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?

1191192194196197473

Comments

  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    Oops!

    Internet Director

    No I didn't see that (interior) color.

    I did see the diamond white (exterior) on another car. I didn't think it was worth the premium. It would have been a distant second (white), if no premium. As you probably know a metallic color is normally a bit more robust than a NON (plain black red or white). I guess to describe it, it would be a cross between pearl but MORE metallic flake BRIGHTER white. I did like the Diamond Silver Metallic"( blue). Out of the 12 colors I would be ok with 7 of them.

    Of the 8 Touareg colors, I would be ok with 6 of them.

    On the spare tire issue, I am actually glad that VW went back to the F/S spare for 2013 Touareg (I have read in passing). It really hasn't affected me, even as I have once taken a nail, and was able to drive to the dealer for R/R/B/R . In my anecdotal real world case, I would not have had nor changed to a full time spare even if I had it. I have yet to experience a "catastrophic" flat.

    If the board will indulge the TMI portion, I can go on.

    TDI fuel mileage is consistently the same. This last fill I just went even farther and took on 24 gal (26.4 gal capacity) for 775 miles.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    After driving all SUVs Mercedes & BMW have to offer with diesel I agree with this writer about the 2013 VW Touareg TDI.

    The last frontier has been how to achieve the desired levels of fuel efficiency that bureaucrats want while continuing to keep customer expectations of towing power, acceleration response, driving range and overall drivability within the paradigms that they have become accustomed too. This challenge is being met in varying degrees of success, with various technologies. This week’s Volkswagen Touareg TDI represents perhaps the best engineering effort thus far available to the masses.

    Any time you have a vehicle that has a higher torque output than its horsepower rating, you can safely assume that A) the car or truck has ample power in reserve for passing, pulling, and playing, and B) that vehicle will be fun to drive swiftly or slowly. The Touareg TDI excels on both counts.

    Cast aside all of your perceptions about diesel engines in cars, as the Touareg TDI behaves as well as — if not better — than the latest gasoline direct injection engines. You never smell any diesel fumes — urea-injection programming eliminates any noxious tailpipe emissions — plus the TDI engine is very quiet.


    http://fenceviewer.com/site/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=80266:on-the-ro- ad-review-volkswagen-touareg-tdi&Itemid=938
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    I got to say that one of the things on my "bucket" list is to be chauffeured around in the (my) VW T TDI, so I can sit in the back, stretch the legs, do the IPAD, watch movies, cell phone routines and eat a couple of lunches, back there. ;)

    On a more serious note, that writer does a good job in highlighting the balances that the VW T TDI ( Audi & Porsche iterations= over 37,000 units in 2012) has been engineered to capture. While the Porsche purists would not be caught dead acknowledging this (probably under pain of excommunication) : this CUX is responsible for Porsche's pre eminent position it its marketplace.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I agree, he knows the SUV market and nailed it. What impressed me the most with the Touareg was the seats and over all interior. The Mercedes ML has nice comfortable seats. The interior seems dated. Not that much better than my 2007 Sequoia. The BMW seats are like riding on rocks and even older technology. The GLK seats are ok but very utilitarian. Even the New Escalade seats have gone the BMW route. I have not checked out the Lexus as they are living in the past on their laurels. Nothing to compete except the RX hybrid. Not in the running.

    I am considering trips to Belize and I think the VW Touareg would be much better received in Mexico than a Mercedes. There are several white with saddle brown leather in a 500 mile radius. Just a matter of contacting dealers and putting a deal together. I would like to swap for the 18" wheels and tires. Not a deal breaker though. Second choice would be a white Sport TDI with NAV and Cornsilk leatherette.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    edited June 2013
    I'm thinking you have definitely talked yourself out of the GLK, which is fine, but as long as it ha$ been for the right rea$on$. Let's review some of your original criteria.

    Unless you're independently wealthy, then price of admission is right up there. Check.

    Strong, quiet, fuel efficient diesel engine. Check.

    Roomy enough, comfortable enough, quiet, and aesthetically pleasing interior with supportive seats. Check. (remember the price of admission here, before you respond) If you didn't like the seats in the GLK, then that would be enough of a reason to pass right then and there...or at least it would for me..but they just weren't that bad were they?

