Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?

1…126127129131132…473

Comments

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited September 2012
    The four cylinder ML diesel beat out 18 hybrids & EVs as 2012 Car of the Year. I don't think there is a 5000 lb vehicle sold in the USA that will get even close to 37 MPG US. And tow a 7000 lb trailer. Cross rivers and climb rocky hillsides. My ideal vehicle.

    http://www.wcoty.com/web/eligible_vehicles.asp?year=2012&cat=4
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    Indeed people dead from (gasser) carbon monoxide poisoning would show NO stress let alone readings. I guess that was the variable that cinched it for the petrol lovers !? ;)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    It has been more than apparent, also for a long time, the US markets have been very very successful in keeping OUT 'higher mpg cars," aka 40 to 70 mpg posters. Since this is a diesel thread, I have been easily getting 50 mpg for 11 MY's and for over 178,000 miles (in a diesel). All I do it keep it under 90 mph !

    In fact, the so called "exact same" (European) model was "detuned" and at GREAT extra cost to get MINUS - 2 mpg LESS for the US markets !! I had read in passing one of the stated reasons: US regulators were scared of the much higher HP ratings of the European models (100 hp vs 90 hp) :sick: :lemon: As anyone knows, US cars with INXS of 400 hp cause absolutely NO issues. :shades: :blush:;)

    Indeed the very next year (2004), it was against the law to sell it (NEW2004 MY ) in the BIGGEST market in the US (CA).

    It does make one wonder IF and when the new 72 mpg Golf TDI will hit the US markets IF it ever will.

    Also the 2012 Passat TDI's (6 speed manual) ability to post 84 mpg for a 43 EPA H rated vehicle has pretty much garnered a YAWN by the overall press. 84 mpg by VW Passat TDI

    On the other hand the folks that manage the propoganda for the electric cars imply that the plug ins are FREE of electrical costs !!!!! PREPOSTEROUS !!! In wacked out CA electrical costs (home) beyond base line easily climb and are normally @ .29 cents + per KWH. To add insult to injury, they dont list how many KWH's it takes to go X miles or a per mile driven: fuel equivalent costs.

    In the Passat TDI's case @ (corner store prices) $4.35 per gal /84 mpg = .0518 cents per mile driven fuel. On the electrical cars side, I think it would take a Senator Darryl Issa senate probe and a couple of years to get what that is for say a Volt.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The Taylors have set so many records in so many vehicles. I wonder what their favorite vehicle is so far? I would like to see them do some mileage attempts in the diesel SUVs sold here in the USA. I have no doubt they could break 40 MPG in the ML350 Bluetec and Touareg/Cayenne TDIs.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    Indeed.

    Outside of contractual arrangements, I would wonder why Toyota and GM, etc., had not snagged them to do mpg runs with say the more recognizable "sanctioned" models: i.e., Prius and Volt.

    I probably should do a 5 under speed limit (60 mph) tank full in the VW Touareg. (The Taylor's stated partial protocol) At that projected rate of consumption, ( 40 mpg @ 26.4 gal tank-official) that would post 1,040 miles with .4 gal left over. For me, it is more about safety issues: 1. getting rear ended 2. road rage 3. falling asleep. 4 and that grating question: ARE WE THERE YET??? ;) :sick: 5. my personal one: BORING.

    Early on, I was able to post a 36 mpg (bit higher actually) tank during (component longevity) break in, sub 65 mph. The caveat here was the engine and drive train was subject to MANY 75% to 80% of redline= 5,000 rpm) jaunts, acceleration and deceleration. I call it more "herky jerky" The 8 speed transmission was shifted down/up in some cases to keep speeds low. 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and when appropriate 7th 8th.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited September 2012
    Diesel is well established in the US so I don't buy the theory that the regulators are keeping them out. They just need to meet emission standards.

    Just like gassers do.

    Marketing explains the poor sales as good as any theory.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    I think it really depends on what one means about "well established". 95% gassers and 5% diesels. tell far different tales. It is hard to market something that is not allowed into the markets.

