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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Probably a SoCal car that never saw rain or snow.
Not to mention it was the 3.0l V6, not a 4 banger, that he mentioned.
Where's the roll eyes icon?
Diesels can succeed without a bias against Japanese cars and outlier data (that VW pickup being the latest).
One bad apple does not ruin the batch. As you say, your Friday build, or whatever you want to call it.
JD Powers comes out and says that Brand X is the least problematic brand in their Durability survey, with 85 problems per 100 cars.
Nobody said 0 problems per 100 cars. Of course not.
Just because yours has more than average does not mean they all do. There are cars with fewer problems than average to balance it out. You point our your I6 Toyotas have been durable. Again - JDP measures the average.
You overestimate how important your personal experience is (hence, you're an outlier, same with the mileage reports).
If you were unlucky with your Toyota, imagine if you had been unlucky with a Volkswagon from the same era. You would have had 5 times as many problems with a Friday VW build.
So if they paid you off, you'd be fine? LOL
One bribe and all is forgiven... :lemon:
We really should move on with the diesels.
So after 176,000 miles (9 my's)and 32,000 miles (3 my's) we are happy with both.
Still wish the 2009 VW Jetta TDI posts more like the 2003 Jetta TDI, mpg wise.
I am going to take the Groucho Marx on that one.
Good idea. Whether it was a design problem or an oil change frequency problem or a bit of both, Toyota didn't handle it well.
Won't stop me from shopping a Prii though. But a Toyota (or VW or ...) diesel isn't on my radar. I do appreciate that they are getting cleaner; should be less worry about their fumes being an asthma trigger from some people.
Meanwhile, literally hundreds of thousands of Camry buyers keep coming back and buying more of them.
Rebuilt engine, respray on the paint, wonder what's underneath. He details problems with the brakes, A/C, radio, parking brake cable, heater, ball joints, tie rods, and admits other issues are likely to exist.
The owner obviously restored it and replaced just about everything that broke, but nearly nothing on it is original, except the partially rusted (that too) body.
145k miles but it's on the 2nd engine. Found an '85 Camry on cars.com with 165k miles on it.
Funny RUG was 4.15 per gal and ULSD was 4.25 or +.10 cents per gal more.
http://dieseltoys.com/conversions/toyota
They also do the biodiesel retrofitting and retrofitting for veggie oil. I have no interest in either.
If I had a vehicle that suffered from a poor design or engineering/manufacturing flaw, of course I would be happy that it was repaired under some type of warranty service that costs me nothing.
I would still be hesitant about making another purchase of a similar make/model vehicle without having some level of confidence the issue had been addressed and corrected so that the particular problem wouldn't resurface.
The attitude that "it broke, they fixed it", without implementing any effort to keep the incident from reoccurring seems a bit short-sighted to me.
In most cases, the dealerships that had to deny warranty claims were the very same entities that did the very short interval oil changes. (Toyota blamed owners for the issues) They also got the repair work normally when owners literally got screwed. Or shall I say their warranty claims denied.
Is it because of the engine, though?
The guy says he spent $5000 on parts and the current bid is $5500. Plus he spent years restoring it.
Best way to make a small fortune in cars is to start with a large fortune. :sick:
You don't even read my posts...
I just gave the example of 85 problems per 100 vehicles, 85 problems means 85 problems. Not fault free, I never said or even implied that, don't be silly.
There are a few cult diesel fans dumb enough to sink $5 grand in to a teeny pickup, and both of them are probably friends of yours.
I see 3 scenarios:
#1: no problem in the first place. Best-case scenario.
#2: had a problem, covered by warranty, a hassle but at least no out of pocket cost.
#3: had a problem, warranty denied for whatever reason, become disgruntled and flame away on-line.
If you think that, then you are wrong, as per normal. For a guy that is on a diesel thread, you sure want to talk a lot about NON diesels.
I would agree with you, however. Why would one want to spend 5,000 and probably years to restore a car worth $5,000 ???? That in effect was what I was faced with with the 1985 Toyota Camry when it went sludge minus the years and less monies on the worth of the vehicle. Senseless.
So perhaps, the hosts should set the course back to diesels.
