Given the whole VW Dieselgate scandal, memories of black smoke puffing troublesome diesel Oldsmobiles from the early 1980s, and many people’s (at least in North America) general unfamiliarity with diesels, the idea of owning one is totally ludicrous in the minds of many new car buyers, more so than the thought of purchasing an electric vehicle. With less familiarity and positive press here in North America, I can understand why so many buyers have reservations. Yet in other parts of the world, especially Europe, diesels are immensely popular and economical, and few people seem to have any reservations in buying one over a gasoline-powered vehicle.
If I need any indication as to just how low diesel’s popularity in North America, I just have to look outside my window. Sitting here at Land Rover Hanover, we have just one leftover 2018 Range Rover Sport, and go figure, it’s a diesel. Despite its appealing black over almond color combination, popular options, and an unheard of discount of $12,000 (over 15% of MSRP), no one wants to buy it. Like the few other Td6 diesels we have, as soon as I mention that it’s a diesel, the prospective buyer will have the same wide-eyed, dear-in-the-headlights look, their face and neck will twitch, and they’ll exclaim in a fear-stricken voice something like “Oh I don’t want a diesel!”.
Even bestowing the benefits of diesel, including that their torquey engines are indeed efficient, providing comparable and sometimes better power, reduced emissions, far superior highway fuel economy, and vastly greater driving range on a single tank of fuel usually doesn’t get buyers to warm up to the idea of diesel. Furthermore, addressing concerns that apart from adding diesel exhaust fluid every now and then, everyday maintenance really is no different than owning a gasoline-powered vehicle doesn’t seem to help.
While diesel wouldn’t be my own first choice, I’d never write it off as a possible option for me, especially if the vehicle cost savings were substantially better than a similar gasoline-powered model. So, with that in mind, the question is simple: Would you buy a diesel?
I’ve owned three diesels, and would definitely consider another if it was in the right vehicle. I cringe every time I see an article title about diesels, as the old Oldsmobile diesel trope is usually the first thing mentioned. Modern diesels aren’t anything like that, and in fact, direct-injection gasoline engines actually sound about the same as a diesel due to the injector noise.
I drove my ’00 New Beetle TDI (5-speed manual) for over twelve years, and the drivetrain was a big part of why I kept it that long. It averaged 45 MPG (hand calculated). I still see it in town more than five years after I sold it locally.
The drivetrain in the ’13 Beetle Convertible TDi (6 speed manual) that succeeded it was silky smooth, quiet and odorless (this coming from my wife, who is extremely sensitive to odors). I’ve documented in posts and comments here why I sold it after only 18 months, before dieselgate.
Finally, I had a ’99 F-250 Superduty Powerstroke with the late ’99 intercooled Navistar 7.3l. Pulled like a freight train, but with 175K on the clock and at 15 years old, it had flakey electrical issues and the a/c or heat only blew through the defrost vents. I was also leery of anything happening to the engine, as I knew it would be stupid expensive to fix, so I sold it and bought a ’15 RAM 2500 5.7l. I’d probably not buy another diesel truck, now that I think about it.
A coworker was mentioning the Chevy Cruze diesel last week and some googling turned up a couple in the area, one “new.” Not in the market, but it looked intriguing. My friend wanted one as a dinghy for his motorcoach.
You bet. Love them and appreciate their virtues as long as you understand the kinks. Mainly keep the **** away from bio diesel. And purchase a factory extended warranty. Love our 2014 GLK 250 Bluetec. Just a great vehicle that gets 35-40 mpg.
Well I was reading an article written by some scientist in Germany indication that diesel engine can give the driver and passengers long cancer.but I still like the sound of diesel engine.
I’d buy a diesel, also a diesel hybrid.
I think Range Rover buyers mostly buy for status and the implication that they have a Range to Rove; diesel sounds like more work (finding stations, wearing gloves to fuel), rear panels getting dirty (ala old Mercedes), dealing with the unwashed at truck stops, and even more potential complexity to break down.
The post flies close to being an ad.
Given that Land Rover reliability and cost of ownership tropes are probably even more common now (in the US) than Olds diesel tropes, I’d actually consider a Land Rover diesel well ahead of some other diesels. After all, if you’re going to expect high service costs and possible warranty activity, why not save $12K up front and a lot at the pump, as well? Our late-model gasoline VW gets such good fuel economy, I see less value in a VW or Cruze diesel, but the Rover, a baby Duramax Chevy Colorado or even an EcoDiesel Jeep or Ram still have appeal to me.
Nope. Just not cost-effective for the typical daily-driver. They used to be okay before the price of diesel fuel went bonkers (still haven’t figured that one out). I think diesel fuel still costs a lot less than gas in Europe and that could go a long way to explaining the popularity there.
On top of the initial premium charge and fuel costs, there’s the routine maintenance. Besides the additive requirement, there’s the exorbitant price of (frequent) oil changes. And although it’s not a major concern, even finding a station with diesel fuel can be a challenge.
But I will admit there have been significant strides in diesel operation. I think that the old glow-plug warm-up, as well as cold-weather issues, are a thing of the past.
Unless you have a real reason to need (as opposed to want) a diesel (towing is the main one), they just don’t make much sense in the US. For most fuel economy minded buyers, a gas hybrid is a better choice.
Diesel here is about 40% more expensive than 87 octane unleaded. Europe is pulling the plug on diesel after making believe that the irritating soot and smell were in the observers’ imaginations for long enough to stick people with a bunch of diesel cars that are now being banned from urban centers. I’ve owned a diesel, lived on a sailboat with a diesel auxiliary, and used diesel trucks for work. They’re an elegant concept until you address their emissions. Then they have very little going for them. I’d still take one over an EV as my only vehicle though.
