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.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
That is just incredible. I find it hard to believe even that many owners boast 70+ in the city. And my reason is simply this: I find it hard to believe that any energy regenerative device can spend more time putting energy back into the batteries suring slowdowns and stops, than those same batteries expel in order to get the car to move again after each of those slowdowns or stops.
What I can believe is that on a previously charged (right to full) battery, could start its day and do the equivalent of 100 mpg, but only for part of that day. The first part, because there just isn't any free ride as Toyota (for example) would attempt to have you believe. To my mind, it is against physics for the regenerative process to work equally with the level of energy going out. Can it be done for a short while? Yup..but only until the batteries need to be rejuvenated back to full without using gas, and the only way an owner could do that is if they drove all day down a hill steep enough that the batteries got recharged from regeneration at a level that the owner only had to press the brakes, or coast, at just the right rate that the batteries get their juice and they are ready to go again.
But of course the mpg you are REALLY getting is the average on the entire return trip which includes going UP that same hill all the way home..and of course we know that any battery reserves are quickly used up in that scene. Then you're on ga$.
edit - in fact..the only way that the better of the hybrids do as well as they do in the city, speaks volumes as to how over-driven (for lack of the right terminology right now) the regenerative system is. i.e. Turning heat that would otherwise be used to brake, or momentum in the case of coasting, back into electricity. When I said about physics...I guess this regen process does speak to just how efficiently and well-sorted they have it. The lesson? There is amazing regen energy potential to slow a car down. But it doesn't negate my first point...how can it spend more time starting the car, than stopping it? The balancing act is further decided by the use of so many draws of electricity in between lights...A/C, heater, lights etc. The only thing the batteries can do in that case, is, little by little, lose the battle.
So for example, that is why the VW T/MDX gasser supercharged gasser/hybrid/diesel is very important. I mean even I will say BFD in getting 32 in a VWT diesel IF there were not a gasser (like model, point a/b, etc etc. 20 mpg to 18/19) for the comparison.
I would like to see Wayne do a 85 mpg Prius C and whatever in a Prius C diesel. IF the Prius C diesel equivalent were available, I am sure he could do far better than his posted 85 mpg in a Prius C diesel.
So for example if Wayne;s BEST was 84 mpg in a VW Passat diesel, are you REALLY saying he could probably do better than that in a Passat gasser: all things being equal? Now I would say NOT, he could probably do far better in a diesel over gasser, but then some would consider me biased.
I would say the indicators are good that I could probably do a 42/43 mpg on the VW T TDI, and not the wildly optimistic 39.9 mpg (on the downgrade );) given the speeds (and 88 miles) on your computer hud, aka 50 mph.
Pic is low quality, cellphone in a dark garage - it's just the center gauge rather than HUD (MB doesn't have HUD).
Same old stuff, different day (a vernacular reference to consistency- boring or boring consistency) We have a few posters on this site that have consistently posted total disbelief as if 32/42/50 were totally outlier to outright LIES.
However to me, I normally take pen and ink/ miles/gal calculations to heart. In the real world where (YOU) I do travel, I do not want to be stuck in 104 degrees off the side off the road in the desert because of an optimistic calculation, albeit computer or pen/ink calculations.
However, I do fill a lot more when the low fuel light/s and buzzer/s goes off. :shades: :lemon: I even sometimes don't fuel when I start a 210 miles one way R/T's !!!!!Indeed, some times I don't fuel at all with a 420 miles R/T.
On a TLC (gasser) that does get between 14-17 mpg (in that same R/T) it would be DUMB if I didn't fuel @ least twice if not 3 times.
I've always relied on quick estimates or a trip computer. I can't imagine the computer being off by more than 5-10% anyway.
We are making plans to improve our Forums! Whether you're a long time member or new to the community, we need your input. Please take a few minutes to complete the Edmunds Forums Survey.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/EdmundsForums
kcram - Pickups/Wagons/Vans+Minivans Host
Indeed the structurally obvious thing is that if one uses D2, the structural (NON) use of RUG/PUG is 100% or ZERO USE !!! ????