The topic is durability, and while yes, some diesels are known for durability, it seems completely unfair to criticize gassers that were hugely successful and built entire brands.
Why? Because they were durable, too.
As I have noted, I have an I6 Toyota pushing over 200,000 + miles. Again you are making it out to say that : I am saying is grossly unfair about gassers (not durable) Your assumption and targets are WRONG.
It is grossly weird in your mind, not mine or my current realities. I am hoping for easily 300,000 miles. Are any of those miles an indication that I am saying gassers are NOT durable??
Glad the mountaining out of a mole hilling is subsiding.
There are a LOT of VW fans. Old Bugs, vans, and Rabbit diesels have cult like following. My neighbor has a VW Van body sitting on his flatbed trailer. Looks like it was just painted. I think it is fair to say the old VW Bug has a much larger following than anything Toyota EVER built. Some automakers build classics. Some throwaway cars. Thinking back the only Toy/Lex I would consider a classic was the early Lexus SC300/400. Now that was a car for the ages. Oh yeah, the first FJ40s when it is completely rebuilt with a domestic running gear.
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/cto/2861137955.html
After he has squandered BILLIONS on bankrupt solar projects he is going to invest how much into what should be a top priority????
The Department of Energy (DOE) currently spends about $85 million on 30 research projects "to develop algal biofuels," according to the White House, which announced that Obama is committing another $14 million to the idea.
Of course he does not mention the full on assault against diesel vehicles by the liberal swine in CARB and the EPA.
President Obama admitted today that he does not have a "silver bullet" solution for skyrocketing gas prices, but he proposed alternative energy sources such as "a plant-like substance, algae" as a way of cutting dependence on oil by 17 percent.
Here is what our supposedly educated President had to say about Algae, what a moron.
"We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance, algae -- you've got a bunch of algae out here," Obama said at the University of Miami today.
UNBELIEVABLE :sick:
So I say task the oems (like VW) to come up with a 100% bio diesel specification engine and let the regulators certify it, not do EVERYTHING in their power to shoot it down. People should also keep in mind that bio diesel has ZERO ppm sulfur. Given ZERO ppm sulfur RUG to PUG @ 30 ppm mitigatable to 90 ppm sulfur is MASSIVELY dirtier. So for example VW certifies their engines (2009 that I am familiar with) to run 5% bio diesel. Anything higher VOIDS the warranty.
"The president proposes, congress disposes".
Regarding all this talk of ancient diesels and old Toyotas, I think it just goes to prove my contention that bitter memories die hard in the minds of car buyers, and this is why anyone of driver's age in the 1980s who witnessed the fiasco of the GM diesel vehicles--they will all have to die before diesel passenger cars are a serious percentage of the US market, because that entire population bulge is never going to buy a diesel car IMO. (or most of them won't).
it's no fun being scalded on a purchase that represents a good chunk of (or ALL of) a year's income. People don't forget that kind of beating.
So, IF your theory is correct, THEN many more folks (percentage and volume) should have a bad taste and NOT buy gassers. In fact it SHOULD lead to pent up demand FOR diesels. I am sure you would agree that BOTH scenarios (not buy gassers and pent up demand for diesels because of those experiences) are NOT the case.
This should be revised.
Another utterly moronic issue: there are no passenger diesel engines that are currently specified to run on 100% biodiesel fuel.
"The president proposes, congress disposes".
Not exactly. He has been the one that pushed $billions in wind & solar energy projects through the Energy department. What I found clueless was his total lack of knowledge on the subject he was babbling about. Biodiesel from Algae has not gotten any real support as an alternative. In fact the Feds have done everything in their power to keep the American public from owning diesel vehicles. Completely blocking small diesel PU trucks and SUVs. So now that the price of gas goes up and he is totally befuddled, he pulls algal bio diesel out of the hat. And plans to award $14 million for research. Not having a clue about the process, says there is algae everywhere. And he says it in front of what I would hope was learned people at a University. He probably does not even know that ethanol that we have wasted $billions on causes a very bad algae killing off thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico. My guess the $14 million will go to a campaign contributor, we shall see.
