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
173 horsepower and a magical 310 pound-feet of torque
From 2.2 liters, not bad.
Their other SkyActiv models have headers and have focused on keeping weight in check, so those numbers sound promising.
I test drove a CX5 with my sister, and that seems like the perfect engine for that currently underpowered vehicle.
Mazda 6 wagon diesel would also be a good car, maybe not a bike hauler, roof too low.
I deemed the 5 a tad small for me, but it was the only van you could get with a manual so I did sample one.
With the engine above it could be the ideal middle, enough power yet still plenty efficient. Good room but not big or heavy. Torque and range to please anyone.
A SkyActiv-D Mazda5 may be good enough to replace BOTH my city and travel/weekend cars. :shades:
$27,895 for a TDI convertible Beetle.
They do want premium fuel, though.
Ford & Hyundai's turbos run OK with regular fuel.
The previous Mazda6 was made in Flat Rock in a joint venture assembly plant with Ford.
But the 2014 Mazda6 is made in Japan, and Ford is using all the capacity in Flat Rock to make the Mustang with plans to add Fusion production. "
2014 Mazda6 to offer diesel engine, a first for a Japanese car (Detroit Free Press)
Not sure it's still the case, but my previous experience and research seemed to show that any/most engines that ran OK with regular fuel, were NOT leading technology, higher performance, high compression engines.
I run at about the same speed whether I eat a good breakfast or have leftover pizza. But I'm not exactly Usain Bolt. And a Ford isn't a BMW, and a Hyundai (much as they might wishfully think differently with their Genesis ad) isn't a Porsche. I don't think Ford or Hyundai have an engineering secret to take advantage of low octane gas; rather I think they don't have - or elected not to use - state of art, high compression engines that maximize performance and efficiency through the use of premium gas.
So I'm not sure giving a manufacturer credit for having engines that burn lower octane regular gas is really a compliment. It sounds like some of my baseball teammates complimenting me at the end of last season that I'm "fast for my age". My kids jumped in with the translation that I'm not that fast, just old.
"The 2014 Mazda6, first shown at Moscow in August and then Paris in September, will be on sale in January, first with the 184-horsepower, 2.5-liter gasoline four. The 2.2-liter diesel will follow later in the year.
It will make Mazda only the second mainstream automaker to offer a passenger diesel in the U.S. Volkswagen is the other. Diesels make up more than 20% of VW sales in the U.S."
Diesel option announced at new Mazda6's U.S. debut (USA Today)
I don't know if Mazda is big enough to pull off its ambitious plans in general, especially with their currency issues, but they are part of a big conglomerate that can help them out.
And isn't the goal a low fuel cost? If you can run 87 octane you save 10% right there.
If we stick with your baseball analogy, here's a player batting .300 who earns half as much and helps you stay under the salary cap.
I'm sure you can increase output with higher octane gas, just like you can in a Porsche by filling it up with racing fuel.
Certain turbos can tolerate lower octane and are simply more flexible, so they can use a wider range of octane.
I'd say that's better by any measure.
Keep in mind Mazda's SkyActiv engines have been tuned for efficiency and have been beating EPA estimates by a wide margin in the real world.
Back to diesels, it will be very interesting to see how Asian brand buyers respond to having a diesel option in the Spring. Freaking finally!
We heard the same thing from Honda in 2008 and they could not pass the EPA/CARB emissions test. So no Honda diesel. And it was a great engine. Probably a big seller in the EU for them.
Anything is possible.
Too bad the handsome wagon won't be sold here.
Honda has done better than Mazda in both markets. Yet even Honda struggles in the European markets. It does better than Mazda in US markets. Yet as Gagrice has noted has yet to bring the diesel TO the US markets; despite its expertise in emissions compliance IN the US markets. Indeed in past articles I have read about Honda diesel in the European markets, it was/remains a good product and the linchpin for Honda's success in the European markets. European markets will hit some patches of very tough sales volume. That will probably effect less market share percentage name plates like Honda & Mazda disproportionately. They have certainly experienced challenges in China a stronger market than either Europe or US.