You’re making some assumptions/assertions that aren’t quite correct.
Let’s start with maintenance costs. The average price for an oil and filter change on a Mercedes Sprinter diesel is quoted at between $215 and $240: https://repairpal.com/estimator/mercedes-benz/sprinter+3500/oil-and-filter-change-cost
An oil change in my gas Promaster? Whatever the quick-lube places are charging for any passenger car with no more than 5 quarts of oil. They range from $25-$50.
That’s just a start. Ask what MB charges for any other service and/or parts. This is precisely why so many gas Transits and Promasters are being sold. Way too many Sprinter owners got burned on endless expensive maintenance and repairs.
Speaking of post-warranty repairs, don’t ask what they cost, compared to a Pentastar V6 or a Ford V6. Day and night difference.
The same thing applies to essentially all diesels in the US vs. gas counterparts. There’s a very good reason that fleets don’t buy diesels, including all the way up to medium trucks. The actual proven economics of a diesel do not work out given the low fuel costs in the US.
Every medium truck manufacturer has added or expanded gas engine offerings for just that reason. Diesels sell in brodozers, but not because of the economics, I assure you.
As to Europeans buying diesels, their market share is plunging. In Germany, diesels were down some 28% last year, and that’s after a big drop in 2017. Sure, in many cases, especially bigger SUVs and such, there’s often little or no alternative, but in smaller passenger cars, diesels are being shunned massively. Why do you think VW is investing $91 billion to build millions of EVs? To replace diesels, for the most part.
Diesels are literally being banned out of existence in many cities in Europe. City dwellers have a huge incentive not to buy a diesel as they might/will not be able to to drive it in some cases much longer.
Diesels are as big as they are still in Europe because of the incentives/taxes/lower fuel cost.
In the US, buying a diesel is not a rational choice, which explains why so many folks won’t touch one, and why fleets shun them like the plague. No fleet manager wants to be second-guessed as to why the diesels he bought are costing more than the gas engine ones.
If I had to have one, it would be on a lease only. The emission systems on diesels are significantly more complex and tricky and expensive and maintenance-demanding than those on gas engines, which were perfected decades ago and the parts are cheap.
I certainly wouldn’t want to actually own a modern diesel, as I tend to keep my vehicles for the long haul, and I think diesels are a ticking time bomb.
Why are you conflating the high cost of MB dealer servicing with Diesel engines? My gas Metris costs about the same to service.
I’m so sorry…that’s terrible news.
Paul it is amazing to watch you work; your ability to produce specious arguments to back up your personal prejudices is breathtaking.
The proper way to frame your argument would not be to compare a FWD and relatively light duty Fiat based unit to a RWD heavier duty Mercedes (after all, Fiats world fields an entirely different product to compete with heavier duty versions of the Sprinter). The proper way to frame the the argument would be a Ford Transit 3.5 gas or EcoBoost to a Ford Transit 3.2 diesel. This would remove as many confounding variables as possible and allow one discuss the direct merits of diesel vs gas.
Never mind that different products best for specific needs and uses. The Ram ProMaster makes a good plumbers van or camper- a low mileage, low stress application; the Mercedes serves better in applications like freight expediting. But we can ignore all of this stuff because… well it is the internet of gobbledygook after all.
Calling the Promaster a “a relatively light duty Fiat” just shows how utterly clueless you are. It’s sold as a Fiat in Europe, as well as a Peugeot, but was designed and built by a separate JV company, Sevel.
Not that it really matters, because impugning a truck because it either has the Fiat badge on or by implication, might actually be a Fiat, is a very old stereotypical but lame put down. You obviously don’t know that Fiat (and related companies) have been building a lot of heavy duty equipment, vehicles and engines for many decades.
The Promaster is not “light duty”. The US version, which was strengthened further from the international version, has a cargo capacity of some 4,000 lbs. (or more, depending on series) You call that “light duty”? It’s full competitive in every regard to the Sprinter or Transit in its cargo capacity.
The Promaster is actually quite common among expediters, and many have racked up 300k, 400k and more in miles. And they’re enjoying the much cheaper maintenance costs associated with it.
I have zero desire to put down the Sprinter, unlike your need to berate the “light duty” Promaster. It’s a very capable and competitive van. But I do not consider it intrinsically better than the competition. Too many folks seem to think because there’s a star on the hood that it’s built better. It’s not. It’s just another mass-produced van that uses passenger car engines and transmissions, and has a somewhat spotty record in terms of rust resistance (I’m being generous) and whose maintenance costs are a very well known.
The reason I compared the diesel Sprinter with the gas Promaster and Transit is precisely because so many unhappy former Sprinter owners are/have been buying gas Promasters and Transits. The Sprinter has been here for over a decade, and its history is well known. Not many buy diesel Transits, and there’s little or no accumulated history on them.
BTW, don’t get me started on the diesel Promaster: crap. The basic engine is very solid, but the issues with its emission system are legendary, as well as its automated manual transmission. Good thing they stopped offering it two years ago.
Thanks for contributing more internet gobbledygook….not that it’s welcome.
It makes you wonder two things:
A) How much is it to have an older Dodge Sprinter serviced at a Dodge dealer?
B) And if Mercedes still owned Chrysler and sent the Metris over to be branded as a Dodge as they initially did with the Sprinter, would the oil change cost the same $34 that the local dealer charges/charged me to change the oil in my Jeep with the PentaStar V6 or the Hemi in my old 300C?
The Sprinter (and many diesels) require manufacturer-specific synthetic oil and special filter. The parts alone are much more expensive. And this is quite common for the current diesels meeting US standards.
In 2010 I asked myself that question when deciding on the gas 5 cylinder or TDI Jetta Sportwagen. The torque and mpgs were nice, but I was very wary of the complexity of the new diesel engines and there was a serious upcharge to get it. I bought the gasoline version and the only time I regretted it was after the dieselgate settlements came out and I realized how much VW’s malfeasance would have benefited me. But because I bought with some foresight, I didn’t get a big payday.
Now? There’s absolutely no reason in a car/hatch/crossover–hybrids have that covered. Turbodiesel torque and fuel economy would be a great match for my 4Runner, but that’s a long-term vehicle for me and I’m happy with the relative simplicity and track record of the brutish gas V6, so the diesel would have to be bulletproof.
In a Range Rover? Not getting it. These are leased luxury items, what do I care about fuel economy if I’m walking into that showroom? What do I care about durability? I want power, copious amounts of it, and I don’t want my hands to smell of fuel when interacting with the clientele that allows me to afford that vehicle.
I don’t tow. I’ll bet the diesel vs. big gas debate is most relevant in the full size truck segment.
Also, I live in a metro area with serious air quality problems in winter when the local geography creates temperature inversions. I don’t think my conscience would be happy with the particulate and NOx emissions from even a modern diesel–I feel bad enough driving the 4Runner on those days.
I have never been convinced of the advantages. Maybe in the past, but diesel fuel prices in the U.S. have almost always for the last decade or more been significantly higher than gasoline. Add in the price premium to purchase the vehicle, and you’d need a major functional advantage to justify it.
Fuel economy? Probably not big enough of a difference to sway me. Diesel efficiency does shine more on the highway, right? So perhaps for someone who does mostly highway driving.
Low end torque for towing? Definitely a factor for pickup trucks, but not so much for passenger vehicles. I feel that a large number of diesel pickup buyers’ use of their trucks probably doesn’t justify a diesel, but they buy them for the Truck Panache they project.
Why were diesels so popular in Europe?
New Diesels require Diesel Emission Fluid, which is not cheap and it’s rather nasty stuff if you spill it or get it on yourself. It really does make a huge difference in the exhaust, though. You can hardly smell diesel exhaust now and certainly can’t see it.
EDIT: I just read Paul’s post. I forgot to mention the maintenance factor. Really expensive!
One point – DEF is VERY cheap and needed on the order of a gallon or so every thousand miles or so. That gallon costs a few dollars, every gas station that sells Diesel sells it, but so does WalMart and every auto parts store. A modern diesel vehicle will warn the user well ahead (1000 miles or so?) of time when it’s running low. If one can refill the washer fluid reservoir without dousing oneself in washer fluid, then one can refill the DEF tank without spilling it all over the place too. DEF is perhaps a minor inconvenience on the order of refilling the washer fluid, but not really a main reason to avoid a diesel vehicle.
You’re probably right. I have never bought the DEF personally. I have filled our work trucks with it and found it is not hard to dribble some for the unskilled (me). With practice, I am sure I’d get proficient.
Exactly. AdBlue is quite cheap, we had to put some in a Peugeot Partner not long a go. Just stopped at a gas station and bought it for a few euros. The thing that annihilates modern diesels’ reliability are the DPF filters as most cars don’t warn the driver they are in regen mode, and interrupting regen causes serious harm. If any alternative to DPFs appears, diesels can be the reliable beast they were in the nineties.
Also, people who like to drive a manual will certainly appreciate how easier it is to do a hill start on a diesel
All well and good until the DEF tank level sensor calls it quits on your E70 BMW X5 at 53k miles and the fix is to replace the entire tank sold as an assembly, dealer only part, $1300-1500 for the part. But that’s more of a function of it being a piece of crap disposable Bimmer more than anything else I suppose.
You remind me that my sister’s 05-ish Jeep Liberty diesel had a turbocharger take a dump. A four-figure repair, and not by just a few dollars.
Buy one again you mean, I currently drive a Citroen C5 diesel manual and my previous car was a Citroen Xsara diesel manual, while I’m not planning another car purchase anytime soon another Citroen diesel would be my first choice in fact another C5 but with the 2.7 twin turbo diesel is what I’d be looking for the same engine was used in Jaguars and Ford Territories and was fitted to Landrover products, Suzuki used PSA diesels they are likely the worlds best, I wouldnt touch a VW diesel with a ten foot pole they simply arent very good. Maintenance is not particularly expensive fuel oil and air filters and an oil change is recommended every 30,000 kms cost is around $110 for parts and it takes ten minutes of my time
VW diesels were good before the 2.0 TDi I4 and the 2.5 V6 TDI appeared. Those engines single handedly started the downfall of VW Diesel reliability.
The 2.0 HDi might be one of the last good diesels in production
I had started reading this column saying yes I would based on my happy experience with the jetta diesel I had but after reading all the comments I am thinking in this much more modern world and where my life is now the answer would be no, it’s not practical anymore.
I own a Diesel powered Volvo XC70 (D5 2.4 liter) for more than two years. From the user’s perspective, there is no discernible difference from a gas engined car, other than fuel consumption, which is in the area of 6-7 l/100 km highway, 9-10 city (sorry, too lazy to convert into MPG, but that’s roughly two times better than my second car, a Suzuki Grand Vitara, which has a gas engine of the same displacement, and also less power & significantly less torque).
