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?

1176177179181182473

Comments

  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,435
    just read the latest issue of Motor Trend, and they had a small piece (LT test I think) on the JGC diesel. Plenty of performance (0-60 in 7 or 8 seconds), and overall returned 26.4. No chance a gasser is coming close to that, especially the hemi which you likely need for comparable towing.

    This application just seems to make a ton of sense.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    especially makes sense if you fill up the JGC with 4 other people. If it's just you driving around in it, it makes no sense at all.

    Wanna bet that the first time you see a diesel JGC, it'll have one occupant?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Wanna bet that the first time you see a diesel JGC, it'll have one occupant?

    Of course, he did not want to wait for momma and the kids to get ready. He just wanted to feel the freedom from his 16 MPG SUV he just traded in. Single occupants using the HOV lanes in EVs and hybrids make no sense either. You buy a vehicle for the biggest task you would regularly need it for. I could accomplish most of my driving needs with a Mini. Yesterday we hauled my daughter in law and two grandsons around. That means we needed that third row or let one of the children stay home. I consider a large 5 passenger vehicle the very minimum for traveling, even with just two of us. On this current trip the Sequoia was filled with stuff going to Ohio and Indiana. CA family sending the heavy stuff they did not want ship. If I could get a Sequoia sized SUV that gets 30 MPG on the highway, I would be a happy camper.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    edited May 2013
    Very few people actually need an SUV. Or at least in the true sense of the word. The majority buy it for the AWD capabilities and the room, under the guise of it being safer due to its size. When you state your criteria is 30 mpg highway, and lots of room, I can't help but think an AWD minivan (which really aren't mini any more...have you seen a Chrysler Caravan lately?) with a turbo diesel has got to be as close as it it gets to the ideal vehicle for a family like yours. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your Sequoia is AWD...not even sure if they came in rear wheel drive...probably tho I guess) but I don't recall your adventures involving the need for more grd clearance than a minivan provides. Just getting the vehicle closer to the grd is one of the cheapest, most effective fuel savers a mfrgr can do. And I would wager that as roomy as your Seq is, you can't fold the seats and throw a piece of 4x8 plywood in the back for a backyard man-cave project.

    I really think I will be dead from old age before the powertrains, (think oil burners) in the configurations that make the most sense, ever reaches (or is allowed to be used by us) on these shores.

    And for those who buy even a small class SUV for the ute or cute factor (most buy it for the AWD capability in those types of climates AWD is necessary due to precious few AWD car choices available to them...but I digress :( ) I wonder how long it will take Chevy to offer their new Trax with the diesel that they are going to offer in the Cruze soon? TOO LONG! If they wanna get attention...bring it out in the Trax FIRST! Or at least at the SAME TIME! Get people used to the idea of being able to get great mpg without giving up all their other wants/requirements.

    Basically our collective countries over here are run by freakin' idiots.
    Recently I was watching a really interesting documentary on Germany's ICE 3 (Inner City Express Mk3) highspeed train (180 mph). Designed by Bombardier Cda and Siemens of Germany. They also covered the MagLev (310 mph) a train that levitates on electro magnetics.
    I guess my point is, or one of them..I know I am all over the place here this morning.. we are not living in the dark ages with our technology capabilities over here, because we actually design and build this impress tech here, butthen we ship it out of and don't even use it (not allowed rather) in our own country!! Think of all the diesels that we build HERE, but EU gets..not us!!
    So ironic.. but I guess if life were crueler still, I'd be working in one of those factories, installing a great little diesel into the chassis of an AWD Accord or CRV, then finishing my shift and walking out to the parking lot to get in my gas job POS... and use up some precious sleeping time because the thing is too low on gas to get home, so have to swing by the gas stn first. If it was a diesel, my ventures into a gas stn could be cut practically in half.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Knowing Chrysler, they'll come up with an AWD diesel minivan.

