Last post on Dec 04, 2013 at 7:02 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
Car Buying, Biodiesel, Diesel, Hybrid Cars, Coupe, Hatchback, SUV
#8677 of 11670 Re: GLK diesel. [scwmcan]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Mar 26, 2013 (7:54 pm)
I guess what I'm driving at is that most people shopping in the $40K--$45K range don't care all that much about 'gas mileage'. It's not their primary motivator.
So the people who desperately want 40 mpg can't afford it and the people who can afford it don't care if it's 30 mpg or 40 mpg. That's simply not great enough to really be on the mix-luxury car buyer's radar IMO.
Do you really think if I crossed off the 38 mpg on the GLK250's window sticker and put 30 mpg, that total sales would change very much, if at all?
I don't think so.
And do you think the average American is going to stare at a GLK250, stroking his chin and say to himself "now let's see, in ten years time, if I save X dollars per year on gas, then....."
#8678 of 11670 Re: GLK diesel. [Mr_Shiftright]
Mar 27, 2013 (2:18 am)
I think people are stretching more than they used to to buy any new car, and a lot will depend on the lease price since that is the way most of the ( especially entry level) luxury cars are "sold" anyway, so if the is an attractive lease price then yes I do think people will care about the milage and the diesel, of course once you load it up with options.... In any case I am suggesting a lot for Mercedes volumes not GM or Ford volumes, also juding from the % of Audis with a diesel I would say that just as many care about fuel economy as the top of the line gas engine, the major volume will always be the middle ground though, would a Honda or Ford diesel CUV sell more volume, of course, but they aren't offering them yet. In any case I still think delaying it to the 2014 model year is a bit of a mistake, but then it could be introduced tomorrow as a 2014 the way manufactures introduce new model years nowadays.
#8679 of 11670 Re: GLK diesel. [gagrice]
Mar 27, 2013 (2:24 am)
No b-class diesel here unfortunately ( I know a few people who bought the gas model would love to have a diesel version). As for importing one, unless they are in the military ( or are diplomats) and served in Europe for (I think over a year) than no they can't import anything newer than 15 years old, so a bit newer than your rules but still not new, a lot of the funky cars ( especially out west) are 15 year old Japanese imports, and a lot of provinces are banning RHD cars, so those are getting harder to get into Canada as well. The smart diesel was here on a special exception, but we don't get any other different diesels here now that we have adopted the California emissions standards ( or at least the newer American stands).
#8680 of 11670 Re: GLK diesel. [Mr_Shiftright]
Mar 27, 2013 (4:58 am)
I think the point you are trying to make might be a sentiment that might be long held and perhaps a "truism," but maybe not an accurate reflection of oem and those specific shoppers' goals and aspirations AND demographic changes (don't forget the etc etc's as there can be MULTIPLE motivators to ANY vehicle's purchase/s).
So for example: IF 22% buy diesel MB ML350 BlueTec's does that indeed dial out completely better mpg as a motivator? Or if one buys the defacto 78% gassers, does than mean he / she is a hypocritical enviro con? I don't think so.
For me, it was rather an easy logic. IF I am going to get whatever vehicle in whatever segment, given a choice between diesel/gasser/etc would I rather get worser/better mileage?
In the MB ML350 Bluetec's example, 22% in effect/defacto VOTED with their check books.
In Europe across the passenger vehicle fleet that metric is more like 50% PLUS+ for.... like models. Indeed in /US markets that is more like 5% up from 3% a very short time ago. 66% growth.
#8681 of 11670 Re: GLK diesel. [scwmcan]
Mar 27, 2013 (4:47 am)
The smart diesel was here on a special exception
Ah, I spent a week in Victoria BC a few years ago. I went into the MB dealer and looked at the Smart diesels. He said they sell as soon as they get to the dealer. I also talked to an owner. He claimed 70 MPG around town was his average. Next thing I see you have been Californicated. Very Sad for Canada. Though it looks like you are making some positive strides politically.
#8682 of 11670 Re: GLK diesel. [ruking1]
Mar 27, 2013 (4:58 am)
In the MB ML350 Bluetec case 22% in effect/defacto VOTED with their check books.
The older demographic Mercedes diesel buyers are probably pushing up daisies. A whole new group of buyers will have to be educated to the positives the diesels offer. And even more positives now than in the 1970s and 80s. There was about 20 years that MB did not offer diesels in the USA. And Lexus ate their lunch. Now Lexus is trailing the German leaders again as it should be. And just about by the number of Luxo diesels sold in the USA.
#8683 of 11670 Re: GLK diesel. [ruking1]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Mar 27, 2013 (7:47 am)
A lot of that depends on the buyer's initial response to test driving the comparable diesel and gas versions. The characteristics of a diesel engine, especially a 4 cylinder, might not be compared favorably to the smooth quiet liquid power of the V-6.
Maybe it's a marketing problem, ultimately. There is no prestige to a diesel. This may be cultural. The diesel in America still has the tinge of being suited to commercial uses.
If you asked a focus group to pin labels on a diesel engine, it'd probably be something like "rugged"..."economical"...long-lasting"...."tough". You would not get labels like "refined"..."smooth"...."sophisticated"...."precision"...."machine like"......
And I agree, the "old diesel lovers" are disappearing, and a new generation of car buyers needs to be thoroughly re-educated.
In a way, it might be similar to GM's problem with re-educating young, upwardly mobile buyers to buy a Cadillac. All their former customers died.
#8684 of 11670 Re: GLK diesel. [gagrice]
Mar 27, 2013 (1:34 pm)
Well I got my smart diesel for commuting, it gives me twice the milage as my matrix or my former Mazda 3, I drive it fairly hard and generally get around 60-70mpg US. I am not sure our government following 15 year old failed republican policies is progress ( though they do seem to have realized that they needed to back off some of them), hopefully we can get some good economic policies, and keep our social programs ( but of course they have to be within budget, not crazy spending).
#8685 of 11670 Re: GLK diesel. [Mr_Shiftright]
Mar 27, 2013 (7:49 pm)
Of course it does depend on a buyers response between gasser/diesel, among a myriad of factors of why ANYBODY buys a vehicle. . The 4/6 cylinder engines are WAY different animals. But that is true even for GASSERS !! ??? So I am confused a tad why you think 2 more or less cylinders are a big deal?
However the 22% or so was posted by Gagrice and in that sense "historical data". Now if you are implying that MB wants higher volumes and percentages, then it would probably be incumbent on them to "kick it up a notch" in the "edge u ma cation" department and others. I really did not get the feeling last year (2012) either BMW or MB were pulling out any stops on the diesel front. I got largely a "we don't get many" so this is the price....
Mar 27, 2013 (8:01 pm)
On a more practical front, another R/T posted 30 mpg upgrade (210 miles, zero to 7386 ft back to sea level, 210 miles) and 35 mpg downgrade (there was a bunch of higher altitude slo mo mileage) . A bit of bipolar situations. On the upgrade run caught a bunch of very slow moving commute traffic at expected choke points, but was able to keep a steady 80/85 for a lot of the trip. The downgrade through the mountains posted 42 mpg on computer, but with choke points and higher speeds posted 35 over all downgrade. So the average for the R/T was almost 33 mpg. (32.5) I am amazed as this is a sub 5,000 # CUV (4974#'s) I only had app 500#'s of stuff this upgrade.