    It sort of gets back to the whole suv hysteria and harkens back to a long since popular but closed thread about SUV's. The enviro cons saw this as the end of the western world as we know it (to keep the ills under 25 points or less) , even as if they are joined at the "political" hip to the industries and unions that produce these things. Despite 30+ years of "unmitigated" SUV growth and "utter destructions" at any to all of those feared levels, they are 12% of the vehicle fleet and NHTSA posts some of the best safety numbers since they have been recording the statistics. Indeed the air is cleaner. "Coincidently", (not actually a coincidence)the numbers are far better than even when SUV's were 1 to 2% of the passenger vehicle populations.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Look beyond passenger cars to the rest of the trucking and transportation industry. Diesel rules the roost there. And all those rigs are getting cleaner every year too.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The biggest step for diesel emissions was ULSD. It did for diesel what removing the lead did for gasoline. I can tell the difference in my tractor from higher sulfur red dye diesel to ULSD. I always put conditioner with cetane booster to protect my tractor. When I used red dye diesel it put out lots of black smoke on start-up. Not so with ULSD.

    When 5% of the cars and SUVs are diesel, I would say the country is making progress. Until that point it looks like a government married to the oil companies. They have too much RUG to unload. Just like 100+ years ago, gasoline is a worthless refinery byproduct we are stuck using.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    Well, I can't remember when I last bought a PeterBilt model 379, new or used. ;) Indeed the almost totally different and "looser" and in some industries totally non existent emissions requlations for the trucking and transportation industries, etc. , just drives home ultra vividly, how the regulators keep/kept OUT diesel passenger cars. That point that you bring up really strengths the point I am making. True to form CA state probably made it economically untenable (80's) to continue manufacturing operations where it was founded in Newark, CA (a couple of cities away from here) But as Gagrice posts ULSD is both in use and required for a lot of those industry participants. There still are industreis that burn massive amounts of so called bunker oil.

    Now I agree with Gagrice that a drift toward 5% diesel passenger cars is progress, albeit snails pace. But when I got my first TDI in 03, the diesel passenger population, the best I could figure was @ 2/3% which was recovering at that time from a loss FROM 5%. Of the 2/3% fully 75% were so called diesel "light trucks". Now @ 5% I have read in passing "light trucks" are 50% of the population.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    Another undeniable issue is RUG/PUG (30 ppm standard, 30 to 90 ppm sulfur @ the pumps) is also 2 to 18 times DIRTIER than ULSD (15 ppm but nominally delivered to the pumps @ 5 to 10 ppm sulfur.). I have mentioned this a few times, (yes I am fine with...but who really cares?) but truly it is almost totally glossed over in the diesel vs gasoline discussion. Upshot: there are not short terms efforts/goals to get RUG/PUG down to the same ppm sulfur standards as ULSD for passenger cars.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Doesn't make much sense but apparently the catalytic converter and other emissions equipment can deal with the sulfur. But it's supposedly a lot easier to get rid of the sulfur from gasoline and I think most of the gas in the EU is sulfur free.

    In 2008, "The International Fuel Quality Center (IFQC) has ranked the top 100
    countries based on sulfur limits in gasoline; Germany was found to be at the
    top of the ranking with the lowest sulfur limits. Following in second and
    third were Japan and Sweden, respectively. If California was a country, it
    would have ranked along with these top achievers."

    Reuters
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    I think you are finally acknowledging what I have been saying all along: a lot makes little to no sense, there is much hypocrisy, etc. . Gas is actually dirtier than ULSD, which takes the hit (scape goat) for gas being "dirtier". One can even see it in the disengenuous differences between "sulfur free" RUG/PUG @ 10 ppm, while ULSD is actually delivered @ 5 to 10 ppm yet is called ultra low when it has the same or lower ppm sulfur. Again RUG to PUG with the new sulfur free standards is 2 times as dirty as ULSD :sick: :lemon:

    Now the availability of 10 ppm RUG/PUG in Germany is not going to do US markets vehicles much good now is it?

    It does beg the question will the use of 30 to 90 ppm RUG to PUG (US) in German cars specified for 10 ppm, do they suffer the same clogging and failure problems as diesels that ran LSD (500 ppm- 140 ppm CA) when they were specified for ULSD @ 5 to 10 ppm- nominally delivered at the pumps ? Again the 2003 TDI was specified for ULSD 11 MY ago and even earlier.