    And omit the sliding doors. :P
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    To be honest, if we were going to be alloted only one AWD diesel minivan, I'd rather Honda or Toyota or even Mazda do it, instead of Chrysler. IMO, the last best generation van they built was...95? 98 maybe? back around then sometime. Their quality has gone down. I am sure my opinion is heavily influenced by a brand new one I sat in at the dealers lot and was checking out for about an hour or so. This was in 2010 or maybe 09? The first year of this last gen van. I couldn't believe how POORLY it was slapped together! Not exaggerating in the least...just totally unacceptable things like seat belt floor buckle mounts INSTALLED BACKWARDS on the floor!! Not kidding! And a seatbelt shoulder hoop harness whose plastic trim bit broke and jammed into the side of the belt while pulling it out to length to try to buckle up. Other crap too...just terrible...oh...a rear seat that wouldn't fold into the floor without trying to grab the carpet or something..I forget...It was such a pile of junk. Yet the principle behind a minivan I really like. I love the room, being able to sleep overnight in it at times, such a versatile vehicle...great driving position/visibility...can slip out from behind the wheel and swap drivers on the fly in the pouring rain without getting wet..
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Funny, had minivans since '89 and camped all over, and never once slept in mine. By the time I cleared the junk and toys out of it to make room, it'd be dawn anyway, lol. My brother does sleep in his Odyssey occasionally.

    I dunno, a Cummins in a Caravan could really sell. Be a good rig for towing your boat too.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited May 2013
    "Very few people actually need an SUV. Or at least in the true sense of the word. "

    That is to may or may not be true. However, how many folks (non suv/cuv owners) use the majority of their car's capacity, the majority of the time?

    If what you imply is true, then why would a Prius need a single occupant "get out of ticket" sticker to use the commute lane?? :blush: I have NEVER seen a Prius with 5/6 folks, albeit in the commute lane, during commute hours. The majority are SINGLE's !!

    To answer the next requirement, I went just went up to Tahoe from the San Jose area in 80 to 85 degree weather. So I just went up with a polo shirt and carried a light wind breaker: .....BIG.... mistake!. Tahoe was COLD and hit with thunder storms and it literally POURED overnight and ALL night. To boot, early morning it started to snow ! ? (global warming, you know) On the downgrade and return home, they instituted CHAIN controls. If I did not have the SUV/CUV, they would have made me chain up and/or wait or go back. I was just lucky that when I decided to pass, the chain controls they had lifted it some minutes to half hour before. CALTRANS also ran snow plows. :surprise:
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    On the downgrade and return home, they instituted CHAIN controls. If I did not have the SUV/CUV, they would have made me chain up and/or wait or go back.

    You mean that had you had an AWD minivan, they would have still made you put chains on? Doesn't sound reasonable to me. For one thing, if the snow is so deep that the chains make the difference between the grd clearance of a minivan vs your VW T, then if traction is lost, chains would just spin out the snow that much quicker and highend (not the term I'm looking for but can't think of it right now) you anyway. (but island-you on snow, tires in the air as the extreme)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."You mean that had you had an AWD minivan, they would have still made you put chains on?"...

    Yes and absolutely.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    edited May 2013
    Why? And no matter what their reasons, it is just so typical and totally supports the very rant/attitude of NA I posted earlier today. Ridiculous rules and laws that fall flat when fronted. It's the old Super-Size me NA attitude, when a mere medium would have easily sufficed..

    Years ago I had a 4x4 Camry..even had lockable centre dif, which I never needed. In fact it was SO capable...the frig car would climb trees if there was some snow on the bark..and in those mountains you drive, its LCG would actually be a lot safer on the tight turns..

    And now we have come to yet another time a pic would be worth a thousand words, if it was easier to upload here...I have a pic of my Matrix plowing snow on my drive that was almost going up over the hood. It would have but I couldn't get enough road speed for that to happen. And I didn't even have snows. They were All Season Good Year TA's or GA's ...forget..
    It was literally doing 14" of snow and still wasn't highending itself..
    Admittedly, it must have been just the right type of powder to compliment the cars capabilities, but what is even more shocking, was that it wasn't super cold out...was only about 18 or 20 or so..

    It's a great pic..wish I could show you.. and if it weren't for so much internet hosting site sharing crap, I could do it that way but when they started to inundate me with spam as soon as I opened an account..I killed it. I think it was Flicker or something..maybe tinyurl is better in that regard but I doubt it..
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    And I would wager that as roomy as your Seq is, you can't fold the seats and throw a piece of 4x8 plywood in the back for a backyard man-cave project.

    That is true, the seats take up nearly as much room folded as in place. I took the the back row out and stored them for 5 years. Pulled them out to haul family around last fall. And yes it is 4X4. The Seqouia is rear wheel drive. I would consider a mini van with a diesel engine. The Sienna AWD is only good for 19 MPG. I get 16 MPG with my Sequoia.

