2019 Hyundai Santa Fe Diesel

Funny how people don't complain much about hybrids' extra cost, but it comes up in diesel vs gasoline all the time.

Funny how diesels are all painted the same even though BMW hasn't had any cars found cheating.

So what if diesel costs 20% more, it gets at least 30% better fuel economy (and no, a 535d is not like a 528i which has a lot less power/torque and still doesn't have good fuel economy). The money adds up but over 150,000 miles of lots of torque and fewer fuel stops.

TM

Tin Man said:

Funny how people don't complain much about hybrids' extra cost, but it comes up in diesel vs gasoline all the time.
Funny how diesels are all painted the same even though BMW hasn't had any cars found cheating.
So what if diesel costs 20% more, it gets at least 30% better fuel economy (and no, a 535d is not like a 528i which has a lot less power/torque and still doesn't have good fuel economy). The money adds up but over 150,000 miles of lots of torque and fewer fuel stops.
TM

Click to expand...

Tin Man,

We have several groups here. One group is just plain Thrifty. Watching pennies if they need to or not. A second group simply likes being different from the run of the mill ordinary. Attracted to diesel because it is "the road less traveled".
Part of that second group is also attracted to the leading/bleeding edge hybrid and electric tech "just because" it is.

Tin Man said:

Funny how people don't complain much about hybrids' extra cost, but it comes up in diesel vs gasoline all the time.

Funny how diesels are all painted the same even though BMW hasn't had any cars found cheating.

So what if diesel costs 20% more, it gets at least 30% better fuel economy (and no, a 535d is not like a 528i which has a lot less power/torque and still doesn't have good fuel economy). The money adds up but over 150,000 miles of lots of torque and fewer fuel stops.

TM

Click to expand...

gassers are approaching diesel fuel economy numbers with cheaper fuel....the tide has unfortunately turned (which is exactly what the EPA wanted all along)

I bought my 98 TDI when diesel was 20-40 cents cheaper the RUG and the closest gasser with regards to fuel economy came up 10mpg short, so back then it was a no-brainer

greenskeeper said:

I bought my 98 TDI when diesel was 20-40 cents cheaper the RUG and the closest gasser with regards to fuel economy came up 10mpg short, so back then it was a no-brainer

Click to expand...

As I stated, from personal experience, that is simply not true. It was closer to 20 MPG. Again, having owned both a 1995 Golf with the ABA and a 1998 Jetta with the AHU. The EPA highway figures were 32 and 49, respectively. But as everyone who bought those early TDIs quickly found out, you could easily meet or beat those numbers in real world driving, and the gasser version the only way you could hit that 32 was to cruise along on level ground at 60 MPH with no A/C and no load to speak of.

The only gasoline fueled vehicles for the 1998 model year that would have even come close were little cracker boxes that were anywhere from awful to downright frightening to drive on the highway (Tercel, Aspire, Metro) or something that was better but still not able to knock down a 50 MPG tank like a Civic. The Insight did not come out until a year later, and if you've driven one of those, you'd quickly realize the ONLY redeeming quality they had was high MPG, that was IT. The car was otherwise one big overpriced rolling compromise. I know, I test drove ALL of those cars. Plus a bunch more. Since I worked for a dealer (that had many brands) I was actually able to test drive a lot of them home with me. So a 100 mile test drive is a pretty telling way to evaluate a new car potential purchase. Well, the Metro only took about 30 seconds.... but I did drive a 1998 Sentra home with me one night. Despite it being a whopping $5k less than the Jetta, I still bought the Jetta.

Someone here just bought a new diesel Cruze for $17k.... and those have been tagging 50 MPG pretty regularly. May not have the overall feel and integrity of a Volkswagen, but that is still a far better car to drive than anything that even approaches that level of fuel economy. Hybrids work well in the city, but on the highway they are generally not a standout compared to other similar gasoline models.

Edit: fuel prices dropped here this morning, not sure what diesel is, but RUG is down to $2.21. I won't need to buy any diesel for another week or more, but the F150 is going to be fed after work tonight, LOL.

Yes, "back in the day" the EPA highway number was a low estimate - I remember with my B4 Passat rarely being below 45mpg in mixed driving, let alone highway. The "modern" diesels not so much - I have struggled to top 40mpg with my NMS Passat on much the same commute and conditions as the B4.

And the 535d, forget it - the sticker says 37 and I've not sniffed 35 yet for a full tank. But a BMW has other qualities going for it...

Gassers are doing well for fuel economy. Our 2017 Jetta S 1.4 L auto trans (el Cheepo car):

October 2017 trip - Texas to Connecticut through MO, ILL, PA (mountains), NY, CT. Pouring rain most of the way, cruise set at 75 MPH (when possible), A/C on for defrost, etc. Return trip a little drier and I took the southern route to visit friends in NC.

Miles - 4,083
Gals used - 101.577
MPG - 40.196 (includes 4 days city driving in CT)

I think that's respectable. My 2003 Jetta TDI 5 speed did that trip in April 2017 - Ave 47.65 MPG

Both respectable.

Not bad at all. But drop one of VAG's similar displacement turbo diesels in there (I know, cannot get them here, just saying) and that same Jetta would have slapped down a 55+ MPG tank with ease. Of course, it would have cost more to purchase, and that assumes you could even get it in the base S trim level, which you probably couldn't.

Seems most of the modern diesel's downfalls come from something other than the fact that they are a diesel.

I wonder what the REAL cost difference would be on a 2017 Jetta S with a 1.6L TDI under the hood, and nothing else different. $2k? $5k? And this also assumes that it would be meeting, in both letter and spirit of the law, any current applicable emissions compliance regulations. Because evidently the Cruze's 1.6L diesel does, and there are LOTS of 50+ MPG guys reporting out there now.

And to think Volkswagen actually sold a car that got over 80 MPG. Really. In production. The Lupo was a tiny little penalty box I'm sure, but probably no more so than the 1st gen Insight, and it bested its fuel economy with no more fancy tech under its hood than my 14 year old Passat.

aja8888 said:

Gassers are doing well for fuel economy. Our 2017 Jetta S 1.4 L auto trans (el Cheepo car):
October 2017 trip - Texas to Connecticut through MO, ILL, PA (mountains), NY, CT. Pouring rain most of the way, cruise set at 75 MPH (when possible), A/C on for defrost, etc. Return trip a little drier and I took the southern route to visit friends in NC.
Miles - 4,083
Gals used - 101.577
MPG - 40.196 (includes 4 days city driving in CT)
I think that's respectable. My 2003 Jetta TDI 5 speed did that trip in April 2017 - Ave 47.65 MPG
Both respectable.

Click to expand...

The EPA screws around as do manufacturers with mpg numbers. Cars made for the NA market are likely tuned and their transmission ratio's set up for the EPA cycle while cars made for the EU are also but the test loop and tuning is different.
My car choices are usually diesel vs. premium grade fuel s/a Mercedes and BMW so its a different equation already.
My 535d is getting 36 mpg overall where my old 335d only got 30 mpg. EPA says 535d should get 30 mpg overall. I don't believe gassers are quite there at the average or at all above unless one is hypermiling. EPA in all its wisdom lowered mpg numbers for all its cars somewhere around 2009, including diesels. Consumers are mistaken about the fuel economy of diesels vs gassers if they rely on EPA data.
But a 1.4 turbo gasser sounds good until you need to service it at 100,000 miles with fuel injectors etc. Direct injection gasser fuel pumps are not so good if you look at BMW's record the last 10-15 years - likely because diesel fuel is still basically like vegetable oil. Diesel injectors seem more long-lasting. No real data, unfortunately.
TM

Tin Man, that sounds like a low number for the 335d. My average over 6,600 miles is 34.4. No road trips included.

IndigoBlueWagon said:

Tin Man, that sounds like a low number for the 335d. My average over 6,600 miles is 34.4. No road trips included.

Click to expand...

