Have You Considered The Price of Gasoline?

[HBarlow]

Lots of good points..
But the feel of that 30 mpg gas car sucks on hills.....many more shifts, more noise, etc....
The feel of a diesel, the fact it just PULLS hard up a hill...no shift in a car 99% of the time, without even loosing speed if the cruise is on makes it feel more like a v6 car or larger gas motor that might be a 20 mpg car....
So other comparisons might be appropriate....
But as a pure $$ choice, maybe a tdi is not a clear winner....but not every choice is based on $$.

That's a fact! And an important factor to me. My wife has had a string of much more expensive Japanese V6 gas suvs with high rated horsepower in recent years. Every one of them has downshifted one or two gears and revved the weak gas V6 to get over mild grades. My little second hand 2.0 liter VW TDI with 113k miles just hums right over them in sixth gear without losing speed.

That matters to me.

 

[APT]

I calculated the cost of fuel at my annual mileage rate. A 4-cyl I would expect to get 28mpg in my commute at best. I have had several 4-cyls that were in the 22-24mpg range for my ownership and the 6-cyls have been 20-22mpg. That's $50/month more than my TDI at $4/gallon for 28mpg vs. 37 my lifetime average. I estimate the 6-cyl I chose will cost about $60 more per month at today's prices, and $110 at $4/gallon for both diesel/gas. Frankly, I can afford it and am willing to pay for the similar or better performance.

 

[GyroRon]

Lots of good points..
But the feel of that 30 mpg gas car sucks on hills.....many more shifts, more noise, etc....
The feel of a diesel, the fact it just PULLS hard up a hill...no shift in a car 99% of the time, without even loosing speed if the cruise is on makes it feel more like a v6 car or larger gas motor that might be a 20 mpg car....
So other comparisons might be appropriate....
But as a pure $$ choice, maybe a tdi is not a clear winner....but not every choice is based on $$.

Honestly, having driven the camry and the jetta back to back, both have the exact same zero to 60 times.... But yes the TDI has more bottom end torque. I think its a function of not just being a diesel but more importantly, being TURBO CHARGED!

If you look at dyno results of most turbo charged engines, Gas or diesel, the majority of the torque is achieved at very low RPM. Often by 1500 rpms or so the engine is making peak torque. A non turbo engine has to rev up to get to the meat of its torque / powerband.

Ask anyone who has driven a Ford F150 with the ecoboost V6... It has a ton of torque at very low rpm. The engine doesn't need to rev high to do its work, even towing a large trailer. My Toyota Tundra on the other hand with a 5.7 liter V8 engine making nearly the same torque and HP ( verses the Fords 3.5 V6 ) has to downshift several gears to get the rpms up and pull a heavy load.

It just is what it is. In real world use, the ecoboost truck gets about the same MPG as my non turbo Tundra. Power requires gas, and your going to use about the same gas no matter if it is in a V8 revving to 3500 rpms or a Turbo V6 only revving 1500 rpms.

So yes, the TDI is nice in that it will go up the road and up and over hills while in 6th gear without a downshift. Of course if you need to really get on the pedal, say to pass someone etc... the TDI still needs to downshift a gear or two.

In day to day driving though, my camry feels just as fast and powerful as the jetta. And the engine noise is well insulated from the interior of the car, You can barely hear the engine.

If you just have to have that TDI like low RPM torque, maybe a Turbo 4 gasser or a V6 is what you need to look at. For me I don't care. I like the less complex, less expensive non turbo set up in the camry.... Less stuff to break or give problems. No turbo, no timing belt, no direct fuel injection, etc.... a very simple and bulletproof engine really.

 

[oilhammer]

Honestly, having driven the camry and the jetta back to back, both have the exact same zero to 60 times.... But yes the TDI has more bottom end torque. I think its a function of not just being a diesel but more importantly, being TURBO CHARGED!

If you look at dyno results of most turbo charged engines, Gas or diesel, the majority of the torque is achieved at very low RPM. Often by 1500 rpms or so the engine is making peak torque. A non turbo engine has to rev up to get to the meat of its torque / powerband.

Ask anyone who has driven a Ford F150 with the ecoboost V6... It has a ton of torque at very low rpm. The engine doesn't need to rev high to do its work, even towing a large trailer. My Toyota Tundra on the other hand with a 5.7 liter V8 engine making nearly the same torque and HP ( verses the Fords 3.5 V6 ) has to downshift several gears to get the rpms up and pull a heavy load.

It just is what it is. In real world use, the ecoboost truck gets about the same MPG as my non turbo Tundra. Power requires gas, and your going to use about the same gas no matter if it is in a V8 revving to 3500 rpms or a Turbo V6 only revving 1500 rpms.

So yes, the TDI is nice in that it will go up the road and up and over hills while in 6th gear without a downshift. Of course if you need to really get on the pedal, say to pass someone etc... the TDI still needs to downshift a gear or two.

In day to day driving though, my camry feels just as fast and powerful as the jetta. And the engine noise is well insulated from the interior of the car, You can barely hear the engine.

If you just have to have that TDI like low RPM torque, maybe a Turbo 4 gasser or a V6 is what you need to look at. For me I don't care. I like the less complex, less expensive non turbo set up in the camry.... Less stuff to break or give problems. No turbo, no timing belt, no direct fuel injection, etc.... a very simple and bulletproof engine really.

LMAO, the last "simple and bulletproof" 4 cyl engine in a Camry was in the 2002, the 5S-FE. The 3MZ-FE V6 held out through 2005, also a good engine. Some of those did have oil consumption problems, but usually (almost always) was a result of poor PM early on that snowballed very quickly. Most never had that problem.

I've had to replace FAR more of the 2.4L engines as well as junked a lot of those cars since a 7 year old Camry that needs an engine is not worth the effort. And don't get me started on those junky GR series V6s. Oil leaks, oil pipes, valve springs, VVT actuators... seriously proves even Toyota can screw up.

They've had to really work hard to remedy a lot of the newer engines' problems, something they really never had to deal with before. And water pumps? Seriously, did Aisin just completely FORGET how to make a water pump that lasts??? I remember when Toyotas would rust back into their elements long before a water pump failed. Now we regularly see them towed in to the shop after the pump literally came apart and flung the drive belt off in a mess of crusty pink goo.

 

[sandydeb]

Lots of good points..
But the feel of that 30 mpg gas car sucks on hills.....many more shifts, more noise, etc....
The feel of a diesel, the fact it just PULLS hard up a hill...no shift in a car 99% of the time, without even loosing speed if the cruise is on makes it feel more like a v6 car or larger gas motor that might be a 20 mpg car....
So other comparisons might be appropriate....
But as a pure $$ choice, maybe a tdi is not a clear winner....but not every choice is based on $$.

Correspondingly the 'feel' of a TDI sucks when merging onto the highway, where the high torque drops quickly and then in an instant, you have to upshift as you run out of revs.

Also, even at 80mph, you have to downshift to 5th going up inclines for better mpg. Tested this out repeatedly on I-90 approaching Boston. Powering through the rises and dips @ 80mph in 6th gear nets less mpg than downshifting to 5th going uphill. At lower speeds, you absolutely have to downshift.

The mileage argument is very small now and soon likely to vanish. Developmental dollars are all going to go toward gas engines as even europe - the main driver of light passenger duty diesel engines - comes to terms with the fraud.

 

[redbarron55]

Right now where I live the premium for Diesel over RUG is about 10 - 15%.
So.... 40 mpg at that premium over RUG would put the mileage for the gas to be equal at about 34 mpg, all other things equal.
I am looking at a PAcifica mini-van to replace my 2013 JSW and the this is alleged to get 28 mpg highway so it is a little less efficient, but larger etc.
I am looking for the towing ability (3500lbs) and more seats so the trade off might not be too bad.
My wife loves her JSW (that's why we have two of them 2009 and 2013), power, fuel range and traveling efficiency.
We had an old Plymouth Voyager (1998 V6) and she liked it as well.
It would be her third favorite car behind the two JSWs.
Oilhammer? Do you have any thing to add to the Pacifica on the reliability front?

 

[redbarron55]

LMAO, the last "simple and bulletproof" 4 cyl engine in a Camry was in the 2002, the 5S-FE. The 3MZ-FE V6 held out through 2005, also a good engine. Some of those did have oil consumption problems, but usually (almost always) was a result of poor PM early on that snowballed very quickly. Most never had that problem.
I've had to replace FAR more of the 2.4L engines as well as junked a lot of those cars since a 7 year old Camry that needs an engine is not worth the effort. And don't get me started on those junky GR series V6s. Oil leaks, oil pipes, valve springs, VVT actuators... seriously proves even Toyota can screw up.
They've had to really work hard to remedy a lot of the newer engines' problems, something they really never had to deal with before. And water pumps? Seriously, did Aisin just completely FORGET how to make a water pump that lasts??? I remember when Toyotas would rust back into their elements long before a water pump failed. Now we regularly see them towed in to the shop after the pump literally came apart and flung the drive belt off in a mess of crusty pink goo.

Many years ago a junk yard man told me that the most reliable engine was the one that was the cheapest in the junk yard, because there was no demand for them!
Prius engines are pretty cheap as are the inverters etc for that reason.
How about that Pentastar V6?

 

[oilhammer]

Pacifica is all new, mostly a Fiat underpinnings like the Cherokee, Dart, 200, etc. Don't really have much to go on, but I'd probably want to avoid the first model year for sure.

 

[bhtooefr]

And your transmission choices are the ZF 9-speed, that has dreadful reliability and driving characteristics, and FCA's new EVT (in the Pacifica (Plug-In) Hybrid)... which if it were from anyone other than FCA, I'd say would probably be good, but it's FCA, so it'll probably catch fire like a Ferrari.

 

[VeeDubTDI]

Most of us purchased a VW TDI at least in part because of the excellent fuel mileage they provide. Turbo-diesel fuel economy is almost always better than gasoline powered cars with the possible exception of several odd ball econoboxes that few would drive.

I'm surprised by the number of members who have so quickly abandoned their TDI for a new gasoline powered car. Gasoline prices are attractively low right now but low gas prices are never permanent.

The price of crude oil always fluctuates with world and US economies and supply and demand. How will new gasoline car owners feel about their cars when gasoline prices double as they surely will?

Gas and diesel prices generally fluctuate together, based on the price of crude. Sometimes one will lag behind the other, but they're mostly representative of the overall crude oil price.

As long as TDI defectors (for lack of a better term) purchased gas cars with equivalent MPG ratings (hybrids, or other fuel sippers), I don't think we'll see any complaints. The big thing will be for people who purchased thirstier vehicles like sports cars and pickup trucks... how will they feel when fuel prices inevitably increase again?

 

[bennybmn]

I was thinking more of the newer Mazda 6 wagons (SkyActiv) available in other places such as Europe and Asia. Here is an example (2016) getting around 30 MPG:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/6/2016?engineconfig_id=&bodytype_id=2&submodel_id=

And one 2015 model averaging around 33 MPG:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/6/2015?engineconfig_id=&bodytype_id=2&submodel_id=

We have a Mazda 5 which has done well in 10 years of ownership (very low maintenance costs) but the mileage is very mediocre because runs on gasoline (20 to 24 MPG range depending on city vs. hwy).

It's a crime they don't sell these in the states... Test drove a sedan a couple weeks ago, loved it. The wagon would be SOOOO much easier hauling strollers etc!

 

[bennybmn]

Correspondingly the 'feel' of a TDI sucks when merging onto the highway, where the high torque drops quickly and then in an instant, you have to upshift as you run out of revs.
Also, even at 80mph, you have to downshift to 5th going up inclines for better mpg. Tested this out repeatedly on I-90 approaching Boston. Powering through the rises and dips @ 80mph in 6th gear nets less mpg than downshifting to 5th going uphill. At lower speeds, you absolutely have to downshift.
The mileage argument is very small now and soon likely to vanish. Developmental dollars are all going to go toward gas engines as even europe - the main driver of light passenger duty diesel engines - comes to terms with the fraud.

I don't dispute the MPG thing, makes sense. But if you are thinking ahead just enough so you get on the throttle a little early to help spool up the turbo, you can squirt around someone in 6th as long as you're above like 65mph. I merge onto a parkway every morning, and I typically hit the ramp in 4th going 45 or so, and just get on it. Takes me up to 75 rather quickly!

You're right about the development dollars too. The shame of it is that all of the emissions regs that have brought us the added complexity (and repair costs) have also driven down MPG. It's just that diesels were so good to begin with that they're still above the carbon emissions limits...

 

[turbobrick240]

Correspondingly the 'feel' of a TDI sucks when merging onto the highway, where the high torque drops quickly and then in an instant, you have to upshift as you run out of revs.
Also, even at 80mph, you have to downshift to 5th going up inclines for better mpg. Tested this out repeatedly on I-90 approaching Boston. Powering through the rises and dips @ 80mph in 6th gear nets less mpg than downshifting to 5th going uphill. At lower speeds, you absolutely have to downshift.
The mileage argument is very small now and soon likely to vanish. Developmental dollars are all going to go toward gas engines as even europe - the main driver of light passenger duty diesel engines - comes to terms with the fraud.

I disagree. My tdi did quite well both merging and passing even before I had it tuned. If shifting is such a cumbersome chore for you, you should have bought an automatic.

 

[gatz]

Honestly, I sort of see what you guys say about the torque but I feel like that's more true for the CR models than the older models. My Mk4 PD with its wimpy 100HP is painfully slow. Might be even slower than its supposed to be, but it could be my imagination. I want to say its a good 15 seconds to get up to speed on the highway ramp (havent measured it just guessing).

I've been looking at the Alltrack but I just saw the data sheet and the DSG w/4motion adds over 300 pounds of weight and the fuel economy suffers dramatically compared to the regular Sportwagen. Might just go with Mk7 GTI Sport, but I've been teetering on the fence between them. Biggest thing is it seems clear the Alltrack is going to be much slower though with the weaker 1.8T engine and added weight.


Edit: Comparison spec sheet:
http://media.vw.com/doc/1967/2017_g...f_sportwagen_specs-16940713357d818e79acd0.pdf

 

[langer]

The 4 runner doesn't require 93, does it?

Not that I know of, it's only saving grace. My GTI is tuned, only reason I put 93 in it.

 

[Driximus]

I picked up a 2015 passat Tsi mainly because i could not find a used passat tdi anywhere near me.

it gets 33mpg ( when my wife drives it) which is as much as the 2006 corolla it replaced and it is twice as fun to drive. I wanted a new TDI but with diesel gate they are hard to find at the dealers, private party wants to much or they are holding on to them in my area.

 

[sandydeb]

I disagree. My tdi did quite well both merging and passing even before I had it tuned. If shifting is such a cumbersome chore for you, you should have bought an automatic.

1) The disagreement has to be based on fact. The torque and power curves of diesel and gas engines are open facts. Diesel torque peaks quickly and then drops, peak revs are lower. Gas engine torque mostly builds all the way up to higher revs.

2) I did not claim shifting is a chore. The OP said we should consider TDIs for mileage reasons. Just pointing out that you cannot simultaneously claim higher mileage and non-downshifted torque.