    I have a Frontier for hauling plywood. It also gets about 16 MPG. I am forced to waste gas by the same ECO Nuts that scream against wasting gas.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    edited May 2013
    Oh believe me...I was only referring to a diesel version of an AWD m-van. If they (the gas) so hard on gas, I would own one instead of my CRV. I constantly have to use a trailer for things that the m van would swallow easy. It's very frustrating..

    Yes I knew they were rear wheel, I meant rear 2WD..They are big vehicles..huge even. I guess it still uses a live rear axle in the rear, eh?

    You can lay plywood flat between the wheel wells on the newer Frontiers? Wow, didn't know they had copied Dakota in that way. Very cool.. but yes, they too really suck gas. So unlike the original roots of that engine (I'm thinking the 4 but sounds like you have the 6?) which only used throttle body injection, but my lifetime average with a 4x4 Pathfinder stick, with that old engine was 24 Imp. Or was it 27? I'm forgetting but have it doc'd somewhere...was either 23.9 or 26.9..

    And if you have the supercharged version I hear they are really REALLY hard on gas..but have quite a bit of grunt..it's the same old thing with gas jobs...you can have one OR the other (go or economy) but unlike a diesel, you can't have both..
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    California chain laws are something else; I've had to play the waiting game before.

    (Tinyurl doesn't spam me; there's no signup).
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    Steve,

    Maybe you can post them for me in this post?. I just emailed them to you.

    5922 was after I had cleared the road with the plow. The first pic is mid way up my hill. It's a bit of a level spot for a bit before getting into another steep rise about 200' long to the top. The Matrix cudda done it if I was prepared to waste enough gas working away at it in the ruts making an extra 15' at a time but decided to get the plow. Knew it would make a great pic so went up to get the camera and brought it down with me on first pass with the plow.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited May 2013
    ..."Why? And no matter what their reasons, it is just so typical and totally supports the very rant/attitude of NA I posted earlier today. Ridiculous rules and laws that fall flat when fronted. It's the old Super-Size me NA attitude, when a mere medium would have easily sufficed.. "...

    I would not even begin to fathom the REAL reasons, stated/un and the plethora of other wise.

    However, purely from an anecdotal point of view, I have seen the gambit from SUV's CUV's, trucks having seemingly unfathomable accidents: to more obvious Honda Civics' with ricer WIDE wheels and track tires who somehow flipped their vehicles in ice and snow and wondered,.... how'd and why'd that happened !! ?? I would NOT have a clue as to why they would not have a clue. Now, I have no issues with someone like that being stupid. I do take extreme exception when they want to intentionally or unintentionally try to inflict that stupidity on ME and mine. Natually they are betting YOUR life that YOU have insurance for they probably have no to inadequate insurance. I have sadly been a passing witness to fatalities and helicopter extractions, etc., etc. in winter. (just this past winter)
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    image

    image

    You used a diesel plow, right?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    what's all that white stuff? :P
  • tifightertifighter Member Posts: 3,591
    If I did not have the SUV/CUV, they would have made me chain up and/or wait or go back.
    ------------------
    "...You mean that had you had an AWD minivan, they would have still made you put chains on?"..."

    Yes and absolutely.


    This is not true. R2 conditions, which are the most common when it snows requires 2WD vehicles to chain up. 4WD/AWD vehicles do not provided they have all-season, M/S rated tires or snow tires (which are never checked). Caltran does not distinguish between a AWD CUV/SUV and a AWD minivan; if you can show your vehicle is equipped with 4WD/AWD to chain control, you're through. AWD Siennas are pretty popular family shuttles to ski schools on the weekends; I see them all the time during R2 restriction windows.

    In rare R3 conditions, they require chains on all AWD/4WD vehicles. This happened to me one time leaving Kings Beach to Northstar, and conditions were not pretty. Chains+AWD got me there, though.

    23 Civic Type-R / 22 MDX Type-S / 21 Tesla Y LR / 03 Montero Ltd

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited May 2013
    Ah no, I have seen many a AWD vehicle on the sides of the road chaining up. Indeed even you use chains on an AWD! ? So if even you do not agree defacto( real world).... But as you mentioned, it is hard to check for M/S tires, or snow tires for that matter. I have been asked several times and they ONLY ask for 4 WD. There was absolutely no mention of AWD, let alone whether one has green symbol tires. Are there folks that slip by? Absolutely. I have even. Can it be interpreted and enforced in different ways? Yes.