At that time, the overwhelming majority of folks were gasser users. (98% +) So really who the likely audience was and still IS/ARE apparent, despite app 150% growth in the diesel population (2% or less- diesels TO 5% to +more). So in that sense, it is no mystery why he still has not done a diesel challenge. Audience % and volume wise, WHO CARES !?
So for example, I have cut my RUG/PUG usage a MINIMUM of 43% yet, same question, WHO CARES !! ??? That has been answered many times over, especially on this board.
Great freakin' mileage. Just spectacular. So that 50 mph is your overall average over 88 miles right? The 1;46 sorta suggests that but I didn't get the calculator out. I'm thinking you set out to see just how good can this thing do if I set the cruise at 52 mph.
And like you say..a pretty nice place to be while you're enjoying this fuel economy..errr....that is if they conquered the rattle??
But on a smooth level lane, it's gotta help..
That mileage is from a loop from east of Seattle up 405 to southern Snohomish county down I5 to south King county then up 167/405 back home. It was probably 90% highway cruising, speeds of all kinds from city crawls to the cruise set at 67. My head would explode if I set the cruise at 52 on a highway :shades:
And as far as I can tell, the rattle is cured. This drive today was kind of a test, and I had a couple things to do anyway. Beautiful sunny day here, relatively relaxing drive even with traffic, no doubt helped by a comfortable mellow car.
"Diesel" exposure this week was boarding the plane on the tarmac. The jet fuel was pretty heavy on both ends of that leg of the flight. If gasser or diesel cars put out that much odor in a parking lot, people would be up in arms.
As you probably know and I have posted, but more importantly the regulators have "cooked the books" @ the behest of Toyota, ala result of the 2004 Prius experience/s on a older but still working AND reliable EPA test/s and standards: that in effect, favor hybrids.
Now some would say this might be "conspiratorial. But in effect, the tests were probably "refried" (as in refried beans or twice cooked pork) due to the fact that hybrids ARE part and parcel of the US market and regulatory policies. Hybrids (hybrid policy) did NOT exist when the 40+ year old EPA test was first conceived and executed. In addition, (probably out of earshot, not for consumer consumption) it was said and Toyota probably knew it had to redesign and adjust its EPA ratings of 60 C / 50 H, when most were getting 43/45 mpg. Ergo, testing attempts to shown a positive (if obviously SLANTED) light on a portion of THE policy.
Now through a convoluted set of logics and deductions, hybrids are favored while diesels are not directly lied about. I can cite any numbers of examples, but they are not sound bite able.
No real emissions controls on planes for sure.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if the books were cooked a bit in favor of the darling. They'd probably rate cars with some kind of surveillance/tracking tech built in even higher.
For example the raw data for the MB E350 blutec is 45.6 mpg.
I do not have access to the MB E 350 BlueTec data.
So for example, the VW T TDI 2012 lists EPA FCE @ 19 C (range 15-23) 28 H (range 23-33)
http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml
The link above has the raw data files for the EPA numbers (columns M,N,O). These raw numbers are what the government uses for CAFE. The raw numbers are what used to be published on the window stickers until they dumbed them down in the 80's and even further a few years ago. My '80 Scirocco was rated at 41 mpg highway (raw and on window sticker). On a modern window sticker it would be rated under 30 mpg.
Under similar conditions (listed on site) one can hit the raw data numbers. My '13 Accord 6MT is a raw 48 mpg on the highway and I have been able to duplicate that.
Edumunds.com lists the above ( 13 Honda Accord M/T 6 speed-yours) EPA @ 24/34
I think the mpg numbers do not detract from the central issue that (like model) diesels have a min of 30% mpg advantage (many others but I would just be repeating myself)
I sure would have loved to get the 2.2 liter diesel Accord (specially in a wagon). They were going to bring it but cancelled when only the stick could meet emissions.
Don't worry I will beat 48 quite handily when the car is broken in and the temps warm up - we have had 2 feet of snow in the last 2 weeks. Had less than 1k miles when I did that number.