They roll to the beat of their own drummer. It doesn't results in commercial success, but their cars are interesting.
Should be no surprise that Mazda will be the first Japanese brand to bring a mainstream diesel here. They were unique when it came to rotary, Miller cycle, and tiny (1.8L) V6s as well.
The CX5 and Mazda3 are the volume segments where they can offer a diesel and sell in big numbers, potentially. MazdaSpeed3D would be fun. :shades:
I wonder if they'll even keep the Mazda5 long enough to get a diesel. That's been a tough segment here in the US (Mazda5, Rondo, C Max, Prius V are all low volume).
Edit: saw a Corolla Verso (tall wagon) with diplomatic plates this morning.
Speaking of Toyota tall wagon, reminds me of something in Germany - Toyota Picnic. Ghastly unsightly tall wagon usually driven by the slow and oblivious.
Don't complain when it goes away and gets replaced with Toyota's 17th crossover model.
Very happy so see the 6 diesel and glad it will have a stick shift (otherwise no sale for me). Pretty sure emissions won't be a problem as they are already saying it meets the standards without any urea additive. With 170+ hp and 300 ft/lbs of torque it should be peppy - especially since the word is it likes to rev like no other diesel - partly due to low compression.
Now if they only put it in the wagon. My concern with the swoopy 4 door is the lack of rear headroom , which makes the back seat not so useful to me (3 tall sons). However since this will be a segment buster I will probably bite the bullet and get one anyway - kids can slouch in the back. Jetta SW is just too small, and don't really trust Passat, but it is a compelling vehicle.
BTW the stick shift Honda diesel did pass emissions, just not the automatic.
"The diesel segment in America is essentially German air space.... Yes, the Germans have jumped in with both feet, and they have been rewarded with pretty flat demand, actually. Diesel market penetration in the U.S. hovers around 3%....
Why is demand flat? One reason is the stubborn price premium on diesel fuel, which was running 15% higher than regular gasoline.... Whatever mileage advantages diesel vehicles offer are being largely zeroed out at the pump.
The vehicles themselves carry a diesel [price] penalty. In order to recoup, in fuel savings, the additional outlay for the Cayenne Diesel you would have to own it for about 11.9 years."
There's more, including some good stuff. But not much.
A Porsche Cayenne for Diesel Fetishists Only
Really, about the only thing he sort of likes is the highway range, "765 miles, give or take a small state."
The AAA says the Environmental Protection Agency and gasoline retailers should halt the sale of E15, a new ethanol blend that could damage millions of vehicles and void car warranties.
AAA, which issued its warning Friday, says just 12 million of more than 240 million cars, trucks and SUVs now in use have manufacturers' approval for E15. Flex-fuel vehicles, 2012 and newer General Motors vehicles, 2013 Fords and 2001 and later model Porsches are the exceptions, according to AAA, the nation's largest motorist group, with 53.5 million members.
Back to his "applied" math failure. Part of the problem may be that he is using EPA estimates. The other part is that he appears to have a faulty calculator. Before buying an X5d, I did enough research among friends and colleagues to know that the real world mpg of diesels was relatively better than gas when compared to the EPA estimates. And, since buying, that has proven to be the case to an even greater degree than I had expected.
We just filled up our X5d and MDX tanks last week after they were both driven in virtually identical conditions in mixed driving with a fairly heavy city emphasis. The MDX averaged 15.5 mpg. The X5d averaged 21.9 mpg.
If I use those mpg numbers, with PUG at $3.75/gallon; ULSD at $4.00/gallon and assume 12,000 miles per year, the fuel savings is approximately $708. Knock it down to $650 for an ad blue fill-up, even though it's covered free by BMW for 50k miles.
That would put a $3,900 premium in price at a 6 year payback. Obviously that will change depending upon driving conditions, etc. But there is no way that the real world number would EVER be 11-12 years ($350 / year) without something like diesel being $1.00 more than premium or the miles driven drop to 5k per year.