    Now, I will agree that once you are in the area, you can operate a vehicle with or without chains. Indeed, I have no issues doing it in a Honda Accord or Civic. Is it smart? Yes and No. Do I do it now? NO ! So I would not doubt that you see cars like Sienna's operating in the area during R1, R2 and rare R3 conditions sans snow tire and/or chains dare I so no AWD :confuse: .

    Here is one reference CA.gov Chain Controls

    So for example when the snow plows with tractor tires and chains and the plow blades have issues/problems and with embedded GPS that reads the markers in real time have problems, I in my CUV with even with chains and snow tires probably should not be on the roads in the soup.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Chains+AWD got me there, though.

    CA rules on chains are crazy. They can cause as many accidents as they prevent. 37 years living and working in Alaska and never owned chains. Most of the time I had rear wheel drive vehicles with studded tires in winter. Much preferred over AWD with chains. I avoid CA mountains during the winter because of their ignorant rules and regs.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited May 2013
    Yes it is interesting to consider that I can get 2 to 5 mpg better without the 4wd option. I also understand an ad blue delete and subsequent hardware removal and finer tune chipping can add another app 4 mpg. :surprise: It is interesting that during winter, the "rules" actually make one burn even more fuel. They of course "winterize" RUG/PUG which in effect burns even more, than burning even more.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited May 2013
    Don't see an AWD option but there's another diesel option available. And at least some of them have sliders, but only one slider is available.

    "For 2014, buyers for the first time have the choice of two turbocharged diesel engines. Added to the line is a 2.1-liter engine that is mated to a seven-speed automatic transmission. The engine is standard in all Sprinter models and rated at 161 horsepower and 265 pound-feet of torque."

    Redesigned 2014 Mercedes-Benz Sprinter Targets Ford Econoline

    No mpg numbers yet.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited May 2013
    Yes, I think contrary to a lot of opinions expressed on this board (cost is no object if someone else is paying for it?) , this MB sprinter is aimed squarely @ those fleets or businesses where (lower the better) cost per mile driven are an issue, usually huge. If Ford does not go the diesel route, albeit 2.1 L , MB will easily win the lower cost per mile metric FUEL. Even if it gets better than 25 mpg (what the MB 3.0 L Sprinter was reputed to get) , it should easily out metric the E150 paneled van which posts 12 mpg in the real world.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    Thanks..
    Ahhh...in the interest of thread purity, ahh ya.. :shades:
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    edited May 2013
    I guess there is not much out there to replace it presently, but aren't those things a money pit? Thereby negating fuel savings.

    In theory this type of truck makes so much sense, but to be a MB?? That name brings with it a pile of prestige when talking about their cars. Not so with the truck, it just brings with it big buck costs due to its association with the name and issues. It would fine if it wasn't a money pit, but..

    On a smaller scale I am just amazed that Ford hasn't dieselized the Transit. The intelligence meter is hanging pretty low there Ford. I wouldn't be surprised if more than one or two of ya near the top are drooling..and no...I don't mean with anticipation of anything..

    And I know personally of 4 contractors in my area would BUY 2 or 3 EACH Transits IF they were diesel AND 4WD. Can't buy what isn't offered tho..idiots..

    I just don't get why, when there is real work to be done, that diesels don't make a clean sweep. Oh ya...you can't buy what isn't offered.. :(

    I've said it before and I'll say it again..this is a HUGE opportunity for Korea to offer the consumer what is blatantly not being offered by their competition..so ya...they're idiots too..

    Any other world problems that I can help provide answers for? haha :shades:
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited May 2013
    MB has been making trucks forever so they may have a good handle on the operating costs. Ask Gagrice about the Sprinter he had for a while when he gets back.

    The Transit Connect is frustrating. I could probably live with the gasser version if it just came in a 5 speed.
  • flightnurseflightnurse Member Posts: 2,217
    "For 2014, buyers for the first time have the choice of two turbocharged diesel engines. Added to the line is a 2.1-liter engine that is mated to a seven-speed automatic transmission. The engine is standard in all Sprinter models and rated at 161 horsepower and 265 pound-feet of torque."

    Interesting is this the same engine in the GLK that is rated at 200hp? and 398;bs of torque? If so why would MB lower the HP and T in a heavier vehicle? BTW I was impressed that MB increased the HP on the diesel for the cars, now if any BMW would do the same thing.
  • flightnurseflightnurse Member Posts: 2,217
    The Transit Connect is frustrating. I could probably live with the gasser version if it just came in a 5 speed.