So for example, in the 2012 VW Touareg gasser vs TDI: 60% better fuel mileage with the DIESEL.
Side benefit: 100% NON use of RUG/PUG . :surprise:
Not to cap on you, but if you went from diesel BACK to RUG/PUG, you have in effect, gone back over to the DARK side Luke !!! Whose your Daddy?
Nah, but some other cyclists are. Kind of like most people really don't care what someone else's mpg is, whether it's diesel or gas.
also my cruze has the 1.8T no-turbo rather than the slightly decontented/lightweight/taller-geared turbo cruze ECO.
thank you for your consideration.
I have found they like to ride 4 abreast on our narrow two lane highways. Forcing drivers to cross the double yellow to get around them. The bike lane on most of that very heavily ridden road is less than a foot wide. It is part of the regular route run several times a year. I will be glad when they start taxing by the mile and include bike riders. ;-)
Lately I'm liking the upcoming TDI 6-speed VW iBeetle.
(it looks like the VW Golf GTD isn't going to be happening in USA any year soon.)
I bet if I drove my car on that line for a long period, I could get a ticket. Maybe it should go both ways. Probably wouldn't help my mileage either
ML is available in a diesel - IMO one would be dumb not to choose it. Same for the F-series.
Yes that is a disappointment to me also. If I had another one to get it probably would be (now anyways) VW Golf GTD. Fintail and my sister almost have me getting interested in the MB 350 BlueTec. (Fintail's Bluetec- my sister could care less about bluetec)
Makes sense to me, I say Ban The Sedans :-)
Just looking at the cost of our gas so far on this trip makes me want a diesel SUV even more. We have traveled 1589 miles so far. Gas cost so far $311. A new Jeep GC diesel rated at 30 MPG highway would have used far less fuel Even figuring at the high price so far of $3.89 per gallon I would have over $100 more still in my pocket. That is with diesel averaging 60 cents more per gallon across TX and AZ.
The turbo-diesel is said to average 30 miles per gallon in highway driving. Its driving range exceeds 730 miles, the auto maker says. This compares with available Grand Cherokee engine including a 3.6-liter V-8 (17 mpg city/26 mpg highway) and the thirsty 5.7-liter V-8 (14/22).
Which means I would now be on my 3rd tank instead of 6th. Easier to pick the good prices when you have more range. My highest price gas was $3.49 because I did not want to risk another 50 miles where we filled at $3.11 per gallon.
One of my friends with the Prius (it's his wife's car) has a big pickup for towing and a tractor for plowing his longish driveway. I asked him what happened to his (used) diesel pickup that he got in late 99 before we moved. That's the one that ate starters and wouldn't start in the cold. He dumped it within a year.
The tractor is a Kubota, not sure which model he has. Probably a B series, which is a diesel.
Gas was $3.84, diesel $4.13 at most stations. Didn't see a premium sign.
Your post really highlights an interesting portal into the real issue/s on the so called size discussion. While I do not have access to the so called "real" industry data, as say Edmunds.com would most likely have, I have gleaned through various sources that the so called "LARGE" vehicle segment is really more like 75%+ or majority of the passenger vehicle fleet. "SUV's/CUV", etc., are fully 12%. Needless to say there are some overlaps, so the percentages may or may not be exactly 100%.
So as I understand you asking: why get 15 mpg to slightly better in the large car segments when some of the LARGEST of those can get 30 +mpg? To me a VERY logical question. Defacto, what the industry has done and folks overwhelmingly BUY is/are the EXACT opposite. To wit why do 30 mpg +(and move up) when you can do 15 mpg + or move UP from there. Of course the enviro cons vilify the size and lower mpg, but really have done a BANG job in helping to keep the cars that actually DO get great mpg OUT of the US markets: like a 30 mpg Jeep diesel !? Of course, all the while, they have been part and parcel of "the chicken little" story of catastrophically running out of RUG/PUG fuel, even as it was sure to leak out we are almost exponentially beyond the middle east in ALL the various energy resources, oil and gas. We have additionally beyond abundant coal resources.
