Low cost with economy?

[Sickcall]

There was a recent article in the New York Times about the sale of a 45 state legal diesel in all 50 states for the year 2006 only. VW will be selling 750units of its 2006 Tourag into 2007 until they are all gone. The change to ULSD gave VW the opportunity to enter the 5 state market.

The Toureg has the CRD V10 twin turbo model which puts out 310 HP 553 ft-lbs of torque. The diesel gets an EPA 22 mpg on the hiway vs 19 mpg for the comparible gas V8. The diesel Toureg stickers at $59,690 and the gasses at $43,660, thats $16,030 more!

Why do these corporations have to engineer the milage down and the cost up? Why can't we just have the diesel Rabbit of the 80's back at 45-50 mpg? I don't beleive the goverment is forcing them to build and sell 500ft-lbs.

[Gordon Maney]

Isn't there a Rabbit sized car now that is diesel powered? I think it may be called a GTI, or some similar designation. Does it use the same diesel as the Passat? People I have talked to who have those and the Passats powered by VW diesels really seem to like them.

I was talking to a guy at the convenience store recently who had the sedan version; he had purchased it new, and it had a 5-speed manual transmission. He said he got 55 mpg on the highway.

I like the idea. My one concern about a low car, however, is my back. When I was a kid, I got in and out of anything just fine, including Triumph TR-2's and 3's. Recently I rode to lunch in a Saturn. I was low and hard for me to get into. My back was a problem for three days after that. I like tall things with big door openings and high seats. Would I qualify for a handicapped parking permit???? :-)

[MoparNorm]

Yes Gordon, there is and it gets better hiway mileage than a hybrid. Unfortunately it, as well as many other small diesel models, will not be offered in 2007, as most manufacturers are waiting for 50 state availability of the new ULSD and the 50 state diesels of tomorrow will be 2008 models.

Interestingly, VW is rumored to likely soon to join the D/C family and a new VW Van will be a re-badged 2008 Dodge Caravan.

Look for small fuel efficient Mercedes diesels in the 3.0 and 4.0 range to be offered next year in many Chrysler/Dodge models and for the new small 4.2 V-6 Cummins to be offered as well in 2008 Dodge and Jeep vehicles.
MN

[Sickcall]

I wish they were available here now Norm. I'm ready. Hybrids do not offer much improvement in freeway driving, they are designed for in town stop and go, so they will never compare. I'm like Gordon, I want to climb up into something. I figure the only real way to save is to just drive less.

[MoparNorm]

Hybrids are another farce put forth on the American public. High costs, high environmental impact when the batteries are used up and less mpg on the highway than many conventional models.
If the entire US fleet was changed over to diesel, we would see an overnight drop in fuel consumption of 35-40% with no change in driving habits or miles driven.
Add to that diesel mix, bio and P100 and we could cut out use of foriegn oil by nearly 100% (we import approx. 55% of our oil from overseas).
Simply by going diesel we would cut out completely our use of middle east oil and by adding bio and P-100 to the mix we would be energy independent and have cleaner skies. Contrary to popular ignorance, diesels burn cleaner than gasoline fuels, less hydrocarbons and ozone, with the exception of visible soot, and that is being removed by cats and the ULSD that is now the law of the land.


Moving 23,600 lbs at 16.5 mpg....= )
MN

[Don in Missouri]

More consumers should be aware of the consequences you point out, such as what happens to old batteries from an electric hybrid. Or what happens when all our soil erodes away in a rush to grow corn for ethanol. Will the wells used for irrigation dry up? Will all the nutrients running off the fields exacerbate hypoxia (the zone of death) in the Gulf of Mexico?

I think regenerative braking is a great concept to save energy, and I hope we will get better at perfecting ways to use it. Batteries are not the only way to store energy. Flywheels could be used to store energy as angular momentum. There is also potential to use compressed air to store energy. Instead of an electric motor kicking in to boost power of a small gas engine, you could release stored air pressure to supercharge an otherwise anemic engine. Or take Multiple Displacement technology a step further to turn off combustion cylinders and use them as air compression cylinders.

Whatever technology evolves, I'm confident Diesel will be part of it. VW built a Diesel concept car that gets 317 mpg, and it's not a hybrid. Specifically, I believe BioDiesel will be a significant part. We can't grow enough soy beans to fuel our voracious appetite for fuel, but soy combined with the potential of algae, animal carcasses and other sources of oil can provide a domestic and somewhat renewable source of energy.

I say somewhat renewable, because our current rate of energy consumption is not sustainable by any combination of energy sources.

[truck4myboys]

I think "combination" is the right word. There is no one answer, but there are many. Bio-diesel suits me just fine - I use up to 50% in my PSD. Part of the problem, as touched upon above, is why do we need so much power? do I really need to tow 16,000 pounds up hill at 80 mph? Nope. But I can. If they offered a smaller diesel for my truck, I would've taken it. Even the international version that revs much lower and puts out less than 200 hp would've worked for me. The old rabbit was slow, but it got great mileage.

I'm glad to see smaller diesels starting to come back here, I think it will make a big difference in our energy use. Hopefully they won't price them so high that no one wants to buy one. I will have to hit 500,000 miles or more on this truck to make the diesel option pay off dollar wise.

[MoparNorm]

... I will have to hit 500,000 miles or more on this truck to make the diesel option pay off dollar wise.

Well, maybe in the PJD, but if you had a Cummins and do the math on fuel economy alone, depending upon the mileage that you drive, you'll see that breakeven point in about 3.5 years, based simply on cost per mile. If you ran a gasser in that rig, you'd be looking at 7-8 mpg.

I was at the Dodge Dealer this morning, reading their latest news publication and VW has a 2.0 liter diesel for their GTI that puts out 400 HP at 30+ mpg, that's some big punch in a small package! To detune it for the 2008 regs it will still develope 280 HP. The new 4.2 Cummins is going to see service in many new Dodge and Jeep vehicles, exciting times ahead!
MN

[truck4myboys]

Well, maybe in the PJD, but if you had a Cummins and do the math on fuel economy alone, depending upon the mileage that you drive, you'll see that breakeven point in about 3.5 years, based simply on cost per mile. If you ran a gasser in that rig, you'd be looking at 7-8 mpg.

I wish it were that easy. With 18 quarts of oil, additional oil and fuel filters, etc. service and other goodies are more expensive. It also depends on the cost of fuel, and for whatever reason right now diesel is between 30 and 40 cents per gallon more than unleaded (10 to 20 more than premium), at least around here. I get an average of 18-19 mpg on my 8,000 pound truck with a bunch of freeway at 80 plus and a bunch of 4 wheel drive use. A friend with the V-10 gets 10-12.

I was at the Dodge Dealer this morning, reading their latest news publication and VW has a 2.0 liter diesel for their GTI that puts out 400 HP at 30+ mpg, that's some big punch in a small package! To detune it for the 2008 regs it will still develope 280 HP. The new 4.2 Cummins is going to see service in many new Dodge and Jeep vehicles, exciting times ahead!
MN

I really am looking forward to the new diesels, that was my point from the start. Incidentally, I would be looking for a dramatic decrease in mileage from all of the truck diesels with the new regs this year.

[MoparNorm]

That ferd must be driving you into the poor house, the mileage looks real good, but the oil and filters seem to need excessive service? I have 52,000 on my Cummins, it's an average of $70 every 3-4,000 miles with no unscheduled replacement of filters needed yet.
Using your figures, that 8-9 mpg advantage over your bud equals 90 fewer tankfull in 57,000 miles! At an average of $82.50 for a 30 gallon fill up, that's a savings of $7,425 in 57,000 miles! That pays for the motor and a lot of filters...= )

One thing though about the new ULSD motors, the ULSD has a tad less power per stroke so the fuel economy is not going to be better in existing motors, we'll be running cleaner but not more efficiently.
MN

[p14175]

I really am looking forward to the new diesels, that was my point from the start. Incidentally, I would be looking for a dramatic decrease in mileage from all of the truck diesels with the new regs this year.

Would the decrease in fuel mileage be coming from the ULSD or the fact that there is a horsepower/torque war going on the big 3? Or maybe a combination of both? Isn't the cetane rating for the ULSD the same as it was before? I haven't been keeping up.

I haven't noticed any detrimental effects from the low sulfur diesel, but my 2nd gen has suffered a fuel mileage decrease --- 38" tires will do that. I went from 19.75 mpg to a lousy 18.2 mpg.

[MoparNorm]

Everything that I have read so far indicates that ratings are marginally lower because of the ULSD. I haven't noticed much of a change and we've been running it here since late summer, but trucker friends of mine say thay have higher fuel costs now in their older rigs, with the new formula.
MN

[truck4myboys]

It'll be all of the new emissions requirements that include ULSD. Ford is coming out with the new 6.4 PSD with sequential turbos and Cummins is introducing another too, I'm not positive but I think it will be 6.6 litres. I'm guessing Norm will have the info on that.

I was exaggerating on my 500,000 mile quote above, but it will take quite some time to make up the difference. The cost of diesel being 15-20% more makes up some of the difference as well.

And I'm not brand loyal, I probably would be driving a Cummins now if I thought Dodge made a decent truck to go around it. For me, the single biggest factor is being able to have a true crew cab and an 8 foot bed. Dodge hasn't made that for a while.

[MoparNorm]

Heh heh...6.7 is what it is, bumping the HP and torque game way up.
While the Mega Cab isn't offered with an 8' bed, I'd be curious as to the diminsions and cubic foot difference between the ford and Dodge standard Crew, they can't be that far off???


The Dodge looks smaller because the windshield rake is steeper than the ford, but there is plenty of room inside. I was looking at the newer standard crews just yesterday and the doors appear larger, in fact it's the same size as the Mega Cab, except for the Mega's cab added space behind the rear door, I was surprised.
MN

[MoparNorm]

...And I'm not brand loyal, I probably would be driving a Cummins now if I thought Dodge made a decent truck to go around it...

I wasn't either...until my previous truck, a ferd power joke fell apart around me...and I remembered that my Dad had many decades of good luck with Dodge. I'll spare everyone who has heard the story before, the hideous details, but three motors, two transmissions and every other part at least once was not acceptable for ferd to ever again see my money. I can accept an AMC falling apart, but not my work truck....= )
MN