I think Dan needs to recheck his HP12C calculator. AND get out there and do real journalistic research on what actual real-world fuel economies are on diesels compared to gas models. Our neighbor with an X5 3.5i was floored to hear our city biased 21.9 mpg. He has had his 2011 for 18 months, 12,000 miles and has an overall average of under 16, with pure city tankfuls going as low as 12-14. We are only 2,000 miles into our X5d, but even without any real highway trips other than the drive home from Spartanburg, are at an overall average of 23.1.
Sorry Dan, 4,000 lbs for a 2-seat SL550 is obnoxious, your math is atrocious, and diesel SUV's are here to stay.
Liked the commenter who wanted to know if the Cayenne diesel came with a Jake brake. :shades:
The diesel naysayers never calculate the resale value of the diesel vs gasser.
diesel SUV's are here to stay for guys like me that can actually do the math
I will never buy another gas vehicle if I can at all help it. Just calculated a 2500 mile trip from San Diego to Tampa, FL. With the Sequoia getting it's usual 16 MPG. Cost $515 at about $3.30 per gallon. Same trip in a diesel SUV, with diesel averaging about $4 per gallon would be about $322. Added value of not having to stop for fuel as often. Four stops max for a diesel 7 stops for gas with the Sequoia. We don't use gas station potties. Usually fast food restrooms are cleanest. Diesel would have to be almost double the price to make the gas SUV more practical.
According to Edmunds TCO, there is only $6 difference between those two. When you should really compare the diesel to the V8 to get a better comparison. The UK doesn't even offer the V6 gas. Only the ML63 which is a rocket. You can get the ML250 BLuetec that would be perfect IMO. It would be great to get 1000 miles between refills.
There isn't a single diesel sold in the U.S. for less than $24K(well, you can get a manual Jetta for $23K, but those are unbobtanium). They can't we get a Corolla with a CDI engine? Why can't we get a CDI Focus? Why can't we get a small pickup truck with a CDI engine in it - that gets 30mpg instead of a pathetic 18?
Even Smart, who you think would have all the incentive in the world, doesn't offer a diesel engine in the U.S. Getting 80mpg+ would vastly improve their sales. (yes, the Smart CDI translates to 82mpg (U.S. gallons) in a real-world test over two days of driving)
$14,000 if converted from Euros to USD. That's more like what we want to see over here. Not $24K.
Like others I would love to see a reasonable priced diesel car sold in the US, whether it is a Corolla or Focus. Now having driven a Smart in Europe and here in the states, I would own one even it got 100 mpg....
I'm still waiting for the C diesel that many MB salespeople swore would be coming - 2 years ago.
Did another fill earlier $3.88. The first half tank was hosting an old airline pilot friend earlier in the week through the streets of San Francisco. Got him on a flight to Georgia to head home. Just returned from South Tahoe (starting @ half a tank) in driving rains, huge fickle storm conditions and chain controls @ higher elevations, both going and coming. Tough sloughing and at low speeds with the AC on and off and most electrical systems running Fill with 22.2 gals, posted 30.1 mpg.
Actually, MB put diesels in their entire line-up back in the 1980's. I have a Blue Book that dates back to then and here are some vehicles prices from 25 years ago - 1987:
190D = $29.630 (same exact base MSRP as the gas 190E)
300D = $42,990 (same exact MSRP as 300E; 260E was $37,000)
300TD = $46,200 (NO gas wagon even offered)
300SDL = $51,070 (Top of line diesel; 420SEL was $57,600)
It looks like 1983 was the last of the classic 240D, which had an MSRP of $23,800. Sounds cheap in todays dollars, but that's OVER TWICE as much as a 1983 Nissan Maxima, which had an MSRP of $11,369. And only $7,000 less than a Porsche 911SC that had a MSRP of $30,745.
Whenever I look back at car prices from the 1980's, the thing that is most apparent is that Mercedes (and BMW, mostly) were priced towards true luxury demographic (i.e. affluent) market back then. They were lower volume, didn't give a crap about competing price-wise with the Japanese or American manufacturers and if you couldn't afford to pay twice as much for a bottom of the line Mercedes as a top of the line Nissan, then the hell with you, go shop down the road.
Regarding diesels, they were all throughout the MB line-up, and priced similarly to their gas counterparts, other than the 240D.
Actually you can buy a nice E350 Bluetec today cheaper than a 240D in 1983. $23,800 is equal to $55,000 in 2012 buying power. TMV on an E350 Blutec is $46K. You can buy the S class diesel for about $93k today. $51k 1983 dollars have the buying power of $117k today. Making luxury more affordable today than in 1983.
That's definitely true, in more ways than just price.
The 240D is a good example, as my buddy that had one reminds me that this so-called luxury car that cost 4 times as much as a Honda Civic at the time had a whopping 72 horsepower, 4-speed manual, vinyl upholstery, no power seats, windows and an AM radio. I'm not sure MB could sell a new 240D TODAY for $23,800, let alone $55,000. What you get today in a C class for under $40,000 exceeds the luxury amenities in a 25 year old $70,000 SEL560 by a substantial margin.
What has also occurred is substantial price compression between the non-luxury and luxury categories. The spartan 240D was 4 times more expensive than a Honda Civic in 1983 and twice as expensive as a decked out Nissan Maxima. In 2012, a C-Class sedan will set you back less than twice as much as a Civic sedan and not that much more than a top of the line Maxima.
Of course, you know that back in the 60's and 70's, kids walked 4 miles to school, responsible parents worked hard and everybody knew their place in society. Which meant, "no Mercedes for you" didn't affect my quality of life back in 1982 when I bought one of those Civics. Now we have a contingent of society that thinks just about everybody should be entitled to a Mercedes Benz or they set up tents on Wall Street and in DC to protest against those that have (mostly) earned the right to drive one. I'm exaggerating, of course, but perhaps not as much as I wish.
Funny how yesterday's luxuries become today's necessitates. Call me on your i-Phone or text me through your BMW Apps if you want to discuss further.
If anything even then, the percentages of TD's (diesels/turbo diesels) were very very small. As you have noted. much more expensive. One can get a VW (peoples car if one will) as a viable option. It is almost embarrassing to say that I sweated brain cells for $236. for the diesel premium (over 2003 VW 1.8T gasser).
I don't think that's true. I am pretty sure for the model year 1983, Mercedes sold considerably MORE diesels in the US than gasoline vehicles. I'll need to do a little research, but according to my buddy that owned a 240D, he thought the percentage of diesel Mercedes sold in the US in the 1980-83 time frame was in excess of 60%. It wasn't until the introduction of the 4-cylinder 190E in 1984 and 6-cylinder 300E in 1986 that you could even purchase a gas model Mercedes that wasn't a diesel or an 8 cylinder gas. Mercedes entire model line up for the US in 1983:
240D - $23,800
300D - $30,530
300CD - $33,750
300SD - $37,970
300TD - $33,850
380SEL- $48,200
380SL - $43,350
380SEC - $53,860
Unless you had over $43.3k to spend in 1983 ($101.2k in 2012 dollars according to gagrice), the only Mercedes you could buy was a diesel. Times have changed, but perhaps what goes around will come around, if some of the inequities in taxation and EPA regs get evened out.
Well, you can think whatever you want, but until you show empirical evidence supporting the 5% figure, I think you're way the hell off for 1983. As in, on a different planet from reality. There is absolutely no way you can anecdotally convince me that in 1983 MB sold 19 times as many 380SEC's, SEL's and SL's as they did 240D's, 300D, TD, SD and CD's combined???. To even suggest that is ludicrous.
So show me the research source with the actual sales figures. I'll be happy to eat crow if you are even close.