I had the sport package with, what I felt, oversize tires - it did handle great on the track. Don't know why else I would have this result. I think my best highway mileage was about 34-36 mpg but I never saw it average above 32.

TM

oilhammer said:

Not bad at all. But drop one of VAG's similar displacement turbo diesels in there (I know, cannot get them here, just saying) and that same Jetta would have slapped down a 55+ MPG tank with ease. Of course, it would have cost more to purchase, and that assumes you could even get it in the base S trim level, which you probably couldn't.
Seems most of the modern diesel's downfalls come from something other than the fact that they are a diesel.
I wonder what the REAL cost difference would be on a 2017 Jetta S with a 1.6L TDI under the hood, and nothing else different. $2k? $5k? And this also assumes that it would be meeting, in both letter and spirit of the law, any current applicable emissions compliance regulations. Because evidently the Cruze's 1.6L diesel does, and there are LOTS of 50+ MPG guys reporting out there now.
And to think Volkswagen actually sold a car that got over 80 MPG. Really. In production. The Lupo was a tiny little penalty box I'm sure, but probably no more so than the 1st gen Insight, and it bested its fuel economy with no more fancy tech under its hood than my 14 year old Passat.

Click to expand...

Well if you want a comparison for price difference go to VW UK and see... A base manual golf S with a 1.0TSI starts at 18,885 pounds versus the 1.6 TDI which starts at 21,030.. so just over a 2000 pound difference... mind you this is the UK but I just did this for a simple comparison of the extra cost of the diesel over the gasser... if you look on VW germany, it's 18,075 euros versus 22,775 for the tdi, almost 5000 euros difference!

Yep, and that is why diesels in small cars only account for around half of the ones sold, even in Europe. I'd still buy a diesel, but it would be a Golf GTD.

The diesels really shine in the bigger stuff, and all their vans and trucks have been ONLY diesel for the most part in recent decades.

I'd give anything for a new Transporter with a TDI.

oilhammer said:

As I stated, from personal experience, that is simply not true. It was closer to 20 MPG. Again, having owned both a 1995 Golf with the ABA and a 1998 Jetta with the AHU. The EPA highway figures were 32 and 49, respectively. But as everyone who bought those early TDIs quickly found out, you could easily meet or beat those numbers in real world driving, and the gasser version the only way you could hit that 32 was to cruise along on level ground at 60 MPH with no A/C and no load to speak of.

The only gasoline fueled vehicles for the 1998 model year that would have even come close were little cracker boxes that were anywhere from awful to downright frightening to drive on the highway (Tercel, Aspire, Metro) or something that was better but still not able to knock down a 50 MPG tank like a Civic.

Click to expand...

Not sure why you are arguing to agree with me (unless you didn't read my statement) that the TDI at that time got better mpg and used cheaper fuel so it was a no brainer to buy.

As far as the next closest gasser to mpg in regards to the TDI, plenty of gassers could hit 40 mpg back then.....a quick example was my fathers Saturn SL that would return 43 mpg consistently...and lasted over 240k miles on the original drivetrain until rust finally did the exhaust system in from the header back and parts were NLA

greenskeeper said:

Not sure why you are arguing to agree with me (unless you didn't read my statement) that the TDI at that time got better mpg and used cheaper fuel so it was a no brainer to buy.
As far as the next closest gasser to mpg in regards to the TDI, plenty of gassers could hit 40 mpg back then.....a quick example was my fathers Saturn SL that would return 43 mpg consistently...and lasted over 240k miles on the original drivetrain until rust finally did the exhaust system in from the header back and parts were NLA

Click to expand...

Woot - Saturn SL - no power steering econobox - what were they in USD new? $8k?

I'm surprised the engine lasted 240k miles - they had an annoying habit of tapering the cylinders over time leading to copious oil consumption. They ate timing chains too. The above could be mitigated if one was religious with changing the oil.

For my in the BHW wagoon, I'm in for the long haul.

Part for economics - at a consistent 38-40mpg, I get the same or better fuel economy as many of the frugal cars out there, without having to drive a penalty box. The B5.5 is a highway champ. I also like not having to downshift in most highway situations. Can't get that in all but a bigger displacement engine, which of course would not return the same fuel economy.

