^ Locale makes a difference in cost as well. Currently, diesel is 3.40/gallon and gasoline is 3.15/gallon. That's about 7.5% difference in cost. If the car gets 43mpg (compared to the gas version's 40mpg) than you break even. Anything over and you start making up the cost difference immediately.
TreoWayne wrote: Considering that a Cruze LTZ with nav is already almost $27k (for a Cavalier v3.0!!!) with a 1.4 gas turbo engine I imagine the diesel version will be really close to $30k.
Yes, but prices start closer to $17k without the silly options, and the eco model was less than $19k when I looked. If they started the diesel model at $20k or so I think it would sell.
Junkyard_Dog wrote:mistanfo wrote: If it can't see the ~40 that the ECO model already sees, it's a fail.True. However, I do wonder how many VW diesel owners buy them because they are the cheapest available diesels instead of because they're VWs. I recently read something like 25% of all Jettas sold here are oil burners. If GM can bring it in for a few grand under a diesel Golf/Jetta they might sell a few.
In Canada over 50% of Jettas are ordered with diesels. It is not surprising the reaction from most of the people from the U.S. on this board. Diesels have never been popular in your neck of the woods because you enjoy relatively low taxation on your petro-fuels. Our fuel costs are almost 50% taxes and in Europe it is even higher.
What many of you are forgetting is that almost no gas-powered cars get anywhere near their EPA mile age ratings, but you can absolutely drive the pi$$ out of a diesel and it will knock down its EPA numbers.
"I look forward to our new diesel overlords."
Now bring on the new Ford Explorer with a diesel option!
(Signed - former Golf Diesel owner)
carzan wrote:ReverendDexter wrote: I'm still not sure why Chevy is already replacing the Cobalt with the Cruz. Are they going to switch names *every* time there's a major refresh to Cavalier?Hopefully...and hopefully with a name that isn't stupid, this time. However, if I could get a Cruz turbo-diesel with stick in the $15-20K, I might be sold despite the name.
You could name it Penelope. 
34mpg combined looks promising, I get that in my 96 civic now. Lets see the proper numbers and a price. After we know that, we can talk.
I'm kinda happy.
NGTD wrote: What many of you are forgetting is that almost no gas-powered cars get anywhere near their EPA mile age ratings, but you can absolutely drive the pi$$ out of a diesel and it will knock down its EPA numbers.
Are you sure about that? I've never owned a car that didn't meet or exceed the epa ratings. EVER. 84 Tempo, saw 34mpg religiously. 93 GMC Full-size saw 24mpg highway, 21 when I beat it. 00 Sonoma saw 28 highway, 24 beating it. Elantra has seen as high as 38 averaged over 1900 miles before the E-10 hit. Wife's 2000 accent is averaging 39mpg weekly on the E36 M3 gas. 2006 GMC CCSB is seeing 24mpg highway, 19 around town.
All of those are about EPA ratings.
mistanfo wrote: If it can't see the ~40 that the ECO model already sees, it's a fail.
are you comparing the 40 hwy mileage that the ECO model gets to the 34 combined mileage that the diesel might get?
NGTD wrote: What many of you are forgetting is that almost no gas-powered cars get anywhere near their EPA mile age ratings, but you can absolutely drive the pi$$ out of a diesel and it will knock down its EPA numbers. (Signed - former Golf Diesel owner)
Funny you say that- my Miata is rated 27 mpg highway, done well before the new rules, and the US06 test of the rating.
Yet, for 170k miles, in the summer, I would get 30mpg driving to work between 70-75 mph. It took winter weather before it would dip to 28mpg.
So I can drive the piss out of my car, and beat the numbers by 10%.
Add me to the list calling BS.
Also calling BS, my 350Z pulled nearly 30mpg on the highway at 70.
Can anyone tell me why VW doesn't sell a stripper tdi? And why they don't make more tdi's in general? The local vw dealership never has one on the floor. They're sold before they arrive. The used ones are generally sold before the detail dept is done getting them cleaned. They're always just totally loaded with options and generally at or above 30k.
simplecat wrote: Can anyone tell me why VW doesn't sell a stripper tdi? And why they don't make more tdi's in general? The local vw dealership never has one on the floor. They're sold before they arrive. The used ones are generally sold before the detail dept is done getting them cleaned. They're always just totally loaded with options and generally at or above 30k.
As far as price, you kinda answered your own question. If they are going to immediately sell all they bring over, why sell ones that they won't make as much money off of? The more equipped the car is, the more profit.
carzan wrote:
As far as price, you kinda answered your own question. If they are going to immediately sell all they bring over, why sell ones that they won't make as much money off of? The more equipped the car is, the more profit.
To take your argument a step further, then why not only sell GLIs and TDIs? You're right, but only to a point, volume sales and market share also matter.
alfadriver wrote:NGTD wrote: What many of you are forgetting is that almost no gas-powered cars get anywhere near their EPA mileage ratings, but you can absolutely drive the pi$$ out of a diesel and it will knock down its EPA numbers. (Signed - former Golf Diesel owner)Funny you say that- my Miata is rated 27 mpg highway, done well before the new rules, and the US06 test of the rating. Yet, for 170k miles, in the summer, I would get 30mpg driving to work between 70-75 mph. It took winter weather before it would dip to 28mpg. So I can drive the piss out of my car, and beat the numbers by 10%. Add me to the list calling BS.
You are quoting optimum conditions - driving to work steady state at 70-75 mph. Take an average with substantial amounts of in-city driving and lets see the numbers.
My old Golf TD would go over 650 miles (over 1000 km) per tank running 60-65 mph - if that was all I did but I almost never ran a tank completely on the highway.
Certain cars do better at certain speeds. I rented a Nissan Altima with the CVT and it got better mileage at 75 mph than it did at 60 mph. This doesn't seem to make sense considering air resistance goes up etc.
There are also a lot of variables - I ran wider than stock tires on my Golf - increased rolling resistance. I bet that most of the people on this board probably do better than average maintenance - therefore your mileage is probably better than average.
NGTD wrote:alfadriver wrote:You are quoting optimum conditions - driving to work steady state at 70-75 mph. Take an average with substantial amounts of in-city driving and lets see the numbers. There are also a lot of variables - I ran wider than stock tires on my Golf - increased rolling resistance. I bet that most of the people on this board probably do better than average maintenance - therefore your mileage is probably better than average.NGTD wrote: What many of you are forgetting is that almost no gas-powered cars get anywhere near their EPA mileage ratings, but you can absolutely drive the pi$$ out of a diesel and it will knock down its EPA numbers. (Signed - former Golf Diesel owner)Funny you say that- my Miata is rated 27 mpg highway, done well before the new rules, and the US06 test of the rating. Yet, for 170k miles, in the summer, I would get 30mpg driving to work between 70-75 mph. It took winter weather before it would dip to 28mpg. So I can drive the piss out of my car, and beat the numbers by 10%. Add me to the list calling BS.
No- optimum for the highway cycle is 55mph. When I do that with the Miata, I would get 35mpg. Reative to how the rating was taken, 75mph is driving the piss out of it, as I posted in my note. And I'm only looking at the highway number- the combined rating is a lot worse than 27, so if you ask me to run in the city- then you look at the combined rating.
Oh, and your blanket statement just said that gas cars get worse than rated, diesel gets better. Well, you can't go back and say there are variables and that I can do better when you make blatant arguments like that.
My point is that you can get better than rated on gas, where you said that you can't, but diesel can. And I know a lot of people who are capable of getting better- much more than "almost no cars".
4cylndrfury wrote: wow...the naysayers here never cease to amaze me:the forum said: we want turbo diesels...we want em now, and if you dont give em to us, we're gonna take you off the Christmas card list and stick out our tongues at you, and then fart in your general direction....so there! ...meanies. ZOMFGGIVEUSTURBODIESELSNOW!!!1!!11So Detroit was all like: Abbracadabbrah!!*BBRRAAAZZZIIIIINNGGG!!!!*
And what do ya know??...
the forum said: well not like that...thats dumb....big dumbheaded dumb dumbs. youre so dumb. Thats dumb. why would you be so dumb, with that dumb thing, which is dumb. Plus youre GM, so your stuff sucks, no matter what, unless its a 350. everything else sucks, except the supercharged 3.8, and 350. Yeah all that other stuff sucks, well except for your classic detroit stuff, and 350s, and boosted 3.8s...and this lamp, and this paddleball game...Good lord, lets walk before we run. Dont be asses.
LAWL
Brilliant.
Look--I'm happy that GM appears to be running with a bunch of different engine options. Dare I say they're being progressive?!
Look--gas is going to skyrocket again in the very near future, so the more efficient options there are out there, the better.
To all of the manufacturers--bring those turbodiesels that you were squawking about during the last fuel crunch!!!
Also, those EPA figures can be pretty conservative.
gamby wrote: Look--gas is going to skyrocket again in the very near future, so the more efficient options there are out there, the better.
You rang?
Separated at birth?
"What does the yellow light mean?" "Slow down!"
"Whaaaattt... Doooeeesss... The...."
You'll need to log in to post.
