19mpg = 632 gallons, at 3.89 annual fuel cost is $2457.
Now diesel:
12,000 miles / 22mpg = 545 gallons, at 3.83 annual fuel cost is $2089.
So you save $368 per year, but you also enjoy 16% more range from each tank.
$1500 more for the diesel model, so the break-even only takes 4 short years.
I'm willing to bet overall maintenance will be lower and residuals will be higher, so the smart money is on the diesel model.
Wonder how soon Edmunds will have TCO number up for both? Would be interesting to compare.
Still, 4 years' break-even is very short. Easily worth the $1500 up front. And I bet you get half of that back (or more) at resale. Just wait to sell it during a gas price spike, which seems to happen every other month nowadays.
The Passat TDI used to have a big gas tank, so it also had 700+ mile range, but for some reason VW made it smaller and took that away. In fact the diesel tank actually had less capacity than the gasoline tank did on the same model. Dumb.
My conspiracy theory? Either VW wanted less weight, or they factored in the higher price of diesel and didn't want customers complaining about the cost of a full tank of fuel.
Gary: do you recall your tank's capacity? What sort of range were you getting with your TDI?
To me the Prius' biggest weakness is the small gas tank.
Another reason Prius is so successful at "conspicuous conservation" is that it doesn't look like any other Toyota, whereas a Jetta or Passat diesel looks just like its gas counterpart.
A really bizarre example of "conspicuous conservation" came from reports from contractors who said that people would ask them to put solar panels on the SHADY side of their house, if that was the street side, so that their neighbors could see them. :surprise:
I enjoy both TDI's because you can pretty much drive up to autobahn speeds and do rather well in the mpg dept.
Don't forget with ULSD you are free from that nasty ethanol that slowly destroys your fuel system.
Too bad it's nearly $52k now. Is it just me has that price been creeping up fast? I guess the GLK slotted beneath it, so that allowed them to move it up the price ladder.
I guess to compete with the newer, cost-cut Jetta TDI.
I'd still get the old Jetta Sportwagen before the bean counters get a hold of that model and do what they did to the sedan.
That's interesting.
Had no idea soot weighed that much.
A 400+ mile range is nice, but I'm always stopping once or twice an hour anyway.
I don't think it is creeping up. When I bought the Sequoia I looked at both a used 2007 GL 350 CDI and the ML 350 CDI. The ML was well over $50k and the used GL diesel was $72K. I just could not write a check for $72K for a vehicle at that time. And Toyota was discounting their Sequoia limited by $10,000 below MSRP. It will take a real deal to get me to buy anytime soon. I think if MB were to get their head out of you know where and offer the ML 250 Bluetec I would get out my check book. 39 MPG in a luxury SUV with 900 miles of range would be more than I could resist.
I see the MSRP for the ML350 Bluetec is the same $50,490 for both 2011 and 2012. However the 2011 model is discounted by $3500. I like the looks of the new one slightly better.
My 2005 Passat Wagon TDI had a 16 gallon tank
I imagine a ML250 would still outrun a Prius, though not by much.
16 gallons, yeah, I think earlier models had 18 gallon tanks. I guess you only gave up 80 miles or so of range on the highway.
The claim is 0-62 MPH in 9.0 seconds. Not bad for a 4700+lb vehicle. Get out your calculator. These mileage numbers only work in the UK. They also meet the new EU6 emissions. Which should pass CARB regs.
At market launch of the new M-Class, there are three models available: With fuel consumption according to NEDC of 47.0 mpg (158 g CO2/km), the extremely fuel-efficient ML 250 BlueTEC 4MATIC delivers an output of 204 hp along with 500 newton metres of torque. It can accelerate from a standing start to 62 mph in 9.0 seconds, while its top speed is 130 mph. The ML 350 BlueTEC 4MATIC, is almost as frugal, returning 41.5 mpg. With a maximum output of 258 hp and ample torque of 620 Nm, the V6 diesel can accelerate to 62 mph in 7.4 seconds and reach a top speed of 139 mph. With 306 hp, the petrol-engined ML 350 4MATIC BlueEFFICIENCY has an average consumption, according to NEDC, of 33.2 mpg, with a top speed of 146 mph.
http://www.greencarsite.co.uk/ecocar/Mercedes-M-Class-ML-250-BlueTEC-4MATIC.htm
PS
I trust NEDC to get the mileage for a diesel much closer to reality than the EPA.
So for example, the European 03 TDI Jetta got 100 hp/177 # ft and with a 6 speed manual, posting 52 mpg. The US 03 Jetta wound up being 90 hp/155# ft with a 5 speed manual, posting 50 mpg (EPA 42c/49 h) So for as much as the US mantra's about better fuel mileage, they saw fit to let in a 52 mpg car hit the US market with only 50 mpg. I read in passing they were concerned about "the massive power differential". Ah,... let's see, 90 hp vs 100 hp or +/- 10 hp. So I guess a 400 hp Chevrolet Corvette is chopped liver? :sick:
It's not unlike driving a Prius 80 mph on the freeway--completely defeats the purpose of the instrument.
Actually Al had a pretty good answer for why he consumes X times more energy...his house is X times bigger than ours!
The diesel car ultimately defeats this logic---with a diesel car, you can have a bigger car getting small car economy.
I might still have it, but the idiots at the Mercury shop put timing belt on 1 tooth off, 10 degrees late and ran it for a very long time before discovered.
I'd gladly drive a diesel today, all someone needs to do is to give me (or sell me very cheaply) a new E350 Bluetec, quartz blue with light interior, P2, pano, sport, and some other gadgets...sounds good to me.
VW Aero
With average commute speeds approaching 70-75mph, yes, it needs to be more like 100mpg and 2x the displacement - and least a 85mph top speed.
I have this image of these tiny little cars being driven by half-crazed eco-freaks with their feet planted to the floorboards while looking over their shoulders and hoping that the SUV coming up on them will slow down enough once they merge.
And, yes, it IS cheaper than a coffin.
I'd take it on the freeway for short hops. I've driven far worse with pre-war cars.
Still, a 100mpg U.S. spec version for, say, $3000 ($500 of that's going to be the airbag at least) would be a very nice trick. I personally do like the 1+1 seat previous version, though. 1 person just isn't quite enough, either.
Yes, there are always the few and the fearless who ride home-made 3-wheelers, electric golf carts, and kit cars made from old Yugos, but most Americans are not going to drive a car with no AC, spongy cloth seats, a stickshift and an AM radio and hand-cranked windows.
Even if you sold it for $5000 brand new, people would rather go out and buy a used Accord or something.
I hear enough VW horror stories that I'd be too gun shy to get one of those.
Juice, VW certainly does have the reputation, although I've seen a few signs that the dealers have improved some.