Last post on Dec 07, 2013 at 7:16 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
Car Buying, Biodiesel, Diesel, Hybrid Cars, Coupe, Hatchback, SUV
#11165 of 11709 Re: Probably Another No Brainer [tifighter]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Sep 23, 2013 (8:48 am)
That is an issue. Just have to switch to "creek" boats and stick 'em inside.
#11166 of 11709 Re: The real problem [fintail]
Sep 23, 2013 (9:41 am)
..."Of course, looking at the problems Putin has at home, his energies might be better focused elsewhere. He is ostentatious and likes attention, which is to be expected. Kind of dumb, like either party pointing at the other, when both are pretty rotten and aimless.
No doubt a conflict would inflate prices, but I have a hunch that per passenger vehicle, there is more fuel supply for diesel than gasoline. So, you'll pay more but at least you'll be able to get it.
It is amusing that supplies remain high while prices creep up. Supply and demand, huh."...
Ah, ... no !
In Putin's case, according to David Satter's (opinion) article:
"Russia's Anti-American Foreign Policy", PG. A17, Monday Sep 23,2013 WSJ,
he needs... "high oil prices and a distraction from his domestic troubles. "...
So why WE pursue high (domestic) oil prices and defacto high (domestic) FUEL prices in keeping with anti American policies detailed in the above article is confusing best and worst ANTI American.
While I (and probably YOU) can't control the price of oil, let alone the HIGH prices of fuels the pumps (domestically), in our small ways we are able to chose the cost per mile driven? aka use of 30% better mpg diesel fuel?
#11167 of 11709 Re: The real problem [ruking1]
Sep 23, 2013 (9:41 am)
I chose diesel because I like the tech just as much as any efficiency gain - and I finally decided that driving a tuned V8 car in the obscene traffic conditions here is just dumb.
And Putin has no place pointing a finger at anyone. Closet full of skeletons there, for himself and his country.
#11168 of 11709 Re: The real problem [fintail]
Sep 23, 2013 (10:25 am)
As good as any number and combination of reasons ! I also have multiple reasons. Be that as it may, I think the market/s would also benefit from a (to several) V8 TDI/'s aimed more at the light truck (1/2 ton) and large to mid sized cars segments. The macro/greater reason here is those cumulative segments are likely to remain the majority (75%) of the passenger vehicle fleet. So that I am not vague, 375 to 550 # ft (the RANGE is actually pretty massive)
I am sure the mink and manure set and those that need to tow 30,000 #'s appreciate the V8 stump pulling TDI's choices. But I am guessing you and I do not and/or have that need.
..."And Putin has no place pointing a finger at anyone. Closet full of skeletons there, for himself and his country."...
He and Russia want to restore its' former glories and beyond from its CRUSHING diminishment's. Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts (not two I would label as FLAMING repubs) starred in a movie: " Charlie Wilson's War" (true story I am led to believe), where a DEMOCRATIC Congressmen almost single handedly jugged the purse strings that led to Russia's defeat in Afghanistan !!!!! Why the current (democratic) administration chose to put him and Russia both on the world's center stage and given prime world statesmen time is certainly not in my pay grade.
#11169 of 11709 Re: The real problem [ruking1]
Sep 23, 2013 (9:59 am)
I agree with that - a midsize powerful diesel for truck and SUV application would be a boon. Piles of fuel expenses would be saved. The 6cyl gas BMW I rented would probably get 50% better mileage with the diesel, and perform better, too.
I have no plans to tow, but I do like torque.
#11170 of 11709 Re: Why do people live under these conditions? [gagrice]
Sep 23, 2013 (10:53 am)
People who are visiting someone probably drive down late Friday and drive back on Sunday, leaving Saturday to have less traffic.
#11171 of 11709 Re: Why do people live under these conditions? [gagrice]
Sep 23, 2013 (1:39 pm)
Yeah...that is GREAT mpg for an SUV. In comparison my old Grand Cherokee V8 gasser, being of similar size and weight to the Touareg, would get 18 to 18.5 max, but this was a 10 year old WJ model. It is also worth noting that the Touareg 3.0 has more horsepower than my old 4.7 V8...and 100 lb ft more torque. In just 10 years, diesels have come a long way.
I have to admit that the seating position in my car has me dying to get out and stretch after 200 miles, and I don't remember my SUV ever making me feel that way.
It's a moot point though, as the Jeep was out of gas in 250 so I had to stop anyway!!!
#11172 of 11709 Re: Why do people live under these conditions? [cski]
Sep 23, 2013 (4:57 pm)
After running around all day today going to the Reagan Library, I am at 223 miles on this tank. It is just below 3/4 mark. Won't bother filling till later in the week after I get back to San Diego. 650-700 miles should be very easy with 26 gallon tank.
#11173 of 11709 Re: Silverado picked by CR as best in the land [gagrice]
Sep 24, 2013 (6:08 pm)
28.2 mpg is what you can have today. The 17.5% higher price for diesel times the 24 mpg of a 285 HP gasser.
6 speed. 8 speed. Next up is ten speed.
11.5 yrs ago I interviewed for a job designing cylinder deactivation and now it's standard on all GM trucks. My carbed 2.8L Camaro with a 5 spd manual got 31 on trips and 25-26 average. The new 285 HP GM V6 turns into a 2.8L V4 that gets 24 hwy in an ext cab Silverado. They will never get to the 31 mpg of that Camaro since they have already downsized the engine to that level and the vehicle is so much bigger and can tow 2 1/2 of those Camaros. Somewhere between 24 and 30 is the end of the road. Maybe the 26 mpg Ram is close to the limit with the 8 speed. Will 10 speeds get 300 HP ext cab trucks to 27 mpg?
#11174 of 11709 Re: Silverado picked by CR as best in the land [dave8697]
Sep 24, 2013 (6:45 pm)
Too many maybes with any gasser. The Silverado is getting 14-15 MPG with the V6. All hype from GM. Been there too many times to believe the lies. Besides I want an SUV that gets 30+ MPG on the highway. If I was worried about the upfront premium for the diesel, I would not have bought anything. I had a perfectly good Sequoia V8 gasser that got 14-15 MPG. GM lost me with a POC 2005 GMC Sierra Hybrid. You like GM buy them. I hope their cylinder deactivation works better than Cadillac and Honda. Why not just build an engine using diesel that gets better mileage without all the extra stuff to go bad? GM ruined diesel and cylinder deactivation for every other car maker. After only 1600 miles with the diesel Touareg you would have a near impossible time convincing me any gas engine was in the same league. If you were to spend a day driving one you would tell GM what to do with their junk.
GM paved the way_and lost its way_with innovative V8-6-4
Unfortunately, cylinder deactivation still carries a bit of stigma among some older drivers with long memories, and it stems from General Motors. At the time of the second national fuel crisis, in 1979, GM decided to manufacture an engine dubbed the V8-6-4. As its name suggests, this was essentially a V-8 engine, like many others in the GM lineup. Part of the time, though, either 2 or 4 of its cylinders could shut down, leaving either 4 or 6 in operation.
Trouble brewing with V8-6-4
In practice, some nasty problems developed. Expanded self-diagnostics displayed 45 separate function codes that could assist a mechanic with investigation into any trouble that developed. And they did. The V8-6-4 engine was undeniably imaginative, but also complex. Computer control was a new concept, slow to react and not yet sufficiently developed to handle a task of this nature with suitable reliability. Instead, the modular displacement burdened many owners with incessant troubles, many of which were related to the somewhat primitive fuel-injection system. Rather than cut off fuel to the unused cylinders, the engine's injectors continued to keep them supplied, causing gasoline to accumulate.