    Again the regulators have not let oems do an engine that is capable of running bio diesel. 100% bio diesel literally has ZERO ppm sulfur. Yes that is right NADA! However for mathematically logical discussion, bio diesel (suspension of disbelief) is @ 1 ppm sulfur. ;)
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    edited September 2012
    ...appear to be determined by the spin of a roulette wheel. Here's what I found yesterday at two Shell stations about 15 miles apart:

    DC (high priced urban station): Regular $4.15, Mid $4.37, Premium $4.55, Diesel $4.17

    Maryland (lower priced suburban station): Regular: $3.79, Mid $3.99, Premium $4.19, Diesel $4.15

    Unfortunately, I passed on a chance to fill up in West Virginia at $3.95/gallon, figuring the Maryland price would have been closer to their regular price. I think I need to invent an Apple app that updates diesel prices and shoots them directly to the BMW nav system. But given that I haven't figured out how to use Facebook, don't hold your breath. If someone else wants to do the tech, I'll bankroll the app and we can split the profits. :)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    While I think I hear what you are saying: .02 cent differences in diesel prices are far out shadowed by RUG price differences of .16 cents and PUG price differences of .36 cents? It would appear that to travel X more miles (out of ones way) does not make sense for a .02 difference in ULSD prices?
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    I agree, not worth driving around to save a few pennies. These were stations that were on our way to and from a Porsche driving event in West Virginia. The good news with the 400-500+ mile BMW range is that we can usually wait to fill up when we are out of the immediate DC area as part of our regular weekend activities.

    But the relationship between diesel prices and regular/premium gas prices varies considerably at the stations in our region. Some price diesel at or near premium, some barely above regular. I would have assumed they (all Shell or BP stations) would be paying about the same wholesale prices for diesel.

    BTW, when we were at the Porsche driving event, one of the reps had a Cayenne Diesel he drove up from Atlanta. With a 26.4 gallon tank and MPG ratings of 20/29, that's an EPA highway range of 765 miles. He said the trip computer on the drive from Atlanta actually showed 32.6 mpg. Pretty impressive.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    edited September 2012
    Where'd you find diesel in DC for $4.17? I'm in NW DC, and here's what I found via GasBuddy:

    cheapest RUG $3.79, 18th and S, 0.6 miles away.

    cheapest diesel $3.99, W. Virginia Ave, 2.1 miles away.

    So 20 cents cheaper and 1/3rd the distance, with city traffic that's farther than it seems.

    Americans buy more hybrids for several reasons:

    * sprawl and crawl - more people drive in cities
    * diesel often costs more, offsetting about half your savings
    * CARB blocks all but the cleanest options entirely
    * EPA tests do not favor diesels, real world mileage is often better
    * no selection, VW or nothing basically under $30k
    * VW is considered a reliability risk (even with TDI being reliable)
    * dirty/unreliable reputation still lingers, not deserved, but it does

    Give a policy maker a TDI to drive daily for a week and guess what? That impression won't even change much. Why? Because to get to Congress you drive in gridlock, basically.

    He or she will wonder why there isn't idle start/stop, then get mad when they can't find a diesel station and when they finally do it costs 20 cents more per gallon. Not made in the USA, whaaaaa? ...

    They won't see the benefit that the ideal target buyer (Gary for instance) will. Out in the country, needs the extra torque, open roads, less traffic, range desired.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited September 2012
    I think it was probably the oil lobby, and since the emissions controls handle the sulfur okay in gassers, the EU standard wasn't pressed. Next go round they can argue about it again.

    Don't go "clean diesel" on me. Sulfur is just one component to watch for, and particulates are still worse for diesel rigs last I checked.

    Habitat1, I bet there's an app for that already. Maybe Gasbuddy.com?
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    The only difference is that would be an incorrect assumption. So for example, CA charges 10.5 cents more taxation for a gal of diesel. (over RUG/PUG).

    Every time there is a change to the price of fuel, it is like clockwork some article in the propaganda mill tries its hand at explanation. Most to all articles are pure BS. I think they just give the issue to a cub rookie journalist to let em cut their teeth and to check to make sure they are ultra liberal. I just see it as fictional entertainment. Let's see 95% of motor cars are now electric plug in, fuel prices go up. Apple comes out with a new product, fuel prices go up. Apples sues and beats Samsung, fuel prices go up. Global warming causes MASSIVE increase in weed growth, fuel prices go up. People are having less babies, fuel prices go up. Prices are in a broad based decline, fuel prices go up. We have long ago discovered we are way past being the middle east of natural gas and have easily 250 years more of reserves, the price of fuel goes up. I am not sure what we do not understand that fuel prices are on automatic esculators to go .... UP !? ;)

    I think if a little "reality" was injected into the issue it would read something like:

    Presidential candidate X,Y Z will implement a plan to get fuel prices from 4+ per gal to 1.85 per gal, in less than two years ( back to 2003 LSD prices)

    LOL I am sure this candidate would not win ! If he/she did, he/she would not be long for the earth :sick: :lemon:
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    My assumption appears correct. Maryland and DC both have 41.9 cents/gal total gasoline tax. Maryland has 48.7, DC 47.9 cents/gal in diesel tax. So why would a Shell station in DC charge 2 cents over regular for diesel and a Shell station in Maryland charge 2 cents under premium. That's effectively a 30+ cent difference relative to their gas prices. No need to respond. It was a rhetorical question, as I understand that supply/demand and the free market are at work.

    As for your presidential candidate proposal, just what "plan" do you think it will take to get fuel prices down to $1.85 per gallon, that doesn't involve socialism or communism. Oops, sorry, forgot you were from California. ;) Just kidding, don't take that seriously.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    Actually, it is the "socialistic/communistic" (world) system that keeps the pricing high !! Throughout the whole increasing fuel price discussion have you ever heard once of the government/s seriously discuss lowering the fuel taxation? If anything they at every level complain it is not ENOUGH. The President's own energy secretary ( Dr Steven Chu) thinks and is on record saying we should by hook and by crook have European like fuel prices in the US. ($10.00 US per gal) Well the good/bad news is we are close to half way there !! He would probably argue he needs another 4 years to complete the job :sick: :lemon:

    The enviro cons are and have been hard at work trying to close down the (Benecia, CA) refinery complex that help to win WW2 (Chevron is the most recognizable name) So in their wildest dreams come true, what do you think would happen to the price of fuel, if they are/were successful ? I am sure you see the consequences and corrective actions in this little example (but real life also). They just had a little break down and fire and prices almost over night went up .50 cents per gal.

    More on nexus: $1.85 (when Obama took office( /$4.35 (current) per gal/ 50 mpg = per mile driven fuel is .037 cents/.087cents (per mile driven fuel). that means under OBAMA's care and feeding was prices rose 235% or 59% PER YEAR in a little under 4 years.

    Now who the hell was saying he is incompetent? He is doing a damn fine job raising the cost of a basic commodity !! :sick: :lemon: ;)
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    edited September 2012
    Well you did take me seriously, but at least not personally, which is OK.

    I'm sure we could commandeer this forum in an interesting political debate about the energy policy and the future of America as we know it. From what I can tell, I suspect we'd agree more than not.

    That said, I'm not sure how much blame Obama deserves for gas prices being where they are. Some, for sure, but I'm not a fan of opening up the strategic reserve due to market conditions or even drilling everywhere that a rig can be transported. I'd like to see the nuclear industry get back on track - with small package plant reactor technology - and essentially wipe out the use of oil and coal for power plants. I'll stick with blaming Obama for hamstringing the country with $11 trillion in debt and heading towards $20 trillion if he gets re-elected. And being on the forefront of turning America into the land of entitlement from the land of opportunity. And....OK, you get the point.

    My infatuation with the Boxster S this Sunday notwithstanding, I also wish we could advance battery technology at a faster clip so that I could seriously consider the Tesla Model S that I've plopped down a $5,000 deposit on to get the #7000 +/- spot on the delivery list. At $55k the car is a steal. Unfortunately, having to pay $28k more to go from a 40kwh to 85kwh battery and get the performance edition means that I will likely be keeping my TL and sticking a Boxster S (or Cayman S) in my garage. No final decision just yet, but $84k+ to get the exact same car with a 250-300 mile range instead of a 125-150 miles range is just not reconciling with my checkbook.

