New Diesel High MPG Commuters? Skyactiv Mazda2?

That's the thing as well EPA numbers are not that useful.

My Jetta TDI pulls 39mpg with the AC on doing 80 with some traffic on my commute It pulls 43mpg if I am not running the AC under the same conditions If I drop to 70mph from 80 I gain 2 mpg, I am sure if I went 65 it would get even better

Of course all of these cars will take quite a long time to come close to saving money over my TDI even if they did beat its mileage because mine is used and cost me 6k

where I most want to see big mileage improvements is in minivans, mid size SUVs, light trucks the stuff that are required for practical reasons of more people or stuff than a sedan and are not something you shop for with sporting intent

Last year I read about the DOE working with cummins on a 2.8 lite diesel for the next titan but have not heard anything since.

iceracer wrote: Ford makes a diesel Fiesta. Just not here.

Isn't that the deal with most automakers? I think most of them make diesel models, but choose not to bring them to the US. The Toyota Hilux that Clarkson tried to destroy on Top Gear was a diesel, but we never got them here.

There's also a lot of rumors out there that Subaru will make a diesel available in the next generation WRX or STi.........

just sayin ;)

irish44j wrote: There's also a lot of rumors out there that Subaru will make a diesel available in the next generation WRX or STi......... just sayin ;)

...in the US???

Secretariata wrote:

iceracer wrote: Ford makes a diesel Fiesta. Just not here.

Isn't that the deal with most automakers? I think most of them make diesel models, but choose not to bring them to the US. The Toyota Hilux that Clarkson tried to destroy on Top Gear was a diesel, but we never got them here.

They don't choose not to bring them over. The (most difficult, anyway) problem is that most of their diesels won't pass the US's much stricter emissions laws (hence all the particle filters and urea traps, etc) on our low sulfur diesel fuel. That's part of what makes Mazda's Sky-D motor so good, as it was a clean-sheet design and had those laws as a target, so it doesn't require those more expensive systems, and yet can still easily meet the emissions, not just now but the future targets as well.

Jaynen wrote: That's the thing as well EPA numbers are not that useful. My Jetta TDI pulls 39mpg with the AC on doing 80 with some traffic on my commute It pulls 43mpg if I am not running the AC under the same conditions If I drop to 70mph from 80 I gain 2 mpg, I am sure if I went 65 it would get even better Of course all of these cars will take quite a long time to come close to saving money over my TDI even if they did beat its mileage because mine is used and cost me 6k where I most want to see big mileage improvements is in minivans, mid size SUVs, light trucks the stuff that are required for practical reasons of more people or stuff than a sedan and are not something you shop for with sporting intent Last year I read about the DOE working with cummins on a 2.8 lite diesel for the next titan but have not heard anything since.

The problem is that any one person's results mean even less than the EPA numbers. Especially when the results are from someone who is enthusiastic about their car. They are A) more likely to exaggerate, and B) simply more likely to be vocal about their economy than someone getting mediocre mileage. I.E. Jetta TDI owners averaging 30mpg don't come in and rave about it. Just like you have people raving about their 40mpg Elantra and other owners averaging well under EPA ratings with a class-action suit against Hyundai.

IMO, some combination of EPA and Fuelly.com is the only way to get a good estimate.

In regards to minivan/SUV/truck mileage improvements, I agree, although that has happened to an extent. Modern crossovers get WAY better mileage than they did 20 years ago, while economy cars haven't had nearly the same improvement. On top of that, some of the crossovers are more capable as well, while economy cars have gotten heavier and slower than they were in the early 90s.

As with any of these "new" engines, my advice is WAIT. Zillions of folks flocked to get a new TDI VW in 1998 and now those folks are lining our pockets at our repair shop. Those same zillions flocked to buy the brand new LB7 Duramax in 2001 only to find massive injector failure at 90k. Some of those zillions bought the new Ford 6.0L only to find that they hydrolocked the engine at 60k when the EGR cooler sprung a leak. How about the Folks who lined up to buy the new Beetle in 1997 only to be slapped in the face with the smell of crayons and insane labor costs for replacing timing belts.

OEMs are cramming massive and hasty tech into these cars because the retail blast is far more profitable than the warranty claims and recalls they will have to do 4 years from now. Don't be the Beta-tester. Buy the tried-and-true stuff.

IMO... buying the newest trend in cars is like buying a "rolex" from a NYC street vendor. You get suckered in by the flash and the price, but a few months later you are stuck with a pile of junk. Let the millions of retail-baited suckers dive into the hoopla. In one year you'll either know that they are piles of junk, or you'll have your choice of thousands of lease returns with 40k on them at half price.

ProDarwin wrote:

Jaynen wrote: That's the thing as well EPA numbers are not that useful. My Jetta TDI pulls 39mpg with the AC on doing 80 with some traffic on my commute It pulls 43mpg if I am not running the AC under the same conditions If I drop to 70mph from 80 I gain 2 mpg, I am sure if I went 65 it would get even better Of course all of these cars will take quite a long time to come close to saving money over my TDI even if they did beat its mileage because mine is used and cost me 6k where I most want to see big mileage improvements is in minivans, mid size SUVs, light trucks the stuff that are required for practical reasons of more people or stuff than a sedan and are not something you shop for with sporting intent Last year I read about the DOE working with cummins on a 2.8 lite diesel for the next titan but have not heard anything since.