    We are having work done on or heating and AC ducting here at the house, and the AC guy has a new Transit, at first he wasn't too sure if he would like it, after a month, he does and the company is going to buy 15 more. He is averaging 20 mpg with it much better than the 14 with his old van. Now if it has a diesel in it, it would be much higher. I'm sure Ford is making a killing on those transits, the cost to product them must be low...
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    They do have a certain appeal. But my '99 van averages 21 in mixed use.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Ask Gagrice about the Sprinter he had for a while when he gets back.

    I owned a 2006 MB Sprinter conversion van for a little over a year. It had the 5 cylinder inline engine and 5 speed selectronic transmission. My two complaints was parking as it was almost 23 feet long. And the height made it less than great in the wind or being passed by semis. I never got under 20 MPG. It would run all day at 75 MPH across TX and return 25 MPG. If they came out with a mini van size with that 2.1L diesel it would be a nice vehicle to trick out for traveling cross country. The smaller 144" wheelbase Sprinter is still more vehicle than I want. It is about two feet longer than my Sequoia.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited May 2013
    Back to the GLK250, the US price is coming in at $39,495 to start and the mileage is 24 city/33 highway/28 combined. Note that it's $500 less than the gasoline-powered GLK350 4Matic.

    2013 Mercedes-Benz GLK250 Delivers Diesel Power and Efficiency
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited May 2013
    I think if there was ever a time for a diesel VW "Tiguan" type vehicle, it is now. Even with the slight diesel premium, the "top" version (of which edmunds.com lists 11) would be cheaper than the entry diesel GLK250. Indeed it would be one step closer to VW having a diesel option across its model line.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Mercedes is serious about dominating the Luxury market again. At 33 MPG I would have saved about $275 on fuel, even with diesel selling at $4 per gallon most of the trip. Have to take a closer look at the GLK.
  • scwmcanscwmcan Member Posts: 399
    Well Ford doesn't offer a diesel in the Transit Connect, but the full size Transit is supposed to offer one ( and no it doesnt make sense to not offer one in the smaller van, but at least the offer it in the full size). I seem to recall it wil be a 5 cyl diesel. As for the naming scheme, it follows the rest of the world naming, but I can see it leading to confusion, especially when some will forget that the smaller van has a second part to the name.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    As for the naming scheme, it follows the rest of the world naming, but I can see it leading to confusion, especially when some will forget that the smaller van has a second part to the name

    Yes, and that is what I did. I'm not surprised though, cuz I have been boycotting Ford for the past 22 years, so don't follow all of their product offerings. This is a good example, cuz while I knew about their Transit Connect, cuz I could use a vehicle of this type in my work. But I immediately dismissed it since it is a heavy tall vehicle with no diesel or AWD option, so no matter how efficient it may propose to be, its capability could be so much more = Fail IMB's.

    Aside from my boycott, it could have stood at least a bit of chance had it offered AWD, but again, that just makes it that much heavier and fuel hungry so the need for a diesel that much more obvious, so a Total Unadulterated Fail.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited May 2013
    Being as how 75% of the passenger vehicle fleet are large cars to "light trucks," it makes all the (non PC) sense why diesels in that broad segment are being banned to choked off. Defacto, they (large car to light truck diesels) are less than 2.5% of the vehicle fleet. The other 2.5% diesels are passenger cars, for a total currently of app less than 5%.

    In or on the mid sized segment (less than 25% of the passenger vehicle fleet) , I read that Toyota and Honda are losing (dominance) hold of that market segment. There is a quiet to not so quiet battle going on (gasser especially) and diesel has several models in the mid sized segment. Indeed, TDI Passat's competition gets less mpg for (Camry type) hybrids and costs anywhere from 6k to 8k (MSRP) more than the Passat diesel.
  • flightnurseflightnurse Member Posts: 2,217
    I read someplace that VW will be offering a TDI Tiquan for 2014.
  • flightnurseflightnurse Member Posts: 2,217
    I'm disappointed that the 250GLK isn't getting better MPG on the highway. Too bad it's not $1500 less then the 350GLK.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    If the EPA rates it at 33 MPG highway, it is a sure bet it will get in the high 30s. Those test are designed to make diesel vehicles look bad. If the ML250 BlueTec sold in the EU is capable of 40 MPG US, the GLK should be even better.