    Sometimes a vehicle can be too big to be the main run-around wheels. I think the GLK is in a real sweet spot here compared to the either the ML or VW T and definitely the JGC.

    You're pissed about the minimum 19" wheels (me too) and started getting negative vibes and ran with them when you thought it may come with RFTs like it or not...but since we have sorta found out that that isn't the case (haven't we?) then ya gotta re-evaluate that negativety thought process regarding the the wheels and tires. Are the 19" rims really a deal-breaker now, considering all its many other virtues?

    I know that range is another of your prerequisites if parting ways with the Sequoia, and while the VW T really shines in this regard (I thought so too when I first started getting interested in it as I love big tanks...especially diesel which isn't as explosive as gas, but let's review some comparo facts here between the two. First, the GLK with its 66 litre has greater range than the ML right? And is not that much less than the VW T because it gets significantly better FE than the VW T...which is a real achievement when you consider how great the VW T is in that regard..

    25.6 x 3.785 = 97 litres VW T x a very fair 32 mpg as per ruking's recent 24 gal refill in 770 miles. So 1.5 gal left in tank if I am recalling his figures closely enough.

    17.4x 3.785 = 66 litre GLK (tank size in Cda at least, so converting back to US gal)

    So if we leave that same 1.5 gal in the tank of the GLK, our range will be 610 miles at a very very conservative 38 mpg. I really think that like for like, interpreting the driving style/conditions that in using ruking's figure of 32, then to be fair, I really think the GLK is going to do an honest 42 and probably even better..but I am trying to be as subjective as possible so as to make for a dependable comparo. So 42 x 16 gal = 672 miles. This is literally only 100 miles less range, but also proportionately you are paying less to refuel and also are literally carrying less weight in fuel for every one of those fewer 100 miles you do. I think what has to be remembered here, is 600+ miles is a VERY useable and stressfree range, and quite a bit more than your average vehicle in NA. It sure is a pile more miles than the Seq range, correct? And huge difference when it comes time to refuel in $.

    So..we are back to 18" wheels vs 19"- score for the VW T
    Can get both without sunroof - but even easier in the GLK ($ too) - score GLK
    Seats in GLK, while maybe not as comfy as the VW T, are obviously fairly comfy because you did not consider that a weakness until you drove the VW T. - here, I would still say..score another for the GLK.
    - Cost! - this is such a no-brainer...the GLK runs away with lead here. In order to get the GLK equipped $imilarly to the VW T, wouldn't you almost have to hook a brand new PWC complete with trailer, to the back of the GLK? And then would still show the same bank balance at the end of the day?

    Something ruking mentioned that really piqued my interest...about metallic paint having more robustness (sorry...not to put words in your mouth, ruking..forget your exact comment) than a straight enamel. Is that really true? Like...does metallic resist a door ding chip/zipper scratch, better than a straight white? Or were you talking more about oxidation resistance?
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    It might be valuable to say that the two ( VW T TDI and MB GLK250 Blue Tec) are entirely different animals. EPA H 29 vs 33 mpg (14% better) , 2.1 L Twin turbo 4 cylinder diesel, vs 3.0 single turbo 6 cylinder diesel, 4974 #s vs 4035#'s. (and keeps going) So in a strict sense to equalize, at the very least, one needs to apply offsets. So for example if we were to equalize the 3.0 L with an engineered addition of twin turbos and app hardware and soft wear, I think most would agree that would change the metrics wildly toward way more EXCITING !

    That being said one, can reach across so called "equal metrics" to solve whatever concerns, one solves for. So for example, IF highest mpg is the most important priority, why look beyond an 03 TDI @ 50 mpg when a VW TDI gets a "lowly" 32 mpg?

    IF the US legislative and regulatory agencies are SO concerned about MPH, why do they systematically exclude the VW GOLF (with 30 M ww units), that gets 73 mpg +???? and only let in those that get far far less (31/42 mpg) ? Are they really saying a car that gets 31 mpg pollutes LESS and uses far less fuel than one that gets 73 mpg?? !!!! At some level, this is beyond wacky. Needless to say it passes as totally logical.

    As for the metallic vs non paint, it is more of oxidation resistance and to a much lesser extent physical armor.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think the GLK is in a real sweet spot here compared to the either the ML or VW T and definitely the JGC.

    I think it is as well for my initial purpose. My plan and, you have to know if you are married, was not my wife's plan. I wanted to unload the Lexus LS400 and buy the GLK for our day to day running around and short 200 mile trips to start with. If it was less than great for a couple hundred mile trip we would still have the Sequoia for the cross country trips. My wife will not part with her LS400 and plans to sell the Sequoia to her grand daughter for low BB. That means what ever we buy has to replace the Sequoia. I have doubts that the GLK would be as comfortable driving 500-700 miles in a day, as the Touareg or ML. According to MB the GLK250 has a smaller tank than the GLK350 gasser.

    GLK250 BT = 15.6 gallons @ 33 MPG = 515 mile range
    ML350 BT = 24.6 gallons @ 28 MPG = 688 mile range
    Touareg TDI = 26.5 gallons @ 29 MPG = 768 mile range

    I am positive all three would get far better than the EPA highway estimates. The seats in the ML are more comfortable than the GLK from our back to back test drives. The Touareg was even more comfortable for me at over 6 foot because of the bottom cushion being bigger. One reviewer that was 5'8" mentioned it being too long for his legs. More headroom in the T-Reg than either the GLK or ML. And more legroom in the VW than the ML. GLK had good legroom. I actually had to move the seat forward an inch or two in the Touareg. Something I rarely do. I have a tendency to look at base models and end up buying the loaded ones. A fairly loaded ML Bluetec is at least $5k over the T-Reg Executive.

    So my decision will be based more on what the overall use of the vehicle will be. I could enjoy driving the GLK day in and day out running errands and trips to the mountains and deserts. I just don't think it would be that great driving cross the USA on a long trip. I would recommend the GLK to anyone looking for a great CUV that gets great mileage. I think it is head and shoulders above anything the Japanese or Koreans are selling here.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,092
    From this morning's drive

    image

    Going the other way a few days ago, had 39.x mpg, as I was in some late day traffic backups.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Its all good ! I wonder what a competitor to like model gasser would post under the same conditions. ;)
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,092
    Probably around 30-32. The MB V6 with the 7-speed is decently efficient for something of its size and power.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    edited June 2013
    You were curious about a similar gas sized car on a similar trip. 2013 Accord I4 6MT - actually slightly bigger than the MB at 101 ft3 vs 97 ft3.

    60 mile trip over rolling hills at 55-60 mph. Starting elevation about 200 ft above finish and with a 10-15 mph tailwind/crosswind. Averaged 51.1 on trip computer which has been pessimistic for 9 of my 10 fillups. Was 51.4 pulling into town, but had a hill to climb and a few lights.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    How would the Accord do at Western speeds and big elevation changes. That is where small diesel engines have it over small gassers. I go from about Sea level to over 2000 feet with several drops back to 700'. And you will get run over going 55-60 unless you stay in the left lane behind the big trucks going 45-55. Even the cops all drive 70 in the 65 zone and 75-80 in the 70 MPH zones. Most of the interstate 8 grades heading out of San Diego are in the 7% range. From sea level to 4500 ft in about a 45 minute drive.

    No screaming 4 cylinder gassers for me. I don't even like the V8 gassers in our driving conditions. They gear them for better mileage on flat land.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    Can't think of many situations where the Accord would not do better than the diesels talked about mostly here (E class, SUV's etc). The 2.1 in a C or E class would certainly change that.

    Can it touch a TDI Passat or Jetta under similar conditions - no. Can it get astounding mpg under certain conditions - absolutely.

    Current tank is about 37 mpg. That is after 4 weeks of small trips (.5 - 3 miles) around town and 3 short highway trips (60, 60 and 40 miles). Nearly 300 miles on tank and range shows just under 400 miles remaining.

    Itching for a long highway trip - took my '07 on my last one and averaged 42 mpg for 1,200 miles. And yes that was with big elevation changes. Started in SD at 1,500 ft and wound up in Wyoming at 7,100 ft. The '13 should do 2 or 3 mpg better.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    You are comparing a I 4 gasser 6 speed M/T vs a 6 cylinder diesel A/T! ? I am not clear what you are comparing, given equalization variables? It would seem to me the V6 Accord CVT would be more in line? (EPA H of 34)

    Like I said in one post IF mpg is the gig...... Indeed you and I know why they keep 73 mpg Golf TDI's off the American markets (can you imagine what the Taylors could do with that puppy?) . The closer comparo to your I4 Accord would be the 84 mpg (set by Taylor's) Passat TDI 6 speed manual (EPA H of 43 of course) vs the 2013 I4 6 sp M/T (EPA H )36. Part of their protocol is @ the speeds you mention. For them it is 5 under the speed limit. (65 mph)

    Indeed the older 09 Jetta TDI I 4 easily gets between 42 to 44 on the road and if I keep it under 90 mph (DSG, so even I wonder how much better for a 6 speed M/T.!!??) I really do not know what it will do @ 55 to 60 mph. I do know I will not meet target legs or it will take far longer. ;) :shades: :lemon:

    @ steady 65 mph in the 03 Jetta TDI (only 5 speed M/T) the tank refills consistently posted 62 mpg and that was with the A/C blasting.

    Geez those speeds and distances were almost painful and certainly mind numbing.

    I have done any number of close to a 550+ mile leg @ 75 mph with bursts to 85 and with consistent posts of 59 mpg. The reason for the speeds were across a 3 state multiple HP car crack down. So I picked a speed (75 mph) that I was not likely to be stopped for doing. I was gunned muliple times till finally it was so frequent and annoying I just turned the radar detector OFF. So seemingly, that speed is relatively non magnetic to LEO's. By way of explanation speed limits out west can sometimes be 65/70 (rural). At those speeds I am in the extreme right lane with fully loaded tractor trailers looking to pass and normally LEO's have far more and bigger fish to fry.

    Now for my .02 cents your posting is certainly good for an Accord (gassers) . On a 04 Honda Civic we routinely post 38 to 42 mpg with its 4 speed slush box.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    edited June 2013
    Ruking - you wondered what a gasser might post under condtions similar to fintails recent drive. I consider the Accord to be similar sized ( yes it is lighter and has a smaller engine ) as they are in the same EPA size class. That is why I posted my numbers.

    TDI's do very well - and I have always maintained that I can't match their mpg.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    I also said a few other things (and multiple times) that you are conveniently ignoring ! But hey, its all good.

    So if we use YOUR logic, you may have missed an opportunity, not getting a 2013 Civic 4 cylinder with a 6 speed? ;) But then the other logic is.... this is a TDI thread?
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,092
    Are those interior dimensions or something? For 2013 models, a diesel E weighs about 4059 lbs, 191.7" long, 73" wide, 113.2" wheelbase. For the Accord, 3192lbs, 191.4" long, 72.8" wide, 109.3" wheelbase. They are pretty much a wash, but the MB is heavier due to the diesel engine and all of the gadgetry. Honda probably has more interior room being FWD. Automatic vs manual probably does a lot, too - I can't lug it in 6th at 50mph while drafting a semi even if I wanted to :P

    Speaking of gas E350 mpg, I rented one last year and went on a few road trips. Here are two results:

    This was between Jacksonville and the eastern Atlanta suburbs, a leisure drive where I did not touch an interstate (a very enjoyable and relaxing drive):

    image

    And this was an interstate drive between Macon GA and Gainesville FL:

    image
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    ??? ..."For the Accord, 3192lbs, 191.4" long, 72.8" wide, 109.3" wheelbase. They are pretty much a wash, but the MB is heavier due to the diesel engine and all of the gadgetry..".

    Perhaps I am confused about the 867# weight difference? It is common knowledge (perhaps not so common given the post) that weight affects mpg a lot more on gassers than diesels. Be that as it may, so in effect to equalize the weight, all one needs do is to put an extra 4.335 persons weighing 200#s each for 5 to 6 people in an Accord against one driver in a MB E350 Bluetech and let the tests begin !? ;) With that "equalization" are we thinking the Accord would get even better mpg or....?
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,092
    All of the toys MB loads into NA market cars, and the heavier engine is probably enough to do it.

    Loaded up and with a skilled driver, the 6MT Accord still probably would do at least a little better, due to less displacement. It might not be as responsive when at that weight, though.

    I don't try to hyper-mile or anything, either. I just drive, and check my mpg at the end of the trip.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    Fintail. Yes - interior dimensions - I got the interior ft3 off of the EPA website. Actually they list the Accord at 103 but that is without the sunroof so I looked up the sunroof model and it is 101.

    Not putting down the MB. Very nice vehicle. The diesel model is the clear choice for the E class. Looks like 10+ mpg better than the gas V-6. I just require a stick shift and the nearest MB dealer is 230 miles away. I would absolutely love an E with the 2.1 and a stick shift. Stripped down like a European taxi. Would probably be 5-600 lbs less as well.

    Ruking - Don't know why you would want to make the weight equal. Not Honda's problem the MB weighs more, but there are two ways to look at equalizing. We could also equalize the speed ;). An Accord 4 cyl. 6MT hits 60 mph in 6.6 seconds. Two seconds faster than the E. :)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    Indeed, that (your point) really gets to the point of why I have liked and continue diesels (even as how most diesels are "neutered to butchered" for the US market) , one can drive it how one likes (given understanding of diesels parameters of course) and like for like it will do better than (again like for like for the broader audience) gassers.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    ..."Ruking - Don't know why you would want to make the weight equal. Not Honda's problem the MB weighs more, but there are two ways to look at equalizing. We could also equalize the speed . An Accord 4 cyl. 6MT hits 60 mph in 6.6 seconds. Two seconds faster than the E. "...

    We should move on, we are beyond the beating of a dead horse. Given your logic ,you did miss the boat not getting the Civic. Shame, you could have gotten even better mpg. ;)
  • Heck, almost every Direct Injection engine is going to tap at startup. My Hyundai built 2.4 liter does it for about 2 mins on a cold start. In other words it only does it in the morning. Some Sonata and Optima customers thought the engine was bad or the valves were tapping. Nope, just the hi-pressure fuel injection system working just as it was designed.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2013
    Well, since the Dart is really a Alfa Romero Giulietta, shouldn't Dodge be offering a Fiat made TD to compete with the Cruze TD? The Cruze outsold the Dart 4 to 1!!! Chrysler was banking on 100,000 sales in 2012, but got 25,000 instead. OOOOPPPS! They thought it was going to be another Neon to magically restore them as small car champs. I dunno, I am not really a Chrysler hater, but they can't rely on 300, Charger, and Challenger sales much longer. They aren't getting any younger. I hope they succeed to be honest. -Chris
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    An Accord 4 cyl. 6MT hits 60 mph in 6.6 seconds. Two seconds faster than the E.

    I think you got some bum scoop from somewhere. The E350 Bluetec with 7 speed auto does 0-62 MPH in 6.2 Seconds.

    http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/mercedes-benz/mercedes-benz-e-class-350-cdi-blue- efficiency-sport.asp

    The E250 Bluetec not sold here is about a second slower. But delivers 48 MPG US combined. That said comparing an Accord to a MB E is kind of silly. I rented an Accord and HATED the way it rode. Noisy and averaged 28 MPG for the two weeks I was stuck with it. And I say stuck because Budget promised me an Altima and sold it the day we flew in. I ended up with the Accord. I have rented a Camry and while it is nothing great, it did ride & drive better.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    http://autos.aol.com/cars-Mercedes_Benz-E_Class-2013-Base__E350_BlueTEC_4dr_Seda- n/overview/

    8.8 seconds above - first one that came up on google.

    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1012_2011_mercedes_benz_e350_bluetec/- viewall.html

    Guess this is better at 7.5.

    I will believe the 7.5 by motor trend which is decent, but not feeling 6.2.
  • I had a blowout the other day :cry: , and since the Optima EX has no spare tire, those run flats would have come in handy. I realize they are hard as a rock, but BMW has done a good job of tuning their suspensions to keep out most of the jarring hard stuff.

    Why does my car have no spare? Weight and MPG wars. Also, it's cheap!
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,092
    edited June 2013
    Per the brochure 0-60 is 6.7, per the German press (Auto Motor und Sport) 0-100kmh is 7.8. I suspect the adaptive transmission is at play here - if you drive it like a grandma for awhile, it will learn this, and then if you make a speed run, it will continue to act like grandma - where a new fresh car or one that has been reset will be faster. Somewhat like the variances one can find in 0-60 claims of MT cars, where one little miscue by the driver can easily add a second.