RE: the "pushing" of solar tech, etc. ALL governments assist companies with going from the development stage to the marketing stage--the 'commercialization' stage. All this flap about failed products that the government put money into is just political hay-making. Everyone espouses the capitalist system of buying and selling stocks, with all the attendant risks, but when the governments of a country make the same gambles, sometimes hitting home runs and sometimes failing, there's some opportunist wishing to frame it as a political rather than a purely economic issue. And besides, the President of the US has no such powers to "spend" anything or dictate anything. he submits a budget to congress or works under existing laws.
The office of President could be completely done away with in the USA with no effect whatsoever on the economy. (presuming it wasn't a coup, I mean ) :P
You can't have it both ways, whether we're talking solar energy or diesel engines....the market determines the winners and losers. If a certain solar technology, or a type of diesel vehicle, cannot survive in the open market, then it wasn't good enough.
You might say: "but what of modern diesels?" Aren't they good enough?
Apparently good, but not good enough to conquer the efficient gasoline engine, no.
What's you need to get a 20% diesel car market share in the USA is, quite bluntly:
A diesel car that gets 40+ mpg, costs not one penny more than the gasoline equivalent, and burns fuel that costs not one penny more than RUG.
Ditto for diesel trucks.
The diesel can't even be the SAME as the gasoline car in MSRP, mpg and cost of fuel. It has to be a little better, or why switch to what you are used to?
MPG then (in my case) was an issue and guess what? 42 years later it still is !! I got something like 32-34 mpg while the majority of cars go what 10-15? Again 42-45 years later it is about the same !!!!!!! ???? So pardon me if i find what you are saying SOS DD.
Just let those 50-75 mpg diesel cars leak in and let the welfare folks like GM Chysler and Ford peddle what they must. 15-20 mpg hey CLOSE ENOUGH.
Okay, I'll answer that myself :P There is no conspicuous advantage to driving a diesel car at the present time.
american consumers aren't stupid---they can do the math.
Hyunkia, the Japanese, and the Euros are also welfare recipients in one way or another. All of our competitors aid their industries too. The big 2.5 should use such help to develop their own 50-75mpg diesels.
there is no such thing as a "free market"---that's a fairy tale that never was, and if it DID exist, you'd probably not want to live under it.
Free markets would be very good for a few.
The other thing that tells me the issue is false is the continued restriction of diesel cars. It isn't like they are not available or custom, Fully half the passenger diesel population in Europe is diesel. In almost every case (that I anecdotally know of) the diesel version is usually the better adaptation (like model) over the gasser.
12,000 miles at 35 mpg = 342 gallons at $3.99 per gallon = $1364
12,000 miles at 44 mpg = 272 gallons at $4.39 per gallon = $1197
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
12,000 miles at .10 cents per mile = roughly $1200
12,000 miles at . 11.5 cents per mile = $1380
I assure you my point is not to prove you wrong about all this, as YRMV, but only to point out that the incentive to own a diesel is not great at this time for most people, given the other choices available to them.
Seems to me that diesels carry more advantage in large trucks and SUVs than they do in little cars.
Again the same thing, if you like MINI's for example, a MINI TDI would be both better adapted and get a min of 30% better fuel mileage. In that case, I would take a MINI TDI over a gasser MINI.
Any one can look this up on www.fueleconomy.gov. 2003 VWJetta TDI, but the Jetta TDI gets much better than 30% fuel mileage over both gassers 2.0 normally aspirated and 1.8 T.
So for another example, if given the choice between my Honda Civic 38-42 mpg, which I am not unhappy with, and like model TDI, no question or hesitation Civic TDI. I know (project actually) I can easily get 52-56 mpg given the same commute. That is easily 37%-33% better fuel mileage. The gasser is also 34% more expensive per mile driven.
@ the risk of being repetitive, I am just fine with others paying much more per mile driven. Just mandate the diesel option and choice to those of us who like a better adaptive vehicle and are ok with spending LESS. The sole issue here is not to limit say YOUR choice, but to enhance the alternative fuels, like diesels or even natural gas, which is far cheaper than even diesel.
As you would agree there is a lot of oppositon under the guise of lack of interest or motivation.