Recent Comments:
Jetta TDI buyers to get $1,300 back from the IRS {Autoblog}
Jul 24th 2008 5:19PM @ LS2LS7:
Link - http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06017.pdf See Page 16 for the quote below and a Table showing the difference diesels have over other vehicles types including hybrids.
Quote from link - "With respect to the mpg-based label values, diesels still perform the best of the four types of vehicles, now exceeding their label values by 18%." -
The EPA sure seems comfortable enough using the YourMPG figures they have on their website, why can
t you?
Plus, again you ignore the fact that any owner of a certain vehicle type can bloat their figures to skew the numbers. You act as though diesel owners would be the only ones. IMO, hybrid owners are the ones who are most fanatical about MPG's and would be the most apt to skew the numbers in their favor. But that seems to be a difference of opinion we have.
Regarding your previous mention of the lower power and acceleration of diesels contributing to their better economy, I submit another example. M-B unveiled their previous E320CDI as the fastest non-AMG E-Class car they sold when it came out. That included the V-8 models. Motortrend tested the car in 2004 and achieved a 0-60 time of 6.5sec. Motortrend also achieved 0-60 in 5.8sec with their long-term '03 E500 which had 100HP more than the diesel(201 vs. 302). M-B may have been slightly optimistic in their claim, but the CDI version is still anything but slow. I'd gladly give up 0.7sec 0-60 for 50% better mileage than the V-8 version. According to fueleconomy.gov, the '05 E320CDI achieves 27mpg combined compared to the gas E320 at 20mpg combined and the V-8 E500 at 18mpg combined.
As far as the comparisons to the Coblat XFE. The 2.5L Jetta does not come with a 6spd manual, only a 5spd. The XFE achieves its highest mileage with a manual as well, also a 5spd. Additionally, the XFE is modified to achieve better mileage, it has a reprogrammed ECU, aerodynamic tweaks and low rolling resistance tires. Give those same tweaks to the Jetta and they'd be a lot closer. BTW, the non-XFE Cobalt achieves only 1mpg better combined than the 2.5L Jetta(25mpg vs. 24mpg). That's also with a 148HP engine to the 170hp 2.5L in the Jetta.
Regarding diesel emissions. Huge strides have been made in the past few years making diesels cleaner than they have ever been. Diesels are not the polluters they once were and I expect the technology to continue further to provide us with ever more clean diesel options in the future. But, to state that diesel are the heavy polluters you make them out to be also carries along with it the millions upon millions of gas vehicles which are equally as efficient or even worse. Why should the diesels be singled out?
Jetta TDI buyers to get $1,300 back from the IRS {Autoblog}
Jul 24th 2008 2:27PM The price of a TDI Jetta is $2000 above a comparatively-equipped gas Jetta.
So, $2000 markup -$1300 credit = $700 net difference. So, add in the savings in gas due to the better mileage and you'll probably break even on the price of the car in a year or so and then be saving money after that.
The math has been done multiple times, even with higher diesel prices, there is still a net savings from driving a diesel. Basically, a 41.667%(24 vs. 34) better combined per gallon mileage figure outweighs a 21.29% higher per gallon fuel cost($3.85 vs. $4.67 from gasbuddy.com for me locally). Mileage figures taken from a 2.5L 5-spd manual Jetta and a 6spd manual TDI Jetta, both 2009 models.
Read more below.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/18/volkswagen-prices-2009-jetta-tdi-sedan-starts-at-21-990/
Jetta TDI buyers to get $1,300 back from the IRS {Autoblog}
Jul 24th 2008 2:12PM Quote - LS2LS7, - "Nothing. It is possible to exceed the EPA figures on any car if you drive conservatively. Diesel drivers seem to drive more conservatively than average..." -
I'm really not sure what you have against diesels, but you seem to have a comment putting down diesels every chance you get.
Your basic premise is correct, you can get better mileage in any vehicle by changing your habits. But, the main question here is, why do diesels seem to react better to those changes and why do they also not suffer as badly when driven more aggressively?
If the EPA figures were not incorrect, explain why even the EPA admits that they may be underestimating diesel mileage figures as much as 18%? I can provide links, but I honestly don't feel like searching right now. The links to the EPA report can be found on numerous other comments both here and on ABG though. I have the PDF file saved on my work computer, but I'm not there right now.
As far as diesel drivers driving more conservatively, that may explain a slight increase. However, even drivers who admit to driving quite aggressively tend to still obtain good mileage with diesels. Certainly better than a similarly driven gas vehicles. Recall that the Jetta TDI cup cars were averaging 25MPG in race conditions. In 170hp TDI cars, not the 140HP ones we will get. Emissions equipment is identical however.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/27/vw-jetta-tdi-cup-racers-averaging-25-mph-in-racing-conditions/
Additionally, even the EPA's own site seems to show that diesels achieve better mileage in real-world conditions. On www.fueleconomy.gov there is a section for each vehicle where actual owners can enter they mileage and it's all averaged together to give an idea of the real-world figures that should be expected. Comparing the figures to those from Prius drivers(who also should be driving more conservatively according to your hypothesis), the TDI drivers typically beat the EPA combined figures while the Prius drivers do not. The Prius drivers do seem to be meeting the EPA combined figures now, but only after the EPA decreased the original, wildly presumptuous figures. Diesels still obtain 8-10MPG higher figures(higher than the 2008 EPA combined figures) which also happen to be higher than even the old measurement.
Jetta TDI buyers to get $1,300 back from the IRS {Autoblog}
Jul 24th 2008 1:48PM Edit: I re-read your comment and noticed you were speaking of the manufacturer and not the dealers.
The manufacturer does set the price. But, I think there would be a large backlash if they were to do that for a couple of reasons. One being that VW has already announced the prices for the Jetta TDI. So, they'd have to suddenly come out and say, "Oops, we were wrong, the real price is $XX,XXX." I don't see that happening. Especially if the increase just happens to be identical to the tax credit.
Secondly, they priced it to be competitive in the marketplace. You don't keep that competitive advantage by raising the price $1300 arbitrarily. They priced the Jetta TDI to be similar to the Prius. With an additional $1300 added, it's no longer a similar price.
Basically, again, no one is stopping them from doing it, but from a business standpoint, it makes virtually no sense.
Jetta TDI buyers to get $1,300 back from the IRS {Autoblog}
Jul 24th 2008 1:40PM Well, honestly nothing stops them from doing that. But, if a smart buyer shops around and finds a dealer who is not doing that and buys the car for cheaper, then it won't matter. It's not like every dealer will do that.
It's no different that raising the price of a car because it's popular. No one stopped anyone for buying PT Cruisers for double the MSRP when they came out. Same with the first New Beetles.
The dealer sets the price of the car, not the Manufacturer. it's up to the buyer to determine if the deal they received is the best deal available.
Mercedes-Benz to introduce fully turbocharged lineup by 2010 {Autoblog}
Jul 17th 2008 8:26PM Which also pretty much eliminates the reason for having the turbo in the first palce.
The engine will pull back timing and do the other stuff you mentioned, but it's doing all that when you need it most, during heavy aceleration.
It's also doing it to prevent to motor from damage not as a courtesy thank you for using lower octane fuel.
In the name of faith: GM dealers buy $1M in GM stock {Autoblog}
Jul 17th 2008 7:57PM Cue Bob Seger :-)
Audi releases all the details on the North American Q5 {Autoblog}
Jul 17th 2008 7:32PM Done and Done. Still adds up to a savings. The break-even point is usually about 3yrs or so, depending on your yearly driving habits.
It's one thing to spout off info like that, it's wholly another to actually do the math and look at the facts. However, recall that YMMV and diesel prices are widely different across the country(as are gas prices). So, the numbers aren't the same for everyone.
For instance, using the figures above(which are both likely higher than the true EPA figures), the 2.0 TDI(if you're worried about fuel efficiency, why are you buying the V6 TDI?) achieves 35.11mpg. The 2.0TFSI engine achieves 27.7mpg plus it also require premium fuel.
So, for a 1000 mile trip, you'd use 28.48 gallons in the TDI and 36.1 gallons in the TFSI. Looking at the cost of fuel where I live on gasbuddy.com, Premium is going for about $4.09/gal with diesel at $4.69. Interesting to note that diesel has been holding reletively steady while gasoline continues to rise. Again, at least locally for me.
So, that adds up to a cost of $133.60 for 1000 miles in the TDI and $147.65 in the TFSI. So, if the diesel option is $1000, then it will take you approximately 71K miles to break even($1000/$14.05 difference per 1K miles). Or, put another way, with average yearly driving of 15K miles it's about 4y9m. If you're yearly average is 20K, then it's about 3y6m.
That's higher than many diesel vehicles, '09 Jetta TDI for instance. But the TDI in this case doesn't achieve almost 42% better mileage in the Q5 like it does in the Jetta(24 combined vs. 34 combined). However, the real-world will likely increase the percentage in favor of the TDI based on previous TDI owners' experiences.
Granted, yes we are comparing still somewhat fictional numbers since the EU figures are always higher than ours. But, considering that the TDI's tend to easily beat the EPA figures and that I expect diesel to drop closer to gasoline in the coming months and years, I'd choose the TDI every time so long as they give me the option.
Spy Shots: Honda's hybrid Prius-fighter caught {Autoblog}
Jul 16th 2008 9:40PM @ LS2LS7:
I've seen you claim the same thing on several posts before and finally I feel it's necessary to correct you.
Cd is a dimensionless quantity, so therefore it's not directly related to area. However, it is used to calculate the drag of a vehicle when that vehicles frontal area is taken into account. However, it that case, it is then the CdA.
So, you have the total drag part correct, just using the wrong term to point it out.
Read more here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficients
Specifically the CdA section. Also, look at some of the photos and the corresponding Cd's at the bottom of the link and it will make more sense.
Spy Shots: Honda's hybrid Prius-fighter caught {Autoblog}
Jul 16th 2008 8:33PM Quote from Thedevil: - "Dude your a lying ass. first of all,if the prius pass you doing 110 it was not running on battery power. and also the battery would be charging ,no?" -
The battery assistance doesn't turn off at a certain mph, I think you're confusing it with how fast the Prius can go under battery power only.
In order to reach 110mph, the battery would almost certainly have to be assisting. A 3K lb. Prius without its electric motor has a 1.5L 76hp, 82lb-ft motor to pull it along, while devoting some of that power to charging the battery. Not to mention that at higher altitudes, that 76hp isn't 76hp anymore, that's a figure at sea-level. That's a tall order for a 76hp motor to pull a car that heavy to 110mph through mountain passes.
Half the HP of the Prius and 3/4 of the torque come from the electric motor, though those figures aren't exact. You can't just add them together like I did due to the gearing and the way the IC motor makes power, but it's just an example. Anyhow, when the battery charge is low and the car reverts to primarily IC power, it's performance will drop considerably.