    I'll get off politics and back to diesels now. Thanks to whoever suggested the MyGas Buddy. It takes a little research to find good diesel prices and I'm glad that there is already a tool out there to help.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,789
    I'd like to see the nuclear industry get back on track - with small package plant reactor technology - and essentially wipe out the use of oil and coal for power plants.

    Amen! If the Voyager spacecraft can operate for 35 years on their nuclear power plants, I'm sure we can package something with today's technology that will perform at least as well and as safely/reliably. For some reason, when people think about nuclear, it's all about big size with big (potential) consequences. How about small in scale but larger in scope? Heck, something like that would solve the energy crisis (yes, it is a crisis now) in rural Alaska and other remote areas of the world.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    While it can be as exotic as that, Naval AirCraft Carriers and selective Submarines have been "nuclear powered" and for a LONG time. Oil or diesel @ least will be around LONG after folks like us are gone.
  • scwmcanscwmcan Member Posts: 399
    They have talked about the small package reactors for isolated communities in northern Canada as well, I think it is a good idea, but of course some people are up in arms about having nuclear anything. They can run a whole community for years on these " suitcase reactors, and apparently they are well designed, so it makes a lot of sense, especially for remote communities.
    No back on topic, I really like my diesel car, but I do wish the promises from other car makers to bring their diesels to north America would come true sooner, rather than later.
    Also for the particulate issue, apparently the new has cars with direct ingestion have more particulate matter than diesels do now, and they may be required to has similar particulate traps in the near future, we shall wait and see.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited September 2012
    Probably won't take all that long.

    "First, a new emissions standard is set forth, and the OEMs say, “We can’t meet those requirements with what we currently have.” That’s when the engineers step in, take control of the product from the bean counters, develop a new technology, solve the problems, meet the standards, and the new product gives enthusiasts a new tool to extract more power from our engines."

    Diesel Power

    The best thing that could happen for diesel adoption in the US is for the price to consistently fall below the price of regular unleaded. People can't do the miles per tank math but they pay attention to the pump prices.

    Meanwhile Toyota is doubling down on hybrids, not to mention a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. (NY Daily News)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    Not a good sign especially for a 2010 design, and the fact ULSD has been mandatory since Oct 2006. Design wise they knew it was coming WAY before those mandatory implementations.

    VW ran into this issue when it was forced to run (mandatory) LSD (500 ppm sulfur to 140 ppm sulfur, CA) in a car designed for ULSD (30 ppm standard, nominally delivered at the pump from 5 to 10 ppm sulfur). This is a 10-15 year old design specification, that I know of (2003 VW Jetta TDI MY). There was a very easy remedy/corrective action, which the writer indicates he ignored..

    You made some interesting observations:

    ..."People can't do the miles per tank math but they pay attention to the pump prices. "...

    Yep and they are just fine paying 40k for a car (Volt is what I am thinking) for a car they should be paying less than 18 for, for the privilege of plugging in a car to an outlet for 10 hours or so. per mile driven equivalent is .11 electrical (for 30/35 miles range and 11.6 RUG after that range vs .107 RUG. vs .087 ULSD.

    It also made no sense for us in 2003/2004 (14,000 miles yearly commute) to pay 25,000 for a hybrid, when its competitor cost 12.6k.

    But yes diesel fuel does normally cost more per gal than RUG. PUG is about PAR (9% of vehicle fleet have a requirement for PUG)
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    edited September 2012
    The best thing that could happen for diesel adoption in the US is for the price to consistently fall below the price of regular unleaded. People can't do the miles per tank math but they pay attention to the pump prices.

    I would hope that at least the folks over on the "BMW X5 Lease Questions" could figure it out, given all the time they spend analyzing residuals, down payemnts and money factors to try to figure out the best deal. Here are the facts, based upon my driving assumptions (3 years, 36,000 miles, to equate to typical lease deal; I drive more);

    X5 3.5i gas: Estimate 18 mpg average (2005 MDX ave. 16 mpg) = 2,000 gallons premium unleaded @ $4.15; $8,300 fuel cost.