And I couldn’t care less about it not fitting into some crazy overly tight emission regulations; IMO, anything above Euro II is essentially just a money grab and does not do anything significant to lessen the harm to the environment (conserving mineral fuel through better fuel economy does, however).
Still, I am worried about the possible maintenance problems in the long term. Modern diesel engines, with turbochargers, aluminum blocks, aluminum heads and direct injection, are notorious for breaking down at mileages above 100000 kms if not serviced with utmost care from the very start, and as a second owner I have no way to be sure of that. A ticking time bomb, just as Paul wrote here.
However, I still consider only DIesel power for my next “highway” car (or, most likely, its going to be a truck).
Older Diesel engines, like the (in)famous Oldsmobile diesel, in my opinion are a thing to be avoided if not in a truck, and actually I did just that when I was offered a nice early 1980s Olds Cutlass Coupe with a Diesel V8 under the hood (it is still for sale because no one wants it). Old Diesel engines are by far not as nice as the modern ones, and mechanical high pressure fuels pumps are almost impossible to fix.
Exactly. Old school turbodiesel engines from the late nineties were almost peak Diesel. They were stone reliable, very efficient and had low maintenance costs. My ’93 Audi has 200.000 miles, my brothers ’00 Volvo S80 with a VW 2.5 I5 diesel has 591.000 miles, both have great fuel consumption and nearly Japanese reliability
Whatever the pros and cons of diesel ownership (as spelled out by Paul above), if the general view of diesels is negative, then these non-buyers are making a good choice. When they come to on-sell, the market is going to be much smaller and they’ll take a much bigger depreciation hit. Feels bad to own a car that no one wants to buy.
A few years ago I had narrowed my buying options to a Mitsubishi Outlander (petrol) or a Peugeot 4007 which is the exact same car, but with a Peugeot diesel. The Peugeot was a nicer car to drive (great engine, much better gearbox) and had a nicer interior, but I went for the Outlander. Everyone here in NZ has an Outlander, the second hand market is strong, you’ll get a fair price secondhand. But sales of the 4007 were tiny, and they’re not on the radar for buyers.
I still prefer to drive a diesel, but I’m aware of how perceptions are changing and I’ll probably not be buying one.
I’d have to vote no as well. While the range benefits are somewhat attractive, there are too many other issues with a diesel for me. I’d go electric first if ever in the market for an “alternative” engine.
On the topic of fleets, the Fire Department I work for is a case in point. A majority of agencies that maintain a fleet of ambulances use diesel. Ours, however, uses gas Chevrolets and always has except for a couple of years in the mid-2000’s they bought some Ford diesels. The shop did not like the diesels as they had a lot of breakdowns and were difficult and expensive to repair. I’m not sure why so many departments go diesel. In a heavy ambulance, the low end power is useful. Those Fords have a lot more pickup than the Chevys, but the Chevys get the job done. Engines usually last 250-350k miles. Yes, the Houston Fire Department keeps them that long! Average 40-50k miles/year on busy units.
Fire trucks are another story. Large fire apparatus have been exclusively diesel for at least 40 years. Some are starting to question that as the use patterns have changed in urban departments to doing a lot more EMS. For an actual fire, in pump mode, an engine can run at a fairly constant RPM for hours sometimes. Ideal for diesel, not to mention the torque is good for driving to get the extremely heavy apparatus (with their 500+ gal of water) moving from a stop to emergency response speeds reasonably fast.
The problem is that they are often used exactly the opposite of ideal for a diesel. Short trips, hard acceleration and braking over and over on every trip. 10-20 start ups every day 365 days/year. The modern large truck engines and emission systems are designed more for highway type use and can get really problematic on busy fire units. Our trucks spend a lot of time in the shop on emission issues.
Some in the industry are wanting to go back to gasoline, though I haven’t heard what the status of that is if any manufacturers will actually provide on yet.
About those mid-2000s Ford Diesels – the 6.0 specifically has a reputation for poor reliability. Weak head bolts, turbo, and EGR issues, IIRC. All fixable with aftermarket and upgraded parts.
The previous 7.3s are still universally praised, and a 2002 with that instead of a 2003 6.0 in the same vehicle commands a hefty premium no matter the mileage difference.
Guess the department’s timing was bad! We do still have a few of those Fords kicking around. They will keep running as long as you repair everything that breaks…
7.3 sells for a $4-6k premium vs a 6.0 ceteris paribus.
We used to own one (2012 Touareg TDI) and loved it while we had it. Of course it was new and hence we had zero trouble. We sold it right at 20k miles to nobody’s surprise here).
The best part by far was routinely covering 600 or so in-town miles before having to refill the tank at a gas station.
The on-demand torque at highway speeds was very nice as well. There was zero smell, zero hassle.
Would I buy another today? No, no more diesels for us. VW put the final nail in the coffin for them here in the US as far as public perception goes and the stories of high maintenance costs (all I am aware of is personal internet anecdotes on this, zero firsthand experience) and the potential for now difficult resale along with the insanely high price of diesel fuel these days around here negates all of the advantages. Just read the comments above, people seem to think you have to go to truck stops and wear gloves when filling diesel. And these are car folks…
Yes, some states have much less diesel infrastructure than others but around here I can get diesel at CostCo and almost ANY gas station; and have never gotten any on my hands from the pump when we used it over a 2-year span. That being said, it’s probably a good idea to wear gloves anyway at ANY gas pump, who knows what the last guy was doing with his hands and it’s probably just as easy to splash gasoline on your hands…
If I were renting a car in Europe, I’d be all over it though. 🙂
Anyway, I don’t think $12k is enough of a discount to sway most people toward a diesel in this case, it if were gasoline, that might be a decent discount for last years model. I think it’s about 15% of the sticker price, right?
Definitely maybe, depending on the circumstances. I really dig a LOT about how the right turbodiesel in a truck or 4×4 makes for a torque monster which is immune to elevation issues. I like the noise, the vibrations, and the feel of rowing the gears on one—a single cab 4×4 Ram 2500 Cummins with the NV4500 was a favorite for me when I sold cars. So the gearhead in me absolutely LOVES diesels.
I just can’t justify it though. I want no part of anything with DEF, as it’s just an added complication/expense that chips away even more at the economics of diesel ownership. “It’s not really that bad..” apologists will say. “It has ZERO benefits for me”, says I. I live about a mile from work/gym and I don’t tow very often. Extended roadtrips are usually with my car club and that’s in my Challenger anyway. Supposedly, short in town hops are hell on a diesel…they need to be run. So Id be basically misusing one.
I, too, have heard the stories about shorter service intervals and greater maintenance costs. Spending the extra money on MSRP and fuel (diesel is generally a bit more expensive here) makes a diesel a bit of a non-starter for me. I like the idea of extra torque though and it is a bit more appealing in a car like, say, an Infiniti QX70 where the petrol engines’ fuel economy isn’t great.
Read an article recently that had the market share percentages for diesels in Australia and I wish I could find it. For vans it was like 90%. Pickups was around 70-80. Cars was something low like 15-20. Relying on my shoddy memory here.
Two other things I don’t like about diesel: the number of older diesels I see with smoke coming out of the tailpipe, and the wretched noise they make. I know modern diesel cars are often quite refined inside but as soon as you open your door, there’s that racket. And, as you can imagine in a country full of Rangers and Colorados, I have to hear that quite a bit.
That’s interesting; I would have thought the percentage of passenger cars would be less than that.
My main experience with diesels comes from my parents’ Mazda3 Astina XD with six-speed manual. They’re one of the roughly twelve people in Australia that bought one (a red demo with about 6,000 km for $30k on the road, because their local Mazda dealer couldn’t get rid of either of the ones with manual transmission). They’re from the Yarra Valley, my sister was living in Canberra at the time and my dad’s family are in Adelaide, so they’d do a decent interstate trip once every six or eight weeks, hence wanting a diesel.
This is the model with the same engine as the Mazda6 or CX-5, so 420 Nm of torque in a reasonably small hatch means acceleration and especially overtaking is absolutely effortless. You don’t notice hills when driving it—it’s an addictive feeling….but not enough to make me consider one specifically because it’s a diesel. I have a Škoda Octavia RS petrol wagon which doesn’t lose out by much in terms of fuel economy on a freeway run (and I have a cousin with a non-RS Octavia wagon that is even better) so really, what’s the point?
I’m not intrinsically opposed to a diesel, but it would have to have substantial advantages overall compared to the gasoline version of the same car, and few do for me. Typically, the diesel is still a bit noisier, and costs considerably more. The better fuel economy is wiped out by the higher cost of the fuel vs. regular unleaded gas. I’ve been reading today about the new Mazda diesels that are finally about to be sold in the U.S., and neither the fuel economy nor torque is that much better than the petrol version. What’s the point?
The new 1.4T gasoline four in the 2019 VW Golf and Jetta by the way gets about the same mpg as the 2015 diesels did, with similar acceleration, better NVH, and cheaper fuel.
I’d buy a diesel as long as it was a good drivetrain at the right price. On new vehicles you often need a lot of miles to offset the extra cost and even some used vehicles charge a stiff premium.
The fuel cost isn’t too bad since where I live diesel and regular gas are often just a few cents apart.
I have been thinking of an older VW Passat or Jetta wagon TDI with a manual transmission now that my Suzuki Swift GT was wrecked. I miss that consistent 32 MPG.
Diesel yes. British? Dear god no.
Hehe… That’s exactly what i thought when I saw the title pic. Range Rover = money pit. Diesel Range Rover = unfashionable money pit. No wonder it ain’t selling.
Is the Range Rover unfashionable?
No, Diesels are.
I spoke to technician at the Range Rover service shop and he told me even gasoline cars have 90 ecu connected with the optical cables which last maximum 5 years and replacement cost is 7k usd. The reasonable ownership is 3-4 years from the new until maintenance troubles starts to pop up and that’s the time a owner should go to buy a new one. I did not check pricing in USA but in Europe the top gasoline model can cost up to 250k usd including VAT.
I was a passenger once at 500hp version and its was quick, for sure. To stay on the topic, owner likes to play with others and put a 2.3 diesel sign on the trunk cover to make him a sleeper.
Doug DeMuro hit YouTube gold with his running tally of the 2006 Warranty Claims.
Final Verdict: $21,276 over 6 yrs.
“… so the overall cost of the warranty claims nearly exceeded the value of the vehicle. It’s truly impressive that we got this far.”
My partner and I raise horses as a hobby, and we and many of our friends and acquaintances pull gooseneck trailers. While diesel trucks are still in the majority, I’ve recently noticed that a number of our friends have replaced their diesels with gas-engined 3/4- and one-ton trucks.
When asked why, most are telling me that for the hobby farmer/rancher, what has been stated by others above is largely true: The higher initial cost, maintenance costs, and fuel costs aren’t offset by the gains in fuel economy and torque. True or not, there also seems to be a mindset that while diesels will run longer than a gas engine without a major overhaul, when they do break it tends to be spectacularly and expensively.
My next pickup will likely be a gas 3/4-ton to serve as a backup for my partner’s diesel one-ton, as I could more easily live with it as a daily driver. Im not totally against diesels, mind you; in fact, I bought a brand-new one just a few weeks ago… 😀
No
Oh hell no for anything but towing large loads.
They don’t like starting at -25F at 8500ft altitude in my experience. Diesel has always been more expensive than gas where I’ve lived. More expensive initial cost. Always sooted up intakes with modern emissions. Having to buy what is basically urine to add to tank so it’ll pass emissions. Yes, the engines go super mileage but the rest of the vehicle will fall apart and bug you long before that.
No
Nope.
Of technical interest however is the idea of a diesel hybrid. One might think a diesel hybrid would beat a gasoline hybrid on mileage. Audi offers a plugin hybrid diesel AWD SUV in Europe, but not in North America if I’m not mistaken. Hyundai and Kia also have diesel hybrids, and I thought Peugeot once offered one. These are all “mild” hybrids. I don’t know of a Toyota/Ford-style full hybrid diesel. Maybe because it takes more work to start up a diesel?
Quoting Wikipedia: “Audi’s Q7 e-tron TDI Quattro is powered by a 3.0 TDI V6 turbodiesel engine mated with an electric motor-generator placed in the 8-speed automatic gearbox to provide a maximum output power of 190 kW (255 hp) and a maximum torque of 600 N⋅m (443 lbf⋅ft) four-wheel drive. An electronically controlled clutch can disconnect the V6 engine from the rest of the powertrain. The 94 kW (126 hp) electric motor is powered by a 17.3 kWh lithium-ion battery capable of delivering an all-electric range of 54 to 56 km (34 to 35 mi).”
Comparing the mileage of a plugin hybrid is tricky of course, depending on how you count electric-only vs hybrid miles. I didn’t find a hybrid-only mileage figure anyplace. Any thoughts?
That’s really not much more power than the 3.0 V6 TDI has on its own. Our 2012 Touareg TDI had I believe 225hp and 406 lb-ft. Of course the overall curves may differ and fill in with electric power as needed. MPG was rated at 20/29 at the time. Actual seemed better. (later years were rated at 240hp, I’m not aware of any mechanical difference to achieve that and the Audi and Porsche versions were the same engine, their marketing protestations to the contrary.)
The same year Touareg Hybrid which had a supercharged 3.0 gasoline along with the hybrid powertrain put out 380hp and 428 lb ft while returning 20/24 mpg. I’ve driven one and it is fast. It’s pretty much the Audi S4 engine plus a small 1.7kWh battery. (So much smaller than the plug-in Audi you are wondering about). I think it would do up to 35mph or so on battery alone for a short distance (under two miles) if one was gentle.
A gas only (3.0 NA V6) Touareg was rated at 16/23.
Based on the above, I’d guess that a hybrid diesel V6 in this case would be rated at maybe 23/32 or so on our US system? I think that’s what you were trying to deduce, of course my guess is just that.
Peugeot also offers a diesel hybrid in a few models including a smaller 7seat SUV. The 5008 I think?
The primary reason for the lack of full hybrid diesel-electrics is cost, pure and simple. Both diesels and full hybrids have/had a cost premium of some $1500-2000, although that was some years ago. Either technology had the ability to improve fuel efficiency some 25% or so.
But teaming them up both does not mean one can get the benefit of both. The main reason is that the Atkinson cycle gas engine can operate at significantly higher efficiency, quite close to that of the diesel engine. So at highway speeds, when both vehicles would be powered almost solely by their IC engines, the gas hybrid only gives up a very little to the diesel. And in city driving, the gas hybrid would probably be the equal to the diesel.
Having a much more expensive diesel in a full hybrid would yield very little extra efficiency on the highway, and essentially none in city driving.
It simply doesn’t make economic sense, which is why it’s generally not done. One or the other. And starting the diesel repeatedly has nothing to do with it.
Another thing about the Atkinson cycle gas engine, it lacks torque at low speed, which makes it a complementary match to the electric motor’s high torque at low speed. Diesels have torque at low speed too, so there’s nothing to be gained from the hybridization.
Little if any benefit, higher cost, It’s a wonder any diesel hybrids were ever developed.
Not in cars. In the US 2007 Emissions destroyed the value proposition for cars and light trucks. If you tow heavy loads a lot it could still work for a 3/4 or 1 ton PU.
Now if you take the idea of the Chevy Volt or i3 Rex and scale it up to a class 7-8 truck it could have legs.
Conventional truck has 11-16L of engine. Take 4-6L of Diesel pared with 160-200kWh of battery and you have good results on a 200-400mi/day duty cycle.
The efficiency of the Atkinson cycle-hybrid certainly seems to have the potential of killing off diesel-powered cars (and probably SUVs, as well). The former are cheaper and less maintenance intensive, not to mention the lower price of fuel.
The massive torque of diesel-power for regular towing, i.e., sem-tractors and medium-duty pickups, still makes plenty of sense, though.
If I had some sort of commute or route that had large distances, I think I would. A salesman I knew several years ago had a rather large route. He probably did 30,000 or more miles per year. He routinely wore out his Buicks and one day decided to try a Jetta or Passat TDI (I forget which one, now). For him, the car made sense and he loved them. He eventually bought a couple of each model. But he was also mechanically minded and knew what it took to keep them running.
I think that in the US, diesel is not a good solution for most folks’ driving styles. With the introduction of ULSD (ultra-low sulfur diesel) the prices have equalized or diesel is slightly above gasoline. Add in DEF and another cost you didn’t have before. Plus the routine items, like oil changes and filters are a bit more than gasoline powered vehicles. It all adds up and quickly…
A couple of decades back, diesel was a good deal for folks like my salesman buddy, who had long drives and needed the good fuel mileage with the then low prices of diesel fuel to make a buck. But for someone like me with a 20 mile round trip everyday? No, I could probably daily a 1974 Cadillac Talisman and still do OK on fuel mileage and costs.
When Toyota first introduced the Hybrid Synergy Drive, I was one of those folks who was championing the TDI (specifically) over the HSD. Not knowing that VW was gaming the system, it seemed that TDI was a cheaper, less complex system than the HSD. Knowing now what I didn’t know then, I may have had a different opinion. In the interim, all cars have improved fuel economy over what we were driving 10-15 years ago. To a degree, even the gains that HSD used to show have been blunted some by cars with 10 speed automatic transmissions and other methods to improve mileage.
To reiterate, if I had a real need for diesel’s specific benefits, I would. But I have no need for them in my daily life currently.
Passed a TDI Jetta today and it might not have smoked when new but I could see the black smoke and grimy rear bumper long before I got up to it….
My daily is an elderly Volvo 940 turbo Diesel. I’ve had it for years and it’s done a LOT of miles. I love it dearly, but it dates from a previous generation of diesels that were entirely mechanical with virtually no emission gubbins. Since the late 90s, the basic Diesel engine has evolved so much in the quest for cleaner emissions and gasoline like power, that there is now far greater potential for them to go wrong. I would not buy a brand new diesel car today. Smaller capacity gasoline turbo engines (ecoboost for example) have plenty of power and mpg of not much less than a diesel.
Yes, I would buy another. We own a 2013 E350 BlueTec and it has been an excellent road trip car, we avg 36-37 mpg on the highway. We love it.
Yes, a W123 Mercedes 300 Turbo.
I’ve driven diesel for the past 15 years – Mercedes and Volvo. Here in the UK, they were very much encouraged, particularly under the Blair/Brown governments. However, the pendulum (and our understanding of particulates) has now swung, with all but the newest diesels banned in central London, and residuals on old diesels have tanked. Petrol for me next time, en route to a clean electric future.
“Would you buy a diesel?”
Unlikely. I sure as hell would not buy a diesel CAR. I can imagine circumstances where I might buy a Cummins or more likely a Duramax diesel pickup–although those circumstances don’t actually exist for me now. (No PowerSmokes for me…ever.) I will say that the Duramax was a revelation when it came out. The hateful GM 6.2/6.5 even in turbo form was a gutless turd. The Duramax was the first diesel on Earth that didn’t totally suck for light-duty pickups.
I drove an Olds diesel into the Chevy-Olds dealership I worked at. Engine knocked–LOUDLY (way more than usual!) Crankshaft broken in two pieces through the thrust main bearing journal, but at an angle–so when one half of the crank turned, the other half turned, too. Even when the Olds Diesel engine was running properly–and I test-drove a few–the car had acceptable acceleration for about the first six feet from a stop sign. After that, it was like they were towing a progressively-heavier horse trailer.
GM sold Chevettes and LUVs with diesel engines. The cool thing about those vehicles was that they didn’t need a horn. You could hear them knocking and rattling two blocks away. With your windows rolled up. And the radio on.
The “normal” Diesel knocking and clattering, the S-T-E-N-C-H of Diesel fuel burned and un-burned, the smoke…No. I don’t think I’d ever buy a diesel. The BEST of them seem to be about as refined as a forty-year-old gasoline engine. Oh, sure–lots of torque (but no refinement)
Don’t get me started on DEF. That’s just an abomination. No wonder folks don’t want to talk about what it’s made of. Urea has the highest nitrogen content of all solid nitrogenous fertilizers in common use. Anyone remember some trouble a couple of folks got into when they mixed nitrogen fertilizer and diesel fuel in a rental truck in OK City?
Now…a diesel tractor? That’s another story.
Once upon a time you could spend more for a diesel but make it up with cheaper fuel (ans less of it), cheaper maintenance and stupid-durability. Today you pay more for the engine, pay more for the fuel, pay more for the maintenance and often have an engine more fragile than the better gas ones.
Not for me.
Succinct and to the point Jim, I’m right there with you. An old hobbyist car to tinker with and enjoy old school diesel sounds/smells/shakes? Absolutely. Buying something new to drive to work every day? Staying far away from diesel.
The only diesel I would buy is a 1st gen VW Rabbit – with a good set of tools and the John Muir book
Oddly, Diesel fuel is at near-parity pricing in Las Vegas right now, but that’s not always the case.
I’ve owned 3 Diesel cars, 2MB and the mythical beast of a brown, manual, Diesel Volvo wagon
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1984-volvo-245-diesel-the-rwd-diesel-stick-shift-brown-station-wagon-mythical-beast-of-the-internet/
Would I own one again? Certainly not as long as I live in Las Vegas. Problem? Smog check. There are something like 250 smog check stations in Clark County, FOUR of which can check a Diesel. You have to make an appointment and it costs 2.5x what a gas smog check does.
The 1.9TDI was superior to the Prius circa 2005. Since then nothing comes close to the HSD on total cost of ownership. My ‘Ah Ha!’ moment came 6 yrs ago when I was seeing all the Camry and Avalon Taxi Cabs cycling past at Chicago O’Hare. IIRC we had an article on here not too long ago about how Toyota is gaining in the German Taxi market.
Yes, but not a Land Rover, gas or diesel. We had a 13 Golf TDI manual trans for 5.5 years with no problems at all. Great mileage up to 60 mpg (Imp) without even trying hard. Fantastic car for a lot of highway driving especially in the mountains here in British Columbia. Service costs while higher for synthetic oil changes at the dealer are the same for our 18 Golf Alltrack with the 1.8 TSI for the first service anyway. I believe the TDI gets a fuel filter on the second service. Service intervals are the same too.
I know some owners had Fuel pump problems mainly in the USA…well known crappy diesel in the US could be the cause especially in the winter.
We ended up doing the buyback trade-in for ours and got almost exactly what we paid after our trade in in 2013.
As far as I’m concerned if you pay 30 grand or more on any car, why are you cheaping out by going to a quickie oil change place? Makes no sense to me at all.
That’s changing fast.
Now, would I have a diesel? It depends what kind of a vehicle we’re talking about. I don’t need a truck, and even if I did, I would absolutely not have a diesel Ford—flat no to an engine that sounds all of the time like it has the metallic equivalent of a bad case of diarrhœa. Not interested in a JLR product with a diesel, either. If I could get a Subaru with the diesel boxer engine they sell outside North America, I’d like to try one of those.
I have always thought diesels might be slightly safer, as diesel fuel is less volatile than gasoline and therefore slightly less likely to catch fire in a crash. Thoughts?
Not really a major factor in North America where Motor Vehicle Safety Standard № 301 (fuel system integrity) has since 1977 made US- and Canadian-market vehicles very safe with regard to this what you have in mind.
Fires haven’t been eliminated by a long stretch. What about the Ford Crown Victoria?
No, fires haven’t been eliminated, and likely never will be. The Crown Victoria is another shining* example of Ford’s habitual approach to such matters.
*because on fire
My understanding is that the US Military will no longer buy a gasoline-powered engine including portable generators or small engines, exactly for the reason stated.
(Or was that only the Navy???)
I’ve read the reason is to simplify supply logistics. Everything runs on the same fuel.
If this is the program you’re talking about (and it sounds like it probably is) then it appears to be nothing related to fire safety.
No.
You may be interested to learn, Brendan, that at a completely unscientific guess, Land Rover sells practically no petrol Rangies in Australia. Petrol or diesel being about $6AUD a US gallon here is the driver of that, and richer folk who’re hardly bothered by $130 tanks of petrol that last only 300 miles buy the diesels because of resale in this market. They’re not going to lose unnecessary amounts at the end of lease.
As William said above, there are bugger-all non-diesel Ford Ranger-sized double cab utes (our top selling type), and I’d hazard a guess at not one single Promaster sized van, all because of fuel costs. In the real world, under load, in heat, in traffic, the consumption of modern diesel vehicle is damn close to half that of the petrol equivalent. A florist can’t make a buck with a 17mpg V6, but 34mpg from a 2.5-ish diesel four he can. Keep in mind that many, many businesses large and, especially, small, operate on very slim margins. Cash flow is a critical week-to-week issue, and saving maybe thousands a month matters.
As to reliability, I am absolutely agreed with those here saying they don’t trust the longer reliability of the emissions stuff. DPF filters are a not-uncommon fail, and the worst I’ve heard of is the Landcruiser – just $14,000. Unsurprisingly, there is a healthy and legal aftermarket industry for real-world priced replacements for these items.
It’s also a “no” from me on the basis of the pollution outputs, on which we were all told lies, and which require expensive care or rectification to keep functioning long-term.
Australians don’t buy many Euro vans, mainly Japanese or Korean, and true to form, they simply don’t suffer the awful cost/reliability issues one hears of on the Mercs and Fiats and so on. So the maintenance cost thing doesn’t arise.
One last point for the majority North Americans here. You would have to drive and smell and hear some of these modern jobs to understand just how spectacularly good they are. I drove a diesel BMW X5, and I seriously did not know it was a diesel. It flew and was dead quiet, in and out. In certain cars, diesel is the PERFORMANCE option. They are no less than amazing.
But I still wouldn’t.
Yes, we would and we did last year when we bought our 2016 Peugeot 508 RXH, a diesel-electric hybrid. It’s so quiet and refined you wouldn’t even know it was a diesel! It’s averaged around 5.8L/100km over the last 10,000km, which equates to great value motoring. But I love petrol too, and for those moments when modern and efficient diesel just won’t do, I go for a blast in my petrol elderly Ford Sierra 2.9 V6 for fun 🙂
Although I have no insight on maintenance issues, my experience with diesel rental cars in Europe is that they are wonderful to drive. The low-end torque makes them a very good match with manual transmissions and they cruise effortlessly on highways in 6th gear. Much easier to drive than the very tiny gasoline engines that rev high and stall easily. Downside is the clattering sound of the engine that can be overwhelming in parking garages when it bounces back at you from the concrete walls. Unrelated question: why are 95% of cars in Europe manual whereas these have almost disappeared here?
Now on my 10th diesel and not going back. 6 VW, 3 Saab and a SEAT. Fuel consumption is at least 25% better, at the same £ per litre, performance is better (the acceleration of a turbo diesel is a revelation to the uninitiated), resale value is better, and emissions are no worse unless you spend all day in traffic without start-stop. What’s not to like, until electricifaction becomes a fraction more affordable?
Wouldn’t own a diesel powered anything, not even if it was given to me.