Diesel sucks.

Allow me to troll here for a sec.

Why the diesel love?

In the Detroit area, the higher cost of diesel would seem to offset the fuel savings entirely, let alone the much higher purchase price over a gasoline engined vehicle, so you aren't really saving money.

Some are well known for their high mileage durability, others not, so no real advantage there.

The fuel is much worse for smog emissions, and heavier in carcinogens. The urea fluid is expensive too, if I remember correctly. Is that stuff in all the newer generation diesels?

Is it just me, or are manufacturers using the higher mpgs of diesels now as a way to simply meet CAFE standards?

One argument I can't dispute is MOAR TORQUES.

Trucker wannabees.

bastomatic wrote: The urea fluid is expensive too, if I remember correctly. Is that stuff in all the newer generation diesels?

Without having much opinion on the matter, I have heard that the requirement for all the new trucks to run DEF (I assume cars have to run that stuff as well? I don't know) has actually spiked up the cost of used trucks that were built before that regulation was in force.

• Based only on the TDI Sportwagen I test drove: great torque
• Regarding the mileage/$$: Money saved is not the only reason to burn less fuel
• Well done, they appear to have the capacity for better longevity. No need to dismiss the whole sector just because some don't get it right.
• My impression is that modern particulate filters make the emissions much better than previous diesels. I should know this one more firmly, but I don't. Regarding the cost of urea, see bullet two.

Anyhow, that's my take. For a daily driver/road trip car, I really dig the driving experience, and I really like that it has efficiency benefits. I am taking the emissions improvements on faith to some extent.

DEF(urea) is dirt cheap and lasts for awhile.

Particulate emmissions are higher but they are lower on the others IIRC.

I won't deny any of that... But I do like the fact that I can let my 91 F250 sit for months at a time and if has enough current to crank over, it will start...

As far as getting a truck I think hands down a diesel. I have driven the two different F250's one with the V10 (sucks) and the 7.3L Powerstroke diesel (awesome). I was able to get nearly 25MPG on the freeway with the diesel, a V10 would be lucky to see 10MPG. Towing with a diesel is great it's like nothing is behind you.

Cars, I can't make heads or tails of because I am not a VW fan and finding a manual transmission in a Mercedes is nearly impossible. If I could import a car from Europe or Canada, I would probably like the car selection better.

The new diesel are a breed of their own as far as emissions, but the older vehicles, can easily run WVO & Biodiesel which I have done some research and have attempted to run in my diesel truck when I had it. Obviously running WVO and biodiesel can be cheap and almost has 0 emissions.

noddaz wrote: I won't deny any of that... But I do like the fact that I can let my 91 F250 sit for months at a time and if has enough current to crank over, it will start...

So does my gas 78 Chevy. What does that have to do with diesels?

Because how are you going tow a utility trailer if you don't have an F250?

bastomatic wrote: The fuel is much worse for smog emissions, and heavier in carcinogens. The urea fluid is expensive too, if I remember correctly. Is that stuff in all the newer generation diesels?

It's not worse for smog emissions, it's different. Better in some ways, worse in others.

That said, while I like the diesel in my tow vehicle, I have no desire to own a diesel-powered car.

Reminds me of when I was a student at Ohio Diesel Technical Institute back in 1981. The instructors told us that there was nothing harmful about diesel exhaust. Unlike gasoline exhaust, diesel is all organic and breathing it can't hurt you. I am dead serious, that's what they thought back then. That school had 50 tractors in it, and I think one exhaust fan.
Funny that I now have multiple serious medical problems...

In reply to bravenrace:

Inhalation of anything can lead to those problems, but that wasn't widely known back then.

I think a lot of stigma still comes from the crapola US diesel cars from the 80's.

People need to compare the same model of car (let's say two '99 Beetles, one diesel, one gas) with similar usage in order to see how well they have done, respectively.

I can see the diesel as a perfect fit throughout any manufacturers line-up.

yamaha wrote: In reply to bravenrace: Inhalation of anything can lead to those problems, but that wasn't widely known back then.

How do you know? I didn't say what problems I was having.

Doesn't diesel gel in the winter? We always put Anti-Gel in the fuel if our diesel tractor for the winter.

To the original topic:

Shut your whore mouth.

I would have bought the CRDi engine in the Auzzie/Euro Elantra here in a heartbeat. 60mpg, convert it to veggie oil, torque for weeks (days is for wussies) and minimal maintenance. It had similar acceleration numbers to the 2.0 gas models but with almost twice the economy and torque.

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: Doesn't diesel gel in the winter? We always put Anti-Gel in the fuel if our diesel tractor for the winter.

It can, but commercially sold hwy diesel has anit-gel agents added. One reason why diesel prices increase during the winter.

I own a TDI, but I'm not really a big diesel fan. I often tell people not to buy one based on their needs. In my case, it just happened to be the right car for my situation at the right time. Would I do it again with current offerings? Probably not. The payback vs. gas powered cars isn't as good.

I wish the diesel had been available when my Disco was imported to the US.

My 99 TDI get's 50+ mpg all day. My old (300,000+ miles) mercedes got about 30, and my Ram with the Cummins got about 21. You can't touch those numbers with a comparable car today, even a hybrid. Even if you take out the capability to run WVO (free fuel is nice) it still makes sense to me. Of those three, only the TDI has less than 300K on it (gimme time, I'm working on it) and all were quite reliable. Not many 92 Mercs, 93 W250's running around that have a gas engine.
Oh, that that cummins powered truck, when I loaded it down with a car on a trailer the 21 mpg might drop to 19. Never recorded less than 18 mpg.

Because torque. Torque is good.

I'm not talking about nancy-boy little Jettas here piddling about getting 50+ mpg... I'm talking about 15MPG pulling 7.5 tons of truck/race car trailer across mountain ranges with a quad, tires and 80 gallons of fuel in the bed, cruise control & AC on. Mile after mile. Effortlessly. Singing along with XM radio. Maybe having a snack. Possibly a family pack sized bag of beef jerky.

They totally rule for that.

I agree that years ago, diesel cars could get better fuel mileage than a gas engine car. But now gas engines have some pretty high tech E36 M3 in them and can crank out some serious MPG. And a lot of the small turbo gas engines have pretty nice torque. So I'm with most others here...I don't see the advantage of a diesel car...heavy duty trucks are a different story. Buy in cost is higher, fueling cost is higher.

And yes, the new DEF/urea emissions components have driven up the price of older heavy trucks that don't have that stuff. I see it every day.

Around here the cost of Diesel is not that different from high test gasoline. Might be higher where you are, but all of my cars have had the little lettering on the gas gage that reads "Premium fuel only" so I am already used to paying those prices

I can't see the sense in a diesel car right now. They cost more to by, and here fuel is about $.45 more per gallon. It would take a long time for the difference in mileage to pay off.

My diesel pulls much better than any of my old gasser trucks. Of course, it's modified and dynowed at over 750 ft lbs of torque to the wheels. It's also very reliable, easy to work on, and gets decent mileage.