    X5 Diesel: Estimate 24 mpg average (currently 24.5 in 800 miles) = 1,500 gallons diesel @ $4.00; $6,000 fuel cost.

    Savings $2,300 = $63.90 / month. On 15k miles/year, it's $80/month

    For all of the brain damage some people go through to negotiate a lease deal that saves them an extra $20 per month over on that board, this seems to me to be an easy analysis. With the $4,500 eco-credit currently ofered by BMW on the diesel, it is roughly $1,500 cheaper than the gas model, similarly equipped. But even if it was $1,500 more expensive, the payback would be about 2 years. We intend to keep the vehicle for 8+ and 120,000+ miles. That's over $7,500 in fuel savings added to the $1,500 up front. Not insignificant.

    Some folks over there have said they don't like the "sound" of the diesel or think it's unresponsive compared to the gas. Either they have better ears than me or haven't driven the car. The gas (barely) wins the 0-40 drag race, but the diesel solidly wins the 50-75 passing maneuver. On the highway, I can barely tell the engine is running. I guess I can be thankful that BMW has to offer a $4,500 eco credit to overcome the bozo's that can't do the math or have preconceived notions having never driven the current X5d, Cayenne Diesel or comparable vehicle.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited September 2012
    Yep and they are just fine paying 40k for a car

    Cars are new and shiny sitting on the showroom floor and they look nice sitting in your garage or in front of your house.

    You can spill an ounce of gas or diesel on the asphalt in the moonlight and enjoy looking at the swirly rainbow colors (Gomer Pyle :shades: ), but otherwise it's just a necessary evil. No one is going to slow down in front of your driveway to admit that new 5 gallon can of gas. Fuel offers no joy of purchase and you have to keep buying it over and over, and the price keeps going up. Plus it adds weight to your car and messes up the driving dynamics.

    When electric cars get range and cheaper power, one of the other triggers that will sway folks away from ICE will be the ability to avoid going to a gas station. Even better when they can charge them by induction and won't have to do anything special to top up the batteries.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The 50-75 MPH is the most important acceleration figure for me. And I cannot imagine the Gasser V6 being nearly as quick as the Diesel. I know if I kick my Sequoia to pass it has to downshift and race up to high rpm to get around in any reasonable fashion. After test driving the X5 diesel and getting back into the V8 Sequoia it felt like a slug.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    When electric cars get range and cheaper power, one of the other triggers that will sway folks away from ICE will be the ability to avoid going to a gas station.

    I hope you are not holding your breath. That niche will be smaller than diesel for at least 20 more years. Without heavy government subsidies they would be non existent right now. Toyota is getting out of the EV mess. Just not wise money being spent.

    Drawing a dramatic line in the sand for a global auto industry that has continued to invest heavily in all-electric vehicles, a top Toyota executive today simply said what a lot of people are thinking: EVs don’t make business or financial sense at this point.

    And then Toyota Vice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, also head of Toyota R&D, announced in Japan that the company was backing up its dramatic conclusion with equally decisive action: Toyota killed plans for a volume launch of its second all-electric car, the eQ, a version of the iQ minicar, and said that it hopes for only 2,600 sales worldwide of its other EV, a RAV4 version, over the next three years.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2012/09/24/toyota-calls-emperor-on-no-cloth- es-essentially-kills-evs/
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    ..."Fuel offers no joy of purchase and you have to keep buying it over and over, and the price keeps going up. Plus it adds weight to your car and messes up the driving dynamics.

    That is and has been true for almost any fuel purchase, including electrical. Indeed one would have to buy electricity DAILY, given a 30-35 miles (electrical) range on a good day. It is far less in reality. Charging times for the Volt are 10 hours. So right away that is a 365 additional purchase cycle. The math indicates you will add 3650 hours to your routine per year. Gas purchases would be estimated @ 19 for a total of 384.

    On the adding of pertro fuel systems weight to the car, there can be no denial. OEMS have made that opaque to consumers. Again why are we listening to the sound of one hand clapping, when a simple fuel system weight comparison will illustrate that electrical fuel systems weight far more !? Indeed they do not get any lighter with consumption ! Again, are you saying electrical fuel systems have NO weight? Are they signicantly less?

    If I just use my Honda Civic as a sample: 40. If you hated stopping at a gas station 40 times a year (3.33 times a month) what about going to an electrical station 384 times or 960% more motivates one? One also has to to go to still purchase gas, albeit on a longer cycle.

    Indeed on another post, I mentioned how the price of fuel has gone up app 59% per year, for just under 4 years. So really, are you wanting to go on record as saying electricity is free and will NEVER go up in price? Or that it will actually go down in price, just because the goal is to switch 100%(in someones dreams) electrical? Or electrical gives ZERO pollution? OR?

    ..."When electric cars get range and cheaper power, one of the other triggers that will sway folks away from ICE will be the ability to avoid going to a gas station. Even better when they can charge them by induction and won't have to do anything special to top up the batteries."...

    When electric cars get range and cheaper power, one of the other triggers that will sway folks away from ICE will be the ability to avoid going to a gas station. Even better when they can charge them by induction and won't have to do anything special to top up the batteries."...

    Are you doing a futuristic add for 1950's and 1960's DisneyLand? ;)

    I hate to break your bubble, but when that happens and a significant percentage of the passenger vehicle fleet are electrical, the price of electrical power will go even higher. Indeed the most logical place to co mingle electrical "fuel" vendors will be ... gasoline stations.

    Indeed the price per mile driven that I used WAS from a highly "punished" price per KWH (in CA case .295+ cents per KWH). Again anything over base line is severely punished (246% more) . I would not be surprised if in the future almost any one will be categorized a gross user for going over base line (.12+ cent), with penalties over the penalties, which are already STIFF.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    edited September 2012
    The 50-75 MPH is the most important acceleration figure for me. And I cannot imagine the Gasser V6 being nearly as quick as the Diesel

    To be fair we should compare turbo/intercooled DI diesel to turbo/intercooled DI gas, same displacement.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    That is an absolute no brainer. 03 Jetta TDI/1.8T.

    It is also hard to compare and really not representative, as many oems and models do not have equivalent diesel models. VW (to their credit) does have a few. MB might be another.

    Things are always a trade off. To say they have to have the SAME ( zero to sixty times in this case) is dreaming to unrealistic. They don't and never have. They are different in some other ways, also. Now if those variables (zero to 60 times) are important, then the trade off is a min of 27.5 mpg vs 46.5 mpg. Now if one is a "darter," one should not have gotten the TDI. One can dart in a TDI, albeit, not as well. If one is a commuter, over 100,000 miles, one can use 2,151 gals vs 3,636 gals or 1,485 gals LESS. @ 4.19 PUG darting and better zero to 60 times cost $6,222.00 more.

    Actually 200,000 miles is fast approaching for me, so really it is more like 2,970 gals SAVED or MINUS- $12,444.00, CHEAPER.

    Sidebar: actually that is not true, it is more like app 3,272 gals SAVED (@4.19 PUG= $13,710. as my longer term average is more like 50 mpg, 46.5 mpg on wwwfueleconomy.com)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Gary's point was that passing times are more important.

    I bet the diesel won't match the 1.8T but it's probably closer than it would be in 0-60 times.

    Just a SWAG.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Correct, I think we both got that. As a "darter" those passing (50-75 mph) times are probably not as important as zero to 60 times. ? !
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    edited September 2012
    Did a quick search, this is 2nd hand info but thought I'd share:

    Diesel Car quotes times of 7.7 secs for 30-50 in 4th and 11.5 secs for 50-70 in top gear for a 90hp TDI Golf. The only gasser times quoted are 6.4 and 9.2 respectively for a 1.8T Golf.

    source:

    http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=2400

    So 30-50 the difference was pretty small.

    At higher speeds you have to plan ahead more with the TDI.

    Of course the TDI would win if the 1.8T blew an ignition coil. ;)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I think you are really posting some of the trade offs ! ?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'm trying to keep it apples to apples, both forced induction.

    Of course that's impossible, it's diesel vs. gas, after all.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    This is purely personal, but I would not have gotten a VW 1.8 T. (gasser/turbo) As you probablly know and would agree, most of the VW reliability issues are with the gasser engines (1.8 T and 2.0 L normally aspirated).

    I have been more than pleased with the brake pads and rotors. @ 178,000 miles, the pads have more than half of the material left. I also have been impressed with tire life (112,300 from 28/32 rated tires ) :sick:, and also alignment cycles.(100,000 miles per cycle and barely a need) I did one @ 100k just to get back to new car base line.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    As a "darter" those passing (50-75 mph) times are probably not as important as zero to 60 times.

    I think the 50 to 75 times are more important but you rarely see that marketed.

    I don't pull out in front of 60 mph traffic from a standing start too often, but around here you often need to pass on a two lane when the driver in front is poking along at 5 mph under the limit. A little oomph makes the pass quicker and safer.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    There is nothing that sharpens the senses as that fully loaded 80,000# truck coming AT you when you pull over into HIS lane to pass !!!

    I think you also illustrate a past point how almost utterly inconsequential the zero to 60 times really are. I say this in the context of having a vehicle that CAN do a 4 second zero to sixty. Ah, needless to say it is not a hopped up diesel. ;)

    YOu are absolutely correct. Passing times (50 to 75 mph in this example) are almost never mentioned, by either gassers or diesels . I think some of the car mags in the interest of having some more to blather about, sometimes do mention it. But then in over 50 years, I have yet to read a car mag article about the mechanics of how to pass "safely" on 2 lane roadways.

    Funny how you can find stuff on the internet
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited September 2012
    The problem around here is by the time you are around the slowpoke and are pushing 70, you spot a deer on the shoulder.

    So, for diesels or gassers, the real important number is the 70 to zero time. :D

    Diesel drops nearly a nickel, still 30 cents over last year (Land Line)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Cars are actually better than bullets for that purpose. :sick: :blush: :lemon:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Supposedly the 2.5l is better than the older gassers but VW really does best with its turbocharged engines, especially the diesels.
  • dadtimdadtim Member Posts: 2
    I would by a diesel car if I went deaf and couldn't smell anymore, or if someone said Gasoline
    won't burn anymore. Nobody knows what happened , but it just won't burn.
  • trdsc2trdsc2 Member Posts: 4
    I own 2 diesels and 1 gasoline vehicle. Both of the diesels are quiet, have exhaust tips that are soot free and give great torque, power and fuel mileage.
    The only time I can actually hear the diesel is at start up and idling. My gasoline vehicle is louder when cruising on the highway and has soot around the exhaust tip. The only detectable smell is an occasional ammonia like smell
    when the car is cleaning any accumulated soot from the cats.
    The diesel vehicles are a 2011 BMW 335d and a 2009 VW Jetta TDI. The gas vehicle is a 1996 4-Runner which happens to be the most reliable vehicle I have ever owned.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    I wish my 94/96 TLC's had been turbo diesels (whatever Toyota calls them). I would have much preferred getting 25 mpg (I have read this is true for NON US market diesels, so IF Toyota had brought diesels to the US market that MIGHT be the figures) instead of 14-15 mpg. I first got interested in diesels when I read an article about the CN 1987 TLC turbo diesel. I think something like 1,500 units were let in to that country (total swag on my part).

    Not to beat a dead horse, but over 100,000 miles (early on the third go arounds) that would be 4,000 gals instead of 6,666 gals per 100k miles. We are shooting for 25 to 30 years of service, whatever the miles happen to be. With hindsight being 20/20, I probably wold not have bought VW diesels, if I was already getting 25 mpg on a TLC.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited September 2012
    US market VW diesel strategy

    5 other follow on articles.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited September 2012
    From "page 2" of your link:

    "Once we introduce the Jetta hybrid, the Jetta will be the first volume model with a choice of gas, diesel, and hybrid in the US. We are interested to see what happens there. This is why I love reading what people say in online forums about their cars."

    Mr. Spira must love you and hate me. :) Will be interesting to see the Jetta "take" numbers in a few years.

    It's always fun seeing the VW pics in the Chattanooga area. That fireworks store is in Jasper TN; really on I-24 near where I'd always cut off to go to Alabama back in the day.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles