Diesels....really worth it?

[Deanh]

Nice attempt at satire. No gas tax? Try and do some reading mate... over 50% of the price of a gallon of U.S. gasoline comes from TAXES. Federal, State, & Local. Diesels are more popular in Europe due to the tax breaks given to diesels. Oh, and don't forget the fact that they are 30% more fuel efficient in many cases.

 

Auto Diesels in the states here have been given a bad reputation due to their emergence in the 1980's and their demise due to poor designs from several companies (GM was the #1 culprit: making V8 diesels from Gasser parts). Fortunately for VW, Mercedes, and BMW... they have not died. They have enjoyed quite a resurgence. If you do a search on American Car lots these days... diesel autos are HARD TO KEEP IN STOCK due to the fuel economy benefit, the longevity, and the resale value. Oh, and yes... we're offering a $1,500 U.S. TAX CREDIT on them too. (Politics there) Better yet, show me a salesman who DOES NOT want to sell DIESELS in the U.S. and I'll show you a person who doesn't want to earn fast money. DIESELS are in high demand. Check VW inventories of TDI's... they are high demand. Mercedes-Benz & BMW are right behind them. For you to surmise that we Yanks don't want diesels because of Bullsh*t enviromentalist wacko policies is ludicrous. The 2 cannot be farther from the truth. Again... it goes back to economics. European diesels have been a hit b/c of tax breaks (higher gas taxes too!-- Gov't. intervention in the free market), longevity, and better performance longitudinally. Prove me wrong... you cannot.

 

If you think for 1 moment that taxing people for exhaling CO2 is the way to make us happy... you're crazy. Taxing Carbon is a legal form of racketeering. The people do not benefit from this robbery. It is redistribution of wealth... aka socialism. Isn't Europe trying that and failing right now? YEP.

 

Oh, and by the way Aussie... Virtually everything we do or are associated with involves CO2. Taxing me for exhaling? LUNACY. LIBERTY OR DEATH...DON'T TREAD ON ME. Didn't we fight a war about unfair oppression, excessive taxation without representation, etc.? YES!!! Diesels are viable here... but Ford doesn't want to introduce them yet until the Corporate Average Fleet Economy is too high and they have to implement it. Europe is a great proving grounds for their small diesels too by the way. Ever notice that?

 

Good luck with telling your people that taxing them MORE because they exhale is in their best interest... I'm sure it'll go well with taxing their livestock for flatulating and deficating... releasing greenhouse gasses... UGH!!!

chill pill curly, and double check the "demand" on diesels and sales numbers in comparison with the same manufacturers gassers....ever wonder why no-one else aside from little niche German companies are bringing over drivetrains with such demand???? After all, they would sell like hotcakes and be extremely profitable no????

Edited December 26, 2011 by Deanh

[jpd80]

Well, it's not even a $.90 payback.

 

Depending on how you drive it, you won't necessarily see that 30% increase in economy, and diesel generally carries a premium over gas.

 

As for the question as to why Ford has no diesels, there's not much to add. Only that I suspect the VW diesels are volume constrained for emissions purposes, given that they score poorly (ULEV, or the same as a F150), in comparison to the gas models (SULEVs).

 

BTW: The gas powered Jettas get atrocious fuel economy (24 & 31? What?)

 

The diesels do work on fuel payback but the buy in price for diesel option and additional emission equipment makes that

technology stream far less attractive compared to the returns achievable with $8.40/gallon fuel. There are better ways available

to achieve this, mostly by picking the right vehicle in the first place and then choosing an engine size buyers will be happy with.

 

Also, introducing 2.0 Ecoboost I-4s in Mondeo has shown a 20% improvement over the 2.3 I-4 in combined fuel economy numbers

and while not as good as diesel, that narrowing of the fuel economy gap between petrol and diesel makes the chances of US seeing

diesels introduced en mass far less likely. They will come but serve a better role in trucks and utilities where fuel usage is greatest and

can give best returns for the likes of fleet owners and people doing lots of heavy hauling.

 

I challenge the notion that there is a vast pool of buyers out there demanding ultra fuel economy and wanting small capacity diesels

in their favourite vehicles. What they do desire is enough fuel economy to take that issue off the table while keeping current performance.

I think Ford is in the right track with Ecoboost for the US market, it's the balance between down sizing and performance that's critical.

While only 5-10% will buy a 2.0 I-4 EB Explorer, I have a hunch that 75% would buy a 2.7-3.0 V6 EB Explorer in a heart beat...

Edited December 26, 2011 by jpd80

[Boss444]

I see the drumbeat of how Ford and other should offer diesel engines in their cars etc...so I did some research on the VW Golf, which comes with both engines.

 

Anyways heres what I found:

 

Golf Diesel:

30/42 MPG

Annual fuel cost (via EPA's website, figured at 20K miles a year and $3.75 a gallon for Diesel) $2076

Price (via KBB.com, MSRP, no options figured in) $25,151

 

Golf Auto with Gas

24/31 MPG

Annual fuel cost (via EPA's website, figured at 20K miles a year and $3.25 a gallon for Benzine, err Gas) $2407

Price (via KBB.com, MSRP no options figured in) $19,468

 

So for nearly $5700 more up front, you get to pay $393 bucks less a YEAR for fuel...so its going to take you nearly 15 years of driving that car to "break even" on fuel costs alone...driving 20K miles a year.

 

Given that Diesel is $.50 or so a gallon more then 87 octane Regular, I don't forsee Diesel engines winning over people...

 

Ford already has their "diesel" bases covered. It's called Ecoboost.

[jpd80]

Ford already has their "diesel" bases covered. It's called Ecoboost.

Don't get me wrong but I think Ford is overselling the benefits of the EB 20 especially in heavy vehicles like Explorer, Edge and Taurus.

It's a great engine but I have a terrible fear that if real world economy doesn't match the marketing hype , buyers will drop it like a stone.

In those vehicles, offering something like a 2.7 V6 Ecoboost with similar economy to the NA 3.5/3.7 V6 but with more torque is the ticket.

Edited December 27, 2011 by jpd80

[Boss444]

Don't get me wrong but I think Ford is overselling the benefits of the EB 20 especially in heavy vehicles like Explorer, Edge and Taurus.

It's a great engine but I have a terrible fear that if real world economy doesn't match the marketing hype , buyers will drop it like a stone.

In those vehicles, offering something like a 2.7 V6 Ecoboost with similar economy to the NA 3.5/3.7 V6 but with more torque is the ticket.

 

While Ford probably made a mistake by putting such a tiny engine in such a heavy vehicle, the basic concept that EB = diesel is still there.

 

I agree on the fuel economy though. People will not like it if it doesn't deliver.

[Deanh]

While Ford probably made a mistake by putting such a tiny engine in such a heavy vehicle, the basic concept that EB = diesel is still there.

 

I agree on the fuel economy though. People will not like it if it doesn't deliver.

I think people are still warming up to the concept in the Edge and Explorer, take rate low compared with the V6's. Sold an eco edge the other day, drivetrain works well in that vehicle, it doesnt in the Explorer, now add 7 occupants.................................sorry, IMO it fails miserably...curbweight kills it, adding 7 would embarass it.

[Boss444]

I think people are still warming up to the concept in the Edge and Explorer, take rate low compared with the V6's. Sold an eco edge the other day, drivetrain works well in that vehicle, it doesnt in the Explorer, now add 7 occupants.................................sorry, IMO it fails miserably...curbweight kills it, adding 7 would embarass it.

 

Yeah...I don't mind it in the Edge. The Explorer is a joke. It's a fine art between balancing efficiency with driveability. Sure it may be economical...but if it's slower than a one-legged man with a walker, who will want it?

[Deanh]

Yeah...I don't mind it in the Edge. The Explorer is a joke. It's a fine art between balancing efficiency with driveability. Sure it may be economical...but if it's slower than a one-legged man with a walker, who will want it?

I will give them the one shot and a miss, but I wouldnt be at all surprized if A) it gets the chop or B) the displacement hp and torque gets a largish bump.....and how come my letter B with a ) always becomes a :shades: without the moving shades?

Edited December 28, 2011 by Deanh

[GT-Keith]

If you're carrying 7 passengers then it won't be comfortably. I think 5 passengers comfortably is more like it.

 

It's not like you'll be choosing a mid-size SUV if you have a large family with 7 members(full size adults, for get about it).

 

I think the Ecoboost 4 works well with medium sized familys that don't need to pull anything.. Were' talking about two adults, and three kids that don't weigh much. Not seven, 200+lbs adults, all of their luggage, and a small trailer.

 

----

 

I believe one review shared my sentiments with Ecoboost 4 in the Explorer. The low-end torque is better than the V6's, it's the horsepower that people want on the highway.

[Edstock]

and how come my letter B with a ) always becomes a :shades: without the moving shades?

Uh, that's the Auto-B^© feature of the forum software, for your pleasure; somebody went to a fair bit of work so you could do that.

[RichardJensen]

I will give them the one shot and a miss, but I wouldnt be at all surprized if A) it gets the chop or B) the displacement hp and torque gets a largish bump.....and how come my letter B with a ) always becomes a :shades: without the moving shades?

See attachment. It's under the 'Configure Post Options' section of the reply screen. If you have the box checked, these things (among others) are turned into emoticons:

 

:D, :P, B), , :o, etc.

Edited December 28, 2011 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

I wonder if Ecoboost programming can be adapted to V6 and V8 engines with DI and Supercahrger,

I see that as more compact packaging, perhaps slightly less efficient due to parasitic losses from S/C.

 

I'd have to wonder whether a 680 lb ft 5.0 Coyote might make a great alternative for F250 customers

not wanting to fork out $8,000 for a diesel, but there's obviously a reason why the V8 EB was canned.

 

Could you imagine the emotion coming from Mustang and Raptor fans knowing that Ford has a 600 Hp / 680 lb ft "truck engine"...

[Edstock]

A feature.

 

[Noah Harbinger]

See attachment. It's under the 'Configure Post Options' section of the reply screen. If you have the box checked, these things (among others) are turned into emoticons:

 

:D, :P, B), , :o, etc.

 

Can you enter any emotions with it turned off? Or does it only disable keyboard-typed ones?

[Deanh]

See attachment. It's under the 'Configure Post Options' section of the reply screen. If you have the box checked, these things (among others) are turned into emoticons:

 

:D, :P, B), , :o, etc.

did BON also design MFT?.......bwahahahahaaha!

[RichardJensen]

Can you enter any emotions with it turned off? Or does it only disable keyboard-typed ones?

Um. I guess not

Edited December 29, 2011 by RichardJensen

[hudsondog]

Why wouldn't you buy the Passat TDI instead? Same $$$, more legroom, etc. Hey, $25 K, 6 speed manual or auto... and 45+ MPG real world data.

 

Having recently tested the Passat SEL TDI, I found it to be a great family car. Driving it for a week, I got about 45 mpg...which I loved. The Chevrolet Sonic 1.4T that I drove the next week didn't get CLOSE to that mileage (and didn't have the nice ride, great interior space, etc). Normally, I get on the high end of a car's EPA rating, but the Passat (on the same routes) bested even the EPA's highway numbers.

[Deanh]

Having recently tested the Passat SEL TDI, I found it to be a great family car. Driving it for a week, I got about 45 mpg...which I loved. The Chevrolet Sonic 1.4T that I drove the next week didn't get CLOSE to that mileage (and didn't have the nice ride, great interior space, etc). Normally, I get on the high end of a car's EPA rating, but the Passat (on the same routes) bested even the EPA's highway numbers.

how exactly did you get to test drive a car for a week?.......

[hudsondog]

how exactly did you get to test drive a car for a week?.......

 

I write about cars, so they bring me cars to test.

[Deanh]

I write about cars, so they bring me cars to test.

very nice...welcome. No doubt those TDIs get great mileage, i still cant get over the VW dependability stigma though, Ive known of and heard too many horror stories, shame because i do like the way the cars look and drive. That said though, i do beleive alternatives are on the horizon that will raise potential HWY Mpgs to another level....which kinda leaves the germans love of TDI Bluetecs and the like out in the middle of no-where....I find it a REAL curiousity that no-one BUT the germans have diesel sedans and drivetrains in their arsenal. Does anyone know if because of trade agreements they get a hall pass that others ( Honda for example ) dont qualify for?.....

[RichardJensen]

Having recently tested the Passat SEL TDI, I found it to be a great family car. Driving it for a week, I got about 45 mpg...which I loved. The Chevrolet Sonic 1.4T that I drove the next week didn't get CLOSE to that mileage (and didn't have the nice ride, great interior space, etc). Normally, I get on the high end of a car's EPA rating, but the Passat (on the same routes) bested even the EPA's highway numbers.

I think there's a bit of a selection bias in reported diesel mileage. People who place a premium on fuel efficiency are likely to have fuel efficient driving habits, and I think diesels reward efficient driving better than conventional gas engines.

 

However, if, say, diesels were sold in similar percentages in the US and Europe, I'd guess that average fuel efficiency among all diesel owners would drop significantly because too many owners would be demanding gas-engine type acceleration from diesel engines and that just *kills* diesel fuel economy.

[Biker16]

Yes, you are right... I know nothing about what the high and mighty Europeans have done... except GO BROKE trying to make their policies work instead of common sense. Got EURO? I don't.

 

An aggressive fuel tax takes money AWAY from the individual and REDISTRIBUTES IT to GOVERNMENT. Yet, you say that you dislike "sticking it to the consumer". Damn... you're talking from both sides of the issue. Make a choice and stick with it.

 

Talk about limiting freedom in the name of the environment... that is ridiculous. Men yearn to be free. History has proven that.

 

If you want clean, cheap power... the market has to demand it, not government. Government can only limit your markets and your freedoms. Read history.

 

the market has many many failures, it a basic rule of economics. to argue that ". limiting freedom in the name of the environment... that is ridiculous" ignore the history of humanity.

 

The Tragedy of the Commons

 

the story is that resoures are finite and the demand for resources are infinite, For renewable resources like land or Fisheries there is a maximum quality that can be exploited without damaging the ability of the resource to be renewed naturally. left on checked the market would make it so the resourceful is longer viable, and everyone is denied the resource, the role of government is to create rules so that the long term interest are not compromised by the short term exploitation.

 

the world we live in has to be shared with everyone else, no man is an island, the actions we take have consequences to our neighbors, the idea that we cannot compromise our freedom for the well being of our neighbor, is a fantasy, and the laws current on the books limiting pollution, have benefited every American. Clean water means we lose the freedom to pour oil down our drains, or clean air means we lose the freedom to smoke cigarettes in public places.

 

the Argument that it is OK for power plants to not reduce mercury emissions, is insane, the cost saving will be 90 billion dollars. and hundreds of lives saved, yet the we fight these life saving regulations, becuade they "kill jobs" which is not true. in the end it is the job of the government to have laws and regualtions that protect health and well-being of it citizens.

[jpd80]

However, if, say, diesels were sold in similar percentages in the US and Europe, I'd guess that average fuel efficiency among all diesel owners would drop significantly because too many owners would be demanding gas-engine type acceleration from diesel engines and that just *kills* diesel fuel economy.

Not necessarily, the twin turbo V6 diesel in say Jaguar's XF gives impressive acceleration and outstanding fuel economy.

but then again, let's say that Ford develops a new 2.7 V6 Ecoboost and we have the perfect counter mesure for diesel,

an engine that gives 320 hp and 360 lb ft but also probably much better gas mileage than a 3.5 or 3.7 V6.

Any advantage the diesel had is then diminished to the point of being only a passing curiosity....

 

The whole reason for diesel's proliferation is due to the cost of fuel, $8.40 a gallon relly smartens the buyer's attention

without that fear, US consumers are free to make completely different choices in vehicles..Any penetration of diesel

into the USA will most likely be limited to fleet/trucks and possibly larger SUVs where weight and towing make diesel

a more appropriate option.Even in that circumstance, the volumes of diesels will still be low, at best 10% of SUVs

which means 90% will still be gasoline.....just my two cents.

Edited January 2, 2012 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Yeah, but that diesel's not constrained by US emissions regs.

[jpd80]

Yeah, but that diesel's not constrained by US emissions regs.

precisely, there's a lot of technical headaches coming up for European diesel manufacturers, the cost of compliance to Euro 6

and forward planning emission increases will be just as bad as federalizing a diesel for the USA. Perhaps the US is getting in

ahead of time and going the gasoline direct injection route because they already have the costings...

 

Ford knows it, that's why even it with its quiver of efficient diesels for Europe, it is committing to Ecoboost in the USA, not the other way around...,

Edited January 2, 2012 by jpd80