    E350 CDi is actually different from a Bluetec, and German press gives it an entire 1.6 second advantage in 0-100kmh (they rate it at 6.2 as well). They rate the E250 CDi at 7.7, but there was no E250 Bluetec at the time my magazine was printed. German press also rates the CDi to be about 20% more efficient.

    IMO, E350 Bluetec 0-60 is around 7 seconds - the car will get up and move, but you have to put some right foot into it, diesels don't like to rev, and MB accelerators are historically like stepping on a brick.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,092
    If only the 6-speed manual readily available on the 4cyl diesel E in Europe would come here. Especially as a 4Matic wagon, that would be a cool car. However, it's been 25 years since a manual E has been sold in NA, and I don't see that changing.

    Oh yeah, no diesel E wagon for 2014 from what I have recently been told - I had been told earlier that there would be a diesel wagon. Mistake by MB, as old diesel wagons are cult cars and a new one would sell.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,092
    That is a benefit - you don't have to hypermile it. Just go, and as long as you don't drive like a complete idiot, the mileage will be decent. For some cars, you have to get the manual and then obsess over driving to eke out the mileage.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    I am not sure why you make a big deal of the zero to 60 metric, when doing that is almost anathema to getting the good fuel mileage (for a gasser) that you crave? That is the GOOD news !

    Chevrolet even had published an article about the( Z06 Corvette) 4 sec, zero to 60 metric. It was engineered to be able to do (survive) 100 of those, that is the GOOD news. The bad news? Most oems would never let IT be known what their product can really do. (much shorter than 100 cycles) Then after that, THINGS have a propensity to BREAK. :sick: :lemon: Needless to say, that is NOT GOOD NEWS.

    You, of all folks should know that diesels are not designed to be drag racers !! 1,750 rpm for a diesel and most times that means torque is all in (FULL). But then you know that. It is hard for me to believe that (YOU) as a former TDI owner have forgotten that? ! So 3,000 rpm for any sustained amount of time and I am advertising for a customer service stop from the local LEO's. This kind of attention is NOT on my bucket list.

    Now 40 mph-100 mph? THAT metric can be used every day, all day, every month, for years, etc, etc. Mine is exceeding a decade old and 180,000 miles and still runs like the proverbial top: albeit run this way. In fact, the diesel thrives when you drive it "slightly aggressively" ;) :shades:

    You don't happen to be a fan boy of that Cable TV STREET DRAG race show where 30,40,50,60 something year old guys from Oklahoma vie for the top ten ratings? Not a damn one uses a diesel. :surprise: :P
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Not sure why we are having this debate. Diesels are not my idea of stoplight racers. Have nothing to do with the diesel driving experience I have enjoyed.

    It looks like every Magazine has a different number on the 0-60 for the E350 diesel. I would imagine a more practical parameter would be 30 to 80 MPH, which is needed entering our freeways on a regular basis. It also sounds like having a manual transmission is a higher priority than the engine pushing it. Better find the one you can live with a long time as they are going the way of the buggy whip.

    The answer is: 0-60 in 6.7 seconds
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I had a blowout the other day , and since the Optima EX has no spare tire, those run flats would have come in handy.

    Couple questions? Why no spare tire? And what if the dealer did not have the oddball RFT you blew out. You could have been without a vehicle for several days. It reminds me of the early days of the Prius when they used LRR tires that were special order. I ran into a guy at Firestone that waited two weeks to get a replacement tire.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    ..." It also sounds like having a manual transmission is a higher priority than the engine pushing it. Better find the one you can live with a long time as they are going the way of the buggy whip."...

    I would agree. One perspective wishes a 6/7/8 speed ROBUST M/T were available with the Touareg TDI.

    As a practical and intellectual perspective a properly geared and operated M/T offers the least parasitic waste. It of course is totally dependent on the drivers judgement once the gearing and spread is determined.

    As another practical and intellectual perspective the A/T (like the Touareg TDI's 8 speed Aisin ) does not offer up the least parasitic waste: but by software and computer design AND drivers input offers up ("semi automatically " good management of different variables within operational parameters, albeit at higher acquisition and operational costs.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited June 2013
    I enjoy driving a stick as much as the next guy. Just sometimes I would rather let the transmission do the work. The newer 7-8 speeds are pretty darn smooth. And like you say they are programmed to fit the torque curve of the engine. Worst part is too many people ride the clutch and wear them out prematurely. I got a feeling the Feds will legislate the manual transmission out of cars with various mandated electronics. Think of all the interacting mnemonics in our vehicles. ABS, ESC, traction control etc etc. Will the automakers continue to offer those features with a MT? I did not have the Touareg long enough to try out the Step mode on the transmission. I did try it with the paddle shifters on the GLK. I think I would just as soon have the shift lever control all that. I really don't like the shifter on the column like the Mercedes and my Sequoia. I am used to shifters being on the floor console.

    The dealer emailed me and said no White with saddle brown in CA. I would imagine that means within his dealer network. There are several around. Told him to keep me posted when new shipments arrive. I'm not in a compromising mood.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    By the way I went by a VW dealer today and sat in the driver's seat of a Touareg LUX again. They are the most comfortable seats in the class. Now to find the one I am willing to buy.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    Thats GREAT I was glad to hear that metric is a GO ! Good to great longer trip seat comfort seems to be a make or break metric for you. I am swaging the dealer is working to get you what you want on the exterior and interior color combinations.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The dealer I visited for another seat comfort check was very pleasant. He has driven the Touareg TDI several times and that would be his choice if he could afford it. Did not even try to sell me his white Lux gasser. He took my name and email and will let me know if he locates one.

    It looks like there are a couple at a dealer in Utah. That is an easy drive home. I always find it exhilarating jumping in a new car at the dealers and heading out on the highway back home. Makes a little vacation out of it. Over night in Mesquite and a leisurely trip home the second day.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    From what I can glean, the dealers have an official/unofficial "chit" system working together to get units sold. They of course would rather sell units in their current inventory and their own /area inbound units first.

    Indeed, a road trip breaking in the VW T TDI is THE ticket !

    So for example I took a fancy to a MB GLK 250 "Diamond Metallic Silver" (it is really more of a grayish metallic blue, but had the sunroof delete premium package and almond interior, more to what I exactly wanted, etc. ) available @ an out of state dealership (NV, NM, AZ?) I would have had to pay app $600 to get it from there to here, or .... go pick it up.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Hope this did not show up before. This one statement says why the Touareg stands out for me:

    For $54,595 as tested, the Touareg TDI didn't represent a must-buy value. Our more petite evaluators felt the driver's seat base cushion needs to be shortened so their legs would hinge less awkwardly over the edge. Associate online editor Karla Sanchez logged, "I kept shifting positions to try and find a sweet spot, but it was just impossible to get comfortable."

    Let the short people buy one of the other 3 and leave the VW seats just as they are.

    Comparison:
    Luxury Diesel SUV
    Jeep Grand Cherokee vs. Mercedes-Benz ML350 vs.Porsche Cayenne vs. Volkswagen Touareg


    Emailed to me by the Jeep salesman. I like the looks of the JGC, just not ready to be their guinea pig. Plus they keep pushing out the delivery date. Probably trying to get the dope smoking UAW workforce back from lunch.

    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1307_luxury_diesel_suv_comparison/viewa- ll.html
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    edited June 2013
    Here is what it would cost me for a VW T - Comfortline trim (the lowest) ! :(

    Under My Options....ONE! a hitch..30 bucks more than MB altho I know is a 2" recvr, and the quote on the MB 250 said "Class II", but then said "1.25" recvr" Huh??

    $53,975.00 to start..but wait! there's more!!

    Engine: 3.0L, 240 hp, TDI turbocharged, 6-cylinder 90¡, with direct injection.
    8-speed automatic transmission with Tiptronic¨, 4MOTION¨ Dynamic Shift Program (DSP) and sport mode.

    My Options: $705.00 one single loan lousy hitch..

    Colour: Pure White

    Freight & PDI: $1,610.00 - why is this a full HUNDRED more than ANY other car I have checked on in last month?? What say you, VW? Is this going to be representative of every bill I may have for the term I drive your product?

    Wheels8J X 18" alloy wheels

    Fees & Taxes: $7,430.70 <<<<in Cda..the land of the "free" :roll eyes:

    Interior: Leatherette, Cornsilk Beige

    Total: $63,720.70 !!!! For lowest trim car.. (before negotiations of course, but STILL!) :( Those seats and the slight extra umph from under the hood sure does have a price to be paid..