The problem is that any one person's results mean even less than the EPA numbers. Especially when the results are from someone who is enthusiastic about their car. They are A) more likely to exaggerate, and B) simply more likely to be vocal about their economy than someone getting mediocre mileage. I.E. Jetta TDI owners averaging 30mpg don't come in and rave about it. Just like you have people raving about their 40mpg Elantra and other owners averaging well under EPA ratings with a class-action suit against Hyundai. IMO, some combination of EPA and Fuelly.com is the only way to get a good estimate. In regards to minivan/SUV/truck mileage improvements, I agree, although that has happened to an extent. Modern crossovers get WAY better mileage than they did 20 years ago, while economy cars haven't had nearly the same improvement. On top of that, some of the crossovers are more capable as well, while economy cars have gotten heavier and slower than they were in the early 90s.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen/jetta/2000

Fuelly is dominated by people who record their mpg with Jettas and diesels in particular. My car included.

I agree on new tech. I'm not sure if my motor is different than the 98 motor as its the ALH. You have to maintain them but that is not so hard just make sure timing belts get done and do oil changes

Jaynen wrote: where I most want to see big mileage improvements is in minivans, mid size SUVs, light trucks the stuff that are required for practical reasons of more people or stuff than a sedan and are not something you shop for with sporting intent

Agreed. My wife loves her 2006 Toyota Sequoia. I would too, except for the horrid MPG. We tow a boat on occasion and tote around a 160lbs dog, so we need a larger SUV in the mix. I like the Sequoia's footprint (smaller than a Suburban/Excursion, fits in our 2 car garage) but wish it had a nice diesel motor in it. Fuel mileage would be better all the time and it would tow much better too.

irish44j wrote: There's also a lot of rumors out there that Subaru will make a diesel available in the next generation WRX or STi......... just sayin ;)

I could see a diesel in a base Impreza, but in the WRX? That one I'll have to chalk up to "I'll believe it when it's on the lots".

Javelin wrote:

Secretariata wrote:

iceracer wrote: Ford makes a diesel Fiesta. Just not here.

Isn't that the deal with most automakers? I think most of them make diesel models, but choose not to bring them to the US. The Toyota Hilux that Clarkson tried to destroy on Top Gear was a diesel, but we never got them here.

They don't *choose* not to bring them over. The (most difficult, anyway) problem is that most of their diesels won't pass the US's much stricter emissions laws (hence all the particle filters and urea traps, etc) on our low sulfur diesel fuel. That's part of what makes Mazda's Sky-D motor so good, as it was a clean-sheet design and had those laws as a target, so it doesn't require those more expensive systems, and yet can still easily meet the emissions, not just now but the future targets as well.

It's a choice. Diesels can pass US emissions standards. It's a matter of market and cost.

Just like the whole sports car debate.

And with Euro VI and VII coming, the C segment and smaller will be much more expensive, unless a few quantum changes happen in the next few years.

As for the SkyD hype, we will see. IIRC, Honda hyped their diesel that didn't require urea injection a few years ago here, and it never showed up. So.

Vigo wrote: ...The idea that you'd actually SAVE money driving an elantra vs a tdi or a mazda2 is pretty ridiculous. That would only work for people who drove a very specific way constantly. I cant remember which magazibne just did a comparison of 3 or 4 40mpg-rated compact sedans, but the Elantra had by far the worst mileage in that test.. close to 30. Compare that to something like a CR-Z that is rated ~39 highway and actually AVERAGES 39 and gets 50 if you drive it a very specific way constantly. All is not as it seems with EPA ratings...

I agree that the Elantra epa rating seems optimistic.

My experience (over 40k miles in the last 15 months) is that in normal driving 40mpg is not something i will see regularly. In fact my best tank is 38.7mpg with over 95% highway. The average since new is closer to 34.5 mpg.

Its an auto, I use a/c regularly, and keep up with traffic, so I don't think its bad. But would be happier to get closer to the rated mpg on average.

Ssomething to keep in mind is that as mpg increases you need a larger increase to make a measureable difference in fuel costs.

i.e. going from 14 to 15 mpg will provide the same savings over 100 miles as going from 40 to 50mpg.

So waiting to see if there is going to be a couple mpg increase over 40mpg already offered may not offset the cost of the new model.

alfadriver wrote: It's a choice. Diesels can pass US emissions standards. It's a matter of market and cost.

Exactly! If it isn't cost effective due to one (or more) of a multitude of reasons and the manufacturer doesn't make it available, that is a choice.

VW is doing more currently than anyone else to help make this less of an issue however. The % of new jetta wagons that are sold as diesel is pretty high as I recall like 30-50+ %

curtis73 wrote: IMO... buying the newest trend in cars is like buying a "rolex" from a NYC street vendor. You get suckered in by the flash and the price, but a few months later you are stuck with a pile of junk. Let the millions of retail-baited suckers dive into the hoopla. In one year you'll either know that they are piles of junk, or you'll have your choice of thousands of lease returns with 40k on them at half price.

My $25 Rolex has run flawlessly since the early '90's. Still looks great too!

Yeah, honestly VW seems to be doing a LOT to push the mpg game. They've made major investments in mass-production carbon fiber which could eventually let them build some hyper-mpg stuff at a reasonable price.