So for another example, I have done the SOS DD trip (210 miles one way /420 miles R/T any number of times in 1990's TLC's. R/T mpg's seem to be app 15/16 mpg (range 14 to 17). So given a (last trip) posting of 32 mpg on the similar weight vehicle (4974#'s vs 4,800#s. The VW T TDI gets 113% BETTER fuel mileage. There are some on this board of the attitude that is really not a big deal at all (range of 14 to 17 mpg vs range of 29 to 39 mpg, again similar weight) !!! Me? I laught out loud and wonder how that attitude can be expressed with a straight face !?
SIDEBAR: But then, BO POTUS got elected and ... RE elected. example DOMESTIC terrorism has long been defeated !! Yup, Boston is NOT in the US ? Or is the BO administration ok with the "event" as only a majority of liberals were either killed or injured? (one China national, a BU grad student? and an 8 year old child could not vote anyway) GEEZ. Or perhaps is liberalism coming home to roost?
The narrative on the enviro cons side would range from get rid of that sized vehicle to close the road so you cant get there with a petro product. They would of course be fine with a tight coffin getting 15 to 19 mpg. I say this as Toyota Camry's Honda Accord's actually qualifed for the "cash for clunkers" program during the height of the economic crash and as a consequence poorest yearly US passenger vehicle sales, or should I say DEPTH? Indeed the rules allowed one to get cash for a Toyota Camry to buy a US made pick up truck that in all probablility got WORSE mpg than the Camry !! ??
Indeed that would cause me to ask why doesn't Prius build a model that one can hook up a plow and tow with?
In upstate NY (39 years ago) we used to have PLENTY of no start problems with diesel/ gas/electric plug in/ propane towing vehicles. To say ONLY diesels have this issue is NOT within my experience set.
for some reason I see no rich text options today
Anyway, I'm not so sure. Consider that you both have the same displacement turbo diesel. I think they have similar bore and stroke configs also. Yet we know that apparently the MB version gets a bit more mpg than VW's due to the rating of the ML vs the T. Both weigh much the same and are of pretty similar configuration...AWD's, height, grd clearance, size, 8 sp vs 7, probably a bit lower final drive gearing in the T etc.. So all this suggests that the MB 3.0 has greater efficiency potential than the VW 3.0. And if that isn't convincing enough, consider that to compare your Touareg being what it is, to Fintails car being what IT is...only 2 WD, a CAR, lighter etc and to suggest that you can do as well or even better it...well that doesn't quite connect the dots..
Don't get me wrong, I'm a pretty big T fan. For what it is, it gets incredible FE, but no matter how great it is, FT's E350 will always be able to do better driven like for like.
The more direct (but lesser yet more costly) comparison: Highlander(19.6)/Highlander Hybrid (24.9) CUV. vs VW T TDI 27.9 mpg.
I am sure if we compare the Bluetec/TDI engine specifications side by side they are pretty close. The other issue would be the 7 speed vs 8 speed A/T comparison. Indeed I am running @ a disadvantage (advantage in chain control) with the "all wheel drive" AWD. The weight differences (+800-900#'s) works against the Touareg. In the ML350 it also has a hybrid CVT transmission. How that should would could affect mpg I really don't know and am curious.
I do know that the 39.8 mpg is more than doable on the downgrade out of the mountains. But % wise that speed @ that mpg is only 13% of the total R/T. So the task would be do do 50 mph (AVG) for the 87% rest of the trip. ZZZZZZZZZ! ? GEEZZZZ Where is Gerdes when you want him? So yes I also would bet with the e350 bluetec on the mpg issue especially if Gerdes has mastered the intricacies of the TDI and transmissions.
I have no Bold, Italic, bar choices etc etc
have they made changes at Edmunds or is the problem on my end?
It says "Text formatting can be applied to preselected text."
And there is a CLOSE ALL box, but no Open All box. Something is up..or down..