Ask the Car People.SM


What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car?

9338 messages,  Last post on May 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

What is this discussion about? Car Buying, Biodiesel, Diesel, Hybrid Cars, Coupe, Hatchback, SUV

Messages Page 591 of 935

#5896 of 9338 Re: More down to earth... [steve_] by ruking1

Jun 08, 2012 (3:50 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Jun 08, 2012 10:33 am)
I take it they have all found a regional home !!
 
I do notice caricature MONSTER trucks( diesels or even gassers) in this "neck of the woods" very few are so called "smokers".
 
When so called "CAFE" racing was popular for (gasser) ricers, LEO's would actually stop vehicles for emissions inspections and impound, if there were too many non certified equipment, without the proper EPA numbers.

#5897 of 9338 why I avoid modern unmodded USA diesels by elias

Jun 10, 2012 (5:50 am)

Replying to: flightnurse (Jun 05, 2012 2:10 pm)
diesel being 5% more per gallon than gas is stopping you from buying 335d compared to nondiesel 3-series?
 
It appears that you have identified a reason USA people don't buy diesel cars: they don't consider the cost(s) per mile driven, or the # of refuel stops, or the increased resale value.
Your indication appears consistent with that of USA buyers, primarily considering the extra cost per gallon of the fuel and extra cost up front.
 
In my case recently, as a four-time, ~100k each, diesel-VW owner, I am aware of all possible arithmetic re gas vs diesel car ownership yet still selected a gas Cruze instead of waiting for diesel Cruze.
 
A factor for avoiding current diesels in USA for me was all the "regen" nonsense: pumping fuel into the exhaust just for emissions purposes, dropping mpg 20% or 50% (!) overall in some driving situations.
Previously the EGR hack on USA diesels caused enough trouble - and now "regen" as well as EGR are both mandated? Ugh. That is unacceptable for me as a buyer, considerably defeating a major purpose of the diesel.
  "Adblue" or SCR are both fine with me in a new diesel vehicle, but the only way I would consider a post-2007 USA diesel car or truck is along with doing a DPF-delete & regen-delete - keeping the old parts & ECM so it could be returned to stock. I'd register the vehicle where state-inspection allows such deletes - evidently my state does allow such.

#5898 of 9338 Re: why I avoid modern unmodded USA diesels [elias] by gagrice

Jun 10, 2012 (6:38 am)

Replying to: elias (Jun 10, 2012 5:50 am)
I wonder how difficult it would be to remove all the emissions crap from a new Mercedes Bluetec? It may be a big undertaking with the computer interaction. Though in both VW and MB diesels they seem to be improving the mileage along with making them cleaner burning. I would not want to be an early Cruze diesel buyer. If they did not design the engine with US emissions in mind to start with.

#5899 of 9338 Re: why I avoid modern unmodded USA diesels [elias] by steve_ HOST

Jun 10, 2012 (7:39 am)

Replying to: elias (Jun 10, 2012 5:50 am)
increased resale value
 
That's an interesting one. I've read lots of posts where people enjoyed great resale on their diesel cars.
 
But the pool of prospective buyers is, I presume, a lot smaller.

#5900 of 9338 Re: More down to earth... [steve_] by byrn

Jun 10, 2012 (8:51 am)

Replying to: steve_ (Jun 08, 2012 9:22 am)
A lot of spin here (no offense intended) about how clean diesels are. Apparently the newer ones are so clean you can suck down the emissions and be better for it. YetI thought the oil derived content in their emissions was higher?
 
Anyway, seems now matter how new a Ford with it's huge tail pipe is it always reeks. Like I tell my kid,
 
You can always smell a Ford.

#5901 of 9338 Re: More down to earth... [steve_] by byrn

Jun 10, 2012 (9:08 am)

Replying to: steve_ (Jun 08, 2012 10:33 am)
Not saying anyone here so don't jump down my throat, but there seems to be this strange subset of drivers out there which apparently view it as a macho thing to leave their diesel running, fouling up the air for fifty ft around while casually standing nearby as if diesel fumes were the most natural thing in the world to breathe.
 
I don't mind people doing that to themselves if that's what they choose, but I have a kid in elementary school and it really irks me when people driving these huge trucks pull up alongside the curb in front of the school refusing to turn them off while waiting to pick up their kid, all the while callously belching horrible fumes that dozens of children have to walk through. Seems kind of rude to me.

