Dashpot wrote: Soot belching, coal burning, stinking, rattling harbingers of hell. They all should have been legislated off the road or ordered to clean up 40 years ago. Other than that - to each his own...
Sooo... i'm not quite sure i get it. Are you for or against diesels? 
I want one simply for a long distance highway cruiser. Great mileage and huge distances between refills and all the torques.
I used to think I liked diesels, but that was back when i was driving a Case 1370 pulling 24 feet of cultivator. i then moved on to the real world, and my first two exposures were:
Removing blown up engines from diesel Chev pickups and installing junkyard olds gas engines.
Replacing headgaskets annually in the VW diesel that Volvo bought for the 240/740 cars, followed by replacing the diesel with a red block gas engine.
The Volvo dealership I worked at sold quite a few of them, and there was exactly one (1) that made it past 300,000km. I was never able to decide whether Jetta owners with the 4 cylinder actually got a trillion miles out of theirs like they claimed, or if the cars were shook so bad by the time the engine wouldn't start anymore that they were glad.
This isn't directed at anybody in particular, but is just a pet peeve of mine whenver these types of conversations come up.
I've never understood the criticism that technology which increases efficiency is essentially a waste of money if it can't pay for itself. By that suggested criteria, consider which of the following is the best option to pay extra for based solely on how each affects the non-commercial operating expenses of the vehicle.
1.) More luxurious interior
2.) More stylish exterior
3.) More massive chassis
4.) Less efficient drivetrain
5.) More efficient drivetrain
It's ironic that most people buying new cars are only willing to spend multiple thousands of dollars towards the 1st four.
The purchase price penalty is seldom mentioned. May not be cost effective.
Swank Force One wrote:Dashpot wrote: Soot belching, coal burning, stinking, rattling harbingers of hell. They all should have been legislated off the road or ordered to clean up 40 years ago. Other than that - to each his own...Sooo... i'm not quite sure i get it. Are you for or against diesels?
Did I mention the 1,000 RPM powerband?
I LOVE my TDI. I bought it roughly two years and almost exactly 60k miles ago. 80 miles a day commute, average 50mpg since I purchased it. Many 700+ mile tanks. The kicker? Market value is the same now as it was 2 years ago. I don't agree with the market, but the market believes that TDI value is basically unaffected by mileage. If I was driving the 2.0 gasser, it would be nearly worthless by now and would cost over $100 more per month in fuel.
What hasn't been mentioned is that a 40+ mpg TDI is typically a much nicer long distance hwy hauler than the 35-40mpg cars that have been touted in this thread as alternatives.
Now that I've eliminated the commute, the case is certainly not as strong - I get 5-6 weeks out of a tank. An RX8 (hardly the epitome of efficiency) would cost me maybe only $50-75 more per month in fuel with a much more engaging drive.
For the vast majority of people diesels don't make sense in cars. I have owned one, loved it however i was commuting at the time and it made huge sense. We also bought it when the resale was not an issue. We paid no premium for the diesel vs. a gas (Golf). Gas was running about 50 cents/L at the time. Diesel was 40 cents/L.
When we bought my wife a new 2010 Golf Wagon, we went gasser. To go diesel was an $8K premium - $3K for the engine, $2K for the DSG (wife insisted on an auto) and $3K for the upgraded trim. You couldn't get the diesel in the base trim level. It would have made a $24K car into a $32K car (Canadian prices here - don't get me started on how the Auto Manufacturer's screw us on pricing!)
The attraction - if you commute they make huge sense. ESPECIALLY if caught in traffic - a diesel at idle is using almost no fuel. Their part-throttle efficiency destroy gas engines.
In trucks, especially towing - no question the torque wins and so does the fuel mileage. Again you need to put on some miles to pay the premium and now the price differential (higher) for diesel.
Dashpot wrote:Swank Force One wrote:Did I mention the 1,000 RPM powerband?Dashpot wrote: Soot belching, coal burning, stinking, rattling harbingers of hell. They all should have been legislated off the road or ordered to clean up 40 years ago. Other than that - to each his own...Sooo... i'm not quite sure i get it. Are you for or against diesels?
Not true in a small diesel. My 95 Golf would pull from 1500 rpm to 4000 no problem. That is 2500 rpm. Not like a gas engine but not as narrow as you are trying to make it.
Recent bumper sticker:
"Diesel fumes make me horny"
That is all...
In reply to SVreX:
The first thing that springs to mind is "fetal diesel syndrome".
SVreX wrote: Recent bumper sticker: "Diesel fumes make me horny" That is all...
Hey I'm sharing a room with you, Stop sniffing those bus exhaust fumes Paul
I will say that I used to have a rule of no stopping for the bathroom unless I needed to fuel up. Then I drove the wife's Jetta to Ontario from Virginia. Fueled up just north of Harrisonburg, and finally stopped at the border, where the restrooms were out of order. The border guard saw the look on my face and gave me directions to the nearest all night Canadian Tire, where I found that I still had enough fuel to get to downtown Toronto and back to the border. That's 600 miles, on 14.5 gallons. With a 4 speed slushbox. The manuals do even better, but the wife's knee tends to do it's impression of a watermellon when she drive's one in town.
I filled up my Transit Connect today. 87octane was $3.33/gal. Same station Diesel was $3.99/gal.
I only put ~7500 miles on the TC in a year. The TC gets 24mpg. So 7500/24 = 312.5 gal/year x $3.33 = $1040.63. I would have to find a small van that got ~28mpg to break even on a diesel. Anybody seen one recently?
Audi racing anyone?
They have been cleaned up and they don't belch or rattle anymore.
If one looks at the euro specs of a given make, lets say Mercedes, it's no wonder 2/3 of new CARS sold in Europe are diesel. The diesel versions of a given car at a similar trim level offer the same performance, gets 30% or greater fuel efficiency, and cost roughly the same. Small cars and performance cars make up the petrol sales. That is true in much of the world.
All just because we don't like Nox and the European and other nations regulators dont like C02? I guess? Beats me.
I would want a modern diesel because:
Range. I don't like gas stations or stopping if I am getting somewhere far way.
The oft mentioned Torque, however not the towing capacity as much as the instant power in any situation with out a bunch of noise or wind up. Making rapid progress with tourney motors in sedans or wagons that aren't flashy helps keep the po po and attention in general away. I am anti social, so that is good.
If I am to believe Topgear and Car magazine Modern diesels are quieter than gassers in DD civilian use.
We aren't getting what I would want: an AWD (for launching drift boats on unimproved ramps) wagon that makes 300+ ftbls, gets 35+ higway mpg, and seats 4 real honest to god 6' adults and their crap. Mercedes, Volvo, Audi, Volkswagen, Subaru, BMW, a prolly a few others all make them.
NOHOME wrote: There is a perception that Diesel is cheaper to operate and that if you run a lot of miles, this tips even further in your favour. I have yet to see this pan out. The complexity of modern diesel and the cost of parts compared to gasoline engines pretty much kills the deal. The fact that diesel is more expensive (used to be cheaper go figure)
They are over a life of the vehicle. So, the perception is true. But live in the rust belt, you aren't going to gain the advantage because you can't drive a literal bare chassis down the road.
Are modern diesels complex? Compared to the arcane models of the 80's and early 90's, you bet. Are they really anymore complex then a current gas engine? Depends on your ability level of fixing things. Overall, they aren't anymore complex, but they are more time consuming to repair problems. Parts are more expensive, but there a fewer of them with greater importance. JMO.
What is the appeal?
People complaining about something they can't buy, but then if it was made available to them, they wouldn't buy it anyway because it doesn't come with a 200k mile warranty and cost $12k while doing so.
Sonic wrote: Fuel economy and longevity, in that order...
I've got bad news for you, then.
Dashpot wrote:Swank Force One wrote:Did I mention the 1,000 RPM powerband?Dashpot wrote: Soot belching, coal burning, stinking, rattling harbingers of hell. They all should have been legislated off the road or ordered to clean up 40 years ago. Other than that - to each his own...Sooo... i'm not quite sure i get it. Are you for or against diesels?
So, smokes, stinks, shakes, vibrates, can't hold oil to save its life, powerband narrower than Hank Hill's urethra, heavy, throttle response like a long distance call via carrier pigeon...
Sounds just like the 360kmi gas engine in my Volkswagen, although I'm buying fuel at $3.19/per instead of $4.
At least when my engine burns a quart of oil every 200 miles, I don't have to worry about the engine running away. For a fun evening of entertainment, go to YouTube and search for runaway diesel. Like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zx3qKX_Pno
Shaun wrote: All just because we don't like Nox and the European and other nations regulators dont like C02? I guess? Beats me.
You can thank the tree hugging hippies of Kalifornia for the strict NOx emissions crap. NOx just doesn't "sweep" itself away in valleys very well. Euro's just hate to expand the ozone hole.
z31maniac wrote: What is the appeal? People complaining about something they can't buy, but then if it was made available to them, they wouldn't buy it anyway because it doesn't come with a 200k mile warranty and cost $12k while doing so.
Don't worry they will buy them used and complain about the options the new buyers put on them.
I don't think you're going to see the savings in a car- 42mpg vs 35 is only about 15%. In a truck, I think you will. Take the new Grand Cherokee. For equal towing capacity (7400lb for diesel and same for hemi- v6 only tows 5000lb?) the diesel 4x2 gets 20/30 and the hemi gets 14/21. That's 45+% difference.
I don't get why there is a premium charged for new diesels, but there is also a premium on the back end when you go to sell.
I want one but am not sure why. Just drove a TDI Beetle this weekend with 150,000 miles that is owned and well maintained by a 50 year old traveling nurse. It was interesting but had the requisit CEL, a rattly dash, crunchy shifter and crappy interior. She loves it and reports about 40mpg average.
The 2012 4cyl auto Fusion Company car I have retails about $24k in SE (decently optioned trim). It is fun to drive, powerful enough and just returns mid 20's average.
This past weekend from FL to DC and back with the wife, myself and some luggage it got 30.6 miles doing +/- 80 and 32.4 +/- 75 on the way back. Best I have recorded is over about 100 miles on 60mph road with some small cities and traffic lights where it returned 36mph. I believe it could touch 40mph on a 55-60mph highway.
DrBoost wrote: That being said, diesel fuel is more of a racket that gasoline. At least gas fluctuates up AND down. By me, diesel has been right around $4 a gallon for at least a year. Why is a product that's refines LESS than gas 33% more expensive? I don't buy the whole 'demand' thing. Gas is in demand as well last I checked.
The commodities market is a weird thing. Has little to do with consumer demand...
Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: An RX8 (hardly the epitome of efficiency) would cost me maybe only $50-75 more per month in fuel with a much more engaging drive.
I have this debate all the time... money saved vs. commuting enjoyment... for now, an occasional drive in the E30 (sort of fun) or the GT6 (usually fun) will suffice for now...
You'll need to log in to post.