    The ML 250 bagged the recognition because of the energy-saving features of its 204 hp diesel engine which can go 40 miles while only using 1 gallon of fuel.

    http://www.benzinsider.com/2013/01/two-mercedes-benz-cars-recognized-as-most-env- ironment-friendly/
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited May 2013
    "40 miles while only using 1 gallon of fuel. "

    Indeed I would agree with the posted link. I think (swag only) it is well within the range.

    The VW Touareg TDI is rated 19/28 mpg EPA. It has easily 900#'s over the MB and almost a Liter BIGGER engine. So with me getting 32/33 mpg consistently (in SOS DD 420 mp R/T), my anecdotal information indicates 14 to 18% BETTER. It is almost a slam dunk it will be WAY more, if I went the requisite 65 mph. Doing that would decrease my safety factors, so I am not cruisin for a bruin. Indeed if I tailor my speeds to get 43 mpg (posted that for 80/90 miles in the mountains coming out of highway 50 from South Lake Tahoe, not freeway ) that would be closer to 54% BETTER than its EPA (my swag is 5 mpg under the speed limits or 60 mph) .
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited May 2013
    for use in the USA: (if automakers want to *seriously* build a diesel market in America that is not merely marginal)

    1. small diesel pickup truck (1/2 ton)

    2. HUGE 9-passenger SUV

    3. Subaru Outback Wagon

    and of course, what we already have---F250 and F350 type heavy haulers.

    Forget small sedans, forget mid-size SUVs, forget large passenger cars. The economics don't work here like they do in Europe.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    What about minivans? A sienna or odyssey with a nice diesel should do real well. That niche is ignored by hybrids as well.
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Member Posts: 5,499
    edited May 2013
    What about minivans?

    Minivans are too practical and are not driven by the elites who define what's important, besides which those who don't fit into that category would rather be shot on sight than be seen in a minivan. It's all about SUVs or SAVs or LMNOPVs because they're not perceived as suburban drone carriers, at least by those who drive them. For the rest of us. . .

    It's all about what's cool or happening or whatever this week's word is. Can you imagine what the TV commercial for a diesel minivan would look like? Neither can I.

    The fact that such a vehicle would be useful beyond belief is totally irrelevant.
    '08 Acura TSX, '17 Subaru Forester
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited May 2013
    Hey, I'm pretty l33t. :P How about this in a diesel minivan?

    image

    Mercedes-Benz Citan Compact Van Under Consideration for U.S. (No word on the actual powertrain we could get).

    Oh, all the commercial has to say is 40 mpg.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Even if they WANTED to, the legislative and other food chains have it tatoo'd in almost every possible place that hybrids to plug in's ARE the policy.

    Most UP front is what the WSJ calls the $8,000 premium to run a diesel due to all the hurdles a diesel car are made to over come. Can you imagine if diesels were 8,000 to 9,000 cheaper (than like models of course) ??? The REAL economics would be FAR better here than almost ANYTHING in Europe, despite it working well over THERE.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited May 2013
    ..."What about minivans? A sienna or odyssey with a nice diesel should do real well. That niche is ignored by hybrids as well." ...

    Indeed that is a lower volume (higher dollar) NICHE and all that implies.

    Edmunds.com (or shall I say I read a road test on the) did a very comprehensive take on the VW Touareg HYBRID. (The EPA as I recall was 24 mpg vs spa 28 for TDI)

    Not to gush on, but this thing is SOOOOOO MONSTER, the brake pads and rotors are oversized to the TDI's (tennie tiny ;) ) Both the HP and Torque figures dwarf the TDI's. MPG compared to the TDI is almost abysmal.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    Dang...except for the bit of Nissan Cube happening at the A pillars and side windows, that thing looks fine..

    Of course all MB's should have the 3 point star rising above the leading edge of the hood.. displaying proud for the driver..
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,096
    edited May 2013
    Small road trip today, acceptable mileage:

    image

    This was mostly cruise set at 65 on state highways driving, with a few slowdowns and city streets mixed in.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    Can you imagine what the TV commercial for a diesel minivan would look like?

    Oh yes I can..as Steve suggests "40MPG!" works..

    You spoiled this great first part: "The fact that such a vehicle would be useful beyond belief"

    with the word irrelevant. And with that, I can't agree at all. I'm guessing you were speaking for the ignorant masses...to that I say..don't help them..
This discussion has been closed.