    I think this is why I have gone in a big circle again once realizing the potential of the MB.
    Cripes...if ya really wanna get right down to it...what it would cost me, (to get into one) plus my CRV, is exactly what I have lost on my investments in the past few years.
    I must be frig crazy to even think outloud about the prospects of finally getting myself a nice (even somewhat humbly non-loaded) diesel while the gettin' is good...dang this has been the day from hell on so many other levels too...maybe if I go back to bed and try this one over :lemon:
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Member Posts: 2,345
    Since you're sniffing around an MB250, ruking, how be you sell me your VW T at a good price (for us both,but i'm ok if it biased my way a little more than yours) ;)
    and call it a day. You don't smoke do ya?? :(
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    Can't say I blame you ! No disrespect intended, but the MB GLK 250 (Blue Tec - 350 is the gasser) is not a good substitute for the ML 350 Blue Tec or the VW Touareg TDI :blush: Some compromises are just fine, others... not.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Sounds like they really gouge you in Canada on new cars. There is no doubt the Touareg TDI Lux will be more than a GLK250 BT. Comparably equipped it will be less than the ML350 BT that it competes against. I can tell you when I lost interest in the GLK. When I sat in the Touareg seats. It was like night and day. If we had dumped the LS400 like I wanted to do and kept the Sequoia, the GLK would have remained my choice. Here are the pics of the GLK vs Toureg seats. Look at how much more seat you have in the VW.

    image

    image
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    If the GLK was actually this color in the Mocha leather I would have been more inclined. It is no where near that color when you see it in the SUV. Mercedes did not lose me until it became clear they were clueless which vehicles did and did not come with RFTs. Am I thrilled with the blow up spare in the VW Touareg. Not really. But at least they did not take the cheap route like BMW and MB.

    image
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Reading between the lines they are saying it's a chick car. :shades:

    Growing up I wanted to be 6 foot. Turned out "average" which means I fit in airline seats and have no trouble mail-ordering clothes or finding stuff at the thrift.

    I'm so used to the upright seating position in vans now, it bugs me to drive my Subaru too long.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "This is more the fault of the gas station and diesel fuel in general than of our long-term 2013 Volkswagen Passat TDI, but pumping diesel fuel is dirty business."

    2013 Volkswagen Passat TDI: Diesel Dirt

    And our old friend Wayne is in the news:

    2013 Volkswagen Passat TDI Sets Guinness Fuel Economy Record
  • alltorquealltorque Member Posts: 535
    Having driven diesels for the past 11 years, (Skoda followed by Volvo), I would have to agree that the 0-60 dash times are pretty pointless and really only serve as bragging rights in the bar.
    30-50 or 40-70 etc metrics are much more in tune with the real world and that's where Herr Diesel's engines shine, plus economy, of course.
    Having said that, my next car will likely be petrol-engined as my annual mileage and type of usage, (lots of short(ish) trips), means I am much more likely to hit DPF problems. The cost of replacing DPFs outweighs the economy gains on low annual miles use and manufacturers define them as wear items so no warranty cover. DPFs are fitted, here in Europe, to all engines certified as Euro IV or later, so maybe I'll look for a late Euro III engined beast when the time comes..............likely some time in the Volvo's next 100k miles or more. ;)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2013
    I think even Gerdes would be one of the first to say "SAFE "hypermiling techniques are A key here. Be that as it may, the article goes on to say the (Passat) TDI BEAT ( HIS BEST) hybrid mpg app 21%. It does need to be said that the Taylor's adhered to WAY much SIMPLER protocols. Needless to say SAFE (to unsafe) protocols are much more complicated and situational.

    Off topic, that is why I make sometimes passing references to the (lack of ) protocols I follow. But even I am given to temptation and sometimes break down and post 59 to 62 mpg !!!! :sick: Oh the dark side ! :sick:

    ..."But to smash it (record by Taylor's) by averaging 77.99 mpg is really impressive and a testament to the potential of Volkswagen's TDI Clean Diesel vehicles."

    Their achievement even topped the record of 64.6 mpg in the hybrid class."...

    Imagine that: DIESEL posts 21% better fuel mileage and less pollution !!!! ;) :shades:
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,092
    Top one looks like the "porcelain" leather - maybe special order or designo, seldom seen and has striking looks - but it would be fun to keep clean.
This discussion has been closed.