There's also the "rattle-horn" where I just need to blip the throttle in parking lots - no need for the horn on the steering wheel.

One of my best friends (known him since we were teenagers) went to work for Saturn right out of tech school. Those turds burnt oil so bad a lot of them needed engines or at least rings and valve guides before 100k. He had a good racket buying/fixing/selling them for a long time though. Eventually, GM wanted to rid themselves of their remaining parts for them, and was blowing new longblocks out (oil pan to valve cover) for $1600, then $1200, then finally the last ones were $900 for the SOHC engine. I doubt many people even knew how cheap they were. Gone now of course.

Boy we had bunches of them towed in with locked up engines and dry dipsticks back in the day, LOL.

Yup. I worked the shop floor for 8 years at a Saturn dealership. Got to know the cars well.

The SOHC's were turdly on an additional level in that they would crack the head in the cam journal and leak oil into the coolant (and coolant into the oil if left long enough).

Saturn's acceptable oil consumption was a quart in 600 miles - we had many that would exceed that handily.

Could do en evap core on the early models (at the time when the supplier Harrison could not manufacture one leak-free to save their lives) in about 2.5 hours. Got very good at replacing them under warranty in the early / mid nineties.

All that crap aside, the cars were not all that bad compared to the other domestic garbage at the time - we had many repeat customers even with the cars' faults - we lived the Saturn "customer first" model until the bitter end when GM gutted the brand and made it just another Oldsmobile, and then killed it entirely. :-(

Yes, had they exploited that mantra and hyper focused on the S- car's problems and addressed them, and stayed focused on that, they would have been a good brand. The best thing going for them early on was that they were inexpensive, relatively simple, and had essentially only one model with three different body styles and two versions of the same engine and two different gearboxes. That was pretty much it. Not a lot of variation, so not a lot to get confused over.

Once they just made it another GM line, and started badge engineering everything same as the rest, the brand was doomed.

Windex said:

Saturn SL - no power steering

Click to expand...

It had power steering

Just the base SL had no power steering. There was a recall on those too, the rack would snap apart.

Pretty rare configuration though. 1996 and 1997 SLs were under that, the pinion cage would snap off at the rack. Typically during high load parking lot maneuvers, so unlikely to cause a crash.

SL1 was an ever so slightly fancier car, but still the single cam engine. The SL2 got the twin cam engine. I do not think a lot of people even realized there was an SL. There was no stripper version of the coupe or wagon, so those would have all been SC1/SC2 or SW1/SW2, respectively.

If it had power steering, it was not an SL, it was an SL1. There were no badging to distinguish them, but the twin cam cars did get a full reflector bar in the rear (except wagons) and I think most all the Sx2 cars also had aluminum wheels, power windows, etc. I think power windows were optional on the Sx1 cars, but not available on the SL.

Very very few SLs were sold.

Had a friend's wife get pulled over on I-88 outside of Chicago. Cop asked her why she was doing 92 in her Saturn. Her response was because the bleeping thing wouldn't go any faster. Cop laughed all the way back to his squad and drove away.

oilhammer said:

Just the base SL had no power steering. There was a recall on those too, the rack would snap apart.

Pretty rare configuration though. 1996 and 1997 SLs were under that, the pinion cage would snap off at the rack. Typically during high load parking lot maneuvers, so unlikely to cause a crash.

SL1 was an ever so slightly fancier car, but still the single cam engine. The SL2 got the twin cam engine. I do not think a lot of people even realized there was an SL. There was no stripper version of the coupe or wagon, so those would have all been SC1/SC2 or SW1/SW2, respectively.

If it had power steering, it was not an SL, it was an SL1. There were no badging to distinguish them, but the twin cam cars did get a full reflector bar in the rear (except wagons) and I think most all the Sx2 cars also had aluminum wheels, power windows, etc. I think power windows were optional on the Sx1 cars, but not available on the SL.

Very very few SLs were sold.

Click to expand...

Other than the lack of PS pump under the hood, the SL (as distinct from the SL1) could be spotted by the different hubcaps, and the lack of passenger side outside mirror on the 1991 through 1995 models, later SL models got the passenger side mirror as standard but still had different hubcaps from the SL1. Both SL and SL1 had the crappy textured plastic bumper which started black and faded to grey in roughly 2 years.

You could also order ABS as an option on any S series, which got you rear disc brakes through 1996, after which discs became standard on the SX2 models (ABS or no). Lesser cars got drums.

Fun fact - 1995 S-series were the old wedge body style, but got the 1996 and on interior one year early. The Odometer in those cars was mechanical, 1996 went digital. The Odo in the 1995 cars made a noticable ticking noise as the miles added up - to the point where there was a bulletin to add lube (which didn't work) to the gears, and then another to replace the speedo/odo entirely. I got very good at rolling odometers (forward!) in 1995 Saturns.

If you have one with intermittently flakey power locks, check the splice in the wire harness under the drivers seat for water / corrosion.

My daughter had a 1995 Saturn twin cam 4 door sedan. I remember it had power windows, A/C, and looked pretty nice. I remember putting a set of tires on it when we bought it. I think we bought it for a grand or so when she was in college in the early 2000's and was commuting 120 miles per day back and forth to school. Like all other early Saturn's, it drank oil like a drunken sailor.

She drove it for the last two years of school and we gave it to a young high school boy in our area who needed a car. He drove it for a few years as I saw it around town. It was worth owning.

oilhammer said:

Just the base SL had no power steering. There was a recall on those too, the rack would snap apart.

Pretty rare configuration though. 1996 and 1997 SLs were under that, the pinion cage would snap off at the rack. Typically during high load parking lot maneuvers, so unlikely to cause a crash.

SL1 was an ever so slightly fancier car, but still the single cam engine. The SL2 got the twin cam engine. I do not think a lot of people even realized there was an SL. There was no stripper version of the coupe or wagon, so those would have all been SC1/SC2 or SW1/SW2, respectively.

If it had power steering, it was not an SL, it was an SL1. There were no badging to distinguish them, but the twin cam cars did get a full reflector bar in the rear (except wagons) and I think most all the Sx2 cars also had aluminum wheels, power windows, etc. I think power windows were optional on the Sx1 cars, but not available on the SL.

Very very few SLs were sold.

Click to expand...

SL1 it was then

My 1995 Saturn was also known for it's oil consumption. But beside that it was a good car, easy to work on and reliable. I had to put new rings @120K to slow down the oil consumption. The fuel economy was not bad either, however it had a tall 5th gear that had minimal pulling power. Mine was SOHC, 5 speed manual.

greenskeeper said:

gassers are approaching diesel fuel economy numbers with cheaper fuel....the tide has unfortunately turned (which is exactly what the EPA wanted all along)

I bought my 98 TDI when diesel was 20-40 cents cheaper the RUG and the closest gasser with regards to fuel economy came up 10mpg short, so back then it was a no-brainer

Click to expand...

Here is today's fuel price spread:



I love living in this universe, LOL...

oilhammer said:

Here is today's fuel price spread:

I love living in this universe, LOL...

Click to expand...

Lucky for you.

However, where I live there has been a premium of at least 30 cents per gallon for D2 over RUG for at least the last 10 years

I paid 2.65 yesterday
That is the best I have seen around here

oilhammer said:

Here is today's fuel price spread:

I love living in this universe, LOL...

Click to expand...

That's a $.47 price advantage for RUG, or, ahem, "only" 20% more. My experience is that diesels are at least 30% better mpg-wise if not more, and usually compete with premium which is more than $.50 higher than RUG.

Experience shows the two fuels often follow different pricing paths...

Looks like RUG is higher in the photo (at least to my eyes). Thus compounding the diesel cost advantage in this instance.

jck66 said:

Looks like RUG is higher in the photo (at least to my eyes). Thus compounding the diesel cost advantage in this instance.

Click to expand...

Yeah at first, but its probably $2.76/gal