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?
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I used to over see 2 (16 hours and 3 (24 hours) shift operations where the majority of vehicles saw EXTENSIVE idling TO almost constant on and off, start stop, stop start and repeat endlessly. Of course both operations were in extremes of weather 90 degrees/90% humidity to - whatever to better than that windchill. So A/C and heaters became important.
Truly it makes me wonder what they will be able to do with it !! Man if they can post 84 mpg with a 43 mpg EPA Passat TDI ......
Actually dry grip is better with less tread. Your racing/track experiences should tell you that. Now if you are doing that track stuff in the rain/sleet and snow, the opposite is true.
If I was tracking anything, I'd have a slew of bench stock type things to include multiple sets of tires, brake pads and rotors, etc.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
So true!
Paris show is on so lots of diesel love coming....
Wagon is handsome.
They say 43mpg for the 173hp 2.2l diesel, and no urea injection needed.
D-segment so that would be a Passat alternative. DSG Passat is rated 30/40 here, manual a bit higher. So the Mazda at least ties it, if they meant EPA mpg.
1.8T gasser. Wonder if they will tune that to run on 87 octane, now that Ford, Hyundai, GM, and others have tuned them that way?
TDI still a 2l, they say.
220 lbs lighter is great news!
Mazda has been threatening for years to bring US market diesels. Ah, it/they is/are still not here.
But then on the other hand the current MY VW Golf lists 19 options or variants. WOW ! MSRP goes from 18k to 29.4k. So I would say the 73.5 mpg Golf might have a more inside track. Still no GTD !? :lemon:
Kind of would be nice to have a split personality miser/sleeper.
The limiting factors are really NOT diesel, i.e., We can look at the new MB GLK 250 2.0 L TTDI with 369# ft of torque ! It is more a question of what A/T M/T VW can cost effectively mate to it.
Given the multiple models on a single platform, I think that may be a tad difficult. (bean counters being in charge)
Again if I was starting fresh, 56% more torque would be pretty amazing.
Until some other automaker offers competition, they don't need the lower profit vehicles to sell diesels.
Diesels tend to be packaged with premium content. VW even uses the multi-link rear suspension from the GTI models rather than the cheap torsion beams from the cost-cut base Jetta.
Insight and Prius C can peek in at just under $20k, imagine a Golf Bluemotion priced like that. Just the basic stuff, A/C and single CD player. They would sell tons. Heck I'd try one.
627 lb-ft is adequate.
28mpg, too.
I'd rather have that in a Q7 package, though. Still not used to the idea of Porsche making SUVs.
108hp. Won't be quick but torque will keep people behind you from honking.
Indeed using the same ratios as the current 1.9 L TDI 90/155 # ft, 108 hp converts to 186# ft, or 20% more ft #'s of torque.
Well used, just the replacement tires, brake pads and rotors will keep your tire shops and mechanics in business !
Folks on CUV boards already complain of tires lasting only 15,000 to 25,000 miles with far less torquey engines, albeit @ 1000 to 1,300 per set. Non ceramic brake pads and rotors and ancillary pieces, easily run 700 (parts only @ discount).
Where's the *#@%ing Forester diesel? :mad: Subaru may need it in this MPG obsessed segment. Current model is rated 21/27. Same numbers from 1998. They used the lead the segment, but they fell behind.
New one is around the corner. Good time for a new powertrain intro.
2010 quote by the top executive at Subaru of America.
Doesn't seem like anything has changed.
Any word about the reliability? They've had the diesel boxer for at least 5 years, right?
Subaru Riding Positive Press (Ward's Auto)
Tall Cotton @ US market share of 2.3%?
So (swagging a lot of things that may or may not be true) if Subaru brings in a in the future) 322,000 cars (2.3% of market share,9.5 M to 14 M yearly), what percentage of diesels are they will to gamble will sell and sell enthusiastically? So say they want to be as aggressive as a much LARGER VW and decide on 20% or 64,400 cars? Longer story short, not much has probably changed for Subaru since the pronouncement in 2010. Of course everyone knows that Subaru's biggest advantage is that it actually has been selling diesels on the world wide market and for more than a few years.
So really if any one needs a Kball study, it would b Subaru. Whatever % of diesel Subaru's, they can not afford to k ball even a small % of gasser Subaru sales. This would logically mean new customer or second vehicle sales.
On the other hand VW knew/knows it had/has to sell (in addition to ITS past customer base) to new and second vehicle customers. The then new decontented Jetta was one iteration, and one of the first steps. It caused serious bru ha ha in the "cult" . The Passat built in TN, US was and remains another. It is aimed squarely at the Toyota Avalon/Camry/Hybrid/ etc Acura/ Honda Accord and other products in that universe. It even has revived the 6 speed transmission in the midsize passenger car segment. This does not even count the HUGE mainlining of the TDI, etc.
A lot of the guys in the Subaru Crew threads pine for a diesel. It fits with the image of the brand, too. I bet a bunch would even use biodiesel blends.
I think the Forester and Outback would match up well with diesels, and those happen to be their 2 volume sellers here.
It is sort of like the Chicago Cubs, well, there is ALWAYS next year !! Going on 104 years and already one world series win !
A diesel as base and then a 2l Turbo XT would make for a good lineup.
I think they'll use the FB25 from the Legacy, though. Short-term.
Oops... going way off topic here. Still, my preference is to nix the gasoline option (make the Outback the platform for intro of new tech there) and go diesel in the Forester with either a 6-speed MT (throughout the lineup) or a CVT as the tranny options.
Since I'm dreaming, how about bringing the dual range transfer case from the Aussie spec Forester over as an option? :shades:
None of the FBs are DI, though. Toyota massaged it and they ended up with the FA, but they don't have larger displacements yet, and I'm not sure a high rev engine with little torque would be suitable for the Forester.
That's why a diesel may be a better choice.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/28/2013-audi-sq5-paris-2012/
This is the first in what I predict will be an onslaught of performance diesels.
Spots-oriented. Is that age spots, freckles, or what? I'm not sure what sort of demographic Audi is after, here. :P
The question I have is when we will see some of them in the US and will they sell well enough to achieve a profitable market share here. IMO, they can completely replace vehicles like the ML63 and BMW X5M with high performance diesels. But those are not big sellers to begin with. What really needs to happen is that almost all SUV's need to go to "performance" diesels. That performance can be tuned for solid acceleration and great fuel efficiency at the entry and utility, or great acceleration and very good fuel efficiency at the high performance level.
I am all for a free revving 8,000 rpm high horsepower, lower torque engine in a 2,900 lb sports car. But a gas sucking V8 in a 5,000+ lb SUV is becoming complete dinosaur IMO given the direction and progress of diesel technology. And if BMW, Porsche and Audi have their way, it may become a dinosaur in the arger end of the 3,800- 4,000+ lb luxury sport sedan segment as well.
I totally agree with you. My taste goes more toward the lower performance SUV with higher MPG. I would love to own a ML250 Bluetec that is capable of 40 MPG on the highway. It has almost 100 ft-lbs more torque than the V6 gas version ML. I am more of a get out on the backroads and highway driver and cruise at 70 MPH to my destination. My Sequoia on the best RUG will only get about 17.5 MPG on the highway. The ML250 Bluetec is HWY rated 50.4 MPG on the UK tests. That is 42 MPG US. In a 5000 lb vehicle that is tow rated for 7200 lbs, what else comes close. And it is cheaper than the V6 gasser.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK5tmUtAFQA
The latest NHTSA safety figures which post the SAFEST statistics in literal recorded history exposes the lies about the PU/SUV segment being "mass killers" etc. Indeed the vehicle fleet population has ALWAYS been closer to 75%+ larger cars and 25% smaller cars. The real lies perpetrated in the push to smaller cars, show smaller cars being the more dangerous !!!
(in my dreams, either one, i suppose, but the future is uncertain...)
My only test drive of the ML320 CDI was a 2007 model. Very comfortable ride. Good handling though not up to the X5. The MB transmission would downshift radically when you let off the accelerator. I like to coast more when I let off the fuel feed. I like driving a performance vehicle a lot. I like getting good mileage even more. Given a rocket like the X5 diesel I would probably get speeding tickets. Way more power than needed for my average driving needs.
PS
I really like the looks of the Touareg better than the Cayenne. Though I would bet the Porsche is a great driving SUV.
-Rocky
Congrats again on your new job. It will be good if GM offers a diesel to get in on the competition.
The 2013 6.7L Cummins ISBe, as available only in the 3500 pickup with an extreme-duty Aisin AS69RC 6-speed-automatic, is rated at 385 hp @ 2800 rpm - just slightly behind the competition, but produces a house-yanking 850 lb-ft at 1600 rpm... 50 better than Ford, 85 better than GM.
That's 142 lb-ft per cylinder... more than many economy car engines in total.
Just for comparison...
- my 1996 Ram 3500 Club Cab 4x4 dually: 5.9L Cummins 12-valve mechanical-injection was rated at 180/420
- my (current) 2005 Ram 3500 Quad Cab 4x4 dually: 5.9L Cummins common-rail EFI is rated at 325/610
So should I opt for this new powertrain, I will have more than doubled both hp and torque from my 96, and had increases of 18% (hp) and 39% (torque) from my 05.
My best tank in the 1996 was 24.3 mpg (3.54 axle), and my best in the 2005 is 21.5 (3.73). The new Ram offers a 3.42, which combined with the use of DEF and a new front-axle disconnect system on 4x4s could get me close to 24 again.
Expect a response from Ford and GM in their 2014 models.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons/Vans+Minivans Host
Agree with you on the diesel 4 banger in pick-up application.....
-Rocky
kcram - Pickups/Wagons/Vans+Minivans Host