#5902 of 9338 Re: More down to earth... [byrn] by steve_ HOST

Jun 10, 2012 (10:16 am)

Replying to: byrn (Jun 10, 2012 9:08 am)
The neighbor's nephew did that last summer - showed up at 6 am and went in to chat. Left his diesel truck clattering for a good 15 minutes.
 
Idling in any rig irritates me though. Love to have a remote control gizmo that would shut down the engine in those situations (and one for cell phones and TVs, Harleys...). Idling is illegal in many places but rarely enforced. Maybe you need to donate one of these to your school.
 
This is an interesting one too.

#5903 of 9338 Re: More down to earth... [byrn] by ruking1

Jun 10, 2012 (11:36 am)

Replying to: byrn (Jun 10, 2012 8:51 am)
The real spin is in spite of the facts, most still think diesels are cleaner than gassers. !! For some reason, you acknowledge Ford (gassers) being "dirtier", but haven't made the logical transition in the case of cleaner diesel fuel and way less diesel emissions. As you indicate, no offense intended. I will go back to not confusing people with the facts, as it is more than apparent 95% of the folks vote with their pocket books for dirtier fuel (RUG/PUG). I actually still own gassers. Martyrdom is the FARTHEST thing from my mind and universe.
 
So for example, even if I got 15 mpg with my 16/18 year old gassers with diesel, the torque would be utterly wild. We pretty much had/ continue to drive them fairly conservatively to get 15 to 17 mpg (gassers) (125,000 and 225,000 miles respectively) . FF to 2012 with the same weight (but TDI) machine, the torque on the TDI is absolutely (still) staggering (fun is my translation), much more capable and road worthy and the mpg is more like 31 to 36 mpg and way less of a need to drive "conservatively" to get 31 to 36 mpg aka to 107% to 112% better fuel mileage.
 
Again it is demonstrated time and time again that really nobody cares that any one gets 15 mpg, nor does anyone care that the same weighted vehicle can now get 31 to 36 mpg. However I do and was willing to make the RUG/PUG switch. If anyone is not, pretty simple, DON'T switch.
 
The fact that there is a market for upcoming 44 mpg crossover suvs (albeit lighter) is very exciting for potential and diesels' consumers.

#5904 of 9338 Re: More down to earth... [steve_] by byrn

Jun 10, 2012 (12:35 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Jun 10, 2012 10:16 am)
Why do diesel owners do this? I once heard someone say something about diesels being hard to start or other but I don't know.
 
I have an unemployed relative who, I hear, likes to go out every morning and start up his chain saw then just leave it idling even though he has no actual chainsaw work to do. Makes him, and the neighbors I assume, feel like he's doing something productive.
 
In the case of diesel owners I suspect it has something to do with the sound of power they have. A way to impress others, and we all know how American consumers have been flooded with the message that your car has to look and sound POWERFUL, something Europeans have not fallen for. Seems like a waste of gas to me though. All that supposed gas mileage betterment going up in idling. Plus it's annoying to live next door to one. Can't go outside without being overwhelmed by fumes, and forget peace and quiet.
 
We own a "gasser", a 97 Nissan 200 SX. It has around 325,000 miles on it and still runs good. Smooth and quiet. Not only that but it gets 37 miles to the gallon.

#5905 of 9338 Re: More down to earth... [byrn] by ruking1

Jun 10, 2012 (2:01 pm)

Replying to: byrn (Jun 10, 2012 12:35 pm)
..."We own a "gasser", a 97 Nissan 200 SX. It has around 325,000 miles on it and still runs good. Smooth and quiet. Not only that but it gets 37 miles to the gallon."...
 
Several questions. So what is wrong with that? (we have a 04 Civic 140,000 miles and hope it goes 4 tune ups or 480,000 miles. It currently gets 38-42 mpg in a 54 miles daily R/T commute)
 
But at the same time while 37 mpg is good, what would be wrong with a diesel (using the same ratios as VW 2003 1.9 TDI( 46.5 mpg) to VW 2003 gasser 2.0 (29.9 mpg) ) 58 mpg? So in your case is using 8,784 gals vs 5,603 gals (+/-3181 gals more/less) better or worst? You of course stated what you have chosen .

Messages Page 591 of 935

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement