VW Won't Attempt to Regain Diesel Leadership in US; Many TDI Models May Never Return

[oprn]

What do I gain? Here's my breakdown of the buyback on the Golf. First, I get about $1000 more than I paid for it, not including the $1000 goodwill package that I've already spent. Second, I eliminate about half of my daughter's school loans. Third, I reduce my auto insurance by about $100 a month since I get rid of the third car.

In another year or so, I will start looking at what to do with the JSW. Take the fix, if available, and $5100, or take an additional $14,000 from VW to apply towards our next vehicle.

I guess if you have too many cars now and you want to down to downsize it makes sense although my choice would be to let the heaviest fuel hog go first.

Not many people consider that over the life of a vehicle the highest cost is the fuel not the purchase price. When we bought our first TDI I was running an older Chev 1/2 ton that got 20mpg(pretty good I thought) and our fuel budget was $400/month. That same $400 covered the fuel for the Jetta PLUS the car payments!

That $2000 you think you are gaining will be sucked up in fuel by the next vehicle so quick it will leave you wondering where it went. Then you are stuck with higher fuel bills for ever after. Short term gain for long term pain.

Just my slant on it. No offence meant.

 

[79jasper]

I hear trump has issue with some of the epa.
Could be a good thing for the diesel market.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[oprn]

My thoughts exactly. I was holding out for a 16' Sportwagen and now I'm wondering how to smuggle in a TDI engine into the country. On a side note, does Canadian law permit importing whole engines? I know the answer in the US is no according to the law.

Ya - we lost our '04 TDI wagon to a collision, and cannot find a replacement now and with no hope of new ones...

Here in Canada we can import cars duty free after they are 15 years old. We have done that twice now and brought in cars from Japan. These cars can be found in incredibly good condition with very low miles on them, just like new. The same importers are also supplying repairs including complete power trains and body parts. I don't know what the restrictions on parts are newer than 15 years though.
I am thinking seriously about importing a TDI wagon from there as the early 2000's are qualifying for duty free import now. The only downside in my mind is that being a right hand drive limits the resale value to some folks. I tend to be an "end user" though so it does not effect me.
Oh and some insurance companies quote higher insurance premiums for RHD cars because they are more expensive to fix!?? Can you spell "money grab"?

 

[kjclow]

I guess if you have too many cars now and you want to down to downsize it makes sense although my choice would be to let the heaviest fuel hog go first.

Not many people consider that over the life of a vehicle the highest cost is the fuel not the purchase price. When we bought our first TDI I was running an older Chev 1/2 ton that got 20mpg(pretty good I thought) and our fuel budget was $400/month. That same $400 covered the fuel for the Jetta PLUS the car payments!

That $2000 you think you are gaining will be sucked up in fuel by the next vehicle so quick it will leave you wondering where it went. Then you are stuck with higher fuel bills for ever after. Short term gain for long term pain.

Just my slant on it. No offence meant.

We debated some of the same points, so I see no offence. For us it comes down to keeping the canyon pickup and the JSW. The pickup comes in handy for so many things that I don't want to or can't put into the back of a car. The JSW has the hitch and roof rack and is more functional for road trips than the Golf. Of course, if VW wasn't offering us this kind of money, we would still be hanging on to all three.

 

[HBarlow]

The thing I blame is the EPA more than VW on this one. It has gone above and beyond what it was meant for (hence the reason the co founder left a few years ago). Yes VW cheated, but the rules the EPA set out are not to protect the environment as much as they have for other money making agendas in my opinion. The market for diesels to the US is small for VW. That's why it's no surprise they just said, "we are done with this for the US". BMW and others make some amazing diesels that I also would love to buy but again they don't sell them in the US due to the EPA.

My only real hope here is that when Chevy comes out with the Cruze diesel hatch that it is a solid car. They plan on releasing a RS package of the Cruze diesel in 2018 so I can only wait and hope that it fits what I am looking for. The perfect car for me would be the VW Golf GTD (another model not offered in the US).

My old 2001 Golf TDi has 240k on the motor (315k on the body and everything else). I drive 700+ miles a week of 95% highway. Diesel is the only "good" option for me. My little ALH has done well, but it's old, rusty, boring, and exceptionally slow. I am going to need a good replacement in the next few years that has the longevity of a diesel, but want something fun to drive also.

Only time will tell, but we as the consumers here in the US are the ones who are getting hosed more than anything not being able to have any good diesel options anymore.

I agree with you. German and Japanese auto/truck manufacturers have been building outstanding diesel engines for a wide range of cars and both large and small trucks for use in Europe and Asia respectively for many years. They offer reliability and low cost of ownership as well as performance in car models. Diesel fuel is more economical to produce and diesel powered motor vehicles are inherently more fuel efficient.

Unfortunately, we are now prevented from buying new diesel cars due to government policy based on a preference for electric go carts. Perhaps the next priority will be wind powered cars?

 

[oilhammer]

The Japanese have pretty much gone over to tiny gas engines and gasoline-electric hybrids. They never really were committed to diesels like the Germans were. The Toyota head of engine development himself said of the Lexus IS220d (the only diesel version of the IS) that they just put a diesel engine in to compete in Europe with the BMW 3-series, its chief rival, because BMW did sell quite a few of the 3-series with diesel engines. The IS diesel was clearly a half hearted attempt, and they sold in very small numbers, even in Europe.

And Nissan, despite being part of Renault AND having their own successful diesel truck line (UD), turned to an outside source for an engine for their new pickup truck.

Mitsubishi powered some of their models with VAG diesels.

Toyota and Honda have both outsourced their diesels, and while a few years back Honda finally did develop and build their own diesel engine primarily for European sales, that too has stagnated and probably will not be a high priority on their list of things to continue.

Subie finally developed their own diesel engine, late to the game like Honda, but has now been gobbled up by Toyota so the fate of that remains uncertain.

 

[flee]

I agree with you. German and Japanese auto/truck manufacturers have been building outstanding diesel engines for a wide range of cars and both large and small trucks for use in Europe and Asia respectively for many years. They offer reliability and low cost of ownership as well as performance in car models. Diesel fuel is more economical to produce and diesel powered motor vehicles are inherently more fuel efficient. (edit)

You've said this in past posts and it still isn't true.

There are fewer gallons of diesel to be had in a given volume of crude oil.
The extraction can be 'pushed' to favor one product over another but diesel,
being denser, takes more carbon bonds to make.

All things being equal, and they're not, diesel should cost more at the pump.
The reason it sometimes doesn't is probably due to subsidies, taxes and logistics.

 

[wxman]

You've said this in past posts and it still isn't true.

There are fewer gallons of diesel to be had in a given volume of crude oil.
The extraction can be 'pushed' to favor one product over another but diesel,
being denser, takes more carbon bonds to make.

All things being equal, and they're not, diesel should cost more at the pump.
The reason it sometimes doesn't is probably due to subsidies, taxes and logistics.

This was something that was discussed on this site many years ago.

Based on that discussion, there is typically far more middle distillate in a barrel of crude oil than straight-run gasoline through simple distillation. See http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174 for example. The way refineries are set up in the U.S., much of the distillate is "cracked" into shorter hydrocarbons like gasoline. Refineries in Europe apparently are set up to produce significantly more middle distillate (i.e., diesel fuel) than gasoline.

I claim no expertise in this topic, just relaying the information that was passed on during previous discussions.

Also keep in mind that gasoline in the U.S. will be required to be "ultra-low sulfur" (10 ppm) at the beginning of 2017. Of course, diesel fuel has been ultra-low sulfur since 2006. It is currently not know exactly how much that will increase the price of gasoline, but this source suggests it may be significant.

 

[kjclow]

This was something that was discussed on this site many years ago.

Based on that discussion, there is typically far more middle distillate in a barrel of crude oil than straight-run gasoline through simple distillation. See http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174 for example. The way refineries are set up in the U.S., much of the distillate is "cracked" into shorter hydrocarbons like gasoline. Refineries in Europe apparently are set up to produce significantly more middle distillate (i.e., diesel fuel) than gasoline.

I claim no expertise in this topic, just relaying the information that was passed on during previous discussions.

Also keep in mind that gasoline in the U.S. will be required to be "ultra-low sulfur" (10 ppm) at the beginning of 2017. Of course, diesel fuel has been ultra-low sulfur since 2006. It is currently not know exactly how much that will increase the price of gasoline, but this source suggests it may be significant.

Thanks Wxman. I didn't want to look that up to reply to flee's post.

One other thing to remember is that the majority of North American diesel production is shipped overseas. Many of the Gulf Coast refineries produce very little product for sales in North America. They receive crude from around the world, refine it, and ship it back.

 

[HBarlow]

Thanks Wxman. I didn't want to look that up to reply to flee's post.

One other thing to remember is that the majority of North American diesel production is shipped overseas. Many of the Gulf Coast refineries produce very little product for sales in North America. They receive crude from around the world, refine it, and ship it back.

Supply and demand. Overseas markets demand huge quantities of diesel fuel.

If our misguided government policies were changed and restrictive policies toward diesel cars and trucks were lifted demand for the cars and trucks as well as for diesel fuel would be far greater.

I don't respond to flea's posts.

 

[lewisfromindy]

If VW diesels "go away", what will become of the infrastructure of parts for all, TDI's? And will the cost go up, for those parts - or availability of parts as they are now?

 

[HBarlow]

If VW diesels "go away", what will become of the infrastructure of parts for all, TDI's? And will the cost go up, for those parts - or availability of parts as they are now?

Parts will remain available for many years. I read once that auto makers are obligated to maintain parts availability for cars they sold for a long period of time after cars or components were discontinued.

 

[Lightflyer1]

10 years I think it is. Hard to find some parts for my 2003 now.

 

[bhtooefr]

No such obligation exists in the US, they only need to make parts available for the duration of any warranties.

 

[oilhammer]

It would seem like there must have been a 10 year rule at some point, as that figure seems to persist in many conversations. But if there ever was, it must have been a pretty lax thing, as I can recall countless times the manufacturer has not had a part available on a vehicle younger than 10 years.

My Dad's 1984 Ford Ranger needed a new EGR valve in 1989, and it was NLA from Ford then. It was sticking open, and the spring that holds it shut was bad, so even if you pushed it shut and left the vacuum line off so it would never open, the intake manifold vacuum was strong enough under decel to pull it open and it would stay there. So when you'd come to a stop, it would stall.

I actually figured this out myself after the Ford dealer couldn't... and I was just a "kid"

Turns out, a CV joint ball bearing from a Beetle was able to be pressed into the exhaust port going to the EGR, thus blocking it off for good. NOx be damned, the engine ran good after that.

 

[bhtooefr]

Worth noting that in Israel, there's a 7 year requirement, according to this: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...der-us-federal-law-to-provide-parts-for-a-set

7 years being the other figure I've heard...

In any case, the 10 year figure is probably... it's a nice round figure, it sounds like something that ought to be a law, so people think it is a law.

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

Had the same experience with the emergency brake cables on a 1998 Ranger, they rubbed on the springs and the housing wore through, letting water in and by 2003 they were completely rusted up and inoperable. Ford solved the problem on later models with cable rerouting, but quickly ran out of replacement cables for the older models... I still have their cables on backorder from 2003! The only replacements I've found are Chinese products, they fit so badly that I ordered all 3 that NAPA listed for the application and used the one that was closest to fitting properly.

 

[bhtooefr]

One really annoying thing that Ford does is delete all records of key codes for vehicles over 10 years old, as my dad found out the hard way trying to get keys for an (at the time) 15 year old Ranger... ended up having to get a locksmith to decode the lock for him.

 

[kjclow]

It would seem like there must have been a 10 year rule at some point, as that figure seems to persist in many conversations. But if there ever was, it must have been a pretty lax thing, as I can recall countless times the manufacturer has not had a part available on a vehicle younger than 10 years.

My Dad's 1984 Ford Ranger needed a new EGR valve in 1989, and it was NLA from Ford then. It was sticking open, and the spring that holds it shut was bad, so even if you pushed it shut and left the vacuum line off so it would never open, the intake manifold vacuum was strong enough under decel to pull it open and it would stay there. So when you'd come to a stop, it would stall.

I actually figured this out myself after the Ford dealer couldn't... and I was just a "kid"

Turns out, a CV joint ball bearing from a Beetle was able to be pressed into the exhaust port going to the EGR, thus blocking it off for good. NOx be damned, the engine ran good after that.

My 82 S-10 was one of those that was orphaned from day one. Needed a new exhaust system and found out it was unique to that year. Had to go to a bender to get it replaced. Half of the nuts were metric and the other half standard. Heck, even the lug wrench didn't match the lugs.

 

[Lightflyer1]

One really annoying thing that Ford does is delete all records of key codes for vehicles over 10 years old, as my dad found out the hard way trying to get keys for an (at the time) 15 year old Ranger... ended up having to get a locksmith to decode the lock for him.

First thing I do is make new keys. Just bought a 2004 Excursion diesel and ordered 2 new keys to go with the existing 2 that have seen better days. Fortunately you can program them yourself if you have 2.

 

[oprn]

I agree with you. German and Japanese auto/truck manufacturers have been building outstanding diesel engines for a wide range of cars and both large and small trucks for use in Europe and Asia respectively for many years. They offer reliability and low cost of ownership as well as performance in car models. Diesel fuel is more economical to produce and diesel powered motor vehicles are inherently more fuel efficient.

That is the truth!

American car manufacturers and our governments have been hiding behind the "There is no demand here for small efficient diesels." rhetoric for decades. That cannot be further from the truth in my opinion. The explosion of VW diesels here in Canada tells a completely different story.

So now they find it necessary to invent new emission regs to push them out. There is something bigger behind the whole issue I think!

 

[bhtooefr]

 

[HBarlow]

Does your dream world of battery powered golf carts overlook the fact that electricity to recharge the batteries does not magically appear behind the receptacle?

The stationary power plants that generate electricity create massive quantities of emissions and "smog."

 

[bhtooefr]

I didn't even say that EVs were the answer there, what I was implying was just that the emissions standards that make diesel hard are to prevent that. (And, before someone says VOCs, there's very, very tight VOC standards in the CARB states, too, in the form of AT-PZEV. AT-PZEV is a hell of a lot easier to comply with, though, than T2B5 diesel emissions, it seems.)

Basically, gassers - not even hybrid gassers, just plain ol' modern gassers - would help with that particular smog problem (which is NOx-driven).

And, in the case of EVs, even if you're talking about coal... there's always the long tailpipe argument. Power plants aren't usually in city centers, and smog-forming emissions are primarily a local problem. Considering that the context here is France, they use a lot of nuclear (reliably), so the tailpipe there is just emitting steam from the cooling towers, I believe.

 

[atc98002]

Bhtooefr: what's the date of that photo? Is it recent? I thought they have made great strides in cleaning the air in Europe.

I agree that EVs will likely be the mainstay in the future. With power from something besides coal (here in the Pacific NW, it's mostly hydro, a little nuke and a sliver of coal that is going away), the power plant emissions argument goes away. And with an EV, we still get that seat of pants torque that we are used to with our diesels, even better!

 

[bhtooefr]

Looks like that photo was from 2010. Worth noting, however, that Paris was implementing car bans and free public transit to get those emissions down.

 

[wxman]

I know that it's popular in Europe to blame all air quality issues on diesel vehicles, but it should be noted that gasoline (petrol) in France has much higher aromatic content than in the U.S., and apparently there are many two-stroke scooters there that have very high emission rates across-the-board (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140513/ncomms4749/full/ncomms4749.html ).

Also, gasoline vehicles are still the largest source of VOCs in SoCAB (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231015304350 ).

 

[kjclow]

The stationary power plants that generate electricity create massive quantities of emissions and "smog."

Actually, no. According to Wiki: The electricity sector in France is dominated by nuclear power, which accounted for 77% of total production in 2012, while renewables and fossil fuels accounted for 15% and 8%, respectively.

Nuclear power may have other issues but it does not produce smog.

 

[bhtooefr]

I know that it's popular in Europe to blame all air quality issues on diesel vehicles, but it should be noted that gasoline (petrol) in France has much higher aromatic content than in the U.S., and apparently there are many two-stroke scooters there that have very high emission rates across-the-board (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140513/ncomms4749/full/ncomms4749.html ).

Also, gasoline vehicles are still the largest source of VOCs in SoCAB (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231015304350 ).

Should be worth noting that if you're gonna do gasoline, do AT-PZEV to contain the VOCs. And, two stroke scooters are definitely not what I'm advocating (although they do absolutely add to the emissions profile, but my understanding was that the smog had gotten worse with the pro-diesel policies, due to European diesels not actually being any better on NOx emissions than early 1990s diesels).

 

[El Dobro]

I know that it's popular in Europe to blame all air quality issues on diesel vehicles, but it should be noted that gasoline (petrol) in France has much higher aromatic content than in the U.S., and apparently there are many two-stroke scooters there that have very high emission rates across-the-board (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140513/ncomms4749/full/ncomms4749.html ).

Also, gasoline vehicles are still the largest source of VOCs in SoCAB (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231015304350 ).

I'm sure they know that, their bans include all ICE cars.
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/04/27/paris-bans-cars-sunday/