 

[bennybmn]

Honestly, I sort of see what you guys say about the torque but I feel like that's more true for the CR models than the older models. My Mk4 PD with its wimpy 100HP is painfully slow. Might be even slower than its supposed to be, but it could be my imagination. I want to say its a good 15 seconds to get up to speed on the highway ramp (havent measured it just guessing).

I've been looking at the Alltrack but I just saw the data sheet and the DSG w/4motion adds over 300 pounds of weight and the fuel economy suffers dramatically compared to the regular Sportwagen. Might just go with Mk7 GTI Sport, but I've been teetering on the fence between them. Biggest thing is it seems clear the Alltrack is going to be much slower though with the weaker 1.8T engine and added weight.


Edit: Comparison spec sheet:
http://media.vw.com/doc/1967/2017_g...f_sportwagen_specs-16940713357d818e79acd0.pdf

I sometimes forget I'm not in the MK6 Jetta forum

 

[HBarlow]

1) The disagreement has to be based on fact. The torque and power curves of diesel and gas engines are open facts. Diesel torque peaks quickly and then drops, peak revs are lower. Gas engine torque mostly builds all the way up to higher revs.

2) I did not claim shifting is a chore. The OP said we should consider TDIs for mileage reasons. Just pointing out that you cannot simultaneously claim higher mileage and non-downshifted torque.

Yes, we agree on basing arguments on fact.

The TDI engine produces maximum torque from 1750 to 2500 rpm which corresponds to the normal operating range of most street driven cars.

I don't know which gasoline engine you are comparing the TDI to but whichever it is, if it is a similar displacement four cylinder, it will produce very little torque at low rpm which will increase gradually up to near rpm redline. Gas engines can be built to provide rapid acceleration but the characteristics that permit high horsepower and fast acceleration move the torque band further up the rpm operating range and make them less practical for routine street driving where turbo-diesels excel.

It's the wide flat power band of TDI engines that makes them so quick and enjoyable to drive.

 

[S2000_guy]

Volvo's new turbocharged four-cylinder 2.0 L gasoline engine produces 258 ft-lbs. from 1500 to 4800 rpm. (http://www.kbb.com/volvo/s60/2016/#survey). The VW 2.0 L TDI diesel puts out 236 ft-lb from 170 to 2500 rpm.

Yes, it's a more expensive car. But small diesel automobile engines no longer have the low-end torque advantage they once had.

 

[Perfectreign]

Now we regularly see them towed in to the shop after the pump literally came apart and flung the drive belt off in a mess of crusty pink goo.

Wait, what?

I thought Toyota / Lexus made the perfect car that never needed anything but cleaning.

 

[turbobrick240]

1) The disagreement has to be based on fact. The torque and power curves of diesel and gas engines are open facts. Diesel torque peaks quickly and then drops, peak revs are lower. Gas engine torque mostly builds all the way up to higher revs.
2) I did not claim shifting is a chore. The OP said we should consider TDIs for mileage reasons. Just pointing out that you cannot simultaneously claim higher mileage and non-downshifted torque.

Huh? If you know how to drive properly, the tdi power curve is a pleasure. The "fact" is that 140 hp/240 ft-lb in a 3000 lb car is more than adequate for any ordinary commuter needs that don't include high speed chases.

 

[turbobrick240]

Volvo's new turbocharged four-cylinder 2.0 L gasoline engine produces 258 ft-lbs. from 1500 to 4800 rpm. (http://www.kbb.com/volvo/s60/2016/#survey). The VW 2.0 L TDI diesel puts out 236 ft-lb from 170 to 2500 rpm.

Yes, it's a more expensive car. But small diesel automobile engines no longer have the low-end torque advantage they once had.

Turbocharged gassers have always had much better torque than their na brethren. Not that the volvo turbo 4 banger isn't a gem.

 

[NYC-TDI]

Turbocharged gassers have always had much better torque than their na brethren. Not that the volvo turbo 4 banger isn't a gem.

Yes. It is the "turbo" part that is more responsible for the torque than the "diesel" part. Turbo gas engines offer similar torque curves.

 

[turbobrick240]

As much as I love torque, it's not the end all, be all. The Honda S2000 is very anemic in the torque department, yet a blast to wind out to where it's power is. More suited to a "fun" car, but abundant torque is not required to go fast.

 

[Perfectreign]

Correspondingly the 'feel' of a TDI sucks when merging onto the highway,

Not sure I agree. My 90hp TDI "feels" about the same as my 310hp Avalanche when getting on the freeway. I can do zero to 80 in both in about the same amount of time.

Also, even at 80mph, you have to downshift to 5th going up inclines for better mpg. Tested this out repeatedly on I-90 approaching Boston. Powering through the rises and dips @ 80mph in 6th gear nets less mpg than downshifting to 5th going uphill

That would seem like a gearing issue. Maybe the 6th gear OD ratio is to low? I know I have .756 in fifth and rarely have an issue going up a hill in my tiny engine. OTOH, i often have to drop out of fourth into third in my Avalanche to go up those same hills.

 

[sandydeb]

Yes, we agree on basing arguments on fact.

The TDI engine produces maximum torque from 1750 to 2500 rpm which corresponds to the normal operating range of most street driven cars.

That statement by itself doesn't say much.

There are really three operating modes for cars.

1) Cruising at constant speed - this is where cars (in terms of miles or time) spend the vast majority of their life. Nominal torque differences are inconsequential when cruising at constant speed.

2) Accelerating to merge into freeways or quick passing maneuvers. This is where the power from the engine is extracted. This is why we have high horsepower engines to begin with. No one needs a 150hp engine to cruise down the highway. Gassers massively outperform comparable diesels here.

3) Urban low speed and stop and go traffic. This is where the low end torque of a diesel shines as the car remains within the diesel's preferred zone and the torque is actually realized.

This is simply from the power perspective. Then you layer on fuel efficiency on top. But newer gas turbos have closed the gap sufficiently that the TDI (real, not fraudulent) advantage is no longer as stunning.

The Civic 1.5T (174 hp/162 lb-ft/EPA 31-42-35) does a 6.7s 0-60 while the 2.0L Jetta TDI (150hp/236 lb-ft/EPA 31-45-35) takes 8.4s.

Oh, and you have to pay a $2.5k-ish premium for a similarly equipped TDI, and diesel prices to a premium to regular gas in most parts of the country.

Once again - the math is just no longer what it used to be in terms of fuel savings.

 

[turbobrick240]

A 140 hp gasser will accelerate no better than a 140 hp diesel in the same chassis w a moderately skilled driver.

 

[sandydeb]

Not sure I agree. My 90hp TDI "feels" about the same as my 310hp Avalanche when getting on the freeway. I can do zero to 80 in both in about the same amount of time.
That would seem like a gearing issue. Maybe the 6th gear OD ratio is to low? I know I have .756 in fifth and rarely have an issue going up a hill in my tiny engine. OTOH, i often have to drop out of fourth into third in my Avalanche to go up those same hills.

1) Doesn't the Avalanche weigh like twice as much as the Jetta????

2) I did not say downshifting is needed for lack of power. It is needed to maximize fuel efficiency.

 

[sandydeb]

Volvo's new turbocharged four-cylinder 2.0 L gasoline engine produces 258 ft-lbs. from 1500 to 4800 rpm. (http://www.kbb.com/volvo/s60/2016/#survey). The VW 2.0 L TDI diesel puts out 236 ft-lb from 170 to 2500 rpm.

Yes, it's a more expensive car. But small diesel automobile engines no longer have the low-end torque advantage they once had.

To be fair, the low end torque in the Volvo is driven by a supercharger. Turbos need some spooling up so they are rarely much good below 1500-2000 rpm.